2.3.2.1.6  IAP  2.3.3 Achieving an IID 2.3.3.1  Safety Requirements  2.3.3.1.1  PSP  2.3.3.1.2  CSA  The  IAP defines the program’s scope, assumptions, investment alternatives, and organizational  roles and responsibilities. In addition, there is a section of the IAP that contains the requirement  for reporting the results of safety analyses/assessments as the IAP is formulated and updated  while the program advances through the AMS process.  The IID is the point at which the JRC approves or selects the program investment alternative  that best meets the required performance and that offers the greatest value to the FAA and its  customers. To support that decision, the CSA is completed to inform the PO and JRC of the  risk ratings of each alternative. At this stage, the pPRD defines the program’s requirements and  maintains requirements’ traceability against the single preferred alternative chosen at the IID. Non-preferred alternative requirements are deleted because of the IID and should not be  populated in the Safety Management Tracking System. In the AMS, the Portfolio Selection  Criteria Guidance for the IID shows the role played by safety and is available on the FAST  website.  Prior to receiving an IID decision, the PO must update the PSP (if needed) with the latest  information. At this phase of the acquisition lifecycle, there could be changes to the  management and safety team as the program moves from ANG to ATO control.  The PO must conduct the CSA, an essential assessment needed to receive an IID. The CSA  defines both severity and likelihood in terms of the initial and predicted residual risk of each  proposed solution. Likelihood is identified for the worst credible outcome of each hazard. The  CSA builds upon the OSA by using the OSA’s top-level FA; however, the CSA typically  deconstructs the OSA by at least one level in order to expand upon the OSA’s PHL. Each  program investment alternative is described in sufficient detail to ensure the audience can  understand both the proposed solutions and the hazards and risks developed. The expanded PHL is developed from the FA or FHA, at which point each hazard’s risk is  assessed in the context of the alternatives. After this is done, requirements and  recommendations can be made based on the data in the CSA. The PO must write the CSA in a  manner in which the decision maker can clearly distinguish the safety merit of each alternative.  A CSA provides management with a listing of all of the hazards associated with a change and a  risk assessment for each investment alternative hazard combination being considered. Investment alternatives can affect cost and schedule by requiring different levels of additional  safety analyses and requirements to properly address the different risk levels. Therefore, the  CSA is used to evaluate the options from a safety perspective for decision-making purposes. Other considerations for decision makers (e.g., cost, schedule, training, and other implications)  are not within the scope of a CSA. The PO discusses these considerations in the IAP cost  analysis and in similar Business Case reports. See  Appendix D for further information on preparing a CSA.  2_SRMGSA_202003  Originally published March 2020  Uncontrolled copy when downloaded  13