What Does It Mean To You?

In true bureaucratic fashion, it’s a lot of guidance (see below) – but what does it mean to you, to your program?  How can you implement these lofty policies where you live, in the real world?

At HKA our logisticians have the background and expertise to analyze and develop an appropriate solution tailored to the unique requirements of your specific program.  At HKA we work together with our clients to arrive at Life Cycle Management and Product Support strategies that will ensure the success of their programs.

The stated purpose of DTM 10-015:

“Establishes policy in accordance with DoD Directive 5134.01, ‘Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition, Technology, and Logistics (USD(AT&L),’ 9 December 2005 to implement and institutionalize the requirements of Section 805 of Public Law 111-8. This law directs a number of changes to DoD policies designed to improve weapon systems life cycle management and product support by establishing new requirements that directly impact acquisition, fielding, and sustainment decisions.”

Today:

Change 3 to this DTM was signed out 16 January 2013.  Change 3 delineated the duties of the Product Support Manager (PSM) to be incorporated into DoD Instruction (DoDI) 5000.02, “Operation of the Defense Acquisition System,” 8 December 2008:

“DUTIES OF THE PSM. The principal duties of the PSM are to:

 a. Provide weapon systems product support subject matter expertise to the PM for the execution of the PM’s duties as the Total Life Cycle Systems Manager, in accordance with DoD Directive (DoDD) 5000.01, ‘The Defense Acquisition System,’ 12 May 2003.

 b. Develop and implement a comprehensive, outcome-based, product support strategy.

 c. Promote opportunities to maximize competition while meeting the objective of best-value long-term outcomes to the warfighter.

 d. Seek to leverage enterprise opportunities across programs and DoD Components.

 e. Use appropriate analytical tools and conduct appropriate cost analyses, including cost-benefit analyses, as specified in Office of Management and Budget Circular A-94 ‘Guidelines and Discount Rates for Benefit-Cost Analysis of Federal Programs,’ 29 October 1992 to determine the preferred product support strategy.

 f. Develop and implement appropriate product support arrangements.

 g. Assess and adjust resource allocations and performance requirements for product support, not less than annually, to meet warfighter needs and optimize implementation of the product support strategy.

 h. Document the product support strategy in the Life Cycle Sustainment Plan (LCSP), in accordance with DoDI 5000.02.

 i. Conduct periodic product support strategy reviews and revalidate the supporting business case analysis prior to each change in the product support strategy or every 5 years, whichever occurs first.”

Change 3 also delineated the duties of the PSM to be incorporated into the Defense Acquisition Guidebook:

“The duties of the PSM include:

 a. Providing Weapon Systems Product Support Subject Matter Expertise.  The PSM shall provide weapon systems product support subject matter expertise to the PM for the execution of his or her duties as the Total Life Cycle System Manager, in accordance with DoDD 5000.01.  In support of this PM responsibility, the PSM shall have a direct reporting relationship and be accountable to the PM for product support consistent with Public Law 111-84.

 b. Developing and Implementing a Comprehensive Product Support Strategy.  The product support strategy is designed to assure achievement of warfighter capability-driven life cycle product support outcomes documented in performance-based agreements, generally expressed in preferred terms of weapon system materiel availability, reliability, and operations and support cost affordability.  The strategy should identify the execution plan to deliver integrated product support (IPS) elements to the warfighter, producing the best value balance of materiel readiness and total ownership cost.

 c. Promoting Opportunities to Maximize Competition While Meeting the Objective of Best-Value Long-Term Outcomes to the Warfighter.  Tradeoffs between the benefits of long-term relationships and the opportunity for cost reductions through competitive processes should be considered together with associated risk.

d. Seeking to Leverage Enterprise Opportunities Across Programs and DoD Components.  Joint strategies are a top priority where more than one DoD Component is the user of the respective major weapon system or variant of the system.  Likewise, product support strategies should address a program’s product support interrelationship with other programs in their respective portfolio and joint infrastructure, similar to what is performed for operational interdependencies.

 e. Using Appropriate Analytical Tools to Determine the Preferred Product Support Strategy.  Analytical tools can take many forms (analysis of alternatives, supportability analysis, sustainment business case analysis, life cycle impact analysis), dependent upon the stage of the program’s life cycle.  These analytical tools shall incorporate the use of cost analyses, such as cost-benefit analyses as outlined in Office of Management and Budget Circular A-94, as well as other appropriate DoD and Service guidance consistent with Public Law 111-84.  These tools are used to help identify the best possible use of available DoD and industry resources at the system, subsystem, and component levels by analyzing all alternatives available to achieve the desired performance outcomes.  Additionally, resources required to implement the preferred alternative should be assessed with associated risks.  Sensitivity analyses should also be conducted against each of the IPS elements and tracked to determine those IPS elements where marginal changes could alter the preferred strategy.

 f. Developing Appropriate Product Support Arrangements for Implementation.  Development and implementation of product support arrangements should be a major consideration during strategy development to assure achievement of the desired performance outcomes. These arrangements should take the form of performance-based agreements, memorandums of agreements, memorandums of understanding, and partnering agreements or contractual agreements with product support integrators (PSIs) and product support providers (PSPs), depending on the best-value service integrators or providers.

 g. Periodically Assessing and Adjusting Resource Allocations and Performance Requirements to Meet Warfighter Needs During Strategy Implementation.  Planning, programming, budgeting, and execution of the product support strategy need to be accomplished and aligned to the warfighter’s performance-based agreements with the PM and PSM.  PSMs, working in concert with the PM, users, resource sponsors, and force providers, should adjust performance levels and resources across PSIs and PSPs as necessary to optimize implementation of the strategy based on current warfighter requirements and resource availability.

 h. Documenting the Product Support Strategy in the LCSP.  The LCSP describes the plan for the integration of sustainment activities into the acquisition strategy and operational employment of the support system.  The PSM prepares the LCSP to document the plan for formulating, integrating, and executing the product support strategy (including any support contracts) to meet the warfighter’s mission requirements. In accordance with Public Law 111-84 and DoDI 5000.02, the LCSP shall be updated to reflect the evolving maturity of the product support strategy at each milestone, full rate production (FRP), and prior to each change in the product support strategy or every 5 years, whichever occurs first.  The LCSP is approved by the milestone decision authority at each milestone and FRP decision.  Updates to the LCSP for all major weapons systems after the FRP decision shall be approved by the Component Acquisition Executive (CAE), in coordination with the Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense for Materiel Readiness.

 i. Conducting Periodic Product Support Strategy Reviews.  The product support strategy evolves with the maturation of the weapon system through its various life cycle phases.  At FRP, the LCSP should describe how the system is performing relative to the performance metrics and any required corrective actions to ensure the metrics are achieved.  Reviews and revalidations of the strategy should be performed at a minimum of every 5 years or prior to each change in the strategy to ensure alignment across system, subsystem, and component levels in support of the defined best-value outcomes.  In those situations where a support strategy is at the weapon systems level, the PSM’s reassessment should explore potential opportunities for evolving toward a portfolio approach.  In those situations where an LCSP is based on a collection of outcome-based product support strategies at the subsystem or component level, the periodic review should explicitly address integrated performance at the weapon systems level.  In all situations, the reassessment should consider opportunities to make better use of industry and DoD resources.”

First, AT&L’s “Better Buying Power 2.0” initiative was released in November 2012.  This initiative is an enhancement of the original Better Buying Power initiative announced in September 2010.  The new defense buying initiative highlights seven broad focus areas:

• Achieve affordable programs;

• Control costs throughout the product life cycle;

• Incentivize productivity and 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.

Within the seven broad focus areas there are 36 specific acquisition initiatives.  (See Figure 1.)

Figure 1

 The new effort brings new approaches, but the same aim, to defense acquisition as 2010’s Better Buying Power initiative: “to do more without more.”

Also, DoD Instruction 5000.02, “Operation of the Defense Acquisition System,” is being rewritten to address numerous laws and congressional mandates that have been passed that need to be integrated into the document.  There are many different types of products procured by DoD, and many different ways to structure programs around the type of product.  The new guidance will include several models for structuring programs based on the characteristics and support strategy of the product involved.

The draw-down of forces from southwest Asia, the need for equipment reset after more than a decade of sustained combat operations in Iraq and Afghanistan, and the new “Pivot to the Pacific” strategy have resulted in a great deal of “churn” in the DoD Acquisition Community.

At HKA we are closely following these events and we are prepared to quickly offer our clients updated tools and techniques to deal with the dynamic and challenging Defense acquisition environment.

DoD has implemented important acquisition policy initiatives in the last several years.  In particular, in October 2009, President Obama signed the Fiscal Year 2010 National Defense Authorization Act (Public Law 111-84).  The legislation contained a provision in Section 805 entitled “Life Cycle Management and Product Support” requiring:

• The Secretary of Defense to issue comprehensive guidance on life-cycle management and the development and implementation of product support strategies for major weapon systems.
• That each major weapon system be supported by a Product Support Manager (PSM).

At Harry Kahn Associates (HKA) we have been following these events very closely; including participating in the inaugural PSM Conference in June 2012.  We have also updated our Acquisition Logistics service offerings to align to the new PSM construct.

Today:

We are pleased to announce that HKA now has access to the new DoD Integrated Product Support (IPS) Implementation Roadmap.

Why is this important to you?  How can HKA help with your Product Support planning and management?  Here are some great ways HKA can help you:

Provide links to over 2,500 knowledge items, including policy, guidance, references, continuous learning modules, service specific links, and other cross-functional tools and references.

• Identify activities and outputs for each of the 12 IPS Elements for each phase the life cycle.
• Provide links to major program key events and products.
• Provide links to logistics, program, and technical review information.
• Assist in identifying and understanding what activities, decisions, and documents are required at Acquisition Milestones and key decision points.
• Provide links to the latest authoritative information relating to the new Product Support initiatives.
  • Provide access to the Life Cycle Sustainment Plan (LCSP) outline and checklists for Logistics Assessments in preparation for technical reviews.
  • Provide access to the new Defense Acquisition Guidebook (DAG) and other related DoD guides such as the Product Support Manager (PSM) and Product Support Business Cases Analysis (BCA) Guidebooks.
  • Provide links to a range of Life Cycle Logistics Acquisition Community articles.
• Help identify the importance of timely integration of product support elements to stay within program schedules and cost, and to build the best product support package.

HKA is proud to be at the forefront and an active participant in the on-going IPS dialogue.  We are eager to support you in the implementation of next-generation product support strategies.

Cost efficiencies, throughout a process, can be gained by careful process improvement analysis. Normally this analysis reveals that outsourcing of specific aspects of operations to organizations that specialize in those services or products has provided substantial benefit. These benefits accrue not only in cost reduction, but also in quality of product and timeliness of delivery.

Technical documentation development is one such area that is often neglected or completely overlooked by manufacturers and yet is critical to the delivery of a “total package” that fully meets the customer’s expectations. Quality technical documentation ensures that the end-user has a positive experience with the product and easy access to the information they require to safely and effectively operate and maintain the equipment.

Technical documentation takes many forms and the content and appearance specifications governing its creation and update can be complex or even overwhelming (but most certainly time consuming) to manufacturer’s technical staff. Operation and maintenance manuals, logistical support data and training materials, especially if the products are being sold to the DoD are also critical in satisfying contract requirements and milestone goals that directly affect contract performance, receipt of payments and consequently cash flow (especially critical for small to mid-sized OEMs).

Outsourcing for these services can dramatically improve efficiency and allow more effective and efficient use of costly labor while producing a better quality product, especially when developing these products is collateral duty for the manufacturer’s already over-taxed technical staff. Engineers can instead concentrate their time on product design and improvement.

Harry Kahn Associates, Inc. (HKA) has an outstanding reputation in performing these services for OEMs. Throughout a typical project HKA performs as the OEM’s subject matter experts in all aspects of technical data development, ensuring that all goes smoothly with the customer throughout the development, multiple review cycles and delivery of these products.

If you find yourself in this situation, please don’t hesitate to contact us at (www.harrykahn.com/contact) to see how we can help you be successful with your existing project or to team with us on upcoming Government procurements.

HKA has an extensive history of successful Government Contracting and the production of quality technical data in accordance with the wide assortment of specifications indicated in Government requirements for a variety of equipment including but not limited to aircraft systems and their support equipment. We understand the environment, the customer and most importantly their expectations and needs as well as the indepth detail of coverage that is required.

Operation and Maintenance manuals can take the form of “native” or on an increasing basis “structured authoring” formats. Typical Government required deliverables can be anything from page-based paper documents to Interactive Electronic Technical Manuals (IETM).

Logistical data is typically required by the Government for all of their new equipment acquisitions and involves a complex process of analysis, compilation of applicable data and metrics which then are used to manage the equipment throughout its lifecycle. This is not simply providing a parts catalog or a set of engineering drawings, but a full-blown logistical engineering process that goes hand-in-hand with Systems and Design Engineering to produce a quality product that can be easily and economically maintained while achieving high levels of availability for its intended mission.

Training data is critical to ensure that end users can safely and effectively operate and maintain the equipment both in the field and in the depot. For the Government customer, it must be developed in accordance with specifications which govern its content, arrangement and delivery mechanism.

Throughout a typical project HKA performs as the OEM’s subject matter experts in all aspects of technical data development, ensuring that all goes smoothly with the customer throughout the development, multiple review cycles and delivery of these products.

If you find yourself in this situation, please don’t hesitate to contact us at (www.harrykahn.com/contact) to see how we can help you be successful with your existing project or to team with us on upcoming Government procurements.

DEFINITION

A solicitation is any request to submit offers or quotations to the Government. Solicitations under sealed bid procedures are called “invitations for bids.” Solicitations under negotiated procedures are called “requests for proposals.” Solicitations under simplified acquisition procedures may require submission of either a quotation or an offer.

GENERAL INFORMATION/NARRATIVE

There are three primary methods by which the Government informs prospective contractors of the Government’s requirements and to solicit offers:

Simplified Acquisition Procedures (FAR Part 13). The simplified acquisition methods include use of the Government Purchase Card, Purchase Orders, and Blanket Purchase Agreements. The Contracting Officer solicits offers from prospective contractors on these purchase items by issuing a “Request for Quotation” (RFQ). Any responses provided by the potential offerors do not in themselves constitute a legally binding contract. FAR 13.004(a) states:

“A quotation is not an offer and, consequently, cannot be accepted by the Government to form a binding contract. Therefore, issuance by the Government of an order in response to a supplier’s quotation does not establish a contract. The order is an offer by the Government to the supplier to buy certain supplies or services upon specified terms and conditions. A contract is established when the supplier accepts the offer.”

Sealed Bidding (FAR Part 14). Sealed bidding is a competitive bid method of contracting that determines contract award based on price. After bids are publicly opened, an award will be made to the “responsible, responsive” bidder” whose bid, conforming to the invitation for bids, will be most advantageous to the Government, considering only price and the price-related factors included in the invitation” (FAR 14.101(e)).

Contracting by Negotiation (FAR Part 15). A
Request for Proposals (RFP) is used in negotiated acquisitions, generally for requirements that are above the Simplified Acquisition Threshold and those that do not meet the sealed bidding requirements of FAR 6.401(a). Unlike an RFQ, where the contractual agreement is entered into when the supplier accepts the Government’s offer (or order) to procure supplies or services, an RFP results in a binding contract when both parties come to an agreement on the terms and conditions of the contract. This agreement could occur upon initial receipt of the offeror’s proposal in response to the RFP or after further discussion or negotiations by the parties. Whereas in a Sealed Bidding environment a contract award is based strictly on price or price-related factors, the use of an RFP allows the Government to make an award based on “trading off” other areas that may be deemed more important than simply the lowest price. Other elements that could be considered include technical performance factors and past performance considerations.

At a minimum, the RFP shall describe (i) the Government’s requirement; (ii) the anticipated terms and conditions that will be contained in the contract, (iii) the required information that the prospective offerors must include in their proposal, and (iv) the factors and significant sub-factors (to include their relative importance) that will be used by the Government to evaluate the proposals. The RFP may, at the discretion of the Government, allow offerors to propose alternative terms and conditions including the contract line item number (CLIN) structure.

RFPs are frequently issued via electronic commerce, e.g., FedBizOpps.gov. Interested offerors may post their proposals in this manner as well, as long as they are complying with the conditions set forth in the RFP. The electronic commerce method(s) that offerors may use will be stated in the RFP.

The contracting officer may issue a “letter RFP” in sole-source acquisitions and in certain other appropriate circumstances (see FAR 15-203(e)). When using a letter RFP, it should include as much information as normally required; it does not relieve the contracting officer from complying with other FAR requirements.

The contracting officer may issue an “oral” RFP if he/she determines that processing a written solicitation would delay the acquisition of supplies or services to the detriment of the Government, and that a synopsis notice is not required. Examples include the procurement of perishable items and procurements in support of contingency operations or other emergency situations. As with the use of a letter RFP, the issuance of an oral RFP does not relieve the contracting officer from complying with other FAR requirements.

As explained in FAR 15.204-1, the contracting officer shall prepare solicitations under FAR Part 15 procedures by using the Uniform Contract Format (UCF), unless otherwise exempt by the FAR. Common exemptions to the use of the UCF include contracts for commercial items, construction and architect-engineer contracts, contracts for supplies or services requiring special contract formats, the issuance of a letter RFP, and contracts exempted by the agency head or designee.

The Uniform Contract Format

The use of the UCF facilitates preparation of the solicitation and contract. All elements of Part I, II, and III in the solicitation will become part of the awarded contract. Section K of the solicitation will be incorporated into the contract by reference. Part L and M do not become part of the subsequent contract, but will remain in the Government’s contract file.

Commercial Items (FAR Part 12). Most acquisitions that utilize procedures from FAR Parts 13, 14, and 15 are for the acquisition of commercial items. Because of this, the electronic combined synopsis/solicitation for commercial items is typically used. It is prepared in accordance with the format prescribed in FAR Subpart 12.6. The use of the UCF in the acquisition of commercial items under FAR Part 12 is neither required nor prohibited (FAR 12.207.)

DEFINITION

FAR 2.101 defines a Pre-award survey as “an evaluation of a prospective contractor’s capability to perform a proposed contract.” The purpose of a preaward survey is to obtain information not available to the contracting officer to make a responsibility determination prior to contract award.

GENERAL INFORMATION/NARRATIVE

Prior to awarding a contract, the contracting officer must make an affirmative statement of responsibility of the prospective contractor. In making this responsibility determination, the contracting officer shall consider information from various sources to include conducting a pre-award survey of the prospective contractor if the necessary information cannot be obtained by the contracting officer.

The pre-award survey is initiated by the contracting officer using the Standard Form (SF) 1403. The 1403 outlines the additional information needed to determine responsibility (FAR 9.106-2). The contracting officer should only include information that is necessary to make the responsibility determination. The more information requested, the greater the time necessary to complete the survey, possibly delaying the acquisition. Normally, the contracting officer will need additional information on the prospective contractor’s production capability, technical capability, financial capability, or ability to deliver the required supply or service in accordance with the contract. The contracting officer may also want to determine the adequacy of the prospective contractors accounting system if a cost type contract is being considered. The preaward survey can also be used to find out if the prospective contractor is able to comply with the appropriate labor laws such as the Walsh-Healey Public Contracts Act, Service Contract Act, or various OSHA regulations. Regardless of what information is needed, the contracting officer should only request the minimum information needed to make a responsibility determination. Once complete, the SF 1403 and solicitation are sent to the surveying activity. Within DoD, the surveying activity is normally the Defense Contract Management Agency. Before the surveying activity conducts the survey, it will confirm if the prospective contractor is debarred or suspended. It also determines if the procurement is for a commercial item and if it is over the simplified acquisition threshold (FAR 9.106-1(a)). The surveying activity will then determine what type of survey is needed.

TYPES OF PRE-AWARD SURVEYS

There are three types of formal surveys; General Purpose Capability Study, Onsite Survey, and Short Form. The General Purpose Capability Study is a study of the general capabilities and qualifications of the prospective contractor. General Purpose Capability Studies do not consider the quantity of the items being procured, or the required delivery schedule in the solicitation. An award recommendation is not made, but a risk rating may be provided. The information to be included in the General Purpose Capability Study will come from data readily available to the surveying activity; no onsite visit is required.

If the information is not readily available, then an onsite survey must be conducted. When an onsite survey is required, the surveying activity will coordinate a visit to the prospective contractor’s facility. The prospective contractor will be informed of the information that is required and grants the surveying activity access to the facility. If the contractor does not grant access, the responsibility determination cannot be made and the prospective contractor may not win the contract. The survey team includes may include the contracting officer or buyer, quality assurance representative, safety representative, legal counsel, technical subject matter expert, and others as necessary. Once the onsite visit is made, the surveying activity reports the findings of the visit and may provide an award recommendation and risk rating to the contracting officer.

The third type of formal pre-award survey is the short form survey. This type is used when the surveying activity can make an award recommendation and risk rating to the contracting officer based on the information readily available without having to conduct an onsite survey. The surveying activity will annotate on the SF 1403 that the survey is a short form survey.

If the contracting officer determines that the information needed does not require a formal survey, he/she can request an informal survey. This request can be made over the phone or via email; the SF 1403 is not needed. Information for the informal survey comes from data readily available to the surveying activity and can include information contained in formal surveys that were conducted within the last 12 months. An informal survey does not contain an award recommendation, but can provide a risk rating if sufficient information is available. If the surveying activity determines that the information is not available, it may recommend that the contracting officer request a formal survey.

When requesting any type of pre-award survey, the contracting officer needs to consider the time required to conduct the survey. General Purpose Capability Studies and Onsite Surveys may take as long as 45 days to complete, while Short Form and informal surveys can be completed in a matter of days.

In addition to requesting a pre-award survey from a surveying activity within the DoD, the FAR allows the contracting officer to request a survey from another agency (FAR 9.106-3)

Once the pre-award survey is complete and the report received, the contracting officer should have the necessary information to make a determination of responsibility.

As always, we’re very interested in your feedback.  Please provide us with your comments, questions, topics you’d like to see covered. Also you can join us on LinkedIn at http://www.linkedin.com/groups?gid=4399124&trk=myg_ugrp_ovr

Harry Kahn Associates had the opportunity to attend the Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense (Materiel Readiness) sponsored PSM Conference at DAU onboardFortBelvoir recently.

The theme of the conference was “Integrating Government and Industry for Improved Product Support” and was aimed at providing affordable sustainment solutions that meet the warfighter’s needs.

More than 350 Life Cycle Logistics professionals gathered to discuss and share ideas on the wide range of challenges, processes, best practices, lessons learned, and policy and guidance related to the recent congressionally mandated PSM approach to Life Cycle Logistics and sustainment.

HKA is proud to be at the forefront and an active participant in the on-going PSM dialogue.

The Evolution of PSM

In October 2009, President Obama signed the Fiscal Year 2010 National Defense Authorization Act (Public Law 111-84). The legislation contained a provision in Section 805 entitled “Life Cycle Management and Product Support” requiring:

• The Secretary of Defense to issue comprehensive guidance on life-cycle management and the development and implementation of product support strategies for major weapon systems; and
• that each major weapon system be supported by a Product Support Manager (PSM).

Subsequently, the DoD Product Support Manager (PSM) Guidebook was published in April 2011. A foundational precept of the PSM construct has been the development of the Product Support Business Model (PSBM).  From the PSM Guidebook:

“The PSBM defines the hierarchical framework in which the planning, development, implementation, management, and execution of product support for a weapon system component, subsystem, or system platform will be accomplished over the life cycle. The PSBM effectively describes the methodology by which DoD intends to ensure achievement of optimized product support through balancing maximum weapon system availability with the most affordable and predictable total ownership cost. The model provides a clearly delineated description of the roles, relationships, accountability, responsibility and business agreements among the managers, integrators, and providers of product support. Those roles and responsibilities are portrayed, consistent with their level of accountability and responsibility, in the figure below.”

The PSBM recognizes two fundamental axioms of product support:

• With rare exception, every product support strategy is dependent on both organic and commercial industry support.
• The objective of the product support strategy is to achieve operational readiness outcomes based on optimizing the Integrated Product Support (ISP) elements that comprise the support strategy.

The role of the PSM:

• Develop and implement a comprehensive product support strategy for the weapon system.
• Conduct appropriate cost analyses to validate the product support strategy.
• Assure achievement of desired product support outcomes through development and implementation of appropriate product support arrangements.
• Adjust performance requirements and resource allocations across Product Support Integrators (PSIs) and Product Support Providers (PSPs) as necessary to optimize implementation of the product support strategy.
• Periodically review product support arrangements between the PSIs and PSPs to ensure the arrangements are consistent with the overall product support strategy.

Note: While the PSM is inherently a government function, OEMs will typically be closely involved in supporting the PSM.

The role of the Product Support Integrator (PSI):

• Is assigned within the scope, direction, and oversight of the PSM. (Note: The PSI is assigned at the discretion of the PSM; not all programs will require a PSI).
• PSIs accomplish their product support role through use of one or more Product Support Providers (PSPs).
• PSIs are responsible for the activities and output of one or more PSPs within a specific product support element or across product support elements.
• A PSI may also perform the function of a PSP.
• A PSI may be either a government or commercial entity.

The role of the Product Support Provider (PSP):

• Assigned responsibilities to perform and accomplish the functions represented by the IPS elements which comprise the range of best value assigned workloads that achieve the Warfighter support outcomes.
• Typically, OEMs are assigned as PSPs.

The Evolution of the Twelve Elements of Integrated Product Support (IPS)

In order to support the PSM construct, the quintessential DoD Ten Elements of Integrated Logistics Support (ILS) have been expanded and evolved into the Twelve Elements of IPS as follows:

• Product Support Management
• Design Interface
• Sustaining Engineering
• Supply Support
• Maintenance Planning and Management
• Packaging, Handling, Storage, and Transportation (PHS&T)
• Technical Data
• Support Equipment
• Training & Training Support
• Manpower & Personnel
• Facilities and Infrastructure
• Computer Resources

Stay tuned to Harry Kahn Associates (www.harrykahn.com) for further developments in the evolution of PSM.

The PSM Conference was the lead story in a recent Defense Industry Daily Newsletter. Rapid Fire June 11, 2012: Product Support Manager Conference Proceedings

How can I document and control “versioning” when I sell highly customizable equipment?

How do I provide manuals that are compliant with my customer’s specification?

How do I standardize my vendor manuals to a generally accepted content and format spec?

Is there too much “stuff” in my current documentation that isn’t really necessary, and could it be confusing my end users?

The technical manual development process is an ordeal I don’t need to experience again!

Sound familiar? If so, we can help.

For almost 70 years, Harry Kahn Associates, Inc. (HKA) has been helping our customers solve their technical documentation problems. It’s what we do. From hand-held radios to ground support equipment and aircraft systems – we listen, we analyze, we propose solutions and we deliver.

Contact us at:

Harry Kahn Associates, Inc.
13126 Pennsylvania Ave, Suite 104
Hagerstown, MD 21742

Attn: Charlene Moyer – Sales Coordinator
301-797-3390 #101
cmoyer@harrykahn.com
fax 301-797-3392

When selling equipment to the DoD, manufacturers are faced with the daunting task of ensuring that their product documentation complies with military maintenance philosophies, provisioning and specifications.

Often, OEM documentation does not provide adequate maintenance and operation data and procedures to satisfy the requirements of the military for keeping critical equipment functioning properly and bringing it back online as quickly as possible after a failure or planned maintenance cycle.

This documentation requirement goes much deeper than just making sure that the product’s operation and maintenance manuals “look” like Military Specification manuals. It requires a complete understanding of the underlying logistic, maintenance and operational philosophy for the equipment in its intended DoD operating environment.

Our extensive expertise in the preparation of Mil-Spec compliant documentation from OEM data allows us to effectively address the complexities of this requirement and provide our customers with worry free data products to deliver with their hardware.

HKA has:

• Extensive Experience In Development Of Mil-Spec Compliant Technical Data
• Full Range of Documentation Support Services
• Reputation for Quality and Responsiveness
• ISO-9001 Certified Processes

Contact us at:

Harry Kahn Associates, Inc.
13126 Pennsylvania Ave, Suite 104
Hagerstown, MD 21742

Attn: Charlene Moyer – Sales Coordinator
301-797-3390 #101
cmoyer@harrykahn.com
fax 301-797-3392