• strict warning: Non-static method view::load() should not be called statically in /home/mcsoftampa/public_html/sites/all/modules/views/views.module on line 879.
  • strict warning: Declaration of views_handler_filter::options_validate() should be compatible with views_handler::options_validate($form, &$form_state) in /home/mcsoftampa/public_html/sites/all/modules/views/includes/handlers.inc on line 77.
  • strict warning: Declaration of views_handler_filter::options_submit() should be compatible with views_handler::options_submit($form, &$form_state) in /home/mcsoftampa/public_html/sites/all/modules/views/includes/handlers.inc on line 77.
  • strict warning: Declaration of views_plugin_row::options_validate() should be compatible with views_plugin::options_validate(&$form, &$form_state) in /home/mcsoftampa/public_html/sites/all/modules/views/includes/handlers.inc on line 77.
  • strict warning: Declaration of views_plugin_row::options_submit() should be compatible with views_plugin::options_submit(&$form, &$form_state) in /home/mcsoftampa/public_html/sites/all/modules/views/includes/handlers.inc on line 77.
SOMPE Project

SOMPE Project

MCS teamed with L3 Communications - L-3 STRATIS (formerly Enterprise IT Solutions) division to address USSOCOM’s need for a configuration management (CM) system provide a logical model of infrastructure (software, hardware and services) and a means of maintaining control over these items through effective incident, problem, change and release management at 10 different locations throughout the CONUS. The project was executed in two phases in a period of performance of nine months

  • Phase I was a six month effort that included eliciting requirements, determining configuration items (CIs), conducting an RFI and subsequent evaluation of candidate CM systems for implementation on the Department of Defense NIPRnet.  MCS recommended the implementation of a specific CM system based on the testing and evaluation of that system against the Use Case scenarios developed from the requirements.  The selected CM tool was then installed, configured and loaded with the client’s CI data.  A pilot (test bed) was then conducted by the customer on the customer’s premises.  After a successful pilot, the CM System was approved for implementation, thus marking the end of Phase I of the project.
  • Key deliverables during and at the end of this phase included:
  • Scope Statement and Project Charter
  • Integrated Master Schedule (IMS)
  • Status reports (Cost Performance, Contract Funds Status, Progress and Management)
  • CM System Selection Methodology and Evaluation Criteria
  • CM System Testing Methodology and Test Results
  • CI definitions and relationships
  • Implementation Strategy and Schedule
  • Draft CM System CONOPs
  • Updated Policies and Procedures
  • Test Plans (T&E)
  • CM Evaluation/Demo (T&E)
  • Phase II was a three month effort in which the CM  solution recommended and approved in Phase I was  integrated into the customer’s existing mission planning environment.  The customer’s onsite configuration manager and field personnel were trained to use the configuration management tool.

 

  • Key deliverables during and at the end of this phase included:
  • Status reports
  • Security Risk Assessment
  • Test Report (T&E)
  • Training
  • A fielded and operational CM System
  • Finalized CM System CONOPS
  • Systems diagrams and database configuration baselines
  • All prepared training and briefing documentation
  • A “Way Ahead” strategy
  • Closeout report