Early Consideration of Spectrum Supportability in Spectrum ...



Findings And Recommendations Of The Study On

“Early Consideration of Spectrum Supportability in Spectrum Dependent System Acquisitions”

Defense Information Systems Agency (DISA)

Defense Spectrum Office (DSO)

POC Renae Carter

2461 Eisenhower Avenue

Suite 1200, Alexandria, VA 22331

27 September 2005

Table of Contents

ABSTRACT 3

1. INTRODUCTION 4

2. SCOPE OF THIS REPORT. 5

3. FINDINGS ON THE CURRENT PROBLEM 5

4. BASIC DOD ACQUISITION SYSTEM (DAS) PROCESS AND BOUNDARIES 9

5. RESEARCH AND FINDINGS ON INTEGRATION OF SPECTRUM SUPPORTABILITY IN CONTRACTING 11

5.1 INTEGRATION OF SPECTRUM SUPPORTABILITY IN PART I OF A CONTRACT. 12

5.2 INTEGRATION OF SPECTRUM SUPPORTABILITY IN PART II OF A CONTRACT. 14

5.3 INTEGRATION OF SPECTRUM SUPPORTABILITY IN PART III OF A CONTRACT. 16

5.4 SPECTRUM SUPPORTABILITY INTEGRATION IN PART IV OF A CONTRACT. 16

6. RESEARCH AND FINDINGS ON INTEGRATION OF SPECTRUM SUPPORTABILITY IN SYSTEMS ENGINEERING 18

7. SUMMARY OF FINDINGS 22

8. RECOMMENDATIONS 22

9. POST SCRIPT 23

List of Tables

Table 1. GAO Reports Related to DoD SM Management Issues 5

Table 2. Uniform Contract Format 12

Table 3. Six-page Format of a DD 1494 13

List of Figures

Figure 1. Flow of US Law Into DoD Regulations 7

Figure 2. Defense Acquisition System Process 9

Figure 3. Contracting in the Acquisition Process 11

Figure 4. Systems Engineering in the Acquisition Process 18

Figure 5. Risk Management Structure 20

Figure 6. Risk Analysis Process 21

List of Enclosures

|Enclosure (1) |References |24 |

|Enclosure (2) |Current Data Item Descriptions |26 |

|Enclosure (3) |Systems Engineering Technical Review Descriptions |32 |

|Enclosure (4) |MIL-HDBK-881 Change Data |35 |

|Enclosure (5) |EXAMPLE SPECTRUM SUPPORTABILITY DID |36 |

|Enclosure (6) |FAR/DFAR Change Proposal |46 |

|Enclosure (7) |Related Data On Methods To Establish Spectrum Supportability Risk Assessments In ACAT Programs |49 |

|Enclosure (8) |End Notes |51 |

Abstract

This is a report on the findings and recommendations of the study on early considerations of spectrum supportability in spectrum dependent acquisitions. In short, “spectrum supportability” is defined as the assessment as to whether the electromagnetic spectrum necessary to support equipment is available. The assessment requires, at a minimum, receipt of equipment spectrum certification, reasonable assurance of the availability of sufficient frequencies for operation from host nations, and a consideration of ElectroMagnetic Compatibility (EMC). This report is also referred to as the Integration of Spectrum Supportability in the Acquisition Process (ISSAP) study report.

This report provides an updated listed of spectrum supportability issues identified by GAO reviews. The report asserts that changes to the DOD 5000 series of instructions will not assure that all DOD acquisitions comply with US law related to radio frequency management. The report found that:

a. That current issuances have engendered a spectrum management process that is cumbersome and lacks clarity.

b. That Spectrum Supportability assessment methods need to be clearly defined and more automated.

c. That the three minimal criteria for spectrum supportability should be integrated into the DAS process.

d. That a common link between all types of acquisitions supporting the DAS, S&T, R&D, and OS communities is contracting which is controlled by the FAR and DFARS.

e. That only three DIDs exist that relate to Spectrum Supportability, but none support spectrum supportability determinations as a whole and all lack assessment of frequency availability.

f. That only the DFARS has a clause that relates to Spectrum Supportability, but it confuses the process of equipment frequency certification (frequency allocation) with frequency assignment.

g. That RFP representations and preparation instructions can contain information related to spectrum supportability documentation.

h. That, in the DAS model, System Engineering Reviews are the ideal venue for PMs to consider spectrum supportability as an element of design.

i. That the DAS uses risk management as a techniques to achieve ACAT program overall objectives within defined cost, schedule and performance constraints.

j. That the risk assessment aspect of risk management relies on the Program WBS

k. That risk analysis is the part of risk assessment that applies technical and systematic processes to exam risks and their impacts in terms of probability and consequence.

l. That development of a spectrum supportability WBS element would affect: Program Management, Contract Reporting, Financial Reporting, Systems Engineering, Risk Management

m. That development of spectrum supportability Data Item Descriptions would standardize products in standard contracting process.

n. That development of appropriate mandatory spectrum supportability FAR and DFARS clauses would improve the probability for DoD compliance with US law on spectrum management.

o. That development of standard spectrum supportability determination risk management guidelines and relations ships to program cost, performance and schedule risks would aid PMs and MDAs.

The report recommends that the following integration points found in this study should be improved as follows:

a. Correct DFARS 252.235-7003 ALTERNATE I wording to read “Equipment Frequency Allocation” vice “Frequency Authorization”

b. Submit a change proposal to MIL-HDBK-881 that identifies spectrum supportability as common WBS element. (See draft example in enclosure (4))

c. Submit proposals to establish standard spectrum supportability Data Item Descriptions (DIDs) in ASSIST (See draft example in enclosure (5))

d. Submit a proposal to establish a mandatory FAR clause for spectrum supportability. (See draft example in enclosure (6))

e. Develop and submit a spectrum supportability assessment guide to be incorporated into the Risk Management Guide For DoD Acquisition. (Related data see enclosure (7))

1. Introduction

Early consideration of spectrum supportability in spectrum dependent system acquisitions needs to be a fundamental criterion that must be satisfied before the government makes a decision to award a contract. In short, “spectrum supportability” is defined as the assessment as to whether the electromagnetic spectrum (most likely radio frequency) necessary to support equipment is available. The assessment requires, at a minimum, receipt of equipment spectrum certification, reasonable assurance of the availability of sufficient frequencies for operation from host nations, and a consideration of ElectroMagnetic Compatibility (EMC). It is currently DoD policy to formally document spectrum supportability prior to the decision to move formal Acquisition Category (ACAT) programs from the Technology Development Phase to the System Development and Demonstration Phase (commonly referred to as the Milestone B decision). However it is widely known in the DoD Spectrum Management community that spectrum supportability considerations are frequently avoided and often belatedly accomplished.

All US citizens including: Program Managers, Spectrum Managers and Operating Forces are required by national and, furthermore, international law to transmit in the radio spectrum band on authorized frequencies only. What are the obstacles that continue to impede the Defense Acquisition System in complying with federal law on radios? Volumes have been written on the need to comply with the law but the list of infractions is continuous as well as the list of radio interference issues. It is self evident that alternative methods are needed to assure that DoD acquisitions follow the law and those acquisitions are able to access the radio frequency spectrum on demand. Current methods for assuring that systems have spectrum access are poorly defined, too slow, subjective and inconsistent. The volumes of directives, which currently define the processes for acquiring authorized frequencies, have created complexities that inhibit successful implementation by program managers.

This study identifies a number of options that have the potential of simplifying the process for assuring access to radio frequencies by establishing an open, less complex, and objective set of procedures which relate to both the Defense Acquisition System (DAS) and the “virtual” defense spectrum management system. These procedures begin with an examination of the steps DoD follows today in acquiring systems; defines step by step processes that integrate management and use of the electromagnetic spectrum (MUES) with DAS systems; and open the door to automated reporting of operational use and dynamic management of the electromagnetic spectrum. Cost to implement these changes begins with the dedication and time of current spectrum management experts to understand and act upon the recommendations of this report.

The report begins with a brief review of the DoD acquisition system followed by an assessment of how spectrum supportability might be imbedded within DoD contracts. Next, the report investigates the merits of incorporating spectrum supportability considerations within the systems engineering process defined by the DAS. Finally, a summary of findings and a list of recommended changes and examples are compiled.

2. Scope Of This Report.

This report is written to reach both the DoD Acquisition and DoD Spectrum Management communities. Basic concepts related each community are briefly reviewed to frame the findings and recommendation of this report. Not all spectrum management procedures that could be integrated into the DAS are defined in this study. Rather this study explores the Integration of Spectrum Supportability in the Acquisition Process (ISSAP) by examining the virtues of including spectrum considerations in contracting and systems engineering aspects of the DAS. Toward this end, a review of contracting and systems engineering documentation listed in enclosure (1) has been completed.

3. Findings On The Current Problem

The GAO-03-0617 report reflects much of the justification for this study, “that DOD’s weapons programs have often failed to obtain, consider, or act upon adequate spectrum supportability knowledge during the early stages of acquisition.” While DoD revisions of defense acquisition directives have attempted to simplify acquisition guidance and expedite future acquisition programs, they have not supported or improved on DoD compliance with the spectrum management regulations, established by the National Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA), which ultimately govern frequency assignment. Table 1 identifies a historical and more current list of GAO reports related to DoD Spectrum Management (SM) issues.

Table 1. GAO Reports Related to DoD SM Management Issues

|Report |Title & End Note |Relevance |

|NSIAD-87-42, 09 |Radio Frequencies: Earlier Coordination Could|Found that delays and unnecessary costs resulted when DOD did not |

|February 1987 |Improve System Use and Save Costs [i] |coordinate with host nations early in the development of communication |

| | |systems |

|GAO-01-604, 09 May 2001|DEFENSE SPECTRUM MANAGEMENT |Reported that the new procedures established by DOD are reasonable and, |

| |New Procedures Could Help Reduce Interference|if successfully implemented, could help prevent problems related to |

| |Problems[ii] |radio frequency interference. |

|GAO-03-617R, 30 April |Spectrum Management in Defense Acquisitions |Reported that DOD’s weapons programs have often failed to obtain, |

|2003 |[iii] |consider, or act upon adequate spectrum supportability knowledge during |

| | |the early stages of acquisition. This is essentially the same finding |

| | |as the NSIAD-87-42 report. |

|GAO-04-530T, March 17, |Unmanned Aerial Vehicles: Major management |Exemplifies the issue of lack of spectrum supportability considerations |

|2004 |Issues Facing DOD's Development and Fielding |before acquisition of systems. |

| |Efforts [iv] | |

|GAO-04-248, March 31, |Assessments of Major Weapon Programs [v] |Warns that technical challenges that could affect the program include |

|2004 | |spectrum certification but is mute on the broader requirement for |

| | |spectrum supportability determination. |

|GAO-04-858, July 28, |DEFENSE ACQUISITIONS The Global Information |Warns that previous efforts that have been undertaken in past years to |

|2004 |Grid and Challenges Facing Its Implementation|foster interoperability among DOD systems have had limited success. |

| |[vi] |That DOD had not yet overcome resistance from the military services, it |

| | |lacked architecture to guide interoperability efforts and some current |

| | |oversight and control mechanisms, such as the interoperability |

| | |certification process, were not working or were not being enforced. |

| | |(Spectrum supportability is a consideration within the Information |

| | |Support Plan that is part of the interoperability certification |

| | |process.[1]) |

|GAO-05-519T, April 6, |DEFENSE ACQUISITIONS Assessments of |Reports: |

|2005 |Selected Major Weapon Programs [vii],[viii] |1. B2B radar required major design modification to resolve potential |

| | |interference issues.. |

| | |2. TSAT program must resolve communication-on-the-move nulling antenna, |

| | |dynamic bandwidth and resource allocation technologies however protected|

| | |bandwidth efficient modulation waveforms, information assurance |

| | |communications—are scheduled to reach maturity in early 2006, about 2 |

| | |years after the start of system development (MS B). |

|GAO-05-669, 15 June |Resolving Development Risks in the Army's |Cluster 5 program officials had expected to leverage technology from the|

|2005 |Networked Communications Capabilities Is Key |Cluster 1 program. However, the Cluster 1 technologies have not matured |

| |to Fielding Future Force [ix] |as anticipated. The unique technological challenge of its wideband |

| | |radio frequency capabilities up to 2500 MHz, introduce thermal |

| | |management and packaging, and complex security architecture risks for |

| | |which backup technology is to be identified as a part of a risk |

| | |mitigation plan. Therefore, spectrum supportability assessments should |

| | |have considered all alternatives. Presently cluster 5 submission of a |

| | |request the Equipment Spectrum (allocation) Certification has not been |

| | |completed so substantiated spectrum supportability determinations have |

| | |not been made. |

The DoD spectrum management community has written volumes of guidance for a Program Manager (PM) to follow. For instance, the most complete compendium of related references, MIL-HDBK-237D, “Electromagnetic Environmental Effects and Spectrum Supportability Guidance for the Acquisition Process.” lists nine pages of references (almost 200 citations). [2] Arguably, such a large volume of information might overwhelm a Program Manager. Simpler, more direct, more automatic methods to comply with spectrum management regulations are needed. The basic requirement in both US and International law is that all RF spectrum dependent equipment has to transmit or receive [3]on approved frequencies [38][32]. Figure 1 depicts the flow of US Law to first tier DoD issuances on the Defense Acquisition System (DAS) and the Management and Use of the Electromagnetic Spectrum (MUES). The figure also highlights the missing links between the contracting regulations and DAS/MUES issuances.

Figure 1. Flow of US Law Into DoD Regulations

PMs are asked to comply with a number of spectrum management processes that are not directly related to the acquisition process. Spectrum management processes required by DoD D 4650.1 require a PM to develop a spectrum supportability determination based on equipment spectrum (allocation) certification, availability of frequencies and EMC while the acquisition process only requires a PM to obtain an equipment spectrum (allocation) certification. Obtaining frequencies for new equipment in the U.S. is a two-step process. The first step is Equipment Frequency Allocation certification ( also known as Spectrum Certification). The certification process assesses equipment transmit and receive characteristics to determine if it complies with existing RF spectrum regulations. The second step, Frequency Assignment, coordinates the use of specific allocated frequencies among current users so that they do not interfere with each other. The Manual of Regulations and Procedures for Radio Frequency Management [26], issued by NTIA, is the standard for both steps. The NTIA is the regulatory authority over all federal equipment and spectrum in the US&P. The Federal Communications Commission (FCC) regulates non-federal spectrum in the US&P.

In foreign countries, DoD adds the Foreign Coordination page to the Equipment Frequency Allocation certification and releases it to Combatant Commanders for direct coordination with the ministries of defense. This coordination results in frequency assignments for specific systems in specific nations under specific conditions.

The specifics of the DoD spectrum management processes are not established in OSD or JCS publications but are defined in various ways in spectrum management directives published by each service and by the Military Communications Electronics Board (MCEB). MUES policy, defined in DoD Directive 4650.1 [19], attempts to integrate the spectrum management process with the acquisition process by requiring that,

“ 4.5. The DoD Component that is developing or acquiring spectrum-dependent equipment or systems shall make a written determination, with the concurrence of the DoD Component or Component Chief Information Officer (CIO), that there is reasonable assurance of spectrum supportability.”

And it defines spectrum supportability as,

“The assessment as to whether the electromagnetic spectrum necessary to support the operation of a spectrum-dependent equipment or system during its expected life cycle is, or will be, available (that is, from system development, through developmental and operational testing, to actual operation in the electromagnetic environment). The assessment of "spectrum supportability" requires, at a minimum, receipt of equipment spectrum certification, reasonable assurance of the availability of sufficient frequencies for operation from HNs, and a consideration of EMC.” [4]

Since the publication of the Electromagnetic Spectrum Management Strategic Plan [22] in October 2002 the DoD Spectrum Management community has been focusing on improving the integration of spectrum management with acquisition management. Despite the efforts, reports (see table 1) continue to identify acquisition program risks resulting from lack of sufficient frequencies or interference with other systems. This leads to the question, “How can DoD improve on its compliance with spectrum management regulations or lower the risk of non-compliance?” Perhaps the best way is for DoD to integrate attainment of the three minimal criteria for spectrum supportability (which are: spectrum certification; assurance of frequencies; EMC) into the DAS in such a way that it becomes systematic and compulsory. The following sections of this report explore how this can be achieved.

4. Basic DoD Acquisition System (DAS) Process and Boundaries

It is questioned whether or not changing the DoD 5000 process would result in compliance. DoD D 5000.1 graphically defines the DAS model as shown in Figure 2. A full description of the processes within the model is defined in references [20],[21],[6]. System Engineering, Contracting and other Program/Business management processes are integrated within this model. The DAS provides oversight and review for compliance with statutory and regulatory requirements for acquisition programs at each life-cycle phase decision point (A, B & C), represented by triangles, as well as the program reviews within the life cycles phases (Concept Decision, Design Readiness Review, & Full Rate Production Decision Review), represented as diamonds.

Figure 2. Defense Acquisition System Process

DoD I 5000.2 [21] specifies that ACAT acquisition programs are initiated at MS B or later. However non-ACAT PMs manage many other acquisition initiatives, for instance:

1) The block “User Needs & Technology Opportunities” in Figure 2 represents activities of the Science & Technology (S&T) and Research and Development (R&D) communities that bring new technology into acquisition programs. Although S&T and R&D activities must comply with the Federal Acquisition Regulations (FAR) for contracting they are not required to comply with all facets of DoD 5000 issuances until the technologies are transitioned to “ACAT” status.

2) The block “Operations & Support” represents all the activities required to sustain a system before it is removed from service. Program managers are often required to develop and acquire new components or subassemblies for already fielded systems because direct replacements are no longer available or supported by the original equipment manufacturer (OEM). As above, these efforts must comply with the Federal Acquisition Regulations (FAR) for contracting but are not required to comply with all facets of DoD 5000 issuances.

Therefore the answer to the question poised at the beginning of this section, of whether or not changing the DoD 5000 process would result in compliance, is no. And therefore, a method of effecting compliance with MUES on ACAT and other acquisitions is needed. Since all types of acquisitions must comply with the FAR it appears that changes to the FAR may be a good approach.

5. Research And Findings On Integration Of Spectrum Supportability In Contracting

The FAR and DoD FAR Supplement (DFARS) are the regulatory application of US public law and DoD procedures related to contracting. There are many types of contracts associated with an acquisition program. The middle row of blocks in Figure 3 shows the types of contracts that may be awarded during an ACAT acquisition program. All other types of

Figure 3. Contracting in the Acquisition Process

acquisitions mentioned in section 4 must also abide by the FAR and DFARS. To ascertain the viability of integrating spectrum supportability into contracts requires an understanding of how contracting is accomplished. A short discussion of contracting follows.

Contracts are created by PMs and contracting officers working together. PMs develop a statement of work (SOW) or statement of objectives (SOO), perhaps a program Work Breakdown Schedule (WBS), a quantified list of end items needed, a list of data requirements, a cost estimate and other information the contracting officer needs. The contracting officer examines that information and recommends the best type of contract (Fixed-Price, Cost-Reimbursement, etc…) for the items described in the SOW/SOO. When the program manager and the contracting officer agree on the type of contract, the contracting officer transforms the input into a Uniform Contract Format described in the Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR)[29]. Table 2 shows how the input is organized for publication to contractors/vendors as a Request For Proposal (RFP). Once published, contractor/vendors then submit proposals responding to the requirements define in the RFP. Next, proposals are evaluated in accordance with the RFP, Part IV, Section M. Finally, winning proposals receive a contract award that consists of Part I, II & III plus the contractor/vendor proposal.

Table 2. Uniform Contract Format

|Section |Title |

|Part I—The Schedule |

|A |Solicitation/contract form |

|B |Supplies or services and prices/costs |

|C |Description/specifications/statement of work |

|D |Packaging and marking |

|E |Inspection and acceptance |

|F |Deliveries or performance |

|G |Contract administration data |

|H |Special contract requirements |

|Part II—Contract Clauses |

|I |Contract clauses |

|Part III—List of Documents, Exhibits, and Other Attachments |

|J |List of attachments |

|Part IV—Representations and Instructions |

|K |Representations, certifications, and other statements of offerors or respondents |

|L |Instructions, conditions, and notices to offerors or respondents |

|M |Evaluation factors for award |

5.1 Integration of Spectrum Supportability in Part I of a contract.

Section A is a Standard Form (SF), most likely SF 33, “Solicitation, Offer and Award”. It is the official releasing, submitting and awarding document for the solicitation, proposal and contract. It includes a standard table of contents that includes all items in table 2. If spectrum supportability efforts are going to be part of the contract then it will be explained in one of the sections list it this table of contents.

Section B of a contract consists of a list of Contract Line Items (CLINs), which describe units of hardware, software, labor, or data that the government needs. Every contract requires some sort of data. Data is specified in a contract using Contract Data Requirements List (CDRL) [25]. Data Item Descriptions (DIDs) are used to describe the data in the CDRLs. Standard DIDs are found in the ASSIST database [14]. If a DID cannot be found in ASSIST it must be created using MIL-STD 963B [37]. However, the basis for the DID must be a requirement established by the FAR, DFARS, a DoD specification, a standard, or an issuance which can be referenced [25].

A search of the ASSIST database found only three DIDs that are related to Spectrum Supportability; see enclosure (2). They are:

1) DI-MISC-81174 Frequency Allocation Data

2) DI-EMCS-81528 Electromagnetic Compatibility program Procedures (EMCPP)

3) DI-MISC-81113 Radar Spectrum Management Test Plan (MIL-STD-469)

(1) The Frequency Allocation Data DID specifies that allocation request data is to be submitted in DD Form 1494 format in accordance with instructions on the back of the form. Table 3 shows the six-page/form format of a 1494. Based on the acquisition phase of a program, a contractor may be required to submit only DD Forms 1494-2, 1494-3 and 1494-4 to the program office. The program office would then complete the forms 1494-1, 1494-5 and 1494-6 as appropriate and submit them to the applicable Service Spectrum Management Office for review and coordination with NTIA. As the program matures, either updates or new DD 1494s are submitted as equipment configurations change. Once approved, the DD 1494 signifies that the “equipment spectrum certification” part of spectrum supportability has been attained for that submission. NTIA anticipates that systems under development will require multiple submissions of the DD 1494. NTIA has structured the DD 1494 review and approval process as a sequence of stages that are related to the DAS lifecycle phases: Stage 1 Conceptual corresponds to Concept Refinement Phase, Stage 2 Experimental corresponds to Technology Development Phase, Stage 3 Developmental corresponds to System Development & Demonstration Phase, and Stage 4 Operational corresponds to Production and Deployment Phase. Current efforts within DoD to integrate spectrum supportability in the DAS are emphasizing the specific timing and content of the Frequency Allocation Certification (DD 1494) process.

Table 3. Six-page Format of a DD 1494

|DD Form |APPLICATION FOR EQUIPMENT FREQUENCY ALLOCATION - FOREIGN COORDINATION GENERAL INFORMATION PAGE 6 | |

|1494-1 | | |

|DD Form |APPLICATION FOR EQUIPMENT FREQUENCY ALLOCATION - TRANSMITTER EQUIPMENT CHARACTERISTICS PAGE 2 | |

|1494-2 | | |

|DD Form |APPLICATION FOR EQUIPMENT FREQUENCY ALLOCATION - RECEIVER EQUIPMENT CHARACTERISTICS PAGE 3 | |

|1494-3 | | |

|DD Form |APPLICATION FOR EQUIPMENT FREQUENCY ALLOCATION - ANTENNA EQUIPMENT CHARACTERISTICS PAGE 4 | |

|1494-4 | | |

|DD Form |APPLICATION FOR EQUIPMENT FREQUENCY ALLOCATION - NTIA GENERAL INFORMATION PAGE 5 | |

|1494-5 | | |

|DD Form |APPLICATION FOR EQUIPMENT FREQUENCY ALLOCATION - FOREIGN COORDINATION GENERAL INFORMATION PAGE 6 | |

|1494-6 | | |

(2) The Electromagnetic Compatibility Program Procedures (EMCPP) DID requires data and analyses which demonstrate that equipment complies with contractual requirements for EMC in the area of spectrum certification but does not define the term ”spectrum certification” nor does it cite any references.

(3) The Radar Spectrum Management Test Plan DID cites MIL-STD-469, “Radar Engineering Interface Requirements, and Electromagnetic Compatibility Metric.” MIL-STD 469 provides a complete description of EMC requirements for Radar Spectrum Engineering Criteria (RSEC); Section 5.3 in ref [38]. Data from this DID is directly applicable to completing some of the fields in the DD FORM 1494.

Just as the DD 1494 is required to obtain equipment spectrum certification, arguably, a similar assessment of the two remaining aspects of spectrum supportability would have merit. That is, a logical process through which one would conclude, “…a reasonable assurance of the availability of sufficient frequencies for operation from HNs, and a consideration of EMC.” The data required for these assessments could be specified in new DIDs under Telecommunications System Standards (TCSS) [5] or the Electromagnetic Compatibility (EMCS) [6] areas defined in reference [18].

The Defense Information Systems Agency (DISA) Standardization Code: DC6 [x] would provide final approval of new DIDs under these areas. However, The Lead Standardization Activity (LSA) for the each area would also need to approve of the DIDs. [xi] Program Managers can also develop one time DIDs to meet specific needs on specific contracts.

5.2 Integration of Spectrum Supportability in Part II of a contract.

Section I of a contract contains a list of mandatory clauses required by law, the FAR, the DFARS [44], and additional clauses required by regulation or issuance and not in any other section of the uniform contract. The traceability matrix in part 52 of the FAR stipulates which clauses are deemed mandatory for the type of contract being awarded. Contract types cited in the FAR are: Fixed-Price, Cost-Reimbursement, Incentive, Indefinite-Delivery, Time-and-Materials, Labor-Hour, and Letter Contracts. DFARS also contains a list of mandatory clauses.

A review of mandatory clauses in both the FAR and DFARS found only one clause related to spectrum supportability: DFARS 252.235-7003, “Frequency Authorizations.” Furthermore the DFARS “Part 235- Research and Development Contracting” is the only part in DFARS that makes it mandatory, therefore not all contracts written under DFARS are required to use the clause quoted below.

252.235-7003 Frequency Authorizations.

As prescribed in 235.071(b), use the following clause:

FREQUENCY AUTHORIZATION (DEC 1991)

(a) The Contractor shall obtain authorization for radio frequencies required in support of this contract.

(b) For any experimental, developmental, or operational equipment for which the appropriate frequency allocation has not been made, the Contractor shall provide the technical operating characteristics of the proposed electromagnetic radiating device to the Contracting Officer during the initial planning, experimental, or developmental phase of contract performance.

(c) The Contracting Officer shall furnish the procedures for obtaining radio frequency authorization.

(d) The Contractor shall include this clause, including this paragraph (d), in all subcontracts requiring the development, production, construction, testing, or operation of a device for which a radio frequency authorization is required.

(End of clause)

ALTERNATE I (DEC 1991)

Substitute the following paragraph (c) for paragraph (c) of the basic clause if agency procedures authorize use of DD Form 1494, Application for Frequency Authorization:

(c) The contractor shall use DD Form 1494, Application for Frequency Authorization, to obtain radio frequency authorization.

Note that the clause “Alternative I (Dec 1991)” mistitles the DD 1494[7] and in doing so confuses the process of equipment frequency allocation with that of frequency assignment. Also note that although part (a) of the clause requires the contractor to obtain authorized frequencies in support of the contract it does not require the contractor to make a reasonable assurance that frequencies will be available in Host Nations.

Confusion and misunderstanding arising from the aforementioned might be remedied by the introduction of new clauses into either the FARS or DFARS that clarify the need for compliance with both US law and the DoD definition of spectrum supportability. Clauses added to the FAR would apply to all Federal Agencies while those added to the DFARS would only apply to DoD contracts. Because some commercial equipment is procured under GSA contracting (FAR controlled) a case can be made to place all DoD requirements for Spectrum Supportability determinations or data in the FAR vice the DFARS. Proposed revisions of FAR or DFARS must be routed through channels to the Director of the Defense Acquisition Regulations (DAR) Council. The proposed revisions should be a memorandum addressed to the Director, DAR Council, OUSD (AT&L), 3062 Defense Pentagon, Washington, DC 20301-3062 [44]. Changes to the FAR must be approved by both the DAR Council and the Civilian Agency Acquisition Council (CAA Council) [29].

Another mandatory clause that should be noted at this time is that FAR 52.230, amplified by DFARS 215.403-5, requires Contract Cost Reporting Data be organized in WBS format as described in MIL- HDBK- 881.

5.3 Integration of Spectrum Supportability in Part III of a contract.

Section J of a contract contains the list of attachments that comprise part of the contract. If the program manager develops a specification (contract, performance, etc… or work breakdown structure) it would be cited in both the SOO/SOW and Section J. The list of CDRLS is also noted in the list of attachments as an exhibit to the contract. Two ways to integrate spectrum supportability into this section of the contract are:

1) Just as MIL-STD 469 provided a complete description of EMC requirements for the Radar Spectrum Engineering Criteria (RSEC), a PM could develop and/or cite a specification defining the process for establishing spectrum supportability for the systems being acquired. Although a metrics based standard for determining spectrum supportability does not currently exist, options exist for either developing one or modifying a related reference. For example:

• Reference [38] contains Allocation standards in the notes of Chapter 4, Spectrum Standards in chapter 5, Measurement Standards in Annex M, Frequency Application Requirements in chapter 9 and Frequency Proposal Evaluations in Annex I. Selecting appropriate metrics from these areas and applying mission area requirements offer the possibility of specifying a state model for representation the availability of frequencies and electromagnetic compatibility.

• Modeling and simulation performance specifications could be modified to incorporate spectrum supportability needs.

2) A program work breakdown structure (WBS), emphasizing spectrum supportability analysis and determination, could be incorporated into Section J to provide direction to contractors/vendors for the creation of a proposed contract WBS.

5.4 Spectrum Supportability Integration in Part IV of a contract.

Section K of a contract consists of representations, certifications, and other statements that must be submitted by offerors. These are related to specific clauses called out in Part II. Section L, consists of instructions, conditions, and notices to offerors that are not required elsewhere to guide offerors in preparing proposals. Offerors may be instructed to submit proposals or information in a specific format to facilitate evaluation. The instructions may specify further organization of proposal or response parts, such as— (1) Administrative; (2) Management; (3) Technical; (4) Past performance; and (5) Cost. Section M, consists of evaluation factors for award. It is possible to submit an instruction, condition or note to offerors, that all proposals for spectrum dependent equipment must include provisions for delivering spectrum supportability documentation (see example below)

Airborne JTRS Cluster 4 Program contract [27].

The Electronic Systems Center, Air Force Materiel Command, USAF request for proposal for acquisition of, “ Successful Completion of Pre-System Development and Demonstration (Pre-SDD) Phase for the Airborne JTRS Cluster 4 Program” in September 2003 did not cite any CDRL, DID or mandatory clause noted above. Nor did it call for any type of spectrum supportability determination except in the proposal preparation and evaluation instructions. Section L is quoted below.

… The offeror shall describe their approach for evaluating the implications of expanding the Airborne JTRS design for operations in the 2MHz to 55GHz frequency range, and at the higher data rates/throughput required by some waveforms (e.g., for MP-CDL or FAB-T). [8]

… The offeror shall describe how the design approach includes provisions necessary to enable all required certifications in the SDD phase, including Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) certification, National Security Agency (NSA) and Defense Information Technology Security Certification and Accreditation, interoperability certification, frequency authorization, and certification of SCA[9] compliance by the JTRS Technical Laboratory (JTel). The offeror shall show how its design will incorporate the requirements of the Telecommunications Security Requirements Document (TSRD) for the JTRS Cluster 4 Program, which describes the entire program to achieve NSA approval of the Airborne JTRS and identifies the detailed tasking required to lay the certification groundwork during Pre-SDD. [10]

Section M indicates that the government will evaluate their proposed approaches.[11]

6. Research and Findings On Integration Of Spectrum Supportability In Systems Engineering

In October 2004 the Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisitions, Technology and Logistics (AT&L) directed that systems engineering best practices defined in the Defense Acquisition Guidebook (DAG) should be used for all technical and program reviews [45].

Chapter 4 of the DAG relates to Systems Engineering and includes methods for applying systems engineering concepts to acquisition programs. Chapter 4 refers to, and parallels, industry standards: ANSI/EIA 632, “Processes for Engineering a System”[1]; and IEEE 1220, “Application and Management of the Systems Engineering”[30]. Those standards reflect a process of translating user requirements into system performance and testing requirements. The link between systems engineering and contracting is the use of performance and test requirements to specify material solutions/products in an RFP. Figure 4 depicts the relationship between contracting, systems engineering, and the

Figure 4. Systems Engineering in the Acquisition Process

Acquisition Model. The RFPs (Request For Proposal) are shown in Figure 4 as explosions to emphasize that the systems engineering efforts in one phase of acquisition lead to the specification of the next contract in the next phase. The arrows forming “v”s at the bottom of in figure 4 represent the systems engineering process. Down arrows represent review of the products (data, material, etc…) coming from the contractors. Up arrows represent analysis, assessments, and re-specification of products to be included in the next contract. The ovals represent DAG recommended system engineering reviews. These are opportunities within the systems engineering efforts where a PM reviews product designs. Most reviews use multi-disciplined teams organized as Integrated Process/Product Teams (IPTs). The reviews are ideally suited times for program managers to consider spectrum supportability as an element of designs. A brief description of each review, paraphrased from the DAG is provided in enclosure (3). The methods discussed below could be applied to spectrum supportability determinations required by reference [19].

Systems engineering standards suggest that complex material solutions (hardware or software) should be decomposed into smaller work items/tasks that can be clearly defined, measured and managed. By establishing objectives for each work item/task a PM is able to manage the program elements by objective and assess overall program progress cumulatively. Systems engineers use work breakdown structures for this reason and, as discussed in Section 5.3, contractors/vendors are required by the FAR to establish a contract work breakdown structure. The contract WBS is normally delivered shortly after contract award. MIL-HDBK-881 is specified as the guide to follow. An ACAT program may require multiple simultaneous contracts to acquire different components from different vendors. The handbook also identifies the way a PM should incorporate all contract work breakdown structures into a single program work breakdown structure.

MIL-HDBK-881 also defines seven major systems type WBSs (Aircraft Systems, Electronic/Automated Software Systems, Missile Systems, Ordnance Systems, Ship Systems, Space Systems, Surface Vehicle Systems) and one Common Element WBS. To elevate spectrum supportability to a work item for consideration, revisions to paragraph “H.3.5.4 Support Data” of the common element WBS could be made to more explicitly identify the tasks associated with Spectrum Supportability determinations. Furthermore, as noted in this study, the Common Element WBS already indicates that data item descriptions from reference [14] should be included in program WBSs.

Assessments of programs at DAS lifecycle milestone reviews “A, B and C” balance program success against future risk. The assessments are used by the Milestone Decision Authority to decide whether or not to move forward to the next phase/contract/product development. The Risk Management Guide (RMG) for DOD Acquisition defines Risk as a measure of the potential inability to achieve overall program objectives within defined cost, schedule, and performance/technical constraints and has two components: (1) the probability/likelihood of failing to achieve a particular outcome, and (2) the consequences/impacts of failing to achieve that outcome. [12] The RMG depicts risk management as a recursive multi-phase process as shown in Figure 5 below.[5]

[pic]

Figure 5. Risk Management Structure

Risk planning is the detailed formulation of a program of action for the management of risk. The primary objective of risk assessment is to identify and analyze program risks so that the most critical among them may be controlled. Risk identification begins by compiling the program’s risk events. The RMG suggest the Program WBS as a starting place for risk identification. Risk analysis is a technical and systematic process to examine identified risks and expresses its impact in terms of probability and consequences. Risk handling includes specific methods and techniques to deal with known risks. Risk-handling options include risk Control, risk Avoidance, risk Assumption, and risk Transfer (CAAT). Risk monitoring systematically tracks and evaluates the effectiveness of risk handling actions against metrics.

Figure 6 is an example risk analysis format found in the DOD The Risk Management Guide [5]. It depicts how probability and consequence are used to arrive at an assessment of risk. Note that this assessment reinforces that PMs are focused on meeting performance, schedule and cost objectives.

A PM’s failure to obtain spectrum supportability for components in its systems has direct consequences to the program in meeting performance, schedule and cost objectives established by its Acquisition Review Board and to the Combatant Commander in meeting Joint Mission Area requirements.

[pic]

Figure 6. Risk Analysis Process

The DoD spectrum management community is focused on a program of attaining assured spectrum access which has been determined to depend on:has established that assured spectrum access is dependent upon: Improved EM spectrum management and E3 business processes; Improved EM spectrum utilization through technological innovation; Promoting EM spectrum and E3 awareness and education; and Advocating and defense of DoD’s EM spectrum needs in National and International EM Spectrum Forums[22]. Improvements in EM spectrum management have included the update to the “Policy for Management and Use of the Electromagnetic Spectrum” [6], which established the definition of spectrum supportability. The current efforts to write an instruction to MUES policy could include the preferred methods for defining ACAT program risks based on a failure to achieve Spectrum Supportability. Completion of this effort would improve the likelihood of a more realistic evaluation of Spectrum Supportability considerations at ACAT program milestone reviews.

Potential Integration points for Systems Engineering are:

1) Consideration of Spectrum Supportability at System Engineering Reviews that lead to product specifications in RFPs

2) Changes in Mil-HDBK-881 to identify common elements of Spectrum Supportability.

3) Development of Spectrum Supportability Risk Assessment guides for the “Risk Management Guide For DoD Acquisition” [5].

7. Summary of Findings

a. That current issuances have engendered a spectrum management process that is cumbersome and lacks clarity.

b. That Spectrum Supportability assessment methods need to be clearly defined and more automated.

c. That the three minimal criteria for spectrum supportability should be integrated into the DAS process.

d. That a common link between all types of acquisitions supporting the DAS, S&T, R&D, and OS communities is contracting which is controlled by the FAR and DFARS.

e. That only three DIDs exist that relate to Spectrum Supportability, but none support spectrum supportability determinations as a whole and all lack assessment of frequency availability.

f. That only the DFARS has a clause that relates to Spectrum Supportability, but it confuses the process of equipment frequency certification (frequency allocation) with frequency assignment.

g. That RFP representations and preparation instructions can contain information related to spectrum supportability documentation.

h. That, in the DAS model, System Engineering Reviews are the ideal venue for PMs to consider spectrum supportability as an element of design.

i. That the DAS uses risk management as a techniques to achieve ACAT program overall objectives within defined cost, schedule and performance constraints.

j. That the risk assessment aspect of risk management relies on the Program WBS

k. That risk analysis is the part of risk assessment that applies technical and systematic processes to exam risks and their impacts in terms of probability and consequence.

l. That development of a spectrum supportability WBS element would affect: Program Management, Contract Reporting, Financial Reporting, Systems Engineering, Risk Management

m. That development of spectrum supportability Data Item Descriptions would standardize products in standard contracting process.

n. That development of appropriate mandatory spectrum supportability FAR and DFARS clauses would improve the probability for DoD compliance with US law on spectrum management.

o. That development of standard spectrum supportability determination risk management guidelines and relations ships to program cost, performance and schedule risks would aid PMs and MDAs .

8. Recommendations

The following integration points found in this study should be improved as follows:

a. Correct DFARS 252.235-7003 ALTERNATE I wording to read “Equipment Frequency Allocation” vice “Frequency Authorization”

b. Submit a change proposal to MIL-HDBK-881 that identifies spectrum supportability as common WBS element. (See draft example in enclosure (4))

c. Submit proposals to establish standard spectrum supportability Data Item Descriptions (DIDs) in ASSIST (See draft example in enclosure (5))

d. Submit a proposal to establish a mandatory FAR clause for spectrum supportability. (See draft example in enclosure (6))

e. Develop and submit a spectrum supportability assessment guide to be incorporated into the Risk Management Guide For DoD Acquisition. (Related data see enclosure (7))

9. Post Script

The current efforts underway to implement the Equipment Location Certification Database (EL-CID) system, the Spectrum Supportability System (S3), and the Global Electromagnetic Spectrum Information System (GEMSIS) are proposed methods for improving the automation of spectrum management. If successful this should lead to automated reporting of operational use and dynamic management of the electromagnetic spectrum could then be integrated into future radio systems such as the DARPA XG initiative. Examination of the effectiveness/implementation of these procedures should be observed/validated first in program Information Support Plans (ISPs) and finally in system developmental and operational testing (DT/OT).

1] ANSI/EIA 632. “Processes for Engineering a System.” 1-Jan-99 Available: .

2] DAU. “Fundamentals of Systems Engineering.” 1-Dec-00. Available

3] DAU. “Implement SE Plans-Interim Guidance.” 30-Mar-04. Available: .

4] DAU. Systems Engineering Plan (SEP) Review 5x5, 10-Mar-05. Available: .

5] DAU. “Risk Management Guide For Dod Acquisition.” June 2003. Available: .

6] DAU. “Defense Acquisition Guidebook.” 17-Oct-2004. Available: .

7] Defense Cost and Resource Center. “Combined Cost Reporting and Software Development Manual.” 1-Feb-04. Available:

8] Defense Standardization Program. “Standardization Directory.” 01-MAY-2005. Available: .

9] Defense Standardization Office Memo Data Management MOA, 14-Oct-99

10] Defense Standardization Program Office. “SD–1 DEFENSE STANDARDIZATION PROGRAM.” 1-Jan-05. Available: .

11] Defense Standardization Program Office. “SD-2 Buying Commercial & Non Developmental Items: A Handbook.” 1-Apr-96. Available: .

12] Defense Standardization Program Office. “ASSIST - Acquisition Streamlining and Standardization Information System.” Current. Available:

13] DEPSECDEF. “Meeting Immediate Warfighter Needs (IWN).” 15-Nov-04. Available: .

14] DAPS. “ASSIST ONLINE, Data Item Descriptions.” Available: .

15] DCARC. “Defense Automated Cost Information Management System (DACIMS).” Available: .

16] DISA. “Spectrum Supportability: Process and Practices.” Feb 2001. Office of Spectrum Analysis and Management, Alexandria, VA

17] DOD. “System Engineering Plan Preparation Guidance.” May 2005. Available: .

18] DoD 4120.24-M. “Defense Standardization Program (DSP) Policies and Procedures.” Mar-00. Available: .

19] DOD D 4650.1. “Policy for Management and Use of the Electromagnetic Spectrum.” June 2004. Available: .

20] DOD D 5000.1. “The Defense Acquisition System.” 12 –May- 2003. Available: .

21] DOD I 5000.2. “Operation Of The Defense Acquisition System.” 12-May 2003. Available: .

22] DOD. “Electromagnetic Spectrum Management Strategic Plan.” October 2002. Available: .

23] DOD 5000.4-M. “Cost Analysis Guidance and Procedures.” 1-Dec-92. Available: .

24] DOD 5000.4-M-1. “Contractor Cost Data Reporting Manual.” 16-Apr-99. Available: .

25] DOD 5010.12-M, Procedures for the Acquisition and Management of Data,1 May 1993,

26] DON. “Navy Systems Engineering Guide.” Oct 2004. Available: .

27] Electronics Systems Center. “Airborne Joint Tactical Radio System.” 8-Nov-2003. Available: .

28] GAO. “GAO-05-480 Defense Technology, Management Process Can Be Strengthened for New Technology Transition Programs.” 1-Jun-05. Available: .

29] GSA FAR Secretariat. “Federal Acquisition Regulation (Includes Amendments from FAC 2005-05).” Available: .

30] IEEE “ IEEE 1220:1998. IEEE Standard for the Application and Management of the Systems Engineering Process.” 1-Jan-99. .

31] ISO/IEC 15288:2002 Systems Engineering - System Life Cycle Processes,1-Nov-02

32] International Telecommunications Union. “Radio Regulations.” Article S4. Available:

33] Jen, Moy, Pattay, Nichols. “United States Marine Corps Communications Joint Tactical Radio System (JTRS) Wideband Networking Waveform (WNW) Architecture Study.” 8-Apr-2005. The Johns Hopkins University Applied Physics Laboratory, 11100 Johns Hopkins Road, Laurel, MD, 20723

34] Lorenzo, Max. “MATREX Approach to Scaling.” 8-Sep-2003.

35] MIL-HDBK-237D. “Electromagnetic Environmental Effects And Spectrum Supportability Guidance For The Acquisition Process.” 20 May 2005. Available: .

36] MIL-HDBK-881. “Work Breakdown Structure.” 2-Jan-98. Available: .

37] MIL-STD-963B. “Data Item Descriptions (DIDs).” 31-Aug-97. Available: .

38] National Information and Telecommunications Administration. “Manual of Regulations and Procedures for Federal Radio Frequency Management.” January 2005 revision. Available: .

39] Office of the Law Revision Counsel of the U.S. House of Representatives. “USCODE: TELEGRAPHS, TELEPHONES, AND RADIOTELEGRAPHS.” Title 47 Section 305. Available: .

40] OSD. “Policy Addendum for Systems Engineering.” 22-Oct-04. .

41] OSD. “QDR 2005 Terms of Reference.” 3-Mar-05.

42] OSD. “Manager's Guide to Technology Transition in an Evolutionary Acquisition Environment.” 31-Jan-03. Available: .

43] Osmar R. Zaï ane. “CMPT 354: Database Systems and Structures.” Summer 1998. Available: .

44] USD AT&L. “Defense Federal Acquisition Regulations Supplement.” 1998. Available: .

45] USD AT&L. “Policy for Systems Engineering in DOD.” 20-Feb-04. Available: .

46] Skalamera, R. “Implementing System Engineering Policy.” 5-Nov-04. Available: .

47] Turnitsa, Charles. “Evaluation of the C2IEDM as an Interoperability-Enabling Ontology.” European Simulation Interoperability Workshop Toulouse, France, June 2005. Available: .

[pic]

[pic]

[pic]

[pic]

4.3.1.4.1. Initial Technical Review (ITR)

Review to support a program's initial Program Objective Memorandum submission. This review ensures that a program's technical baseline is sufficiently rigorous to support a valid cost estimate (with acceptable cost risk), and enables an independent assessment of that estimate by cost, technical, and program management subject matter experts. The ITR assesses the capability needs and conceptual approach of a proposed program and verifies that the requisite research, development, test, engineering, logistics, and programmatic bases for the program reflect the complete spectrum of technical challenges and risks. Additionally, the ITR ensures that historical and prospective drivers of system cost have been quantified to the maximum extent and that the range of uncertainty in these parameters has been captured and reflected in the program cost estimates.

4.3.1.4.2. Alternative System Review (ASR)

Ensures that the resulting set of requirements agrees with the customers' needs…assesses the alternative systems that have been evaluated during the Concept Refinement phase, and ensures that the preferred system alternative is cost effective, affordable, operationally effective and suitable, and can be developed to provide a timely solution to a need at an acceptable level of risk. Of critical importance to this review is the understanding of available system concepts to meet the capabilities described in the Initial Capabilities Document and the affordability, operational effectiveness, and technology risks inherent in each alternative concept. Depending on the overall acquisition strategy, one or more preferred solutions may carry forward into the Technology Development phase.

4.3.2.4.1. System Requirements Review (SRR)

Ascertains progress in defining system technical requirements. This review determines the direction and progress of the systems engineering effort and the degree of convergence upon a balanced and complete configuration. It is normally held during Technology Development, but may be repeated after the start of System Development and Demonstration to clarify the contractor's understanding of redefined or new user requirements.

4.3.3.4.3. System Functional Review (SFR)

Ensures that the system under review can proceed into preliminary design, and that all system requirements and functional performance requirements derived from the Capability Development Document are defined and are consistent with cost (program budget), schedule (program schedule), risk, and other system constraints. Generally this review assesses the system functional requirements as captured in system specifications (functional baseline), and ensures that all required system performance is fully decomposed and defined in the functional baseline. System performance may be decomposed and traced to lower-level subsystem functionality that may define hardware and software requirements. The SFR determines whether the systems functional definition is fully decomposed to a low level, and whether the IPT is prepared to start preliminary design

4.3.3.4.4. Preliminary Design Review (PDR)

Ensures that the system under review can proceed into detailed design, and can meet the stated performance requirements within cost (program budget), schedule (program schedule), risk, and other system constraints. Generally, this review assesses the system preliminary design as captured in performance specifications for each configuration item in the system (allocated baseline), and ensures that each function in the functional baseline has been allocated to one or more system configuration items. Configuration items may consist of hardware and software elements and include such items as airframes, avionics, weapons, crew systems, engines, trainers/training, etc.

4.3.3.4.5. Critical Design Review (CDR)

Ensures that the system under review can proceed into system fabrication, demonstration, and test; and can meet the stated performance requirements within cost (program budget), schedule (program schedule), risk, and other system constraints. Generally this review assesses the system final design as captured in product specifications for each configuration item in the system (product baseline), and ensures that each product in the product baseline has been captured in the detailed design documentation. Product specifications for hardware enable the fabrication of configuration items, and may include production drawings. Product specifications for software (e.g., Software Design Documents) enable coding of a Computer Software Configuration Item. Configuration items may consist of hardware and software elements, and include items such as airframe, avionics, weapons, crew systems, engines, trainers/training, etc. Completion of the CDR should provide:

4.3.3.9.1. Test Readiness Review (TRR)

Ensures that the subsystem or system under review is ready to proceed into formal test. The TRR assesses test objectives, test methods and procedures, scope of tests, and safety and confirms that required test resources have been properly identified and coordinated to support planned tests. The TRR verifies the traceability of planned tests to program requirements and user needs. The TRR determines the completeness of test procedures and their compliance with test plans and descriptions. The TRR assesses the system under review for development maturity, cost/ schedule effectiveness, and risk to determine readiness to proceed to formal testing. In addition to adequate planning and management, to be effective the program manager should follow-up with the outcomes of the TRR.

4.3.3.9.2. System Verification Review (SVR)

Ensures that the system under review can proceed into Low-Rate Initial Production and Full-Rate Production within cost (program budget), schedule (program schedule), risk, and other system constraints. Generally this review is an audit trail from the Critical Design Review. It assesses the system final product, as evidenced in its production configuration, and determines if it meets the functional requirements (derived from the Capability Development Document and draft Capability Production Document) documented in the Functional, Allocated, and Product Baselines. The SVR establishes and verifies final product performance. It provides inputs to the Capability Production Document. The SVR is often conducted concurrently with the Production Readiness Review.

4.3.3.9.3. Production Readiness Review (PRR)

Determines if the design is ready for production and if the producer has accomplished adequate production planning. The review examines risk; it determines if production or production preparations incur unacceptable risks that might breach thresholds of schedule, performance, cost, or other established criteria. The review evaluates the full, production-configured system to determine if it correctly and completely implements all system requirements. The review determines whether the traceability of final system requirements to the final production system is maintained.

4.3.5.4.1. In-Service Review (ISR)

Ensures that the system under review is operationally employed with well-understood and managed risk. This review is intended to characterize the in-service technical and operational health of the deployed system. It provides an assessment of risk, readiness, technical status, and trends in a measurable form. These assessments substantiate in-service support budget priorities.

[pic]

[pic]

DATA ITEM DESCRIPTION

Title: Spectrum Supportability Assessment Data

|Number: DI-TCSS-xxxxx |Approval Date: Draft |

|AMSC Number: |Limitation: |

|DTIC Applicable: Yes. |GIDEP Applicable: Yes [xii] |

| | |

|By mail send to: ATTN: DTIC-O |Program Director |

|Defense Technical Information Center |GIDEP Operations Center |

|8725 John J. Kingman Rd |P.O. Box 8000 |

|Fort Belvoir, VA 22060-6218 |Corona, CA 91718-8000. |

| | |

|Electronic transfers send in accordance with guidance located at | |

| | |

Office of Primary Responsibility: DC6 [xiii]

Applicable Forms: None

Use/relationship: This data will be used to develop:

1. This information will be used as source data by the contracting activity to complete:

a. Spectrum certification requirements in accordance with the, “Manual of Regulations and Procedures for Federal Radio Frequency Management.” Published by National Information and Telecommunications Administration Available at: .

b. Host Nation Coordination in accordance with ACP 190. Available at:

c. Assessment of Frequency Availability in accordance with frequency request procedures defined in MCEB Pub 7 . Available at:

2. This DID contains the format, content, and intended use of information for the data deliverable resulting from the work described in the solicitation.

3. This DID cancels DI-MISC-81174

4. Use DID DI-EMCS-81528 to acquire EMC related data as it pertains to spectrum supportability determinations required by DoD D 4650.1

Requirements:

1. Reference documents. The applicable issue of the documents cited herein, including their approval dates and dates of any applicable amendments, notices, and revisions, shall be as cited in the current issue of the DODISS at the time of the solicitation; or, for non DODISS-listed documents, as stated herein.

2. Data required is in the attached table. (Tailor the data elements from the attached table.)

3. Format of data must comply with publications cited in paragraphs 1, a, b, and c.

4. End of DI-TCSS-xxxxx

Data Field |FCC Type Acceptance Form 731 |NTIA Chapter 10 |DD 1494 |Stage 1-EZ Proposal |Stage 2-EZ Proposal |MCEB Draft

Pub 8

SFAF data on Equipment Spectrum Certification/Supportability data item numbers |SDR PWG Recommendations | |System line diagram(s) showing the links, direction of transmission, and frequency band(s). | |X |X | | |3080 |Blk 12 | |Transmitter tuning range |X |X |X |X |X |3250,3251 |Blk 2 b. | |Transmitter channeling capability | |X |X |X |X |3240,3252 |Blk 2 f. | |Receiver tuning range | |X |X |X |X |4250,4251 |Blk 3 b. | |Receiver channeling capability | |X |X |X |X |4252 |Blk 3 d. | |System Declaration of Stage of NTIA Review: Stage 1, Conceptual: Stage 2, Experimental; Stage 3, Developmental; Stage 4, Operational. | |X |X | | |3020,6420 | | |System Purpose: a summary description of the function of the system or subsystem (e.g., collect and disseminate meteorological data using satellite techniques; trans-mission of radar data for air traffic control; remote control of ATC radars). |X |X |X | | |3030 | | |System Information Transfer Requirement: Submit the required character, quantities, data rates, and circuit quality/reliability. | |X |X | | |3040 | | |System Estimated Termination Date (where applicable). | |X |X | | | | | |System Estimated Initial Cost: This item is for information to show the general size and complexity of the system. It is not intended to be a determining factor in system reviews. | |X |X | | |6500 | | |System Target Date: Submit dates on which spectrum-related decisions must be made relative to system planning, development, procurement, and employment. | |X |X | | | | | |System Relationship and Essentiality: Submit for all stages a statement of the relationship between the proposed system and the function or operation it is intended to support. Include a brief statement of the essentiality to the supported function or operation. | |X |X | | | | | |System Replacement Information: Identify the existing system(s) and associated frequency assignments to be replaced by the proposed system, where applicable. | |X |X | | |3060 | | |System Out-of-Band Operations: Submit a justification for any telecommunication system or sub-system that does not operate in accordance with the applicable Tables of Frequency Allocations as required by Section 10.1.1, and details of how operations on a noninterference, unprotected basis are feasible. This information is required for systems or subsystems that must operate out-of-band in the United States, its possessions, or in space. | |X |X | | | | | |System National Security Emergency Preparedness (NSEP) Function: A statement as to whether the proposed system, if it becomes operational, will support a NSEP function. | |X |X | | |7170,7180,

7190 | | |Space Systems: Satellite orbital characteristics (longitude for geostationary satellites, and apogee, perigee, and inclination for non-geostationary satellites). | |X |X | | | | | |Space Systems: Satellite transmitter maximum spectral power density for each transponder. | |X |X | | | | | |Space Systems: Earth station locations (city, state, and coordinates) within the US&P, and frequencies or frequency bands used at each. 2. | |X |X | | | | | |Space Systems Earth Station Transmitter and Receiver Site: Frequencies or frequency bands and satellites accessed. | |X |X | | | | | |Space Systems Earth Station Transmitter and Receiver Site: Coordinates. | |X |X | | | | | |Space Systems Earth Station Transmitter and Receiver Site: Emission designator for each frequency or frequency band. | |X |X | | | | | |Space Systems Earth Station Transmitter and Receiver Site: Maximum spectral power density and output power for each frequency or frequency band. | |X |X | | | | | |Space Systems Earth Station Transmitter and Receiver Site: Lowest equivalent satellite link noise temperature and associated value of transmission gain for each frequency or frequency band (geostationary satellites with simple frequency-changing transponders only). | |X |X | | | | | |Space Systems Earth Station Transmitter and Receiver Site: Antenna gain and beam width. | |X |X | | | | | |Space Systems Earth Station Transmitter and Receiver Site: Minimum elevation angle of antenna main beam. | |X |X | | | | | |Space Systems Earth Station Transmitter and Receiver Site: Range of azimuth angles. | |X |X | | | | | |Space Systems Earth Station Transmitter and Receiver Site: Lowest total receiver noise temperature (when e. is not appropriate). | |X |X | | | | | |Stage 3 Requirements -- For Each Space Station Transmitter and Receiver: | |X |X | | | | | |Space Systems Earth Station Transmitter and Receiver Site Frequency or frequency bands and cooperating earth stations. | |X |X | | | | | |Space Systems Earth Station Transmitter and Receiver Site Satellite orbital information. | |X |X | | | | | |Space Systems Earth Station Transmitter and Receiver Site Emission designator for each frequency or frequency band. | |X |X | | | | | |Space Systems Earth Station Transmitter and Receiver Site Peak power and spectral power density for each frequency or frequency band for transmitters. | |X |X | | | | | |Space Systems Earth Station Transmitter and Receiver Site Receiver noise temperature. | |X |X | | | | | |Space Systems Earth Station Transmitter and Receiver Site Transmitter antenna pattern (only if PFD limits are exceeded). | |X |X | | | | | |Stage 4 Requirements: In addition to satisfying all Stage 3 requirements, the following data items are required for each earth station: | |X |X | | | | | |Space Systems Earth Station Transmitter and Receiver Site Horizon elevation angle diagram. | |X |X | | | | | |Space Systems Earth Station Transmitter and Receiver Site Antenna altitude above ground. | |X |X | | | | | |Terrestrial Systems Station class(es) | |X |X | | |6540 | | |Terrestrial Systems Number of units (for mobile systems) | |X |X | | |6530 | | |Terrestrial Systems Station locations and/or areas of operation, as appropriate (geographical coordinates required for Stages 2, 3, and 4), | |X |X | | | | | |Terrestrial Systems Frequency requirements (i.e., band(s) or discrete frequencies required, bandwidth and emission designators, and netting information, where appropriate) | |X |X | | | | | |Terrestrial Systems Proposed date of activation. | |X |X | | |6511 | | |System Reports of any previous EMC studies, predictions, analyses, and prototype EMC testing that are relevant to the assessment of the system under review, or references thereto if previously provided to the IRAC/SPS, including references to previous system reviews of the same system or its predecessors. | |X |X | | | | | |Transmitter Manufacturer | |X |X | |X |3205 |Blk 2 a. cites | |Transmitter Manufacturer's model number | |X |X | | |3200 |Blk 2 a. cites | |Transmitter Government Nomenclature | |X |X | | |3200 |Blk 2 a. cites | |Transmitter type | |X |X |X |X |3230 |Blk 2 a. cites | |Transmitter method of tuning | |X |X | |X | |Blk 2 a. cites | |Transmitter frequency tolerance |X |X |X | | |3260 |Blk 2 a. cites | |Transmitter Emission Designator |X |X |X |X |X |3290 |Blk 2 a. cites | |Transmitter filter | |X |X | |X |3270 |Blk 2 a. cites | |Transmitter Spread Spectrum | |X |X | | | |Blk 2 a. cites | |Transmitter Max Bit Rate | |X |X | |X |3430 |Blk 2 a. cites | |Transmitter Emission Band Width, -3, -20,-60dB | |X |X | | | |Blk 2 a. cites | |Transmitter Max modulation frequency | |X |X | | |3370 |Blk 2 a. cites | |Transmitter Deviation Ratio | |X |X | | | |Blk 2 a. cites | |Transmitter Pre emphasis | |X |X | | | |Blk 2 a. cites | |Transmitter Pulse Characteristics: Rate, Width, Rise Time Fall Time, Compression Ratio | |X |X | | |3625,3630,3640,3650,3660 |Blk 2 a. cites | |Transmitter Power: Mean, peak |X |X |X |X |X | |Blk 2 a. cites | |Transmitter output device | |X |X | | | |Blk 2 a. cites | |Transmitter Spurious level | |X |X |X |X | |Blk 2 a. cites | |Transmitter Harmonic Levels | |X |X | |X | |Blk 2 a. cites | |Transmitter FCC Type Acceptance # | |X |X | | |3930 |Blk 2 a. cites | |Receiver Manufacturer | |X |X | |X | |Blk 3 a. Cites | |Receiver Manufacturer's model number | |X |X | | | |Blk 3 a. Cites | |Receiver Government Nomenclature | |X |X | | | |Blk 3 a. Cites | |Receiver type | |X |X | |X |4230 |Blk 3 a. Cites | |Receiver method of tuning | |X |X | |X |4240 |Blk 3 a. Cites | |Receiver frequency tolerance | |X |X | | |4260 |Blk 3 a. Cites | |Receiver Emission Designator | |X |X | |X | |Blk 3 a. Cites | |Receiver IF Selectivity | |X |X | | | |Blk 3 a. Cites | |Receiver RF Selectivity at -3, -20 & -60 dB | |X |X | | | |Blk 3 a. Cites | |Receiver Max Bit Rate | |X |X |X | |4410 |Blk 3 a. Cites | |Receiver IF Frequency | |X |X | | |4370 |Blk 3 a. Cites | |Receiver Max Post Detection Frequency | |X |X | | |4380 |Blk 3 a. Cites | |Receiver Min Post Detection Frequency | |X |X | | |4390 |Blk 3 a. Cites | |Receiver Oscillator Tuning: Above frequency, Below or both | |X |X | | |4400 |Blk 3 a. Cites | |Receiver Sensitivity: dBm, criteria, Noise Figure, Temp | |X |X | | |4420,4421,4430,4440,4450 |Blk 3 a. Cites | |Receiver Image Rejection, | |X |X | | |4490 |Blk 3 a. Cites | |Receiver Spurious Rejection | |X |X |X | |4490 |Blk 3 a. Cites | |Antenna Manufacturer | |X |X | | |5000 |Blk 5. Related | |Antenna Manufacturer's model number | |X |X | | |5000 |Blk 5. Related | |Antenna Government Nomenclature | |X |X | | |5000 |Blk 5. Related | |Antenna type | |X |X |X |X |5070 |Blk 5. Related | |Antenna polarization | |X |X | |X |5120 |Blk 5. Related | |Antenna Gain, main lobe | |X |X |X |X |5090 |Blk 5. Related | |Antenna Gain 1st Side lobe | |X |X | |X | |Blk 5. Related | |Antenna Beam width Horizontal | |X |X |X | |5130 |Blk 5. Related | |Antenna Beam width Vertical | |X |X |X | |5140 |Blk 5. Related | |Antenna Scan Type: Vertical, Horizontal, Both | |X |X | | | |Blk 5. Related | |Antenna Vertical Max Elevation | |X |X | | |5021 |Blk 5. Related | |Antenna Vertical Min Elevation | |X |X | | | |Blk 5. Related | |Antenna Vertical Scan Rate | |X |X | | |5181 |Blk 5. Related | |Antenna Horizontal Sector | |X |X | | |5200 |Blk 5. Related | |Antenna Horizontal Scan Rate | |X |X | | |5211 |Blk 5. Related | |Transmitter Power: Carrier | |X | |X |X | |Blk 5. Related | |Trunked System Operating Location: Provide the city (or other geographic subdivision) and state. | |X | | | | | | |Trunked System Equipment Identification. Provide the manufacturer and model number/name of the equipment. | |X | | | | | | |Trunked System Document Number of Previous Certification: Provide the SPS document number of the NTIA Certification of Spectrum Support for the system/equipment. (Agencies may obtain this information from the SPS Secretary, who maintains a list of approved trunked systems and associated document numbers.) If the system/equipment has not received NTIA Certification of Spectrum Support, provide the equipment characteristics identified in Section 10.8.6 as an attachment. | |X | | | | | | |Trunked System Overview: Provide a line diagram representing the system configuration and method of connecting multiple sites. Specify if dispatcher uses phone lines or RF to connect to the base/repeater stations. | |X | | | | | | |Trunked System Coverage Information. Provide the following for each repeater site: a. Geographical Coordinates: (in degrees, minutes, and seconds) b. Site Elevation: (in meters above mean sea level) c. Antenna Height: (in meters above site elevation) d. Antenna Gain: (in dBi) e. Transmitter Power: (in watts) f. Radius of Operation: (in kilometers) or Geographical Plot of Required Coverage Area | |X | | | | | | |Trunked System Frequency Requirements a. Frequency Band | |X | | | | | | |Trunked System Number of Channels (Frequency Pairs) Required: | |X | | | | | | |Trunked System Total Number of Users: | |X | | | | | | |Trunked System Target Date for System Activation: | |X | | | | | | |Trunked System Current Frequency Assignment Disposition: a. Assignments to Be Relinquished: Provide the existing Assigned Frequencies, Agency Serial Numbers | |X | | | | | | |Trunked System Expected Relinquishment Date. b. Assignments to Be Used by the Trunked System: For each existing frequency assignment that will be incorporated into the trunked system, provide the existing Assigned Frequencies and Agency Serial Numbers. | |X | | | | | | |Trunked System Estimated Initial Cost of the System: | |X | | | | | | |Trunked System Separate System Justification: For trunked land mobile systems that are within 30 km of an existing or planned trunked land mobile system authorized by NTIA, provide the information required under subparagraph 8.2.48 | |X | | | | | | |System Nomenclature | | |X |X |X |3010 |Blk 1 | |Transmitter Modulation Techniques and Coding | | |X | | |3210,3211,3360 |Blk 2 h. | |System Application Title | | |X | | | | | |Frequency Requirements | | |X | | | | | |J/F 12 numbers | | |X | | |6430,6440 | | |Number of units operating simultaneously in the same environment | | |X | | |3050 | | |Extent of use: continuous or intermittent | | |X | | | | | |Operational Requirement | | |X | | |6450 | | |POCs |X | |X | | | | | |Transmitter Emission Band Width , -40dB | | |X | |X | | | |Antenna Sector Blanking: | | |X |X |X |5030 | | |MCEB Approval Date of 1494 | | |X | | |3100 | | |Foreign Coordination Remarks | | |X | | |3090 | | |MCEB Guidance | | |X | | |3130 | | |Software Architecture Compliance | | | | | | |Blk 10 | |Non SDR Channel Identification | | | | | | |Blk 11 | |Transmitters Links | | | | | | |Blk 2 a. | |Transmitters Max BW (w/o PA) | | | | | | |Blk 2 c. | |Transmitter Power: Max | | | | | | |Blk 2 d. | |Transmitters Max BW (w PA) | | | | | | |Blk 2 e. | |Transmitter FDX Capable | | | | | | |Blk 2 g. | |Receiver Links | | | | | | |Blk 3 a. | |Receiver Max BW | | | | | | |Blk 3 c. | |Antenna Parameters that are software controlled | | | | | | |Blk 5 | |Co-Site Mitigation Features that are software controlled | | | | | | |Blk 6 | |Software Download Security and Spectrum Access Control Plan | | | | | | |Blk 7 | |Method of Reprogramability | | | | | | |Blk 8 | |Wave Form SW Application Configuration Information | | | | | | |Blk 9 | |NTIA System Identification Number (SIN) | | | | | |6600 | | |NTIA SPS Number | | | | | |6610 | | |NTIA Spectrum Supportability Recommendations | | | | | |6630 | | |NTIA Certification Remarks | | | | | |6640 | | |Com/Radar System | | | | | |6700 | | |Equipment Function | | | | | |6710 | | |Equipment Characteristics and Space Code | | | | | |6720 | | |Note to Holder Date | | | | | |6740 | | |JSC Memo Date | | | | | |6750 | | |Transmitter Number of Digital States | | | | | |3440 | | |Transmitter Digital Pulse Format Code | | | | | |3450 | | |Error Control Coding Gain | | | | | |3470 | | |Pseudorandom Code Rate | | | | | |3480 | | |Pseudorandom Code Repetition Period | | | | | |3490 | | |Peak Frequency Deviation | | | | | |3510 | | |RMS Frequency Deviation | | | | | |3520 | | |RMS Frequency Deviation Code | | | | | |3530 | | |Peak Modulation Index | | | | | |3540 | | |Amplitude Modulation Index | | | | | |3550 | | |RMS Modulation Index | | | | | |3570 | | |Companding Indicator | | | | | |3580 | | |Carrier Dispersal Bandwidth | | | | | |3590 | | |Carrier Suppression | | | | | |3600 | | |Sub Carrier Frequencies | | | | | |3610 | | |Number of Subcarriers | | | | | |3620 | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |Number of baseband channels | | | | | |3500 | | |Transmitter Emission Band Width , -3, -20 | | | |X |X | | | |Transmitter Occupied Band Width | | | |X |X |3340 | | |Transmitter Min modulation frequency | | | | | |3410 | | |Transmitter Digital Modulation Code | | | | | |3420 | | |Transmitter Pulse Characteristics: Rate, Width | | | |X |X | | | |Transmitter Pulse Characteristics: Estimated Rise Time, Estimated Fall Time | | | | |X | | | |Transmitter Pulse Duration Upper Limit | | | | | |3641 | | |Transmitter Pulse Duty Cycle | | | | | |3670 | | |Transmitter Pulse Burst Rate | | | | | |3680 | | |Transmitter Pulse Burst Duration | | | | | |3690 | | |Transmitter of Pulses per Burst | | | | | |3700 | | |Radar Type Format Code | | | | | |3720 | | |Transmitter Pulse Burst Off time | | | | | |3710 | | |Radar Pulse Frequency Deviation | | | | | |3730 | | |Number of Radar Subpulses | | | | | |3740 | | |Radar Processing Gain | | | | | |3750 | | |Spread Spectrum Type Code | | | | | |3770 | | |Spread Spectrum Processing Gain | | | | | |3780 | | |Information Data Rate | | | | | |3790 | | |Number of Frequencies per hopset | | | | | |3800 | | |Lowest Frequency in the Hop Set | | | | | |3810 | | |Highest Frequency in Hop Set | | | | | |3820 | | |Frequency Blocking Indicator | | | | | |3830 | | |Number of Time Hops Slots | | | | | |3840 | | |Hop Rate | | | | | |3850 | | |Hop Dwell | | | | | |3860 | | |Number of Pulses per Dwell | | | | | |3870 | | |Output Device | | | | | |3880 | | |Curve Type | | | | | |3890 | | |Curve Frequency Factor | | | | | |3891 | | |Curve Frequency Constant | | | | | |3892 | | |Curve Frequency Offset | | | | | |3893 | | |Curve Value | | | | | |3894 | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |Transmitter Suppression of Harmonic levels | | | |X | | | | |Preselection Type | | | | | |4270 | | |Receiver RF Selectivity: yes, no | | | | |X | | | |Receiver IF Selectivity Calculated -3, -20 dB | | | |X |X | | | |Receiver Internediate Frequency Upper Limit | | | | | |4371 | | |Receiver Sensitivity: dBm, criteria | | | | |X |4420,4421 | | |Antenna Mode Identifier | | | | | |5005 | | |Antenna Mode Description | | | | | |5006 | | |Antenna Feed Point Height | | | | | |5010 | | |Antenna Azimuth | | | | | |5020 | | |Antenna Elevation | | | | | |5022 | | |Antenna Other Orientation Codes | | | | | |5023 | | |Antenna Frequency Range | | | | |X | | | |Antenna polarization Angle | | | | | |5121 | | |Antenna Gain Front to Back Ratio | | | | | |5100 | | |Antenna System Losses | | | | | |5110 | | |Antenna Scan Characteristic Type: Electrical, Mechanical | | | |X |X | | | |Antenna Horizontal Scan Type | | | | | |5190 | | |Antenna Vertical Scan Type | | | | | |5160 | | |Antenna Vertical Sector Min Elevation | | | | | |5170 | | |Antenna Vertical Sector Max Elevation | | | | | |5171 | | |Antenna Vertical Scan Speed | | | | | |5180 | | |Antenna Horizontal Scan Speed | | | | | |5210 | | |Antenna Rotation Indicator | | | | | |5220 | | |Antenna Rotation Rate | | | | | |5230 | | |Side lobe Suppression Code | | | | | |5240 | | |Side Lobe Suppression Azimuth | | | | | |5241 | | |Antenna Blanking Start Angle | | | | | |5040 | | |Antenna Blanking Stop Angle | | | | | |5050 | | |Antenna Use | | | | | |5060 | | |Antenna Spatial Power Density | | | | | |5080 | | |Antenna First Side lobe Vertical Plane Position | | | | | |5250 | | |Antenna First Side lobe Vertical Plane Attenuation | | | | | |5260 | | |Antenna Dish Diameter | | | | | |5270 | | |Antenna Horizontal Dimension | | | | | |5280 | | |Antenna Vertical Dimension | | | | | |5290 | | |Number of Main Beams in Phased Array | | | | | |5300 | | |Number of Element in Phased Array | | | | | |5310 | | |Antenna Pattern Type | | | | | |5330 | | |Antenna Radiation Pattern Code | | | | | |5340 | | |Antenna Radiation Pattern Direction | | | | | |5341 | | |Antenna Radiation Pattern Gain | | | | | |5342 | | |Stage Start Date Number | | | | | |6400 | | |Stage Start Date | | | | | |6401 | | |Number of Units Stage Number | | | | | |6420 | | |Number of Units in Each Stage | | | | | |6421 | | |Trunked System NSEP Use: A statement as to whether the proposed system will be used in a national security emergency preparedness (NSEP) environment. | | | | | | | | |Equipment Microprocessor Model Number |X | | | | | | | |Test Firm POC data |X | | | | | | | |Equipment Code, ex. CSR - Scanning Receiver |X | | | | | | | |Equipment operated under FCC Rule? Parts? |X | | | | | | | |Type of equipment authorization requested: Certification, Type Acceptance, Notification |X | | | | | | | |HNA Number | | | | | |3139 | | |Coordination Country | | | | | |3140 | | |Coordination Date | | | | | |3141 | | |Coordination Comment | | | | | |3142 | | |HNA Expiration Date | | | | | |3143 | | |HNA Re-coordination Date | | | | | |3144 | | |HNA Coordination Status | | | | | |3145 | | |ITU Registration Code | | | | | |3160 | | |ITU Registration Date | | | | | |3161 | | |ITU Registration Number | | | | | |3162 | | |Equipment Installation Location | | | | | |3220 | | |

Memorandum

Director

DAR Council

OUSD(AT&L)

3062 Defense Pentagon

Washington, DC 20301-3062

Data fax (703)602-0350

Subject: RECOMMENDED CHANGES TO THE DFARS AND FAR TO COMPLY WITH FEDERAL LAW RELATED TO RADIO SPECTRUM MANAGEMENT

I. PROBLEM: DFARS 252.235-7003 Frequency Authorizations confuses the process of equipment frequency certification (frequency allocation) with frequency assignment. USCODE: TELEGRAPHS, TELEPHONES, AND RADIOTELEGRAPHS. Title 47 Section 305, establishes that,

“… No person shall use or operate any apparatus for the transmission of energy or communications or signals by radio (a) from one place in any State, …or (d) within any State when the effects of such use extend beyond the borders of said State, … or with the transmission or reception of such energy, communications, or signals from and/or to places beyond the borders of said State; or…. except under and in accordance with this chapter and with a license in that behalf granted under the provisions of this chapter.”

USCODE also establishes that NTIA is the regulatory authority for Federal use of the Radio Spectrum. NTIA publishes regulations in the, “Manual of Regulations and Procedures for Federal Radio Frequency Management.” That manual defines a two-step process to acquire frequencies. The first step is Equipment Frequency Allocation certification. The second step, Frequency Assignment, coordinates the use of specific allocated frequencies among current users so that they do not interfere with each other.

DoD has attempted but cannot comply with the Federal Spectrum Regulations with out a mandatory clause in the FAR and DFAR to implement a more stringent compliance with the law.

II. RECOMMENDATION: Identify the FAR and/or DFARS citations to be revised. Attach as TAB A a copy of the text of the existing coverage, conformed to include the proposed additions and deletions. Indicate deleted coverage with dashed lines through the current words being deleted and insert proposed language in brackets at the appropriate locations within the existing coverage. If the proposed deleted portion is extensive, it may be outlined by lines forming a box with diagonal lines drawn connecting the corners.

III. DISCUSSION: Include a complete, convincing explanation of why the change is necessary and how the recommended revision will solve the problem. Address advantages and disadvantages of the proposed revision, as well as any cost or administrative impact on Government activities and contractors. Identify any potential impact of the change on automated systems, e.g., automated financial and procurement systems. Provide any other background information that would be helpful in explaining the issue.

IV. COLLATERALS: Address the need for public comment (FAR 1.301(b) and Subpart 1.5), the Paperwork Reduction Act, and the Regulatory Flexibility Act (FAR 1.301(c)).

V. DEVIATIONS: If a recommended revision of DFARS is a FAR deviation, identify the deviation and include under separate TAB a justification for the deviation that addresses the requirements of 201.402(2). The justification should be in the form of a memorandum for the Director of Defense Procurement and Acquisition Policy, Office of the Under Secretary of Defense (Acquisition, Technology, and Logistics).

Tab A

252.235-7003 Frequency Authorizations.

As prescribed in 235.071(b), use the following clause:

FREQUENCY AUTHORIZATION (DEC 1991)

(a) The Contractor shall obtain authorization for radio frequencies required in support of this contract.

(b) For any experimental, developmental, or operational equipment for which the appropriate frequency allocation has not been made, the Contractor shall provide the technical operating characteristics of the proposed electromagnetic radiating device to the Contracting Officer during the initial planning, experimental, or developmental phase of contract performance.

(c) The Contracting Officer shall furnish the procedures for obtaining radio frequency authorization.

(d) The Contractor shall include this clause, including this paragraph (d), in all subcontracts requiring the development, production, construction, testing, or operation of a device for which a radio frequency authorization is required.

(End of clause)

ALTERNATE I (DEC 1991)

Substitute the following paragraph (c) for paragraph (c) of the basic clause if agency procedures authorize use of DD Form 1494, Application for Frequency Authorization:

(c) The contractor shall use DD Form 1494, Application for Frequency Authorization, to obtain radio frequency authorization.

Several alternatives for integration of Spectrum Supportability with risk analysis methods are discussed below:

1. A common DoD spectrum supportability risk assessment and analysis process could be established to help define or verify the probability of failure to obtain spectrum supportability and then relate the probability to the applicable consequence. For example one way would be to define the probability of Spectrum Supportability failure as = 1- the probability of spectrum support (PSS).

Where PSS = (PSS geographic location 1)* (PSS geographic location 2)* (PSS geographic location X) and x is specified in a program’s IPD or CPD architectural view OV-1.

Further, PSS geographic location X = Value Equipment Allocation Certification * Value Electromagnetic Compatibility * Value Frequency Availability.

Value Equipment Allocation Certification = 1 or 0 based on certification from MCEB,

Value Electromagnetic Compatibility = percentage of Necessary Bandwidth/Occupied Bandwidth,

Value Frequency Availability = Probability of number of frequencies available for assignment is more than the number of frequencies needed

2. An alternative spectrum supportability risk assessment and analysis process could be established as defined in the February 2001 report on “Spectrum Supportability Process and Practices”[16]. The report anticipated that a Spectrum Supportability Working Level Integrated Product Team would assist a PM in all aspects of risk management identified in figure 5.

3. An alternative spectrum supportability risk assessment and analysis process could be derived from the work completed on the Wideband Networking Waveform architecture study that implemented a traffic analysis/collision method. [33]. This study is an example of the shift in perspective of what Spectrum Supportability means as DoD transforms from narrowband channel frequency management to wideband channel time/access management. In fact this will force spectrum managers and PMs to assess and analyze spectrum supportability needs from both a frequency and time management perspective.

4. Last and ultimately, as RF networks become more mobile and dynamic, risk analysis may need to be accomplished using modeling and simulation techniques for standardized mission area planning as defined by OSDs JV 2020 "System of Systems" Architecture (see: ). In that vane, spectrum supportability may need to be defined in the FIPS 183 approved Integrated Definition of Function Modeling (IDEF0), for manipulation of standard data models such as C2IEDM [47] applied to the Modeling Architecture for Technology, Research and Experimentation (MATREX) system currently being used by the Army [34]

-----------------------

[1] DoD I 4630.8

[2] Ref [35] pp 81-95. Bibliography

[3] Ref [39] Sec. 301. License for radio communication or transmission of energy.

… No person shall use or operate any apparatus for the transmission of energy or communications or signals by radio (a) from one place in any State, …or (d) within any State when the effects of such use extend beyond the borders of said State, … or with the transmission or reception of such energy, communications, or signals from and/or to places beyond the borders of said State; or….except under and in accordance with this chapter and with a license in that behalf granted under the provisions of this chapter

[4] E2.1.10. Spectrum Supportability.

[5] Ref [10]page xi, TCSS is defined as:

“This area establishes uniform engineering criteria for terminal equipment, transmission equipment, and switching equipment to ensure interoperability within military telecommunications systems and, in many cases, interoperability with federal systems and common carriers. Activities within the TCSS AREA include participation in federal, commercial, and international standard forums, as well as development of military-unique telecommunications standards and handbooks. The TCSS AREA includes communications systems in support of computer data transfer, as well as the more conventional telecommunications services such as voice, video, and facsimile. The TCSS AREA applies to services provided over a broad spectrum of transmission media and under widely varying environmental and physical conditions.”

[6] Ref [1] page vii, EMCS is defined as:

“This AREA covers requirements and procedures to achieve electromagnetic compatibility, within all frequency ranges of platforms, facilities, electrical and electronic systems/equipment, circuits and components. Included are: (1) standards for prediction, measurement and validation for electromagnetic compatibility; (2) standards for techniques and procedures relating to grounding, bonding and shielding; (3) standards for prevention and control of electromagnetic radiation to personnel and equipment (including hazardous materiel and substances); and (4)

standards relating to the prevention of deleterious”

[7] DD 1494 APPLICATION FOR EQUIPMENT FREQUENCY ALLOCATION

[8] [27] p. 11

[9] SCA – Software Communications Architecture

[10] [27] p. 12

[11] [27] p. 67

[12] [4] p. 7

-----------------------

[i] P. 1, We recently reviewed the Department of Defense’s (DOD'S) efforts to coordinate the use of radio frequencies with European nations for command, control, and communication systems. We found that delays and unnecessary costs resulted when DOD did not coordinate with host nations early in the development of communication systems to ensure that the frequencies selected would be approved. (See app. I.) In a separate and broader review of communications in the Pacific theater, we

found a similar situation.

[ii]P. 5 We believe that the new procedures established by DOD are reasonable and, if successfully implemented, could help prevent problems related to radio frequency interference. However, evaluation of the impact of these new procedures cannot be accomplished until DOD has had a chance to

apply its revised guidance to systems as they go through each acquisition decision milestone. DOD would then be able to demonstrate that the new procedures have (1) resulted in the review of relevant documents at each decision milestone to identify potential frequency problems, (2) been or will be successful in helping to prevent interference problems, and/or (3) resulted in improvement of the acquisition process. No DOD system had undergone the new procedures for all decision milestones at the time of our review. According to DOD officials, the first of three pilot programs using the new acquisition guidance should be completed by January 2002. Consequently, the recency of changes in DOD’s new procedures precludes our assessment of their effectiveness at this time.

[iii] We found that DOD’s weapons programs have often failed to obtain, consider, or act upon adequate spectrum supportability knowledge during the early stages of acquisition. A majority of programs try to gain this knowledge at later stages, after key system development decisions may have been made. As a result, some programs experience significant delays, reduced operational capabilities, or the need for expensive redesign. More importantly, these programs missed opportunities to improve program results and avoid problems that are more costly to resolve late in development or fielding.

[iv] Recent operations are convincing military commanders that UAVs are of real value to the warfighter. That success on the battlefield is leading to more and more demand for UAVs and innovative ways of using them, creating pressures such as a greater need for interoperability of systems and competition for limited resources like money, electromagnetic frequency spectrum, and airspace. The UAVs that are successful today survived an environment characterized by a number of canceled programs, risky strategies, uncoordinated efforts, and uncertain funding. It took additional measures for them to succeed, not the least of which was strong management intervention. In recent years, DOD has taken positive steps to better manage the development of UAVs by creating the joint UAV Planning Task Force and the UAV Roadmap. The question is whether these steps will be sufficient to make the most out of current and future investments in UAVs. We believe that DOD should build on these good steps so that it will be in a better position to provide stewardship over these investments. Taking these steps will give Congress confidence that its investments’ in the technology will produce optimum capabilities desired of UAVs.

[v] P 80 Re JTRS Program, “ technical challenges that could affect the program include platform integration, networking, and spectrum certification.”

[vi] Additionally, previous efforts that have been undertaken in past years to foster interoperability among DOD systems have had limited success, principally because management tools and leadership attention were not strong enough to provide sufficient oversight and overcome resistance by the military services to forgo their unique requirements in favor of requirements that would benefit the department, as the following examples illustrate:

• In our 2001 report16 on DOD’s efforts to improve its ability to attack time-critical targets, we noted that DOD had undertaken numerous efforts to achieve system interoperability, including the development of guidance, oversight controls, directives and policies, and technology demonstrations. However, success was limited because DOD had not yet overcome resistance from the military services, it lacked an architecture to guide interoperability efforts and some current oversight and control mechanisms, such as the interoperability certification process, were not working or were not being enforced.

[vii] p31. The Air Force’s B-2 RMP is designed to modify the current radar system to resolve potential conflicts in frequency band usage. To comply with federal requirements, the frequency must be changed to a band where the B-2 will be designated as a primary user. The modified radar system is being designed to support the B-2 stealth bomber and its combination of stealth, range, payload, and near precision weapons delivery capabilities.

[viii] p 116 TSAT program Of the six technologies associated with the first increment, only one technology—the packet processing payloads—is mature. The other five— communication-on-the-move nulling antenna, dynamic bandwidth and resource allocation technologies, protected bandwidth efficient modulation waveforms, information assurance, and single access laser communications—are scheduled to reach maturity in early 2006, about 2 years after the start of development. The single access laser communications has no backup technology, and according to program officials, any delay in maturing this technology will cause the expected first satellite launch date to slip beyond 2012.

[ix] P. 24, The Cluster 5 program began system development and demonstration with immature technologies, especially those related to the handheld and smaller variants because of the limited size, weight, and power allowances (see fig. 5). According to the Army, the requirements for two-channel small form radios—wideband radio frequency capabilities up to 2500 MHz, thermal management and packaging, and complex security architecture— all introduce unique technological challenges. Cluster 5 program officials had expected to leverage technology from the Cluster 1 program. However, the Cluster 1 technologies have not matured as anticipated. Program officials stated that backup technology will be identified as a part of a risk mitigation plan.

[x] DISA, ATTNgram. However, the Cluster 1 technologies have not matured as anticipated. Program officials stated that backup technology will be identified as a part of a risk mitigation plan.

[xi] DISA, ATTN: STIP Manager, P O Box 4502, Arlington, VA 22204−4502 (POC: Theodore Christie DSN: 761−2083 PHONE: 703−681−2083 FAX: 703−681−2801, E−MAIL: Theodore.Christie@disa.mil )

[xii] The TCSS LSA is Director, DISA, Attn: GE331 P O Box 4502, Arlington, VA 22204−4502 (POC: Ken Bray, DSN: 761−2636, PHONE: 703−681−2636, DSN FAX: 761−2881, FAX: 703−681−2881, E−MAIL: ken.bray@disa.mil).

The EMCS LSA POC is Commander Joint Spectrum Center Attn: M. Shellman, Jr., JSC/J5, 2004 Turbot Landing, Annapolis, MD 21402−5064 (POC: Marcus Shellman, Jr., DSN: 281−4957, PHONE:

410−293−4957, DSN FAX: 281−2631, FAX: 410−293−2631, E−MAIL: shellman@jsc.mil).

[xiii]

[xiv] Defense Information Systems Agency (DISA) Standardization Code: DC6

1. DISA

ATTN: STIP Manager

P O Box 4502

Arlington, VA 22204−4502

NOTES: For all matters concerning Data Item

Descriptions.

POC: Theodore Christie

DSN: 761−2083

PHONE: 703−681−2083

FAX: 703−681−2801

E−MAIL: christiet@ncr.disa.mil

................
................

In order to avoid copyright disputes, this page is only a partial summary.

Google Online Preview   Download