appendix b configuration change management document …€¦ · configuration change management...

DCMA-INST 217

Version 01

APPENDIX B

Configuration Change Management

Document Checklist

Appendix B DCMA-INST 217

Version 01

A

Table of Contents

B1. Introduction .......................................................................................................................B-1

B2. Engineering Change Proposal, Class I ..............................................................................B-2

B2.1. Engineering Change Proposal, Class I, Checklist ........................................................ B-2

B2.2. Engineering Change Proposal, Class I, Checklist Procedures ..................................... B-5

B3. Value Engineering Change Proposal, Class I .................................................................B-12

B3.1. Value Engineering Change Proposal, Class I, Checklist ........................................... B-12

B3.2. Value Engineering Change Proposal, Class I, Checklist Procedures ......................... B-16

B4. Engineering Change Proposal, Class II ..........................................................................B-25

B4.1. Engineering Change Proposal, Class II, Checklist ..................................................... B-25

B4.2. Engineering Change Proposal, Class II, Checklist Procedures .................................. B-30


Version 01

B

Record of Changes Table

Version Date Description

00 11/30/2012 Initial Release

01 03/01/2013 Accomplished minor changes to text for clarity. Added Naming

and Notes section to all checklist headers. Added DAG, Design

Considerations checklist question to Class I ECP and VECP,

Section III. Added, revised and restructured in its entirety Class

II ECP Section IV to provide DAG Design Consideration

questions and descriptions.


Version 01

B-1

B1. Introduction

B1.1. This Appendix provides a Configuration Change Management (CCM) document

checklist for evaluating each type of CCM document. The information that follows the checklist

contains an explanation of each checklist step. This Appendix supplements DCMA-INST 217,

“Configuration Change Management” Instruction.

B1.2. Appendix A, Configuration Change Management Concepts, Principles, and

Guidance, defines principles and guidelines for CCM documents, while the Appendix A

flowcharts describe each of the Appendix B checklist procedures below. Appendix C,

Configuration Change Management Verification and Validation Procedures, provides

verification and validation procedures necessary to confirm authorized Engineering Change

Proposal (ECP) engineering changes have been incorporated properly into Configuration

Documents and Configuration Items.

B1.3. This Appendix was developed using the guidance in MIL-HDBK-61A,

“Configuration Management Guidance,” MIL-STD-2101, “Classification of Characteristics,”

and ANSI/EIA-649-B, “Configuration Management Standard.” Value Engineering Change

Proposal (VECP) guidance was obtained from Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) 52.248-1

and FAR 48. These documents should be referenced when additional information is needed.

B1.4. This Appendix checklist is meant to be a comprehensive guide for ECPs and

VECPs being evaluated. Each checklist is designed to be separate from other checklists,

allowing separate printing, evaluation, and storage. The DCMA Engineer should recognize that

all the ECP checklist questions may not be applicable to their contract or program due to

contractual requirements. The Not Applicable (NA) column is provided for this situation.

Checklist questions with a shaded response are introductory or process type questions that do not

require a response.


Version 01

B-2

B2. Engineering Change Proposal, Class I

B2.1. Engineering Change Proposal, Class I, Checklist

The following checklist provides information to assist the DCMA Engineer in evaluating Class I

Engineering Change Proposals and recommending a disposition to the Government Program

Office. Appendix A provides Class I Engineering Change Proposal concepts, principles,

guidance, and a flowchart (Figure A-1) describing the checklist below. Checklist printing can be

accomplished by entering the following checklist Page (p) and Section (s) number range into the

MS-Word “Print All Pages” or “Print Custom Range” print selection block: p5s3-p7s3.

Class I ECP No: Date:

Program:

Engineer:

Notes:

NOTE: Upon receipt of an Emergency or Urgent Priority ECP or a message regarding one, and

prior to any DCMA review, the receiving DCMA Engineer shall forward the ECP

correspondence immediately to the Government Program Office, if not already accomplished by

the Contractor, and confirm its receipt. Expedited handling of these ECPs is needed because

existing conditions may pose a potential threat to personnel safety, security, mission, or deployed

equipment.

Yes No NA Checklist Questions

Section I: Preliminary Class I ECP Review

Does the ECP have a priority marked “Emergency” or “Urgent?” If Yes,

comply with the instructions in the NOTE above.

Does the ECP Justification Code state “V” for Value Engineering? If Yes,

then use the Value Engineering Change Proposal checklist to review the

Value Engineering Change Proposal.

If there is a response above marked Yes, follow the instructions in the question and question

descriptions (Appendix B, Paragraph B4.2). If there is a response marked No, then follow the

instructions in the question descriptions.

Section II: Class I ECP Verifications

1. Is the ECP classified as Class I?

2. Is the ECP needed to meet mission or program requirements?


Version 01

B-3


3. Has the Contract Receipt and Systems Engineering Review been

completed indicating DCMA is the Configuration Change Authority

for Configuration Change Management documentation?

4. Has the contract number identified by the ECP been awarded and does

it pertain to the contract and program for which the DCMA Engineer

is responsible?

5. Has the ECP been pre-inspected for completeness requirements as

specified in Appendix C?

6. Has the ECP been pre-inspected for coordination requirements as


7. Has the ECP been pre-inspected for content requirements as specified

in Appendix C?

If all the above responses are marked Yes, proceed to Section III below. If there is a response

marked No, then the ECP does not meet the Class I ECP requirements, it is not ready for

DCMA/Government Program Office processing, and it requires Contractor correction in

accordance with Configuration Change Management Instruction guidelines.

Section III: Class I ECP Technical Data Package Review

8. Are budgetary funding documents supporting the ECP completion

included with the ECP Technical Data Package?

9. Does the ECP contain restrictive statements (security markings,

distribution statement, Data Rights) in accordance with contract or

Contractor requirements?

10. Does the ECP contain, as required and as applicable, Defense

Acquisition Guidebook, Design Considerations?

11. Does the ECP contain, as required and as applicable, the items

addressed in MIL-HDBK-61A, Tables D-3 and D-4? These tables

provide GUIDANCE ONLY.

If all the above responses are marked Yes, proceed to Section IV below. If there is a response

marked No, then the ECP does not meet the Class I ECP requirements, it is not ready for

DCMA/Government Program Office processing, and it requires Contractor correction in

accordance with Configuration Change Management Instruction guidelines.

Section IV: Class I ECP Value Engineering Review

12. Does the ECP present a Value Engineering opportunity in accordance

with the Value Engineering Change Proposal description in Appendix

A?


Version 01

B-4


If the above response is marked No, then proceed to Section V below. If the above response is

marked Yes, then discuss the ECP with the DCMA Administrative Contracting Officer or

Supervisor/Team Leader. Inform the Government Program Office of the Value Engineering

opportunity. Return the ECP to the Contractor to convert the Class I ECP to a Class I Value

Engineering Change Proposal.

Section V: Class I ECP Government Program Office Coordination

13. Has the DCMA Engineer reviewed the ECP and sent the Government

Program Office a written disposition recommendation and analysis?

If the above response is marked Yes, proceed to Section VI below. If the response is marked

No, the failure to coordinate with the Government Program Office needs to be addressed to the

DCMA Supervisor/Team Leader.

Section VI: Class I ECPs Documentation

14. Has the DCMA Engineer documented the ECP in the Configuration

Status Accounting log?

If the above response is marked Yes, proceed to Section VII. If the response is marked No,

the failure to record ECP data needs to be coordinated with the DCMA Supervisor/Team

Leader.

Section VII: Validate Class I ECPs

15. Perform Appendix C Post-Inspection ECP Validation procedures to

approved and updated ECP Configuration Documentation and product

Configuration Items.

END


Version 01

B-5

B2.2. Engineering Change Proposal, Class I, Checklist Procedures

The following information provides assistance in completing the Engineering Change Proposal,

Class I Checklist, Procedure B2.1. The section titles and numbered items below align with the

checklist.

Section I: Preliminary Class I ECP Review

This section addresses the unnumbered items in the checklist Preliminary Review section.

These checklist items apply to priority Engineering Change Proposals (ECPs) that need to be

addressed immediately or are categorized as special cases.

Does the ECP have a priority marked “Emergency” or “Urgent?” If Yes, comply with the

instructions in the NOTE above.

If the response to this question is Yes, follow the instructions in the posted checklist NOTE for

Emergency or Urgent priority ECPs and then evaluate the ECP in accordance with this checklist

(Appendix B, Paragraph B2.1, Section II). Emergency or Urgent priority ECPs address safety,

hazard or critical conditions. (See MIL-HDBK-61A, Paragraph 6.2.1.2, “ECP Preparation and

Submittal” and Table 6-5, “Activity Guide: ECP Priorities.” If the response to this question is

No, the incorrect ECP checklist is being used for evaluation. The Appendix B, Paragraph B3.1

“Value Engineering Change Proposal, Class I Checklist,” or Paragraph B4.1, “Class I ECPI

Checklist,” should be used to evaluate the ECP if the incorrect checklist was chosen. The

checklist NOTE is copied from the CCM Instruction, Chapter 3, Procedures.

Does the ECP Justification Code state “V” for Value Engineering? If Yes, then use the Value

Engineering Change Proposal checklist to review the Value Engineering Change Proposal.

A Value Engineering Change Proposal (VECP) has an ECP Justification Code of “V.” This

Class I checklist should not be confused with a Class I checklist for VECPs. If a VECP is

received, use the Class I VECP checklist for evaluation in accordance with Appendix B, “Value

Engineering Change Proposal, Class I Checklist,” Procedure B3.1. If the response to the

question is No, then continue to evaluate the Class I ECP in accordance with this checklist

(Appendix B, Paragraph B2.1).

Section II: Class I ECP Verification

The checklist questions in this section address verifying the ECP Technical Data Package

(TDP) content configuration.

1. Is the ECP classified as Class I?


Version 01

B-6

Confirm that the ECP document has a classification and the use of the appropriate Appendix B

checklist by verifying the ECP as a Class I ECP. The document should be presented as a Class I

ECP with a classification (Class) code of “I” or be synonymously represented as a Class I in the

Contractor’s Configuration Change Management (CCM) process. The Contractor’s CCM

process should be described in the Contract or Contractor’s plan for Configuration Management

(CM). If the CCM document does not have a classification, return the ECP to the Contractor for

appropriate classification and prepare a Corrective Action Request (CAR), as appropriate. If the

document is not a Class I ECP and the wrong checklist was chosen, select the appropriate

Appendix B checklist. (See Value Engineering Change Proposal, Class I, Procedure B3, or

Engineering Change Proposal, Class II, Procedure B4.) CCM documentation class and

associated justification codes are identified in MIL-HDBK-61A, Paragraph 6.1.1.2, “Change

Classification” and Table 6-3, “Activity Guide: ECP Justification Codes.”


The ECP should be reviewed for need and benefit requirements. It should fulfill a mission,

program or Government Program Office (GPO) need. Engineering changes may be needed for a

variety of reasons, such as to counter new threat, insert new technology, respond to technical and

operational tests and evaluations, or correct problems. The Class (Class I) of the ECP identifies

a need to change the contract Configuration baseline, and the TDP included with the ECP

provides the change justification. Identifying the need for an engineering change is an important

first step in starting the CCM disposition process. The need for the change can also be

accompanied by consequences if the proposed engineering change (need) is disapproved. A

DCMA Engineer’s positive ECP disposition confirms the change is needed. The DCMA

Engineer should determine if the engineering change clearly identifies a mission or program

need to avoid a Contractor issuing an excessive number of ECPs. Consideration should also be

given to combining ECPs, if necessary. The requirement for determining a need is identified by

Federal Acquisition Regulation 42.302(a), Paragraph (46). MIL-HDBK-61A, Table 6-6,

“Activity Guide: ECP Content,” defines a “Need For Change” field identified on an ECP form.

3.

Has the Contract Receipt and Systems Engineering Review been completed indicating

DCMA is the Configuration Change Authority for Configuration Change

Management documentation?

If not performed previously, conduct a Contract Receipt and Systems Engineering Review to

confirm that DCMA is the CCM documentation Configuration Change Authority (CCA). CCA

is defined in the CCM Instruction and allows DCMA to provided dispositions, recommendations,

and comments to CCM documents. DCMA Engineers not involved in the Contract Receipt and

Systems Engineering Review process, but assigned to disposition CCM documents, should

verify with the DCMA Administrative Contracting Officer (ACO) or DCMA individual


Version 01

B-7

performing the contract review that CCM document CCA is delegated to DCMA. If through

Contract Receipt and Systems Engineering Review DCMA is not the CCA, or authority is not

identified in the contract, consult with the DCMA ACO for guidance before completing the

checklist. Contacting the GPO by the DCMA ACO may be necessary to determine the CCA and

authorization for DCMA to perform the actions in the checklist. The DCMA Systems

Engineering Surveillance Instruction addresses the Contract Receipt and Systems Engineering

Review process.

4. Has the contract number identified by the ECP been awarded, and does it pertain to

the contract or program for which the DCMA Engineer is responsible?

DCMA can only act upon CCM documents generated through a valid contract. Consult the

program DCMA ACO for contract information and a determination if the contract number stated

in the CCM document is a valid contract. The DCMA Engineer should also confirm that the

contract number and program referenced by the CCM document is his or her responsibility

before evaluating, or he/she should forward the document. The contract number should match

that of the program. The contract may also be listed on pertinent CCM TDP documentation. On

occasion, CCM documents may be submitted that refer to non-awarded contracts or to older

contracts that have already been completed and closed out (legacy contracts). Return the

document to the Contractor and prepare a CAR, as appropriate, in accordance with CCM

Instruction guidelines, if this or another contract CCM document noncompliance condition

exists. MIL-HDBK-61A, Table 6-6, “Activity Guide: ECP Content,” Subsection “Contract

Information,” defines contract information on an ECP form.

5. Has the ECP been pre-inspected for completeness requirements as specified in

Appendix C?

Complete the Pre-Inspection: Completeness Requirement in accordance with Appendix C,

Paragraph C3.2. If the CCM document does not satisfy these requirements, return the document

to the Contractor for correction and prepare a CAR, as appropriate, in accordance with CCM

Instruction guidelines.

6. Has the ECP been pre-inspected for coordination requirements as specified in

Appendix C?

Complete the Pre-Inspection: Coordination Requirement in accordance with Appendix C,





Version 01

B-8

7. Has the ECP been pre-inspected for content requirements as specified in Appendix C?

Complete the Pre-Inspection: Content Requirement in accordance with Appendix C, Paragraph

C3.4. If the CCM document does not satisfy these requirements, return the document to the

Contractor for correction and prepare a CAR, as appropriate, in accordance with CCM


Section III: Class I ECP Technical Data Package Review

The checklist questions in this section address evaluating the Class I ECP’s content against

requirements.

8. Are budgetary funding documents supporting the ECP completion included with the

ECP Technical Data Package?

Verify that the ECP TDP includes budgetary supporting documentation to support ECP

completion. This budgetary supporting documentation includes items such as contract

modifications, GPO approval letter(s), or other government contractual directives involving the

release of funds to support the ECP implementation. A Class I ECP without some type of

approved funding authorization is incomplete and cannot be implemented. While Class I ECPs

are not required to change contract price, Class I ECPs usually change the contract Configuration

baseline, causing a change in a contract program budget. A Contractor inquiry should be made

and the document returned to the Contractor, if the Class I ECP TDP does not contain funding

documentation. MIL-HDBK-61A, Paragraph 6.2.1.5, “Implementing Class I ECPs” discusses

the funding of Class I ECPs.

9. Does the ECP contain restrictive statements (security markings, distribution

statement, Data Rights) in accordance with the contract or Contractor requirements?

Restrictive markings include statements such as security markings placed on distribution

statements and Data Rights statements. These restrictive statements refer to both digital and

paper documents and should be in accordance with the contract or Contractor configuration

security documentation. If the ECP documents do not contain restrictive statements, and the

documents are in accordance with approved Contractor or contact documentation, the lack of

restrictive statements may not be seen as a contract noncompliance. Its recommend restrictive

statements should always be discussed with the Contractor if they do not appear in the ECP or

the associated TDP, or if they have changed from previous documents. The requirements

pertaining to restrictive statements are identified in the Defense Federal Acquisition Regulation

Supplement (DFARS) 252.227, 252.7015, 252.7018, 252.7052 and 252.7057. Data Rights refers

to the right to use an idea and selling it in the marketplace for profit. The most common Data

Rights used in Government acquisition include:


Version 01

B-9

1. Limited Rights - The rights to use, modify, reproduce, release, perform, display or

disclose technical data within the Government.

2. Unlimited Rights - The rights to use, modify, reproduce, perform, display, release or

disclose technical data in whole or in part, in any manner, and for any purpose

whatsoever.

3. Government Purpose Rights License - The rights to use, duplicate or disclose data only

for Government purposes.

MIL-HDBK-61A, Table 5-10, “Documentation Identification” and Paragraph 9.2.6, “Data

Access Control,” discuss Data Rights in Configuration Management (CM).

10. Does the ECP contain, as required and as applicable, Defense Acquisition Guidebook,

Design Considerations?

Defense Acquisition Guidebook (DAG), Design Considerations are Systems Engineering design

areas the GPO is required to support and address during the program acquisition lifecycle. Most

Design Considerations are required to be addressed in the GPO Systems Engineering Plan (SEP),

Contractors Systems Engineering Management Plan, or other program technical planning

documents. Class I ECPs may address Design Considerations in the TDP. DCMA Engineers

should become familiar with DAG Design Considerations in the event the Contractor addresses a

Design Consideration in the Class I ECP TDP incorrectly. Otherwise, the design area addressed

in the ECP should be addressed as a GPO Design Consideration. Design Considerations are

identified in the DAG, Paragraph 4.4.

11. Does the ECP contain, as required and as applicable, the items addressed in MIL-

HDBK-61A, Tables D-3 and D-4? These tables provide GUIDANCE ONLY.

The items listed in MIL-HDBK-61A, Appendix D: Tables D-3, “Check List A - Request for an

ECP Readiness for Release (For Sole Source Class I ECPs)” and D-4, “Check List B-ECP

Readiness for Submittal,” include sample items that a Class I ECP may or may not be required to

contain in its TDP. It is recommended that the DCMA Engineer review the items in Activity

Guide Tables D-3 and D-4 to determine missing or nonexistent items in the ECP TDP. The

review of these items assists in evaluating the Class I ECPs and ready the ECP for disposition by

the GPO. It should be recognized that not every Class I ECP requires this full set of ECP items

listed in Tables D-3 and D-4. The listing should be viewed as GUIDANCE ONLY, to assist in

determining the appropriate ECP TDP content. If an item listed in the Activity Guide Tables is

missing, and it is determined that the Class I ECP TDP should contain this item, the missing ECP

TDP item is cause for rejection, the ECP should be returned to the Contractor for correction, and

a CAR should be prepared, as appropriate.


Version 01

B-10

Section IV: Class I ECP Value Engineering Review

The checklist question in this section evaluates the ECP TDP content for Value Engineering

(VE) opportunities.

12. Does the ECP present a Value Engineering opportunity in accordance with the Value

Engineering Change Proposal description in Appendix A?

DoD policy encourages use of VE to make an economic contribution when developing,

acquiring, operating, and supporting the products necessary to fulfill mission requirements. VE

is an organized and systematic approach directed at analyzing the functions of systems,

equipment, facilities, services, and supplies. These functions are analyzed for the purpose of

achieving the functions at the lowest life cycle cost while being consistent with required program

performance, reliability, quality, and safety. All program and contract documentation needs to

be reviewed from the VE opportunity perspective in accordance with Appendix A. VE is

obtained through the preparation and approval of a VECP. If the ECP becomes a VECP, the

ECP should be returned to the Contractor, and the Appendix B, Value Engineering Change

Proposal, Class I Checklist, Procedure B3.1, is used to evaluate the VECP. (See Appendix A,

Paragraph A4, Value Engineering Change Proposal, Class I, Guidance.)

Section V: Class I ECP Government Program Office Coordination

The checklist question in this section addresses DCMA Engineering responsibly for Class I

ECPs.

13. Has the DCMA Engineer reviewed the ECP and sent the Government Program Office

a written disposition recommendation and analysis?

DCMA has unique contract involvement in both Contractor and program events. DCMA may

have special Contractor or program insight that may be valuable to the GPO. A written DCMA

Engineer ECP deposition recommendation (approval/disapproval) and an independent ECP

analysis to the GPO may assist the GPO to make or tailor an ECP decision. The DCMA

Engineering analysis should corroborate or challenge the claims made by the Contractor and the

impact the ECP has on cost, schedule and performance. The DCMA Engineer should seek

assistance from other DCMA disciplines when making an ECP disposition recommendation.

Note: All contract correspondence with the GPO should have DCMA ACO approval.

Section VI: Class I ECPs Documentation

The checklist question in this section addresses documenting and accounting ECPs received.

14. Has the DCMA Engineer documented the ECP in the Configuration Status

Accounting log?


Version 01

B-11

The DCMA Engineer should document the ECP and the recommended disposition in the

Configuration Status Accounting (CSA) log. Refer to ECP Instruction, Chapter 4, for CSA log

information.

Section VII: Validate Class I ECPs

The checklist question in this section addresses validating the flow-down of ECP

requirements into Configuration Documentation (CD) and product Configuration Items (CIs).

15. Perform Appendix C Post-Inspection ECP Validation procedures to approved and

updated ECP Configuration Documentation and product Configuration Items.

Post-Inspection ECP Validation procedures should be performed in accordance with the

Appendix C, Paragraph C4. Post-Inspection ECP Validation procedures can only be

accomplished to ECPs previously approved and when the associated CDs and CIs have been

updated or modified. The CSA log can help to identify previous dated and dispositioned CCM

documents for validation. Refer to CCM Instruction, Chapter 4, for CSA log information.

Validating changes verifies Configuration control of the Configuration baseline essential for CM

Change Management. If the CCM document does not satisfy these Appendix C validation

requirements, notify the Contractor for correction and prepare a CAR, as appropriate, in

accordance with CCM Instruction guidelines.


Version 01

B-12

B3. Value Engineering Change Proposal, Class I

B3.1. Value Engineering Change Proposal, Class I, Checklist

The following checklist provides information to assist the DCMA Engineer in evaluating Class I

Value Engineering Change Proposals and recommending a disposition to the Government

Program Office. Appendix A provides Class I Value Engineering Change Proposal concepts,

principles, guidance, and a flowchart (Figure A-2) describing the checklist below. Checklist

printing can be accomplished by entering the following checklist Page (p) and Section (s)

number range into the MS-Word “Print All Pages” or “Print Custom Range” print selection

block: p15s3-p17s3.

Class I VECP No.: Date:

Program:

Engineer:

Notes:


Section I: Preliminary Class I VECP Review

Upon receipt of a VECP, forward the VECP to the DCMA Administrative

Contracting Officer and to the Government Program Office, if not already

accomplished by the Contractor, and confirm its receipt. VECPs are

required to be evaluated by the Government Program Office within 45 days

because of their cost savings nature.

Proceed to Section II to review the VECP

Section II: Class I VECP Verifications

1. Is the VECP classified as Class I, and does it have a Justification Code

of ‘V’?

2. Is the VECP needed to meet mission or program requirements?


completed, indicating DCMA is the Configuration Change Authority



Version 01

B-13


4. Has the contract number identified by the VECP been awarded, and

does it pertain to the contract or program for which the DCMA

Engineer is responsible?

5. Has the VECP been pre-inspected for completeness requirements as


6. Has the VECP been pre-inspected for coordination requirements as


7. Has the VECP been pre-inspected for content requirements as


If all the above responses above are marked Yes, proceed to Section III below. If there is a

response marked No, then the VECP does not meet the Class I VECP requirements, it is not

ready for DCMA/Government Program Office processing, and it requires Contractor

correction in accordance with Configuration Change Management Instruction guidelines.

Section III: Class I VECP Technical Data Package Review

8. Does the VECP contain, as required and as applicable, Defense

Acquisition Guidebook, Design Considerations?

9. Confirm the following information is included with the VECP

Technical Data Package:

a) A description of the difference between the existing contract

requirement and the proposed requirement, the comparative

advantages and disadvantages of each, a justification when an

item’s function or characteristics are being altered, the change

effect on the end item’s performance, and any pertinent objective

test data.

b) A list and analysis of the contract requirements that must be

changed if the VECP is accepted, including any suggested

specification revisions.

c) Configuration Item identification to which the VECP applies.

d) A separate, detailed, cost estimate for

i) The affected portions of the existing contract requirement and

ii) The VECP, itself.

e) A description and estimate of costs the government may incur in

implementing the VECP.

f) A prediction of any effects the proposed VECP change would

have on collateral costs to the government and to the Contractor.

g) A statement of the time by which a contract modification

accepting the VECP must be issued in order to achieve the

maximum cost reduction, noting any effect the VECP has on the

contract completion time or delivery schedule.


Version 01

B-14


h) Identification and details of any previous VECP submissions.

10. Is there a transmittal letter forwarding the VECP to the

DCMA/Government Program Office?

11. Does the VECP identify additional contact numbers which may be

affected by the VECP?

12. Does the VECP contain restrictive statements (security markings,

distribution statement, Data Rights) in accordance with contract or

Contractor requirements?

13. Was VECP distribution made to the Government Program Office,

DCMA Administrative Contracting Officer, and, as applicable, the

appropriate program Value Engineering office or advocate?

If all the above responses are marked Yes, proceed to Section IV below. If any response is

marked No, then the contractor needs to correct that item before Government Program Office

processing.

Section IV: Class I VECP Government Program Office Coordination

14. Has the DCMA Engineer reviewed the ECP and sent the Government

Program Office a written disposition recommendation and analysis?

If the above response is marked Yes, proceed to Section V below. If the response is marked

No, the failure to coordinate with the Government Program Office needs to be addressed to the

DCMA Supervisor/Team Leader.

Section V: Document Class I VECPs

15. Has the DCMA Engineer documented the VECP in the Configuration


If the above response is marked Yes, proceed to Section VI below. If the response is marked

No, the failure to record ECP data needs to be coordinated with the DCMA Supervisor/Team

Leader.

Section VI: Value Engineering Class I VECPs

16. Is Value Engineering a mandatory contract requirement?

If the above response is marked Yes, then the DCMA System Engineering Surveillance Plan

needs to contain mandatory Value Engineering requirements. Proceed to Section VII. .

Section VII: Validate Class I VECPs


approved and updated VECP Configuration Documentation and

product Configuration Items.


Version 01

B-15


END


Version 01

B-16

B3.2. Value Engineering Change Proposal, Class I, Checklist Procedures

The following information provides assistance in completing the Value Engineering Change

Proposal, Class I Checklist, Procedure B3.1. The section titles and numbered items below align

with the checklist.

Section I: Preliminary Class I VECP Review


These checklist items apply to Value Engineering Change Proposal (VECPs) that need to be

addressed immediately when they are received.

Upon receipt of a VECP, forward the VECP to the DCMA Administrative Contracting

Officer and to the Government Program Office, if not already accomplished by the

Contractor, and confirm its receipt. VECPs are required to be evaluated by the

Government Program Office within 45 days because of their cost savings nature.

Upon receipt of a VECP, forward the document to the DCMA Administrative Contracting

Officer (ACO), and to the Government Program Office (GPO), or confirm that it’s been

forwarded by the Contractor. The Government and Contractor are entitled to the reimbursement

of VECP management expenses incurred. This reimbursement is made before any cost-savings

are shared with the Contractor. Delays in VECP processing will typically reduce this financial

benefit. Because of this cost savings, the GPO is required to evaluate a VECP within 45 days of

receipt. (See FAR 52.248-1(e)(1).)

Section II: Class I VECP Verification

The checklist questions in this section address verifying the content VECP.

1. Is the VECP classified as Class I, and does it have a Justification Code of “V?”

Confirm that the VECP document has a classification and the use of the appropriate Appendix B

checklist by verifying the ECP is a Class I VECP. The document should be presented as a Class

I VECP with a classification (Class) code of “I” and have a Justification Code of “V” for Value

Engineering (VE), or be synonymously represented as a Class I and VE Justification Code in the

Contractor’s Configuration Change Management (CCM) process. The Contractor’s CCM

process should be described in the contract or Contractor’s plan for Configuration Management.

If the VECP does not have a classification, return the VECP to the Contractor for classification

and prepare a Corrective Action Request (CAR), as appropriate. If the document is not a Class I

VECP and the wrong checklist was chosen, select the appropriate Appendix B checklist. (See

Engineering Change Proposal, Class I, Procedure B2, or Engineering Change Proposal, Class II,

Procedure B4.) CCM documentation class and associated justification codes are identified in


Version 01

B-17

MIL-HDBK-61A, Paragraph 6.1.1.2, “Change Classification,” and Table 6-3, “Activity Guide:

ECP Justification Codes.”

2. Is the VECP needed to meet mission or program requirements?

The VECP should be reviewed for need and benefit requirements. It should fulfill a mission,

program, or GPO need. Engineering changes may be needed for a variety of reasons, such as to

counter new threat, insert new technology, respond to technical and operational tests and

evaluations, or correct problems. The Class (Class I) of the VECP identifies a need to change

the contract Configuration baseline. The Technical Data Package (TDP) included with the

VECP provides the change justification. Identifying the need for an engineering change is an

important first step in starting the CCM disposition process. The need for the change can also be

accompanied by consequences if the proposed engineering change (need) is disapproved. A

DCMA Engineer’s positive VECP disposition confirms the VE change is needed. The DCMA

Engineer should determine if the VECP clearly identifies a mission or program. Consideration

should also be given to combining VECPs, if necessary. The requirement for determining a need

is identified by FAR 42.302(a), Paragraph (46). MIL-HDBK-61A, Table 6-6, “Activity Guide:

ECP Content,” defines a “Need For Change” field identified on an Engineering Change Proposal

(ECP) or VECP form.

3.

Has the Contract Receipt and Systems Engineering Review been completed indicating

DCMA is the Configuration Change Authority for Configuration Change



confirm that DCMA is the CCM documentation Configuration Change Authority (CCA). CSA

is defined in the CCM Instruction and allows DCMA to provide dispositions, recommendations,


Systems Engineering Review process but assigned to disposition CCM documents should verify

with the DCMA ACO or DCMA individual performing the contract review that CCM document

CCA is delegated to DCMA. If through Contract Receipt and Systems Engineering Review,

DCMA is not the CCA, or authority is not identified in the contract, consult with the DCMA

ACO for guidance before completing the checklist. Contacting the GPO by the DCMA ACO

may be necessary to determine the CCA and authorization for DCMA to perform the actions in

the checklist. The DCMA Systems Engineering Surveillance Instruction addresses the Contract

Receipt and Systems Engineering Review process.

4. Has the contract number identified by the VECP been awarded, and does it pertain to

the contract or program for which the DCMA Engineer is responsible?


Version 01

B-18






that of the program. The contract may also be listed on pertinent CCM TDP documentation. On

occasion, CCM documents may be submitted that refer to non-awarded contracts or to older

contracts that have already been completed and closed out (legacy contracts). Return the

document to the Contractor and prepare a CAR, as appropriate, in accordance with CCM

Instruction guidelines if this or another contract CCM document noncompliance condition exists.

MIL-HDBK-61A, Table 6-6, “Activity Guide: ECP Content,” Subsection “Contract

Information,” defines the contract information on an ECP or VECP form.

5. Has the VECP been pre-inspected for completeness requirements as specified in

Appendix C?


Paragraph C3.2. If the VECP does not satisfy these requirements, return the document to the

Contractor for correction, identifying contract noncompliance, and prepare a CAR, as

appropriate, in accordance with CCM Instruction guidelines.

6. Has the VECP been pre-inspected for coordination requirements as specified in

Appendix C?


Paragraph C3.3. If the VECP does not satisfy these requirements, return the document to the



7. Has the VECP been pre-inspected for content requirements as specified in Appendix

C?


C3.4. If the VECP does not satisfy these requirements, return the document to the Contractor for

correction and prepare a CAR, as appropriate, in accordance with CCM Instruction guidelines.


Version 01

B-19

Section III: Class I VECP Technical Data Package Review

The checklist questions in this section address evaluating the Class I VECPs content against

requirements.

8. Does the VECP contain, as required and as applicable, Defense Acquisition

Guidebook, Design Considerations?

Defense Acquisition Guidebook (DAG), Design Considerations are Systems Engineering design

areas the GPO is required to support and address during the program acquisition lifecycle. Most

Design Considerations are required to be addressed in the GPO Systems Engineering Plan (SEP),

Contractors Systems Engineering Management Plan or other program technical planning

document. Class I VECPs may address Design Considerations in the TDP. DCMA Engineers

should become familiar with DAG Design Considerations in the event the Contractor addresses a

Design Consideration in the Class I VECP TDP incorrectly or if the design area addressed in the

VECP should be addressed as a GPO Design Consideration. Design Considerations are

identified in the DAG, Paragraph 4.4.

9. Confirm the following information is included with the VECP Technical Data

Package:

Confirm that the VECP TDP contains the following information. Refer to FAR 52.248-1(c)(1)-

(8). Return to the Contractor for correction any VECP that does not contain the following:

9a.

A description of the difference between the existing contract requirement and the

proposed requirement, the comparative advantages and disadvantages of each, a

justification when an item’s function or characteristics are being altered, the change

effect on the end item’s performance, and any pertinent objective test data

The difference in requirements should include an advantage and disadvantage comparison of

each requirement, a justification when an item’s function/characteristics are being altered, the

change effect on the end item’s performance, and pertinent objective test data.

9b. A list and analysis of the contract requirements that must be changed if the VECP is

accepted, including any suggested specification revisions.

The VECP should contain a list of contract requirements that must be changed if the VECP is

accepted. The list should include impacted Configuration Documentation (CD) and suggested

revisions.


Version 01

B-20

9c. Configuration Item identification to which the VECP applies.

A list identifying all product Configuration Items (CIs) (units/parts/products) to which the VECP

applies.

9d.

A separate, detailed, cost estimate for

1) The affected portions of the existing contract requirement and

2) The VECP, itself.

This entry should include a separate, detailed cost estimate, showing:

1. The cost for the affected portions of existing contract CD requirements that must be

changed, and

2. The cost for the VECP, itself.

Note: Part 2 should include the cost reduction associated with the VECP. The Contractor will

take into account the Contractor’s allowable development and implementation costs, including

any amount attributable to subcontracts defined by the subcontracts paragraph of the FAR

52.248-1 clause.

9e. A description and estimate of costs the government may incur in implementing the

VECP.

This entry should include a description and estimate of costs the Government may incur in

implementing the VECP, such as test and evaluation, operation, and support costs (support

equipment, facilities, manning, equipment down time, etc.)

9f. A prediction of any effects the proposed VECP change would have on collateral costs

to the government and to the Contractor.

This entry should include a prediction of any effects the proposed VECP change would have on

collateral costs to the Government. Changes in cost should also discuss changes in

system/program risk for the government and for the Contractor.

9g.

A statement of the time by which a contract modification accepting the VECP must be

issued in order to achieve the maximum cost reduction, noting any effect the VECP

has on the contract completion time or delivery schedule.

This entry should include an impact statement identifying the time the VECP needs to be

approved and a contract modification funding document issued, to achieve the maximum cost


Version 01

B-21

reduction recognizing, and identifying, the impact/effect on current contract completion time or

delivery schedule.

9h. Identification and details of any previous VECP submissions.

This entry should include identification of any previous VECP submissions, including the

submittal dates, the agencies and contract numbers involved, and previous Government actions,

if known. Confirm that the VECP transmittal letter references the contract VE clause, summary

details containing technical advantages, overall cost reductions to the government, and restrictive

Data Rights. Data Rights refers to the right to use an idea and selling it in the marketplace for

profit. The most common Data Rights used in Government acquisition include:

1. Limited Rights - The rights to use, modify, reproduce, release, perform, display or

disclose technical data within the Government.

2. Unlimited Rights - The rights to use, modify, reproduce, perform, display, release or

disclose technical data in whole or in part, in any manner, and for any purpose

whatsoever.

3. Government Purpose Rights License - The rights to use, duplicate or disclose data only

for Government purposes.

MIL-HDBK-61A, Table 5-10, “Documentation Identification,” and Paragraph 9.2.6, “Data

Access Control,” discuss Data Rights in Configuration Management (CM).

10. Is there is a transmittal letter forwarding the VECP to a DCMA/Government Program

Office?

Confirm that the VECP transmittal letter references the contract VE clause, and includes

summary details containing technical advantages, overall cost reductions to the government, and

restrictive Data Rights. Data Rights refers to the right to use an idea and sell it in the

marketplace for profit. The term Data Rights is defined in a previous Appendix B VECP

Checklist item, above. MIL-HDBK-61A, Table 5-10, “Documentation Identification,” and

Paragraph 9.2.6, “Data Access Control,” discuss Data Rights in CM.

11. Does the VECP identify additional contact numbers which may be affected by the

VECP?

As applicable, the VECP should also identify other similar or related contracts to which the

VECP may apply. Confirm that the VECP identifies any other similar concurrent contracts. The

DCMA Engineer may want to inquire with the Contractor whether there are additional

opportunities (FAR 52.248-1(b).2.).


Version 01

B-22

12. Does the VECP contain restrictive statements (security markings, distribution

statement, Data Rights) in accordance with the contract or Contractor requirements?

Restrictive markings include statements such as security markings placed on distribution

statements and Data Rights statements. These restrictive statements refer to both digital and

paper documents and should be in accordance with the contract or Contractor security

configuration documentation. If the VECP document does not contain restrictive statements, and

the documents are in accordance with approved Contractor or contact documentation, the lack of

restrictive statement may not be seen as a contract noncompliance. Its recommended restrictive

statements should be discussed with the Contractor if they do not appear in the VECP or the

associated Technical Data Package, or if they have changed from previous documents. The

requirements pertaining to restrictive statements are identified in DFARS 252.227, 252.7015,

252.7018, 252.7052 and 252.7057. In addition, confirm that identified VECP Restrictive data is

in accordance with FAR 52.248-1(m). The term, Data Rights, is defined in a previous Appendix

B VECP Checklist item, above.

13.

Was VECP distribution made to the Government Program Office, DCMA

Administrative Contracting Officer, and as applicable, appropriate program Value

Engineering office or advocate?

Confirm that VECP distribution is/was made to the GPO, the DCMA ACO, and as applicable,

the appropriate program VE office or advocate. (See FAR 52.248-1(d).)

Section IV: Class I VECP Government Program Office Coordination

The checklist question in this section addresses DCMA Engineering responsibility for Class I

VECPs.

14. Has the DCMA Engineer reviewed the VECP and sent the Government Program

Office a written disposition recommendation and analysis?

DCMA has unique contract involvement in the both Contractor and program events. DCMA

may have special Contractor or program insight that may be valuable to the GPO. A written

DCMA Engineer VECP deposition recommendation (approval/disapproval) and an independent

VECP analysis to the GPO may assist the GPO to make or tailor a VECP decision. The DCMA

Engineering analysis should corroborate or challenge the claims made by the Contractor and the

impact the VECP has on cost, schedule and performance. The DCMA Engineer should seek

assistance from other DCMA disciplines when making a VECP disposition recommendation.

Note: All contract correspondence with the GPO should have DCMA ACO approval.


Version 01

B-23

Section V: Document Class I VECPs

The checklist question in this section addresses documenting and accounting VECPs received.

15. Has the DCMA Engineer documented the VECP in the Configuration Status

Accounting log?

The DCMA Engineer should document the VECP and the recommend disposition in the

Configuration Status Accounting (CSA) log. Refer to CCM Instruction, Chapter 4, for CSA log

information.

Section VI: Value Engineering Class I VECPs

The checklist question in this section addresses the documenting of mandatory contract VE

requirements.

16. Is Value Engineering a mandatory contract requirement?

DCMA Engineers will perform surveillance on VE requirements when mandatory VE

requirements are cited in the contract. The FAR identifies that VE can be either an optional or

mandatory contract requirement. If the contract identifies VE as a mandatory requirement, the

DCMA Engineer will include these requirements in their DCMA System Engineering

Surveillance Plan in accordance with the DCMA Systems Engineering Surveillance Policy.

Refer to the CCM Instruction, Chapter 3, Procedures, for FAR references and DCMA VE

requirements.

Section VII: Validate Class I VECP s

The checklist question in this section addresses validating the flow-down of VECP

requirements into CDs and product CIs.


updated VECP Configuration Documentation and product Configuration Items.

Post-Inspection ECP (VECP) Validation procedures should be performed in accordance with the

Appendix C, Paragraph C4. Post-Inspection ECP Validation process procedures can only be

accomplished to VECPs previously approved, when the associated CDs and CIs have been

updated or modified. The CSA log can help to identify previous dated and dispositioned CCM


Validating changes verifies Configuration control of the Configuration baseline essential for CM

Change Management. If the VECP does not satisfy these Appendix C validation requirements,


Version 01

B-24

return the VECP to the Contractor for correction and prepare a CAR, as appropriate, in

accordance with CCM Instruction guidelines.


Version 01

B-25

B4. Engineering Change Proposal, Class II

B4.1. Engineering Change Proposal, Class II, Checklist

The following checklist provides information to assist the DCMA Engineer to classify, evaluate,

and disposition Class II Engineering Change Proposals. Appendix A provides Class II

Engineering Change Proposal concepts, principles, guidance, and a flowchart (Figure A-3)

describing the checklist below. Checklist printing can be accomplished by entering the

following checklist Page (p) and Section (s) number range into the MS-Word “Print All Pages”

or “Print Custom Range” print selection block: p27s3-p31s3.

Class II ECP No: Date:

Program:

Engineer:

Notes:

NOTE: Upon receipt of an Emergency or Urgent Priority ECP or a message regarding one, and

prior to any DCMA review, the receiving DCMA Engineer shall forward the ECP

correspondence immediately to the Government Program Office, if not already accomplished by

the Contractor, and confirm its receipt. Expedited handling of these ECPs is needed because

existing conditions may pose a potential threat to personnel safety, security, mission, or deployed

equipment.


Section I: Preliminary Class II ECP Review

Does the ECP have a priority marked “Emergency” or “Urgent?” If Yes,

follow the instructions in the NOTE above.

Does the ECP Justification Code state “V” for Value Engineering? If

Yes, then use the Value Engineering Change Proposal checklist to review

the Value Engineering Change Proposal.

If there is a response above marked Yes, follow the instructions in the question and question

descriptions (Appendix B, Paragraph B4.2). If there is a response marked No, then follow the

instructions in the question descriptions.

Section II: Class II ECP Verifications

1. Is the ECP classified as Class II?



Version 01

B-26



completed, indicating DCMA is the Configuration Change Authority


4. Has the contract number identified by the ECP been awarded, and

does it pertain to the contract or program for which the DCMA

Engineer is responsible?

5. Has the ECP been pre-inspected for completeness requirements as


6. Has the ECP been pre-inspected for coordination requirements as


7. Has the ECP been pre-inspected for content requirements as


If all the above responses above are marked Yes, proceed to Section III below. If there is a

response marked No, then the ECP does not meet the Class II ECP requirements, it is not

ready for DCMA/Government Program Office processing, and it requires Contractor

correction in accordance with Configuration Change Management Instruction guidelines.

Section III: Class II ECP Value Engineering Review

8. Does the ECP present a Value Engineering Opportunity in

accordance with the Value Engineering Change Proposal description

in Appendix A?

9. Does the ECP represent a cost savings to the program or have a Cost

Reduction Justification Code of “R”?

If the above responses are marked No, then proceed to Section IV below. If a response above

is marked Yes, then discuss the ECP with the DCMA Administrative Contracting Officer or

Supervisor/Team Leader. If the ECP represents a Value Engineering opportunity, use the

Value Engineering Change Proposal checklist, Paragraph B3, to evaluate the ECP.

Section IV: Class II ECP Classification Verification

10. Does the ECP affect changes to the functional characteristics of a

Configuration Item to such an extent that it changes Functional

Baseline Configuration Documentation?

11. Does the ECP affect lower level (subsystem) Configuration Item

characteristics passed down (allocated) from higher level functional

Configuration Item characteristics to such an extent that they change

Allocated Baseline Configuration Documentation?


Version 01

B-27


12. Does the ECP affect changes to the physical characteristics of

Configuration Documentation to such an extent that it changes form,

fit, function, quality, or support of the intended higher level

Configuration Item Product Baseline assemblies?

13. Does the ECP require new Configuration Documents that make

changes to the Product Baseline configuration?

14. Does the ECP cause changes in DCMA System Engineering

surveillance?

15. Does the Class II ECP affect, impact, or cause changes or

modifications to:

a) Information Assurance properties/levels?

b) Government Furnished Equipment/Information/Property?

c) Logistics Support Documentation?

d) Test or support equipment (Government owned)?

e) Government contract schedules or milestones?

f) Configuration Item lifecycle?

g) Government Contractor warranties or guarantees?

h) Supply Chain Change Manufacturing vendors supplying Major

Configuration Items?

i) Government cost (decrease/increase)?

j) Safety of Flight requirements?

k) Weapon System Configuration Item product risk?

l) Retrofit or backfit of fielded/delivered Configuration Items?

m) Integrated Product Support Elements?

16. Does the Class II ECP affect, impact, or cause changes or

modifications to the following Defense Acquisition Guidebook,

Design Considerations:

a) Accessibility?

b) Commercial-Off-The-Shelf?

c) Corrosion Prevention and Control?

d) Critical Safety Items?

e) Disposal and Demilitarization?

f) Diminishing Manufacturing Sources and Material Shortages?


Version 01

B-28


g) Environment, Safety, and Occupational Health program?

h) Human Systems Integration?

i) Insensitive Munitions?

j) Interoperability and Dependencies?

k) Open Systems Design?

l) Parts Management?

m) Program Protection?

n) Producibility, Quality and Manufacturing?

o) Reliability and Maintainability Engineering?

p) Spectrum Management?

q) Standardization?

r) Supportability?

s) Survivability and Susceptibility?

t) Unique Identification of Items

u) Affordability, Trade-Offs, and Competition?

v) Operational Energy?

w) Anti-Counterfeiting?

x) Systems Security Engineering?

y) Intelligence?

z) Packaging, Handling, Storage and Transportation?

aa) International Cooperation Opportunities?

If all the above responses are marked No, skip Section V and proceed to Section VI below. If

there is a response marked Yes, then the Class II ECP is improperly classified. Proceed to

Section V below.

Section V: Disposition of Improperly Classified Class II ECPs

17. Disposition the Class II ECP document with the phrase, “Non-

concur with classification.”


Version 01

B-29


18. Return the disposition/non-concurrence Class II ECP to the

Contractor for cancellation and request the ECP be reissued as a

Class I ECP.

19. Provide feedback to the Contractor regarding why the ECP is

improperly classified.

20. Issue a Corrective Action Request for the misclassified Class II

ECP.

After completing Section V, proceed to Section VII (skip Section VI).

Section VI: Disposition of Properly Classified Class II ECPs

21. If the Class II ECP classification is correct, disposition the document

with the phrase, “Concur with classification,” and return it to the

Contractor.

After completing Section VI, proceed to Section VII.

Section VII: Class II ECPs Documentation

22. Has the DCMA Engineer documented the ECP in the Configuration


If the above responses are marked Yes, proceed to Section VIII. If the response is marked

No, the failure to record ECP data needs to be coordinated with the DCMA Supervisor/Team

Leader.

Section VIII: Validate Class II ECPs


approved and updated ECP Configuration Documentation and

product Configuration Items.

END


Version 01

B-30

B4.2. Engineering Change Proposal, Class II, Checklist Procedures

The following information provides assistance in completing the Engineering Change Proposal,

Class II Checklist, Procedure B4.1. The section titles and numbered items below align with the

checklist.

Section I: Preliminary Class II ECP Review


These checklist items apply to priority Engineering Change Proposal (ECPs) that need to be

addressed immediately or are categorized as special case.

Does the ECP have a priority marked “Emergency” or “Urgent?” If Yes, follow instructions in

the NOTE above.

If the response to this question is Yes, follow the instructions in the posted checklist NOTE for

Emergency or Urgent priority ECPs, and then evaluate the ECP in accordance with the Appendix

B, Paragraph B2.1, checklist. Emergency or Urgent priority ECPs address safety, hazard or a

critical condition. (See MIL-HDBK-61A, Paragraph 6.2.1.2, “ECP Preparation and Submittal.”)

If the response to this question is No, then continue to evaluate the ECP in accordance with this

checklist (Appendix B, Paragraph B4.1). The checklist NOTE is copied from the CCM

Instruction Chapter 3, Procedures.

Class II ECPs received with the priority of “Emergency” or “Urgent” have an incorrect

classification and should be identified as Class I ECPs in accordance with MIL-HDBK-61A,

Table 6-5, “Activity Guide: ECP Priorities.” The DCMA Engineer should prepare a Corrective

Action Request (CAR), as appropriate, to address the misclassification in accordance with

Configuration Change Management (CCM) Instruction guidelines. The Class II ECP, however,

should not be held because of the misclassification or the CAR, but should be processed in

accordance with the posted NOTE because of the priority assigned to the ECP. (A Class II ECP

should be processed at the time the CAR is issued.)

Does the ECP Justification Code state “V” for Value Engineering? If Yes, then use the Value

Engineering Change Proposal checklist to review the Value Engineering Change Proposal.

A Value Engineering Change Proposal (VECP) has an ECP Justification Code of “V.” This

Class II checklist should not be confused with a Class I checklist for VECPs. If a VECP is

received, use the Class I VECP checklist for evaluation in accordance with Appendix B, Value

Engineering Change Proposal, Class I, Procedure B3. If the response to the question is No, then

continue to evaluate the Class II ECP in accordance with this checklist (Appendix B, Paragraph

B4.1).


Version 01

B-31

If a VECP is received from the contractor with the classification of Class II, it is misclassified.

VECP require a Class I classification because of the impact on contract cost requirements. If a

Class II VECP is received, the DCMA Engineer should prepare a CAR, as appropriate, to

address the misclassification in accordance with CCM Instruction guidelines. The Class II

VECP, however, should not be held because of the misclassification or the CAR, but should be

processed in accordance with the Class I VECP checklist, Procedure B3.1. In addition, VECPs

have unique Contractor and the Government time constraints for processing.

Section II: Class II ECP Verifications

The checklist questions in this section address verifying the ECP Technical Data Package

(TDP) content.

1. Is the ECP classified as Class II?

Confirm that the ECP document has a classification, and the use of the appropriate Appendix B

checklist, by verifying the ECP as a Class II ECP. The document should be presented as a Class

II ECP with a classification (Class) code of “II,” or be synonymously represented as a Class II in

the Contractor’s CCM process. The Contractor’s CCM process should be described in the

Contract or Contractor’s plan for Configuration Management (CM). If the CCM document does

not have a classification, return the ECP to the Contractor for classification and prepare a CAR,

as appropriate. If the document is not a Class II ECP and the wrong checklist was chosen, select

the appropriate Appendix B checklist. (See Engineering Change Proposal Class I, Procedure B2,

or Value Engineering Change Proposal Class I, Procedure B3.) CCM documentation class and

associated justification codes are identified in MIL-HDBK-61A, Paragraph 6.1.1.2, “Change

Classification,” and Table 6-3, “Activity Guide: ECP Justification Codes.”


The ECP should be reviewed for need and benefit requirements. It should fulfill a mission,

program, or Government Program Office (GPO) need. Engineering changes may be needed for a

variety of reasons, such as to counter new threat, insert new technology, respond to technical and

operational tests and evaluations, or correct problems. Class II ECPs usually change or modify a

current process. The TDP included with the ECP provides the change justification. Identifying

the need for an engineering change is an important first step in starting the CCM disposition

process. The need for the change can also be accompanied by consequences if the proposed

engineering change (need) is disapproved. A DCMA Engineer’s positive ECP classification

disposition confirms the change is needed. The DCMA Engineer should determine if the

engineering change clearly identifies a mission or program need to avoid a Contractor issuing an

excessive number of ECPs. Consideration should also be given to combining ECPs, if

necessary. The requirement for determining a need is identified by Federal Acquisition


Version 01

B-32

Regulation 42.302(a), Paragraph (46). MIL-HDBK-61A, Table 6-6, “Activity Guide: ECP

Content,” defines a “Need For Change” field identified on an ECP form.

3.

Has the Contract Receipt and Systems Engineering Review been completed,

indicating DCMA is the Configuration Change Authority for Configuration Change



confirm that DCMA is the CCM documentation Configuration Change Authority (CCA). CCA

is defined in the CCM Instruction and allows DCMA to provide dispositions, recommendations,


Systems Engineering Review process but assigned to disposition CCM documents should verify

with the DCMA Administrative Contracting Officer (ACO) or DCMA individual performing the

contract review that CCM document CCA is delegated to DCMA. If through Contract Receipt

and Systems Engineering Review DCMA is not the CCA to process CCM documents, or if that

authority is not identified in the contract, consult the DCMA ACO for guidance before

completing the checklist. Contacting the GPO by the DCMA ACO may be necessary to

determine the CCA and authorization for DCMA to perform the actions in the checklist. The

DCMA Systems Engineering Surveillance Instruction addresses the Contract Receipt and

Systems Engineering Review process.

4. Has the contract number identified by the ECP been awarded, and does it pertain to

the contract or program which the DCMA Engineer is responsible?






that of the program. The contract may also be listed on all pertinent CCM TDP documentation.

On occasion, CCM documents and their TDP that refer to non-awarded contracts or to older

contracts that have already been completed and closed out (legacy contracts) may be submitted.

Return the document to the Contractor and prepare a CAR in accordance with CCM Instruction

guidelines if this or another contract CCM document noncompliance condition exists. MIL-

HDBK-61A, Table 6-6, “Activity Guide: ECP Content,” Subsection “Contract Information,”

defines a contract information on an ECP form.

5. Has the ECP been pre-inspected for completeness requirements as specified in

Appendix C?


Version 01

B-33





6. Has the ECP been pre-inspected for coordination requirements as specified in

Appendix C?





7. Has the ECP been pre-inspected for content requirements as specified in Appendix C?


C3.4. If the CCM document does not satisfy these requirements, return the document to the



Section III: Class II ECP Value Engineering Review

The checklist question in this section relates to evaluating the ECP TDP content for Value

Engineering (VE) opportunities.

8. Does the ECP present a Value Engineering Opportunity in accordance with the Value

Engineering Change Proposal description in Appendix A?

DoD policy encourages use of VE to make an economic contribution when developing,

acquiring, operating, and supporting the products necessary to fulfill Warfighter mission

requirements. In addition, VE opportunities aren’t always identified. As a result, the ECP must

be evaluated from a VE perspective in accordance with Appendix A. VE is an organized and

systematic approach directed at analyzing the function of systems, equipment, facilities, services,

and supplies. These functions are analyzed for the purpose of achieving those functions at the

lowest life cycle cost while being consistent with required performance, reliability, quality, and

safety. VE is obtained through the preparation and approval of a VECP. If the Class II ECP

becomes a VECP, follow the VECP checklist, Paragraph B3. (See Appendix A, Paragraph A4,

“Value Engineering Change Proposal, Class I, Guidance.”)

9. Does the ECP represent a cost savings to the program or have a Cost Reduction

Justification Code of “R”?


Version 01

B-34

DCMA has a unique opportunity to provide Value Added services to the CCM process. DCMA

Engineers, in their review and evaluation of Class II ECPs, may discover that the ECP reduces

costs to produce a CI. While the cost saving may be small for an individual CI, that cost

multiplied many times may be substantial. ECPs reducing cost should be brought to the

attention of the DCMA ACO or the Engineering Team Lead. ECPs with “R” as a justification

code, or an entry synonymous with the Contractor’s Cost Reduction code, should also be

identified to the DCMA ACO or Engineering Team Lead and tracked. Note: Several ECPs with

a Code “R” and tracked in the identified in the CSA Log may represent a savings to the program.

Refer to MIL-HDBK-61A, Table 6-3, “Activity Guide: ECP Justification Codes,” for a

discussion of ECP Justification Codes).

Section IV: Class II ECP Classification Verification

The checklist questions in this section verify that the Class II ECP classification is correct.

10. Does the ECP affect changes to the functional characteristics of a Configuration Item

to such an extent that it changes Functional Baseline Configuration Documentation?

Functional requirements contain user requirements both set in the context of requirements and

inferred. Functional (performance) characteristics include product Configuration Item (CI) Key

Performance Parameters (KPPs) or Technical System Specifications, and include areas such as

performance, weight, balance, thrust, fuel, consumption, range, speed, lethality and stability.

Functional KPPs are the essential requirements that must be met. Refer to MIL- HDBK-61A,

Section 5.5, “Configuration Baselines,” for a full discussion and definition of Functional

Baselines (FBLs).

11.

Does the ECP affect lower level (subsystem) Configuration Item characteristics

passed down (allocated) from higher level functional Configuration Item

characteristics to such an extent that they change Allocated Baseline Configuration

Documentation?

An allocated requirement is the portion of the system requirement assigned and distributed to the

lower level product subsystem. It is a process of distributing requirements among the CI

products. Allocated characteristics include hardware/software interfaces with other CIs,

interchangeability, maintainability, interoperability, substitutability, replaceability, compatibility,

survivability, and Human Systems Integration. Refer to MIL-HDBK-61A, Section 5.5,

“Configuration Baselines,” for a full discussion and definition of Allocated Baselines (ABLs).


Version 01

B-35

12.

Does the ECP affect changes to the physical characteristics of Configuration

Documentation to such an extent that it changes form, fit, function, quality, or support

of the intended higher level Configuration Item Product Baseline assemblies?

CI Physical characteristic changes include material change, size, dimensional, and finish (touch

properties). Product characteristics include form, fit, function, quality, or product support. The

primary Product Baseline (PBL) purpose is to identify and define a product’s performance,

functional, and physical attributes (e.g., through specifications and drawings). The ECP should

not change the product’s physical characteristics to such a degree that they change the higher

level or order of the PBL items, as the PBL is configured to define the product CI. Refer to

MIL-HDBK-61A, Section 5.5, “Configuration Baselines,” for a full discussion and definition of

PBLs.

13. Does the ECP require new Configuration Documents that make changes to the

Product Baseline configuration?

New CDs may indicate changes to Government approved FBL, ABL, or PBL (Configuration

baselines), or may indicate additional Government cost. Contractor funded CDs may also

indicate changes to the Configuration baselines. Contact the Contractor to discover the scope

and funding of the new CDs and, as required, contact the GPO. A new or revised Contractor CD

that furthers or improves the existing manufacture, development, or design of a process or

product would not make a change in the ECP classification, unless it has Government cost, risk,

or Configuration Baseline changes attributed to it.

14. Does the ECP cause changes in DCMA System Engineering surveillance?

DCMA System Engineering Surveillance Plans are configured generally to manage program CIs

and the processes described in CDs. These CIs and CDs constitute the approved product

Configuration baseline. The Class II ECP that requires changes or modifications to the DCMA

System Engineering Surveillance Plan may also indicate a change to a product Configuration

baseline. Only GPO approved, funded and implemented Class I ECPs can change a product

Configuration baseline. If the Class II ECP content also requires the DCMA Engineer to change

the DCMA System Engineering Surveillance Plan, it may also be an indication the ECP is

misclassified and should be a Class I ECP.

15. Does the Class II ECP affect, impact, or cause changes or modifications to:

The following are area checks of ECPs that will cause Configuration baseline engineering

changes and affect ECP classification. Class II ECP documents should not affect, impact, or

cause changes or modifications to:


Version 01

B-36

15a. Information Assurance properties/levels?

Information Assurance (IA) is information operations that protect and defend information and

information systems by ensuring their availability, integrity, authentication, confidentiality, and

non-repudiation. This includes providing for the restoration of information systems by

incorporating protection, detection, and reaction capabilities. IA information in a Class II ECP

that changes from current levels to new levels may require the ECP to be reclassified as Class I.

Properties/levels include changes to the hardware/software security, processing, storage, and

transmission of information or data in any way. The contract may also refer to a Security plan

required for compliance. Additional forms of security are Cyber security, Identity security and

Information Assurance (CIIA). (See DoD Directive DODD 5000.01, Enclosure 1, Paragraph

E1.9, and Defense Acquisition Guidebook (DAG), Paragraph 7.5, 9.7.6 and 13.7.2, for GPO IA

information. Also, see Acquisition Community Connection, CIIA Community of Practice for

information on CIIA.)

15b. Government Furnished Equipment/Information/Property?

This question addresses Government Furnished Equipment, Information or Property

(GFE/GFI/GFP) and associated interfaces. These interfaces are usually identified in the contract

or contractual documentation. Government-Furnished Property means property in the possession

of, or directly acquired by, the Government and subsequently furnished to the Contractor for

performance of a contract. Government Furnished Equipment/Information/Material or Property

(GFE/GFI/GFM/GFP) have similar definitions. An example of GFE is test or support equipment

(mobile or fixed, including special hand tools, calibration equipment and performance test

stations). Under the terms of the contract, the Contractor providing goods and services is

required to provide their own property, unless there is a policy/contract exception. Contractor

property would be classified as Real Property (RP), Equipment, Special Tooling (ST), Special

Test Equipment (STE), and Material. Note: Contractors provided Government Property could

obtain an economic advantage over competitors, because their money and resources would not

have to be spent on purchasing RP or personal property to support the contract. Class II ECPs

should not change procedures or policies for using Government Property. (See Federal

Acquisition Regulation 45.102 and 52.245-1 for information on Government Property and the

DAG, Paragraph 11.7, “Property.”)

15c. Logistics Support Documentation?

Logistic Support Documentation includes program and product operational information areas,

such as Maintenance Procedures, Manuals/Procedures, Users Manuals, Checkout Procedures,

Test Procedures, Diagnostic Procedures, Calibration Procedures, Training Manuals, Operational

Procedures, Spare Parts Lists, Disposal Methods, Security Procedures, Repair


Version 01

B-37

Manuals/Procedures, training and instructions for training equipment. Class II ECPs should not

change procedures or policies for using Logistics Support Documentation with a possible

reclassification to a Class I. Modification of this type of documentation could affect

Configuration baseline support or cost.

15e. Government Contract schedules or milestones?

Class II ECPs should not change Government Contract delivery schedules or milestones. If not

specifically addressed in the ECP, a Contractor inquiry should be made if the ECP changes or

modifies contract schedules or milestones. This may include any changes that could impact

development, test, manufacturing, delivery, and installation schedules (program lifecycle).

15f. Configuration Item lifecycle?

The question addresses the impact or applicability of the CI lifecycle. An ECP impacting the

lifecycle of a CI may require a life analysis be done to better define the life of the CI. Examples

include, Failure Rate, Mean-Time-Between-Failures and Mean-Time-To-Repair. Each pertains

to the assessment of Reliability, Availability and Maintainability (RAM) of the CI. A Contractor

inquiry, if not specifically addressed in the ECP, should be made to determine if changes were

made to the lifecycle item. An example is when a new/redesign part having the same form, fit,

function and interface differs in material. The ECP should not change the lifecycle CI

characteristics. Life cycle changes require a Class I ECP and GPO disposition. Appendix C,

Pre-Inspection: Content Requirements, also addresses RAM as an ECP TDP requirement. (See

“Defense Acquisition Guide” (DAG), Chapter 4, Paragraph 4.4.15, “Reliability and

Maintainability Engineering,” and “DoD Guide For Achieving Reliability, Availability, And

Maintainability,” Paragraphs 5.4.2 and 5.5.4, available within the DAG, Chapter 4.)

15g. Government Contractor warranties or guarantees?

The question addresses the applicability of agreed upon Government warranties or guarantees.

The principal purpose of a warranty in a Government contract is to delineate the rights and

obligations of the contractor and the Government for defective items and services, and to foster

quality performance and warranties that are not mandatory. Federal Acquisition Regulation

(FAR) Subpart 46.7 covers warranties. FAR 46.703 establishes criteria for the use of warranties.

FAR 12.404, 46.709 and 52.246 address commercial and non-commercial warranties. If not

specifically addressed in the Class II ECP, a Contractor inquiry should be made to determine if

the ECP addresses or changes Government warranties or guarantees. Contract award often is

based on Contractor warranties or guarantees. Class II ECPs should not address change or

modify contract warranties or guarantees. The DCMA ACO should be consulted.


Version 01

B-38

15h. Supply Chain Change Manufacturing vendors supplying Major Configuration Items?

The question addresses the applicability of approved sub-vendors. Changes in sub-vendors for

major CIs may cause unexpected events to occur, ranging from changes in quality, schedules and

testing. Changes in sub-vendors also may also result in a change in program risk and logical

issues. As a minimum, a GPO consultation should be accomplished and the GPO notified of

major sub-vendor/subcontractor changes. The resulting changes may require a Class I ECP for

confirmation of the new and major sub-vendors.

15i. Government cost (decrease/increase)?

Changes that increase or decrease the Government’s contract/program cost and funding budget in

any way require a Class I ECP. This would include changes to type of contract incentives and

fees.

15j. Safety of Flight requirements?

A Safety of Flight (SOF) item is one whose failure could cause loss of the aircraft or aircrew, or

could cause inadvertent store release (weapon, fuel). A loss could occur either immediately upon

failure, or subsequent to the detection, if the failure remained undetected. The Contractor would

normally identify SOF items as part of their production and quality process. ECPs that change or

modify SOF requirements will be classified as Class I ECPs. A CAR should be prepared, as

appropriate, to address the misclassification. Where procedures or requirements containing SOF

are being modified in any Configuration Change Management (CCM) type document, the GPO

should be contacted for confirmation and the GPO policy toward SOF should be recognized.

Guidance on SOF is provided by the Quality Assurance (QA) DCMA-INST 308, “Safety of

Flight” Instruction.

15k. Weapon System Configuration Item product risk?

An ECP that increases the risk rating of a product CI or system requires a consultation with the

GPO and the possibility that a Class I ECP be issued, as required. Risk Management asks the

questions:

1. What is the probability that an undesirable event (root cause) will occur?

2. What are the consequences if it does?

Program risks can be cost, schedule or performance risks. Use appropriate risk management

procedures to keep the program on track. MIL-HDBK-61A, Paragraph 1.3.2, “CM Benefits,

Risks and Cost Impact,” states “The point is that the intent of CM is to avoid cost and minimize


Version 01

B-39

risk.” The “Risk Management Guide For DoD Acquisition” and other risk documents and

information is available from DAG, Paragraph 4.2.3.1.5., “Risk Management.”

15. Retrofit or backfit of fielded/delivered Configuration Items?

Retrofit is defined as a modification of a CI to incorporate changes made in later production

items. (Both old and new CIs are equal in configuration.) Backfitting is the addition of new-

type equipment into a system in operation, or the incorporation of equipment previously in

production that has been delivered without such equipment. Retrofitting or backfitting

equipment may have cost associated with it and may indicate a Deviation type quality issue is

required. It may also impact on a contract milestone or schedule. Retrofitting equipment may

incur increased Government cost for delivery of kits or installation. It’s recommended the

Contractor be contacted to discover retrofitting scope and, as required, confirm with the GPO.

Retrofitting or backfitting may also indicate cost consideration from the contractor.

15m. Integrated Product Support Elements?

Integrated Product Support (IPS) is the package of support functions (twelve) required to deploy

and maintain the readiness and operational capability of major Weapon Systems, subsystems,

and components. This includes all functions related to Weapon Systems readiness. According to

the current Product Support Manager (PSM) Guidebook, "product support is enabled by the IPS

elements, which provide a structured and integrated framework for managing product support

and are evolved from the Integrated Logistics Support (ILS) elements. The twelve IPS elements

provide a structured and integrated framework for managing product support and include:

1. Product support management

2. Design interface

3. Sustaining engineering

4. Supply support

5. Maintenance planning and management

6. Packaging, Handling, Storage, And Transportation (PHS&T)

7. Technical data

8. Support equipment

9. Training and training support

10. Manpower/personnel

11. Facilities and infrastructure

12. Computer resources."

An IPS Element Guidebook is intended to be used in conjunction with the Product Support

Manager (PSM) Guidebook. Both guidebooks are available from DAU Acquisition Community

Connection Internet web sites. Class II ECPs should not change IPS elements. (See DODD


Version 01

B-40

5000.01, Enclosure 1, Paragraph E1.17, and DAG, Paragraph 5.1.1.1, for GPO IPS element

information.)

16. Does the Class II ECP affect, impact, or cause changes or modifications to the

following Defense Acquisition Guidebook, Design Considerations:

The following are System Engineering design area checks that may be addressed in Class II

ECPs that impact the Configuration baseline, program or contract. The design area questions

that follow are recognized as System Engineering Design Considerations identified by DAG,

Paragraph 4.4. Design Considerations are specifically for the GPO to address and maintain

during the program acquisition lifecycle. However, if changes in Design Considerations are

discovered in the content of a Class II ECP, the ECP may require a change in ECP classification.

Not every System Engineering Design Consideration is applicable to every program. In the

following, a general brief question description and background is given first, followed by sources

where additional information on that particular Design Consideration can be obtained. Questions

not identified under DAG, Paragraph 4.4, have been identified by Defense Acquisition

University (DAU) or are proposed DAG Design Considerations. Most Design Considerations

are required to be addressed in the GPO Systems Engineering Plan (SEP), Contractors Systems

Engineering Management Plan, or other program technical planning document.

16a. Accessibility?

Accessibility requires that a program comply with Section 508 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973,

whenever applicable. Section 508 requires that when Federal agencies develop, procure,

maintain, or use electronic and information technology, they will verify the technology allows

Federal employees with disabilities, and the general public seeking information or services from

a Federal agency, have access to and use of information and data available, unless an undue

burden would be imposed on the acquisition program. Because of their nature, many weapons

systems are inherently exempt from Section 508 requirements. However, depending on their

usage, some supporting CI products may need to be compliant. When required by Section 508,

Class II ECPs should not change accessibility requirements without reclassification. (See DAG,

Paragraph 4.4.1, for GPO accessibility information.)

16b. Commercial-Off-The-Shelf?

Commercial-Off-the-Shelf (COTS) CI products can offer reduced development time, faster

insertion of new technology, and lower life cycle costs. COTS product releases are designed to

be used "as is" to meet general marketplace requirements and not a specific military

organizational need. COTS products may require continuous monitoring via market research

and continuing alignment of business and technical processes. COTS usage can impose


Version 01

B-41

additional cost, schedule, and performance risks that must be considered. Class II ECPs should

not address changes in COTS CIs without verification with the GPO. DoD Instruction (DODI)

5000.02 cites and identifies several references to COTS. (See DAG, Paragraph 4.4.2, for GPO

COTS information.) Appendix A provides additional information on COTS and Commercial

Items.

16c. Corrosion Prevention and Control?

Corrosion Control for a Weapon Systems or programs is usually addressed in Corrosion

Prevention and Control Plans. The GPO establishes a corrosion prevention and advisory team to

develop Corrosion Prevention and Control Plans. Corrosion control plans address the

environment, maintenance, material considerations, system interaction and consequences for the

Weapon System. The Class II ECP should not present changes in corrosion control or corrosion

control plans. (See DODI 5000.02, Enclosure 12, Paragraph 7, and DAG, Paragraph 4.4.3, for

GPO Corrosion Control information.) The “Corrosion Prevention and Control Planning

Guidebook” is available in DAG, Paragraph 4.4.3.

16d. Critical Safety Items?

A Critical Safety Item (CSI) pertains to Weapon Systems CI part(s), assembly, installation

equipment, launch equipment, recovery equipment, or support equipment that if failed,

malfunctioned, or absence could cause:

1. A catastrophic or critical failure resulting in the loss of or serious damage to the aircraft

or Weapon System

2. An unacceptable risk of personal injury or loss of life, or

3. An uncommanded engine shutdown that jeopardizes safety.

CSI pertains to the entire part that usually contains a critical feature, property or dimension

(usually called a Critical Characteristic (CC)). CSIs and CCs can be identified by the Contractor

and/or the GPO Engineering Support Activity (ESA). Class II ECPs changing CSI parts require

a Class I ECP. There are cases where ESA identified CSI parts can be presented as Class II,

however, that policy needs to be specifically recognized by DCMA.

It is recommend, when any CSI CI part is being addressed in any CCM type document, that the

DCMA Engineer contact the ESA, and that the ESA policy toward program CSI CIs be known,

recognized and practiced. Guidance and appropriate CSI references are provided by the QA

DCMA-INST 303, “Critical Safety Item” Instruction. (See DAG, Paragraph 4.4.4., for GPO CSI

information.)


Version 01

B-42

16e. Disposal and Demilitarization?

Disposal gets rid of excess, surplus, scrap, or salvage property under appropriate authority.

Demilitarization converts military equipment to non-military use. A system at the end of its

useful life must be demilitarized and disposed of in accordance with all legal and regulatory

requirements and policies relating to safety (including explosives safety), occupational health,

security, and the environment. Hazardous materials contained in the system must be

documented and estimates/plans for the system's demilitarization and safe disposal must be

prepared and documented. These requirements should be addressed before the start of program

testing and prior to the program’s release of munitions or explosives to a non-military setting.

Class II ECPs should not change disposal and demilitarization plans. (See DODI 5000.02,

Enclosure 2, Paragraph 8.c.(2), and DAG, Paragraph 4.4.5, for GPO disposal and

demilitarization information.)

16f. Diminishing Manufacturing Sources and Material Shortages?

Diminishing Manufacturing Sources and Material Shortages (DMSMS) is the loss, or impending

loss, of manufacturers, suppliers, raw materials or software. DoD loses a manufacturer or

supplier when that manufacturer or supplier discontinues production of needed components or

raw materials, or when the supply of raw material is no longer available. This loss can be caused

by many factors. However, the result is that it significantly affects the DoD supply chain and

industrial base. Ultimately, DMSMS issues affect materiel readiness and operational

availability, which, in turn, affect both combat operations and safety. Class II ECPs that address

changes in major suppliers for CIs should be verified with the GPO. Changes in suppliers may

also cause cost and quality issues. DAU Guidebook: SD-22, “Diminishing Manufacturing

Sources and Material Shortages (DMSM),” provides information on DMSMS and suggestions on

how to address DMSMS issues. (See DAG, Paragraph 4.4.6., for GPO DMSMS information.)

16g. Environment, Safety, and Occupational Health program?

Environmental, Safety and Occupational Health (ESOH) provides and protects the environment

and personnel, improves operational readiness, reduces total operating cost, and reduces risk.

ESOH requirements provide a system design that can be tested, operated, maintained, repaired,

and disposed of in accordance with ESOH statutes, regulations, policies, and, as applicable,

environmental treaties and agreements (collectively termed, “regulatory requirements”). The

acquisition strategy of a program incorporates a summary of the programmatic ESOH Evaluation

(PESHE) at the earliest program milestone decision. PESHE is the GPO strategy to meet ESOH

requirements and address National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) risks,

responsibilities/tracking, hazardous materials management and demilitarization/disposal. The

level of Warfighter or Weapon System safety should not change from current levels. PESHE


Version 01

B-43

address safety of the Warfighter or Weapon System. Safety can also be expressed in terms of

risk management to identify and evaluate hazards to the Warfighter or Weapon System (MIL-

STD-882). ESOH is required for all acquisition programs regardless of category. Class II ECPs

should not change PESHE or ESOH requirements without a change in classification to Class I.

(See DODD 5000.01, Enclosure 1, Paragraph E1.23, and DAG, Paragraph 4.4.7, for GPO ESOH

information.)

16h. Human Systems Integration?

Human Systems Integration (HSI) is the interaction between people (operators, maintainers and

support) and their systems. HSI is that part of Systems Engineering that focuses on the human

component. The principle goal is to verify a safe and efficient relationship between the user and

the technical system. The term “Human” refers to users (operators, maintainers, supporters, and

trainers). “Systems” refers to hardware, equipment, and software that function together to fulfill

a mission need., “Integration” refers to integration among the HSI elements and with the design.

Variables associated with HSI domains include Human Factors, Engineering, Manpower,

Personnel, Training, Habitability and Personnel Survivability. Class II ECPs should not change

HSI requirements without a change in classification. (See DODI 5000.02, Enclosure 8, and

DAG, Chapter 6 and Paragraph 4.4.8., for GPO HSI information.)

16i. Insensitive Munitions?

Insensitive Munitions (IM) is the minimizing of the probability of inadvertent detonation and any

associated collateral damage when munitions are subjected to selected accidental and combat

threats. Public Law requires the Secretary of Defense to verify, to the extent practicable, that

munitions under development or procurement are safe throughout development and fielding,

when subjected to unplanned stimuli. The Lead Safety Engineer should confirm IM

requirements are incorporated into the Test & Evaluation Master Plan. Additionally, a Plan of

Action and Milestones describing how the program will meet these requirements should be

developed. Class II ECPs should not change IM requirements without a change in classification.

(See DODD 5000.0, Enclosure 1, Paragraph E1.1.23, and DAG, Paragraph 4.4.9, for GPO IM

information.)

16j. Interoperability and Dependencies?

Interoperability is the ability of diverse systems and organizations to work together to exchange

information and to use the information that has been exchanged (inter-operate). DoD systems

operate in a System-of-Systems (SoS) context, relying upon other systems to provide desired

user capabilities, making it vital that interoperability needs and external dependencies be

identified early and incorporated into program system requirements. When identifying system


Version 01

B-44

requirements, it is critical to consider the operational and SoS context. These include physical

requirements (e.g.,. size, power limits, etc.), electronic requirements (e.g., signature, interference,

etc.), and information exchange/management (e.g., network, bandwidth, information needs, etc.).

These also include interdependencies with other systems. For efficiencies, systems often rely on

either services provided by other systems during operations, or reuse of system elements

developed by other programs. The treatment of the user's interoperability requirements for a

system in an acquisition program should be maintained. Class II ECPs should not change

program interoperability requirements without a change in classification. (See DODD 5000.01,

Enclosure 1, Paragraph E1.1.13, and DAG, Paragraphs 4.4.10 and 9.7.7, for GPO

interoperability.) Interoperability and Dependencies vice Interoperability is a proposed DAG

Design Configuration.

16k. Open Systems Design?

Systems Engineers, through development of designs and architectures, provide a structured

approach to document design and development decisions based on established requirements.

Architectures are used to support major DoD decision-making processes. Open systems

architecture and design is a business and technical strategy where commercially supported

specifications and standards are used for interfaces, products, practices and tools. Systems are

built based on modular hardware and software design. Open system architecture allows

components to be modified and supported by different vendors throughout the life-cycle, thereby

driving opportunities for enhanced competition and innovation. The program’s open system

architecture design approach should be documented in its SEP. Class II ECPs should not change

program architecture without a change in classification. (See DODD 5000.01, Enclosure 1,

Paragraph E1.1.27, DODI 5000.02, Enclosure 12, Paragraph 8, and DAG, Paragraph 4.4.11, for

GPO architecture and design information.)

16l. Parts Management?

The Parts Management Program (PMP) is a process for selecting, specifying, verifying

appropriate design applications, and, in general, managing parts used in complex systems. Parts

are the building blocks from which systems are created and, as such, greatly impact hardware

dependability and readiness. Effective PMP provides for greater reliability and maintainability

of the CI and Weapon System. Parts Management is defined as the practice of considering the

application, standardization, technology (new and aging), system reliability, maintainability,

supportability, and cost in selecting parts and addressing availability, logistics support, DMSMS,

and legacy issues, supporting them throughout the life of the systems. SD-22, “Parts

Management Guide,” together with MIL-STD-3018, “Parts Management,” helps to verify

successful PMP to support acquisition strategy. If it exists, Class II ECPs should not change


Version 01

B-45

PMP without a change in classification. (See DAG, Paragraph 4.4.12, for GPO Parts

Management information.)

16m. Program Protection?

Program Protection Plan (PPP) and System Assurance are created to protect Critical Program

Information (CPI). Losses in technology to adversaries in acquisition programs have caused

congressional concerns. Systems were fielded with an anticipated technology effective life span,

but were found to have a much shorter period. DoD is directed to establish systems protection

plans for the acquisition life-cycle. A PPP identifies and prioritizes security needs, identifies

threats and vulnerabilities, and implements a risk management plan that consists of establishing a

level of protection, and duration of protection. PPP is required as soon as CPI is identified in a

program. Class II ECPs should not change PPP requirements without a change in classification.

(See DODI 5000.02, Enclosure 2, Paragraph 5.d.(2), and DAG, Paragraph 4.4.13, for GPO PPP

information.) While some programs may not have CPI, every program, including those with

special access content, will address mission-critical functions and components requiring risk

management to protect warfighting capabilities.

16n. Producibility, Quality and Manufacturing?

Quality is a composite of material attributes, including performance and CI product/service

features and characteristics that satisfy a Warfighter requirement. Key to success is early

definition of the CI product or service quality attribute requirements from the beginning of the

development process, and providing developers the maximum degree of flexibility to meet these

requirements. ECPs should not address changes in the properties/levels of quality for a CI

product. The contract usually discusses how a CI product is accepted. A Class II ECP that

discusses the quality of a CI product needs confirmation by the GPO and a possible ECP

reclassification. A Quality Management System should be in place to verify quality is

maintained. Producibility is the degree to which the design of the system facilitates the timely,

affordable, and optimum-quality manufacture, assembly, and delivery of the system to the

Warfighter. Producibility can be described as the ease with which it can be produced. Design of

the product component determines producibility. Manufacturing Readiness Levels communicate

the degree to which a technology is producible, reliable, and affordable. Class II ECPs should

improve on Class II ECP Producibility, Quality and Manufacturing. (See DODI 5000.02,

Enclosure 2, Paragraph 5.d (5), and DAG, Paragraph 4.4.14, for GPO quality and producibility

information.)


Version 01

B-46

16o. Reliability and Maintainability Engineering?

Reliability is the ability of a system to perform and maintain its functions in routine and different

hostile and unexpected circumstances. Maintainability is a characteristic of design and

installation, and is expressed as the probability that an item will be retained in or restored to a

specified condition within a given period of time, when the maintenance is performed in

accordance with prescribed procedures. A related measure, availability, is the proportion of time

a system is in a mission-capable (operable) state (e.g. Failure Rate, Mean-Time-Between-

Failures, Mean-Time-To-Repair). Reliable, Available and Maintainable (RAM) systems are

achieved via disciplined Systems Engineering practices, using the best design, manufacturing,

and support practices. If not specifically addressed, a Contractor inquiry should be made if the

ECP makes changes to RAM. The Class II ECP should not change RAM CI characteristics

without a change in classification. Appendix C, Pre-Inspection: Content Requirements, also

addresses RAM as an ECP TDP requirement. (See DODI 5000.02, Enclosure 2, Paragraph 5.d

(5), and DAG, Paragraph 4.4.15.) The “DoD Guide For Achieving Reliability, Availability, And

Maintainability” is available from the DAG, Paragraphs 5.4.2 and 5.5.4.

16p. Spectrum Management?

Consideration of spectrum and control of electromagnetic environmental effects is essential and

integral to successful program management, Weapon System development, and fielding of

global capabilities. Spectrum supportability addresses the availability of sufficient

electromagnetic spectrum frequencies for the development, training, and compatible operations

of spectrum dependent systems in their intended operational environment. (COTS frequencies

may violate international spectrum agreements.) Spectrum certification compliance is

accomplished using DD Form 1494. Electromagnetic Environmental Effects Control is the

impact of the electromagnetic radiation on the environment and upon the operational capability

of military equipment (the hazards of electromagnetic radiation to ordnance, people and fuel).

The lowering of shielding and bonding in equipment may cause increased risk to this type of

radiation. Spectrum certification/frequency assignment is the authority to experiment, develop

or procure new spectrum dependent equipment. System design must take into account

electromagnetic environmental effects. The Class II ECP should not change spectrum or

electromagnetic characteristics without a change in classification. (See DODI 5000.02,

Enclosure 12, Paragraph 11, and DAG, Paragraph 4.4.17, for GPO spectrum and electromagnetic

information.)

16q Standardization?

A standard establishes requirements for processes, procedures, practices, or methods. Generic

types of standards include: interface standards, design criteria standards, material standards,


Version 01

B-47

manufacturing process standards, standard practices, and test method standards. By policy, DoD

promotes standardization in order to reduce total ownership costs, to improve military

operational readiness, and to reduce acquisition time. Standardization advances interoperability

through commonality of systems, subsystems, components, equipment, data, and architectures.

The Defense Standardization Program Office is the DoD’s focal point for standardization efforts.

Class II ECPs should not change major program standards for CI’s without GPO verification.

(See DAG, Paragraph 4.4.18, for GPO standardization information.)

16r. Supportability?

Supportability depends upon design features for reliability and maintainability, technical support

data, and maintenance procedures to minimize system anomalies and to facilitate detection,

isolation, and timely correction of any problems. Logistics Footprint is the total size or

'presence' of logistics support required to deploy, sustain, and move a Weapon System. Logistics

Footprints should be minimal. Elements include inventory/equipment, personnel, facilities,

transportation assets, and real estate. Class II ECPs should not change supportability without a

change in classification. (See DAG, Paragraph 4.4.19, for GPO supportability information.)

16s. Survivability and Susceptibility?

Survivability is the ability of a system, subsystem, equipment, process, or procedure to continue

to function during and after a natural or man-made disturbance. It involves the consideration and

application of design features that reduce the risk of fratricide, reduce the probability of

detection, reduce the risk of attack if detected, and minimize damage, if attacked. Systems

should be survivable to the threat levels anticipated in their projected operating environment, as

portrayed in the System Threat Assessment (e.g. Electromagnetic Pulse, Nuclear, Biological, and

Chemical attack). Susceptibility describes a system's response to electromagnetic stimuli and

interference. The identified threat should be assessed within the context of the elements of the

system, to understand how the system and subsystem components react under various

operational and maintenance scenarios. Class II ECPs should not change survivability and

susceptibility of a CI without a change in classification. (See DAG, Paragraph 4.4.20 and

9.3.3.5, for GPO survivability and susceptibility information.)

16t. Unique Identification of Items?

Item Unique Identification (IUID) is a high-priority DoD initiative that permanently identifies an

individual CI. The serialized CI is then distinct from all other individual CIs that the DoD buys

or owns. With IUID, the DoD can associate valuable business intelligence to an item throughout

its life cycle. The IUID system accurately captures and maintains data for valuation and item

tracking. The DoD IUID program requires placement of a minimum set of globally unique and


Version 01

B-48

unambiguous data markings on each marked item. This robust system verifies data integrity

throughout the life of the item, and supports multi-faceted business applications and users. The

IUID Implementation Plan is now linked to the SEP. Class II ECPs should not change assigned

CI IUID requirements without a change in classification. (See DODI 5000.02, Enclosure 12,

Paragraph 10 and DAG, Paragraph 4.4.21, for GPO IUID information.)

16v. Affordability, Trade-Offs, and Competition?

Some form of Affordability, Trade-Offs, and Competition is addressed in each acquisition

lifecycle phase milestone review. An affordability assessment is done at each phase and

addressed in terms of Should-Cost. System Engineering Trade-off analyses are done to satisfy

budget Should-Cost values. Affordability, Trade-Offs, and Competition is also identified by the

Better Buying Power (BBP) Initiative. (See USD (AT&L) Memo: “Better Buying Power 2.0:

Continuing the Pursuit for Greater Efficiency and Productivity in Defense Spending,” 13 Nov

2012.) BBP 2.0 categories include Achieve Affordable Programs, Control Costs Throughout the

Product Lifecycle, Incentivize Productivity & Innovation in Industry and Government, Eliminate

Unproductive Processes and Bureaucracy, Promote Effective Competition, Improve Tradecraft

in Acquisition of Services, and Improve the Professionalism of the Total Acquisition Workforce.

Class II ECPs should not change program Affordability, Trade-Offs, and Competition

requirements without a change in classification. (See DAG, Paragraph 4.4.22., for information

on Affordability, Trade-Offs, and Competition for GPOs.)

16v. Operational Energy?

Operational Energy addresses putting increased focus on lowering system and unit energy

demand. Reducing the reliance of the force’s dependence on fuel logistics can improve the

Warfighter mobility and resilience, and increase its control over the timing and conditions of a

combat event. The GPO, the Contractor and the Warfighter should consider Weapon System

energy demand in design, technology, materials and related issues in the system trade space with

other performance issues, so that oppressive energy resupply needs are not inadvertently

introduced in the attempt to achieve other performance goals (e.g., survivability, lethality). Class

II ECPs increasing fuel system and unit energy demand may require reclassification as Class I

ECPs. The GPO should be consulted in cases where Operational Energy is increasing.

(Operational Energy is a proposed DAG Design Consideration.)

16w. Anti-Counterfeiting?

Anti-Counterfeiting addresses mitigating the effects of counterfeit parts. There is an increasing

threat of counterfeit (and fraudulent) parts in the global marketplace, which impacts everything

from COTS assemblies to military unique systems. Preventing counterfeit parts from entering


Version 01

B-49

the supply chain reduces cost and negative impacts to program schedule and system

performance. Counterfeit parts are becoming pervasive in various supply chains and, therefore,

have become a significant threat to the Defense Supply Chain. Anti-counterfeit activities have

relations with many other Design Considerations. ECP removing and replacing CI parts may

provide an opportunity for counterfeit parts. The Contractor Supply Chain supplying parts for

ECPs should have controls in place to prevent the introduction of counterfeit parts (See Under

Secretary of Defense Memorandum, “Overarching DoD Counterfeit Prevention Guidance,”

dated March 16, 2012. Anti-Counterfeiting is a proposed DAG Design Consideration.)

16x. System Security Engineering?

System Security Engineering (SSE) is the functional discipline that ensures security

requirements are included in any engineering analysis, with the results being captured in the PPP

and identified at System Engineering Technical Review events. Weapon Systems are

increasingly relying on COTS technology that is frequently developed and manufactured outside

of DoD control and, perhaps more importantly, is widely available for all the world to study,

reverse engineer, and identify vulnerabilities. Second, the complex supply chains of major

acquisition programs (prime, subcontractors, sub-suppliers) make it difficult for anyone to truly

know what is in the system and where it came from. Finally, system complexity and

interconnectedness (via software dependence and connections to numerous DoD networks)

obfuscate the possible system states and vulnerabilities. It is recommended that the GPO be

contacted when Class II ECPs addressing PPP do not identify SSE. (DAG, Paragraph 13.14,

“Detailed System Security Engineering,” and MIL-HDBK-1758, “System Security Engineering

Program Management Requirements,” dated 01 August 1995, discuss SSE. System Security

Engineering is a proposed DAG Design Consideration.)

16y. Intelligence?

Modern Weapon Systems are inherently dependent on a variety of scientific and technical

intelligence products throughout every stage of their lifecycle. Intelligence Mission Data (IMD)

provides essential data for building system models, developing algorithms, optimizing sensor

design, system testing and evaluation, and validating sensor functionality. Therefore, it’s

imperative to verifies that IMD is considered, identified, and applied throughout the lifecycle of

IMD dependent programs by informing the Analysis of Alternatives (AoA), and continuing

through disposal. Class II ECPs should not change these Intelligence properties or IMD data

contained in the Lifecycle Mission Data Plan (LMDP). (Intelligence is a proposed DAG Design

Consideration.)


Version 01

B-50

16z. Packaging, Handling, Storage and Transportation?

Packaging, Handling, Storage and Transportation (PHST) methods are usually scheduled or

coordinated by the GPO and may have milestones associated with each PHST plan or schedule.

Changes to the PHST may change Government procedures or plans presently existing. These

PHST procedures, plans, and schedules may be recognized as Government-owned. Class II

ECPs should not change previously assigned PHST agreements without a change in

classification and immediately notifying the GPO of the ECP proposal. (PHST is a proposed

DAG Design Consideration.)

16aa. International Cooperation Opportunities?

The GPO will pursue international armaments cooperation to the maximum extent feasible,

consistent with sound business practice and overall Government goals. (See DODD 5000.01,

Enclosure 1, Paragraph E1.1.) Interoperability will apply within and among USA forces and

USA coalition partners, ensuring qualified international sources are permitted to compete or

supply parts. Reasons for international cooperation are political/economic, Military

(standardization and interoperability) and programmatic (cost, schedule and performance).

Defense Sales include:

1. Security Assistance (Foreign Military Sales): Foreign Government funds (or US

Government Credits/Grants) to purchase DoD equipment through the Government, and

2. Direct Commercial Sales: Foreign Government funds to purchase DoD Equipment

directly from the Contractor with Government approval.

International Cooperation Opportunities is an acquisition and GPO System Engineering Design

Consideration. Class II ECPs should not change previously assigned agreements without a

change in classification and immediately notifying the GPO of the ECP proposal. (See DODI

5000.02, Enclosure 10, Paragraph 5, and DAG, Paragraph 11.2, for GPO International

Cooperation Opportunities information.)

Section V: Disposition Misclassified Class II ECPs

The checklist questions in this section address dispositioning of improperly classified Class II

ECPs.

17. Disposition the Class II ECP document with the phrase, “Non-concur with

classification.”

When the Class II ECP is evaluated and determined to be incorrectly classified, and the proposed

Class II ECP should be Class I, sign and disposition the document with the phrase, “Non-concur


Version 01

B-51

with classification.” This statement disagrees with the classification the Contractor assigned to

the Class II ECP.

18. Return the disposition/non-concurrence Class II ECP to the Contractor for cancellation

and request the ECP be reissued as a Class I ECP.

Return the disposition/non-concurrence Class II ECP to the Contractor in the same manner in

which it was received for cancellation and request the ECP be reissued as a Class I ECP.

19. Provide feedback to the Contractor regarding why the ECP is improperly classified.

Return the improperly classified Class II ECP to the Contractor for cancellation and request that

the ECP be reissued as a Class I ECP. Provide feedback to the Contractor regarding why the

ECP is misclassified. If the Contractor or the Configuration Control Board disagrees with the

misclassification:

1. Initiate a joint discussion with the Contractor and GPO to discuss the classification issue.

2. If after the Contractor and GPO discussion, the GPO requests the DCMA Engineer

concur with the improperly classified Class II ECP, request a confirmation letter from the

GPO identifying the Class II ECP and the classification. Request the contents of the

GPO letter identify sufficiently the ECP and DCMA's direction.

3. Concur with the ECP, making note of the GPO letter in the concurrence.

4. Route a copy of all correspondence through the appropriate DCMA ACO.

20. Issue a Corrective Action Request for the misclassified Class II ECP

Issue a CAR, as appropriate, for the improperly classified Class II ECP in accordance with CCM


Section VI: Disposition Class II ECPs

The checklist question in this section addresses dispositioning properly classified Class II

ECPs.

21. If the Class II ECP classification is correct, disposition the document with the phrase,

“Concur with classification” and return it to the Contractor.

If the Class II ECP classification is correct, sign and disposition the document with the phrase,

“Concur with classification.” This statement agrees with the classification the Contractor

assigned to the ECP. Return the ECP to the Contractor in the same manner in which it was

received.


Version 01

B-52

Section VII: Class II ECPs Documentation

The checklist question in this section addresses documenting and accounting for ECPs

received.

22. Has the DCMA Engineer documented the ECP in the Configuration Status

Accounting log?

The DCMA Engineer should document the ECP and the recommend disposition in the

Configuration Status Accounting (CSA) log. Refer to CCM Instruction, Chapter 4, for CSA log

information.

Section VIII: Validate Class II ECPs

The checklist question in this section addresses validating the flow-down of ECP

requirements into CDs and product CIs.


updated ECP Configuration Documentation and product Configuration Items.

Post-Inspection ECP Validation, procedures should be performed to the ECP in accordance with

the Appendix C, Paragraph C4. Post-Inspection ECP Validation procedures can only be

accomplished to ECPs previously approved when the associated CDs and CIs have been updated

or modified. The CSA log can help to identify previous dated and dispositioned CCM


Validating changes verifies appropriate Configuration control of the Configuration baseline,

essential for CM Change Management. If the CCM document does not satisfy these Appendix C

validation requirements, notify the Contractor for correction and prepare a CAR, as appropriate,

in accordance with CCM Instruction guidelines.