4. SOF RAPTOR II SOW - DO 3 - Database Study - 2 October 08.doc

Code 4.9.1.5

MODSOW

STATEMENT OF WORK

FOR

Special Operations Forces Requirements Analysis, Prototyping, Training, Operations and Rehearsal II (SOF RAPTOR II) Delivery Order 3 Special Operations Forces (SOF) Database Study (DBS) 2 October 08 Prepared by U.S. Army PEO Simulation, Training and Instrumentation (PEO STRI) 12350 Research Parkway

Orlando, FL 32826-3276 11.

SCOPE

11.1 Background

22.

APPLICABLE DOCUMENTS

32.1 Government documents

33.

REQUIREMENTS

33.1 General

33.2 Common Requirements

33.2.1 System Design

33.2.2 Software Development

33.2.3 Systems Engineering

33.2.4 Minimum Software and Technical Data Rights

33.2.5 Conferences and Reviews

33.2.6 Parts Standardization

43.2.7 System Safety Tasks

43.2.8 System Test and Evaluation

43.2.9 Integrated Logistics Support Program

43.2.10 Configuration Management Program

43.2.11 Facility Requirements

43.2.12 Disposition of Hardware

43.2.13 Contractor Logistics Support Contractor Liaison

43.2.14 Information Assurance

43.3 SOF Training Database Study Detailed Requirements

43.3.1 Requirements Analysis

63.3.2 USSOCOM Training Database Strategy

Statement of Work

For

Special Operations Forces Requirements Analysis, Prototyping, Training, Operations and Rehearsal II (SOF RAPTOR II) Delivery Order 3 Special Operations Forces (SOF) Database Study (DBS)

1. SCOPE

This Statement of Work (SOW) defines the requirement for SOF RAPTOR II, Delivery Order 3: SOF DBS.

Unless otherwise noted in this SOW, requirements for Delivery Order 3 are defined in the Basic SOF RAPTOR II SOW, PEO-STRI-08-W053. In case of a conflict between the requirements and documents cited herein and the Basic SOF RAPTOR II SOW, this Delivery Order SOW will take precedence. With the exception of Paragraph 3.3, and its subparagraphs, paragraph numbering of this Delivery Order SOW mirrors the paragraph numbering of the Basic SOW.

1.1 Background

Currently SOF training support provides formatted geospatial data files to each of the high fidelity simulators at Air Force Special Operations Command (AFSOC) and U.S. Army Special Operations Command (USASOC) through the Special Operations Forces Planning, Rehearsal, and Execution Preparation (SOFPREP) facilities at Hurlburt Field, FL and Ft. Campbell, KY. Additional geospatial datasets are provided to training units at Kirtland AFB, NM, Ft Bragg, NC and other SOF locations as requested to support simulation and training activities. To reduce the number of geospatial formats supported by SOFPREP, the development of a common database architecture was undertaken in 2004. In that strategy, one global Common Database (CDB) was to be maintained at Hurlburt Field, FL with a secondary backup dataset at Ft. Campbell, KY under the SOFPREP program. The emphasis at that time was for aviation simulator support and services.

In 2006, a consolidation of training systems began at U.S. Special Operations Command (USSOCOM) with the appointment of a single Program Executive Officer for SOF Preparation and Training (PEO PT) with the mandate to coordinate, standardize and plan for all SOF training capabilities and services to meet SOF Strategic Program Planning guidance and Acquisition policies and procedures. In the first several initiatives, PEO PT organized budget and resources management structures for SOF Training and initiated studies to identify shortfalls and strategic needs for future SOF training capabilities across the entire SOF training system, incorporating the full spectrum of training operations services and support through the component commands.

The common database strategy which was initiated in 2004 is now starting to be realized with the CDB specification and implementation on two (2) Combat Mission Simulators (CMS). SOFPREP is in the process of modifying their processes and tools development to support CDB.

New requirements have also evolved beyond those capabilities envisioned in the original CDB/SOFPREP planning. While aviation simulator support has matured, additional needs have been identified such as web-based training, ground and sea system trainers, marksmanship, language, culture, Psychological Operations (PSYOPS)/Civil affairs, 3-Dimensional (3D) terrain visualization, Unmanned Aerial Vehicle (UAV) and Unmanned Aerial Systems (UAS) training and an explosion of training using computer games. These additional training and preparation applications/technologies also need to be supported with geospatial data. A more diverse user base within USSOCOM has expanded the geospatial data need to more personnel and training sites. Continental US (CONUS) sites include Ft. Campbell, Kentucky; Hurlburt Field, Florida; Kirtland Air Force Base, New Mexico; Fort Bragg, North Carolina; Camp Pendleton, CA; Camp Lejune, NC; and Naval Amphibious Base (NAB), Coronado, California.

USSOCOM’s approach for support of geospatial data to their component simulators and training systems has been unique. USSOCOM stood-up the database facilities at Hurlburt Field and Ft Campbell, KY while the other services continued to procure their geospatial data needs through multiple contracts with vendors and simulator contractors. Additionally, USSOCOM needed SOF specific features and high-resolution imagery which was not required by the other services. In 2008, the U.S. Army’s Synthetic Environment-Core (SE-CORE) program developed a similar imagery model/geospatial data base called the Master Database (MDB) that offers similar formats and features compatible with the SOF managed CDB. The logical next step for SOF is to evaluate the current and near term service initiatives for opportunities to leverage service investments toward SOF requirements.

Therefore, a reassessment of geospatial data generation and distribution to support USSOCOM simulator and training operations is needed. A critical part of the reassessment needs to be the infrastructure required to manage and distribute the many different geospatial data products and the formats of the data products. The diverse mission focus of AFSOC, USASOC, Nav Spec War Com (NSWC) and Marine Special Operations Command (MARSOC) require equally diverse database support services which are anticipated to grow in sophistication, quantity and technical detail.

2. APPLICABLE DOCUMENTS

The document referenced below is in addition to those referenced in the Basic SOW.

2.1 Government documents

Common Database (CDB) Specification for USSOCOM, Version 3.0

CDB-MDB Differences and Similarities v2 SOF Training Network Analysis of Alternatives (AoA) SOF Semi-Automated Forces (SAF)/Computer Generated Forces (CGF) Study

SOF Common Environment – Systems Requirement Document

Mission Training and Preparation Systems (MTPS) Capabilities Description Document (CDD), Jan 08

(Copies of the above document are available from PEO STRI)

3. REQUIREMENTS

3.1 General

No additional General requirements have been indentified in this Delivery Order SOW.

3.2 Common Requirements

The followings Common Requirements shall be required of this Delivery Order, as noted below.

3.2.1 System Design

System Design is not applicable to this Delivery Order.

3.2.2 Software Development

Software Development is not applicable to this Delivery Order.

3.2.3 Systems Engineering

Systems Engineering is not applicable to this Delivery Order.

3.2.4 Minimum Software and Technical Data Rights

Minimum Software and Technical Data Rights are not applicable to this Delivery Order.

3.2.5 Conferences and Reviews

Conferences and Reviews will be conducted as applicable and in accordance with the Basic SOW requirements. However, you shall attend and participate in Integrated Product Team (IPT) meetings (Basic SOW Paragraph 3.2.5.3) to be conducted throughout the entire contract. IPT meetings shall provide a forum suitable for maintaining a continuous interchange of ideas, issues, and to identify and resolve potential problem areas.

3.2.6 Parts Standardization

Parts Standardization is not applicable to this Delivery Order.

3.2.7 System Safety Tasks

System Safety Tasks is not applicable to this Delivery Order.

3.2.8 System Test and Evaluation

System Test and Evaluation is not applicable to this Delivery Order.

3.2.9 Integrated Logistics Support Program

Integrated Logistics Support Program is not applicable to this Delivery Order.

3.2.10 Configuration Management Program

Configuration Management Program is not applicable to this Delivery Order.

3.2.11 Facility Requirements

Facility Requirements is not applicable to this Delivery Order.

3.2.12 Disposition of Hardware

Disposition of Hardware is not applicable to this Delivery Order.

3.2.13 Contractor Logistics Support Contractor Liaison

Contractor Logistics Support Contractor is not applicable to this Delivery Order.

3.2.14 Information Assurance

Information Assurance is not applicable to this Delivery Order.

3.3 SOF Training Database Study Detailed Requirements

A SOF Database Study shall be conducted that addresses the user base, technology requirements, system engineering standards, responsiveness, flexibility and cost efficiencies through the next 5-10 years. The Study will include Government participation.

3.3.1 Requirements Analysis

You shall conduct an analysis of the geospatial data and associated models used in USSOCOM training systems. USSOCOM training systems include simulations, visualization systems, computer gaming, training tools, and classroom environments. The analysis shall include investigation into the geospatial data and format requirements of the current rendering technologies including image generators. You shall research potential future geospatial data and format requirements for rendering technologies.

Your analysis shall address each of the CONUS based SOF training sites. In addition, a detailed review of current programs of record within the Army, Navy, Marine and Air Force which require geospatial data services and products shall be reviewed and evaluated for SOF adaptation (leveraging).

You shall audit SOFPREP to identify current production capabilities, products, manpower and distribution processes in terms of near and future capabilities/requirements.

You shall prepare and deliver a Technical Report of your findings and also prepare a briefing to the Government. As a minimum, the Report shall address the following questions and items. (DI-MISC-80508B):

(a) SOFPREP:

1. What is the function of this organization? Who - or what function - do they support?

2. Who is currently using SOFPREP services?

3. Who should be using SOFPREP and why aren't they using them?

4. What are the (legitimate) customer complaints with the current service?

5. What are potential efficiencies in the mid term (3-7 years) that can be leveraged to meet training requirements?

6. What are the current operation costs and what is the best return for database management given current and potential future budget constraints?

(b) Database Programs:

1. What are the perceived advantages of MDB? How could you combine MDB with CDB?

2. Should there be a standardization by application - i.e., simulators use CDB; games use XXX; etc.?

3. What are the specific database requirements for games technology software applications/engines?

4. What is the most effective distribution strategy for models, imagery and geospatial data for SOF? Include repository and network distribution.

5. A majority of the training operations in SOF use unclassified data and applications. What is the strategy to meet this need and also provide SECRET and TOP SECRET classified data products for SOF?

6. What is the most efficient architecture to provide geospatial data to USSOCOM customers based on the applications that will be supported by USSOCOM?

7. Should the database centers be government run with government employees; government managed, contractor run; hybrid combination similar to current situation; or procure the databases using contract vehicles with vendors/contractors (this would promote competition)?

(c) Visualization Technologies and Rendering Software/Hardware:

1. What is the impact to/from the database architecture upon image generators used in USSOCOM simulation systems currently and in the future?

2. Based upon the current image generation technology and vendors, is there a specific benefit or limitation indicated for central data standards, repositories, tools, etc?

3. Forecast the impacts from new visualization technologies expected through the mid term (next 5 years) and in the long term (6-10 year).

4. What capabilities should be provided/pushed-down to the Warfighter/soldier (they build their own databases and scenarios)?

(d) Database tools/Utilities/Viewers:

1. What is the most efficient strategy for tools used in database generation support activities? What works at the vendors' facility does not work at SOFPREP. Given the nature of SOF training the need for modification to vendor supported tools should be addressed; what can be done to reduce the user costs for these tools?

2. Is there a benefit in consolidated database generation operations (i.e: SOFPREP) or other efficiencies in a distributed database generation capability at individual training sites or centers?

3. What requirements should be levied on the application vendors to reduce the costs for database support?

3.3.2 USSOCOM Training Database Strategy

You shall develop a comprehensive database strategy that addresses facilities, locations, personnel required and projected costs to support SOF training operations over a 5-10 period. This strategy shall be documented and delivered in a Technical Report. You shall also provide a briefing to the Government which discusses your recommended strategy. As a minimum, the Strategy shall address the following items. (DI-MISC-80508B)

a. Steps USSOCOM should take to leverage and reduce the cost of database generation, storage and sustainment.

b. How the service/Department of Defense (DoD) database programs can be leveraged to support SOF training.

c. How to take advantage of software and hardware technology based improvements.

d. Database support for the visualization systems.

e. Initiatives to improve the availability, quality and responsiveness of SOF database generation operations.

f. Estimated cost and risk for each proposed pathway to include labor, equipment and facilities required to achieve the objective capabilities.

PAGE