Your free source for specifications, standards, and handbooks
USAF (General)
AFCEE ENVIRONMENTAL RESTORATION PERFORMANCE BASED CONTRACTING (PBC) CONCEPT OF OPERATIONS, (22 February 2007 - FINAL)
AFCEE ENVIRONMENTAL RESTORATION PERFORMANCE BASED CONTRACTING (PBC) CONCEPT OF OPERATIONS, (22 February 2007 - FINAL). This document presents the Air Force Center for Environmental Excellence’s (AFCEE’s) position regarding Performance-Based Contracting (PBC) and outlines the Concept of Operations (CONOPs) for how AFCEE will execute PBC for the Air Force Environmental Restoration Program (ERP). AFCEE conducted a series of workshops and focus group meetings with its internal staff, customers, and industry partners to craft this PBC implementation approach. The collaborative nature of AFCEE’s CONOPs development ensured key stakeholder buy-in and position statements that reflect diverse viewpoints. This AFCEE CONOPs complements the USAF HQ/ILEVR PBC guidance by detailing how AFCEE will execute PBCs for the Air Force ERP with specific discussion on AFCEE contracts, processes, and approaches. The Air Force is undergoing a systematic review of its ERP and evaluating methods to implement exit strategies for sites and bases. These exit strategies can include a multitude of different approaches including privatization deals and PBCs. Historically, maximum achievable cleanup technologies and cleanup standards have driven the ERP. Now, the AF is committed to a systematic process where the AF mission or specific reuse objectives will drive the cleanup end states and, where possible, the AF will execute exit strategies such as PBCs to achieve those objectives. AFCEE considers PBC to be a contracting approach whereby the scope of work is performed with minimal focus on process and maximum focus on results. Characteristics of PBCs include: • Government describes the objective and performance measures but does not mandate the process to be used to meet the objectives • Can be used with a variety of contract types (e.g., Firm Fixed Price, Cost Plus Incentive Fee); however, where appropriate, Firm Fixed Price contracts are preferred • Focuses on sound management principles, performance metrics, comprehensive up-front planning, risk management, and performance.
Ident. Num:
No Number
Rev. Num:
-
AFCEE ENVIRONMENTAL RESTORATION PERFORMANCE BASED CONTRACTING (PBC) CONCEPT OF OPERATIONS, (22 February 2007 - FINAL). This document presents the Air Force Center for Environmental Excellence’s (AFCEE’s) position regarding Performance-Based Contracting (PBC) and outlines the Concept of Operations (CONOPs) for how AFCEE will execute PBC for the Air Force Environmental Restoration Program (ERP). AFCEE conducted a series of workshops and focus group meetings with its internal staff, customers, and industry partners to craft this PBC implementation approach. The collaborative nature of AFCEE’s CONOPs development ensured key stakeholder buy-in and position statements that reflect diverse viewpoints. This AFCEE CONOPs complements the USAF HQ/ILEVR PBC guidance by detailing how AFCEE will execute PBCs for the Air Force ERP with specific discussion on AFCEE contracts, processes, and approaches. The Air Force is undergoing a systematic review of its ERP and evaluating methods to implement exit strategies for sites and bases. These exit strategies can include a multitude of different approaches including privatization deals and PBCs. Historically, maximum achievable cleanup technologies and cleanup standards have driven the ERP. Now, the AF is committed to a systematic process where the AF mission or specific reuse objectives will drive the cleanup end states and, where possible, the AF will execute exit strategies such as PBCs to achieve those objectives. AFCEE considers PBC to be a contracting approach whereby the scope of work is performed with minimal focus on process and maximum focus on results. Characteristics of PBCs include: • Government describes the objective and performance measures but does not mandate the process to be used to meet the objectives • Can be used with a variety of contract types (e.g., Firm Fixed Price, Cost Plus Incentive Fee); however, where appropriate, Firm Fixed Price contracts are preferred • Focuses on sound management principles, performance metrics, comprehensive up-front planning, risk management, and performance.
AFCEE ENVIRONMENTAL RESTORATION PERFORMANCE-BASED CONTRACTING GUIDEBOOK
ENVIRONMENTAL RESTORATION PERFORMANCE-BASED CONTRACTING GUIDEBOOK. I. Background and Purpose The Department of the Air Force (AF) Environmental Restoration Program (ERP) is committed to implementing performance-based contracting (PBC) to achieve cleanup program goals through a more effective acquisition process. To formalize this commitment, the Deputy Assistant Secretary for Environment, Safety, and Occupational Health (SAF/IEE) issued the AF Cleanup Program Performance-Based Management Policy memo, dated 27 October 2004, which calls for the use of PBC and acquisition strategies to the greatest extent possible.1 The AF has traditionally relied on specific contracting mechanisms that define the approaches and processes to be used for achieving the defined contract objectives. Such mechanisms typically utilize contract types such as cost reimbursable plus fee, time & material (T&M), and process-oriented firm-fixed price. Under these traditional contracting mechanisms, contractors are required to adhere to the Government-specified processes and technologies, and payments are based on contractor compliance with the provided project specifications, rather than achievement of the intended final objectives. 1 SAF/IEE memorandum, Air Force Cleanup Program Performance- Based Management Policy, 27 Oct 2004. Performance-based contracting, which typically utilizes the fixed-price contract type, represents a paradigm shift from these traditional acquisition strategies and focuses on the achievement of the desired contract objectives without specifying the processes or technologies used to achieve those objectives. Consequently, performance requirements under PBCs are established in a manner that encourages contractor innovation and creativity, while shifting contract performance risk from the Government to the contractor. Table 1 on the following page presents some key advantages and considerations in using PBC. This Guidebook is intended to provide an overview of AF’s approach for implementing PBCs and assist remedial project managers (RPMs) in: • Understanding the basics of PBC; • Screening restoration sites for potential PBC applications; • Identifying the key components of a Statement of Objectives (SOO); • Developing and successfully awarding PBCs for environmental restoration projects. PBCs are intended to be inherently flexible and applicable to a wide range of projects with numerous funding profiles, end goals, and approaches. PBCs can be utilized for part or all of the environmental restoration process, including site studies, interim removal actions, site remediation, and site closure. However, specific projects may have special considerations that require alternative approaches not discussed here, and therefore, where possible, the Guidebook provides sources on where to seek additional guidance.
Ident. Num:
No Number
Rev. Num:
-
ENVIRONMENTAL RESTORATION PERFORMANCE-BASED CONTRACTING GUIDEBOOK. I. Background and Purpose The Department of the Air Force (AF) Environmental Restoration Program (ERP) is committed to implementing performance-based contracting (PBC) to achieve cleanup program goals through a more effective acquisition process. To formalize this commitment, the Deputy Assistant Secretary for Environment, Safety, and Occupational Health (SAF/IEE) issued the AF Cleanup Program Performance-Based Management Policy memo, dated 27 October 2004, which calls for the use of PBC and acquisition strategies to the greatest extent possible.1 The AF has traditionally relied on specific contracting mechanisms that define the approaches and processes to be used for achieving the defined contract objectives. Such mechanisms typically utilize contract types such as cost reimbursable plus fee, time & material (T&M), and process-oriented firm-fixed price. Under these traditional contracting mechanisms, contractors are required to adhere to the Government-specified processes and technologies, and payments are based on contractor compliance with the provided project specifications, rather than achievement of the intended final objectives. 1 SAF/IEE memorandum, Air Force Cleanup Program Performance- Based Management Policy, 27 Oct 2004. Performance-based contracting, which typically utilizes the fixed-price contract type, represents a paradigm shift from these traditional acquisition strategies and focuses on the achievement of the desired contract objectives without specifying the processes or technologies used to achieve those objectives. Consequently, performance requirements under PBCs are established in a manner that encourages contractor innovation and creativity, while shifting contract performance risk from the Government to the contractor. Table 1 on the following page presents some key advantages and considerations in using PBC. This Guidebook is intended to provide an overview of AF’s approach for implementing PBCs and assist remedial project managers (RPMs) in: • Understanding the basics of PBC; • Screening restoration sites for potential PBC applications; • Identifying the key components of a Statement of Objectives (SOO); • Developing and successfully awarding PBCs for environmental restoration projects. PBCs are intended to be inherently flexible and applicable to a wide range of projects with numerous funding profiles, end goals, and approaches. PBCs can be utilized for part or all of the environmental restoration process, including site studies, interim removal actions, site remediation, and site closure. However, specific projects may have special considerations that require alternative approaches not discussed here, and therefore, where possible, the Guidebook provides sources on where to seek additional guidance.
AFFDL-TR-65-197, EVOLUTION OF USAF ENVIRONMENTAL TESTING
TECHNICAL REPORT AFFDL-TR-65-197, EVOLUTION OF USAF ENVIRONMENTAL TESTING. This report presents supporting data and background information on the origination and development of natural and induced environmental tests intended for USAF aerospace and ground equipment. The growth of environmental criteria and test procedures is traced from the first Army Air Force specification No. 41065 dated 7 December 1946 to MIL-STD-810A (USAF) dated 23 June 1964.
Ident. Num:
AFFDL-TR-65-197
Rev. Num:
-
TECHNICAL REPORT AFFDL-TR-65-197, EVOLUTION OF USAF ENVIRONMENTAL TESTING. This report presents supporting data and background information on the origination and development of natural and induced environmental tests intended for USAF aerospace and ground equipment. The growth of environmental criteria and test procedures is traced from the first Army Air Force specification No. 41065 dated 7 December 1946 to MIL-STD-810A (USAF) dated 23 June 1964.
AFI 91-202, THE US AIR FORCE MISHAP PREVENTION PROGRAM
AIR FORCE INSTRUCTION (AFI) 91-202, THE US AIR FORCE MISHAP PREVENTION PROGRAM. This instruction implements AFPD 91-2, Safety Programs. It establishes mishap prevention program requirements, assigns responsibilities for program elements, and contains program management information. It applies to all Air Force personnel, including Air Force Reserve and Air National Guard members. In overseas areas, follow this instruction as long as it's consistent with host country laws and status- of-forces agreements. This instruction implements NATO Standardization Agreements (STANAGs) 3101, Exchange of Accident/Incident Information concerning Aircraft and Missiles; 3102, Flight Safety Cooperation; 3531, Safety investigation and Reporting of Accident/Incidents Involving Military Aircraft and/or Missiles; and 3750, Reporting and Investigation of Airmiss Incidents. Send major command (MAJCOM) supplements to HQ AFSC/SEP, 9700 G Avenue SE, Kirtland AFB NM 87117-5670, for coordination and approval before publication. Attachment 1 contains references, abbreviations, acronyms, and terms used in this instruction. Unless noted otherwise, AF/SE is the waiver authority for provisions in AFI 91-202. For purposes of this instruction, the term MAJCOM includes FOAs and DRUs.
Ident. Num:
91-202
AIR FORCE INSTRUCTION (AFI) 91-202, THE US AIR FORCE MISHAP PREVENTION PROGRAM. This instruction implements AFPD 91-2, Safety Programs. It establishes mishap prevention program requirements, assigns responsibilities for program elements, and contains program management information. It applies to all Air Force personnel, including Air Force Reserve and Air National Guard members. In overseas areas, follow this instruction as long as it's consistent with host country laws and status- of-forces agreements. This instruction implements NATO Standardization Agreements (STANAGs) 3101, Exchange of Accident/Incident Information concerning Aircraft and Missiles; 3102, Flight Safety Cooperation; 3531, Safety investigation and Reporting of Accident/Incidents Involving Military Aircraft and/or Missiles; and 3750, Reporting and Investigation of Airmiss Incidents. Send major command (MAJCOM) supplements to HQ AFSC/SEP, 9700 G Avenue SE, Kirtland AFB NM 87117-5670, for coordination and approval before publication. Attachment 1 contains references, abbreviations, acronyms, and terms used in this instruction. Unless noted otherwise, AF/SE is the waiver authority for provisions in AFI 91-202. For purposes of this instruction, the term MAJCOM includes FOAs and DRUs.
AFMAN 36-2234, INSTRUCTIONAL SYSTEM DEVELOPMENT (AF MANUAL 36-2234) (1 NOV 1993)
AFMAN 36-2234, INSTRUCTIONAL SYSTEM DEVELOPMENT (AF MANUAL 36-2234) (1 NOV 1993)., This manual describes the Instructional System Development (ISD) principles and processes for developing education and training programs in the United States Air Force. It presents an instructional design model for analyzing, designing, developing, and implementing effective and cost-efficient instructional systems. Applications of the principles and processes in this manual are found in the various volumes of Air Force Handbook 36-2235. This manual applies to all personnel who plan, design, develop, implement, approve, administer, conduct, evaluate or manage Air Force instruction. It also applies to Air National Guard (ANG) and U.S. Air Force Reserve (USAFR) units and members.
Ident. Num:
AFMAN 36-2234
Rev. Num:
-
AFMAN 36-2234, INSTRUCTIONAL SYSTEM DEVELOPMENT (AF MANUAL 36-2234) (1 NOV 1993)., This manual describes the Instructional System Development (ISD) principles and processes for developing education and training programs in the United States Air Force. It presents an instructional design model for analyzing, designing, developing, and implementing effective and cost-efficient instructional systems. Applications of the principles and processes in this manual are found in the various volumes of Air Force Handbook 36-2235. This manual applies to all personnel who plan, design, develop, implement, approve, administer, conduct, evaluate or manage Air Force instruction. It also applies to Air National Guard (ANG) and U.S. Air Force Reserve (USAFR) units and members.
AFMAN 91-201, EXPLOSIVES SAFETY STANDARDS (7 MAR 2000)
AFMAN 91-201, EXPLOSIVES SAFETY STANDARDS (7 MAR 2000)., This manual implements Air Force Policy Directive (AFPD) 91-2, Safety Programs, and DoD 6055.9-Std, DoD Ammunition and Explosives Safety Standards. It establishes a central source for explosive safety criteria. It identifies hazards and states safety precautions and rules when working with explosives. It applies to everyone involved in explosives operations of any kind at Air Force, Air National Guard and Air Force Reserve-owned or leased facilities and to US-titled ammunition in contractor or host-nation facilities. Compliance is mandatory, but only as minimum safety standards.
Ident. Num:
91-201
Rev. Num:
-
AFMAN 91-201, EXPLOSIVES SAFETY STANDARDS (7 MAR 2000)., This manual implements Air Force Policy Directive (AFPD) 91-2, Safety Programs, and DoD 6055.9-Std, DoD Ammunition and Explosives Safety Standards. It establishes a central source for explosive safety criteria. It identifies hazards and states safety precautions and rules when working with explosives. It applies to everyone involved in explosives operations of any kind at Air Force, Air National Guard and Air Force Reserve-owned or leased facilities and to US-titled ammunition in contractor or host-nation facilities. Compliance is mandatory, but only as minimum safety standards.
AFPD 62-6, USAF AIRCRAFT AIRWORTHINESS CERTIFICATION (1 OCT 2000)
AFPD 62-6, USAF AIRCRAFT AIRWORTHINESS CERTIFICATION (1 OCT 2000)., Aircraft owned and operated by the Air Force fall under the Federal Aviation Regulation definition of public aircraft and thus the Air Force is the responsible agent for certification of airworthiness. This policy establishes the requirement for airworthiness certification of USAF aircraft by the responsible single manager and establishes the Airworthiness Certification Criteria Control Board (AC3B). This policy applies to all US Air Force aircraft, including those of the Air National Guard (ANG) and US Air Force Reserve Command (AFRC).
Ident. Num:
62-6
Rev. Num:
-
AFPD 62-6, USAF AIRCRAFT AIRWORTHINESS CERTIFICATION (1 OCT 2000)., Aircraft owned and operated by the Air Force fall under the Federal Aviation Regulation definition of public aircraft and thus the Air Force is the responsible agent for certification of airworthiness. This policy establishes the requirement for airworthiness certification of USAF aircraft by the responsible single manager and establishes the Airworthiness Certification Criteria Control Board (AC3B). This policy applies to all US Air Force aircraft, including those of the Air National Guard (ANG) and US Air Force Reserve Command (AFRC).
AFRL-ML-WP-TR-2001-4027 (VOL 1 ENGLISH UNITS), PRELIMINARY MATERIAL PROPERTIES HANDBOOK (JULY 2000)
AFRL-ML-WP-TR-2001-4027 (VOL 1 ENGLISH UNITS), PRELIMINARY MATERIAL PROPERTIES HANDBOOK (JULY 2000). This document is intended primarily as a source of summarized test data for the transition of emerging materials new to the aerospace industry.
Ident. Num:
TR-2001-4027
Rev. Num:
-
AFRL-ML-WP-TR-2001-4027 (VOL 1 ENGLISH UNITS), PRELIMINARY MATERIAL PROPERTIES HANDBOOK (JULY 2000). This document is intended primarily as a source of summarized test data for the transition of emerging materials new to the aerospace industry.
AFRL-ML-WP-TR-2001-4027 (VOL 2, SI UNITS), PRELIMINARY MATERIAL PROPERTIES HANDBOOK (JULY 2000)
AFRL-ML-WP-TR-2001-4027 (VOL 2, SI UNITS), PRELIMINARY MATERIAL PROPERTIES HANDBOOK (JULY 2000). This document is intended primarily as a source of summarized test data for the transition of emerging materials new to the aerospace industry.
Ident. Num:
AFRL-ML-WP-TR-2001-4027
Rev. Num:
-
AFRL-ML-WP-TR-2001-4027 (VOL 2, SI UNITS), PRELIMINARY MATERIAL PROPERTIES HANDBOOK (JULY 2000). This document is intended primarily as a source of summarized test data for the transition of emerging materials new to the aerospace industry.
AIR FORCE INSTRUCTION 32-1042, STANDARDS FOR MARKING AIRFIELDS (27 OCT 2005)
AIR FORCE INSTRUCTION 32-1042, STANDARDS FOR MARKING AIRFIELDS (27 OCT 2005)., This instruction implements Air Force policy directive (AFPD) 32-10, Installations and Facilities. It pro- vides Air Force standards for marking airfield pavements and obstructions. It gives the minimum level of marking necessary for paved surfaces of runways, taxiways, helipads, and the surfaces of obstructions. (See Engineering Technical Letter (ETL) 04-7, C-130 and C-17 Landing Zone (LZ) Dimensional, Mark- ing, and Lighting Criteria, for landing zone marking requirements.) It applies to all Air Force activities except those operating at airports owned and controlled by an authority other than the Department of Defense (DoD). For airports under Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) jurisdiction, use FAA Advi- sory Circular (AC) 150/5340-1, Standards for Airport Markings. For DoD facilities overseas, if a written agreement exists between the host nation and DoD that requires application of North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO), International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO), or FAA standards, those stan- dards shall apply as stipulated within the agreement. For cases where a Status of Forces Agreement (SOFA) specifically requires international standards, use ICAO Annex 14, Volume I, Aerodromes (for fixed wing runways) or Annex 14, Volume II, Heliports (for rotary wing helipads and runways), as appro- priate. Air Force tenant organizations on civil airports should use these standards on the military portion of the airfield to the maximum extent practicable; otherwise, FAA criteria apply. Use this instruction in conjunction with the layout criteria provided in ETL 04-2, Standard Airfield Pavement Marking Schemes.
Ident. Num:
AFI 32-1042
Rev. Num:
-
AIR FORCE INSTRUCTION 32-1042, STANDARDS FOR MARKING AIRFIELDS (27 OCT 2005)., This instruction implements Air Force policy directive (AFPD) 32-10, Installations and Facilities. It pro- vides Air Force standards for marking airfield pavements and obstructions. It gives the minimum level of marking necessary for paved surfaces of runways, taxiways, helipads, and the surfaces of obstructions. (See Engineering Technical Letter (ETL) 04-7, C-130 and C-17 Landing Zone (LZ) Dimensional, Mark- ing, and Lighting Criteria, for landing zone marking requirements.) It applies to all Air Force activities except those operating at airports owned and controlled by an authority other than the Department of Defense (DoD). For airports under Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) jurisdiction, use FAA Advi- sory Circular (AC) 150/5340-1, Standards for Airport Markings. For DoD facilities overseas, if a written agreement exists between the host nation and DoD that requires application of North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO), International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO), or FAA standards, those stan- dards shall apply as stipulated within the agreement. For cases where a Status of Forces Agreement (SOFA) specifically requires international standards, use ICAO Annex 14, Volume I, Aerodromes (for fixed wing runways) or Annex 14, Volume II, Heliports (for rotary wing helipads and runways), as appro- priate. Air Force tenant organizations on civil airports should use these standards on the military portion of the airfield to the maximum extent practicable; otherwise, FAA criteria apply. Use this instruction in conjunction with the layout criteria provided in ETL 04-2, Standard Airfield Pavement Marking Schemes.
AIR FORCE INSTRUCTION 63-107, INTEGRATED PRODUCT SUPPORT PLANNING AND ASSESSMENT (10 NOV 2004)
AIR FORCE INSTRUCTION 63-107, INTEGRATED PRODUCT SUPPORT PLANNING AND ASSESSMENT (10 NOV 2004)., his Air Force Instruction (AFI) implements Air Force Policy Directive (AFPD)20-5, Air Force Product Support Planning and Management and AFPD63-1, Capability-Based Acquisition System. It vests responsibility for both acquisition and sustainment product support planning in the Program Manager (PM). Air Force Space Command (AFSPC) is exempt from this AFI for systems not acquired under Department of Defense Instruction (DODI)5000.2, Operation of the Defense Acquisition System. The Department of Defense (DOD) concept of life cycle system management assigns the PM authority and responsibility for implementation, management, and oversight of all activities associated with a DOD sys- tem throughout its life cycle. The PM is accountable through the Program Executive Officer (PEO) or Air Logistics Center (ALC) Commander (CC) reporting chain for ensuring viable and complementary acqui- sition and sustainment strategies are developed early in the system life cycle. PM responsibility for secu- rity assistance (SA) [foreign military sales (FMS)] programs is limited to elements/tasks that are contained in a Government-to-Government agreement and specifically implemented for execution to the PM, through the appropriate accountability reporting chain, by the assigned DOD component authority over the agreement. Weapon system sustainment planning and execution impact life cycle cost and are to be emphasized in the life cycle management plan (LCMP). DODI5000.2 identifies elements for effective weapon system sustainment.
Ident. Num:
63-107
Rev. Num:
-
AIR FORCE INSTRUCTION 63-107, INTEGRATED PRODUCT SUPPORT PLANNING AND ASSESSMENT (10 NOV 2004)., his Air Force Instruction (AFI) implements Air Force Policy Directive (AFPD)20-5, Air Force Product Support Planning and Management and AFPD63-1, Capability-Based Acquisition System. It vests responsibility for both acquisition and sustainment product support planning in the Program Manager (PM). Air Force Space Command (AFSPC) is exempt from this AFI for systems not acquired under Department of Defense Instruction (DODI)5000.2, Operation of the Defense Acquisition System. The Department of Defense (DOD) concept of life cycle system management assigns the PM authority and responsibility for implementation, management, and oversight of all activities associated with a DOD sys- tem throughout its life cycle. The PM is accountable through the Program Executive Officer (PEO) or Air Logistics Center (ALC) Commander (CC) reporting chain for ensuring viable and complementary acqui- sition and sustainment strategies are developed early in the system life cycle. PM responsibility for secu- rity assistance (SA) [foreign military sales (FMS)] programs is limited to elements/tasks that are contained in a Government-to-Government agreement and specifically implemented for execution to the PM, through the appropriate accountability reporting chain, by the assigned DOD component authority over the agreement. Weapon system sustainment planning and execution impact life cycle cost and are to be emphasized in the life cycle management plan (LCMP). DODI5000.2 identifies elements for effective weapon system sustainment.
AIR FORCE INTERSERVICE MANUAL 24-204/TM-38-250/NAVSUP PUB 505/MCO P4030.19H/DLAI 4145.3 TRANSPORTATION - PREPARING HAZARDOUS MATERIALS FOR MILITARY AI
AIR FORCE INTERSERVICE MANUAL 24-204/TM-38-250/NAVSUP PUB 505/MCO P4030.19H/DLAI 4145.3 TRANSPORTATION - PREPARING HAZARDOUS MATERIALS FOR MILITARY AIR SHIPMENTS (11 DEC 2001)., This is a 396 page joint document, dated 11 Dec 2001, that provides guidance and procedures for preparing hazardous materials for shipment by military aircraft to ensure that such materials are packaged, marked, labeled, and prepared properly for transportation. This manual includes the shipment of nuclear materials, except for nuclear weapon major assemblies and nuclear components packaged and shipped per Department of Energy-Defense Nuclear Agency (DOE-DNA) TP 45-51 and its supplements. It includes labeling requirements, instructions for transporting passengers with hazardous materials and instructions for notifying the aircraft commander regarding hazardous materials on the aircraft. The document implements DoD 4500.9-R, Defense Transportation Regulation (Parts I and II) and DOT Exemptions 7573 and 9392 (DOT-E 7573 and DOT-E 9232) for commercial aircraft under contract to the Air Mobility Command (AMC).
Ident. Num:
24-204
Rev. Num:
-
AIR FORCE INTERSERVICE MANUAL 24-204/TM-38-250/NAVSUP PUB 505/MCO P4030.19H/DLAI 4145.3 TRANSPORTATION - PREPARING HAZARDOUS MATERIALS FOR MILITARY AIR SHIPMENTS (11 DEC 2001)., This is a 396 page joint document, dated 11 Dec 2001, that provides guidance and procedures for preparing hazardous materials for shipment by military aircraft to ensure that such materials are packaged, marked, labeled, and prepared properly for transportation. This manual includes the shipment of nuclear materials, except for nuclear weapon major assemblies and nuclear components packaged and shipped per Department of Energy-Defense Nuclear Agency (DOE-DNA) TP 45-51 and its supplements. It includes labeling requirements, instructions for transporting passengers with hazardous materials and instructions for notifying the aircraft commander regarding hazardous materials on the aircraft. The document implements DoD 4500.9-R, Defense Transportation Regulation (Parts I and II) and DOT Exemptions 7573 and 9392 (DOT-E 7573 and DOT-E 9232) for commercial aircraft under contract to the Air Mobility Command (AMC).
COST HANDBOOK, HISTORICAL AIR FORCE CONSTRUCTION, USAF DIRECTORATE OF ENGINEERING, SUPPORT (FEB 2007)
COST HANDBOOK, HISTORICAL AIR FORCE CONSTRUCTION, USAF DIRECTORATE OF ENGINEERING, SUPPORT (FEB 2007). The Historical Air Force Construction Cost Handbook is prepared by the Directorate of Technical Support, HQ AFCESA/CESC, to provide valid historical costs used in preparing cost estimates and analyses for Air Force construction. Updates are made annually. Prices for OSD Common Facilities, Area Cost Factors, escalation rates, and the size adjustment curve are from UFC 3-701-07, DoD Facility Pricing Guide. Data for AF Unique Facility Costs, Supporting Facility Costs, and Supporting Facility Percentages are from AF Historical data in the Program, ACES system, DD Forms 1391, the Parametric Cost Engineering System (PACES); or from detailed quantity takeoff estimates from typical designs. The historical costs are carefully purged to ensure the correct data is listed. Projects with unusual costs often turn out to be additions, alterations, or add/alter projects and are not used in the database. Other reasons include bidding climate, special design features included that are not normally used on an average facility, or unique conditions at a certain location.
Ident. Num:
No Number
Rev. Num:
-
COST HANDBOOK, HISTORICAL AIR FORCE CONSTRUCTION, USAF DIRECTORATE OF ENGINEERING, SUPPORT (FEB 2007). The Historical Air Force Construction Cost Handbook is prepared by the Directorate of Technical Support, HQ AFCESA/CESC, to provide valid historical costs used in preparing cost estimates and analyses for Air Force construction. Updates are made annually. Prices for OSD Common Facilities, Area Cost Factors, escalation rates, and the size adjustment curve are from UFC 3-701-07, DoD Facility Pricing Guide. Data for AF Unique Facility Costs, Supporting Facility Costs, and Supporting Facility Percentages are from AF Historical data in the Program, ACES system, DD Forms 1391, the Parametric Cost Engineering System (PACES); or from detailed quantity takeoff estimates from typical designs. The historical costs are carefully purged to ensure the correct data is listed. Projects with unusual costs often turn out to be additions, alterations, or add/alter projects and are not used in the database. Other reasons include bidding climate, special design features included that are not normally used on an average facility, or unique conditions at a certain location.
DOD SPACE TEST PROGRAM (STP) SECONDARY PAYLOAD PLANNER'S GUIDE FOR USE ON THE EELV SECONDARY PAYLOAD ADAPTER (VER 1.0) (8 JUN 2001
DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE (DOD) SPACE TEST PROGRAM (STP) SECONDARY PAYLOAD PLANNER'S GUIDE FOR USE ON THE EELV SECONDARY PAYLOAD ADAPTER (VER 1.0) (8 JUN 2001)., The Evolved Expendable Launch Vehicle (EELV) Secondary Payload Adapter (ESPA) Secondary Payload Planner’s Guide is published by the Space Test Program (STP) Office, Space and Missiles System Center, Kirtland AFB, NM, to provide interface information for secondary satellites. This document is a single source reference and detailed specifics of The Boeing Company’s and Lockheed Martin’s EELVs can be obtained in each launch vehicle providers Planner’s Guides. Note that when secondary payloads are mentioned, this refers to the actual secondary satellites and these terms are interchangeable throughout this document. The term secondary payload does not refer to any type of experiment on the satellite, but the satellite itself.
Ident. Num:
No Number
Rev. Num:
-
DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE (DOD) SPACE TEST PROGRAM (STP) SECONDARY PAYLOAD PLANNER'S GUIDE FOR USE ON THE EELV SECONDARY PAYLOAD ADAPTER (VER 1.0) (8 JUN 2001)., The Evolved Expendable Launch Vehicle (EELV) Secondary Payload Adapter (ESPA) Secondary Payload Planner’s Guide is published by the Space Test Program (STP) Office, Space and Missiles System Center, Kirtland AFB, NM, to provide interface information for secondary satellites. This document is a single source reference and detailed specifics of The Boeing Company’s and Lockheed Martin’s EELVs can be obtained in each launch vehicle providers Planner’s Guides. Note that when secondary payloads are mentioned, this refers to the actual secondary satellites and these terms are interchangeable throughout this document. The term secondary payload does not refer to any type of experiment on the satellite, but the satellite itself.
ETL 04-2 (Change 1): ENGINEERING TECHNICAL LETTER (ETL) 04-2, STANDARD AIRFIELD PAVEMENT MARKING SCHEMES (19 JUL 2004)
ETL 04-2 (Change 1): ENGINEERING TECHNICAL LETTER (ETL) 04-2, STANDARD AIRFIELD PAVEMENT MARKING SCHEMES (19 JUL 2004)., This ETL provides layout and dimensional criteria for airfield pavement markings. Major commands (MAJCOM) implementing tone down markings should follow the guidance in North Atlantic Treaty Organization Standardization Agreement (NATO STANAG) 3111, Airfield Marking Tone Down, and Air Standardization Coordinating Committee (ASCC) Air Standard 90/28, Aerodrome Pavement Markings. This ETL supersedes ETL 94-01, Standard Airfield Pavement Marking Schemes.
Ident. Num:
ETL 04-2
Rev. Num:
-
ETL 04-2 (Change 1): ENGINEERING TECHNICAL LETTER (ETL) 04-2, STANDARD AIRFIELD PAVEMENT MARKING SCHEMES (19 JUL 2004)., This ETL provides layout and dimensional criteria for airfield pavement markings. Major commands (MAJCOM) implementing tone down markings should follow the guidance in North Atlantic Treaty Organization Standardization Agreement (NATO STANAG) 3111, Airfield Marking Tone Down, and Air Standardization Coordinating Committee (ASCC) Air Standard 90/28, Aerodrome Pavement Markings. This ETL supersedes ETL 94-01, Standard Airfield Pavement Marking Schemes.
UNITED STATES AIR FORCE PROJECT MANAGER'S GUIDE FOR DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION (1 JUN 2000)
UNITED STATES AIR FORCE PROJECT MANAGER'S GUIDE FOR DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION (1 JUN 2000). This Guide is written to assist Air Force Design and Construction Project Managers (AF DM/CM) in the quest for excellence in design and construction of Air Force facilities. This guide is a recommendation of best practices to achieve successful MILCON execution and should not limit individual AF DM/CM flexibilit
Ident. Num:
No Number
Rev. Num:
-
UNITED STATES AIR FORCE PROJECT MANAGER'S GUIDE FOR DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION (1 JUN 2000). This Guide is written to assist Air Force Design and Construction Project Managers (AF DM/CM) in the quest for excellence in design and construction of Air Force facilities. This guide is a recommendation of best practices to achieve successful MILCON execution and should not limit individual AF DM/CM flexibilit
UNITED STATES AIR FORCE PROJECT MANAGER'S GUIDE FOR DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION (28 NOV 2007/JAN 2008)
UNITED STATES AIR FORCE PROJECT MANAGER'S GUIDE FOR DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION (28 NOV 2007/JAN 2008). Excellent installations foster pride, productivity, and enhance the Air Force mission. The quality of an installation influences the performance of our most important resource, our people. This Guide is written to assist Air Force Design and Construction Project Managers (AF DM/CM) in the quest for excellence in design and construction of Air Force facilities. This guide is a recommendation of best practices to achieve successful MILCON execution and should not limit individual AF DM/CM flexibility. You are encouraged to read and use AFI 32-1021, Planning and Programming Military Construction (MILCON) Projects and AFI 32-1023, Design and Construction Standards and Execution of Facility Construction information. AF DM/CM at OCONUS locations will need to consider host-nation procedures and requirements (not provided in this guidance). Air Force Transformation has changed the relationships and responsibilities between the Air Staff, Major Commands (MAJCOMs), Installations and the Field Operating Agencies (FOA).
Ident. Num:
No Number
Rev. Num:
-
UNITED STATES AIR FORCE PROJECT MANAGER'S GUIDE FOR DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION (28 NOV 2007/JAN 2008). Excellent installations foster pride, productivity, and enhance the Air Force mission. The quality of an installation influences the performance of our most important resource, our people. This Guide is written to assist Air Force Design and Construction Project Managers (AF DM/CM) in the quest for excellence in design and construction of Air Force facilities. This guide is a recommendation of best practices to achieve successful MILCON execution and should not limit individual AF DM/CM flexibility. You are encouraged to read and use AFI 32-1021, Planning and Programming Military Construction (MILCON) Projects and AFI 32-1023, Design and Construction Standards and Execution of Facility Construction information. AF DM/CM at OCONUS locations will need to consider host-nation procedures and requirements (not provided in this guidance). Air Force Transformation has changed the relationships and responsibilities between the Air Staff, Major Commands (MAJCOMs), Installations and the Field Operating Agencies (FOA).
USAF SYSTEM SAFETY HANDBOOK (July 2000)
USAF SYSTEM SAFETY HANDBOOK (July 2000). The Air Force System Safety Handbook was prepared as a resource document for program office SYSTEM SAFETY MANAGERS AND SYSTEM SAFETY ENGINEERS. It is not designed to answer every question on the topic of system safety nor is it a cookbook that guarantees success. The handbook provides considerable insight to the general principles, objectives, and requirements of applying system safety concepts to the Air Force system acquisition and logistical support processes.
Ident. Num:
No Number
Rev. Num:
-
USAF SYSTEM SAFETY HANDBOOK (July 2000). The Air Force System Safety Handbook was prepared as a resource document for program office SYSTEM SAFETY MANAGERS AND SYSTEM SAFETY ENGINEERS. It is not designed to answer every question on the topic of system safety nor is it a cookbook that guarantees success. The handbook provides considerable insight to the general principles, objectives, and requirements of applying system safety concepts to the Air Force system acquisition and logistical support processes.
