Objective
6.1. Introduction
6.2. Timing
6.3. Process
6.4. Rating and Certification
Objective
This Part addresses the process specific to Post-Initial Operational Capability (Post-IOC) LAs. It will address differences between the LA process as identified in the previous parts of this guide conducted for programs pre-IOC, and those conducted after IOC. Processes that are similar between the pre-IOC and Post-IOC assessments are not restated.
6.1. Introduction
Post-IOC LAs are conducted to assess if the Program Manager delivered to the user a system that is supportable per the planned requirements, was executed to the program planning documentation, is within the estimated ownership costs, and the status of progress addressing deficiencies noted during previous assessments or during operations, such as low reliability. It also assesses any IPS elements where the planning was implemented to the requirement but the requirement itself was not adequate. If threats or support postures have changed, the LA should review the "as planned" supportability posture to determine how to best support the system in the new environment.
LAs conducted prior to acquisition milestones during system development serve to support that particular milestone decision at hand. However, the Post-IOC assessment results are a snapshot of the system after fielding and provide the basis for a system review unto itself. The Post-IOC assessment brings together sponsors, operators, and stakeholders to resolve any shortfalls or issues that may have emerged since the beginning of operations. The initial Post-IOC LA represents a key transition point between acquisition and sustainment in the system life cycle.
Assessment results can influence future requirements for modifications or upgrades to the system, as well as future capability needs met through successor acquisition programs. Institution of the Post-IOC LA notifies and influences PMs and PSMs of systems in development that actual outcomes of the planned product support strategy will be assessed by senior stakeholders after fielding. Post-IOC LAs will address each IPS element as applicable, including in-service metrics established in the program requirements documents. Overall, Post-IOC LAs assist the Program Manager in the successful implementation of total life cycle management of the product support strategy.
6.2. Timing
LAs should continue to be conducted after IOC, recommending the first Post-IOC LA to occur five years after the FRP, decision, even if IOC status is achieved before this five-year period. The default period for conducting Post-IOC Phase LAs is every five years; however, a review of past best practices indicate certain conditions should trigger this assessment earlier. These triggers include:
- If Operational Availability (Ao) or Materiel Availability (Am) reflects a 15% decrement from stated Sustainment KPP requirements and continues for four consecutive reporting periods (e.g., three quarters), then the respective Component will initiate the LA.
- If Ownership Cost reflects a 15 % stated KSA requirements for four consecutive reporting periods, then the respective Component will initiate the LA.
- If the Business Case Analysis supports fundamental changes in the product support strategy and related contracts
- When requested by an operational commander who is conducting initial operations and maintenance
- When program risk factors warrant an early Post-IOC assessment (Component prerogative)
6.3. Process
The Post-IOC LA focuses on program performance to date. The following entrance criteria should be completed prior to this LA:
- The program has achieved formal IOC (five years after FRP)
- An update is completed of the program life cycle cost estimates with any actual logistics costs and expenditures known as a result of achieving IOC status and operating the fielded system
- The Life Cycle Sustainment Plan (LCSP) has been updated as required
- Any other entrance criteria levied on the program following a previous system review or LA
Criteria for Post-IOC assessments are contained in Appendix A, Part II. At a minimum, Post-IOC LAs will include (as applicable):
- Validation that actual supportability performance is meeting design thresholds identified in KPP/KSA measures of support called out in the program's CPD and/or Warfighter "User" Performance-based Agreement if applicable
- Validation of Life Cycle Cost Estimate (LCCE)
- Review of the life cycle support funding
- Assessment that the life cycle support strategy, as delineated in the LCSP, is being executed as planned or has been revised to ensure satisfactory support of major design and product support improvements based on updated support analyses
- Confirmation of satisfactory configuration control
- Assessment of obsolescence and diminishing manufacturing and material shortages
- Validation with the Product Support Integrator (PSI) and Product Support Provider (PSP) that actual costs and performance are within cost and performance baselines established by the BCA
- Assessment of training effectiveness, customer satisfaction, and product improvements
- Assessment of Configuration Status Accounting, including sponsor owned material, government owned material, and plant property
- Assessment of the weapon system supply chain
- Assessment of contract execution as related to system sustainment
- Assessment of technology, manufacturing, or supply obsolescence risks
- Resolution of test and evaluation issues
- Assessment of actual costs to date, combined with the cost analysis from the FRP decision, reflecting ownership cost projections and trends
- Confirmation of satisfactory delivery and Government acceptance of all contractually ordered technical data, including confirmation of correct data rights and distribution markings on delivered data
- Assessment of overall system and sustainment effectiveness, including system/subsystem failure rates, down time, turn-around times, associated delay times, allowance effectiveness, etc.
- Assessment whether initial product support is meeting performance and cost expectations of the operational commands and repair facilities
- Assessment of customer satisfaction (the degree of satisfaction with the performance of the end item and the overall supportability program)
- Determination how the sustainment strategy will evolve to accommodate continued system effectiveness, affordability, and execution
Post-IOC assessments essentially follow the same process as described in the rest of this guide. However, there are some differences, as identified below:
Step 2: For Post-IOC assessments, request a tailored listing of assessment criteria based on Appendix A, Part II.
Step 7: Review Requirements, Capabilities, and Metrics: Typically, there is no process change, although some documents or material to be reviewed may differ, or the original requirement may have changed, due to CONOPS or threat.
Step 8: Review Logistics Documentation and Execution: Typically, there is no process change, although some documents or material to be reviewed may differ.
Step 11: Draft Report: Rating Criteria for Post-IOC LAs differ from the pre-IOC LAs.
Step 12: Issue the Final Report: The distribution of the report may be different for Post-IOC LAs as defined by the Component. The final report should also be provided to the office of the DASD-MR.
Step 13: Issue Product Support Certification: Rating and certification criteria are identified in Appendix C, Table C-3. Individual Service or Component policy and governance will dictate how formal sustainment reviews and briefs provide the follow-up decision forum for presenting the results of Post-IOC assessments.
6.4. Rating and Certification
The overall program and each of the IPS elements will receive a rating based on the criteria in Appendix C, Part II. Program certification will be based on these criteria as well. These criteriaare different from the rating criteria for pre-IOC LAs.
