Attachment 3 - SpeedDealer Draft SOW.pdf

SpeedDealer DRAFT Statement of Work

This document describes the required Contractor tasks for the Three-Dimensional Expeditionary Long-Range Radar (3DELRR) Rapid Prototyping SpeedDealer Phase. All tasks shall be performed in accordance with the 3DELRR Security Classification Guide (SCG).

1. Technical Data Products, Certification Packages, and Radar Data Samples:

1.1. The Contractor shall deliver the existing specific technical data products and certification packages listed in Attachment 4 (Existing Technical Data Products and Certification Packages) no later than ten (10) calendar days after Prototype Agreement award (Part A-001).

1.2. The Contractor shall deliver radar data samples from their demonstration radar system (Part A-002), documentation describing the format of the radar data (Part A-003), and software code (Part A-004) to read them no later than ten (10) days after Prototype Agreement award. The radar data samples should be of sufficient quality to be used in comparison of radar performance with truth data collected during the demonstration.

(Examples include but are not limited to: location (latitude and longitude), time (GPS time stamp), range, elevation/radar target height, and track number). The Contractor shall work with the Government to address any questions the Government has regarding the radar data as the Government finalizes their demonstration analysis tools.

1.3. Delivery A shall include Parts A-001, A-002, A-003, and A-004.

2. Radar System Technical Review:

2.1. The Contractor shall conduct a week-long Technical Review of their demonstration radar system at a location to be determined. The date of the Technical Review will be negotiated with the Government at the time of the Prototype Agreement award and shall be no later than ninety (90) calendar days after Prototype Agreement award and prior to the demonstration. The technical review will be a combination Critical Design Review (the technical details of the system design), System Verification Review (the performance of the system design), and Production Readiness Review (the manufacturability of the system design) with the following objectives.

2.2. Provide the Government with an overview of the technical design and performance of the demonstration radar system with respect to the requirements within the Capability Development Document (CDD) extract.

2.3. Provide the Government with an understanding of the manufacturing readiness, cost of the demonstration radar system, and the Contractor’s quality, supplier, and inventory management processes.

2.4. The Contractor shall edit the Government provided system verification spreadsheet to note which requirements the system meets and which requirements the system does not meet. For those requirements that the Contractor identifies as being met, the Contractor shall identify the specific technical data product and or certification package document title and pages that substantiates meeting the requirement. The Contractor shall make the supporting documentation available to view upon request. For those requirements that the Contractor identifies as not meeting, the Contractor may propose changes or development needed to achieve the required performance in their presentation material.

2.5. The Contractor shall deliver an estimated unit cost for the procurement of thirty-five (35) production radar systems. Unit costs shall be fully burdened and in BY20$. The unit cost shall be for the primary radar system and assume no production breaks. Where applicable, the Contractor shall provide costs for Secondary Surveillance Radar (SSR), decoys, war readiness spares kits, support equipment, special test equipment, etc.

2.6. The Contractor shall deliver a self-assessed Open Technology Development (OTD) score based on the information contained in Attachment 3 of the CDD Excerpts document. The Offeror shall substantiate this self-score by describing the extent to which their system incorporates the modular open systems architecture attributes:

functional modularity, layered design/architecture, data accessibility, net-centricity, platform and vendor independence, and scalability. These descriptions shall provide sufficient detail to allow the Government to independently score the system design. The Contractor shall address the ease/difficulty of achieving each of the following.

2.7. The Government can modify the system software and regression check the updated software without Contractor (and their subcontractors) involvement.

2.8. The Government’s ability to add a radar mode to the primary and/or the SSR without Contractor (and their subcontractors) involvement. Additional radar modes may include, but are not limited to: classifier, waveforms for special functions, functionality for new stressing targets, electronic protection features, new tracking algorithm, or new radar template. The level of regression testing of the system to ensure existing capability is not degraded and the Government’s ability to accomplish the necessary regression testing shall be included.

2.9. The Government’s ability to replace Diminishing Manufacturing Sources (DMS) COTS items and appropriately update the system baseline without Contractor (and their subcontractors) involvement. This effort would include regression checking of the current system. Note “replace” here does not address faulty items, but rather items that have become non-sustainable due to DMS.

2.10. The Government’s ability to replace certain DMS non-COTS items (Contractor to identify what those items might be) and appropriately update the system baseline without Contractor (and their subcontractors) involvement. This effort would include regression checking of the current system. Note “replace” here does not address faulty items, but rather items that have become non-sustainable due to DMS.

2.11. The Contractor shall run Government provided scenarios through the radar itself via a Hardware-In-the-Loop Stimulator (HWILS) and deliver the corresponding radar data (input and output) in a format readable by the same software code provided to support the Government’s demonstration analysis tools. The radar data shall be provided to the Government no less than ten (10) day prior to the Radar System Technical Review. If an HWILS tool is not available for the system, the Contractor may run the scenarios through modeling and simulation (M&S) tools. The HWILS, or M&S, scenarios will require the injection of multiple simultaneous trajectories, various clutter environments, and multiple electronic attack (EA) scenarios. The number of scenarios will be on the order of five; each scenario will likely be based on a fixed set of trajectories with variable target and environment parameters.

2.12. The Government will provide the following radar data items for each scenario after contract award.

Radar Input Data:

• Simulated Trajectory ID

• Simulated Injection Time (seconds after scenario start)

• Simulated Injection Range (meters)

• Simulated Injection U (sines)

• Simulated Injection V (sines)

• Simulated Injection RCS (dBsm)

• Simulated Injection SNR (dB)

• EA environment (if applicable)

2.13. The Contractor recorded data shall include, at a minimum, the Radar Input Data (expected to match the Government provided input data) and the following Radar Output Data.

Radar Output Data:

• Detection Time (seconds after scenario start)

• Detection Range (meters)

• Detection U (sines)

• Detection V (sines)

• Tx Pulse Width (milli-seconds)

• Tx Bandwidth (MHz)

• Tx Waveform Type (e.g., LFM)

• Antenna Array Boresight Azimuth at Detection Time (deg)

• Antenna Array Boresight Elevation at Detection Time (deg)

• Antenna Array Boresight Azimuth at Simulated Injection Time (deg)

• Antenna Array Boresight Elevation at Simulated Injection Time (deg)

• Measured RCS (dBsm)

• Measured SNR (dB)

• Track ID (correlated to the simulated Scenario ID)

• Track State Vector Time (seconds after scenario start)

• Track State Vector (e.g., 6 states in ENU)

• Track Filter Covariance Matrix (e.g., 6x6 in ENU)

• Track RCS (dBsm)

• Track SNR (dB)

• Outputs of EA detection/typing logic and EP mitigations selected (if applicable)

• Mission Plan and Parameters per Scenario (e.g., surveillance sectors, rotation rate, waveforms and beam patterns, enabled EP functions)

2.14. The Contractor shall support planning conference calls (estimated bi-weekly) until the review.

2.15. The Contractor shall deliver an agenda and draft presentation material (Part B-001), scenario radar output data (Part B-002), OTD self-assessment (Part B-003), cost estimate (unit price and sparing) (Part B-004), planned data rights for RDT&E and Production (Part B-005), and the edited system verification spreadsheet (Part B-006) seven (7) calendar days prior to the Technical Review. The Contractor shall deliver documentation supporting the configuration baseline of the system being demonstrated (Part B-007).

The Contractor shall deliver final agenda and presentation material no later than (2) business day prior to the Technical Review (Part B-008).

2.16. Delivery B shall include Parts B-001, B-002, B-003, B-004, B-005, B-006, and B-007.

3. Radar System Demonstration:

3.1. The Contractor shall support a TBD-long demonstration of their demonstration radar system at their far field test range and/or the Government specified test range(s). The date and location of the demonstration(s) will be negotiated with the Government at the time of the Prototype Agreement award.

3.2. The Contractor shall operate and maintain the demonstration radar system during the demonstration.

3.3. The Contractor shall conduct a maintainability/testability demonstration to show system performance with respect to the maintainability requirements in the CDD extract and show the effectiveness of system built-in-test and built-in-test equipment. The Contractor shall work with the Government to determine the timing of the event and specific items to demonstrate and faults to insert. The Contractor shall utilize the Organizational level technical manual to identify the fault, show how the fault tree is used for correcting the fault, and the remove and replacement of the failed component.

The Contractor shall make available associated technical manuals during the maintainability/testability demonstration to allow observers to follow along. The contractor shall provide documentation supporting the baseline of the system provided for the demonstration. The Contractor shall utilize any special test equipment or tools to troubleshoot and correct the identified area if required for the system.

3.4. The Contractor shall permit the Government to observe the live-fly system performance demonstration and any maintenance performed to include unplanned maintenance activities.

3.5. The Government shall observe set-up and tear down of the system.

3.6. The Contractor shall support planning conference calls (estimated bi-weekly) until the demonstration.

3.7. The Contractor shall record and deliver the radar data associated with the demonstration to the Government daily (Part C-001) (Refer to paragraph 1.2).

3.8. Delivery C shall include Part C-001.