BAA-09-01-PKS-Call48-SOO.doc

29 June 2012

HYDRA VISION DEMONSTRATIONS

Statement of Objectives (SOO) STROEB II BAA, 09-01-PKS, Call 48 Background: Combat Identification (CID) is a process of attaining, assessing, and distinguishing accurate characterizations of detected objects in a joint Battlespace to the extent that high confidence, timely application of military options and weapons resources can occur. Two primary types of Battlespaces (Air-to-Air and Air-to-Ground) employ either Cooperative and/or Non-cooperative CID systems. The first one requires systems that can rapidly and accurately identify friendly platforms and dismounts through cooperative means. The second one employs sensing techniques and technologies to attain an accurate characterization of detected objects in an isolated joint Battlespace. As such, Non-Cooperative CID techniques and technologies are employed without any ID support from the target. Finally, the worst Battlespace situation for any CID sensor system to operate in is “Denied Airspace” where the luxury of flying without concern of being attacked does not exist. RYAR’s primary goal is to mature CID concepts to technology readiness levels (TRL) suitable for transition to United States Air Force (USAF) product centers for insertion into modern weapon systems. Specific platforms that intend to integrate the CID technology will provide the majority of transition and integration efforts for operational fielding. RYAR is responsible for identifying, developing, evaluating, demonstrating and assisting in the transition of CID technologies. A very important step in the whole CID process are demonstrations of sensor payloads to whose results are used by product centers to determine if the weapon system warrants transition into the operational Air Force’s arsenal. Planning, executing, and post-processing these demonstrations are the purposes of this effort.

Overall Objectives: The primary objective of this non-developmental program is to demonstrate various CID capabilities via ground and airborne flight tests that take place approximately 1-2 times per-year at various CONUS locations. General activities of this effort should deal with integration of a research and development brassboard or higher prototype CID sensor systems and/or software algorithms primarily to the “Continuous Look Attack Management for the Predator (CLAMP)” architecture. The scope of this effort encompasses activities needed to support programmatic, system, and engineering activities for development, integration and testing, system demonstrations, safety compliance checks, and data collects pertaining to AFRL/RYAR’s CID development efforts. Major onboard CID sensor hardware and software components shall be mature at a greater or equal to TRL of 5. However, some development or integration of “off-the-shelf” government or commercial hardware or software may be necessary. Contractor’s technical team shall be responsible for the successful operation of all existing government or commercial hardware and software (i.e., re-use) to include, but not limited to debugging software integrating algorithms or, for example, instructing how to operate various ground exploitation software. All efforts shall be conducted for the Government by the prime Contractor to achieve the objective of CID systems payload integration and validation ground/flight testing using the MQ-9 Reaper or surrogate aerial vehicle.

Data collections shall be analyzed both in real and post time to provide decision-makers with the information they require to determine the military utility of the CID technologies under test and to help make informed equipment procurement and fielding decisions. These demonstrations shall showcase maturity levels of various novel Air-to-Air and Air-to-Ground CID technologies using actual or surrogate air platforms in as operationally relevant environments as possible. Activities include planning, preparation, and review for the demonstrations and coordination with the Government and other Contractor counterparts. Tasks include detailed system implementation and integration, flight test demonstration, data collection, system verification and performance validation. These results shall help to develop warfighter analyses, including trade studies on potential platform transitions of CID technologies, operational metrics, up front long term sustainability, technology and capability requirements, and system design/re-design studies and analysis.

Specific Objectives: It must be emphasized that the verification or data gathering efforts shall utilize existing air platforms only (e.g., a MQ-9, King Air, etc.) and NOT develop new platforms. Any aircraft selected shall have an approved USAF flight release before flight-testing commences (reference AFI 62-601, USAF Airworthiness). The flight release will be issued by either the AF Technical Airworthiness Authority (TAA) or the AFRL Designated Technical Authority (DTA) depending upon the host aircraft selected. An airworthiness assessment by either the TAA or DTA will rely on previous safety of flight and airworthy assessments made by the other Services, FAA regulations/statutes or DoD accepted agencies. Once a flight release is acquired, approximately 1-2 flight tests shall be performed per year starting in 2013. There will be two types of tests: (1) Pre-Operational and (2) Operational Tests. Pre-Operational (both ground-based and airborne) tests occur first to vet-out any technological or integration issues. Operational airborne tests shall occur last with primary purpose of demonstrating to Warfighters who may be in attendance. Pre-Operational tests shall occur in restricted airspace or government facilities such as Yuma Proving Grounds or China Lake. Operational Fight Tests shall be built around demonstrations at exercises like Bold Quest or Trident Warrior. As part of these tests, the Contractor team shall integrate the MTS-B Multi-Spectral Targeting System and the Lynx Synthetic Aperture Radar (SAR)/GMTI as well as the Control of Lynx Analysis Workstation (CLAW) sensor control and image analysis software. Integration also includes communications, IMU, GPS, etc., equipment into the MQ-9 Reaper, or surrogate, fixed wing aircraft. Integration shall include the updating software algorithm changes to the CLAMP system such that appropriate data analysis results can be obtained after flight testing. All flight test equipment shall be owned, or leased, and operated by the Contractor(s). A skeleton list of execution tasks, but not limited to, are as follows:

· Pre-test checks:

· Overall data requirements for processing and analysis

· Analysis of collection test-site to include ground truthing

· Determination of sensor orientations and number of flight tests

· Identify and resolve any timestamp synchronization issues

· Risk identification and reduction procedures

· Coordination and approval of test plans

· Communications frequency clearance approvals

· Performance and capability requirements

· Integration requirements development

· Installation of CID sensor payloads and test

· Data exploitation software tools/program development

· Sensor and meta data validation

· Overall system calibration and check-out

· Airworthy and safety-of-flight determinations

· Flight-test execution:

· Air and ground instrumentation setup

· Taxi tests

· Flight test execution

· Real-time payload monitoring via ground station software

· Post-test execution:

· Payload performance results

· Data reduction and analysis

· Flight test data and sensor performance report deliveries to AFRL

Requirements Reviews shall be conducted well in advance of flight tests. Technical Interchange Meetings, a Preliminary Design Review, and a Test Readiness Review shall be scheduled and convened by the Contractor. Presentation materials to include briefing slides shall be provided to the Government a minimum of five (5) working days before all meetings and reviews. The Contractor shall also develop all plans and execute Ground, Taxi, and Flight tests IAW these plans to include ground-truthing and instrumentation of various ground targets. The Contractor shall work with the Government team by proposing specific test location needs/requirements so that an appropriate geographic location for all flight tests can be selected.

Onboard processors should be sufficient for future growth of 150% in memory and 2x throughput beyond the expected processor intensive operations of large data output ingestions from various algorithms under test. Ease of programmability is considered a plus. Onboard processors must interface to the sensor(s), the aircraft’s autopilot, IMU, and possibly a datalink Air-to-Ground modem to new CID CLAMP software algorithms under test. Site surveys with appropriate targets (e.g., military, civilian, dismounts, etc.) shall be conducted prior to all flight tests. Afterwards, follow-up Technical Interchange Meetings will be held at either the Contractor’s and Government’s facilities. These meetings will allow Government engineers and support contractors the opportunity to review and make recommendations, updates, etc., to test plans. Planning information shall then be utilized by the Contractor to support the Government with conducting various pre-flight tasks such as Technical Review Boards (TRBs), Safety Review Boards (SRBs), and communications frequency clearances all of which shall be started at least six months in advance of any scheduled flight tests. The Contractor shall insure flight test plans include outdoor range testing as close to the Contractor’s facility as possible to insure all hardware and software integration issues have been resolved prior to expensive flight testing.

During the week of actual flight testing, approved pre-flight ground and taxis tests shall be conducted prior to all flight tests. Results shall be presented to the Government to include any issues/potential problem areas. The purposes of these tests are to determine if all systems are fully functional and operating correctly. Government engineers may observe various activities before, during, and after flight tests. Mature lab or outdoor field tests at the Contractor’s facility may also include the Government engineering team.

Performance Period: 45 months for the technical period of performance with an additional 3 months to complete the final report

Funding Profile:

($K)

FY13

($K)

FY14

($K)

FY15

($K)

FY16

($K)

TOTAL

($K)

Reporting Requirements: (see attached data items ) Deliverables: The Contractor shall deliver all test results (e.g., data and documentation from hangar, flight line, airborne, etc., experiments). Sensor(s) data whose format will be suitable to execute in Matlab™ version 10 or higher on Windows XP™ or higher OSs. Also, the Government may request system hardware/software interface documentation as well as the description of the data formats such that the documentation provides sufficient information to build and use the system. Documentation shall include materials such as software documentation and user’s manuals required for users to use the delivered data processing software and algorithms for signal processing and data analysis independently of the data collection system (offline or lab-based processing). The Contractor shall submit all data items in accordance with the attached Contract Data Requirements List (CDRL). Note a majority of the attached CDRLs are “as requested” and as such shall not be charged to the Government until formally requested by the Program Manager.

a. Flight test plans, test cards, Technical Review Board documents, and Safety Review Board documents, airworthiness plan and necessary artifacts.

b. Communications frequency clearance approval documentation.

c. Test results and post-test analyses in, a Government approved, Contractor format for all program tests whose format shall be suitable to execute in Matlab™ version 10 or higher on Windows XP™ or higher OSs.

d. Mission effectiveness analyses, concept definitions, and system design and interface documents in Government approved, Contractor format.

e. All detailed interface design drawings in Government approved Contractor format, suitable for fabrication, shall be provided to the Government. Drawings meeting re-procurement level data requirements are not required. These drawings are for Government and Government support contractor’s use only. Includes ICD sensor(s), effectiveness analyses, possibly trade studies, documentation, etc., are expected as part of the overall system-to-be-tested documentation.

f. All source and executable code software and documentation associated with this program shall be made available to the Government at no additional cost. The Government does seek ownership for, for example, in-house access by Government and Government support contractor analysis and evaluation teams. In accordance with this requirement, all Contractor proprietary code, if any, should be appropriately marked.

g. All software, data, hardware, etc., shall be protected. This includes test data, plans, and analyses necessary to obtain sensor captive flight test and flight test approval.

Base support: Other than meetings at WPAFB, OH, no participation is anticipated but is subject to change after contract award. However, flight tests at other bases such as, for example, China Lake or White Sands shall require the Contractor to interface with appropriate government base POCs.

Government Furnished Information/software (GFI/software): Updates to “Continuous Look Attack Management for Predator (CLAMP)” software are anticipated to be supplied. If necessary, it will be the responsiblily of this Contractor to generate ACAs and/or NDAs with other outside contractors.

Security Classification: Refer to the DD254 attached to the call. Portions of this program will be classified up to the SECRET level. For now, reference CID PE 63742 Security Classification Guide, 1 Nov. 2011, Air Force Research Laboratory, ESC. An updated SCG will be issued after Oct, 2012 when AFRL takes over PE from ESC.

Export Control: The Contractor shall be required to generate or require access to export-controlled items.

General Security Requirements: General OPSEC procedures, policies and awareness are required in an effort to reduce program vulnerability from successful adversary collection and exploitation of critical information. OPSEC will be applied throughout the lifecycle of the contract. The Critical Information list will be provided upon request by the AFRL security office. The Contractor shall also participate with the Government in the development of a Program Protection Plan (PPP), to include the identification of Critical Program Information (CPI), and shall also participate with the Government in determining countermeasures needed to safeguard the CPI throughout the acquisition process. The Contractor shall plan for and execute program protection in accordance with the PPP and program guidance.

Associated Contractor Agreement (ACA): It is expected that ACAs or NDAs where suitable will apply to this program that allows access to CLAMP software updates. To be determined upon review of proposals.

Airworthiness: The Contractor shall establish provisions for accessing all substantiating data and verification artifacts required to support the determination of airworthiness in accordance with the USAF Policy. The Contractor shall develop, implement, and maintain an airworthiness program for the selected air system consisting of the certified aircraft and any proposed modification. The Contractor shall show that the proposed aircraft is airworthy by providing documents or artifacts which resulted in a government (i.e., Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), NASA, DoD, US Army, US Navy or US Air Force) airworthiness certification. This aircraft data/documentation in combination with the modification design and development requirements and methods of compliance shall be of sufficient detail to support an independent assessment resulting in a military flight release (MFR) of the air system (the original aircraft and modification). The activities necessary to certify the modification shall be documented in an Air System Airworthiness Plan which delineates successful airworthiness certification for the selected air system. The plan and program shall comply with USAF airworthiness policy on flight release and the Air System Airworthiness Planning document (CDRL xxx, DI-MGMT-80004A/T).

Flight Tests: Contractor efforts shall follow AFRL’s Flight Test and Evaluation process regarding reviews and approval process as currently detailed in AFRLMAN 99-103, AFRL Flight Test and Evaluation. The Contractor shall support the Government with techncial data/information needed to accomplish the AFRL FT&E flight test process involving Government conducted Technical and Safety Review Boards and an airworthiness assessment needed to achieve a MFR. The Contractor shall develop an airworthiness plan documenting the schedule and necessary data required to achieve a MFR. Both the AFRL flight test and airworthiness process requirements must be addressed in the follow-on SOW.

Safety: Contractor shall with all federal, state, and local safety and environmental regulations. In addition, an approved Safety Plan IAW AFI 91-202 AFRL Supplement 1 is required before any experiments are conducted. The Contractor shall comply with all Air Force safety and environmental regulations.

The Contractor must comply with system safety requirements contained in MIL-STD 882D, Section 4 “General Requirements” for any deliverable systems or hardware. The Contractor must identify safety-critical components of those systems or hardware, and software interfaces with those components. Must test and verify the safety-critical hardware and software for safety acceptance.

Other special requirements: Purpose of this contract is to test and evaluate payload and ground-based technologies supplied by outside contractors mainly to the CLAMP architecture. As such, it is imperative that the contractor NOT have any data right issues while working with these outside contractors. In addition, the Government anticipates close coordination with the Contractor during the course of this program. The number, type, and location of various design reviews, video teleconferences, meetings, program reviews, etc., are negotiable. It is the intent of the Government to participate with Contractors during all tests fostering informal and frequent exchanges of information and to pursue an overall strategy consistent with cooperation and success. The purpose of this dialog is to have insight into, not oversight of, the Contractor’s ICD hardware and software design activities and approaches along with post-flight data analysis. Therefore, the Contractor is expected to provide access for appropriate Government personnel to the documentation necessary to gain visibility into the technical progress, schedule, management and financial status, and any other documentation required to complete this program. Data transactions shall include both paper and electronic media, as mutually agreed upon. Interim and Final Program reviews may be held at Government facilities at WPAFB, OH. To save on travel costs, VTC technology may be utilized.