6. 2 Operations Support and Sustainment Technologies Phase II (OSST-II)
Added: May 03, 2010 1:23 pm This synopsis is for a noncommercial engineering effort for the Aviation Applied Technology Directorate (AATD), U. S. Army Aviation and Missile Research, Development and Engineering Center, ATTN. CCAM-RDT, 401 Lee Blvd., Ft. Eustis, Virginia 23604-5 577. POC Ms Sandra Schuck, Contract Specialist, 757-878-4819. The Aviation Applied Technology Directorate (AATD) is soliciting technical and cost proposals to conduct a 6.2 Research & Development program as described below. Proposals are required to be submitted in accordance with the guidelines set forth herein. This Broad Agency Announcement constitutes the total solicitation. There will be no other solicitation issued in regard to this requirement. Offerors should be alert for any BAA amendments that may permit extensions to the proposal submission date. This announcement is an expression of interest only and does not commit the Government to pay any proposal preparation costs. No pre-proposal conference is to be held.INTRODUCTION The Army desires to transition its aviation fleet to Condition Based Maintenance (CBM), as directed by the DoD Logistics Transformation Strategy and the Army CBM Plus Plan. This BAA is responsive to the Armys plan to mature embedded diagnostics and prognostics for CBM. Current maintenance is reactive to faults, not proactive, resulting in an excessive logistics support burden and high operations and sustainment (O&S) costs. The Army science and technology (S&T) goal to decrease O&S cost by reducing maintenance supports this transition to CBM. The Operations Support and Sustainment Technologies Phase II (OSST-II) program will develop and demonstrate diagnostic, prognostic, and system health assessment technologies to support the Army goal and enable transition to a CBM based philosophy. Specific OSST-II objectives are reduction of inspections and preventative maintenance, expansion of serviceability criteria, extension of life or time between overhaul, and prediction of failure with sufficient fidelity to allow scheduling of maintenance. Many technical opportunities exist to enable implementing condition based maintenance; however there are several key technical challenges. High fault detection accuracy needs to be achieved with minimal false alarms. A wide range of aircraft components and failure modes need to be monitored with limited sensor data and a minimal weight penalty. Accurate estimates of remaining useful life for components across varying usage and environment are required. Open systems architecture and use of common data standards are required. Aircraft integration of on-board data collection, processing, and storage shall be considered. This program will result in a series of technologies that can be transitioned to support the implementation of CBM. For this program transition is defined as the continuation of technology development tough a future Advanced Technology Demonstration for potential fielding on current and future Army rotorcraft. This OSST-II BAA is limited to 6.2 Applied Research. Efforts under this BAA will develop and mature promising technologies that enable an assessment of health or integrity obtained from sensors and other data sources to improve diagnostics and prognostics capabilities. Tough this effort, technologies are expected to be matured to a TRL 4 (Component and/or breadboard validation in laboratory environment). Testing shall be conducted to demonstrate the accuracy and robustness of developed technologies. A follow-on competitive 6.3 effort to continue development and demonstrate the 2016 Army S&T O&S metrics is anticipated to start in FY14. The 2016 S&T O&S metrics are 65% Reduction in Inspections/ Flight Hour, 15% Reduction in Maintenance Labor/ Flight Hour, 20% Increase in Component Mean Time Between Removals, less than 3% False Removal Rates, and 25 Hour Detection Time Before Failure measured against a 2005 fielded aircraft baseline, plus a 10% Reduction in System and Installation Cost and 10% Reduction in System Weight measured against current systems. REQUIREMENTS. Technical Description. The Government is seeking OSST-II solutions that reduce the future maintenance burden, reduce O&S costs, and enable implementation of CBM methodologies. Specifically, the Government desires to advance the state-of-the-art by investing in the development of technologies to allow. reduction of inspections and preventative maintenance; expansion of serviceability criteria; extension of life or time between overhaul; and prediction of failure with sufficient fidelity to allow scheduling of maintenance. Six rotorcraft technology areas, listed below, are identified as investment areas for OSST-II Applied Research. Technology area investments are expected to contribute to the 2016 S&T O&S metrics, but are not required to achieve the metrics in total. Offerors shall describe in their proposal a clear path for transition and quantifiable operations and support benefits, relative to the 2016 metrics. Propulsion System . Turboshaft engine maintenance is a significant cost driver in rotorcraft operations and has a large impact on aircraft safety, reliability, and readiness. Efforts in this technical area should further develop prognostic capabilities for propulsion components using novel algorithms and sensor designs while minimizing sensor and wiring weight. Efforts shall further develop the ability to determine the RUL (remaining useful life) of engine mechanical components, controls, sensors, lubrication, and wiring, and provide feedback for mission planning and maintenance scheduling. Lube System and mechanical components tend to be a high cost on over-all maintenance drivers. A means to better track and predict lube system health would be of benefit. Consideration should also be given to prognostics/RUL for electric accessories applicable to future engine designs. Drives System. Efforts shall focus on prognosis of mechanical failures. Much effort has been put into detecting gear and bearing failures tough vibration, as well as detecting gearbox housing corrosion. Proposed tasks shall extend the current work to develop prognostic methods with improved accuracy. Models capable of simulating drive system faults are needed in order to reduce time required for testing. Efforts shall be designed so that they can be integrated into a current Army health monitoring system. Reduction of additional hardware weight (such as separate data collection boxes, and wiring) is needed.Electrical System. Efforts shall focus on the prognosis of electrical components and wiring. Electric components are currently replaced when functionality is lost. Failure is treated as an event with no consideration for levels of degradation or functional margins. Prognosis of electrical components is needed with health indications for the internal component state, the quality of output and impact on the overall system. The burden of maintaining aircraft wiring is increasing due to the cumulative effects of fleet aging, normal repair activity and system modifications. Technologies for health management of wiring are needed to reduce this burden. System level models are needed that account for both wiring and electrical component health and tolerance to degradation. Structures. Structural maintenance labor and cost will be reduced tough more durable and damage tolerant structures and managing the helicopters structural integrity. To enable implementation of damage tolerance methodology and CBM, Applied Research is needed to develop and mature technologies that determine structural health and predict service life remaining (with some confidence interval) of airframe primary structural components (e.g. beams, frames, stringers). Validation of the developed technologies on a representative airframe structural component is expected. To maximize technology transition potential as well as minimize cost and aircraft weight penalty, solutions should address. (1) Wide-area monitoring of loads, damage, and environment tough virtual or hybrid approaches that require little to no dedicated structural health monitoring (SHM) sensors. (2) Multipurpose and/or multifunctional data sources (potentially sensor nodes) capable of detecting a variety of damages and conditions tough data interpretation. (3) Advanced algorithms capable of fusing available on-board data sources (e.g. HUMS, other aircraft diagnostic systems, bused aircraft state data) with a minimal number of dedicated SHM sensors to accurately derive the local / global health and determine the structural integrity status. (4) System level footprint and performance, to include size, weight, processing, durability, system reliability, and probability of detection. The intent of this effort is to develop the capability to assess the structural integrity of an airframe without creating the burden of numerous single purpose sensors and their associated equipment. Offerors are strongly encouraged to take advantage of currently available technologies (sensors, algorithms) and existing aircraft data sources wherever possible. Rotors System. Rotor blade de-icing systems on Army rotorcraft consist of embedded resistive heater blankets, power distribution units, slip rings, controllers, temperature sensors, and other components. De-icing systems are problematic and maintenance intensive. In some cases, the de-icing system is completely disabled in order to avoid the maintenance burden, resulting in a limited operational environment for the aircraft. False indications of de-icing system failure are also a problem. The Army desires reliable, accurate, on-board fault detection toughout the entire de-icing system that indicates the health of the de-icing system and its components, and eliminates false indications. Research and development of active components (e.g. trailing edge flaps, leading edge slats, and active trim tab) to significantly improve next-generation rotor system performance is ongoing. These systems utilize different types of actuators, such as electromechanical or piezoelectric, require power and data transfer, generate heat that can potentially harm adjacent components, and are exposed to a hostile operating environment (sand, rain, high centrifugal force). These systems may be used for primary flight control, making the actuators and other components flight critical. Therefore, the Army desires technology that can monitor the health of various types of active rotor components in order to ensure constant safe flight operations and timely maintenance actions to sustain safe flight. Vehicle Management System. Vehicle Management System (VMS) components are transitioning to a more digital control realm that will introduce unique maintenance requirements. The intent of this effort is to minimize unique maintenance requirements for digital VMS components (e.g. computers, inceptors, control units, actuators, and software) and the number, frequency, and amount of time required to perform maintenance actions for the VMS legacy components. Expected unique digital component characteristics that will require maintenance actions within a digital VMS architecture should be addressed in the proposal. This effort should. (1) develop technology to diagnose and prognose the health of VMS components in order to minimize maintenance actions on the proposed components; and (2) develop methodology(s) to validate and verify these developed technologies. If this technology development addresses individual digital VMS components, the interaction of these components at the VMS level also needs to be addressed. Deliverable Items. All awards will require delivery of the following data items or deliverables. (1) Program Plan, (2) Bi-Monthly Progress, Cost and Performance Reports, (3) Final Report, (4) Final Briefing at Ft. Eustis, (5) Design Review Briefing Charts, (6) Test Plans, (7) Test Reports, and may require (8) Software Development Plan, and (9) Software Requirements Specification. (Note. Each of these items shall be delivered in the Offerors format). Proposal Evaluation. The selection for award will be based on a scientific and/or engineering evaluation of proposals (both technical and cost as it relates to technical effort) in accordance with the criteria set forth in this section. Proposals will be evaluated on their own merit without regard to others submitted under this announcement. 1. The extent to which affordable, comprehensive, efficient, and innovative technologies are proposed within the technology area to satisfy the OSST-II BAA objectives. This will include understanding of the problem, current technical barriers, and how the proposed solution eliminates those barriers.2. The merit of the Offerors proposed approach to develop and demonstrate the proposed technologies. This includes the reasonableness of the proposed tasks, schedule, and approach to accomplish the scientific and technical objectives.3. The benefit of the proposed technologies toward meeting the 2016 S&T O&S metrics and enabling transition to an Advanced Technology Demonstration for potential fielding on current and future Army rotorcraft. This includes a clear and reasonable path to transition the technology, and the efficiency and feasibility (e.g. weight and number of sensors /systems) of the proposed technologies.4. The capability of the Offeror to accomplish the proposed effort. This includes the experience and qualifications of the proposed personnel, the suitability of the proposed facilities, and the availability (or the ability to generate) of required technical and test data to validate the technology. 5. The reasonableness and realism of the proposed cost to the Government. The proposed cost will be analyzed to determine whether the proposed cost elements (man-hours, labor categories, materials, travel, and other costs) are realistic for the work to be performed; reflect a clear understanding of the requirements; and are consistent with the unique methods of performance and materials described in the Offeror's technical proposal.Security Requirements. Unclassified, subject to export controls. Performance will require access to and/or generation of technical data the export of which is restricted by the Arms Export Control Act (Title 22, U.S.C., Sec 2751, et. seq.) or the Export Administration Act of 1979, as amended, Title 50, U.S.C. App. 2401 et. seq. Prior to award, the successful Offeror(s) will be required to (if applicable) provide an Export-Controlled DoD Data Agreement certification number issued in accordance with DoD Directive 5230.25. This certification may be requested from the Defense Logistics Services Center, ATTN. DLSC-FBA Federal Center, Battle Creek, MI 49017-3084, Telephone 1-800-352-3572. Anticipated Period of Performance. Not to exceed 30 Months Total (27 technical and 3 for Data/Final Report).Other Special Requirements - Data Rights. The Government desires, at a minimum, Government Purpose Rights as defined by the DFARS, to all technical data, deliverables, and computer software to be delivered, and no limitations on the use of delivered and/or residual hardware. It is the Offeror's responsibility to clearly define the proposed Governments rights. Expected Award Date. Staggered awards are possible starting in 2nd quarter FY11. Government Estimate. Available Government funding is approximately $6 million distributed by Government fiscal year as follows. FY11 $2.0M; FY12 $2.0M; FY13 $2.0M. To adequately invest in each technology area and maximize the breadth of technology developed, it is the Governments intent to make at least one award in each of the technology areas. If no proposal is deemed meritorious within a technology area, the Government reserves the right to make no awards in that technology area. Government Furnished Property and Data. It is the Offeror's responsibility to identify, coordinate, and furnish supporting documentation for use of any Government furnished equipment or property. No government furnished data will be provided. Offerors must have access to or be capable of generating the data required to develop and validate the algorithms or systems proposed. Type of Funding Instrument. A variety of funding instruments are available pursuant to this announcement depending upon the proposed effort, the entity submitting the successful proposal(s), and statutory and regulatory requirements the Government must satisfy. Such instruments include conventional contracts subject to the Federal Acquisition Regulation, as supplemented, and Technology Investment Agreements (TIA) (Cooperative Agreement under 10 U.S.C 2358) or Other Transaction (OT) for Research (10 U.S.C. 2371), which are more flexible than traditional Government funding instruments. Under TIA's or OT(s) it is DoD policy to obtain, to the maximum extent practical, cost sharing of half of the cost of the project to ensure the recipient has a vested interest in the project's success. Cost participation may be in the form of cash or in-kind contributions, where cash is considered of significantly higher quality in demonstrating commitment to the project. Cost participation will be considered in accordance with the DoD Grant and Agreement Regulations, DoD 3210.6-R paragraph 34.13 (Cooperative Agreement) (but also see paragraph 37.530 pertaining to Other Transactions for Research) accessible at the following link. http.//www.dtic.mil/whs/directives/corres/pdf/321006r34p.pdf. Contract type is a subject for negotiation, but the Offerors desire should be clearly stated in the cost proposal. Size Status. NAICS Code 541712 and number of employees are 1500. Due to the complexity and technical considerations of this program, this solicitation is not set-aside for small businesses. Notice to Foreign Owned Firms. Participation in this program is limited to U.S. Firms as Prime Contractors; however, Subcontractors may be foreign owned. Preparation & Submission Instructions. The proposal shall consist of two volumes, a technical volume and a cost volume. Under the BAA process, the Government selects proposal(s) for possible award prior to any discussions with the offeror. Therefore, the Government advises prospective offerors to present a clear, concise, complete and competitive proposal that responds to all the requirements in this combined solicitation/synopsis. The Government reserves the right to select for award only a portion of an Offerors proposal or the total proposed effort. AATD encourages and promotes teaming arrangements with research organizations to include academia, industry, and small businesses in order to achieve a mix of relevant expertise and capabilities for executing OSST-II 6.2 research and development efforts. The volumes shall be separate and complete so that evaluation of one may be accomplished independently of, and concurrently with, evaluation of the other. In addition, technical and cost proposals are due on the same date. Technical Volume. The proposed technical volume shall provide an analysis that justifies the selection of the technologies proposed, benefits of the proposed technology relative to the 2016 S&T O&S metrics, and a plan to develop, mature, and transition the technology. The technical volume shall also include a clear statement of the technical objectives and the specific approach to be pursued and supporting background experience. It shall contain a Statement of Work (SOW), milestones, a biographical section describing key personnel, a description of the facilities and/or data sources to be employed in the effort, and a program management section. Offerors shall identify and substantiate the beginning and ending Technology Readiness Levels. The technical volume shall not exceed 20 pages (minimum 12-point font). Cost Volume. The offerors shall indicate the proposed funding instrument (e.g., FAR-based contract and type (cost-plus-fixed-fee, cost reimbursable, etc.) or TIA) and the proposed intellectual property rights extended to the Government for deliverable technical and the data restrictions for offeror-owned non-deliverable data used in support of the effort. For consistency, the offeror shall submit other than cost or pricing data in the format suggested by FAR 15.403-5(b)(1), or in contractors format containing the information outlined below, together with supporting breakdowns The supporting schedules may include summary level estimating rationale used to generate the proposed costs. Information such as historical cost information, judgment, analogy to other similar efforts, etc. are generally accepted methods of projecting labor expenditures. Purchase order history, catalog prices, vendor quotations, firm negotiated values, engineering estimates, etc. are generally accepted methods of projecting material requirements. The proposal validity period should be identified. The cost proposal shall not contain overflow of information suited for the technical proposal. The offeror shall assure any overlap of data, (such as man-hours) does not conflict between the cost and technical proposal. In the case of any conflict between the two, information in the cost proposal will take precedence. The Cost Proposal should include the following. (1) Funding. A funding profile by month by Government fiscal year task to compare to the Governments funding profile. If proposing a cost share, display that share with the particular government funding and fiscal year.(2) Pricing breakdowns. The Cost breakdowns shall be presented in two formats; a) Total Program Level. Present all costs by cost category (including applicable rates and factors) by year (calendar or contractor year used to develop proposed rates and factors). b) Task Level. Present all costs by cost category by task level by Government fiscal year.(3) Subcontractor Costs. The offeror shall submit all subcontractor cost proposals and its proposal analyses with the cost proposal. Subcontractor proposals, if applicable, shall include all the same pricing requirements and be provided concurrent with the prime contractors submission or due to any proprietary nature of the proposal, the subcontractor can submit the more detailed proposal directly to the Government. On all subcontracts and interdivisional transfers, provide the method of selection used to determine the subcontractor and the proposed contract type of each subcontract. An explanation shall be provided if the offeror proposes a different amount than that quoted by the subcontractor.Provide Separate Summary Tables for the following cost elements. (1) Man-hours. Provide a summary table that shows man-hours by task by fiscal year without cost detail. Assure these documented man-hours do not conflict with the proposed man-hours in the technical proposal. (2) Rates and Factors. Provide a rate table by year for all labor and overhead rates and pricing factors. If Forward Pricing Rate Agreement (FPRA) is in existence, that should be included, along with the Administrative Contracting Officers (ACO's) contact information. (3) Material/Equipment. Identify material and equipment to be purchased by description, quantities and unit prices as well as the basis for the estimated cost, e.g. vendor quote, engineering estimate, etc. (4) Special Tooling or Test Equipment. When special tooling, and/or test equipment is proposed include a brief description of items. Identify whether they are solely for the performance of this particular contract or project the availability if not available in the offeror's existing facilities. Indicate quantities, unit prices, whether items are to be purchased or fabricated. Small Business Subcontracting Plan (Not applicable if proposing award under a non-FAR instrument i.e., a Technology Investment Agreement or Small Business offerors). Pursuant to the requirements of FAR part 19.702(a) (1), if the total amount of the proposal exceeds $550,000, and there are subcontracting possibilities, offerors must submit a subcontracting plan. FAR part 52.219-9 defines a subcontracting plan and its requirements. Offerors shall incorporate the subcontracting plan as part of the offerors proposal submission. DFARS 226.370-8 discuss subcontracting incentives and goals with the Historically Black Colleges and Universities and Minority Institutions. DFARS 219.708(b)(1)(A) and (B), discusses the appropriate use of DFARS Clauses 252.219-7003 and 252.219-7004 in solicitations and contracts related to small, small disadvantaged and women-owned small business subcontracting plans. General Information. Proposals should be marked with the solicitation number W911W6-10-R-0005 and shall be submitted in four paper copies and electronic format on disc (PDF or MS Word). To avoid a sizable hard copy cost volume, the offerors may submit backup information (i.e. supplier quotes, basis of estimates, and additional pricing data/analysis) only on the CDs and reference in the Table of Contents contained in the hardcopy version. The hardcopy will reference the CD for the cost details. Offerors shall submit the proposal to the Aviation Applied Technology Directorate, Attn. CCAM-RDT (Sandra Schuck), Fort Eustis, VA 23604-5577, by July 5, 2010, 3.00pm EST. Facsimile and electronic proposal submission is not authorized under this Announcement. Proposals submitted after the closing date will be handled in accordance with FAR 52.215-1, Instructions to OfferorsCompetitive Acquisition. Unless otherwise specified, proposals will be considered valid for Government acceptance tough 30 April 2011. Offerors can contact AATD to ask for solicitation clarification. All questions must be emailed to the Contract Specialist at sandra.schuck@us.army.mil. Oral explanations or instructions given before the award under this BAA will not be binding. Questions received less than 2 weeks prior to the proposal receipt date may not be addressed. Any information given to a prospective Offeror concerning this Announcement, which is necessary in submitting an offer or the lack of which would be prejudicial to any other prospective Offeror(s), will be published as an amendment to this Announcement.
W911W6-10-R-0005 Department of the Army Materiel Command Research Development and Engineering Command
5/3/10, 1:23 PM