Attachment_1_-_SOW.pdf

STATEMENT OF WORK

FOR RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT OF AIR WEAPONS SYSTEMS

SURVIVABILITY ANALYSIS, SYSTEMS SAFETY ANALYSIS, AND MODELING AND

SIMULATION VERIFICATION, VALIDATION AND ACCREDITATION

-SOURCES SOUGHT-

1.0 SCOPE

1.1 PURPOSE

The purpose of this contract is to provide research and development analysis for Naval Air Warfare Center

Weapons Division (NAWCWD) in the areas of air weapons systems survivability and lethality, systems safety, and modeling and simulation verification, validation and accreditation. Elements of contract support include research and development of the following: (1) air weapon survivability and lethality analysis; (2) survivability simulations;

systems analysis; survivability systems engineering analysis; and (3) the documentation inherent in the engineering or analysis process.

1.2 BACKGROUND

The NAWC organization is responsible for providing survivability analysis, testing and product assurance support to Integrated Product Teams (IPT’s) for Naval aviation aircraft and weapons systems As such they support both Navy and Tri-Service Programs for aircraft and air weapon systems survivability, lethality, vulnerability, susceptibility, mission effectiveness, and battle damage reparability design, analysis and test efforts. NAWCWD also provides cognizance over live-fire testing of air weapon systems, including fixed and rotary wing aircraft, unmanned air vehicles, and missiles and/or ordnance that are air, surface, or subsurface launched. Also included are the integral components and subsystems of these platforms, and their operational support systems. Air weapon systems are evaluated in air and surface environments against air, surface, and/or subsurface launched threats.

Threats encompass conventional, chemical, and directed energy weapons. Simulations include threat encounters while on the surface as well as in the air, operational support facilities and related systems. Elements of the mission accomplished by NAWC are: (1) advancing the state-of-the-art for the survivability and lethality disciplines; (2) providing survivability evaluation of new concepts and engineering change proposals for existing air weapon systems; (3) acting as the Navy lead for weapons lethality evaluation; (4) managing and operating the Weapons

Survivability Laboratory test range; (5) conducting Office of the Secretary of Defense (OSD) sponsored joint tests;

(6) acting as the NAWCWD live fire test focal point; (7) providing product assurance engineering analysis and testing, (8) providing systems safety support, and (9) providing support for the verification, validation and accreditation of models and simulations used throughout the systems acquisition process.

2.0 APPLICABLE DOCUMENTS

The following specifications, standards, and handbooks form a guideline and information for the performance of this statement of work.

2.1 Government Documents

DODI 5000.61 DoD Modeling and Simulation (M&S) Verification, Validation and

Accreditation (VV&A) December 2009

NAVAIRINST 13040.1 Naval Air Combat Survivability Program (10 Aug 89)

MIL-HDBK-336-1 Survivability, Aircraft, Nonnuclear, General Criteria – Volume 1 (25 Oct 82)

MIL-HDBK-336-2 Survivability, Aircraft, Nonnuclear, Airframe – Volume 2 (21 Sep 83)

MIL-HDBK-336-3 Survivability, Aircraft, Nonnuclear, Engine – Volume 3 (4 Feb 83)

MIL-HDBK-336-4 Survivability, Aircraft, Nonnuclear, General Classified (U) – Volume 4

(5 Apr 85) (SECRET)

MIL-HDBK-2069 Military Handbook, Aircraft Survivability (10 April 1997)

MIL-HDBK-2089 Military Handbook, Aircraft Survivability Terms (30 May 97)

JTCG/AS-95-M-005 Configuration Management Requirements Study

JASPO-03-M-002B Accreditation Support Package (ASP) Specification, Rev B (May 2005)

JTCG/AS-97-M-008 VV&A from A to Z, A SMART Approach to VV&A for Acquisition M&S October 1997

JTCG/AS-97-M-009 How to VVA Without Really Trying, SMART VV&A Lessons Learned, November 1997

Defense Modeling and Simulation Office (DMSO) VV&A Recommended Practices Guide (RPG) Build 2.5 or current issue at http://vva.dmso.mil

OTHER PUBLICATIONS

Robert E. Ball, The Fundamentals of Aircraft Combat Survivability Analysis and Design, Second Edition, (Reston, VA: American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics, 2003)

ANSI/EIA-649-1998 National Consensus Standard for Configuration Management

IEEE Standard 828-2005, IEEE Standard for Software Configuration Management Plans, August 2005

3.0 REQUIREMENTS

The contractor shall perform the following research and development requirements under this contract: (1) air weapon survivability and lethality analysis; (2) survivability simulations; systems analysis; survivability systems engineering analysis; development and support; and (3) documentation of all work, and presentation of results as required in a variety of venues. In performance of these research and development requirements, the contractor shall use a variety of M&S. The following list presents some examples of the M&S tools available for use at the Naval

Air Warfare Center, Weapons Division. Specific tools are determined in individual task orders. Most simulations operate in a UNIX or Windows OS on desktop workstations. The contractor shall provide capable personnel who have the expertise necessary to set up and run the simulations listed below as well as other M&S tools available from the greater DOD survivability community. The contractor shall also be familiar with the functions and services performed by and available from the Defense Systems Information Analysis Center (DSIAC), the government repository for government owned M&S.

GEOMETRIC MODELS AND SHOTLINING TOOLS: BRL-CAD, FASTGEN

VULNERABILITY MODELS: COVART, AJEM, UEDDAM

ENDGAME MODELS: SHAZAM, JSEM, ENDGAME MANAGER, AJEM

MISSION MODELS: SUPPRESSOR, JIMM, AFSIM

PENETRATION MODELS: FATEPEN, PROJPEN, BARRIER

GUN AND RADAR MODELS: RADGUNS, ALARM, AIRADE

AIR TO AIR MODELS: BRAWLER, JOINT ANTI-AIR MODEL (JAAM)

SURFACE TO AIR MODELS: ESAMS, MOSIAC

SIGNATURE GENERATION TOOLS: SPIRITS, XPATCH, DIRSIG

FLIGHT PATH / FLIGHT DYNAMICS: TRACES, BLUEMAX

GRAPHICAL INTERFACES: VULNVIEW, IVAVIEW, GOTME, ARCHER, SIMDIS

LASER MODELING: LELAWS

STATISTICAL TOOLS: EXPERT FIT, DESIGN EXPERT

THREAT ASSESSMENT MODELS: TMAP, TECP, ITASE

Task orders for IT support services are prohibited under this SOW. Such services include the purchase, installation, and administration of individual computers or computer systems for government use.

3.1 RESEARCH AND ANALYSIS OF AIR WEAPON SYSTEMS

The contractor shall perform research analysis of air weapon systems. The contractor shall perform analysis of

Navy and Tri-Service air weapon systems including aircraft of all types, unmanned air vehicles, missiles and/or ordnance that is air, surface, or subsurface launched. Contractor analysis shall combine the results of any or all of the following elements: vulnerability analysis, susceptibility analysis, survivability analysis, lethality analysis, safety analysis, specification development, tradeoff analysis, mission effectiveness, cost and operational effectiveness analysis, analysis of alternatives, data acquisition and reduction, and air-vehicle battle damage repair. (CDRL A003)

3.1.1 VULNERABILITYAND SAFETY ANALYSIS

The contractor shall perform vulnerability and safety analysis of air vehicles including: Fault Tree

Analysis, Failure Mode Effects and Criticality Analysis (FMECA), Damage Mode and Effects Analysis (DMEA), Geometric Model Development, Vulnerability Index Development, and Vulnerability to Directed Energy Weapons

(DEW).

3.1.1.1 The contractor shall develop vulnerability indices for air vehicles. These analyses may make use of existing models (such as COVART or AJEM). The contractor shall update the models as required to perform vulnerability analyses.

3.1.1.2 For fault tree analysis, the contractor shall acquire detailed system schematics, fault trees and disablement diagrams, tactical manuals, mission/threat analysis results, etc. The contractor shall develop combat damage fault trees including specified critical subsystems from these inputs. The fault trees that the contractor prepares must be suitable for use in the appropriate vulnerability index generating code or process used in the vulnerability analysis.

3.1.1.3 For Failure Mode Effects and Criticality Analysis (FMECA), based on the results of the fault tree analysis, the contractor shall conduct a FMECA to establish the required criticality of components of the air vehicle.

3.1.1.4 For Damage Mode and Effects Analysis (DMEA), based on the results of the FMECA, the contractor shall conduct a DMEA for the air vehicle. Successful performance of this requirement includes contractor selection and documentation of appropriate probability of kill given hit (Pk/h) function for each critical component.

Determination of appropriate Pk/h functions may require the contractor to develop a specific analytical methodology, exercise and/or ballistic test data analysis and evaluation.

3.1.1.5 For geometric model development, the contractor shall develop an accurate computer geometric model of the air vehicle in enough detail to evaluate specific components included in the DMEA and to ensure that shielding of critical components is treated adequately. The contractor shall generate these geometric models in a format compatible with the vulnerability analysis codes in use.

3.1.1.6 For vulnerability to directed energy weapons, the contractor shall conduct vulnerability assessments of air vehicles to laser, high power microwave, or other advanced directed energy threat systems.

3.1.2 SUSCEPTIBILITY RESEARCH ANALYSIS

The contractor shall conduct susceptibility research analysis supporting susceptibility assessments for air vehicles, combining the effects of the following factors: Air Vehicle Performance; Tactics; Mission Profiles;

Electronic Warfare Analysis; Signature Analysis; Detection, Acquisition, and Tracking Analysis; Threat Vehicle

Simulation; Threat Missile Endgame Analysis; and Susceptibility to Directed Energy Weapons.

3.1.2.1 For Air Vehicle Performance, the contractor shall provide air vehicle performance estimates of existing developmental and conceptual air weapons systems and their major subsystems, including avionics and propulsion. Performance includes speed/altitude and energy maneuverability envelopes and cruise and flight characteristics. These analyses may make use of existing models such as BLUEMAX.

3.1.2.2 For Tactics, the contractor shall perform analysis leading to the development of tactical alternatives, evaluation of tactics and development of measures of effectiveness for tactics analysis. These analyses may include air-to-air, air-to-ground, surface to air, surface to surface, manned and unmanned weapons systems.

3.1.2.3 For Mission Profiles, the contractor shall develop step-by-step mission profile models and flight paths to simulate penetration of integrated air defense systems (IADS) and to be employed in both tactics and susceptibility investigations.

3.1.2.4 For Electronic Warfare Analysis, the contractor shall survey, acquire, develop, modify, test and exercise electronic warfare models and simulations to determine the effects of electronic warfare systems on air vehicle susceptibility and tactics.

3.1.2.5 For Signature Analysis, the contractor shall develop/improve the methodology to predict RF, IR, visual, acoustic or other spectrum signatures for air vehicles; run computer simulation codes for predicting those signatures; and make use of simulation results, test data and experience to develop signature predictions for specified air vehicles.

3.1.2.6 For Detection/Acquisition/Tracking Analysis, the contractor shall analyze the capability of various land, sea and air sensor systems in order to detect, acquire and track air vehicles by making use of appropriate computer simulation methodologies and intelligence information. The contractor shall include the effects of command, control and communication information (C3I) networks in the modeling process.

3.1.2.7 For Threat Vehicle Simulation, the contractor shall make use of M&S to evaluate the ability of surface-to-air and air-to-air missiles to launch, guide, and intercept air vehicles. The contractor shall analyze the ability of land, sea and air gun systems to hit air vehicles in a variety of tactical situations. The contractor shall make improvements of existing methodologies and/or develop new models and simulations to perform these analyses as required.

3.1.2.8 For Threat Missile Endgame Analysis, the contractor shall analyze the ability of threat missile systems (land, sea and air launched) to fuze on air vehicles, and analyze the warhead effects on the probability of killing the air vehicle (making use of appropriate vulnerability models). The contractor shall also participate in testing, model development and improvement, and analysis of fuzes and warheads. The contractor shall conduct analysis of countermeasures effects on fuzes. The contractor shall provide input in the design, exercise, data reduction and analysis of tests designed to evaluate terminal trajectory characteristics of threat weapons systems.

3.1.2.9 For Susceptibility to Directed Energy Weapons, the contractor shall analyze the ability of threat directed energy weapons to intercept air vehicles, including lasers (high and low energy), high power microwave systems, or any other advanced threat systems. The contractor shall include the effects of multiple threats and multiple targets, C3I effects, and the integration of advanced threats with conventional threat systems.

3.1.3 SURVIVABILITY ANALYSIS

The contractor shall provide system survivability analysis of airborne weapons systems, including manned and unmanned aircraft, missiles, fixed and rotary wing aircraft. These analyses shall include: integrating the results of vulnerability, safety and susceptibility analysis (3.1.1 & 3.1.2 above), mission/threat analysis, tradeoff analysis, and specification development.

3.1.3.1 For integrating the results of vulnerability and susceptibility analysis, the contractor shall aggregate the results of vulnerability analysis and susceptibility analysis into an overall assessment of the survivability of the vehicle in the missions and scenarios evaluated. The contractor shall collect the results of vulnerability and susceptibility analysis into the proper formats for inclusion into appropriate aggregated mission level survivability models such as BRAWLER for air-to-air applications, or SUPPRESSOR for air-to-surface missions. The contractor shall include the effects of multiple threats and multiple targets, electronic countermeasures, integrated tactics, and air vehicle vulnerability and susceptibility factors. The contractor shall participate in testing, model development and improvement, and documentation.

3.1.3.2 For mission/threat analysis, the contractor shall evaluate the proposed scenarios, missions and threat systems postulated for employment of the air vehicle to determine the geographic locations, threat systems, C3I networks, mission profiles and integrated tactics to be evaluated. The contractor shall research existing threat and operational requirements documents, survey air vehicle operational commands and developmental agencies, and provide close coordination with system developers.

3.1.3.3 For tradeoff analysis, the contractor shall conduct analysis of alternative air vehicle designs, at the component, subsystem, and mission systems levels, to determine the effects of design changes on performance, survivability and on system cost, weight and volume requirements.

3.1.3.4 For specification development, the contractor shall provide recommendations for the development of design specifications for air vehicle survivability and conduct survivability analysis defining survivability requirements for new systems.

3.1.4 LETHALITY ANALYSIS

The contractor shall provide system lethality analysis of weapon systems and weapon effects against defined targets. Analysis shall include: fuze and warhead interactions with air and ground targets; weapon guidance and trajectory characteristics; weapon delivery effectiveness; and safe-arming analysis.

3.1.4.1 For fuze/warhead design and optimization, the contractor shall evaluate existing, developmental, and/or conceptual fuze and warhead designs, and perform tradeoff studies directed toward optimizing weapon terminal effectiveness.

3.1.4.2 For terminal geometry analysis, the contractor shall perform analysis of weapon trajectory characteristics to determine the endgame geometry relationship between the weapon and selected targets. This may require design, exercise, data reduction and analysis of tests designed to evaluate terminal trajectory characteristics of weapons systems.

3.1.4.3 For weapon delivery, the contractor shall evaluate the influence of target acquisition, recognition, and designation on the ability of the weapon system to deliver ordnance to the target.

3.1.4.4 For safe-arming analysis, the contractor shall perform analysis to determine the proper safe-arming distance or time for air launched weapons. Contractor generated analysis shall include all or part of the process required to quantify and analyze the hazards to air launch platforms from weapon detonations following weapon release as a function of time and/or distance after release. The contractor shall also evaluate the effects of various post launch evasive maneuvers on hazard levels associated with weapon release.

3.1.5 MISSION EFFECTIVENESS ANALYSIS

The contractor shall conduct analysis of the ability of air combat weapon systems to accomplish their missions within the context of a well-defined operational environment. The contractor shall propose measures of effectiveness (MOEs), conduct tactical analysis, evaluate approved alternative systems and tactics against those

MOEs, and perform system tradeoff analysis to optimize system mission effectiveness. Mission effectiveness includes but is not limited to system survivability, lethality, and sortie generation.

3.1.6 ANALYSIS OF ALTERNATIVES (AOA)

The contractor shall conduct analysis of alternatives (AOA) to evaluate air combat weapon systems and alternatives to those systems. The contractor shall propose MOEs, conduct tactical analysis, evaluate approved alternative systems and tactics against those MOEs, perform cost analysis, and perform system tradeoff analysis of various alternative air combat systems. Cost and operational effectiveness includes but is not limited to system survivability, lethality, sustainability, reliability, mission effectiveness and cost.

3.1.7 AIR-VEHICLE BATTLE DAMAGE REPAIR (ABDR)

The contractor shall conduct analysis of aircraft battle damage repair requirements for the development of battle damage repair manuals, logistics model inputs, and air-vehicle system specifications. Successful performance of this requirement involves contractor evaluation of aircraft component vulnerabilities, susceptibility analysis, and contactor association of damage levels to non-critical as well as critical components. The contractor shall participate in joint live fire testing which shall include, but is not limited to; test planning, test setup, test execution, test results and documentation.

3.1.8 DATA ACQUISITION AND REDUCTION

The contractor shall participate in weapon system and subsystem design of tests, the conduct of the tests, collection of test data, evaluation of the data, and documentation of some or all portions of this process.

3.1.8.1 The contractor shall collect and report system and/or component characteristics derived from analysis, testing or previous data collection.

3.1.8.2 The contractor shall accumulate and develop data to support system program efforts. The contractor shall develop test plans and test plan supplements to meet system program requirements, as well as recommendations for test plan and test report standards and formats.

3.1.8.3 The contractor shall analyze and reduce test data into formats suitable for supporting survivability, lethality and/or mission effectiveness analysis.

3.1.8.4 The contractor shall provide documentation, briefing and presentation materials to describe the problems, methods to obtain solutions, analysis, results, and recommendations of analysis and data acquisition and reduction. Documentation may include test reports and test report supplements. (CDRL A005)

3.2 TEST AND ANALYSIS SUPPORT

The contractor shall provide test and analysis support including, but not limited to data collection, and evaluation. Contractor generated test data shall include visual observation data, quantitative sensor measurement data, and test conditions. Contractor generated analytical data shall include analysis parameters, methodology, and results. These tests shall include vulnerability testing (ballistic and directed energy) and susceptibility testing

(signatures, countermeasures, threat system performance, effects of survivability features on threat system performance). (CDRL A003)

3.2.1 TEST AND ANALYTICAL DATA REVIEW

The contractor shall review test and analytical data to assure an accurate and complete database. Emphasis shall be placed on assuring complete test records are available and any test anomalies identified. The contractor shall provide complete descriptions of analytical methodologies used, parameters considered, and values used shall be identified and evaluated.

3.2.2 ASSESSMENT OF ANALYTICAL ESTIMATES

The contractor shall assess the accuracy of analytical estimates based on test data. Vulnerability test assessment criteria shall include but not be limited to evaluation of damage/effect thresholds, test data trends, and intermediate event results. Susceptibility test assessment criteria shall include but not be limited to, evaluation of electronic countermeasures effects, reduced signature effects, and various tactics effects on threat systems.

3.2.3 IMPACT OF TESTS ON TARGET'S SURVIVABILITY

The contractor shall develop reports which will assess the impact of tests on the target's survivability estimates (both vulnerability and susceptibility) as well as provide insight into design changes needed to enhance air weapon system survivability.

3.2.4 BALLISTIC SYSTEMS TESTS

The contractor shall prepare test plans and test reports for ballistic systems tests. Test plan preparation shall include performing literature searches, reviewing and evaluating results of all similar tests, and performing and documenting vulnerability studies for shotline selection and pretest prediction. The contractor shall participate in the test, data reduction and analysis, and documentation. All sections of the test plan and test report shall be prepared in format specified by the task order statement of work.

3.2.5 SUSCEPTIBILITY TESTS

The contractor shall prepare test plans and test reports for air weapon systems susceptibility tests. Test plan preparation shall include performing literature searches, reviewing and evaluating results of all similar tests, and performing and documenting analytical studies for selection of test conditions and pretest prediction. The contractor shall participate in the test, data reduction and analysis, and documentation. All sections of the test plan and test report shall be prepared in format specified by the task order statement of work.

3.3 SIMULATION DEVELOPMENT SUPPORT

The contractor shall provide simulation development support including, but not limited to the following:

simulation development, enhancements and maintenance to existing simulations, operation of simulations, reduction of data generated by simulations, acquisition and management of simulation configuration items, M&S verification, M&S validation, development of information required for M&S accreditation, and documentation for each task/process. (CDRL A003)

3.3.1 SIMULATION DEVELOPMENT

The contractor shall use a structured programming methodology based on standard practices, in all simulation development.

3.3.2 SIMULATION ENHANCEMENTS AND MAINTENANCE

The contractor shall review existing simulations and their algorithms, assess their value, and modify them to provide required simulation capabilities. The contractor shall participate in model improvement by submitting changes/updates to the model developers through the appropriate change control board. The contractor shall replace inefficient and poorly organized instructions with well-structured instruction modules. Also, the contractor shall replace hardwired variables with parameters and data tables, to ensure the efficiency of simulation products.

3.3.3 SIMULATION OPERATION AND DATA REDUCTION

The Contractor shall operate simulations and document the procedures and data required for efficient operations. Contractor documentation shall be accurate and provide sufficient detail to allow a knowledgeable person to repeat the operation and achieve identical results.

3.3.3.1 The contractor shall reduce manually, semi-automatically or automatically data acquired from test instrumentation.

3.3.3.2 The contractor shall consolidate data available from various defined sources (tests, documentation searches, verbal, etc.) into a format specified by the task order statement of work.

3.3.4 DATABASE MANAGEMENT

The contractor shall collect and manage data, and ensure its integrity and availability in commercial off-the-shelf

(COTS) or government off-the-shelf (GOTS) developed database programs. The contractor is responsible for the integrity of the data and for maintaining its pedigree information. Specific database requirements shall be defined by task order. Database programming is not a requirement under this contract.

3.3.5 SIMULATION RESOURCES PRODUCT ASSURANCE

The contractor shall make recommendations for policies and provide development/maintenance support for standards and procedures, configuration management, quality assurance, and test and metrics documentation and records as specified under individual task orders.

3.3.5.1 The contractor shall recommend, develop, and publish standards, policies, guidelines, plans and procedures and provide capabilities to conduct studies and analysis in support of life cycle management responsibilities and tasks. Specific requirements shall be defined by task order.

3.3.5.2 The contractor shall provide configuration management in accordance with commercially accepted standards. In performance of this requirement, the contractor shall identify configuration items, define and control the change implementation processes, track development and change status, and update documentation prepared under, or utilized in individual task orders. This requirement covers hardware identification and version control; and analysis version control, and master copy library services for analysis documents, M&S, and the reference materials used to produce them. The degree of configuration management shall be tailored to program requirements to ensure accurate correlation between descriptive documents and the physical and functional structures and logic flows under analysis.

3.3.5.3 The contractor shall provide audit, validation, and verification reviews of simulation resources, products, and processes. This requirement shall be performed in accordance with Section 2.1 and DODI 5000.61

DoD Modeling and Simulation (M&S) Verification, Validation, and Accreditation. The contractor shall create project VV&A process documentation required in individual task orders.

3.3.5.4 The contractor shall provide test support for simulation resources products and shall develop metrics and metrics records.

3.3.6 SIMULATION DOCUMENTATION

The contractor shall develop and publish simulation documentation as specified in individual task orders.

The Government reserves the right to tailor individual document requirements as necessary to achieve program objectives.

3.3.7 MODEL / SIMULATION VERIFICATION, VALIDATION & ACCREDITATION

The contractor shall perform verification and validation of models and simulations, and provide information required for model and simulation accreditation.

3.3.7.1 The contractor shall develop verification source materials, conceptual model specifications for existing M&S, and design documentation for new and existing M&S to produce the essential design information needed to support verification requirements. The contractor shall perform M&S verification including: desk checking, testing, surveys of M&S usage history; verification, validation and accreditation status; and assessments of M&S products, tools and documentation quality. Results of M&S verification efforts will be reported as specified in individual task orders.

3.3.7.2 For model and simulation validation, the contractor shall decompose M&S into appropriate functional elements, perform sensitivity analysis, design test plans, collect, reduce, analyze and document test data, perform comparisons between test data and model predictions, perform comparisons between model and simulation predictions and predictions from other model and simulations of known validity, assess the implications of comparison results, and document the results.

3.3.7.3 To support M&S accreditation, the contractor shall analyze M&S applications, perform sensitivity analysis, develop model and simulation acceptance criteria for those applications, compare model and simulation characteristics with those acceptance criteria, and develop recommendations for M&S accreditation including any additional verification, and validation, or model documentation to support an accreditation decision.

3.3.7.4 The contractor shall assess the adequacy of M&S verification, validation and accreditation support materials generated by others.

3.4 SYSTEM SAFETY

The contractor shall prepare system safety program plans, tracking procedures, hazard lists, hazard analysis, safety evaluation and testing plans and procedures, reports, safety related change proposals, and other safety and hazard documents. The contractor shall evaluate, annotate and recommend changes to system safety program plans, tracking procedures, hazard lists, safety evaluation and testing plans and procedures, reports, safety related change proposals, and other safety and hazard documents. The contractor shall analyze and reduce test data into formats suitable for supporting safety analysis. (CDRL A003)

3.5 TECHNICAL MEETINGS

The contractor shall attend and provide information for project technical interchange meetings and Project reviews. The contractor shall attend and provide briefings at conferences as required by individual task orders. The contractor shall host a technical / business management review every six months in which the contractor shall provide a status of all task orders in terms of technical progress, actual and projected expenditures, and any issues which may impact contract performance. (CDRL A005)

3.6 REPORTING

The contractor shall establish and maintain a management system for controlling cost, schedule, and performance at the task order level, and shall provide the following reports:

3.6.1 The contractor shall provide a Performance and Cost report at the task order level. (A001)

3.6.2 The contractor shall provide a Level of Effort, Progress and Status Report at the task order level. This report shall account for hours expended by labor categories, and by the labor rate paid. (A002)

3.6.3 The contractor shall provide technical reports as required by individual task orders. (A003)

3.6.4 The contractor shall provide training material as required by individual task orders. (A004)

3.6.5 The contractor shall provide a technical/business review data package prior to each technical/business review required in subsections 3.1.8.4 and 3.5 TECHNICAL MEETINGS. The data package shall cover the review requirements described in Subsection 3.5 concisely and accurately. (A005)

3.6.6 The contractor shall provide the OPSEC Program Plan described in Section 4.0 below. (A006)

4.0 OPSEC PROGRAM PLAN

The contractor shall develop, implement and maintain a facility level OPSEC program to protect classified and controlled unclassified information to be used at the contractor facility during the performance of this contract

(CDRL reference - see above). If performing aboard NAVAIR sites, the contractor shall comply with the provisions of OPNAVINST 3432.1 and the local command 3432 Instruction series for Operations Security; at all other contractor sites, the contractor shall comply with the local command and/or program OPSEC plan (CDRL A006).

4.1 SEPARATION REQUIREMENTS

The contractor shall comply with DFARS 211.106 and shall maintain a clear distinction between Government employees and contractor employees. Contractors shall require employees to identify themselves as contractor personnel by introducing themselves or being introduced as contractor personnel and displaying distinguishing badges or other visible identification for meetings with Government personnel. In addition, contractor personnel shall be required to appropriately identify themselves as contractor employees in both telephone conversations and formal and informal written correspondence.

4.2 PERFORMANCE STANDARDS

The contractor shall meet or exceed Acceptable Quality Level for all performance objectives as described in the

Technical and Management Support Services Standards, provided as attachment 2 the basic contract.