DEPARTMENT OF THE AIR FORCE SSD REGULATION 800-8
Headquarters, Space Systems Division (AFSC)
Los Angeles AFB CA 90009-2960
13 March 1992

Acquisition Management
THE AEROSPACE CORPORATION TECHNICAL SUPPORT

This regulation establishes policies, procedures and assigns responsibilities for the establishment and utilization of The Aerospace Corporation (Aerospace) support to the Air Force (AF) Space Systems Division (SSD). It applies to all Air Force activities, other Department of Defense (DOD) agencies and other Government agencies acquiring Aerospace support through the Air Force sponsored contract with The Aerospace Corporation. It also applies to separate contracts between non-DOD Government agencies and Aerospace as appropriate. This regulation complies with FAR Section 35.017 entitled Federally Funded Research and Development Centers (FFRDC), and Air Force Systems Command Regulation (AFSCR) 70-3, entitled Administration of Contracts Awarded to FFRDCs. In accordance with AFSCR 70-3, SSDR 800-8 in conjunction with SSDR 800-7 (Aerospace Corporation Performance Evaluation Reports) serves as the FFRDC surveillance plan. This regulation describes the operating procedures, interfaces and working relationships between SSD and Aerospace, and procedures for interfacing with other SSD contractors, other Air Force organizations and other Government agencies in all work Aerospace performs in support of the Air Force. These operating procedures apply to other DOD agencies and non-DOD agencies receiving support through the Aerospace contract with the Air Force.

1. The Aerospace Corporation. Aerospace, through an annual incrementally funded research and development Air Force contract which coincides with the Government's Fiscal Year, provides scientific and engineering support and is assigned responsibility for accomplishment of the General Systems Engineering and Integration (GSE&I) or Technical Review (TR) function on specifically identified programs. The Aerospace Corporation also provides technical support, in the areas of:

a. Mission performance of space systems.

b. Plans and system architecture.

c. Foreign technology.

d. Selected research, development, test and evaluation.

e. Mission-Oriented Investigation and Experimentation.

f. Multi-program systems enhancement.

g. Acquisition support.

h. Engineering methods.

2. Terms Explained:

a. General Systems Engineering and Integration (GSE&I). GSE&I deals with overall systems definition; integration both within the system and with associated systems; analysis of system segment and subsystem design; design compromises and interfaces; review of hardware and software, including manufacturing and Total Quality Management; observation, review, and evaluation of tests and test data; independent launch readiness verification; support of launch, flight tests, and orbital operations; appraisal of the contractors' technical performance. through meeting with the contractors and subcontractors. exchange and analysis of information on progress and problems, and review of plans for future work; developing solutions to problems and technical alternatives for reducing program risk; providing cost/benefit analyses for changes or additions; and providing comments and recommendations in writing to the Government Program Director and/or Project officer as an independent technical assessment for consideration in modifying the program or redirecting the contractors' efforts; all to the extent necessary to assure timely and economical accomplishment of program objectives consistent with mission requirements. Significant results of GSE&I shall be documented and used for maximizing effectiveness of new systems efforts and where appropriate as part of the Multi-Program Systems Enhancement Task (paragraph 2f).


Supersedes SSDR 800-8, 28 September 1990.
(See signature page for summary of changes)
Number of Printed Pages: 32
OPR: SSD/SDEA (David E. Underwood)
Approved by: Col Juri Randmaa
Writer-Editor: Jim C. Ray
Distribution: F; X
HQ AFSC/SSD 2


b. Technical Review (TR). This is the process of appraising the technical performance of contractors through meetings, exchanging information on progress and problems; reviewing reports; evaluating presentations; reviewing hardware and software; witnessing and evaluating tests; analyzing plans for future work and evaluating such efforts relative to contract technical objectives; and providing comments and recommendations in writing to the Air Force Program Manager as an independent technical assessment for use in consideration of modifying the program or redirecting the contractor efforts to assure timely and economical accomplishment of program objectives.

c. Selected Research, Development, Test and Evaluation Tasks (SRDT&E). Includes research, development, test, and evaluation activities for which Aerospace is uniquely qualified because of the availability of specially qualified personnel, special facilities or background information obtained in support of other Air Force activities.

d. Plans and System Architecture (P&SA). Provides space system development planning support to SSD to provide future effective and secure military space systems that will satisfy user operational requirements. The development planning function includes: near term integrative planning support for SSD studies and planning for the evolution of current systems, as well as ad hoc studies of current issues in support of SSD; systems architecture that will provide a time phased plan for meeting the development goals; and systems planning that will define initial system characteristics for future space systems. This effort includes the definition of system requirements and concept definition; specification of system characteristics and overall system definition; and cost/benefit studies for new or modified systems and inter-operability considerations.

e. Allocables.

(1) Mission-Oriented Investigation and Experimentation (MOIE) consists of development of experimental and test capabilities critical to support the Space Systems Division acquisition process as well as analytical and experimental investigations in the sciences and technologies critical to space systems. The results of these investigations and the capabilities and experience developed by this effort will be used in the identification of system technology needs, new system designs. acquisition of future systems, and elimination of problems and constraints associated with current systems.

(2) Other allocable efforts represent planning and analysis tasks generally in support of SSD staff organizations. Each task area will be assigned to the appropriate organization for oversight management.

f. Multi-Program Systems Enhancement (MPSE). MPSE provides for a team action in performing horizontal systems engineering and integration involving ground, launch, space and support systems within SSD. Included under this category are efforts to review, analyze, develop and disseminate critical information in the areas of Total Quality Management, multisystems engineering, engineering policy and resources, technical lessons learned, reliability, maintainability, standardization, interoperability, parts engineering, parts policy, testing, Industrial Modernization Incentive Program (IMIP), productivity, manufacturing, quality assurance, life cycle cost, design-to-cost, value engineering, systems engineering, integrated logistics, support equipment analysis, documentation resource analysis, computer resources, transportability, human factors engineering, electromagnetic capability, systems security. and other areas involved in the systems acquisition support process; the tracking of program failures, anomalies and corrective actions; risk assessment, identification of risk trends, and recommendations for future risk avoidance; and maintenance of appropriate experience data bases and acquisition training support.

g. Engineering Methods (EM). EM consists of studies to facilitate the utilization and development of new/improved analytical techniques and other engineering tools applicable to space systems design, development, cost estimating, and the evaluation of new technologies and techniques for present and future space systems.

h. Foreign Technology Support (FTS). This support will provide foreign technology data and intelligence and threat analyses to Space Systems Division in support of its planning and development efforts. This activity shall provide supporting analytical and evaluation programs and techniques, and provide detailed evaluations, studies, and presentations resulting from the exploitation and analysis of applicable foreign scientific and technical data.

i. Aerospace Members of the Technical Staff (MTS). Aerospace MTS are scientists and engineers who perform professional level technical work in the fields of Systems Engineering, System Integration, Engineering Sciences, Systems Planning and Basic and Applied Research, based on their extensive experience and technical education. The work unit of measure for technical support to individual programs/projects is a Member of the Technical Staff (MTS) direct labor hour of effort. One MTS year is equivalent to 1808 direct labor hours of MTS effort. The cost of one MTS year includes the cost of the MTS direct labor hours and the cost of the effort of supporting technical and administrative personnel, and all related expenses such as travel, computer usage, overhead, etc. and fee. Because these elements vary with each program, the cost per MTS also varies and must be separately established for each program.

3. Policy. The following policy has been established for the utilization of Aerospace technical resources by the Air Force. It similarly applies to other DOD agencies and other Government agencies, as appropriate. The Chief Engineer's Office, the Special Two Letter Offices (STLO) (Deputy Chiefs of Staff (DCS), two-letter program directors of non-major programs, Program Executive Office Offices (PEO) for Space and Strategic Systems, and PL/CC), the System Program Directors, the Project Managers/Officers determine the technical requirements; the technical requirements are then documented in the Technical Objectives and Plans (TO&Ps). The TO&Ps are incorporated by reference into the contract by the Contracting Officer and are contractually binding. Any direction to Aerospace to perform work other than that required by the contract is prohibited and may constitute a violation of the Anti Deficiency Act, 31 USC 1341. Any question concerning the contractor's responsibility to perform a given task must be immediately referred to the Contracting Officer for resolution. In the event The Aerospace Corporation performs work other than that required by the contract, The Aerospace Corporation does so at its own risk.

a. Direction to Other Air Force Contractors. Direction to Air Force contractors, including technical direction, shall be given solely by the Air Force. Aerospace personnel are not authorized to direct these contractors in any manner.

b. Assignment of Responsibility. While Aerospace is responsible for scientific and engineering program tasks, the assignment of responsibilities for GSE&I or TR by the Air Force to Aerospace does not relieve the Air Force from its overall responsibility in these areas.

c. The General Systems Engineering and Integration (GSE&I) Role. GSE&I consists of technical support as defined in paragraph 2a and applies to system development and acquisition programs comprising a complex array of hardware and software, system segments and subsystems having multiple interfaces, which must be integrated to function as a coordinated, effective system. Performance of this role requires the incorporation of the GSE&I Enabling Clause (defined in 3h) in appropriate contracts related to this function.

d. The Technical Review (TR) Role. TR consists of technical support, as defined in paragraph 2b, for:

(1) Programs/projects for advancing technology, carrying out research, or performing studies and analyses, or

(2) Development and acquisition programs comprising hardware and/or software within the state-of-the-art and requiring little or no systems engineering. Performance of this role requires the incorporation of the TR Enabling Clause (described in 3h) in appropriate contracts associated with this function:

e. Technical Support Roles. The technical support roles listed below are defined in paragraphs 2c through 2h. Implementation of one of these roles does not require incorporation of an Enabling Clause if there are no supporting contracts. Where a supporting contract exists, the appropriate Enabling Clause shall be used.

(1) Selected Research Development, Test and Evaluation

(2) Plans and System Architecture

(3) Allocables

(4) Multi-Program Systems Enhancement

(5) Engineering Methods

(6) Foreign Technology Support

f. Considerations Necessary to Justify Use of the Aerospace Resource. Prior to allocation of Aerospace resources, a determination of the appropriateness of using Aerospace must be made by the requesting activity and submitted in writing to the Space Systems Division Chief Engineer (SSD/SD), indicating that:

(1) Organic resources are not available.

(2) Industrial contractors cannot perform the required effort effectively.

(3) The work is restricted to selected important programs requiring the particular capabilities and/or facilities of Aerospace.

(4) The criteria for assignment of work to Aerospace have been applied and validated.

(a) The "SSD Plan for Allocation of Resources of the Aerospace Corporation Among DOD Agencies," (Attachment 1) provides the criteria for assigning programs to Aerospace by a DOD agency.

(b) The Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) between the Air Force and Aerospace regarding non-DOD (Attachment 4) work provides the criteria for selection and justification of Aerospace work for a non-DOD agency.

g. Precautions. In order to ensure that the unique capabilities of The Aerospace Corporation are appropriately utilized, the following criteria are established:

(1) Proximity of Aerospace should not promote the use of its capabilities for routine technical, administrative, or management tasks. Such use diverts skills and funds which should be devoted to priority technical tasks.

(2) Augmentation of the Air Force technical staff through the use of Aerospace manpower must be avoided. Such augmentation would have the effect of circumventing manpower ceilings and evading the intent of the Civil Service regulations. The Air Force contract with Aerospace is for performance of specific technical roles and tasks in support of designated programs, and not for the services of individual MTS.

(3) Technical Engineering/Management Support (TEMS) contractors are defined as those private organizations and consulting companies that offer technical assistance (e.g., analysis, engineering and software services) to the Space Systems Division or any of its SPOs. The responsible SPO or project office shall determine if the task meets the special criteria that indicate it should be assigned to Aerospace (Attachment 1, Paragraph V of this document). Tasks assigned to TEMS contractors should be sufficiently separable from Aerospace GSE&I activities so that continuous updating and integration by SSD/Aerospace is not required and the TEMS effort should not be duplicative of The Aerospace Corporation support.

h. Enabling Clauses.

(1) When The Aerospace Corporation has been assigned the GSE&I or TR role (including TEMS contracts), the interface with the contractor will be prescribed by an appropriate enabling clause to assure that Aerospace has access to contractor and subcontractor technical information, facilities, and activities and has their cooperation. Without such a clause there is no legal basis for Aerospace/contractor interaction, nor protection of either party in the event of any wrong disclosure.

(2) Two standard enabling clauses are provided. They are SSD FAR Sup 52.237-9000, Enabling Clause for General Systems Engineering and Integration, and 52.237-9001, Enabling Clause for Technical Review. (See SSD FAR Sup 37.110-200, The Aerospace Corporation Enabling Clauses). They will be used as follows:

(a) The GSE&I clause will be included in all system program contracts where Aerospace has been assigned the GSE&I role.

(b) The TR clause will be included in all contracts where Aerospace has been assigned the TR role.

(3) Selection of the applicable enabling clause on SSD contracts requires the coordination and approval by the Contracts Management Office (PKR). The program office will submit the following information to SSD/PKR:

(a) Program/Project title

(b) Contract title, number

(c) Contractor

(d) Period of performance

(e) Enabling clause selected (Based on the role established in the TO&P)

(4) Data Item Description Dl-S-30561A should be considered for inclusion in the Contract Data Requirements List (CDRL) of contracts for which Aerospace has GSE&I or TR responsibility.

4. Responsibilities. The Chief Engineer's Office, the Special Two Letter Offices, (STLO)) (Deputy Chiefs of Staff (DCSs), two letter program directors of non-major programs, Program Executive Offices (PEO) for Space and Strategic Systems, and PL/CC), the System Program Directors, the Project Managers/Officers determine the technical requirements; the technical requirements are then documented in the TO&Ps and incorporated into the contract by reference. Any direction to The Aerospace Corporation to perform work other than that required by the contract is prohibited and may constitute a violation of the Anti Deficiency Act, 31 USC 1341. Any question concerning the contractor's responsibility to perform a given task must be immediately referred to the Contracting Officer for resolution. In the event The Aerospace Corporation performs work other than that required by the contract, The Aerospace Corporation does so at its own risk.

a. SSD Contracts Management Office (PKR). The SSD Contracts Management Office (PKR) serves as the focal point for all Aerospace contractual matters.

(1) PKR negotiates, awards, and administers the Air Force contract with Aerospace which includes all DOD effort, and makes all changes thereto.

(2) Authorizes Aerospace to perform effort upon receipt of approved program requests supported by adequate funding from SSD System Program Offices and other users.

(3) Provides SSD/FMB with the priced out MTS plan cost estimate as soon as available.

(4) In consonance with the Chief Engineer, provides training to the Functional Area Chiefs (FACs) and Functional Area Evaluators (FAEs).

(5) In consonance with the Chief Engineer, makes a determination of reasonableness and accuracy of the Aerospace billings.

(6) Supports the Chief Engineer on all contractual and administrative matters.

b. SSD Chief Engineer Office.

(1) Provides policies and procedures for proper management environment between The Aerospace Corporation and the Air Force.

(2) Issues, calls for identification of Aerospace support requirements including TO&P preparation.

(3) Reviews requests for Aerospace support for adequacy of justification.

(4) Provides engineering functional review of all proposed TO&Ps, assures the effort is adequately described, and reviews the MTS level requested.

(5) Prepares summary of Aerospace support requirements submitted by requesting agencies.

(6) Reviews and recommends allocations of Aerospace MTS deliveries to SSD Commander for approval.

(7) Reviews and comments on all TO&Ps prior to inclusion in the Aerospace contract.

(8) Coordinates and resolves Aerospace MTS allocation priority matters among the Special Two Letter Offices.

(9) Acts as the responsible SSD reviewing agent for non-SSD programs and other efforts outside of SSD STLOs responsibility.

(10) Maintains records of Aerospace efforts within area of responsibility.

(11) Collects, summarizes and forwards the semiannual performance evaluations through SSD/PKR to The Aerospace Corporation in accordance with SSD Regulation 800-7.

(12) In consonance with SSD/PKR, informs the Aerospace Corporation on mid-term and long--term issues significant to the Corporation which will aid it in making near-term, high-leverage decisions and in taking actions to manage its resources so it can best perform its mission in the future. The information should cover new program activities, shifts in program emphasis, new technologies, resource needs, shifts in roles and responsibilities, organizational al interfaces and anticipated initiatives.

(13) Provides SSD/PKR and SSD/FMB with the approved MTS allocations and any changes thereto.

(14) Maintains current list of assigned FACs and FAEs.

(15) Provides technical support to the contracting office (PKR) as required.

c. Special Two Letter Offices (STLOs) and Other AF/DOD/Non-DOD Points of Responsibility.

(1) SSD STLOs determine, coordinate and justify requirements for Aerospace support of programs under their responsibility and submit them to the SSD Chief Engineer; keep the Chief Engineer informed about changes of these total requirements for Aerospace support which occur during the contract period.

(2) Ensure proper coordination of all proposed TO&Ps through appropriate in-house functional experts prior to submittal to the Chief Engineer's Office.

(3) Review TO&Ps to ensure tasks are specific and clear enough to develop accurate estimates of the level of support required to meet program objectives.

(4) STLOs are responsible for the utilization of Aerospace resources within their area of responsibility. Shifts of resources must be reported to the Chief Engineer's office.

(5) In support of their area of responsibility, reviews and discusses Aerospace technical efforts, accomplishments, MTS deliveries, current status and planned efforts for the follow-on low-on period with appropriate Aerospace management.

(6) Maintains records of Aerospace technical activities and resource utilization for their area of responsibility.

(7) Provides the Chief Engineer's office will current identification of the program's FACs and FAEs as changes occur.

d. System Program Office Director, Project Manager/Officer Responsibilities as Functional Area Chiefs (FACs).

(1) The Program Directors and Project Manager/Officers as Functional Area Chiefs (FACs) determine and justify requirements for Aerospace support of programs under their jurisdiction and submit them to the appropriate STLO, keeps the STLO informed about changes of requirements for Aerospace support which occur during the contract period.

(2) Performs an independent government estimate of proposed tasking, budgets, and fully funds the requested MTS support by providing a funding order to SSD/FM which will be accepted on a reimbursable basis.

(3) Prepares Technical Objectives and Plans (TO&Ps) in coordination with the appropriate Aerospace office and in accordance with instructions contained in paragraph 5b and Attachment 3. Further refines the scope of T0&Ps to ensure timely and current emphasis.

(4) Ensures TO&P tasks are specific and clear enough to develop accurate estimates of the level of support required to meet program objectives and permit an objective evaluation of assigned tasks.

(5) Prepares Aerospace performance evaluations in accordance with SSDR 800-7.

(6) Reviews, accepts/approves and processes technical reports (TRs) and reviews, approves or revises the distribution list for Technical Operating Reports (TORs) delivered by Aerospace for fulfillment of contractual requirements.

(7) Keeps the appropriate STLO informed of significant Aerospace activities regarding changes in technical requirements, management problems, and policy matters. Keeps SSD/PKR informed on contractual matters.

(8) Monitors Aerospace technical support in accordance with SSD guidelines, and provides necessary guidance to the cognizant Aerospace Director on a continuing basis and through scheduled reviews (para 5k(1)).

(9) Assigns the Functional Area Evaluator (FAE) and identifies appointed FAEs to the Chief Engineer.

(10) Ensures FAEs have received training on FFRDC regulations (AFSCR 70-3, SSDR 800-8, and SSDR 800-7).

(11) Ensure the FAE understands the technical disciplines required to determine acceptability of FFRDC performance.

(12) Provides FAEs instructions regarding the regular review of Aerospace's cost and performance and enforcement of the criteria contained in this regulation.

(13) Maintains records of Aerospace efforts within area of responsibility.

e. Functional Area Evaluators (FAEs).

(1) Maintains surveillance records. SSDR 800-8 and SSDR 800-7 constitute the surveillance plan.

(2) Notifies the ACO and FAC about any contract problems requiring their involvement for resolution.

(3) Does not authorize any changes to the contract. Only the Contracting Officer can bind the government and direct the contractor to perform work.

(4) Submits performance evaluation reports in accordance with SSDR 800-7.

(5) Maintains familiarity with the technical requirements (TO&Ps) for which technical oversight is provided.

(6) Attends training on FFRDC technical oversight responsibilities as required.

(7) Maintains records of Aerospace efforts within area of responsibility.

f. Comptroller (SSD/FM).

(1) SSD/FM will be responsible for funding the entire Aerospace Corporation contract on a reimbursable basis.

(2) Obtains funding from SSD System Program Offices and other users based on price-out provided by SSD/PKR to cover reimbursable funding.

g. Phillips Laboratory (PL). PL will be responsible for initiating the fiscal year MOIE plan and coordinating with SSD program offices and appropriate DOD agency STLOs. As part of the coordination, PL will solicit comments from the appropriate program offices. The SSD Chief Engineer's Office will review the coordinated plan and make the approval determination. PL is responsible for oversight management, semi-annual evaluations (AFSC Form 1641), and the technical objectives and plans (AFSC F 1640) of the MOIE efforts throughout the year. All proposed changes will be coordinated with the SSD Chief Engineer for approval.

h. Aerospace. In view of the special relationship that exists, the Air Force and Aerospace work closely together; however, Aerospace as a party to the contract must take the initiative within its assigned areas of responsibility, carry out its efforts in a professionally responsible and objective manner, and be accountable for the results of its work through written documentation and transmittal of its recommendations and supporting technical information to the Air Force.

5. Further Definition and Description of Tasks/Responsibilities:

a. Introduction:

(1) In order to provide for effective performance of Aerospace commitments under the contract, SSD and Aerospace have mutually agreed upon a further definition and description of tasks and responsibilities. These are set forth in this document in sufficient detail to provide guidance to SSD and Aerospace operating personnel.

(2) The contract entered into each fiscal year between the sponsoring agency (AF) and Aerospace places requirements on Aerospace for performance of technical work and specifies various terms and conditions under which that work shall be performed. It specifies the direct MTS labor hours to be delivered, sets forth specific categories of effort and a list of the programs to be supported in each category. The tasks in each program are specifically defined in the Technical Objectives and Plans (TO&Ps). Approved MTS years and/or dollar constraints are contractually authorized by SSD/PKR for each program. The cost for each MTS year includes the efforts of the MTS and all other supporting cost resources.

b. Technical Objectives and Plans (TO&Ps).

(1) TO&Ps, required by the AF/Aerospace contract, are prepared or updated each fiscal year, and as required intermittently, for each activity for which Aerospace is assigned technical responsibility under the Statement of Work (SOW). The TO&P is prepared on AFSC Form 1640, "Technical Objectives and Plans." Attachment 2 reflects a standard series of tasks applicable to GSE&I which are in consonance with contractual requirements and current practices. It is intended that the scope of Aerospace GSE&I work be defined using the tasks contained in Attachment 2. The TO&P will cite Attachment 2 and list the tasks to be performed. GSE&I, standardization of task descriptions is not practical. However, the general principles as well as selected tasks from the list in Attachment 2 will be used as applicable in formulating specific task lists for these other areas. Attachment 3 provides the format instructions for TO&Ps.

(2) The TO&P is jointly prepared, reviewed and/or updated for the follow-on (fiscal) year by the responsible SSD System Program Office Director/Project Manager/Officer in cooperation with the appropriate Aerospace activity and, after coordination and resulting mutual agreement has been reached, is provided to the SSD Chief Engineer for review and comment. Review for compliance with Air Force policies, regulations and practices and contractual sign-off are to be accomplished prior to 15 September. TO&Ps upon which mutual agreement has been obtained will be published and distributed by 30 September. For those in which mutual agreement has not been achieved, the areas of disagreement will be identified and submitted to higher levels at SSD and Aerospace for resolution. Publication will take place as soon as possible after resolution is accomplished.

(3) A similar procedure is followed for any new work agreed to between Aerospace and SSD and initiated during the contract period. For new work, coordination, publication and distribution of TO&Ps are to be accomplished within 60 days from the date of authorization and acceptance of the work.

(4) Revisions to TO&Ps are made when there are major changes in the program or activity or in responsibilities assigned to Aerospace. Changes in Aerospace responsibilities may arise due to changes in program plans, priorities, or when significant changes in Aerospace funding and MTS allocations occur. Revisions are prepared and coordinated in the same way as are the original TO&Ps and are numbered in sequence to facilitate identification and reference.

c. General System Engineering and Integration (GSE&I).

(1) To assure the effective performance of General Systems Engineering and Integration (GSE&I), Aerospace will designate a Systems Engineering Director or Principal Director (herein after referred to as Aerospace Director) for each program for which the Corporation is assigned a GSE&I role. The Aerospace Director will act on behalf of the Corporation in discharging Aerospace's contractual responsibility to the Air Force. These activities are defined more specifically in the applicable TO&P prepared in accordance with paragraph 5.b. The schedule and support level for individual tasks will be based on the program priorities and requirements as agreed with the Air Force Program Director.

(2) The activities of the Program Director and Aerospace Director will be closely coordinated. While Aerospace works principally in technical areas, the Program Director will provide, when appropriate, access to cost and schedule data, and pertinent information on management actions.

(3) The Aerospace Director, within the agreed upon allocation of GSE&I resources, will exercise initiative in technical areas and provide timely identification of all reasonable alternatives. The Aerospace Director will provide in writing a thorough, complete and competent analysis of the system engineering aspects of the program in order to provide a sound basis for selection, decision and (where appropriate) implementation of technical direction by the Air Force. The Aerospace Director will keep the Air Force Program Director informed of his current activities regarding plans for future Aerospace work, results of technical reviews, contractor performance, and technical recommendations. The Aerospace Director will review and evaluate specified critical documents and provide written concurrence and recommendations.

(4) When applicable, the Aerospace Director will be accountable to appropriate SSD management for launch readiness in concert with the cognizant Aerospace Vice President who has been delegated the Corporate responsibility for independent launch readiness verification.

(5) Aerospace technical support for launch and flight test operations at field locations requires close coordination among co-located support groups, between the field organization program manager as well as the Aerospace project engineer assigned to this facility as well as with the Program Director and the Aerospace Director at SSD.

d. Technical Review (TR).

(1) To assure the effective performance of Technical Review (TR) in accordance with the requirements of the applicable paragraphs of the AF/Aerospace contract, Aerospace will designate a Project Engineer for each Government contract for which the Corporation is assigned TR responsibility to act on behalf of the Corporation in discharging Aerospace's contractual responsibility to the Air Force. These activities are defined more specifically in the applicable TO&P prepared in accordance with paragraph 5b.

(2) The activities of the Air Force Project Manager Officer and the Aerospace Project Engineer will be similar to those outlined in paragraph 5c(2) and (3), as applicable to the assigned TR tasks.

e. Technical Support Roles.

(1) To assure the effective performance of the subject Technical Support Roles listed below in accordance with the requirements of the applicable paragraphs of the AF/Aerospace contract, Aerospace will designate a Director or Project Engineer, as appropriate for each of the designated roles, to act on behalf of the Corporation in discharging Aerospace's contractual responsibility to the Air Force. These activities are defined specifically in the applicable TO&P prepared in accordance with Paragraph 5b herein.

(a) Selected Research, Development, Test and Evaluation (SRDT&E) Role.

(b) Plans and Systems Architecture Role.

(c) Mission Oriented Investigation and Experimentation Role.

(d) Multi-Program Systems Engineering Role.

(e) Engineering Methods Role.

(f) Foreign Technology Support Role.

(2) The activities of the Project Manager/Officer and the Aerospace Director/Project Engineer will be similar to those outlined in paragraph 5c(2) and (3), herein, as applicable to the assigned tasks.

f. Meetings. In the performance of its assigned technical functions Aerospace shall participate in meetings with contractors as follows:

(1) The Air Force may request that Aerospace be present at Technical Direction Meetings and other formal meetings in which the Air Force plans to direct the contractors or resolve a matter using the result of technical work done by Aerospace. Such meetings are scheduled and chaired by the Air Force in accordance with a plan coordinated with Aerospace.

(2) The Air Force may invite Aerospace representatives to attend management meetings with contractor officials that are held for discussion of the conduct of the contractual efforts.

(3) In carrying out the tasks of General Systems Engineering and Integration, Technical Review, or other contractually required technical functions, Aerospace, with prior approval of the Air Force, will establish and participate in Technical Interchange Meetings (TlMs) for the purpose of exchanging technical information with contractors and subcontractors.

(4) When appropriate, Aerospace will be invited to participate in meetings with higher headquarters and other DOD agencies.

g. Technical Comments and Recommendations.

(1) Aerospace comments and recommendations for modification, realignment or redirection of a contractor's effort will be submitted in writing to the Air Force Program Director or Project Officer outlining the reasons for the recommendation and defining the proposed change in appropriate form to facilitate the Air Force's decision regarding implementation.

(2) The Program Director or Project Manager/Officer will review the potential effects of the Aerospace technical comments and recommendations on the project and review decisions with the Aerospace Director or Project Engineer, if appropriate, after taking into consideration all relevant factors.

(3) If the Aerospace Director or Project Engineer believes that the Air Force technical decision is not in the best interest of the program, the Air Force Program Director or Program Manager will be informed and a higher level Aerospace management review with the Air Force will be requested. Implementation of the decision may, at the Air Force Program/Project Manager's discretion, be withheld pending the review. If not otherwise resolved, ultimate referral will be made to the SSD Commander (or appropriate PEO) and the President of Aerospace. The Commander's decision will be final. In the event that agreement is not reached at this level, Aerospace will document its recommendations for inclusion in the SSD official Aerospace contract file.

h. General Responsibilities.

(1) SSD is solely responsible for communications with other organizations within the Air Force, with other Governmental agencies and, with SSD contractors. Aerospace may, in the exercise of its technical responsibility, communicate and discuss technical matters with the Air Force, SSD contractors, and other technical organizations. Aerospace may also review correspondence relating to the activity with the Air Force prior to transmittal of such correspondence. To assure proper technical coordination, the Air Force will inform Aerospace, when appropriate, of all technical correspondence to SSD contractors prior to issuance.

(2) For Aerospace presentations to SSD elements, including the SSD Commander, Aerospace may select subjects and speakers as desired, contingent upon prior coordination with the cognizant program office. However, when Aerospace participates with SSD program offices in presentations to higher levels within the Air Force, or to entities outside the Air Force, speakers and presentation material will be approved by the cognizant program office. This restriction applies since the presentations of Aerospace personnel may be interpreted as representing the position of the SSD Commander. Additionally, all Aerospace presentations or papers that are to be given to entities outside SSD and which were prepared under the SSD/Aerospace contract must be reviewed and approved by the appropriate SSD element. For unclassified presentations or papers and foreign release, the SSD Office of Public Affairs (PA) is the review/approval authority. For classified presentations or papers, the SSD Directorate of Security (SPI) is the review/approval authority.

(3) SSD will require Aerospace to report on its activities, technical accomplishments and resource allocation on a regular basis. These reports may be in briefing, annotated briefing book, or written report form. These reports should be done on a regular basis: system program office, program office and project study effort at least quarterly; STLO responsible areas at least semiannually, and at the Commander level, at least annually.

i. Access to Cost Data.

(1) The basic factors as to determination of cost acceptability and cost negotiation with contractors are the sole responsibility of the Air Force, and Aerospace will not be held responsible in any way for these activities. However, to the extent that Air Force may lawfully do so and where the information provided is not derived from contractor cost proposal data involved in any ongoing source selection (unless specific access is authorized by the SSD Source Selection Authority (SSA)), SSD will provide Aerospace with only the contractor cost information necessary to accomplish technical evaluation and tradeoff studies as required for performance of its technical responsibilities.

(2) Aerospace will respect the confidential nature of all contractor cost information furnished by the Air Force in accordance with the conflict of interest clause, AFSC FAR Sup. 52.209-9101. Aerospace will not disclose any such data outside the area of its contract responsibilities, duplicate, or use such data in whole or in part for any purpose other than in the performance of its technical responsibilities as set forth in its contract.

j. Source Selection.

j. Source Selection.

(1) Source selection activities and review of proprietary data/information are the responsibility of the Air Force. Aerospace as a corporation does not participate in source selection. However, in support of this function and to the extent that applicable laws and regulations permit, the Air Force may call upon Aerospace to provide employees as independent technical consultants on specific technical questions and to advise in the solution of specific technical problems.

(2) All requests for source selection consultants or assistance will be by letter to the appropriate Aerospace General Manager or Operations Vice President, outlining the special assistance required. Such requests will be signed either by the Source Selection Evaluation Board Chairman, the cognizant SSD Program Director, or other appropriate point of contact.

(3) Designated Air Force and/or contractor material pertaining to a source selection activity will be reviewed and/or evaluated from a technical standpoint by Aerospace personnel within the confines of the designated meeting room(s)) of the Source Selection Board and shall remain in the meeting room(s) as working papers of the Air Force Source Selection Board. Any signed technical data or reports prepared by Aerospace personnel will be preserved by the Air Force in the respective Source Selection Record and, in case of need, will be made available to the President of Aerospace in accordance with AFR 70-15.

k. Periodic Reviews of Task Performance. The following are the Aerospace periodic reviews to components of AF Space Systems Division having cognizance over Aerospace support.

(1) Aerospace shall provide System Program Offices, Divisions, Project Offices with a formal monthly review by means of an oral briefing, an annotated briefing book, or a written report, as specified by the responsible office or division. Material to be covered includes Aerospace tasks performed in the reporting period, technical accomplishments, technical issues and recommendations, expenditures of Aerospace effort, current period and cumulative Aerospace costs versus budget, forecast run out rates, plans for the next reporting period and critical events. Documentation provided will be retained by the responsible office for a minimum of one year.

(2) Aerospace shall provide the STLOs or equivalent with a formal semiannual summary review by means of an oral briefing, an annotated briefing book, or a written report, as specified by the responsible STLO. Items to be covered include summaries of Aerospace tasks performed in the reporting period, technical accomplishments, technical issues, expenditures of Aerospace effort, current period and cumulative Aerospace costs versus budget, forecast run out rates, plans for the next reporting period and critical events. Documentation provided will be retained by the responsible office for a minimum of one year. The Chief Engineer, Space Systems Division, will act as reviewer for tasks that are not under the cognizance of Space Systems Division STLOs.

(3) Aerospace shall provide Space Systems Division Command Section an annual summary review by means of an oral briefing or an annotated briefing book to the Commander, Space Systems Division or their designee. Material to be covered includes summaries of Aerospace tasks performed in the reporting period, technical accomplishments, technical issues, expenditures of Aerospace effort, current period and cumulative Aerospace costs versus budget, forecast run out rates, plans for the next reporting period and critical events. Documentation provided will be retained by the Chief Engineer.

I. Space Utilization and Provision of Certain Support Functions. In accordance with the Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) be versus budget, forecast run out rates, plans for the next reporting period and critical events. Documentation provided will be retained by the Chief Engineer.

1. Space Utilization and Provision of Certain Support Functions. In accordance with the Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) between the Air Force Space Systems Division and The Aerospace Corporation on Space Occupancy/Collocation of AF/SSD and Aerospace personnel (See Attachment 5):

(1) SSD Base Support to Aerospace and Aerospace Facility Support to SSD is described in the AF/Aerospace contract and is consistent with the MOU.

(2) The STLO or Systems Program Office and the corresponding Aerospace technical activity, where applicable, will be located in reasonable proximity (collocated but not commingled) to the maximum extent practicable. Space shall be allocated among functional elements on a basis of overall efficiency and effectiveness as distinguished, if necessary, from that of a single functional element.

(3) Space will be allocated to Aerospace and the Air Force on an equitable basis, recognizing the designed site configurations of the contractor-owned and the Government-owned buildings.

m. Security and Emergency Actions.

Agreements between SSD and Aerospace relating to security and emergency actions are coordinated between the Chief, Security Police Division, SSD, and the Director, Security and Safety, Aerospace.

OFFICIAL

EDWARD P. BARRY JR, Lt Gen, USAF
Commander

KATHELEEN G. TIERNEY, Major, USAF
Director of Information Management

SUMMARY OF CHANGES

This revision updates organizational titles and nomenclature, policy and responsibilities, reporting requirements, MOUs, coordination process, AFSCR 70-3 direction and terminology, and Technical Objectives & Plans (TO&P) requirements/preparation instructions.

Attachment 1 13 March 1992

SSD PLAN FOR ALLOCATION OF RESOURCES
OF THE AEROSPACE CORPORATION AMONG DOD AGENCIES

I. Definitions. For the purpose of this Plan, the following definitions will apply:

a. Responsible Officer (RO): The Commander, SSD/CC. Aerospace DOD ceiling allocations are under control of the Responsible Officer".

b. DOD Agencies: Departments of the Army, Navy and Air Force, Office of Assistant Secretary Defense (OASD) (1), (OASD) (T), Director Defense Research and Engineering (DDR&E), Defense Nuclear Agency (DNA), Defense Investigation (DIA), Defense Information System Agency (DISA) Defense Mapping Agency (DMA), Defense Advance Research Projects Agency (DARPA), National Security Agency (NSA), and Office of Joint Chiefs of Staff (OJCS).

c. Agency Focal Point: A specific office designated by the DOD Agency as the single point of interface between the agency and the Air Force on all matters pertaining to support from The Aerospace Corporation.

d. SSD Focal Point for Aerospace Matters: The contract management office (PKR) at SSD shall serve as the focal point between DOD agencies and the Chief Engineer, SSD with respect to Aerospace contractual matters. All communications from DOD agencies relating to support from Aerospace will be addressed to SSD/SDEA.

e. FISCAL Year: The Fiscal Year for Aerospace budgeting purposes shall be the Federal Fiscal Year, that is, 1 October through 30 September. (The Aerospace contract will coincide with the Fiscal Year.)

f. Baseline Program: The final allocation of Aerospace MTS is approved by the RO to commence the Fiscal Year.

g. Members of the Technical Staff (MTS): An MTS is a professional scientist or engineer actively and directly engaged in performing development planning, system engineering, research and experimentation, or technical support. Individuals are designated as MTS by the corporation. The MTS year is the basic unit of measurement for stating technical support requirements.

II. Mission. The Space Systems Division plans and manages the acquisition of space systems, together with related hardware and software, and supports the launch and flight test of space systems for DOD and other federal agencies. In furtherance of this mission, Space Systems Division develops and maintains space launch, tracking and support facilities, provides satellite launch, tracking, data acquisition, command and control; and develops advanced technology to support future space missions. The Aerospace Corporation was created as a nonprofit organization to provide technical support in these areas and to support operational systems. Through its contract with Space Systems Division, Aerospace aids the United States Air Force in applying the full resources of modern science and technology to achievement of qualitatively superior military space systems. This support includes research and experimentation, systems planning, analysis, and comparison studies, cost and schedule assessments, system engineering and integration, solution of problems and development of technical alternatives, recommendation of technical direction, and general technical supervision of the acquisition of Air Force space systems.

III. Policy. The DOD policy designates the U.S. Air Force as the cognizant DOD component responsible for The Aerospace Corporation. The cognizant DOD component is responsible for establishing review procedures to insure that DOD work undertaken by The Aerospace Corporation does not exceed the dollar ceiling level approved by OSD/DDR&E and to insure that such work meets the criteria described herein. The Aerospace Corporation represents a valuable but limited resource which exists primarily to support the mission of Space Systems Division.

IV. Formulation of FISCAL Year Program. The determination of MTS requirements is a coordinated effort at several levels of SSD and Aerospace management. The following is how the MTS requirements are established and coordinated. The approval process is described as well as the estimating factors that are considered.

a. The Coordination and Approval Process:

(1) SSD/SD: Issues request to Special Two-Letter Offices (STLO) and other MTS users for follow-on fiscal year's requirements.

(2) STLO: Requests SPO, Project Managers/Officers to coordinate with in-house functional experts to ensure appropriate assignment of tasks (i.e., in-house personnel or non-FFRDC contractors are unable to accomplish the tasking in lieu of the FFRDC).

(3) STLO: Reviews and submits requirements on AFSC Form 1640 for the follow-on fiscal year to SSD/SD.

(4) SSD/SD: Reviews and consolidates all inputs. Provides a copy of the consolidated requirements to Aerospace management for review and assessment.

(5) Aerospace: Aerospace management reviews consolidated requirements. Provides comparative analysis to SSD/SD including basis for the Aerospace recommendation.

(6) SSD/SD: Reviews with SSD STLO the comparative analysis and finalizes STLO's requirements. Informs Aerospace of requirements.

(7) Aerospace: Advises, as necessary, on the viability of estimated MTS deliveries and associated risk considerations.

(8) SSD/SD: Prepares the fiscal year Aerospace support requirements briefing and presents to SSD/CC-CV.

(9) SSD/CC-CV: Makes decision regarding MTS.

(10) SSD/SD: Briefs appropriate higher level decision makers.

(11) SSD/PKR: Negotiates, awards and administers contract.

b. Adjustment to Aerospace MTS Requirements: Due to program requirement changes or changing space systems priorities, the Aerospace MTS support requirements may increase or decrease by program. All changes are reviewed/approved by the Chief Engineer's Office and communicated to Aerospace via the PCO (SSD/PKR).

(1) Changes to programs sponsored by a SSD STLO that do not increase the total Aerospace MTS support to a SSD STLO can be authorized by the STLO and communicated to SSD/SD.

(2) Changes that increase support to a SSD STLO must be justified and presented to SSD/SD for approval. SSD/SD should try to satisfy the increase by shifting MTS resources amongst STLOs, if possible. If the net sum of the increase is within 1% of the total Aerospace support, SSD/SD can approve the change. However, if the net change is greater than 1%, approval must be obtained from SSD/CC.

(3) Changes to programs within the SSD contract, excluding non-DOD sponsored programs, but not sponsored by an SSD STLO are submitted to SSD/SD for review and if the net sum increase falls within the SSD/SD approval authority, SSD/SD can approve the change. However, if the increase is greater than the approval authority of SSD/SD, approval must be obtained from SSD/CC.

(4) Changes to non-DOD programs within the SSD contract are submitted to SSD/SD for review. Approval must be obtained from SSD/CC or his/her designee.

V. Aerospace Roles and Criteria for Allocation of MTS Support:

a. Major Areas of Support. This section provides basic guidelines regarding the roles assigned to The Aerospace Corporation in providing technical and scientific support to DOD programs. Such support encompasses the following major areas which are listed below and further described in paragraph C.

(1) System Acquisition (including systems and subsystems engineering).

(2) Development Planning (including systems research and planning).

(3) Research and Experimentation.

(4) Technical Support (including Technology and Selected Studies).

b. Basic Considerations:

(1) Any determination to assign work to The Aerospace Corporation must be preceded by an assessment demonstrating that an organic or non-FFRDC organization cannot meet the cognizant program office's technical requirements. The use of The Aerospace Corporation will be restricted to selected important projects and programs which are consistent with its assigned mission, require its particular capabilities, and conform to the policy criteria for DOD use of FFRDC corporations set forth below.

(2) The FFRDC will not enter into formal competition with profit-making industrial contractors or with universities who could perform the required effort, nor will it engage in the commercial production of hardware/software.

(3) The Aerospace Corporation (Corporation) will be responsible for contractually authorized work. The Corporation will not be tasked contractually or otherwise to provide individuals for assignment and/or direction by the user in contravention of the statutory prohibition against personal services (5 U.S.C. Section 3109). It will manage MTS resources to accomplish specific tasks in accordance with the Contracting Officer's direction.

(4) The Aerospace Corporation roles and responsibilities on each project or program will be clearly defined and documented in the approved contractual statement of work and supporting documentation.

c. Aerospace Roles:

(1) System Acquisition

(a) System Engineer. In this role The Aerospace Corporation executes general system engineering activities and assumes responsibility for the technical performance of the system within the prescribed parameters and system operational requirements. It will provide the lead source of technical initiative and provide the principal technical interface with the industrial contractors, including review and evaluation of such contractors' technical performance. It will provide continuity through the system by preparation of the appropriate system specifications and assist the Air Force in formulation of technical direction during subsequent engineering, production, implementation, and test phases. It will also function to insure the technical integrity of the system. For Air Force programs, FFRDC 033 General System Engineering/Technical Direction functions are outlined in the AFSC 800 series publications on Systems Management.

(b) Subsystem Engineer. When the system engineer or corresponding responsibilities are otherwise assigned, Aerospace may be assigned a role of subsystem engineer with responsibility for the engineering of a specific subsystem or subsystems of the total system. As subsystem engineer their role and responsibilities will be similar to those discussed under the system engineer role with appropriate restrictions to match the scope of the subsystem(s).

(c) Task Engineer. When the system engineer or corresponding responsibilities are otherwise assigned, Aerospace may be assigned responsibility for a specific task (or tasks) in support of a program or project. In this role of task engineer, their responsibilities may include (but are not limited to):

1. Preparation of specifications or plans.

2. Serving as consultants in the evaluation of technical proposals, plans, or progress.

3. Preparation of test specifications and test documents.

4. Test supervision or direction.

5. Analysis and/or evaluation of technical problems or deficiencies.

6. Monitoring, guiding, or directing specified contractor activities.

(d) Application of System Acquisition Roles. The normal roles for Aerospace in the systems acquisition will be that of system engineer. The assignment of a task engineer role must be considered as an exceptional case, and the appropriateness of assigning such a role will require special justification.

(2) Development Planning.

(a) Aerospace provides Development Planning (including systems research and planning) on advanced systems concepts and participates in related analyses and studies leading to proposals for the next generation of system or system improvements. In this role, the Corporation supports mission analyses, analyses of operational requirements, feasibility studies and experiments, planning studies, system cost/effectiveness studies, intelligence analyses, and preliminary system designs.

(b) Aerospace may be assigned the responsibility for specific advanced planning studies, system analyses, or the preparation of the technical portion of planning documents, i.e., Program Management Plans and Technical Development Plans.

(3) Research and Experimentation.

(a) Aerospace carries out specific research and experimentation programs which have as their objectives:

1. The provision of significant contributions to state of the art relating to their respective mission areas.

2. The maintenance of competence in those fields of technology necessary to support efforts in the areas of Systems Acquisition and Systems Research and Planning.

(b) Aerospace will perform this role, either as independent projects or as an essential part of the systems engineer role, when research or experimentation is fundamental to technology or design determinations, in either techniques or systems for planning or acquisition of space systems.

(4) Technical Support.

(a) The Technical Support role involves analysis and evaluation of specified and selected technical aspects of a problem that fall within their particular competence, provision of specialized consulting services or the cooperative use of specialized facilities.

(b) Efforts in this area are assigned only when it is determined that such participation will provide a unique competence essential to fulfillment of the specific program objectives. The Basic Considerations in paragraph V.b above apply.

d. Criteria to Determine if a Given Program Should Be Assigned to the Aerospace Corporation: The following criteria have been established by AFSC as factors in determining if the circumstances are appropriate for assigning an effort to Aerospace. Requests for Aerospace support must include justifications which describe how these criteria are applicable to the program seeking support. Although some of the following eleven (11) criteria may overlap, they are described individually for clarity and to indicate a relative order of importance.

(1) Freedom from Bias Due to Predilection for Design, Hardware and Software, or Approach. It is important to the DOD that objectivity be retained in design, choice of off-the-shelf hardware and software, choice of hardware from competing contractors, selection of hardware as influenced by possible subsequent production opportunities, preparation of specifications, etc. A hardware or software producing company is likely to have a predilection for a particular design or product, or a particular manufacturing or management approach. Where such a company has to make a choice between competing contractors, bias is difficult to eliminate.

(2) Need for State-of-the-Art Information from Government Laboratories and Universities. A task may require extensive knowledge of the state-of-the-art as developed in universities, government laboratories, etc. Such knowledge, of course, is available to industry but is not necessarily used since industry tends to specialize in particular fields of interest consistent with its best competitive position. Assignment of the task to industry or to Aerospace could be governed by the extent to which applicable knowledge of the state-of-the-art is to be found in these sources.

(3) Extent of Access to DOD Planning Information. A broad need-to-know is requisite to the execution of advanced planning and integration of proposed systems with existing systems. Extensive and complex integration of requirements, and close liaison with system users, is necessary in the early conceptual studies, initial analyses, and design stages leading to program definition or acquisition. Bringing individual contractors for the different projects into conceptual planning, and extending general access across DOD programs would, except under unusual circumstances, give the contractors an unfair advantage over competitors because of information gained on programs related to the one on which the contractor performed. On the other hand, too broad a restriction on procurement eligibility may make the contractor reluctant to participate in the planning role. However, if the task is not unduly complex and can be well defined to minimize access to such planning information, and if procurement restrictions are acceptable, the task may be given to industry.

(4) Extent of Access to Intelligence. Multiple projects, involving many individual contractors would require the wide dissemination of such information. To avoid charges of favoritism, access would have to be granted to all contractors having the capability to bid. Providing this intelligence to Aerospace, however, limits its distribution within reasonable bounds and permits technical support consistent with, and fully evaluated in terms of long range plans and goals, and other sensitive information.

(5) Need for Industry Proprietary Information. Proprietary data concerning designs, manufacture and processes are very important to industry. Contractors are reluctant to part with proprietary data necessary for interface management to a contractor who is studying or advising on a system for a procurement agency. Where such needs for proprietary data are minimal, or where problems concerning access to such data are not significant, this criterion could be of minor importance. Where the problems are serious, and the interface complex, Aerospace can lessen proprietary problems materially.

(6) Access to Industry Proposals. Some tasks require review of industry proposals, reduction of data contained in a common base, and selection of the best approaches. It is generally inappropriate to give planning or program definition studies, or contractor proposals, either unsolicited or in response to invitations, to industry for technical evaluation. Industry should not have access to this information nor be involved in establishing technical criteria involved in decision making.

(7) Need for Extensive Background Information. Some tasks require drawing heavily on previous experience or background that any one industrial concern could not normally have unless it had participated in a number of programs to the exclusion of other contractors.

(8) Need for Diversified Skills. The task requirement may require extensive diversified special skills not readily available to any one contractor. It may not be feasible to permit such a contractor to subcontract for these missing skills or it may be necessary to maintain inordinate control over the contractor through the associate mechanism. Where management problems for the associate contractors are minimal, industry could be qualified to meet this criterion.

(9) Need for Outstanding Specialists in Specific Fields. For certain tasks, one or more state-of-the-art considerations may be of overriding importance, and the whole project may hinge on the availability of technical competence in a specified field. Such competence may exist uniquely at Aerospace by virtue of its primary program mission and the cross-feed of information and experience and knowledge among similar programs. However, industry may also have such outstanding specialists, and where this situation exists, appropriate tasks should be assigned to industry, not to Aerospace simply because they are convenient. In such cases, Aerospace may perform in a subsystem or research and engineering role.

(10) Continuity of Effort. Continuity of effort on a single system from conceptual and advanced planning through initial system engineering and specification provides a degree of design coherency and consistency that cannot be obtained as effectively in any other way. It may not be desirable to involve 'industrial contractors under these conditions because of the difficulty in maintaining continuity without giving unfair competitive advantages, or unwarranted access to intelligence data.

(11) Need for Large Special Facilities. Some tasks require specialized facilities. Obviously such installations cannot be provided to all contractors interested in bidding on a program and making such a facility available to any one contractor would give unfair competitive advantage. Duplication would not be in the Government's best interest.

Attachment 2 13 March 1992

GENERAL SYSTEMS ENGINEERING AND INTEGRATION (GSE&I) TASKS

I. Systems Studies:

(1) Perform engineering analyses and design studies to determine the system parameters and operating concepts necessary to meet evolving military objectives. Recommend feasible options, provide support in the selection process, and conduct trade-off studies, as requested, leading to a system definition.

(2) Refine the selected system design by performing design analyses, feasibility studies, studies of trade-offs among and within subsystems, cost effectiveness studies, system safety analyses, trajectory studies, including random reentry definition studies, of system operation, and preparation of mission profiles. Recommend definitions of subsystems, subsystem performance requirements, and major interfaces.

(3) Review current military operational objectives and recommend updating the system definition as necessary in consonance with contractor inputs and internal studies and analyses.

(4) Perform studies and investigations to resolve critical technical systems and subsystems problems.

(5) Define requirements for tracking and ephemeris determination for all phases of flight including launch and orbital operations.

(6) Perform studies and investigations to define requirements for flight test and orbital operations including plans and procedures, contingency plans and procedures, operations support training and rehearsals, and in-flight tests.

(7) Perform analyses and design studies to determine requirements and implementation concepts for data processing and simulation.

(8) Perform design and verification analyses, including the development of feasibility software, to establish functional characteristics for computer hardware and software.

(9) Perform technical analysis of the environmental impact of the operation of systems under development.

(10) Perform analyses of total quality management applications to system design, manufacturing and other phases of program.

(11) Prepare technical portions of briefings as indicated by program requirements. Make technical presentations as required by the Air Force.

II. Work Statement and Proposal Evaluation:

(1) Prepare and recommend inputs to technical portions of Requests for Proposal (RFPs), including specifications, special provisions in proposal preparation instructions, evaluation criteria and technical standards for source selection.

(2) Review RFP packages, including Statements of Work and other technical procurement material and recommended approval or change.

(3) Review and advise the appropriate SSD/DOD Source Selection officials on technical portions of contractor's proposals, as requested. Review technical portions of unsolicited proposals, as requested.

(4) Assist in preparation of technical portions of Statements of Work and, as required, provide technical inputs to the Air Force for its use in the negotiation of definitive contracts. Recommend inputs to the Contract Data Requirements List (CDRL).

III. Specifications and Top-Level Program Documentation:

(1) Prepare an outline of the program specification requirements, including the Specification Tree.

(2) Prepare and update, as required, the Systems/System Segment Specification(s).

(3) Prepare a recommended list of required technical documents.

(4) Assist in the preparation of the technical portions of the Decision Coordinating Paper (DCP), Program Management Directive (PMD), Program Management Plans (PMP), Test and Evaluation Master Plans (TEMP), and other documentation required by the Air Force and DOD regulations for the purpose of obtaining program approvals, supporting the DAB process, and supporting program reviews.

(5) Participate in the preparation and update of technical requirements for program documents such as The General System Test Plan, the Program Requirements Document, the Orbital Requirements Plan, the Recovery Requirements Document, the Orbital Support Plans, the Test Range Planning Estimate, and Operations Requirements (OR) Document.

(6) Participate with other Government agencies and test range agencies in preparing their top level program documentation.

(7) Establish criteria for program standard and SSD preferred parts, review specifications for non-standard parts, and provide technical recommendations for parts specifications and procurement.

IV. Technical Development:

(1) Prepare and maintain a master schedule of major technical events for the top level system(s) and major system segments.

(2) Participate in preparation, maintenance, integration, and evaluation of system/system segment, equipment and computer program technical development milestone schedules, indicating critical dates for task accomplishment.

(3) Identify those program events and reports (tests, reviews, accident risk assessments, audits, documents) considered of particular importance which require written review, evaluation and recommendations by Aerospace. Provide and maintain a schedule document including those program events.

(4) Identify elements of the program which can be used in contractor schedule flow charts or schedule networks to insure the proper integration of contracted effort to total program effort. Review and evaluate contractor schedules for proper integration.

(5) Recommend and maintain system reliability goal. Where feasible a stated confidence level will be associated with each reliability value requiring demonstration. Recommend apportionment of the reliability budget among system segments.

(6) Recommend and maintain system significant performance parameters, e.g., CEP budget, range, launch vehicle performance, system/system segment weight, payload performance characteristics, ground support system performance characteristics, etc. Review equipment development status and determine the impact on system capability, effectiveness, etc.

(7) Recommend parameters and a methodology for subsequent evaluation of contractor technical performance which is consistent with performance and/or performance incentive provisions of contractors contracts. This responsibility does not extend to the determination or payment of incentive or award fees, which remains the sole prerogative of the Air Force.

V. Technical Meetings:

(1) In conjunction with the Air Force, initiate Technical Interchange meetings as necessary. When Air Force personnel do not participate in meetings, provide results and recommendations to the Air Force.

(2) Participate, in a technical supporting role, at Technical Direction Meetings, Program Status Reviews, Design Reviews, Configuration Audits, Progress Report Meetings and other meetings having significant technical content. Provide technical support at Management Meetings at the request of the System Program Director.

(3) Participate in establishing and operating technical working groups such as Interface, Performance, Activation, System Safety, and System Test.

(4) Provide technical support at Air Force meetings and/or briefings with higher headquarters and DOD or outside agencies, as requested.

Vl. Review and Evaluation of Critical Documents: Review and evaluate the following program documents for compliance with contractual requirements and mission objectives and provide written concurrence and/or recommendations.

(1) Critical contractor documents such as the Program Plan, Systems Effectiveness Program Plan (Reliability, Parts, Materials and Processes Manufacturing, and Quality Assurance), System Safety Program Plan and Support Equipment Development Plan.

(2) Contractually required program documents such as the General System Test Plan, the Program Requirements Document, the Orbital Requirements Document, the Recovery Requirements Document, the Test Range Planning Estimate, the System Test Objectives, and the Range Safety Report.

(3) Contractually required system/system segment and equipment design specifications; requirements, detail design and test specifications including data processing and software specifications, interface control specifications, and other specifications for contractually deliverable Configuration Items as well as specifications at least one level below those for the Configuration Item, on a selected basis.

(4) Contractor prepared specifications and procedures for critical non-deliverable equipment, facilities, support equipment, test equipment and all software, both diagnostic and delivered flight tapes.

(5) Contractually required technical reports and documents necessary for system evaluation and general systems engineering.

(6) Ground test plans and test procedures including development, qualification, acceptance, pre-flight readiness, and countdown tests.

(7) Contractor prepared flight test and orbital support plans and procedures including those for training exercises and operations support.

(8) Results of design reviews, audits, and readiness reviews and manufacturing and quality assurance audits.

(9) All Class I engineering change proposals. Determination as to the need for, or extent of, compensation required is the responsibility of the Air Force.

(10) Results of field hardware tests and test data required for flight.

Vll. Review and Evaluation of Contractor System Design and Analysis: Conduct in-house tasks as noted and review and evaluate for compliance with contractual requirements the following contractor activities and documents and provide comments and recommendations in writing.

(1) Results of contractor studies and analyses.

(2) Contractors' schematics and product designs of equipment to insure adherence to program requirements.

(3) Contractors' analyses and designs for data processing and software to insure adherence to program requirements.

(4) Contractor prepared guidance equations, trajectory calculations, and orbital programs. Prepare, when appropriate, and maintain reference trajectories, and submit to the Air Force for utilization by the contractor.

(5) Contractors' analyses and designs for safety considerations, including hazard analysis, accident risk assessments and compliance with applicable criteria pertaining to launch vehicle interfaces, random reentry, nuclear explosive ordnance, facility sitting and occupational safety and health.

(6) Contractors' functional analysis data and integrated system functional analysis.

(7) Design data for support equipment, operational ground equipment, test equipment, facilities, and software.

(8) Contractors' design of The Personnel Subsystem

(9) Contractors' reliability predictions and failure modes and effects analyses for accuracy and completeness.

(10) Contractor or Program Office prepared Life Cycle Cost/Design to Cost Models for accuracy. Prepare system peculiar mathematical models when appropriate. (Contractor prepared Life Cycle Cost/Design to Cost trade studies, models, will be cataloged and retained for inclusion in the SSD corporate memory.)

(11) Technical Requirements for support and test equipment, facilities and software. Recommend support options when appropriate.

(12) Contractor analyses of structural dynamic loads, structural margins, stability and control, integrated mass 83 properties and analyses of aerothermal design.

(13) Validate contractors' vehicle hardware models against the analytical models used for design and analysis.

(14) At the direction of the program office and in accordance with the Commander's Policies, conduct independent analyses such as loads, flight controls, stability, etc. to verify the adequacy of the contractors' predictions and designs.

VlIl. Review of Contractor Technical Performance: Review the following activities and record to insure contractor compliance with technical requirements of the contract.

(1) Perform in-plant review of contractor and subcontractor technical programs such as development, acceptance and qualification tests, system safety and reliability and quality assurance programs, after coordination with the Air Force Program Office.

(2) Review contractor and subcontractor in-plant activities. practices, and procedures including development, fabrication, assembly, test and piece parts processing and control, after coordination with the Air Force Program Office.

(3) Review the conduct of tests, witness critical tests, and evaluate test data for selected development tests and all acceptance, qualification and readiness tests.

(4) Participate in Configuration Item acceptance activities.

(5) Participate in design reviews and technical audits.

(6) Review equipment build-up at the contractors' and subcontractors' facility including mock-ups, qualification models, and engineering test models.

(7) Review development and performance of support equipment, supporting test equipment, and facilities.

(8) Review the progress and performance of relevant data processing equipment, and test and operations software.

(9) Review contractor activity in support of field tests, flight tests, and orbital operations.

(10) Review and evaluate the schedule status of hardware and software development, and equipment fabrication.

(11) Participate in Parts, Materials, and Processes Control Board activities. Conduct independent tests of parts and materials when requested by the program office.

(12) Review and evaluate the following contractor activities and supporting documents for compliance with contractual requirements and provide comments and recommendations in writing:

(a) Acceptance, Qualification and Readiness Tests.

(b) Configuration Items acceptance activities.

(c) Formal Design Reviews.

IX. Integration and Configuration and Interface Control:

(1) Review the interfaces between system segments to insure proper integration of all system elements. Advise the Air Force as to the integrity of the integration efforts. Recommend means for exchange of appropriate data between the associate contractors involved.

(2) Review the interface between system segments to assure integration of these system segments with the launch facilities.

(3) Provide technical support to the Configuration Control Board and Interface Control Working group(s).

(4) Provide technical support to SSD in site activation and provide representation to the Activation Working Group.

(5) Participate in identifying and maintaining the functional requirements for the flight vehicle ground support system including tracking telemetry and command system, to insure the appropriateness of the program peculiar support systems and the compatibility of the vehicle with the ground equipment.

(6) Participate in planning for Program Management Responsibility Transfer (PMRT).

(7) Support post PMRT activities for residual tasks and directed upgrades.

X. Flight Test and Operations:

(1) Develop a list of the flight test documentation necessary to satisfy Program and Range requirements in coordination with the appropriate range or agency and identify and recommend the preparation responsibility.

(2) Provide field technical and flight operations support including pre-launch, Launch, post-launch, and orbital operations. Monitor orbital performance and provide alternative/contingency plans as appropriate.

(3) Perform analysis and evaluation of selected flight test data; e.g., Launch Reports, Orbit Reports, Recovery Reports, as required for system evaluation. Prepare Flight Test Engineering Analysis Reports for each flight.

(4) Prepare the Range Safety Report utilizing contractor inputs, or prepare technical requirements for the latter, and make technical analyses in support of range safety issues.

(5) Provide technical support to failure analysis activities, and provide representation to the Failure Analysis Working Group.

(6) Provide technical support to the Launch Operations and Orbital Operations Support Technical Advisor Staffs. Coordinate and evaluate the technical planning and operations activities for test operations at the Consolidated Satellite Test Center (Onizuka AFB) and Consolidated Space Operations Center (Falcon AFS).

(7) Monitor and evaluate flight test preparations and test mission conduct, state of adequacy of support facilities and equipment, and status of Mission Systems. Review and evaluate vehicle command activity, anomalies, and corrective action.

(8) Review test requirements, plans and procedures and provide written concurrence, comments and recommendations. Participate in mission planning; recommend telemetry test, and command generation, and other software modification; and support operations training and rehearsal activities.

(9) Review the Launch Test Directive, the Orbital Support Plan, and other critical operations documents and provide written concurrence, comments and recommendations.

(10) Prepare, for Air Force approval, System Test Objectives documents, or provide technical requirements for the latter, for each flight test, utilizing contractor inputs.

(11) Participate in the activities for Program and Independent Readiness Reviews (IRR). Provide a co-chairman for the IRR team.

(12) Provide technical expertise to the Air Force during the conduct of Failure Review Boards and accident investigations.

TECHNICAL OBJECTIVES AND PLANS (TO&Ps) FORMAT INSTRUCTIONS.

Format. Each TO&P will include the following.

a. Title: List short title of program.

b. Program Objectives: Brief description of the Air Force's, (or other sponsoring agency's) broad objectives for the program or activity.

c. Program Management: Identify SSD's or other organization's responsibility in managing this program. Reference pertinent documents, if any.

d. Responsibility of The Aerospace Corporation: Identify the category or categories of work for which Aerospace is responsible on the program or activity (GSE&I, TR, etc.). These are selected from the list of work categories embodied in the contract Statement of Work.

e. Contractors: List contractors whose performance Aerospace must review.

f. Scope of Aerospace Work: The scope of Aerospace GSE&I work will be defined by citing Attachment 2 and listing the tasks which require major emphasis. Specific exceptions will be stated also. For other categories of work specific task lists should be formulated using tasks from Attachment 2 as applicable. The tasks should sufficiently define the work so that the responsible Air Force and Aerospace personnel can, within the normal working relationship, carry out their assignments. Terminology such as "as requested" will not be used in the T0&Ps. Procedural, administrative or financial information should not be included.

g. Special Requirements: List special requirements for reports or facilities, etc., if applicable.

h. Level of Effort: Include the following statement. The level of effort is as agreed to and recorded in the contract files of Aerospace and SSD.

i. Statement: To indicate that the criteria for assignment of work to Aerospace apply to the work covered by this TO&P, the following statement must be included: "Acquisition of this effort is in full compliance with applicable procurement statutes, policies, and regulations, for non-competitive actions. This TO&P has been drafted and approved in accordance with the criteria, policies, and procedures set forth in SSD Regulation 800-8. Only Aerospace can satisfy the Government's requirements for this particular effort."

Attachment 4 13 March 1992

MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING BETWEEN THE AIR FORCE AND THE AEROSPACE CORPORATION (RE: NON-DOD WORK)

PURPOSE OF MEMORANDUM. This Memorandum documents the intent of the United States Air Force and The Aerospace Corporation regarding the performance of non-Department of Defense (DOD) work by The Aerospace Corporation.

II. GENERAL UNDERSTANDING

a. The Aerospace Corporation, hereinafter referred to as Aerospace, is a private not-for-profit corporation engaged in providing General Systems Engineering and Integration (GSE&I) support to the U.S. Government. Its principal specialties have been, and are intended to continue to be, space systems and selected technology related to national security. Its principal, but not sole, customer for these specialties is the Air Force. Aerospace provides the principal GSE&I support of Air Force space programs.

b. The extent of Aerospace participation in each program depends on the nature and the time phase of the program, stated customer needs and available Aerospace capabilities.

c. It is in the interest of both the Air Force and Aerospace to maintain contractual continuity and stability consistent with changing program needs. This interest results in a level of Aerospace support of DOD programs roughly proportional to the funding of that portion which Aerospace supports. It also results in an annually negotiated contract with the Air Force Space Systems Division (SSD). Although contractual continuity and stability are desired, they cannot be guaranteed, and year-to-year variations from an intended plan can be anticipated.

III. CONDITIONS FOR SELECTION OF NON-DOD WORK

a. Non DOD National Security Work. It is recognized that Aerospace non-DOD work which offers a contribution to national security can provide significant advantages to the Air Force, the DOD, the U.S. Government and Aerospace. However, this work must fall within one of the subcategories of the following categories:

(1) National Security Direct. Direct contribution to national security in the areas of space and space-related programs:

(a) Other US National Security Agencies. Work for other U.S. national security agencies; including but not limited to, the intelligence community, that portion of the DoE concerned with nuclear weapons development and production, allies under a mutual pact such as NATO.

(b) National Space Efforts. Support to the national space effort; including but not limited to, NASA programs, NOAA space programs, and other elements of the U.S. space program.

(c) Other US Agencies. Support to other U.S. agencies having joint efforts with the DOD; including but not limited to, ACDA verification of space systems performance.

2. National Security Supportive:

(a) DOD Space Related efforts. Work of direct interest to the DOD space and space-related effort but which is funded by other agencies having related interests requiring essentially the same work and results, including but not limited to, NSF work in materials, NOAA work in weather.

(b) Long Term Interest. Work of long-term interest to DOD but of more immediate interest to other agencies and consequently funded by them.

(c) Augmented Capabilities. Work that augments or helps to maintain capabilities, technologies, management methods and technical expertise of importance to Air Force space and space-related programs.

(d) National security Contribution. Work specifically justified by the U.S. Government as contributing to the National Security Strategy of the United States, including but not limited to support of space programs of allies or international institutions, and of environmental and energy programs.

b. Criteria. Aerospace will only consider non-DOD work identified in IIIa above, which is compatible with DOD programs in priority, security, and mission; and is consistent with the following criteria which have been established by the Air Force as factors in determining if the circumstances are appropriate for Aerospace effort:

(1) Freedom from bias due to predilection for design, hardware or approach. It is important to the Government Agency that objectivity be retained in design, choice of off-the-shelf hardware, choice of hardware from competing contractors, of hardware from competing contractors, selection of hardware as influenced by possible subsequent production opportunities, preparation of specifications, etc.

(2) Need for state-of-the-art information from Government Laboratories and universities. A task may require extensive knowledge of the state of the art as developed in universities, Government laboratories, etc. Such knowledge, of course, is available to industry, but is not necessarily used because industry tends to specialize in particular fields of interest consistent with its best competitive position.

(3) Extent of access to Government Agencies planning information. A broad need-to-know is requisite to the execution of advanced planning and integration of proposed systems with existing systems. Bringing individual contractors for the different projects into conceptual planning, and extending general access across Government Agency programs would, except under unusual circumstances, give industrial contractors an unfair advantage over competitors because of information gained on programs related to one on which the contractor performed.

(4) Extent of access to intelligence. Multiple projects involving many individual contractors would require the wide dissemination of such information. To avoid charges of favoritism, access would have to be given to all industries having the capability to bid. Providing this intelligence to the FFRDC, however, limits its distribution within reasonable bounds and permits technical support consistent with, and fully evaluated in terms of, long-range plans and goals and other sensitive information.

(5) Need for industry proprietary information. Proprietary data concerning designs, manufacture and processes are very important to industry. Contractors are reluctant to part with proprietary data necessary for interface management to a contractor who is studying or advising on a system for a procurement agency—the FFRDC can lessen proprietary problems materially.

(6) Access to industry proposals. Some tasks require review of industry proposals, reduction of data contained in a common base and selection of the best approaches. It is generally inappropriate to give planning or program definition studies, or contractor proposals, either unsolicited or in response to invitations, to industry for technical evaluation.

(7) Need for extensive background information. Some tasks require drawing heavily on previous experience or background that any one industrial concern could not normally have unless it had participated in a number of programs to the exclusion of other contractors.

(8) Need for diversified skills. The task requirements may require extensive diversified special skills not readily available to any one contractor.

(9) Need for outstanding specialists in specific fields. For certain tasks, one or more state-of-the-art considerations may be of overriding importance, and the whole project may hinge on the availability of technical competence in a specified field. Such competence may exist uniquely at Aerospace by virtue of its primary program mission and the cross-feed of information, experience and knowledge among similar programs.

(10) Continuity of effort. Continuity of effort on a single system from conceptual and advanced planning through initial system engineering and specification provides a degree of design coherency and consistency that cannot be obtained as effectively in any other way.

(11) Need for special facilities. Some tasks require specialized facilities. Obviously such installations cannot be provided to all contractors interested in bidding on a program and making such a facility available to any one contractor would give unfair competitive advantage.

c. Intent. It is the intent of the Air Force and Aerospace that the selection of non-DOD work must not diversify Aerospace outside of national security programs, direct or supportive. Further, it is the intent of the Air Force and Aerospace that me amount of non DOD national security supportive work selected will not exceed 10 percent of the total DOD, National Security Direct and National Security Supportive work. It is the intent of the Air Force and Aerospace that Aerospace will not endeavor in work not related to national security as determined by the understandings and considerations set forth above.

IV. SPECIFIC WORK SELECTION RESPONSIBILITY AND PROCEDURES

a. Aerospace will select future non-DOD work and review follow-on work as follows:

(1) All non-DOD work, both new and follow-on, will be supported by written justification and will require the approval of the President of Aerospace. The written justification procedure is standardized and implemented by The Aerospace Corporation by means of an approved Policy and Practice, a copy of which is provided SSD Contracts Management Office (SSD/PKR).

(2) Prior to preparation of a formal proposal for new or continuing work, SSD Contracts Management Office will be provided a copy of the written justification.

(3) In the event the SSD Contracts Management Office determines that the selection of a given non-DOD project is not in keeping with this Memorandum of Understanding, or that the selection sets a pattern for the future that in the Air Force's judgment is not in the spirit of this Memorandum of Understanding, then the matter will be resolved by the Commander, SSD, and the President of The Aerospace Corporation. Air Force response, if any, which questions a given justification pursuant to this paragraph will be provided Aerospace within 30 days after receipt of the written justification.

(4) Aerospace will advise SSD Contracts Management Office when a contract or grant has been received or a program is continued.

b. All non-DOD projects and outstanding proposals existing as of the date of this Memorandum of Understanding meet the policy and criteria established by this Memorandum of Understanding.

V. COMPETITION. The Aerospace Corporation will not enter into formal competition with profit-making industrial contractors or Universities.

Vl. EXCEPTIONS. Exceptions to these understandings may be granted only with the joint approval of the Secretary of the Air Force, or his designee, and the Board of Trustees of The Aerospace Corporation.

______________________________

GEORGE A. PAULlKAS, Acting President
Aerospace Corporation

______________________________

HAROLD MICHALIS
Director, Aerospace Contract Management Office

Attachment 5 13 March 1992

MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING BETWEEN THE AIR FORCE SPACE SYSTEMS DIVISION AND THE AEROSPACE CORPORATION ON SPACE OCCUPANCY/ COLLOCATION OF AIR FORCE SPACE SYSTEMS DIVISION AND THE AEROSPACE CORPORATION PERSONNEL.

I. Purpose of Memorandum. This Memorandum of Understanding documents the intent of the United States Air Force Space Systems Division (SSD) and The Aerospace Corporation (here in after referred to as "Aerospace") regarding the collocating of Government personnel on Aerospace premises and Aerospace personnel on Government premises.

II. GENERAL UNDERSTANDINGS

a. The mission of SSD is to plan and manage the acquisition of space systems, their ancillary equipments, launch sites, and facilities for on-orbit testing, command and control. This mission, learned from the experience of several decades, imposes special demands and constraints on prosecution of the effort and on the role and function of Aerospace.

b. Vital to the success of the mission is close daily rapport between the Air Force System Program Offices (SPO) and Aerospace Systems Engineering Directorates (SED). The Air Force and Aerospace have consequently formulated policies regarding the utilization of facilities to satisfy this need within the principle of sound facilities acquisition and management.

(1) Since the inception of the systems engineer/associate contractor method of systems acquisition, collocation (proximity) of SPOs and SEDs has been a basic Air Force management principle of crucial importance to program success. The technical complexities and security classifications of these programs demand frequent, rapid, real-time, secure communications. Collocation improves the efficiency and effectiveness of the SPO and SED interface. Collocation expedites the technical interchange between the SPO and SED, it improves the accuracy of understandings on complex technical interface issues, it is cost effective on the efficient use of labor and equipment resources, and it avoids proliferation and circulation of highly classified documents outside the collocated area.

(2) The principal objective of Aerospace facilities acquisition is to provide by purchase and/or lease, within the limits of corporate financial capability, office space and laboratories adequate to house Aerospace personnel, consistent with prudent business planning. Aerospace personnel thus should collocate in Government furnished facilities only to the extent necessary to fulfill corporate responsibilities in support of its customers. Similarly, all collocations in Aerospace facilities by SSD personnel shall be limited to situations where such collocation is necessary for performance of the Aerospace contract or in support of the SSD mission.

(3) To achieve the advantages of collocation within appropriate facility management principles, a procedure for space exchange is necessary, i.e., the Air Force makes spice available in its facilities for the collocation of Aerospace personnel, and Aerospace makes space available in its facilities for the collocation of Air Force personnel, to facilitate program support, enhance the maintenance of security and afford efficient utilization of the special facilities of each.

c. The needs of national security programs supported by Aerospace establish the priorities for determining which Aerospace elements are to be collocated in Government facilities, and which Government elements are to be collocated in Aerospace facilities.

d. In the interest of improving productivity, it is the common objective of SSD and Aerospace to limit building occupancy to design capacity. It is the objective of SSD and Aerospace to provide equivalent square feet per occupant for Aerospace and SSD personnel at each site, recognizing that ratios may vary due to differing building designs.

e. In general, the total number of SSD personnel collocated in Aerospace facilities shall not exceed the total number of Aerospace personnel collocated in SSD facilities. However, short term (60 days) imbalances of Government personnel in Aerospace facilities are acceptable if such imbalances are necessary to meet Aerospace and SSD contractual and mission objectives.

III. Procedure. When a proposed relocation involving collocation appears to be in the mutual best interest of SSD mission performance and Aerospace contractual performance the following will apply:

a. The 6592nd Air Base Group Commander (6592 ABG/CC), the Chief of Staff Office of Primary Responsibility for Space Allocation (SSD/DE), and the Aerospace General Manager of Administrative Services will jointly:

(1) describe the requirement for collocation.

(2) Identify the number of affected SSD space users and Aerospace space users.

(3) Analyze the before and after effects of the proposed collocation on building utilization.

(4) Evaluate any concomitant requirements of the proposed collocation for parking and/or support services.

b. The Office of Primary Responsibility for assuring proper coordination and obtaining approval by the Commander, SSD, is the Contracts Management Office, SSD/PKR. The corresponding Aerospace office is the Contracts Directorate.

c. The proposed collocations will be implemented upon the approval of the SSD Commander and The Aerospace Corporation President.

d. Personnel from any Technical Engineering/Management Support (TEMS) contractor or Systems Engineering and Technical Assistance (SETA) contractor supporting the Air Force programs will be assigned office space in Aerospace facilities only with the prior written approval of the Special Two Letter Office (STLO) and the President of Aerospace (or designee). Such TEMS and SETA contractor employees will be counted as Air Force personnel for the purpose of maintaining the space allocation balance addressed in II.E above.

IV. Minor Construction on SSD Facilities:

a. All minor construction projects, i.e., renovations, alterations, upgrading, restoration of SSD facilities to accommodate collocation of Aerospace personnel shall be subject to review and written approval by 6592 ABG/CC prior to being accomplished.

b. All minor construction project approvals shall be based on mutually agreeable office standards applicable to both SSD and Aerospace personnel located in SSD facilities.

c. The cost of minor construction to SSD facilities by Aerospace as the result of Aerospace collocation in Government premises shall be borne by Aerospace and are subject to approval by the ACO as to allocability of costs for reimbursement under the contract.

V. Amendment and Termination. This Memorandum of Understanding may be amended or superseded by the Commander, SSD, and the President, Aerospace. This understanding may be terminated by either the Commander, SSD, or the President, Aerospace upon 30- day written notice to the other party.

DATE: 10 MARCH 1992

EDWARD P. BARRY, JR., Lt General, USAF
Commander, Space System Division

Enclosure
1 Atch

DATE 2-27-92

GEORGE A. PAULIKAS, Acting President
Aerospace Corporation

Attachment 5 13 March 1992

Enclosure

PROCEDURES FOR ESTABLISHING COLLOCATION OF SPACE SYSTEMS DIVISION(SSD) AND THE AEROSPACE CORPORATION PERSONNEL

1. Introduction. The Memorandum of Understanding (MOU), 11 December 1991, provides for collocating SSD personnel in The Aerospace Corporation facilities as well as collocating The Aerospace Corporation personnel in SSD facilities. It also established procedures to be followed in effective and efficient performance of the Aerospace contract; however, each participant in this program must take constant precautions to prevent the use or practice of engaging in the use of personal or professional services as defined in FAR 37.101. Therefore, the physical location of The Aerospace Corporation personnel shall not make them subject to supervisory direction by SD personnel since such supervision constitutes personal services and must be avoided.

II. Procedures. The collocation of personnel encompasses two methods of locating personnel. First, the collocating of SSD personnel in Aerospace facilities and second, the collocating of The Aerospace Corporation personnel in SSD facilities. This procedure encompasses both methods.

a. The SSD System Program Office (SPO) Director is the office of primary responsibility for initiating all requests for collocation.

b. The SPO Director's request shall include compliance with each of the steps described in the MOU, paragraph Illa.

c. The SPO Director's request will then be forwarded to SSD/PKR for staffing of the request as contemplated by the MOU, paragraph Illb.

d. Collocation can be effected after approval by notification from SSD/PKR that the SSD Commander and the President of The Aerospace Corporation have approved the collocation as contemplated by the MOU, paragraph Illc.

III. Office Standards:

a. Standards for SSD office space at The Aerospace Corporation:

1. The work environment standard for office space allocation to SSD personnel collocated at any Aerospace location will be based on generally accepted commercial practices (e.g., Aerospace's Standards) consistent with that which is required for the most cost efficient and professionally effective task accomplishment by management, scientific and engineering personnel.

2. The parties to the MOU recognize that within each organization, different levels of management and professional personnel exist based on assigned responsibilities, complexity of work and salaries. Therefore in all cases effort shall be made to provide physical office space and office standards based on these levels and in accordance with established organizational practices. Additionally, in all cases paramount consideration will be given to cost efficiency, professional effectiveness and the assignment of space which provides maximum use of the physical limitations of existing facilities and results in the minimum alteration/modification to existing facilities.

3. The office shall be sufficiently air conditioned and/or heated as necessary in accordance with Aerospace procedures and consistent with that service which is furnished to Aerospace personnel in the same or similar facilities. The quality and frequency of janitorial and maintenance service will be based on Aerospace standards conducive to an environment associated with the standard for management, scientific and engineering personnel.

4. The Aerospace Corporation shall provide office furniture and accouterments, i.e., drapes, pictures, desk sets, etc., that represent the most cost efficient furnishing of the office and which are in accordance with established standards for the comparable Aerospace levels of personnel based on the organizational level of the SSD personnel and their assigned responsibilities, complexity of work or salary. Carpets are considered to be floor coverings only without regard to occupant and are not to be treated as furnishings.

b. Standards for the Aerospace Corporation in the SSD Office Facilities:

1. The work environment standards for office space allocated to The Aerospace Corporation personnel collocated within any SSD facilities shall be based on generally accepted local industry practices (e.g., 6592 ABG Standards) consistent with that which is required for the most cost efficient and professionally effective task accomplishment by management, scientific and engineering personnel.

2. The parties to the MOU recognize that within each organization different levels of management and professional personnel exist based on assigned responsibilities, complexity of work and salaries. Therefore in all cases effort will be made to provide physical office space and office standards based on these levels and in accordance with established organizational practices. Additionally in all cases paramount consideration will be given to cost efficiency, professional effectiveness and the assignment of space which provides maximum use of the physical limitations of existing facilities and results in the minimum alteration/modification to existing facilities.

3. The office shall be sufficiently air conditioned and/or heated as necessary in accordance with SSD procedures and consistent with that service which is furnished to SSD personnel in the same or similar facilities. The quality and frequency of janitorial and maintenance service will be based on standards conducive to an environment associated with the standard for management, scientific and engineering personnel.

4. The Aerospace Corporation shall provide their own office furniture and accouterments; i.e., drapes, pictures, desk sets, etc., when occupying SSD facility space. The Aerospace Corporation shall employ the most cost efficient furnishing of the offices in accordance with established standards for The Aerospace Corporation levels of personnel. However, best efforts shall be made to establish close parity to SSD personnel office standards for the specific purpose of avoiding the appearance or perception of significantly different levels of office standards. Carpets are considered to be floor coverings only without regard to occupant and are not to be treated as furnishings.

IV. Support Services to Collocated Personnel:

a. Parking:

1. SSD will provide adequate parking space to The Aerospace Corporation personnel collocated on SSD facilities.

2. The Aerospace Corporation will provide parking spaces for all SSD personnel collocated on Aerospace facilities.

b. Mail Delivery:

1. Mail delivery for Aerospace personnel collocated on SSD facilities will be the responsibility of Aerospace.

2. Mail delivery for SSD personnel collocated on Aerospace facilities will be delivered by 6592/lMA to stations at Aerospace as provided to 6592/lMA by the SPO Director.

c. Safety. All collocated personnel both Air Force and Aerospace will adhere to the existing safety regulations applicable to their location.

d. Security. All collocated personnel will adhere to the existing security regulations applicable to their location.

e. Office Supplies. Each organization is responsible for providing office supplies to their own personnel.

f. Telephone Service. Telephone service for collocated personnel will, as a general rule, be provided by the respective communication center. The reason for this arrangement is because both The Aerospace Corporation and SSD have separate telephone systems. Should either of the organizations collocated on the other's premises elect to be serviced by the telephone system of the site organization, such arrangements can be made on a case by case basis. Whenever a collocated organization requests to be serviced by the site organization, the installation of the telephones will be accomplished and paid for by the site organization. In the case of The Aerospace Corporation, installation costs will be an allowable cost because of the need for operational interface of personnel collocated to perform program functions. Whenever the collocated guest vacates the site organization's premises, the installed telephone lines will be the responsibility of the site organization to either retain or terminate. The charges for use of the telephone system will be paid by the user from appropriate funds.

g. Reporting of Collocation Space. SSD/PKR will be the Government office responsible for maintaining records of all collocated space. The Aerospace Corporation focal point for maintaining records of all collocated space is The Aerospace Corporation Contracts Directorate. These two offices will jointly prepare quarterly reports indicating collocated space occupied by the Government and Aerospace by building number, square feet occupied, number of occupants, and applicable SSD 2-letter Office symbol. SSD/PKR and The Aerospace Corporation Contracts Directorate will assure that there is not an imbalance of collocated spaces at either SSD or Aerospace locations. Any imbalance will be referred to the SSD Commander and The Aerospace Corporation President for resolution since they are the principals of the MOU. A copy of the quarterly report shall be sent to SSD/DE to allow update of their Office Space Management System (OSMS) data base.

ENABLING CLAUSE FOR GENERAL SYSTEMS ENGINEERING AND INTEGRATION

a. This contract covers part of the * program which is under the general program management of the **. The Air Force has entered into a contract with The Aerospace Corporation for the services of a technical group which will support the DOD program office by performing General Systems Engineering and Integration.

b. General Systems Engineering and Integration (GSE&I) deals with overall system definition; integration both within the system and with associated systems; analysis of system segment and subsystem design; design compromises and tradeoffs; definition of interfaces; review of hardware and software, including manufacturing and quality control; observation, review and evaluation of tests and test data; support of launch, flight test, and orbital operations; appraisal of the contractors' technical performance, through meeting with contractors and subcontractors, exchange and analysis of information on progress and problems; review of plans for future work; developing solutions to problems; technical alternatives for reduced program risk; providing comments and recommendations in writing to the DOD System Program Manager and/or Project Officer as an independent technical assessment for consideration for modifying the program or redirecting the contractor's efforts; all to the extent necessary to assure timely and economical accomplishment of program objectives consistent with mission requirements.

c. In the performance of this contract, the contractor agrees to cooperate with The Aerospace Corporation by responding to invitations from authorized personnel to attend meetings; by providing access to technical information and research, development planning data such as, but not limited to, design and development analyses; test data and results; equipment and process specifications; test and test equipment specifications and procedures, parts and quality control procedures, records and data; manufacturing and assembly procedures; and schedule and milestone data; all in their original form or reproduced form and excluding financial data; by delivering data as specified in the Contract Data Requirements List; by discussing technical matters relating to this program; by providing access to contractor facilities utilized in the performance of this contract; and by allowing observation of technical activities by appropriate Aerospace technical personnel. The Aerospace personnel engaged in general systems engineering and integration effort are authorized access to any technical information pertaining to this contract.

d. The contractor further agrees to include in each subcontract a clause requiring compliance by subcontractor and succeeding levels of subcontractors with the response and access provisions of paragraph (c) above, subject to coordination with the contractor. This agreement does not relieve the contractor of his/her responsibility to manage the subcontracts effectively and efficiently nor is it intended to establish privity of contract between the Government or The Aerospace Corporation and such subcontractors.

e. The Aerospace Corporation personnel are not authorized to direct the contractor in any manner. The contractor agrees to accept technical direction as follows:

1. Technical direction under this contract will be given to the contractor solely by ***.

2. Whenever it becomes necessary to modify the contract and redirect the effort, a Change Order signed by the Contracting Officer, or Supplemental Agreement signed by both the Contracting Officer and the Contractor will be issued.


*P Insert name of program.



** In all contracts except those for SAFSP insert "Air Force Space Systems Division ISSD)." In SAFSP contracts insert "Secretary of the Air Force, Special Projects (SAFSP)."



***h Insert "SSD" or "SAFSP" as appropriate.


Attachment 6 3 March 1992

(End of Clause)

ENABLING CLAUSE FOR TECHNICAL REVIEW

a. The Air Force Space Systems Division (SSD) is responsible for management of this contract. The Air Force has entered into a contract with The Aerospace Corporation for the services of a technical group which will support the DOD program office by performing Technical Review tasks.

b. Technical Review (TR) is the process of appraising the technical performance of the contractor through meetings, exchanging information on progress and problems, reviewing reports, evaluating presentations, reviewing hardware and software, witnessing and evaluating tests, analyzing plans for future work, evaluating efforts relative to contract technical objectives, and providing comments and recommendations in writing to the Air Force Program Manager as an independent technical assessment for consideration for modifying the program or redirecting the contractors' efforts to assure timely and economical accomplishment of program objectives.

c. In the performance of this contract, the contractor agrees to cooperate with The Aerospace Corporation by responding to invitations from authorized personnel to attend meetings; by providing access to technical information and research, development and planning data such as, but not limited to, design and development analyses; test data and results; equipment and process specifications; test and test equipment specifications and procedures, parts and quality control procedures, records and data; manufacturing and assembly procedures; and schedule and milestone data, all in their original form or reproduced form and excluding financial data; by delivering data as specified in the Contract Data Requirements List: by discussing technical matters relating to this program; by providing access to contractor facilities utilized in the performance of this contract; and by allowing observation of technical activities by appropriate Aerospace technical personnel. The Aerospace personnel engaged in review effort are authorized access to any technical information pertaining to the contract.

d. The contractor further agrees to include in each subcontract a clause requiring compliance by the subcontractor and succeeding levels of subcontractors with the response and access provisions of paragraph (c) above, subject to coordination with the contractor. This agreement does not relieve the contractor of responsibility to manage the subcontracts effectively and efficiently nor is it intended to establish privity of contract between the Government or The Aerospace Corporation and such subcontractors.

e. The Aerospace Corporation personnel are not authorized to direct the contractor in any manner. The contractor agrees to accept technical direction as follows:

1. Technical direction under this contract will be given to the contractor solely by SSD.

2. Whenever it becomes necessary to modify the contract and redirect the effort, a Change Order signed by the Contracting Officer, or a Supplemental Agreement signed by both the Contracting Officer and the Contractor will be issued.

(End of Clause)