SMC-S-21

Abstract

This document describes the objective requirements for the conduct of Technical Reviews and Audits on such end items (EIs) as a system, equipment, distributed and embedded Software Configuration Item (SWCI), Hardware Configuration Item (HWCI), and/or a combination thereof. <br>This document is an update to MIL-STD-1521B (USAF) Technical Reviews and Audits for Systems, Equipments and Computer Software, and will be issued as a USAF Space and Missile Systems Center (SMC) standard (STD) for planning and execution of key system engineering reviews. This update also documents a desired process and associated criteria for technical reviews and audits. <br><strong>This document is composed of two volumes:</strong> <br><strong>Volume 1</strong> &#8211; defines a generic set of technical reviews and audits for systems, equipment, and computer software EIs and the guidance for the cost effective application and tailoring of this standard for the reviews described in Appendixes A through K: <br>Appendix A System Requirements Reviews (SRR) <br>Appendix B System Functional Reviews (SFR) <br>Appendix C Software Requirements and Architecture Review (SAR) <br>Appendix D Preliminary Design Reviews (PDR) <br>Appendix E Critical Design Reviews (CDR) <br>Appendix F Test Readiness Review (TRR) <br>Appendix G Functional Configuration Audit (FCA) <br>Appendix H Physical Configuration Audit (PCA) <br>Appendix I System Verification Review (SVR) <br>Appendix J Production and Manufacturing Readiness Review (P/MRR) <br>Appendix K Application Guide for Tailoring MIL-STD-1521 <br><strong>Volume 2</strong> &#8211; provides specific and unique supplemental criteria content for the core technical reviews (SRR, SFR, SAR, PDR, and CDR) in Volume 1 for Space Systems specific equipment, and computer software end items (EIs) to be implemented per the contract Statement of Work (SOW). These criteria also include parts, materials, structures; systems engineering, tests and processes. <br>This update provides the Government's requirements for criteria-based technical reviews, specified under the following five major categories: <br>1. Systems engineering and architecture development <br>2. System, segment and subsystem design <br>3. System verification and validation <br>4. Engineering disciplines and specialty engineering <br>5. Integrated technical risk and mitigation <br>of the end item (EI) development maturity and operational utilization objectives in greater detail at the following core reviews: <br>Appendix A System Requirements Review (SRR) <br>Appendix B System Functional Review (SFR) <br>Appendix C Software Requirements and Architectures Review (SAR) <br>Appendix D Preliminary Design Review (PDR) <br>Appendix E Critical Design Review (CDR) <br>The update also identifies and delineates criteria for selected disciplines and specialty areas in varying detail and the associated work that shall be performed and documented in support of the above core reviews in terms of generic requirements criteria examples across all DoD systems developments. In addition, this update also defines the required quality attributes, sufficiency, and progress of the contractor's documented accomplishments, along with the engineering disciplines and specialty processes, to be presented as specific evidence of the contractor's accomplishments. <br>Terms and definitions related to general technical reviews are described in Section 3 of this document. The general technical criteria required for all reviews are provided in Section 4. Section 5 describes the typical working relationships and roles and responsibilities between contractor and contracting agents, which encompass process steps that can be taken in preparation for and closure of each technical review. The content of Section 5 is intended as source material for planning and negotiations for conduct of the technical reviews between the contracting agents. <br><strong>Purpose</strong> <br>The technical reviews and audits are necessary systems engineering (SE) activities performed to assess technical progress within a program, relative to contractual requirements and developmental maturity. <br>Technical reviews of program progress shall be event-driven and conducted when the system under development meets the review entrance criteria as documented in the Systems Engineering Plan (SEP). The technical reviews and audits shall include participation by subject matter experts who are independent of the program (i.e., peer review), unless specifically waived by the SEP approval authority as documented in the SEP. <br>The technical reviews are conducted by the contractors and subcontractors, also referred to as primes and subs at logical transition points in the development and design efforts, for an idealized EI in various phases of an EI's development to: <br>1. Determine the contractor's technical progress achieved to date <br>2. Compare the EIs' performance against the requirements <br>3. Identify potential impediments and risks to each EI's design execution <br>4. Determine mitigation plans to avert program schedule delays and unplanned resource expenditures. <br>The contracting agency shall perform initial tailoring of this document in accordance with (IAW) Appendix K Application Guide for Tailoring MIL-STD-1521, to require only what is needed for each individual acquisition, and address appropriate program scope, program size, and technical progress within the acquisition life cycle. <br>Technical Reviews and Audits defined herein shall be conducted in accordance with this standard to the extent specified in the contract clauses, Statement of Work (SOW), Compliance Standards List, and the Contract Data Requirements List that is based on the Government's need for technical data required to support the acquisition and life cycle support strategies. Guidance in applying this standard is provided in Section 4 and 5. <br>These technical reviews provide a method and forum for the primes and subs and the contracting agency to assess whether the status of the end item under development and the supporting documentation have met contract requirements and expectations, with an appropriate level of maturity, to continue to the next phase of the program with manageable risk.