1980 1981 1982 1983 1984 1985 1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 PHOODED Rajano nadoOAD DADO JADODARAJADODAJ ODADDJA 29-OCT FINAL DELIVERY OF MULTIPURPOSE AIRCRAFT 27-JUN FIRST DELIVERY OF S SPECIAL MISSION TURBO P 927-JU PERF. ASSUR, UPGRADES NATIONAL RADIO COMMUNICATIONS SISTEM INARACS) 1-NOV SUBMIT 1989 NAS PLAN DRAFT + AUG FINAL AUDIT REPORT SUBMITTED 30-MAR PH IV LAST COMMISSIONING 3-MAT PH 11 HF/558 INSTALLATION COMPLETE 17-0EC PH IV CONTRACT AND 2-OCT PH 11 HF/558 FIRST COMMISSIONING 1-SEP PM 11 HF/55B INSTALLATION STRAT 1-JUN PH 11 HF/558 EQUIPMENT DELIVERT START 29-APA PH IVA LAST COMMISSIONING 29-APA PH IV RFP ISSUED 30-MAR PH IA FINAL SITE COMMISSIONED 30-MAR PH IA INSTALL COMPLETE 25-FEB PH IVA DELIVERY 92-JAN PH IVA INSTALLATION START 3-DEC CONTRACT AND PH 11 HF/SSB EQUIPMENT 2-DEC PH IVA DELIVERY START 25 NOV LAST DELIVERI 29-OCT PHASE IVA SITE SURVEY BY GSA 29-SEP PH JA FIRST SITE COMMISSIONED 28-AUG PM IV SPEC AVAILABLE 3-JAN PHASE 1 AFP ISSUED 28-OCT BACKBONE NETWORK COMPLETE -AUG PM 111 FIRST SITE COMMISSIONED JUN PH IA INSTALLATION START 30-MAT PH IA FIRST EQUIP DELIVERY SENATOR ANDREWS: Does the schedule show the original and current milestone dates, cost estimates, and schedule slippages? ANSWER: The schedule shows milestone dates based on the 1985 Slippages, if any, will be shown compared to that NAS Plan. baseline. The schedule does not show cost estimates. Cost estimates are managed through other systems. SENATOR ANDREWS: Does the schedule provide for contingencies to minimize cost and/or schedule erosion? ANSWER: The NAS Plan audit pointed out that "Thirty percent of the NAS Plan project schedules have slipped . . . since the first NAS Plan was published. As a result, a majority of positive schedule slack contained within the individual project schedules at the outset has been eroded for a number of reasons. . ." SENATOR ANDREWS: Does the schedule plan for program integration and transition? ANSWER: The present schedule includes a high level overview of integration and transition. As the program progresses, detailed schedules will be developed to help manage this complex activity. SENATOR ANDREWS: Considering the program changes that have occurred (i.e., changes to original requirements, user needs and project schedule slippages), does FAA have a reporting mechanism within the Master Schedule to periodically identify and reassess changes and establish contingency plans? ANSWER: Schedule status is required on a monthly basis. The SEI reviews the status of the schedules and reports any problems to the Federal Aviation Administration. The schedule system is designed to alert management to potential problems while there is still time to take mitigating action. Proposed changes to requirements based on user needs, etc., are subjected to a formal review process which includes analysis of technical, cost, schedule, and benefits impacts prior to acceptance of the change. NEXT GENERATION RADAR SENATOR ANDREWS: Development of the Terminal Next Generation Radar (NEXRAD) must be accomplished following, or at best in parallel with, en route NEXRAD. En Route NEXRAD is being developed and procured as a joint program with the Departments of Commerce and Defense. However, Commerce decided to explore alternative use of a commercial radar which is unlikely to meet the aviation needs. FAA's NEXRAD budget was reduced awaiting results of the study by Commerce. This has the effect of causing a lengthy delay to provision of Terminal NEXRAD and its important safety benefits. Because of the important safety benefits associated with the NEXRAD program shouldn't the Administration reconsider and resume development of en route and terminal NEXRAD on an accelerated basis? ANSWER: The NEXRAD program we are currently pursuing is very important to aviation because of the safety and efficiency benefits that will accrue to the aviation industry and the traveling public. The inclusion of an off-the-shelf Doppler weather radar evaluation should not, by itself, impact the NEXRAD schedule. However, decisions resulting from such an evaluation could adversely impact |