(Amendment 1) NRA- HyTEC.pdf

NATIONAL AERONAUTICS AND SPACE

ADMINISTRATION (NASA)

NASA Hybrid Thermally Efficient Core (HyTEC) Project

NASA Glenn Research Center (GRC) NASA Research Announcement (NRA) for

Phase 1 – Technology Development

ANNOUNCEMENT NUMBER: 80GRC021N0001

Amendment 1- 4/23/2021 (Removes Provision GRC 52.235-91)

ISSUED: March 25, 2021

KEY DATES

Questions Due: 5:00 PM, EDT, April 20, 2021

Proposals Due: 5:00 PM, EDT, May 11, 2021

Hybrid Thermally Efficient Core (HyTEC) – 80GRC021N0001

Table of Contents

1. INTRODUCTION

2. BACKGROUND

3. HYTEC PROJECT GOALS AND TECHNICAL MEASUREMENTS

3.1. Measures of Effectiveness (MOE)

3.2. Measures of Performance (MOP)

3.3. Key Performance Parameter (KPP)

3.4. Technical Performance Measures (TPM)

3.5. Additional Considerations

4. TECHNOLOGY DEVELOPMENT AREAS/ DESCRIPTION OF SOLICITED TOPICS

4.1. High Pressure Compressor Technologies

4.2. High Pressure Turbine Technologies

4.3. Combustion Technologies

5. APPROACH

5.1. Project Management

5.2. Design

5.3. Fabrication and Assembly

5.4. Technology Development and Testing

5.5. Technology Assessment

6. EXPECTED OUTCOMES AND DELIVERABLES

7. INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY

8. REVIEWS AND REPORTING

9. ELIGIBILITY INFORMATION

9.1. Eligibility

9.2. Other Eligibility Limitations

9.3. Number of proposals and Teaming Arrangements

9.4. Cost Proposal

9.5. Proposed Use of Unique NASA Capabilities

9.6. Cost Sharing

9.7. Programmatic Considerations

10. PROPOSAL AND SUBMISSION INFORMATION

10,1. Instructions for Proposals (1852.215-81 Proposal Page Limitations (APR 2015))

11. PROPOSAL REVIEW INFORMATION

11.1. Evaluation Criteria

11.2. Partial Awards and Participation with Others

12. PROVISIONS

13. SUMMARY OF KEY INFORMATION

15. LIST OF ATTACHMENTS

Appendix A. Technology Readiness Levels (TRL) Definitions

OVERVIEW

This is a Glenn Research Center (GRC) Center-Level NASA Research Announcement (NRA) issued in accordance with NASA Federal Acquisitions Regulations (NFS) 1835.016-71. This NRA shall be used to announce research interests in support of the Hybrid Thermally Efficient Core (HyTEC) Project. Unlike a traditional Request for Proposals (RFP) containing a defined statement of work (SOW) or specification to which offerors are to respond, this NRA provides for the submission of competitive project ideas, conceived by the offerors, in one or more program areas of interest. Specifically, this solicitation seeks to accelerate and mature thermally efficient small core engine technology concepts to TRL 4-5 and reduce the developmental risks by 2023 (See Section 4 for further information). Additionally, whereas a traditional RFP provides the Government’s defined SOW within Section C of the RFP, this NRA is requesting that offerors submit a Work Plan(s) as part of their proposal that, if selected, is intended to become the SOW included in Section C on any awarded contract(s). In addition, this NRA includes a model contract (see attachment A) with all potential clauses that will be included in the final contract(s) to inform offerors of NASA’s expectations to expedite contract award at the conclusion of this NRA.

Upon completion of the NRA proposal evaluations, NASA intends to award cost-share contract(s) to offerors who best meet the goals set forth in this NRA. In accordance with NFS 1835.016-71(d)(4), a competitive range will not be established, and final proposal revisions shall not be requested/accepted. If an offeror’s proposal is selected at the conclusion of the Final NRA evaluation period, NASA will advise the offeror that the Government intends on entering into negotiations, and will follow up with a contract that includes (if necessary), modifications contemplated in the offeror's Work Plan(s), and request agreement or identification of any exceptions. NASA will request the offeror to complete and return certifications and representations and Standard Form 33, Solicitation, Offer, and Award. If FAR 52.219-9, Small Business Subcontracting Plan, is required for the resultant contract, the offeror shall provide a subcontracting plan. Any necessary negotiations will be conducted in accordance with FAR Subparts 15.3 and 15.4.

Issuing Office: NASA Glenn Research Center

Procurement Division, MS 60-1 21000 Brookpark Road Cleveland, OH 44135-3127

Agency Contact:

Ashlee B. Shaw, Contracting Officer, Phone – (216) 433-2916, Email – ashlee.b.shaw@nasa.gov

Alternate Contact:

Ian C. Park, Contracting Officer, Phone – (216) 433-3130, Email – ian.park@nasa.gov

1. INTRODUCTION

As part of the NASA Advanced Air Vehicles Program (AAVP), a new project is being formulated called HyTEC in which NASA intends to accelerate the development of small turbofan engine core technologies, culminating in an advanced core ground demonstration in the 2026 timeframe. NASA intends to collaborate with industry in a cost sharing arrangement to accelerate key technologies that can strengthen the U.S. industry’s position on small cores for a future single-aisle aircraft. NASA has identified candidate technology areas for this collaboration. These individual technologies are related to the High Pressure Compressor (HPC), High Pressure Turbine (HPT), and Combustor. HyTEC’s first phase will focus on the development of these individual technologies through subsystem or component tests. These efforts will accelerate and mature the needed technologies to Technology Readiness Levels (TRL) of 4-5. The second phase intends to integrate TRL 4-5 technologies into a full engine core to demonstrate a functional high power-density small core at TRL 6 no later than 2026. TRL definitions can be found in Appendix A. In addition, HyTEC has an approved and planned TRL 5 turbofan power extraction demonstration activity. However, it is NASA’s desire to link hybrid technologies into the small core demonstration wherever possible.

This solicitation focuses only on Phase 1 of the HyTEC effort. NASA seeks to enter into cost share contracts with U.S. industry for the initial development of key small core technologies to a TRL 4-5 by 2023 that can then be incorporated into future small core demonstrations thereafter.

In collaboration with turbine engine manufacturers, NASA seeks to invest in aggressive, impactful technologies that align with the NASA goals. NASA believes this collaboration and investment are crucial for developing a small core engine technology portfolio that ensures the next single-aisle aircraft achieves maximum fuel burn reduction with improvements in efficiency, durability, performance, and hybridization, and has timely Entry into Service (EIS).

[End of Section]

2. BACKGROUND

The NASA Aeronautics Research Mission Directorate (ARMD) is in the planning stages of an integrated subsonic technology strategy to improve commercial transport market sustainability and U.S. competitiveness by dramatically reducing aircraft fuel burn and associated emissions.

The approach focuses on accelerating the development and demonstration of commercial subsonic transport aircraft technologies during the 2020’s to impact the next generation of commercial transports beginning in the early 2030’s. Prior research and development identified a suite of key technologies with significant potential benefits but is beyond the risk threshold of industry alone for next generation transports: ultra-efficient, high aspect ratio wings such as the transonic truss-braced wing; lightweight composite airframes enabled by high-rate manufacturing approaches; electrified aircraft propulsion; and high-power density, small core gas turbine engines.

NASA ARMD plans to partner with U.S. industry and regulators to enable the highest likelihood of adoption and resulting fleet impact. NASA/industry partnerships will require data rights and intellectual property consideration that implements an appropriate balance between wide dissemination and protecting competitiveness. NASA ARMD intends to facilitate coordination and integration of this research and development strategy across technologies and organizations to address these needs and achieve the highest impact. NASA plans to use model-based systems analysis and engineering as a central integration hub among separate technology development and demonstration efforts addressing these key technologies. Each technology development and demonstration effort will encourage the use of model-based engineering approaches for execution efficiencies, data transfer, and technology validation.

The HyTEC Project is part of this overall subsonic transport technology strategy that focuses on the development and demonstration of high-power density, small core gas turbine engine technologies. HyTEC’s focus on these small core technologies will provide direct benefits to the next single-aisle class aircraft in terms of thermal efficiency, as well as integrate with other technologies, through increased hybridization, as they mature to provide substantial continuous fuel burn reductions during the aircraft lifecycle. These advances will strengthen the US position in the commercial aviation engine market, and enable cost benefits in commercial aviation, while simultaneously reducing adverse environmental impacts to society.

KPP-4 Durability, measured in operating hours between major refurbishment

Exceed SOA by 5%

Meet SOA of baseline

KPP-5

Degree of hybridization measured by level of power extraction from the turbofan engine at altitude

20% 10%

KPP-6 HPC Exit Corrected Flow < 3 lbm/s < 3.5 lbm/s

3.4. Technical Performance Measures (TPM)

Technical Performance Measures (TPMs) are a set of performance measures that will monitor progress and identify deficiencies that may jeopardize meeting the MOPs.

The offeror is expected to define the TPM’s for each technology proposed. The TPM(s) shall be identified and an estimate of the technology’s contribution to the appropriate KPP’s in Table 3 shall be provided. These TPMs should include a range to meet the full and minimum KPP.

3.5. Additional Considerations

To align with the next generation single-aisle aircraft, any technologies developed under HyTEC shall have a direct path to a core ground demonstration of an engine for that aircraft class.

Therefore, the technologies shall have a direct path to a future product, which is assumed to have the following characteristics: ~180 passengers, with a minimum range of 1,500nm and requiring a thrust of 25,000 – 35,000 lbf.

Utilizing the OEM’s vision of a turbofan engine to meet the requirements for the next generation single aisle aircraft, the technology development proposed to this NRA shall show traceability via systems analysis to the MOEs, MOPs and KPPs in Section 3.

NASA intends to focus the HyTEC portfolio of technologies to those that require NASA involvement. The intention of this effort is to invest in aggressive, impactful small core turbofan technologies with development risk, and raise their TRL levels to 4-5 no later than 2023.

Proposers shall demonstrate that NASA investment is needed to address and reduce the risks to increase the ability for that technology to be integrated into the next EIS engine. The use of NASA expertise and/or facilities alone is not sufficient, as those can be provided through reimbursable Space Act Agreements.

4. TECHNOLOGY DEVELOPMENT AREAS/ DESCRIPTION OF SOLICITED

TOPICS

This solicitation seeks to accelerate and mature thermally efficient small core engine technology concepts to TRL 4-5 and reduce the developmental risks by 2023. HyTEC is interested in technologies that can be integrated into the next single-aisle aircraft engine with improvements in efficiency, durability, performance, and hybridization. For each technology proposed, the technical performance measurement(s) shall be identified and an estimate of the technology’s contribution to the appropriate KPP’s in Table 3 shall be provided.

Specifically, this solicitation is intended to identify and execute TRL 4-5 technology development in the following topic areas. Proposed research activities must tie to a specific subtopic (e.g., 4.2.1 HPT Advanced Aerodynamics).

4.1. High Pressure Compressor Technologies

The HPC technology areas listed below seek to address key challenges of small core, high overall pressure ratio (OPR) compressors, consistent with the goals and metrics in Section 3. As the core size reduces, there are increased losses contributed by tip clearances, blade thickness, cavity flows, and leakage flows that will require technologies to recover performance and operability.

Over the last several years, NASA has made significant investments in loss mitigation strategies through both in-house and collaborative efforts. The HPC topics listed below build on the NASA in-house capabilities and expertise.

4.1.1. HPC Front Block Aerodynamic Optimization

Demonstrate, via pre-test predictions and rotating component testing, HPC performance and operability improvements for high OPR engine cycles, by advancing aerodynamic design and incorporating advanced technologies in the forward stages of the HPC. These may include unconventional architectures and design features such as casing treatments, advancing airfoil shapes, and other advanced HPC technologies with emphasis on:

managing highly loaded transonic front-stages for aeromechanic stability and operability, minimizing variable geometry, and more efficient stage matching for overall HPC performance enhancement contributing to a 5-percent fuel burn reduction in the engine core.

4.1.2. HPC Rear Block Aerodynamic Optimization

Demonstrate, via pre-test predictions and rotating component testing, HPC performance and operability improvements for high OPR engine cycles, by advancing aerodynamic design and incorporating advanced technologies in the aft stages of the HPC. These may include unconventional architectures and design features such as casing treatments, advancing airfoil shapes, and other advanced HPC technologies with emphasis on:

reducing the inherent losses due to relatively larger clearances, addressing design/manufacturing constraints that prohibit simple geometric scaling of larger cores, managing operability, and managing higher temperatures for overall HPC performance enhancement contributing to a 5-percent fuel burn in the engine core.

4.2. High Pressure Turbine Technologies

The HPT technology areas listed below address key challenges to increasing small core thermal efficiency, consistent with the goals and metrics in Section 3. To achieve an increase in thermal efficiency, turbine temperatures will be increased, placing an emphasis on high-temperature Ceramic Matrix Composite (CMC) materials. NASA has been conducting research to understand the aerodynamic, thermal and structural properties of cooled CMC blades through both in-house and collaborative efforts. Additionally, the small core engines drive increases in tip and end-wall losses, which is another area of past NASA investment. The HPT topics listed below would leverage NASA capabilities and expertise in materials and turbine technology.

4.2.1. HPT Advanced Aerodynamics

Develop and demonstrate optimized aerodynamic performance throughout the HPT in order to improve thermodynamic cycle performance. Identify geometry effects, secondary and cooling flow management, reduced airfoil and tip thermal loading, and optimum tip features to minimize tip losses and manage heat loads.

4.2.2. High Temperature CMC Blades

Design and evaluate in a rotating environment, cooled or un-cooled turbine blades made with a CMC/EBC system offering temperature or performance capability beyond the current state of the art. This includes advanced cooling concepts. Identify critical material and design parameters that affect the durability. Demonstrate through testing and through analysis how these parameters can be optimized for increased durability by eliminating or delaying the onset of key failure modes.

4.2.3. High Temperature CMC Vanes

Design and evaluate High Pressure Turbine vanes made from a CMC/environmental barrier coating (EBC) system with a reductions or the elimination of film cooling air flow compared to the current state of the art and with improved cycle performance. Identify critical design parameters for increased durability and compare model predictions of failure modes and durability to test results.

4.3. Combustion Technologies

The combustor technology targets the development of materials and cooling strategies that meet the small core goals without emission penalties, consistent with the goals and metrics in Section 3.

4.3.1. Combustor Materials

Design a CMC/EBC small core combustor liner with improved performance (such as reduced cooling requirements, reduced weight, and longer life) compared to the state of the art. Identify critical design features that affect performance and durability.

Demonstrate through testing and analysis how to delay the onset of damage.

5. APPROACH

The HyTEC Project’s goal is to complete the TRL 4-5 technology development activities by 2023, thereby enabling technology integration into a future TRL 6 small core ground demonstration by 2026. A two-year period of performance is anticipated for the research proposed under this announcement. Key tasks are described below and should be used for each proposed technology development activity. Task goals are to establish the technologies and technology validation plans, design and develop necessary hardware, and perform the technology development to TRL 4-5.

5.1. Project Management

Conduct the program management activities needed to supervise, direct, and manage the development of the proposed technologies to a TRL 4-5 as described in Section 4. Project management and planning tools shall be used to ensure the accomplishment of each work element in a timely manner and within budget constraints. This task includes the planning, monitoring, analysis and reporting of contractor cost, schedule and technical performance.

5.2. Design

Design and develop the proposed technologies to TRL 4-5. It is important to consider:

• Identifying and documenting requirements needed to ensure the technology design will meet the HyTEC project goals and KPPs and allows the proposed technologies to mature to TRL 4-5. This includes developing and documenting at the system and subsystem level and includes the traceability and verification methodology.

• Throughout the design, document the anticipated benefit of each technology as it relates to the HyTEC goals and metrics.

• Conduct Preliminary Design Reviews and Critical Design Reviews (final design) using Contractor tailored review entrance and success criteria from Appendix G in NASA NPR 7123.1C “NASA Systems Engineering Processes and Requirements”. Final Contractor tailored criteria requires NASA approval. All design review shall include the HyTEC Project Manager and Chief Engineer (or designee), giving the HyTEC project concurrence authority on the review content.

• For any test being conducted in a NASA Facility, contractor shall plan for providing material, in addition to supporting and participating in Government led Facility related reviews such as Facility Integration Reviews, Test Readiness Reviews and Safety Reviews.

5.3. Fabrication and Assembly

Provide the plans and process offeror will use to verify assembly, integration and verification of the technology demonstration hardware; including but not limited to communication and coordination and interfaces documentation. If NASA facilities are being utilized for the testing, coordination with the facility and NASA HyTEC test team is required.

5.4. Technology Development and Testing

Conduct the testing required to mature the technologies to a TRL 4-5 for the proposed technologies under Section 4. The component or subsystem development shall have the necessary measurements to evaluate achievement of the HyTEC technologies and TPMs; this may include having a baseline and HyTEC-modified configuration. Measurements shall be acquired to evaluate and quantify the contribution to the metrics identified in Section 3 for each proposed technology. Certain areas may be achieved by modeling and simulation in the relevant environment which should be specified in the proposal.

5.5. Technology Assessment

Conduct a technology assessment that addresses:

• Quantification of the benefits, relative to the HyTEC goals and contributed to the KPP’s identified in Section 3.3.

• Quantification of any effects of the technology on engine performance.

• Evaluation of the TRL level achieved using the TRL definitions found in Appendix A.

• Identification of risks for maturing and integrating technologies in a small core ground demonstration.

• Provide information and tools necessary for NASA to conduct an independent assessment of the technology benefits to the core engine; inclusive of utilizing the TPM’s (measured) to evaluate impact on the KPP’s in Table 3.

• Identify lessons learned and technology gaps needed to mature the technology for product insertion

• Recommendation of a timeline and key activities to further technology maturation after the conclusion TRL 4-5 Technology Development.

6. EXPECTED OUTCOMES AND DELIVERABLES

The desired deliverables of a successfully awarded contract include:

• Technology development plan o Technical performance measurements (TPMs) and methodology to assess

KPP’s, instrumentation, test facility and setup, and test points to be run o Document projections to reach TRL 4-5 and the future of reaching TRL 6

• Preliminary design review package – supporting tailored criteria (See 5.2) o Preliminary Design Review (PDR) presentation o CAD model (format to be agreed upon), facility interface documents (if requested), flow path geometry (format to be agreed upon) o Preliminary test plan

• Critical design review (Final Design) review package – supporting tailored criteria (See 5.2) o Critical Design Review (CDR) presentation o Final drawings (format to be agreed upon) and interface documentation (if requested) o Draft test plan o Draft instrumentation layout and a draft Master Measurement List (MML)

• Fabrication and assembly o Fabrication, assembly, and integration schedule o “As-built” drawings (format to be agreed upon) o If applicable, documentation to support Government led Facility related reviews such as Facility Integration Reviews, Test Readiness Reviews and Safety Reviews o Quality Assurance hardware inspection report

• Hardware and any specialized tooling delivered to NASA Facility – if applicable

• Final Test plan

• Data o Delivery of component level characteristics, operating limits, and input data that is required for system-level modeling and analysis of the proposed technologies o Test reports, including test and CFD analysis data o Pre and posttest CFD predictions, identifying potential areas of NASA participation to reduce risk by exercising off-design CFD simulations o System Model verification data/ tools necessary for NASA to evaluate the technology modeling and associated benefits

• Final Contract presentation (limited and unlimited version)

• Final Contract reports (limited and unlimited version)

All deliverables shall be delivered in the expected 24-month period of performance of the contract.

7. INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY

Data Rights. Normally, the Government has unlimited rights in technical data created under a NASA agreement. Knowledge gained about key parameters related to proposed technology, resulting from the analysis of the test data by NASA researchers, shall become the property of NASA, as long as it does not disclose company proprietary engine / rig geometry or engine-specific aerodynamic performance parameters. The knowledge gained by NASA shall be publishable and unlimited immediately after the testing and analysis is complete. Delivery or third-party licensing of proprietary software or data developed solely at private expense will not normally be required except as specifically negotiated in a particular agreement to satisfy NASA's own needs or to insure the commercialization of technology developed under a NASA agreement.

A clear statement is required of what intellectual property is expected to be available to the Government, U.S. Aeronautics Community, and Public at the conclusion of the work. It is NASA’s preference that all deliverables under the contract be provided to NASA with unrestricted/unlimited rights; thus, any restrictions must demonstrate a significant net benefit to the Government.

A model contract is provided with a sample data rights assertion in Attachment A.

Patent Rights. The Government will have certain statutory rights in an invention that is conceived or first actually reduced to practice under a NASA award. 51 U.S.C. 20135 provides that title to such inventions vests in the United States, except where 35 U.S.C. 202 provides otherwise for nonprofit organizations or small business firms. However, NASA may waive all or any part of the rights of the United States subject to certain conditions.

8. REVIEWS AND REPORTING

The desired reviews and reporting of a successfully awarded contract include:

Project Coordination

• Technical and schedule progress meeting every two weeks (or as agreed upon) remotely to assess progress

• Final Contract review

Reviews

• Kick-off review

• Life cycle reviews, tailored from NPR 7123.1C (See Section 5.2)

• Test Plan Review – with NASA concurrence on instrumentation and test points. Can be held in conjunction with other reviews

• Facility Integration Review, Test Readiness Review and Safety Review

• Pre and post test CFD and data analysis reviews for each major test configuration

Reports

• Quarterly and monthly stats reports documenting the technical, financial, and schedule progress

• Monthly and Quarterly 533 financial reports

• Final report (limited and unlimited versions) documenting the results of the entire contract, recommendations and conclusions o This report shall be prepared in accordance with NFS 1852.235-73 Final

Scientific and Technical Reports (DEC 2006)

• Final oral report and presentation materials o The final contract review shall consist of a public and Government-only review NASA requests two versions of the presentation, one with non-proprietary content suitable for presenting in a public forum and one for NASA Government review only

Data Rights Identification

Material from the reviews and the report must identify all data with the appropriate limited and unlimited rights restrictions.

9. ELIGIBILITY INFORMATION

9.1. Eligibility

Participation in this program is open to all categories of U.S. organizations, including educational institutions, industry, and not-for-profit institutions. Historically black colleges and universities, other minority universities, small disadvantaged businesses, veteran-owned small businesses, service-disabled veteran-owned small businesses, historically under-utilized business zone small businesses, and women-owned small businesses are encouraged to apply.

Participation by non-U.S. organizations is not permitted.

9.2. Other Eligibility Limitations

Proposing to more than one technology area in Section 4 simultaneously or with overlapping timeframes is permitted, provided the proposed efforts are within scope of the NRA and the recipient can carry out all proposed efforts, if selected.

9.3. Number of proposals and Teaming Arrangements

There is no restriction on the number of proposals that an organization may submit to this solicitation or on the teaming arrangements for any one proposal. However, each technical subtopic area being proposed from Section 4 must have a separate Statement of Work (SOW), schedule, and cost document for evaluation purposes. If multiple technology development activities are being proposed under one technical subtopic area, those activities must have a separate SOW, schedule, and cost document as well so each activity can be evaluated separately.

NASA recognizes and supports the benefits of having diverse and inclusive scientific, engineering, and technology communities and fully expects that such values will be reflected in the composition of all panels and teams, including peer review panels (science, engineering, and technology), proposal teams, science definition teams, and mission and instrument teams.

NASA reserves the right to select only a portion of a proposed activity, usually at a level of support reduced from that requested in the original proposal. Offerors should specify if a proposal is offered as a nonseparable package of work. Additionally, NASA may decide to award an effort for less than the full period of the proposal. In these cases, the proposer will be given the opportunity to accept or decline such selection. If the proposer accepts such an offer, a revised budget and SOW may be required before funding action on the proposal can be initiated. If the proposer declines the offer of a partial selection, or participation in a joint investigation, the offer of selection may be withdrawn in its entirety by NASA.

Teaming Arrangements with non-U.S. organizations is not permitted.

9.4. Cost Proposal

Each proposal shall provide a budget justification for each phase/year of the proposed effort and supported by appropriate details by category. Attachment B shall be used for the cost proposal submittal and contains required cost proposal details.

Cost proposal shall identify the offeror’s estimated costs. The cost share and the contributions proposed making up the cost share shall be shown. Any in-kind contributions shall be identified in the proposal. If the offeror is planning to utilize NASA testing facilities, see Section 9.5. Proposed Use of Unique NASA Capabilities for additional information required for the proposal.

9.5. Proposed Use of Unique NASA Capabilities

NASA uses a variety of specialized test facilities to achieve its mission. Any need for these specific facilities for the proposed research must be explicitly described in the proposal, including the asset, rationale and justification of the need, how it supports the investigation, and when during the proposed period the resource will be required.

If use of NASA facilities is proposed, a full-cost estimate for the use of the facilities including the costs associated with fabricating test articles, fixtures, instrumentation, and testing required shall be included in the proposed cost as provided in Attachment B.

Facility costs will be a part of the NASA HyTEC in-kind contribution. NASA will provide pricing estimate upon request to the Contracting Officers whose contact information is provided in the Document Overview. Specific time frame and duration of testing will be negotiated upon selection of a proposal. Requested facilities rates will be provided on Beta.SAM.

General information on NASA test and evaluation facilities, can be found using the websites given below.

NASA Glenn Facilities: https://www1.grc.nasa.gov/facilities/ Engine Research Building: https://www1.grc.nasa.gov/facilities/erb/ Materials and Structures: https://www1.grc.nasa.gov/facilities/#materialsstructures-facilities Propulsion Systems Laboratory: https://www1.grc.nasa.gov/facilities/psl-3/#facility-overview

9.6. Cost Sharing

Proposals to the HyTEC project should have a minimum 50/50 cost share. Contributions may be cash, noncash (in-kind) or both. Acceptable non-cash or in-kind resources include such items as equipment, facilities, labor, office space, etc. Unacceptable contributions include work currently being performed using other NASA project or other U.S. funding.

Any in-kind contributions should be identified in the proposal. If the offeror is planning to utilize NASA testing facilities, the facility costs will be considered in-kind contributions to go toward NASA’s cost share and shall be accounted for in the proposal.

NASA personnel will not be included in the in-kind contribution. More details on facility usage can be found in Section 9.5. Proposed Use of Unique NASA Capabilities above.

9.7. Programmatic Considerations

The HyTEC Project plans to invest a NASA share of ~$10.0M per year on the technical areas in Section 4 combined, starting in fiscal year 2022 (FY22). The actual number and value of the awards will depend on the quality of the proposals received. This NASA cost share includes and accounts for NASA’s in-kind test facility contribution. NASA research personnel will not be included in the cost share.

10. PROPOSAL AND SUBMISSION INFORMATION

10,1. Instructions for Proposals (1852.215-81 Proposal Page Limitations (APR 2015))

The proposal format and content requirements as outlined in this section below shall be submitted as one searchable, unlocked PDF file with edit permission enabled as well as Attachment B Cost Proposal in an unlocked Microsoft Excel file. Applicants must comply with the format and page limit requirements as described in this section.

There is a 19 MB limit for the electronic media file size for emails. Any proposal that exceeds that limit shall be submitted in multiple emails. The requested proposal electronic naming convention is as follows: Company Name – NRA #80GRC021N0001 – HyTEC.

Documents exceeding page limits for each section shall not be evaluated. A page is defined as one side of a sheet, 8 1/2" x 11" with at least one-inch margins on all sides, using not smaller than 12-point font, with the exception of tables and figures, which may use 8-point font. It is recommended that expository text necessary for the proposal not be located solely in figures or tables, or in their captions. Offerors may submit foldout pages (11” x 17” or smaller) however the fold out will be considered as two (2) 8 ½” x 11” pages. Any font that the Government determines smaller than this amount shall not be evaluated.

A separate Work Plan shall be provided in the proposal for each technical sub-topic area from Section C, including a separate schedule and cost proposal for each. If multiple technology development activities are being proposed under one technical subtopic area, those activities shall have a separate Work Plan, schedule, and cost document as well. The offeror’s Proposed Work Plan is intended to become the Statement of Work (SOW) on any awarded contract(s).

Proposal Section Page Limitations

Title Page 1 Proposer’s Executive Summary 2 Proposer’s Past Experience 3 Relevance, Potential for Implementation, and Impact 5 Technical Approach and Capabilities 10 Proposed Work Plan(s) 10 each Cost Proposal(s) No limit Signed Model Contract(s) No limit

Title Page

• Include any notice of restriction on use and disclosure of proposal information.

• An optional graphic image may be included.

• The proposer’s name of the proposal or proposed project

• Date of the proposal

• The title and solicitation number

• Organization name and address

• Proposer point of contact name, title, e-mail address, and phone number

The following two sub-sections will describe in more detail the technical and cost sections of the proposal.

10.1.1. Technical Content

A. Proposer’s Executive Summary – Describe the proposal’s prominent and distinguishing features. The executive summary should provide an overview of the proposed effort that is suitable for release through a publicly accessible archive should the proposal be selected.

B. Proposer’s Past Experience – Describe experience providing services performed in the past three (3) years that are of a similar size, scope, and complexity to the technology development proposed. Include any work related to the proposed technology area such as current and pending support.

C. Relevance, Potential for Implementation, and Impact

a. Describe how the proposed technology is relevant to the HyTEC goals and targets in Section 3. Discuss the projected benefits and tradeoff of the proposed technology.

b. Discuss the current maturity and anticipated development of the proposed technology. It will be important to discuss the basis of the TRL ranking.

Award consideration will go toward only those proposed technologies that can be matured to a TRL 4-5 by the end of the performance period.

c. Describe the proposed technology traceability to a system level integrated small core ground demonstration to achieve TRL 6 by 2026.

d. Describe the plan of the proposed technology being introduced into the next single-aisle aircraft engine in the 2030s timeframe.

e. Provide rationale as to NASA’s involvement and contribution to develop the proposed technology. For example: will NASA’s contributions help accelerate the technology, buy down risk, etc.

D. Technical Approach and Capabilities

a. Describe the technical approach to perform the proposed technology development. Include the capability to perform the work, key risks, and the facility and techniques needed to achieve the proposed objectives.

b. Describe NASA’s involvement, partnership, and insight/oversight role with the proposed technology development.

c. Identify NASA facilities and expertise needed to perform the work.

d. Describe the offeror’s team qualifications

E. Proposed Work Plan(s)

a. Describe the work plan(s) to perform the proposed technology development. This includes the use of resources, management approach, key personnel, and proposed schedule for meeting the objectives.

b. Provide a plan to mature the proposed technology to a TRL 4-5.

c. Describe desired Contract Line Item (CLIN) structure, key tasks, milestones, and deliverables. This includes the tailored Life Cycle Reviews from NASA NPR 7123.1C.

d. Describe an experimental/ analytical plan to assess progress in achieving the HyTEC metrics, including objectives with measurable metrics (Technical Performance Measures) toward achieving the proposer’s goal.

Additional information on TPMs can be found in 3.4.

e. Identify intellectual property that will be limited and publicly available at the conclusion of the work. Data Rights Assertions shall be captured and included as an attachment to the offeror’s submitted model contract(s). An example of the format for the Data Rights Assertions Table can be found as Attachment A of the model contract.

f. Describe the plans to document the final results.

10.1.2. Cost Proposal (s)

Each proposal shall provide a budget justification for each phase/year of the proposed effort and supported by appropriate details by category. Attachment B of this Announcement shall be used for the cost proposal submittal and contains required cost proposal details.

Cost proposal shall identify the offeror’s estimated costs. The cost share and the contributions proposed making up the cost share shall be shown. Any in-kind contributions should be identified in the proposal. If the offeror is planning to utilize NASA testing facilities, see Section 9.5. Proposed Use of Unique NASA Capabilities for additional information required for the proposal.

10.1.3. Signed Model Contract (s)

A Model Contract is provided in Attachment A of this announcement. A Model Contract shall be provided for each Technology Development Area, signed by an official authorized to contractually bind the Offeor. Please be advised that all sections designated with the text [OFI] represent “Offeror Fill-Ins”. Offerors should fill in [OFI]’s and submit as part of the signed Model Contract with the proposal submittal. Additionally, sections designated with the text [TBD] stand for “To Be Determined”. Offerors should not fill in the [TBD]’s. The Government will update these after contract award. Offerors may take exception to, or have unique interpretations of, any Model Contract clauses. These exceptions and/or unique interpretations should be listed clearly in a Summary of Exceptions. Note, taking exception to, or having unique interpretations of any required clauses MAY have a negative impact on potential selection. The Government does not intend to conduct negotiations. However, the Government reserves the right to negotiate with selected Offerors, cost/price terms and any other terms, if it is deemed in the best interest of the Government. Each proposal shall provide a Data Rights Assertion Table as an attachment to the Model Contract. See Attachment A of the Model Contract for an example of how this document should be submitted.

11. PROPOSAL REVIEW INFORMATION

NASA intends to select proposals from the responsible offeror(s) offering the most advantageous hybrid thermally efficient core technology that can be developed to TRL 4-5 by 2023 and can subsequently be further developed for integration into the next entry into service engine. There is a focus on aggressive and impactful technologies that, through NASA collaboration, can be accelerated while developmental risks are reduced to provide a significant improvement in efficiency, durability, performance, and hybridization for a hybrid thermally efficient small core.

Each proposal will be evaluated by a NASA panel to assess the proposal’s intrinsic scientific and technical merit, its relevance to the HyTEC objectives, and its cost realism and reasonableness.

These factors will also go into evaluating the proposal’s best value to the agency and HyTEC Project. Each proposal will be evaluated and scored on its own merits using the criteria described below.

Although the Cost Factor is not numerically scored nor receives an adjectival rating, it is important in determining that the offeror understands the solicitation and the resources required. The Cost factor is used to determine what the offeror’s proposal will likely cost the Government should it be selected for award.

The proposed cost for the base effort and the option period (if proposed) will be assessed to determine reasonableness and cost realism, as well as form the basis for selection. The evaluation will be conducted in accordance with FAR 15.404-1 and NFS 1815.404.

A cost realism analysis will be conducted to ensure that a realistic price is determined and considered by the Government. Offerors should refer to FAR 2.101(b) for a definition of “cost realism” and to FAR 15.404-1(d) for a discussion of “probable cost”. As noted in FAR 15.404- 1(d)(1), the cost realism analysis consists of “independently reviewing and evaluating specific elements of each offeror’s proposed cost estimate to determine whether the estimated proposed cost elements 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.” A lack of resource realism may adversely affect the offeror’s Technical Capability findings and scores and may result in cost realism adjustments under the cost factor.

The total probable cost for the base effort and the option period (if proposed) will be presented to the Source Selection Authority, as well as any cost assessment associated with the proposal.

(25% of Relevance Score)

B.4 Impact and Benefits: NASA will evaluate the proposal to determine NASA’s involvement and contribution to the technology. A clear explanation of how NASA’s investment in the proposed technology area will benefit the next engine product is sought.

(25% of Relevance Score)

C. Technical Approach and Capabilities: (30%) C.1 Overall Approach: NASA will evaluate the proposal to determine if there is a comprehensive and credible technical approach to perform the proposed technology development. This also includes the capability to perform the work, key risks, and the facility and techniques needed to achieve the proposed objectives.

(65% of Technical Merit Score)

C.2 NASA Contribution: NASA will evaluate the proposal to determine NASA’s involvement with the proposed technology development. NASA facilities and expertise needed to perform the work should be clearly identified. Use of NASA facilities is not required and will not result in a low score in this category.

(25% of Technical Merit Score)

C.3 Team Qualifications: NASA will evaluate the proposal on experience and breadth of the proposed team. This includes describing the proposed team’s ability and past performance, and how this contributes to successful completion of the proposed technical approach.

(10% of Technical Merit Score)

D. Proposed Work Plan: (30%)

D.1 Overall Work Plan: NASA will evaluate the proposals to determine that there is a comprehensive work plan, effective use of resources, a clear management approach, and a proposed schedule for meeting the objectives.

(35% of Work Plan Score)

D.2 Technology Assessment: NASA will evaluate the proposals to determine that there is a clear plan to mature the proposed technology to a TRL 4-5. This includes identified technical performance measurements (TPMs) and an analysis plan to assess progress in achieving both HyTEC and offeror’s goals.

(25% of Work Plan Score)

D.3 Cost Share: NASA will evaluate the proposals to determine the effectiveness and reasonableness of the proposed cost share in terms of the work elements proposed. Proposals should meet the minimum 50/50 cost share. Proposals that do not meet the minimum cost share should describe how the investment is in NASA’s best interest.

(25% of Work Plan Score)

D.4 Intellectual Property: NASA will evaluate the proposals to determine that there is a clear statement of intellectual property that will be limited and publicly available at the work’s conclusion. It is NASA’s preference that all deliverables under the contract be provided to NASA with unrestricted/unlimited rights; any restrictions must demonstrate a significant net benefit to the Government.

(10% of Work Plan Score)

D.5 Documentation: NASA will evaluate the proposal to determine if a comprehensive, credible plan is provided that clearly communicates the intended process on documenting final results of the proposed technology development.

(5% of Work Plan Score)

The technical evaluation for each element and sub-element will be given a numerical score and evaluation rating as defined in Table 4.

Table 4. Evaluation Score and Rating Definitions

Score Ratings Definition 10 Exceptional Strong response with no risks, deficiencies or weaknesses.

Comprehensive response that provides strong degree of confidence in the offeror’s capability to develop the proposed technology to a TRL 4-5 and meet the HyTEC goals.

8-9 Good Substantial response. Response provides a high degree of confidence in the offeror’s capability to develop the proposed technology to a TRL 4-5 and meet HyTEC goals. The response has many strengths; however, a small number of risks, deficiencies/weaknesses were found. Overall the strengths outweigh the risks, deficiencies/ weaknesses.

6-7 Fair Moderate response. Response provides a moderate degree of confidence in the offeror’s capability to develop the proposed technology to a TRL 4-5 and meet HyTEC goals. The response has some strengths; however, risks, deficiencies/ weaknesses were found that should be addressed.

4-5 Poor Marginal response. Response provides a low degree of confidence in the offeror’s capability to develop the proposed technology to a TRL 4-5 and meet HyTEC goals. The response has few strengths and many risks, deficiencies/ weaknesses were found that outweigh any strengths.

11.1.2. Overall Evaluation for Award

In deciding which offer(s) represents the best overall value to NASA, cost and other factors will be considered. The HyTEC project will consider technical merit to be significantly more important than evaluated cost. The best value selection decision will be made with these considerations:

A numerical scoring system will be used, as described in 11.1.1 Technical Evaluation to identify strengths, weaknesses, deficiencies and risks and determine the overall technical merit of the proposal.

If there are significant differences in technical merit among competing proposals, a more expensive proposal may be selected for award if the value of the selected proposal is deemed to be worth the cost differential.

Conversely, as technical scores become closer, differences in cost/price increases importance.

Total evaluated cost will be the determining factor for award where all proposals are considered equal from a technical merit standpoint.

NASA reserves the right to make award to other than lowest priced offeror(s) or the highest rated offeror(s), if deemed to be in the best interest of NASA.

11.2. Partial Awards and Participation with Others

NASA reserves the right to select only a portion of a proposed activity, usually at a level of support reduced from that requested in the original proposal. Offerors should specify if a proposal is offered as a non-separable package of work. Additionally, NASA may decide to award an effort for less than the full period of the proposal. In these cases, the proposer will be given the opportunity to accept or decline such selection. If the proposer accepts such an offer, a revised budget and SOW may be required before funding action on the proposal can be initiated.

If the proposer declines the offer of a partial selection, or participation in a joint investigation, the offer of selection may be withdrawn in its entirety by NASA.

12. PROVISIONS

A subset of provisions within this Section are incorporated by reference, with the same force and effect as if they were given in full text. Provisions incorporated by reference which require a fill-in by the Government include the text of the affected paragraph(s) only. This does not limit the provision to the affected paragraph(s). The Contractor is responsible for understanding and complying with the entire provision. The full text of the provision is available at the addresses contained in provision 52.252-1, Solicitation Provisions Incorporated by Reference.

12.1. 52.204-7 System for Award Management (OCT 2018)

12.2. 52.204-16 Commercial and Government Entity Code Reporting (AUG 2020)

12.3. 52.204-22 Alternative Line Item Proposal (JAN 2017)

12.4. 52.215-16 Facilities Capital Cost of Money (JUN 2003)

12.5. 52.215-22 Limitations on Pass-Through Charges—Identification of Subcontract Effort

(OCT 2009)

12.6. 52.216-1 Type of Contract (APR 1984)

The Government contemplates award of Cost-Sharing contracts resulting from this solicitation.

(End of provision)

12.7 52.222-24 Pre-award On-Site Equal Opportunity Compliance Evaluation (FEB 1999)

12.8. 52.222-46 Evaluation of Compensation for Professional Employees (FEB 1993)

12.9.