Attachment 5 Statement of Work.docx

Contract #: HQ0147-11-R-0002

Upgraded Early Warning Radar (UEWR) (Clear and Cape Cod)

Statement of Work

WARNING

This document contains technical data whose export is restricted by the Arms Export Control Act (Title 22, U.S.C. section 2751 et. seq.) or the Export Administration Act of 1979, as amended (50 U.S.C Appendix 2401 et. Seq.). Violation of these export laws are subject to sever criminal penalties. Disseminate in accordance with provisions of DoD Directive 5230.25 and

AFI 61-204.

DISTRIBUTION STATEMENT D

Distribution authorized to U.S. Government agencies and their contractors. Other requests for this document shall be referred to:

MISSILE DEFENSE AGENCY (MDA)

SENSORS DIRECTORATE (SN)

HUNTSVILLE, ALABAMA

35897-3801

FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY STATEMENT

This document contains information exempt from mandatory disclosure under the FOIA. Exemption (3) applies (10 USC 130, Authority to Withhold Unclassified Technical Data with Space or Military Application).

TABLE OF CONTENTS

UEWR Upgrade SOW Rev 32 29 Jun 11

FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY

COMPETITION SENSITIVE SOURCE SELECTION INFORMATION See FAR 2.101 and 3.104

Rev 2 – 18 November 2010

FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY

THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK

SOW rev30

FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY

SOURCE SELECTION SENSITIVE– See FAR 2.101 and 3.104 v

STATEMENT OF WORK

Sensors UEWR

1. INTRODUCTION

1.1 Introduction

This contract will be to upgrade the Early Warning Radars (EWRs) at Clear Air Force Station (AFS), Alaska, and an option for Cape Cod AFS, Massachusetts. The primary purpose of this upgrade is to add a missile defense capability to the existing missile warning and space surveillance missions while maintaining the on-going operational mission. The contractor will be responsible for working with the Missile Defense Agency (MDA) Ballistic Missile Defense System (BMDS) integration contractor to establish connectivity from Clear to the Ground-Based Midcourse Defense (GMD) Fire Control Center (GFCC). The Clear upgrade shall be designed based on Revision G of the Prime Item Development Specification (PIDS). The design should be modular and include growth capability to include near term upgrades to address additional requirements contained in the Ballistic Missile Defense System Merged Specification and Revision H of the PIDS.

The UEWR upgrade at Clear AK is envisioned to consist of a team of five contractors: Radar contractor; United States Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) site Construction contractor; all Command and Control Communications Battle Management Communication (C2BMC) GMD GFCC agencies and contractors; and the Single Stimulation Framework (SSF) contractor. The scope of work defined in this Request for Proposal (RFP) is limited to only the radar upgrade. Additionally, there will be several concurrent efforts at Clear which will require careful scheduling coordination and de-confliction throughout this upgrade.

The Cape Cod Upgrade will be an option to the base contract. Should the Cape Cod option be exercised, the contractor shall implement the Clear design, install, and test this capability into the Cape Cod system. The contractor shall support all integration efforts into the BMDS system, if required.

1.2 Background

The initial Upgraded Early Warning Radar (UEWR) effort was part of the April 1998 contract for the Lead System Integrator for the Ground Based, Midcourse Defense (GMD) segment of the Ballistic Missile Defense System (BMDS). A second GMD contract in 2001 deployed Beale and Fylingdales’ UEWR. A Thule UEWR Contract followed in 2006 with the BMDS integration completed under the GMD Core Completion (BMDS Integration) Contract in 2008. This EWR upgrade contract will upgrade one of the final two EWRs at Clear Air Force Station (AFS), Alaska, with a possible option for Cape Cod AFS, Massachusetts.

1.3 Government Actions

The Government is expected to take the following actions in support of the UEWR contractor for the course of the period of performance:

· Participate in the UEWR contractor Integrated Product Teams (IPT) as a contributing member in addressing the issues relevant to each IPT. Assignments to the various IPTs may vary based on the direction of the UEWR Government Program Manager

· Provide sponsorship and funding to the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers for the implementation of the Clear UEWR facility and site requirements in accordance with the information provided to and incorporated into the MDA Facility Requirements Document (FRD) for Clear

· Provide sponsorship and coordination to facilitate direct interface between the UEWR contractor and other contractors and Government organizations (e.g., Air Force Space Command (AFSPC), US Strategic Command (USSTRATCOM), US Northern Command, Missile Defense Agency (MDA), Electronic Systems Center Missile Warning, Defense, and Wideband Sensors Sustainment Office (ESC/HSIGS), the USAF Sustainment contractor, Operational Test Agency (OTA) , etc.) and other Government programs (e.g., Single Stimulation Framework (SSF), Defense Information Systems Agency (DISA), and all communications for Command Control Battle Management Communications (C2BMC) and GMD to connect UEWR to Ground Based Mid-Course Defense GMD Fire Control System support agencies and contractors in support of Ballistic Missile Defense Systems.

· Upon upgrade completion and certification Clear will be included in the BMDS architecture The MDA has not committed to include the Cape Cod UEWR into the BDMS architecture

2. Applicable Documents All documents listed in this SOW shall apply to the base and option CLINS.

2.1 Reference Documents

Industrial process measurement and control equipment, Part 2: electrostatic discharge requirements 1991 issue

12 Jul 10

2.2 Common Compliance Documents

The following documents, of the exact issue specified, form a part of this UEWR Statement of Work which shall be executed IAW the documents specified herein. Where no date is specified, the revision of the document current as of the date of this Statement of Work applies. In the event of a conflict between any of the following documents and this Statement of Work, this Statement of Work shall have precedence.

GOV’T DOCS

2 Mar 11

8 Feb 06

Network Defense 9 Feb 11

Jul 10

MIL-STD-130N Department of Defense Standard Practice, Identification Marking of U.S. Military Property, 17 Dec 2007

Department of Defense Standard Practice, Identification Marking of U.S. Military Property 17 Dec 07

Effects Protection for Ground Based C4I Facilities Jul 98 validated Apr 05

Spectrum Characteristics 18 May 76

Standard: Electromagnetic Environmental Effects Requirements for Systems 1 Dec 10

Investigation System 1 Oct 09

Warning Systems Se Missile Warning Systems Se curity Classificai Security Classification Guide 1 Sep 03

UEWR Maintenance Concept

Issue 3.8 Ministry of Defence Jul 09

JSP 480

Defence Co-coordinating Installation Design Authority Manual of Regulations for Installation of Communication and Information Systems

Jan 11

D742-10104-2 Ground-Based Midcourse Defense Interface Design Description (IDD) for Embedded Test and Upgraded Early Warning Radar, Revision A, 5 November 2004.

List of UEWR ICDs/IDDs:

1) UEWR to GFC IDD - D742-10109-2 Revision F 30 Jun 10

2) UEWR to ET IDD - D742-10104-2 Revision B - PIRN 01 (update) - Dated 30 May 07, IRN 02 15May 08, IRN 03 19 May 09, IRN 04 20 Apr 09 3)

4) UEWR to ITW/AA and SSN Interface Control Document (ICD) Document No. H381864, Rev. G 15Sept10

5) UEWR Internal Network Processing Equipment (PE) Networking ICD Document No. G760210 Rev G 15 Sep 10

6) UEWR Stand-Alone Trainer (UST) ICD Document No. H329070 Rev. C 8Nov04

7) UEWR External Communication Interfaces ICD H337211 - Rev. A 15 Jul09

8) UEWR to SSF "Draft" ICD developed by Missile Defense System Engineering and Test (MDSET) Government Team - 14 Oct 10

1. REQUIREMENTS

This Statement of Work (SOW) describes the effort required by the contractor for the Upgraded Early Warning Radar (UEWR) Program. The contractor is responsible for the design, development, manufacturing, delivery, installation and test of the operational UEWR at Clear Air Force Station (AFS), AK, with an option for an UEWR at Cape Cod AFS, MA. The contractor shall leverage the latest UEWR operational baseline which reflects the PIDS (Revision G). Working from that baseline, the contractor shall incorporate any subsequent modifications to the baseline that have been incorporated by the Air Force sustainment contractor. The contractor shall coordinate with and share information, subject to the restrictions in and of the established Proprietary Information Agreements, with the prime and support contractors for the parallel Clear upgrade activities. This effort will culminate in final operational acceptance at Clear in FY16 and Cape Cod in FY17, if the option is exercised. Final site configuration and restoration will follow operational acceptance.

3.1 Program Management (All Clear CLINS)

The contractor shall provide the executive level leadership to implement and control the program activities throughout the life of the program. These duties include, but are not limited to: serving as the focal point to the UEWR Program Office, as well as, conducting and integrating all aspects of the program such as contract schedule, cost, risk management and technical status to ensure successful design reviews and execution. The contractor shall perform the necessary administration (e.g., procurement, document protection) required to support the contract and provide coordination for the development of presentations, the arrangement and coordination of Program Management Reviews (PMRs), and other reviews and meetings.

3.1.1 Integrated Product and Process Development (IPPD) (All Clear CLINS) The contractor shall establish an IPPD process in all technical and functional disciplines to assist the Government Program Manager in effective communication and program execution. The IPPD process shall allow for coordination/interaction with the Government and other designated contractors: schedule reconciliations, technical interchanges, comprehensive program management meetings, integrated product team meetings, and related tasks necessary to deliver the requisite performance within cost and schedule constraints. The contractor shall provide monthly program status reports to the Government (Automated Data Product ADP 4). The Government shall be notified of all emergent issues as they arise.

The contractor shall provide all administrative effort associated with issuing and monitoring sub-tier contract effort and products including cost and schedule requirements and reporting. The contractor shall ensure flow down of applicable Government technical and administrative requirements to all sub-tier contractors. The contractor shall maintain and provide current status of sub-tier contracts including scope of work, cost, schedule, and status of products and data items. The contractor shall provide support to Government-led Working Groups as directed by the Government. To ensure de-confliction and synergy where possible, the Government will establish subordinate working groups to support the Joint Program Management Plan (JPMP) with contractor participation as required. The subordinate working groups at a minimum are:

· Integrated Logistics Support Management Team (ILSMT)

· Training Planning Team (TPT)

· Test Planning Working Group (TPWG)

· Joint Schedule Working Group (JSWG)

· Security Working Group (SWG)

· Communications Working Group (CWG)

· Site Activation Task Force/Facility Working Group (SATF/FWG)

· Interface Control Working Group (ICWG)

· Engineering Working Group (EWG)

3.1.1.1 Technical Interchange Meeting (TIM) (All Clear CLINS) The Government may schedule, or the contractor may schedule, with Government concurrence, TIMs, as required. The purpose of these TIMs is to allow for technical interchange between the various Clear UEWR stakeholders (e.g., other MDA Prime contractors) and/or Government subject matter experts.

3.1.2 Program Management Reviews (All Clear CLINS)

The contractor shall conduct an initial Program Management Review (PMR) within 60 calendar days of contract award and at least quarterly thereafter. External stakeholders (e.g., other MDA Prime contractors) may be invited as jointly approved by the Government and the Clear Prime Contractor. Each PMR shall address at a minimum: technical, financial, schedule, risk, and quality assurance findings. To the extent feasible, the contractor shall schedule PMRs concurrent with other meetings or TIMs in order to reduce travel costs. PMRs shall be held at the contractor’s facility or at a location designated by the Government. The contractor shall provide the Government an agenda at least 10 working days in advance of each PMR. The contractor shall plan, prepare for, conduct, and provide minutes of all program and technical reviews within 10 working days of completion of these reviews (ADP 4).

3.1.3 Business Operations (All Clear CLINS)

The contractor shall establish, maintain, and use an integrated performance management system in the performance of this contract. A validated Earned Value Management System (EVMS) shall be a part of this integrated system. The EVMS shall use the Contract Work Breakdown Structure (CWBS) and CWBS Dictionary (CDRL A003). The contractor shall develop, maintain and deliver:

· The Contract Funds Status Report (CFSR) (CDRL A004)

· Contract Performance Report (CPR) (CDRL A005)

· Cost Data Summary Report (CDSR - DD Form 1921) (CDRL A001)

· Functional Cost-Hour Report (FCHR) /Progress Curve Report (CDRL A002)

The EVMS shall be linked to, and supported by the contractor’s management processes and systems to include the Integrated Master Schedule (IMS), change management, material management, procurement, cost estimating, and accounting. The correlation and integration of these systems and processes shall provide for early indication of cost and schedule problems, and their relation to technical achievement.

3.1.3.1 Integrated Baseline Reviews (IBRs) (All Clear CLINS)

The contractor shall prepare for and support an IBR within 4 months after contract award. The IBR will be led by the Government for the purpose of assessing the adequacy of the Performance Measurement Baseline (PMB). The focus shall be on ensuring that the technical work content is consistent with the contract SOW, assessing the adequacy and time-phasing of budgeted resources, schedule logic, Earned Value (EV) methods, and reasonableness estimates, as appropriate. IBRs for Level of Effort CLINs shall baseline schedule only.

3.1.3.2 Integrated Master Schedule (IMS) (All Clear CLINS)

The contractor shall develop, update, and maintain the UEWR IMS (CDRL A006).

3.1.3.3 Joint Master Schedule (JMS) (All Clear CLINS)

The contractor shall use the government prepared JMS to support the continual maintenance of the JMS (ADP 41) as a government owned, contractor maintained product. Configuration Control will be by the government via the Joint Schedule WG (JSWG). The JMS includes dates, durations, and dependencies from the Government and other prime contractors, as well as, dates, dependencies, and durations for key tasks from the contractor IMS. The JMS shall comprise necessary links and dependencies to include at a minimum: United States Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) site Construction contractor; all Command and Control Communications Battle Management Communication (C2BMC) GMD GFCC agencies and contractors; the Single Stimulation Framework (SSF) contractor (and follow-on contractor) and the BMDS test effort. The contractor shall establish a process for obtaining the updates from the Government and other impacting contractors. The contractor shall update the JMS monthly. The JMS aids the Government, UEWR contractor, and other contractors, in coordinating tasks on the Clear UEWR upgrade. The contractor shall provide stringent maintenance and updating of the JMS and IMS tools to identify and resolve conflicting activities for the duration of the Clear upgrade. Should conflicts occur that cannot be resolved by the contractor, the contractor shall notify the Government for resolution.

3.1.4 Security (All Clear CLINS)

The contractor shall ensure coverage, by a Facility Security Officer (FSO) and an Information Systems Security Officer (ISSO), at the radar site when needed. The contractor shall prepare a Site Security Management Plan (SSMP) (CDRL A012). The contractor shall assist the site commander with coordination of facility access required by the Government and its representatives. The contractor shall provide access to all existing contract related data and documentation. The Contractor shall develop a stand-alone Trusted Facility Manual (CDRL A022) for the UEWR site to support the system accreditation process. Obtaining system accreditation and authority to operate for all missions is the responsibility of the Government.

3.1.5 Small Business

Based on the analysis of information and assessment of technology needs accomplished during the performance of this task, the contractor shall coordinate with the Directorate of Advanced Technology (MDA/DVB) to identify and leverage Small Business Innovation Research (SBIR) and Small Business Technology Transfer (STTR) program funded technologies with high potential for transition into the MDA/SN Clear UEWR. The contractor shall provide Small Business utilization and participation data (CDRL A038).

3.2 Systems Engineering (All Clear CLINS)

The contractor shall implement robust systems engineering processes to develop, fabricate, integrate, test, evaluate, document, deliver, and support the Clear UEWR as described in this SOW. System Engineering overall technical management shall include the conduct of systems analyses, engineering trade studies and implementation of the System Engineering Management Plan (ADP3). This design shall be based on the latest operational baseline and forward compatible for Cape Cod inclusion. All changes to the Rev G baseline shall be presented to the Government for approval through the UEWR System Requirements/Design Review (SRDR) (CDRL A027), Preliminary Design Review (PDR) (CDRL A028), and Critical Design Review (CDR) (CDRL A029). All component designs being incorporated into Clear/Cape Cod shall be deployable to all other UEWR sites: Fylingdales, Beale and Thule (note that Fylingdales shall also be JSP-440/480 compliant). Redesign due to parts obsolescence, shall be form, fit, function replacements. The contractor shall prepare Scientific and Technical Reports (CDRL A019), as required. The contractor shall maintain a Technical Performance Measurement (TPM) baseline. TPMs shall be identified at the SRDR and refined, as necessary, at the PDR and CDR. Expected system performance compared to the TPMs will be briefed at all PMRs

3.2.1 Specialty Engineering (All Clear CLINS)

The contractor shall prepare a Specialty Engineering Management Plan (SpEMP) (ADP 42). The contractor shall maintain a Specialty Engineering Program for this contract, at a minimum; this shall include the following plans and documentation updates:

· Reliability, Availability, Maintainability and Testability (RAM-T)

· RAM&T Program Plan (ADP 23)

· Reliability Design Criteria (ADP 30)

· Maintainability Design Criteria (ADP 31)

· Human Systems Integration (HSI)/Human Factors Engineering (HFE)

· Human Systems Integration Program Plan (ADP 28)

· Electromagnetic Interference (EMI)/Electromagnetic Capability (EMC) Plan

· Electromagnetic Compatibility (EMC) Control Plan (ADP 32)

· Spectrum Management

· Radio Frequency Management

· Telecommunications Electronics Material Protected from Emanating Spurious Transmissions(TEMPEST)

The contractor shall establish a UEWR Failure Review Board (FRB) and provide data packages identifying all failures, the failure description, root cause, and corrective action status including related change request identifiers, age of the root cause/corrective action activity, and current open actions on the Integrated Data Environment (IDE), as well as, minutes of the FRB. The contractor shall submit quarterly Failure Reporting, Analysis and Corrective Action System (FRACAS) data summaries (ADP 38). The contractor shall submit Maintainability Math Models, Allocations and Predictions data (ADP 39) to address contract-unique design changes and associated impact on the overall UEWR RAM assessment. Similar data shall be provided for Reliability Math Models, Allocations and Predictions (ADP 40). This RAM data (ADP 39 & 40) shall include an initial data set to address design changes and subsequent annual data sets to reflect performance of Clear-unique equipment during site testing. The contractor shall generate and maintain a Failure Modes, Effects and Criticality Analysis (FMECA) & Critical Items List (CIL) (CDRL A024), based on the equivalent GMD Program Plan (GMD286).

3.2.2 MDA Sensors System Requirements Allocation/Management (All Clear CLINS) The contractor will be provided the latest UEWR Dynamic Object Oriented Requirements System (DOORS) database. The contractor shall maintain the DOORS database to document requirements traceability to upper level specifications (e.g. Element Capability Specifications and BMD SS) and allocation to lower-level specification documentation. The contractor shall provide for Government access to the database. The contractor shall generate Specification Change Notices (SCN) (CDRL A013) for any systems design and requirements updates, as identified in the UEWR Specification Tree, including all internal and external interfaces and system-level specifications (CDRL A011). The contractor shall generate Engineering Change Proposals (ECPs) (CDRL A010) with any proposed SCNs changes for Government review and approval. The contractor shall ensure that all such requests contain proposed SCNs and any analysis required to support Requests for Deviations / Waivers (CDRL A011).

3.2.2.1 Interface Definition for UEWR (All Clear CLINS)

The contractor shall implement the early warning and space surveillance interface per the Government-approved Interface Control Document. The contractor shall implement interfaces with the GMD Fire Control Communications (GFCC) and SSF in accordance with the applicable Interface Design Documents. The contractor shall establish and implement an Interface Control Working Group (ICWG) for managing the interface requirements between the Prime Mission Equipment and those of any other Government contractors for this upgrade program.

3.2.3 Risk Management (All Clear CLINS)

The contractor shall establish, execute, and sustain a risk management program for the contract that, at a minimum:

· Identifies, analyzes, manages, and tracks cost, schedule and technical risks

· Identifies, analyzes, manages, and tracks risks that could impact the outcome of test events

· Reports risks in MDA specified templates

· Integrates quantitative risk assessments with cost and schedule baselines

· Uses risk assessments as part of entry and exit criteria for technical and programmatic reviews The Risk Management Plan (RMP) documenting the risk program shall be delivered as a CDRL A036.

3.2.4 Safety, Quality, and Mission Assurance (SQMA) (All Clear CLINS) The contractor/subcontractors shall implement a Safety, Quality, and Mission Assurance Program in compliance with MDA Assurance Provisions (MAP) and MDA Parts, Materials, and Process Mission Assurance Plan (PMAP) and AS9100. The contractor shall comply with all federal, state, and local environmental laws, regulations, and policies for all activities defined in this SOW. The contractor shall generate and submit a Mission Assurance Implementation Plan (MAIP) (CDRL A031) identifying how MAP/PMAP shall be implemented for this contract. This plan while addressing MAP requirements the contractor shall ensure the following are addressed: Safety, Accident Prevention, Hazardous Materials Management, Environmental Compliance, Quality Assurance, Mission Assurance, and parts obsolescence. The Contractor shall plan and implement Environmental Stress Screening (ESS) on all electrical and electromechanical tactical hardware with emphasis on testing at the lowest level possible as they are modified or replaced. ESS will be utilized to precipitate process related defects otherwise undetected by established product verification testing. Highly Accelerated Stress Screening (HASS) techniques shall be considered where applicable in order to minimize the total cost of the ESS program. ESS shall also be implemented on mission critical COTS hardware where insufficient evidence of an appropriate vendor ESS has been performed. The Contractor shall demonstrate a dynamic ESS Program by monitoring ESS effectiveness, including first-pass ESS escapes, to ensure continual improvement of the ESS Program. The Contractor shall prepare an ESS/HASS Program Plan as a part of the Quality Program Plan that defines hardware indenture level of ESS, selected environmental profiles and rationale, power on/off application, and metrics to be used for evaluating ESS effectiveness.

3.2.4.1 Safety (All Clear CLINS)

The contractor shall establish and maintain a System Safety Program Plan (SSPP) (ADP 47). The contractor shall perform a safety assessment and develop hazard tracking logs and report the results in the Safety Assessment Report (SAR) (CDRL A032). The contractor shall deliver a Health Hazard Assessment Report (ADP 35). Specific items to be emphasized are not limited to but may include the following:

· Hazard identification (including environmental), analysis, hazard tracking, and developing mitigation

· Support to the System Safety Working Group (SSWG), Software Safety Working Group (SwSWG)

· Safety metrics (check in MAP OR PMAP)

The contractor shall define, support, and/or perform tests and demonstrations on safety critical hardware, software, and procedures to verify compliance with safety requirements. The contractor shall establish process and product controls to ensure latent hardware and software paths are not present which may cause unwanted functions or inhibit desired functions for all component assembly and subassembly levels.

3.2.4.2 Quality Assurance (QA) (All Clear CLINS)

The contractor shall maintain a cost-effective QA program that integrates QA requirements into the design, manufacture, test and maintenance of hardware and software. The contractor’s QA program shall establish the necessary QA processes, controls, and approval authority to ensure that product quality, reliability, safety, and other element attributes are not compromised. Audits and analyses shall be conducted to ensure subcontractors and vendors are compliant with the QA program established for this contract effort. The contractor shall provide a Product Assurance (PA) Plan (ADP 22) to address any contract-unique modifications. The PA Program shall apply only to new and modified hardware and software. The contractor’s quality program shall ensure that all required inspections/tests are documented in the contractor’s development and production planning and manufacturing methods.

3.2.4.2.1 Quality Conformance Inspection Data (All Clear CLINS) Quality conformance inspection data in the product configuration documentation shall reflect use of commercial test equipment and standards. The need for any Special Test Equipment (STE), if required, must first be approved by the Government. Quality conformance inspection data shall be audited by the contractor against the corresponding configuration item and the applicable test equipment and standards to ensure its adequacy. Audits shall include actual validation of data against the hardware and software.

3.2.4.2.2 Quality Assurance Provisions (QAP) (All Clear CLINS) QAPs shall be prepared, utilized, and maintained on drawings and specifications. In addition, the QAPs shall include Critical Safety Item requirements. QAPs shall be documented on the drawing or in book form for Critical and Major Characteristics for spare/repair components, assemblies, and subassemblies. Non-spare items shall be identified as above or through inspection planning efforts. For the purposes of this paragraph, spare/repair parts shall include items that are candidates for breakout procurement.

3.2.4.2.3 PMP Management Structure/Counterfeit Parts Control (All Clear CLINS) The contractor shall establish and support a Parts Management Program Control Board (PMPCB) and provide support to the quarterly MDA PMP Board (PMPB) meetings. The PMPCB shall establish and approve the following processes:

· To approve non-franchised distributors

· For traceability of non-franchised distributor-bought parts used in this equipment; to include: Major Sub, sub building microelectronics, and CCA house

· To verify Quality has performed a Supplier Assessment of non-franchised distributors prior to PMPCB approval

· To notify the PMPCB of each procurement from a non-franchised distributor

All microcircuit (FSC 5962) and discrete semiconductor (FSC 5961) parts shall be procured from authorized, franchised distributors. Procurement of these parts from non-franchised distributors is PROHIBITED unless procured through the PMPCB-Approved Process. The contractor shall list and report (ADP 48) all non-franchised distributor microcircuits (FSC 5962) to the MDA/SN PMPCB.

3.2.4.2.4 Foreign Object Elimination (FOE) (All Clear CLINS)

The contractor shall establish and maintain a Foreign Object Elimination (FOE) program, which systematically eliminates Foreign Object Damage and Debris (FOD) to preserve safety, quality, and reliability.

The FOE program shall provide for a standardized approach that maintains awareness, prevention, compliance, and assures continued reinforcement. The FOE program shall also ensure operational processing areas maintain a safe, clean, and FOD-Free environment; with appropriate controls commensurate to the criticality of the hardware; including provisions for tool control, hardware accountability, and consumables control. FOD focal points shall be established. Internal evaluations shall be conducted to measure compliance to established FOD requirements. The developer shall develop and maintain FOE Program Plan (ADP 49) that specifies the requirements, techniques, and training for implementing and assuring FOE awareness and prevention.

3.2.5 Configuration Management (CM) (All Clear CLINS)

The contractor's Systems and Software Configuration Management shall be at a minimum equivalent to the Software Engineering Institute (SEI) Capability Maturity Model Integration (CMMI) Level Three Integrated Product and Process Development Specific Goals (SG). Contractor Quality Assurance shall monitor, audit, and report CM process steps to ensure that product quality and integrity of baselines and documents are maintained in compliance with Process and Product Quality Assurance Specific Goals.

The contractor shall establish a Configuration Management/ Technical Data Management Program including Configuration Identification, Change Control, CCB and Joint Configuration Control Board activities, Configuration Baseline Management, Configuration Status Accounting and reporting, Configuration Verification and Audit, and Release/Database Management for the Clear-unique hardware, software, and associated documentation. Functional Configuration Audit and Physical Configuration Audits shall be performed (ADP 44/ADP 45).

The contractor shall generate Software Change Forms (SCFs) and AF form 1067s to document changes to the UEWR software and hardware, respectively. The contractor shall present all SCFs and AF Form 1067s and briefing created for this effort to the Joint Configuration Control Board (JCCB) for approval prior to implementation. The contractor shall support Operations Approval Board (OAB) and Operations Approval Panel (OAP) as necessary. The contractor shall support other MDA-run configuration management and approval boards (i.e. Integration and Synchronization Group and Program Change Board), as required.

3.2.5.1 Data Management (All Clear CLINS)

The contractor shall implement a data management program with controls to address quality of data preparation, compliance with CDRL specifications, timely submittal, maintenance, and tracking of all data deliverables, data products, and related correspondence. The contractor shall generate and maintain a Data Accession List (DAL) IAW (CDRL A016).

The contractor shall utilize the Government Integrated Data Environment (IDE) to electronically deliver data (CDRL, ADP, DAL items and related program correspondence). Items described in this SOW, which are not CDRLs, shall be considered to be ADP.

3.2.5.2 Configuration Reviews, Verification, and Audits (All Clear CLINS) The Government reserves the right to conduct CM audits, assessments, verifications, and reviews of the contractor’s data, the as-design/as-built configuration records/logbooks (ADP 14), and the processes for generation, visibility, and control of this data on an annual basis. The contractor shall support all such audits, assessments, verifications, and reviews to confirm data, records, and process integrity and consistency by assuring that the baselines are accurately documented.

3.2.6 Information Assurance (IA) (All Clear CLINS)

The contractor shall comply with information assurance requirements for all activities listed within this SOW. The system shall be maintained at a Mission Assurance Category (MAC) I, SECRET, System High system level of security to ensure confidentiality, integrity, authentication, non-repudiation and availability of information for those systems being provided or managed under this contract.

The contractor shall support Government-conducted Certification & Accreditation (C&A) planning and testing associated with the Department of Defense Information Assurance Certification and Accreditation Process (DIACAP) process to include, but not be limited to, Controls, Validation, Testing (CVT) and associated corrective actions.

Contractor support shall provide accreditation documentation and DIACAP artifacts(CDRL A034) to include, but not be limited to Incident Response, Disaster Recovery, Continuity of Operations, and Information Assurance Vulnerability Management (IAVM) in support of the C&A process. The contractor shall develop a stand-alone IA Administrator's Guide (AG) (CDRL A023) and IA User's Guide (UG) (CDRL A033) to support the system accreditation process.

The contractor shall address all relevant existing Category I, II, and III deficiencies contained in the current UEWR IA Plan of Action and Milestones (POA&M). The contractor shall adhere to the applicable Information Assurance Vulnerability Management (IAVM) procedures and shall implement Information Assurance Vulnerability Assessment (IAVA) changes that arise prior to final Developmental Test and Evaluation (DT&E). IAVA evaluations shall be performed as necessary.

The contractor shall be responsible for reviewing, engineering, testing, and implementation of corrective or mitigation actions for all known IA Category I, II and III vulnerabilities in a timeframe acceptable to the Government. The contractor shall update, maintain and implement the UEWR Program Protection Management Plan (CDRL A007).

S…