N00024-13-R-5100_Amendment_0004.doc

SECTION SF 30 BLOCK 14 CONTINUATION PAGE

The following items are applicable to this modification:

SUMMARY OF CHANGES

SECTION A - SOLICITATION/CONTRACT FORM

The required response date/time has changed from 18-Dec-2013 02:00 PM to 30-Apr-2014 02:00 PM.

SECTION B - SUPPLIES OR SERVICES AND PRICES

The following have been modified:

NOTE C - Option item to which the option clause in SECTION I-2 (52.217-9 OPTION TO EXTEND THE TERM OF THE CONTRACT (MAR 2000)) applies and which is to be supplied only if and to the extent said option is exercised. As stated under Note A, the performance incentive CLINs, 3017, 3018, 4017, 4018, 4021, 4022, 4023, 5017, 5018, 5021, 5022, 5023, 6017, 6018, 6021, 6022, 6023, 7017, 7018, 7021, 7022, 7023, 8017, 8018, 8021, 8022, 8023, 9017, 9018, 9021, 9022 and 9023 are only separated for administrative purposes. The latest option exercise date for performance incentive fee CLINs will be the same date as the primary CLIN. For example, the latest Option exercise date for CLIN 5003 is the latest Option exercise date for CLIN 5017. In addition, as stated under Note B, the award fee CLINs 0001AA, 0002AA, 0007AA, 0009AA, 0015AA; and if exercised Option SLINs 1001BA, 1002BA, 1007BA, 1009BA, 1015BA, 2001CA, 2002CA, 2007CA, 2009CA, 2015CA, 3001DA, 3002DA, 3007DA, 3009DA, 3015DA, 4001EA, 4002EA, 4007EA, 4009EA, 4015EA, 5001FA, 5002FA, 5005FA, 5007FA, 5008FA, 5009FA, 5015FA , 6001GA, 6002GA, 6005GA, 6007GA, 6008GA, 6009GA, 6015GA, 6019GA, 7001HA, 7002HA, 7006HA, 7007HA, 7008HA, 7009HA, 7015HA, 7019HA, 7020HA, 7024HA, 8001JA, 8002JA, 8007JA, 8008JA, 8009JA, 8015JA, 8019JA, 8020JA, 8024JA, 9001KA, 9002KA, 9007KA, 9008KA, 9009KA, 9015KA, 9019KA, 9020KA, 9024KA are separated for administrative purposes. The latest option exercise date for the award fee CLINs will be the same date as the primary CLIN. The latest option exercise dates are as follows:

DETERMINATION OF FEE (NAVSEA) (DEC 2010)

(a) Minimum Fee

The base fee, as set forth in Section B of this contract, shall constitute a minimum fee to be paid for the performance of this contract. The Base Fee shall be paid in accordance with the clause of this contract entitled "FIXED FEE" (FAR 52.216‑8).

(b) Award Fee

In addition to the minimum (or base fee) to be paid hereunder, if any, the Contractor may earn an award fee as determined by the Fee Determining Official (FDO). The Government's purpose in granting an award fee is to encourage and reward superior Contracting effort directed toward performance of this contract. The specifics for evaluation are set forth in paragraphs that follow.

(c) Award Fee Board

The Contractor's performance evaluation for each period will be conducted by an Award Fee Board (AFB) of not more than eight members consisting of:

(1) The Chairperson

(2) Program Office Technical/Acquisition Representative

(3) Program Office Technical/Acquisition Representative

(4) Procuring Contracting Officer

(5) NAVSEA Representative

(6) Contract Administration Office Representative

(7) TYCOM, TDA or Field Activity Representative

(8) Recorder (Non‑voting Participant)

(d) Fee Determining Official

The FDO, [TBD], shall make determinations of the award fee due to the Contractor based upon the performance evaluation conducted by the Award Fee Board established pursuant to paragraph (c) above.

(e) Award Fee Determination and Reclama Procedures

(1) Within ten (10) days after the end of each evaluation period, the Contractor shall furnish to the AFB such information as may be reasonably required, including an Earned Value Management System (EVMS) summary for each contract line item under review, to assist the AFB in evaluating the Contractor’s performance during that evaluation period.

(2) The Award Fee Board evaluation will be scheduled as soon as possible after the end of each evaluation period. The Board may consider reports, both oral and written, from all interested parties. The Board shall arrive at a consensus on the performance rating and advise the FDO of its recommendation including the reasons, rationale, and justifications therefore. The Board findings shall be presented to the Contractor who will then be provided an opportunity to provide written comments on the evaluation findings to the FDO within five (5) working days. In such case, these comments shall be considered by the FDO in establishing the award fee earned.

(3) The FDO shall provide the Procuring Contracting Officer (PCO) a final performance evaluation and determination of the award fee earned for that period within five (5) working days after receipt of the Board’s findings or the Contractor’s written comments, whichever is later.

(4) Within ten (10) working days after receipt of the FDO’s final determination and the Procurement Request (PR) that includes the funding associated with the FDO’s final determination amount, the Contracting Officer shall issue a unilateral modification to the contract to provide for the award fee earned for that period.

(f) Fee Determination Official’s Determination

Determinations of the FDO with respect to the amount of the award fee to be paid to the Contractor and the methodology for determining the award fee are unilateral decisions made solely at the discretion of the Government.

(g) Evaluation Categories and Factors The Contractor's performance during each evaluation period will be judged based on the categories listed in the table below. The Government reserves the right to make changes in evaluation categories and factors or weights assigned to evaluation categories by unilateral modification. The Contractor may propose performance objectives for any period, however; only those received at least thirty (30) days prior to the start of an evaluation period will be considered for that evaluation period. The Contractor will be notified of changes in the evaluation categories and factors as well as adjustments to the weighting of categories, if any, prior to commencement of each evaluation period. Unsatisfactory performance under an award fee criterion may result in increased weighting for that factor in subsequent evaluation periods.

A.

Time of Delivery.

(A-2)

Action on Anticipated delays.

B.

Quality of Work.

(B-1)

Quality and Assurance Reduction of Open Integration Issues

(B-3)

Independence and Initiative

ITEM FACTOR

EVAL. RATING

CATEGORY FACTOR

EFFICIENCY RATING

A-1

Adherence to Plan Schedule

A-2

Action on Anticipated Delays

Total Item Weighed Rating

ITEM FACTOR

EVAL. RATING

CATEGORY FACTOR

EFFICIENCY RATING

B.

Quality of Work

(55%)

QUALITY OF WORK

B-1

Q&A

Total Item Weighed Rating

(h) Evaluation Periods/Award Fee Pool

(1) The following evaluation periods and associated award fee pools are hereby established. The Government reserves the right to adjust the evaluation period and allocation of award fee pool available for each period by unilateral contract modification, which shall be issued, if at all, prior to the start of the affected evaluation period(s).

PERIOD

AWARD FEE

AWARD FEE

NO. EVALUATION PERIOD

AVAILABLE

EARNED

1st Award through 31 December 2016

$TBD

2nd 1 January 2017 through 30 June 2017

3rd 1 July 2017 through 31 December 2017

4th 1 January 2018 through 30 June 2018

5th 1 July 2018 through 31 December 2018

6th 1 January 2019 through 30 June 2019

7th 1 July 2019 through 31 December 2019

8th 1 January 2020 through 30 June 2020

9th 1 July 2020 through 31 December 2020

10th 1 January 2021 through 30 June 2021

11th 1 July 2021 through 31 December 2021

12th 1 January 2022 through 30 June 2022

13th 1 July 2022 through 31 December 2022

14th 1 January 2023 through 30 June 2023

15th 1 July 2023 through 31 December 2023

16th 1 January 2024 through 30 June 2024

17th 1 July 2024 through 31 December 2024

18th 1 January 2025 through 30 April 2025

(2) There will be no rollover of unearned award fee.

(i) Performance Ratings

(1) In evaluating Contractor performance, the adjective and numerical ratings are as follows:

NUMERICAL

RATING/

ADJECTIVE % OF AWARD FEE

RATING POOL EARNED

CRITERIA/DEFINITION OF RATING

EXCELLENT

>91-100% The Contractor has met the basic (minimum essential) requirements of the contract, and has met more than 90% of the award fee criteria established in the award fee plan.

VERY GOOD

>76-90% The Contractor has met the basic (minimum essential) requirements of the contract, and has met more than 75% but not more than 90% of the award fee criteria established in the award fee plan.

SATISFACTORY

>50-75% The Contractor has met the basic (minimum essential) requirements of the contract, and has met more than 50% but not more than 75% of the award fee criteria established in the award fee plan.

UNSATISFACTORY

0%

The Contractor has failed to meet the basic (minimum essential) requirements of the contract.

(j) Maximum Fee In no event shall the total fee (base fee plus award fee) under this contract exceed 5% percent of total estimated cost.

(k) Payment of Award Fee The Contractor shall be paid award fee, if any, upon submittal of a proper invoice or voucher to the cognizant Payment Office, together with a copy of the unilateral modification to the contract authorizing payment of award fee for the applicable Evaluation Period. The Contractor's invoice shall show the amount of award fee payable to each sub‑line item, which shall be directly proportionate to the amount of allowable Estimated Cost (exclusive of base fee and FCCOM) incurred by the Contractor during the Evaluation Period. The Contractor's invoice must cite the appropriate accounting data in order for payment to be affected. There will be no provisional, interim or advance billing of award fee prior to a final determination of the FDO and execution by the contracting officer of a contract modification authorizing payment.

SECTION C - DESCRIPTIONS AND SPECIFICATIONS

The following have been modified:

3.3 NEW CONSTRUCTION TEST EXECUTION

3.3.1 ACB-16/TI-16 NEW CONSTRUCTION TEST EXECUTION

If Options are exercised Items 3003, 3004, 4003, 4004, 5003, 5004, 6003, 6004, 7003, 7004, 8003, 8004, 9003, 9004.

Utilizing the Contractor-developed Test Sequence Network (TSN),) the Contractor, as an integral part of the AEGIS Test Team (ATT), shall support the execution of Aegis Weapons System (AWS) tests, Aegis Combat System (ACS) Integration tests, ACS Warfare Functional tests, and Ballistic Missile Defense (BMD) tests required as per NAVSEAINST S9095 AD-TRQ-010/TSTP.

However, the Contractor test responsibility shall consist of set-up, coordination of test assets, test execution, troubleshooting during the conduct of the test, and documentation of discrepancies and results for the ACB-16/TI-16 test procedures and test procedure outlines, including all revisions, developed either by the contractor or the Government, to such test procedures or outlines applicable to ACB-16/TI-16, provided in Section 1 of Attachment J-16 ACB-16/TI-16 ATT Responsible Test List (AWS). The Contractor is also responsible for test execution support, including but not limited to the operation of the AWS during the test execution and resultant troubleshooting, of the test procedures and test procedure outlines, including all revisions, developed either by the contractor or the Government, to such test procedures or outlines applicable to ACB-16/TI-16, provided in Section 2 of Attachment J-16 ACB-16/TI-16 ATT Responsible Test List (AWS). Furthermore, the Contractor is responsible for any re-testing or test support necessary within 6 months of the end of the scheduled test program. The Contractor may utilize the land-based sites at the Surface Combat Systems Center (SCSC) in Wallops Island, VA, and the Combat System Engineering Development Site (CSEDS) in Moorestown, NJ for test procedure validation. In addition, Contractor personnel may also utilize shipyard facilities at Naval Base San Diego in San Diego, CA, Naval Base Norfolk in Norfolk, VA, Supervisor of Shipbuilding (SUPSHIP) in Bath, ME, and Huntington Ingalls Industries in Pascagoula, MS for test procedure validation. As part of the AEGIS Test Team (ATT), Contractor personnel shall operate out of the Government provided facility for the ATT. The Contractor shall report to the local AEGIS Test Officer (ATO)/AEGIS Test Manager (ATM) as follows:

Daily – Provide verbal status of test completion progress, trouble areas, assistance required, and upcoming work.

Weekly – Provide written status of test completion progress, trouble areas, assistance required, and upcoming work.

Monthly – Provide a written summary to the ATO/ATM of test completion progress, trouble areas, assistance required, and upcoming work.

The Contractor shall perform operation and maintenance of AWS equipment. The Contractor shall monitor shipbuilder progress with respect to trial readiness and report same to ATO/ATM. The Contractor shall support ATO/ATM in all waterfront programmatic meetings and readiness reviews. The Contractor shall document all equipment or ship discrepancies via Test Observation Reports (TOR), Computer Program Change Requests (CPCR), or Trial Cards to the ATO/ATM.

3.3.2 FUTURE ACB/FUTURE TI NEW CONSTRUCTION TEST EXECUTION

If Options are exercised Items 5005Fa, 6005GA, 6006GA, 7006HA, and 9006KA As directed by specific Technical Instruction (TI), the Contractor shall perform the following tasks.

Utilizing the Contractor-developed Test Sequence Network (TSN) the Contractor, as an integral part of the AEGIS Test Team (ATT), shall support the execution of Aegis Weapons System (AWS) tests, Aegis Combat System (ACS) Integration tests, ACS Warfare Functional tests, and Ballistic Missile Defense (BMD) tests required as per NAVSEAINST S9095 AD-TRQ-010/TSTP.

However, the Contractor test responsibility shall consist of set-up, coordination of test assets, test execution, troubleshooting during the conduct of the test, and documentation of discrepancies and results for the Future ACB/Future TI test procedures and test procedure outlines, including all revisions, developed either by the contractor or the Government, to such test procedures or outlines applicable to Future ACB/Future TI, for which examples provided in Section 1 of Attachment J-16 ACB-16/TI-16 ATT Responsible Test List (AWS). The Contractor is also responsible for test execution support, including but not limited to the operation of the AWS during the test execution and resultant troubleshooting, of the test procedures and test procedure outlines, including all revisions, developed either by the contractor or the Government, to such test procedures or outlines applicable to Future ACB/Future TI, for which examples provided in Section 2 of Attachment J-16 ACB-16/TI-16 ATT Responsible Test List (AWS). Furthermore, the Contractor is responsible for any re-testing or testing support necessary within 6 months of the end of the scheduled test program. The Contractor may utilize the land-based sites at the Surface Combat Systems Center (SCSC) in Wallops Island, VA, and the Combat System Engineering Development Site (CSEDS) in Moorestown, NJ for test procedure validation. In addition, Contractor personnel may also utilize shipyard facilities at Naval Base San Diego in San Diego, CA, Naval Base Norfolk in Norfolk, VA, Supervisor of Shipbuilding (SUPSHIP) in Bath, ME, and Huntington Ingalls Industries in Pascagoula, MS for test procedure validation. As part of the AEGIS Test Team (ATT), Contractor personnel shall operate out of the Government provided facility for the ATT. The Contractor shall report to the local AEGIS Test Officer (ATO)/AEGIS Test Manager (ATM) as follows:

Daily – Provide verbal status of test completion progress, trouble areas, assistance required, and upcoming work.

Weekly – Provide written status of test completion progress, trouble areas, assistance required, and upcoming work.

Monthly – Provide a written summary to the ATO/ATM of test completion progress, trouble areas, assistance required, and upcoming work.

The Contractor shall perform operation and maintenance of AWS equipment. The Contractor shall monitor shipbuilder progress with respect to trial readiness and report same to ATO/ATM. The Contractor shall support ATO/ATM in all waterfront programmatic meetings and readiness reviews. The Contractor shall document all equipment or ship discrepancies via Test Observation Reports (TOR), Computer Program Change Requests (CPCR), or Trial Cards to the ATO/ATM.

3.7 AEGIS MODERNIZATION TEST EXECUTION

3.7.1 ACB-16/TI-16 AEGIS MODERNIZATION TEST EXECUTION - ONE DDG 51 CLASS SHIP

If Options are exercised Items 4010, 4011, 4012, 5010, 5011, 5012, 6010, 6011, 6012, 7010, 7011, 7012, 8010, 8011, 8012, 9010, 9011 and 9012.

Utilizing the Contractor-developed Test Sequence Network (TSN) the Contractor, as an integral part of the AEGIS Modernization Team (AMT), shall support the execution of Aegis Weapons System (AWS) tests, Aegis Combat System (ACS) Integration tests, ACS Warfare Functional tests, and Ballistic Missile Defense (BMD) tests required as per NAVSEAINST S9095 AD-TRQ-010/TSTP.

Contractor test responsibility shall consist of set-up, coordination of test assets, test execution, troubleshooting during the conduct of the test, and documentation of discrepancies and results for the ACB-16/TI-16 test procedures and test procedure outlines, including all revisions, developed either by the contractor or the Government, to such test procedures or outlines applicable to ACB-16/TI-16, provided in Section 1 of Attachment J-17 ACB-16/TI-16-AMT (AWS). The Contractor is also responsible for test execution support, including but not limited to the operation of the AWS during the test execution and resultant troubleshooting, of the test procedures and test procedure outlines, including all revisions, developed either by the contractor or the Government, to such test procedures or outlines applicable to ACB-16/TI-16, provided in Section 2 of Attachment J-17 ACB-16/TI-16 AMT Responsible Test List (AWS). Furthermore, the Contractor is responsible for any re-testing or test support necessary within 6 months of the end of the scheduled test program. As part of the AMT, Contractor personnel may utilize the land-based sites at the Surface Combat Systems Center (SCSC) in Wallops Island, VA, and the Combat System Engineering Development Site (CSEDS) in Moorestown, NJ for test procedure validation. In addition, Contractor personnel may also utilize shipyard facilities at Naval Base San Diego in San Diego, CA, and Naval Base Norfolk in Norfolk, VA for test procedure validation. The Contractor shall report to the ship’s respective Government Combat System Project Engineer (CSPE) and/or local AEGIS Test Officer (ATO)/AEGIS Test Manager (ATM) as follows:

Daily – Provide verbal status of test completion progress, trouble areas, assistance required, and upcoming work.

Weekly – Provide written status of test completion progress, trouble areas, assistance required, and upcoming work.

Monthly – Provide a written summary to the CSPE or ATO/ATM of test completion progress, trouble areas, assistance required, and upcoming work.

The Contractor shall perform operation and maintenance of AWS equipment. The Contractor shall monitor shipbuilder progress with respect to trial readiness and report same to ATO/ATM. The Contractor shall support ATO/ATM in all waterfront programmatic meetings and readiness reviews. The Contractor shall document all equipment or ship discrepancies via Test Observation Reports (TOR), Computer Program Change Requests (CPCR), or Trial Cards to the ATO/ATM.

3.7.2 FUTURE ACB/FUTURE TI AMOD TEST EXECUTION

If Options are exercised Items 6019, 7019, 7020, 7024, 8019, 8020, 8024, 9019, 9020, AND 9024

As directed by specific Technical Instruction (TI), the Contractor shall perform the following tasks.

Utilizing the Contractor-developed Test Sequence Network (TSN) the Contractor, as an integral part of the AEGIS Modernization Team (AMT), shall support the execution of Aegis Weapons System (AWS) tests, Aegis Combat System (ACS) Integration tests, ACS Warfare Functional tests, and Ballistic Missile Defense (BMD) tests required as per NAVSEAINST S9095 AD-TRQ-010/TSTP.

However, the Contractor test responsibility shall consist of set-up, coordination of test assets, test execution, troubleshooting during the conduct of the test, and documentation of discrepancies and results for the Future ACB/Future TI test procedures and test procedure outlines, including all revisions, developed either by the contractor or the Government, to such test procedures or outlines applicable to Future ACB/Future TI, examples of which are provided in Section 1 of Attachment J-17 ACB-16/TI-16 ATT Responsible Test List (AWS). The Contractor is also responsible for test execution support, including but not limited to the operation of the AWS during the test execution and resultant troubleshooting, of the test procedures and test procedure outlines, including all revisions, developed either by the contractor or the Government, to such test procedures or outlines applicable to Future ACB/Future TI, examples of which are provided in Section 2 of Attachment J-17 ACB-16/TI-16 ATT Responsible Test List (AWS). Furthermore, the Contractor is responsible for any re-testing or test support necessary within 6 months of the end of the scheduled test program. The Contractor may utilize the land-based sites at the Surface Combat Systems Center (SCSC) in Wallops Island, VA, and the Combat System Engineering Development Site (CSEDS) in Moorestown, NJ for test procedure validation. In addition, Contractor personnel may also utilize shipyard facilities at Naval Base San Diego in San Diego, CA, Naval Base Norfolk in Norfolk, VA, Supervisor of Shipbuilding (SUPSHIP) in Bath, ME, and Huntington Ingalls Industries in Pascagoula, MS for test procedure validation. As part of the AEGIS Modernization Team (AMT), Contractor personnel shall operate out of the Government provided facility for the AMT. The Contractor shall report to the local AEGIS Test Officer (ATO)/AEGIS Test Manager (ATM) as follows:

Daily – Provide verbal status of test completion progress, trouble areas, assistance required, and upcoming work.

Weekly – Provide written status of test completion progress, trouble areas, assistance required, and upcoming work.

Monthly – Provide a written summary to the ATO/ATM of test completion progress, trouble areas, assistance required, and upcoming work.

The Contractor shall perform operation and maintenance of AWS equipment. The Contractor shall monitor overhaul yard progress with respect to trial readiness and report same to ATO/ATM. The Contractor shall support ATO/ATM in all waterfront programmatic meetings and readiness reviews. The Contractor shall document all equipment or ship discrepancies via Test Observation Reports (TOR) or Computer Program Change Requests (CPCR) to the ATO/ATM.

3.10 SHIP INTEGRATION AND ENGINEERING

Option Items 0015AA, 1015BA, 2015CA, 3015DA, 4015EA, 5015FA, 6015GA, 7015HA, 8015JA, and 9015KA As directed by specific Technical Instruction (TI), the Contractor shall perform the following tasks:

References: MIL-STD-1310H, NAVSEA STD 407-5291780, NAVSEA T9050-AA-DIR-010/AEGIS, MIL-STD-882D, MIL-T-47500.

3.10.1 TECHNICAL DATA PACKAGES (TDP)

The Contractor shall be PEO IWS’s agent responsible for integrating and documenting all Combat Systems equipment as well as managing the Combat System spaces (including Topside) on Aegis CG 47 / DDG 51 Class ships. Topside studies and Technical Data Packages shall be used to manage this effort.

The Contractor shall perform all required management, engineering, and test efforts required to develop TDPs for AEGIS CG-47 Class ships and DDG-51 Class ships for Backfit, Modernization and new construction in accordance with Ship Integration and Test standards, MIL-T-47500/2 and MIL-T-47500/5. The deliverable required is a fully developed Technical Data Package. PEO IWS 1.0 requires the following support:

1. The Contractor shall prepare and provide TDPs for AEGIS combat system ship alterations. A TDP defines how the equipment and/or system should be installed on a specific ship or group of ships and provides impact analysis for all CSSE, including, but not limited to electronic cooling water, dry air, HVAC, and 60/400Hz power systems. The Contractor will evaluate each change proposal for both operational and physical impact. Prior to the development of the formal TDP, the Contractor shall demonstrate their understanding of the proposed change and provide a recommendation on how it can be integrated into the ship while conforming to general and/or new construction ship specifications. Additionally, the Contractor shall review the Government Furnished Information (GFI) or Contractor Furnished Information (CFI) used to support TDP development to identify missing information required to develop a TDP, to get clarification on information required to develop a TDP, or to identify deficiencies with the GFI/CFI that must be corrected for the system to be installed aboard an Aegis CG-47 Class ship or DDG-51 Class ship.

a. The Contractor shall perform reviews of Government-Furnished Information (GFI) and Contractor Furnished Information (CFI) for completeness, technical merit, and level of confidence to determine if all information is available to develop the TDP. The Contractor shall provide a summary list of comments against the provided GFI combat system installation documents to summarize and define recommended corrective actions, if any, based on a Unit Level Checklist which includes MIL-D-23130D requirements and unique ship installation criteria. The format of the Unit Level Checklist is provided in Section J – Attachment 1. Additionally, the review is used to determine if materials being used are acceptable for use on Aegis CGs and DDGs based on Aegis and ship building specifications.

b. The Contractor shall develop TDPs using GFI or CFI which are provided to the Contractor by the alteration sponsor/PARM who receives the information from the Original Equipment Manufacturer (OEM). This GFI/CFI will include the necessary electrical, physical, mechanical, and interface data (weight, space, power, cooling, dry air, etc.) that the Contractor requires to develop the TDP. TDPs must be submitted in a format that is compatible with the Planning Yard/SCN Lead Yard/SCN Follow Yard tools. Pascagoula utilizes CADD format. BIW utilizes CATIA format. The content of the TDP is provided in Section J, Attachment 8.

c. The Contractor shall develop both an Initial TDP and a Final TDP. The Initial TDP will be reviewed by the Navy Review Team (PARM, NSWC PHD, NSWC DD, Planning Yard, etc.) and comments will be provided to the Contractor. The review process used (Reading Session, Phone Conference, etc) and the number of days required to accomplish the review is dependent on the maturity of the system that will be installed and complexity of the change. In the event of incomplete GFI, the Contractor may include assumptions or items labeled “TBD” in the Initial TDP. Once information is provided, any and all “TBDs” will be corrected prior to the release of the Final TDP. The Contractor is responsible for collecting and adjudicating all Navy Review Team comments. If required and with Government direction, the Contractor shall schedule and conduct reading sessions to adjudicate comments. Once comments have been adjudicated, the Contractor shall begin development of the Final TDP and provide the government with a proposed delivery date. The Final TDP shall incorporate all Initial TDP comments and shall contain no assumptions. The Final TDP will follow the same review process as the Initial TDP.

d. If review comments are received against the Final TDP or other changes to the TDP are required due to updated GFI/CFI, the Contractor shall develop updates to the TDP, sometimes referred to as a Liaison Action Request (LAR), an example of which is provided on Viewnet. The LAR may consist of change pages only or may be a complete replacement for the Final TDP. If change pages only, the Contractor shall denote these changes within the updated TDP.

2. The Contractor shall perform Fatal Flaw Reviews for Combat System spaces and Topside. Fatal Flaw reviews address equipment locations, impacts to Combat Systems and Combat System Support Equipment, and safety concerns. The time required for the Contractor to accomplish a Fatal Flaw Review is dependent on the complexity of the change. A Fatal Flaw review may consist of simply identifying an area within a Combat System space that a single piece of equipment can temporarily be installed in, or the Fatal Flaw review may be evaluating equipment and cabling impacts both below deck and Topside for a more complicated non-permanent change that will be installed for a ship’s deployment. The Contractor shall be capable of performing a Fatal Flaw review for any system being planned for installation aboard an Aegis CG-47 Class ship or DDG-51 Class ship.

3. The Contractor shall perform ship checks as required to verify as-built configurations and to support the planning for Combat System alteration installations, including Planning Yard ship checks as tasked. The Contractor shall accomplish ship checks of the Combat System spaces as well as Topside to identify equipment that must be deleted or relocated to support the installation of a new system. Additionally, ship checks will be used to validate existing cables and the jack numbers on equipment to determine which cables will need to be deleted, modified, and added to support the installation of a new system. Ship checks shall be used to identify all areas and impacts to the ship to support the installation of a new system. The Contractor shall provide a report of its findings to the Government.

4. The Contractor shall provide 3D Computer-Aided Design (CAD) models of Combat System space arrangements and Topside Sensor Models to facilitate the preparation of ship integration designs. Utilize the existing CG-47 and DDG-51 Class 3D CAD data where appropriate.

5. The Contractor shall perform technical reviews of post-TDP products such as Ship Change Documents (SCDs), Planning Yard generated LARs, SIDs, Work Item Specifications, and revision notices to ensure conformance to the TDP.

6. The Contractor shall participate in and support Integration Program reviews, Ship Program Reviews, and Backfit Coordination Meetings. Meetings may be held weekly, monthly, or as required by the government.

7. The Contractor shall provide support for emergent waterfront installation design issues that require deviation from the TDP. Support to resolve waterfront issues include design support, on-site support aboard a ship, or onsite support at another Navy or Contractor facility. The level of support required is dependent on the situation and may require full time, part time, or even on call support. Develop and provide design options and recommendations to assist in the resolution of the issue.

8. The Contractor shall be responsible for identifying areas that do not conform to general and new construction ship specifications, as identified in NAVSEA S9AA0-AA-SPN-010/GEN-SPEC. The Contractor shall also provide recommendations for bringing the design into compliance.

References: MIL-T-47500/2, MIL-T-47500/5, MIL-D-23130D, MIL-D-23140D, MIL-STD-2042B, NAVSEA S9AA0-AA-SPN-010/GEN-SPEC.

3.10.2 ROUGH ORDER OF MAGNITUDE (ROM) LEVEL ENGINEERING PACKAGES (RLEP)

The Contractor shall develop Rough Order of Magnitude (ROM) Level Engineering Packages (RLEPs). RLEPs are provided to the Aegis Planning Yards so an overall cost to install the system can be developed. The RLEP shall provide the hull applicability, high level block diagram, equipment impact statement, impacts to the Aegis Combat System or Hull, Mechanical, and Electrical (HM&E) systems, design constraints, impacts to ships documentation, system design issues, assessment of GFI completeness, relationship to other ship packages, assumptions made in developing the RLEP, space impacts, cable impacts, estimate of the TDP delivery, waveguide impact, and additional information to aid in the development of a ROM. Additional information may be added to the RLEP at the discretion of the Government.

3.10.3 TECHNICAL DOCUMENTATION

The Contractor shall maintain a Configuration Management (CM) program, based on the following tasking:

1. The CM program shall support the shipboard installation, integration and test of equipment comprising the AEGIS Combat System.

2. The Contractor shall serve as a member of appropriate Navy and Contractor configuration control boards.

3. The Contractor shall maintain the baseline configuration definitions for the AEGIS Combat System and shall identify the configuration equipment and computer programs for all AEGIS Combat System elements in the DDG-51 Class baselines.

4. The Contractor shall maintain configuration status records that identify approved ECPs, SCNs and other revisions to the technical documentation and test documentation, and shall support transition of status accounting data, delivered equipment, and computer programs to the PEO SHIPS Combat System CM database.

5. The Contractor shall prepare and maintain ECNs to drawings in support of AWS deliverable cable sets.

6. The Contractor shall maintain 3-D CAD models for Topside and all major combat system spaces.

3.10.4 TEST PACKAGE AND TEST PROCEDURE DEVELOPMENT

The Contractor shall develop or update Test Procedures, according to the AEGIS Ships Test Procedure Preparation Directive NAVSEA T9050-AA-DIR-010/AEGIS, the Total Ship Test Program Manual, NAVSEAINST S9095 AD-TRQ-010/TSTP, and the Development of Shipboard Industrial Test Procedures Design Criteria DOD-STD-2106.

1. The Contractor shall design, plan, coordinate and execute the availability test work package. The availability test work package shall include the Combat System Test Sequence Network, required PMS documentation, and new and modified test procedures.

2. The Contractor shall maintain the Test Documentation Booklet, and the Testing Index and Numbering System for CG-47 and DDG-51 Class ships, by updating it to conform to approved Headquarters Modification Requests (HMR), Field Modification Requests (FMR), approved SHIPALTs, and Liaison Action Requests (LAR).

3. The Contractor shall assist PEO IWS in management of the Total Ship Test Program including assisting PEO IWS in updating ship specifications and reviewing ECPs to assess their impact on the ACS Test Program, recommending necessary changes to the ship specifications, Test Index, Test Outlines, abbreviated outlines, and Test Sequence Networks.

4. The Contractor shall develop and maintain the AEGIS Combat System Ship Master Test Plan for the first hull of each new baseline. The Contractor shall provide recommendations on the DDG-51 Class Ship Master Test Plan to be developed by the shipbuilder/planning yard. In addition, the Contractor shall review and comment on the shipbuilder/planning yard’s test plans and schedules.

5. As a member of the Combat System Test and Evaluation (T&E) Working Group, the Contractor shall assist in the development of the Ship Construction Test Program, and maintain a close liaison with PEO IWS, shipbuilders, PARMS, and TDDs supporting long range planning and scheduling.

6. The Contractor shall provide an up-to-date set of ACS test procedures for Combat System integration in accordance with NAVSEA T9050-AA-DIR-010/AEGIS, AEGIS Ships Test Procedure Preparation Directive. The Contractor shall also validate Contractor prepared ACS ship test procedures at Government facilities or, when necessary, in ships. The Contractor shall work closely with the PARMS preparing the non-Contractor element level ship test procedure to ensure timely delivery to the ATT in advance of the applicable ship test.

7. The Contractor shall generate test documentation proposals in accordance with NAVSEA T9050-AA-DIR-010/AEGIS, AEGIS Ships Test Procedure Preparation Directive, to be used during Combat System Survivability Demonstration (power load transfer testing), Weapons System Accuracy Tests (WSAT), Acoustic Trials, CSSQT Operations, Final Contract Trials (FCT), DT/Operational Test (OT) events and other PDT&T events.

References - MIL-STD-810G, MIL-STD-2042B, NAVSEA T9050-AA-DIR-010/AEGIS, NAVSEAINST S9095 AD-TRQ-010/TSTP, DOD-STD-2106.

3.10.5 CONFIGURATION DEFINITION DOCUMENTS

The Contractor shall provide a Configuration Definition Document for new baseline development for SCN and backfit ships.

3.10.6 INTEGRATION FEASIBILITY STUDIES

The Contractor shall study proposed Combat System upgrades and/or changes to evaluate the physical impact of the upgrades with the installed system in order to identify problems, propose solutions and make recommendations to reduce risks. The scope of these studies shall include ship integration impact studies, feasibility and reliability studies, space arrangement options and Electromagnetic Effects (EMX)/Topside studies.

3.10.7 CONFIGURATION MANAGEMENT SUPPORT

The Contractor shall assist and participate in the backfit and new construction configuration management and design review process. The Contractor shall:

1. As part of the Technical Evaluation Group (TEG), assess impact to AWS, ACS, Ships, 400D, and Sites during concept phase (Local Configuration Control Board (LCCB) and Enterprise Change Control Board (ECCB) Navy change review processes in accordance with PEOIWSINST 4130.1B.

2. Perform Class I and Class II system-level change assessments (non-Contractor originated changes only).

3. Provide adjudication recommendations to PEO IWS (Class I) or formal recommendation letter to OEM (Class II) as the Ship Integration and Test (SI&T) representative.

4. Participate as the SI&T representative at LCCB and ECCB meetings.

5. Provide 10-day ECCB Impact Assessment and 30-day LCCB Engineering Change Analysis.

3.10.8 LIFECYCLE ENGINEERING

The Contractor shall provide system lifecycle engineering to support the introduction of Commercial Off-the-Shelf (COTS) equipment and Original Equipment Manufacturer (OEM) Tech Assist to existing legacy combat system designs. The Contractor shall provide system engineering efforts for in-service AEGIS ships in conjunction with Combat System (CS) operability issues, backfit upgrades and modernization efforts. This includes:

1. The Contractor shall provide system engineering and element-engineering efforts to assure that the required operational characteristics for In Service combat systems are designed, developed and implemented satisfactorily. This shall include analysis of functional performance, safety, EMX analysis, element development, human factors, Reliability, Maintainability, and Availability (RM&A), leveraging off ship design and integration.

2. The Contractor shall provide engineering and technical efforts to support a fleet support approach to the introduction, design, selection, procurement, application and lifetime support of COTS, Configuration Item (CI)/Non-D Item (NDI) and Military Specification (MILSPEC) items, including cables. The Contractor shall assist in the test and assessment of COTS and CI/NDI equipment in support of future AWS and ACS equipment and associated computer program upgrades.

3. The Contractor shall review CI/NDI and MILSPEC equipment and interface designs during planning for technology insertion, including schedules, design-adaptation, engineering/reengineering, failure analysis, and testing.

4. The Contractor shall provide engineering efforts to resolve interface design problems. This includes review of engineering drawings and documentation on CI/NDI and MILSPEC equipment.

5. The Contractor shall provide In Service CM assistance, assist in establishing CM processes, procedures and policies to enable proper support of COTS/CI/NDI based Government Furnished Property (GFP) by Navy Lifetime Support organizations.

6. The Contractor shall provide recommendations for improving maintainability and reducing lifecycle cost in the area of Combat System Equipment that improves operating characteristics, safety, maintenance, man-machine interface, radiation control, EMI/EMP/Electromagnetic Hazard (EMH), and Electronic Countermeasure (ECM)/Electronic Counter-Countermeasure (ECCM).

7. The Contractor shall participate in the Electronic Cooling Water Working Group and in the Power Conversion System Working Group as scheduled to provide technical support and expertise to system integration problems and integrated logistics support establishment.

8. The Contractor shall conduct engineering analysis for materials used in AWS equipment, including cables. This includes chemical analysis, spectral analysis, material improvements through new material research, material substitutions for obsolete materials, and all associated performance testing.

3.10.9 SYSTEM ENGINEERING

The Contractor shall provide system engineering, including equipment, system, and design engineering efforts for AEGIS ships to assist in resolving emergent fleet problems and to meet operational ACS performance, reliability and safety. These efforts include but are not limited to:

1. The expertise provided by the Contractor shall include areas of Logistics Engineering, Combat System Element Engineering, and Acquisition Support. The Contractor shall monitor the combat system design and report any degradation in the technical discipline areas above. The Contractor shall support the integration effort of an efficient generation and distribution system for the use of all “hotel services,” e.g., air, water and power, utilized by the Combat System as referenced in NAVSEA S9AA0-AA-SPN-010/GEN-SPEC. The Contractor shall provide expertise and support for structural stability studies and CS alignment.

2. The Contractor shall resolve element, multi-element, and weapon or combat system hardware, interface, and interoperability issues.

3. The Contractor shall conduct Engineering Analysis, Studies and Specialized Testing to resolve fleet issues relative to ACS design. This includes but is not limited to: antenna array, signal processor, Topside structure, EMI/EMC, Radiation Hazard (RADHAZ), and safety.

4. The Contractor shall assist the ISEA in preparation, development, install, test and verification of ECPs, ORDALTS, change forms, ship alterations, and baseline upgrades to the ACS/AWS Elements.

5. The Contractor shall provide data extraction, data reduction, engineering efforts, and facilities to review data obtained during tactical testing of the AEGIS Combat Systems. The Contractor shall assist the Government to review compiled test data to determine problems in system operation and determine where resolutions are needed.

6. The Contractor shall evaluate and develop concepts and technologies which could potentially improve the ship design, the design or installation processes, in order to increase performance, reduce cost, and/or facilitate ship combat installations and upgrades. The Contractor shall provide engineering support to NAVSEA, other Navy agencies and commercial organizations for design, development, qualification and test interfaces, cables and associated cable products.

References - MIL-STD-1399C, NAVSEA S9AA0-AA-SPN-010/GEN-SPEC.

3.10.10 ENVIRONMENTAL QUALIFICATION TESTING

The Contractor shall provide support for environmental (e.g., climatic, vibration, EMI, Radar Cross Section, and shock) testing of AEGIS Combat System equipment in accordance with MIL-STD-461F, MIL-STD-167-1A, and MIL-S-901D. The Contractor shall define and review, develop and or assist in drafting test procedures, conduct and monitor tests conducted at approved facilities, and ensure the final Test Reports accurately document the test results. The Contractor shall track environmental test status for AEGIS Combat System equipment, and provide status reports monthly on tests planned, scheduled and completed. The Contractor shall also track environmental test discrepancies, and work with the PARM as requested on resolution.

References – MIL-STD-461F, MIL-STD-167-1A, MIL-S901D.

3.10.11 TOPSIDE ANALYSIS

The Contractor shall participate in Topside Working Group Meetings, Technical Exchange Meetings, and perform Topside analyses that include, but are not limited to, assessment of the impacts associated with the installation of permanent or non-permanent Topside equipment. The Contractor shall recommend locations for Topside equipment installation.

The Contractor shall maintain Topside Evaluation Reports, Crew Served Weapons Guides, and Topside Configuration Baseline Drawings for CG 47 Class and DDG 51 Class ships.

The Contractor shall conduct Topside/EMC Studies to assess the impacts associated with Topside equipment installations aboard DDG 51 Class or CG 47 Class ships, and provide recommended Topside equipment locations. The study may address the following areas and the Contractor shall coordinate and/or incorporate the results of these items as applicable.

a. Assessing impacts to the Topside equipment on the proposed locations for potential issues to/from other systems

b. EMC: (EMI/IMI, source/victim, mitigation)

c. Combat/Weapons System: (alignment/calibration, blockage, performance, coverage)

d. System Cutouts/Intrusions: (CIWS, FCS, SPY-1, GWS, cameras, C4I)

e. Environmental: (green water, temperature, humidity, icing, rain, wind, salt Fog, solar radiation)

f. Survivability: (blast overpressure, debris field, stack gas, shock, vibration, gun blast, missile blast)

g. Aviation impacts: (helicopter operations, Visual Landing Aids (VLAs), lights, reference lines, field of view, flight deck)

h. Structural impacts: (weight / Kg, mast/deck, resonant frequency)

i. Deck evolutions: Recovery Assist Secure Traverse (RAST), Vertical Replenishment (VERTREP), line and ordnance handling, small boat operations)

j. Human factors: (maintenance, accessibility, platforms, human-machine interface)

k. Safety: (life rails, equipment operations/rotation, special materials, Personnel Aloft)

l. Radiation Hazards (RADHAZ): (HERP, HERO, HERF, impacts, surveys)

m. Emission Control (EMCON)

n. Radar Cross Section (RCS): (foundation design, PCMS requirements / RAM applications)

o. Certifications: (navigation, EMC, aviation, weapons, safety, RADHAZ, Hazardous Materials (HAZMAT)

p. Ship Operational impacts: (navigation, watch station, visual)

q. Assumptions

r. Recommendation

1. The Contractor shall accomplish…