DOD SOW feedback request - Open Systems

People,
The US DOD is requesting feedback on a draft Statement of Work
which I've included below. I would appreciate any suggestions on ways
to improve the SOW to simultaneously meet their and SPI's objectives.
I also welcome suggestions on how the work/goals could be structured
such that SPI and/or SPI projects could become directly involved.

I personally have to have finished responding to them within a week
and therefore request your feedback by the middle of this week.

Thanks,
Alex.

PS. If you recognize the text below and are planning to respond,
please decide whether your issues would be more convincingly
portrayed if you alone mention them or if I also mention them
... before sending them to me for incorporation with my items!

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

Statement of Work (SoW) for Task 7:

"Interfaces, Standards and Interoperability & Open Systems Architecture (OAS)"

General

Interoperability and the production of cost effective combat systems require standards on functionality and interfaces of subsystems, IT-infrastructure and software components. These requirements are summarized in the catchword "open system architecture"

One definition of "open system" could be:

"An open system consists of components which are in structure and functionality in line with established standards, so that it is possible to exchange these components, to add new components to the system and to integrate the system itself into more comprehensive systems."

This means: a system can be defined by its functionality (e.g. operational requirements on system/ subsystem level), its implementation principles (e.g. NOSE model, ISO/ OSI model) and by its physical design (e.g. graphics, ATM or Ethernet network). These three definition levels have to be standardised to a sufficient degree.

One major cost factor in the life cycle costs of a combat system is the C2 system. Costs could be reduced when the interfaces to the subsystems (e.g. sensors, weapons) and the C2 system itself could be standardized in functionality/ allocation of functionality to functional clusters, implementation and physical design.

Statement of Work

The following action items are planned to be performed in 2 phases:

1.) Phase I

a.Produce an overview of existing standards on functional, implementation and physical level for combat systems integration of offboard vehicles.
b.Evaluate the suitability of the existing standards focused on offboard vehicle integration with future combat systems, to be designed as "open systems" and going into service in about 5 to 10 years. Focus on the interface requirements for the integration of a control element of an UAV as an example for a generic interface.

2.) Phase II (if executed)

a.Define requirements on the functional implementation and messaging standards to improve the existing suitable standards or, if necessary, for new standards to be used in future combat systems, designed as open systems.
b.Develop a conceptual architecture for an open (C2) system for a littoral small ship based on available products (as far as possible) and/or identify necessary developments. Feed results to the study on "Modular Mission Concept" (ICO LSST task 2) as available. .
c.Describe the basic conditions for the feasibility of an "open system architecture".

Deliverables

Phase I

Interim report on the existing AUV standards, their suitability for the design of open systems and necessary further development (results of items 1a-b) for integration with combat systems. The report is subject to review by the customer.

Phase II

Interim report on the open (C2) system for littoral small ship and the basic conditions for the feasibility of an open system architecture (results of items 2 a-c) to be reviewed by the customer.

Final report on the results of items contained in Phases I & II, including the review comments of the customer.