Objective
Part I: LA Rating Criteria
C.1. Process
Part II: Post-IOC Phase Rating Information
C.2. Process
Objective
The objective of this Appendix is to provide rating and certification criteria for program being assessed. It is broken into two Parts: Part I provides Rating and Certification Criteria for Pre- Initial Operational Capability (IOC) Logistics Assessments (LA); and Part II Provides Rating Criteria for Post-IOC Phase LAs.
Part I: LA Rating Criteria
C.1. Process
The following provides guidance for rating individual findings and rolling up the overall findings. It includes:
- Element Rating Criteria (Table C-1): Used to rate individual issues and each element.
- Overall Program Rating and Certification Criteria (Table C-2): Used to provide theoverall program rating as well as certification for the program. The overall program rating typically would match the program certification, however, these can differ if the Component Certification Authority identifies urgency factors or non-concurs with the recommendations.
- LA Risk Matrix (Figure C-1): Used to graphically represent the program's overall logisticsrisk in accordance with the overall rating. The matrix provides a presentation media that is used to present other programmatic risks to the DASD-MR such as performance, cost, and schedule risks. This allows Logistics risk to be presented at the same level during reviews for the Milestone Decision Authority (MDA). The LA Consequence Decision Table (figure C-1a) and Likelihood Decision Table (figure C-1b) are used together to provide an overall rollup of findings onto the risk cube.
Table C-1: Element Rating Criteria
| Grade | Cost | Schedule | Performance |
| Minor (Green) |
Minor or no impact to supportability |
Minor or no impact to supportability |
Minor or no impact to supportability |
Moderate (Yellow/Amber)
|
Some supportability impact; re-allocatable within program Funding is not available when needed; moderate impact to supportability |
Some impact to logistics tasks; internally adjustable with no milestone changes Delays in logistics tasks impacting ability to meet milestones, but workarounds exist such that impact is minimal |
Some impact to readiness, but can be remedied by program Logistics requirements will not be met within budget or schedule, but can be if resources will be applied |
| Major (Red) |
Funding is not available when needed; significant impact to supportability Supportability cannot be achieved within the current funding profile |
Delays in logistics tasks with significant milestone impact Delays in logistics tasks with major impact to the ability to meet milestones or establish support capability |
Significant degradation below MOS thresholds Logistics performance requirements cannot be met |
Table C-2: Overall Program Assessment and Certification Criteria
| OVERALL PROGRAM ASSESSMENT AND CERTIFICATION CRITERIA |
| NOT CERTIFIED (Red) |
CONDITIONALLY CERTIFIED (Yellow) |
CERTIFIED (Green) |
| A program is not certified when there are major product support planning and implementation issues or actions outstanding that have substantial impact on the program’s ability to meet sustainment performance requirements within cost and schedule. Further, there are no plans or work arounds in place that will correct the deficiency. The program should not proceed to a milestone decision until detailed action plans are developed and in place which meet minimum acceptable sustainment performance requirements with acceptable impacts to cost and schedule. Once these plans are in place and properly resourced to the satisfaction of the LA Team Lead, PEO sustainment manager, or next echelon of sustainment competency, the program is considered to be conditionally certified. |
A program is conditionally certified when product support planning and implementation issues of moderate risk have detailed action plans established and in place. However, the resolution of the deficiency will not occur prior to the milestone decision and requires continued monitoring. Once the action is completed, there is no expected degradation to sustainment performance requirements and minimal impact to cost and schedule. Once identified actions are resolved as verified by the LA team lead, PEO sustainment manager, or next echelon of sustainment competency, the program is considered certified. |
A program is considered certified when there are no (or only minor) product support planning and implementation issues. Each issue has an approved mitigation plan in place to eliminate the deficiency prior to the milestone decision. There is no impact on the program’s ability to meet sustainment performance requirements within cost and schedule. |
Consequence: Impact on Program if Consequence Occurs
| Level | Cost | Schedule | Performance |
| 1 |
Minor or no impact to supportability |
Minor or no impact to supportability |
Minor or no impact to supportability |
| 2 |
Some supportability impact; re-allocatable within program |
Some impact to logistics tasks; internally adjustable with no milestone changes |
Some impact to readiness, but can be remedied by program |
| 3 |
Funding is not available when needed; moderate impact to supportability |
Delays in logistics tasks impacting ability to meet milestones, but workarounds exist such that impact is minimal |
Logistics requirements will not be met within budget or schedule, but can be if resources will be applied |
| 4 |
Funding is not available when needed; significant impact to supportability |
Delays in logistics tasks with significant milestone impact |
Significant degradation below MOS thresholds |
| 5 |
Supportability cannot be achieved within current funding profile or not identified |
Delays in logistics tasks with major impact to the ability to meet milestones or establish support capability |
Logistics performance requirements cannot be met |
Figure C-1a: LA Consequence Decision Table
Likelihood: Probability that a Given Consequence Will Occur
| Level | Likelihood |
| 1 |
Not Likely |
| 2 |
Low Likelihood |
| 3 |
Likely |
| 4 |
Highly Likely |
| 5 |
Near Certainty |
Part II: Post-IOC Phase Rating Information
C.2. Process
The following provides rating criteria for a Post-IOC LA in each individual IPS element, as well as the overall program rating. Each IPS element should be rated in accordance with Table C-3 below, and the same table should also be used to provide an overall program rating.
Table C-3: IPS element Rating and Overall Program Rating Criteria
| Grade | |
| Minor (Green) |
- All Supportability Products have been (or are scheduled to be) delivered to the user in accordance with the requirements and program schedule.
- Supportability KPPs, KSAs, and other measures of effectiveness are being achieved per the system requirements.
- The program is meeting operational cost goals from a supportability perspective per cost estimates.
|
| Moderate (Yellow/Amber) |
- Not all Supportability Products have been (or will be) delivered to the user in accordance with the requirements and program schedule. Impact to support is not significant and workarounds are established with little or no impact to support and performance.
- All Supportability Products have been delivered to the requirements but the requirement is inadequate, either because the requirement was misstated or the mission profile/threat has changed.
- Supportability KPPs, KSAs, and other measures of effectiveness have not been achieved but corrective actions are funded/in process and trending toward achieving required thresholds in the near term. Overall system performance and supportability has not been degraded or is slightly degraded.
- The program is exceeding operational cost goals from a supportability perspective per cost estimates, but cost reduction improvements are in place and costs are trending downward in the near term.
|
| Major (Red) |
- Not all Supportability Products have been (or will be) delivered to the user in accordance with the requirements and program schedule. Impact to support is significant and performance and supportability KPPs/KSAs are being impacted.
- Supportability KPPs, KSAs, and other measures of effectiveness are not being achieved and there is no current plan, process, or funding in place to correct the deficiency. Overall system performance and supportability has been degraded .
- All Supportability Products have been delivered to the requirements but the requirement is inadequate , either because the requirement was misstated or the mission profile/threat has changed.
- The program is exceeding operational cost goals from a supportability perspective per cost estimates. Additional funding is required to support the system, and cost reduction efforts will be significant.
|
Figure C-1b: LA Likelihood Decision Table
