A Functional Configuration Audit (FCA) examines the functional characteristics of the configured product and verifies that the product has met the requirements specified in its Functional Baseline documentation approved at the Preliminary Design Review (PDR) and Critical Design Review (CDR). It has to do more with systems engineering and program management than official auditing. The FCA is a review of the configuration item’s test and analysis data to validate the intended function meets the system performance specification. The FCA is normally performed prior to Low-Rate Initial Production (LRIP) and prior to or in conjunction with a Physical Configuration Audit (PCA). A successful FCA typically demonstrates that Engineering and Manufacturing Development product is sufficiently mature for entrance into LRIP. A FCA may also be conducted concurrently with the System Verification Review (SVR).
The issues that are addressed during a FCA are:
- Readiness issues for continuing design, continuing verifications, production, training, deployment, operations, support, and disposal have been resolved.
- Verification is comprehensive and complete
- Configuration audits, including completion of all change actions, have been completed for all CIs
- Risk management planning is/has been updated for production
- Systems Engineering planning is updated for production
- Critical achievements, success criteria, and metrics have been established for production.
In large system with complex Configuration Items (CI), the FCAs may be accomplished in increments. Each increment may address a specific functional area of the system and will document any discrepancies that are found in the performance capabilities of that increment. After all of the increments have been completed, a final (summary) FCA may be held to address the status of all of the action items that have been identified by the incremental meetings and to document the status of the FCA for the system or CI in the minutes and certifications. In this way, the audit is effectively accomplished with a minimum of complications. 
The Program Management Office (PMO) is ultimately responsible for the performance of audits. The Program Manager (PM) has overall disposition authority on audit results and reports. The PM’s designee, who may be the System Engineer (SE) or Logistics Management Specialist (LMS), will ensure audits requirements are properly delineated in the contract and the FCA is properly executed.
- The accuracy of the documentation reflecting the production design is addressed by the Physical Configuration Audit (PCA).
AcqLinks and References:
- DoD Manual 7600.01-M “DoD Audit Manual” – 13 Feb 09
- DoD Instruction 7600.02 “Audit Policies” – 27 April 2007
- DoD Instruction 7650.02 “GAO Reviews and Reports,” – 20 Nov 2006
- Comptroller General of the United States Guidance, “Government Auditing Standard Guidance on GAGAS Requirements for Continuing Professional Education” – April 2005
- DFARS Subpart 237.2 “Advisory and Assistance Services”
- DCAA 7641.90 “Auditing Contractor Information” – Jan 2005
- Example: Purdue University “Internal Office Audit Plan” – 2005
- Template: Internal Audit Plan, U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development
- Website: DoD Office of Deputy Inspector General of Auditing
- Website: Defense Contract Audit Agency (DCAA)
- Website: DCAA 7640.1 “Contract Audit Manual”
- Website: FAR Part 42 “Contract Administration and Audit Services”