1. MRL Assessment Thread A Evaluation
01/23/2018
Josh Rosen
Northrop Grumman Mission Systems

2. Thread A “Technology and Industrial Base Criteria” Concern
Thread A criteria for “Technology and Industrial Base” contains redundant criteria with the following sub threads:
D.2 Materials/Availability
D.3 Materials/Supply Chain Management
E.2 Manufacturing Process Maturity
I.2 Materials Planning
Example below shows redundant areas between some of the sub threads:
Obvious redundancy between criteria
Strong correlation between criteria
No redundancy

3. A.1 / D.2 / D.3 Comparison Example
Thread
MRL 4
MRL 6
MRL 8
A.1
Industrial base capabilities surveyed and known gaps/risks identified for preferred concept, key technologies, components, and/or key processes.
Industrial base capabilities assessment for MS B has been completed. Industrial capability in place to support manufacturing of development articles. Plans to minimize sole/ foreign sources and obsolescence issues complete. Need for sole/single/foreign sources justified. Potential alternative sources identified.
Industrial base capability assessment for MS C has been completed. Industrial capability is in place to support LRIP. Sources are available, multi-sourcing where cost-effective or necessary to mitigate risk.
D.2
Projected lead times have been identified for all difficult to obtain, difficult to process, or hazardous materials. Quantities and lead times estimated.
Availability issues addressed to meet EMD build. Long-lead items identified. Components assessed for future DMSMS risk.
Availability issues pose no significant risk for LRIP. Long lead procurement initiated for LRIP. Availability issues addressed to meet FRP builds.
D.3
Survey completed for potential supply chain sources.
Lifecycle Supply Chain requirements updated. Critical suppliers list updated. Supply chain plans in place (e.g. teaming agreements, etc.) supporting an EMD contract award.
Assessment of critical second and lower tier supply chain completed. Robust requirements flow down processes in place and verified. Validated supplier compliance with program requirements and changes. Plan for predictive indicators updated and to be used in production. Supply chain adequate to support LRIP.

4. A.1 Questions for MRL 3-5 # MRL A.1 Question
Similar Question (Same MRL unless noted) 1 3
11: Have potential manufacturing sources been identified for technology needs (Understand state of the art)?
D.3-195: Has an initial assessment of potential supply chain capability been completed? 2 4
12: Have industrial base capabilities and gaps/risks been identified for key technologies, components, and/or key processes?
D.3-196: Has a survey for potential supply chain sources been completed? 5
13: Has the industrial base capabilities assessment been initiated to identify potential manufacturing sources to produce the required capability?
D.3-197: Have potential supply chain sources been identified and evaluated as able to support prototype build?
14: Have sole/single/foreign source vendors and vendors of technologies with potential obsolescence issues been identified?
D (MRL 2): Has material availability been assessed?
D.2-178: Have material availability issues been addressed for the prototype build?
D.2-179: Have significant material risks been identified for all materials?
15: Has planning begun to minimize the risks associated with sole/single/foreign source vendors?
D.2-180: Has planning begun to address scale-up issues?
D (MRL 6): Have material availability issues been addressed to meet Engineering and Manufacturing Development (EMD) build?

5. Thread A Modification Options
Perform in-depth comparison of A.1/D.2/D.3/E.3/I.2 to identify redundant criteria and then:
Clarify differences between Thread A criteria and other sub threads.
Pro: Least amount of change
Con: May be very little difference
Eliminate Thread A and add non-redundant criteria to D.2/D.3/E.3/I.2.
Pro: Completely removes redundancy
Cons: Major change to MRL Matrix, could create conflicts when parties don’t use same version
Specify Thread A in the MRL Deskbook as a stand-alone high level assessment only (Manufacturing Feasibility Assessment?), and add non-redundant criteria to D.2/D.3/E.3/I.2.
Pro: Adds or differentiates the value of Thread A criteria
Cons: Major change to MRL Matrix, could create conflicts when parties don’t use same version, could create confusion as to whether thread A is required or not
Leave as is
Pro: Status quo not necessarily causing major issues
Con: Confusion caused by redundant criteria continues to impact industry adoption/embracing of MRL Assessment process