Atch_12_ScenarioWorkStatements.pdf

Source Selection Information-See FAR 2.101 and 3.104

FA700020R0002

Attachment 12 14 July 2020

30 June 2020

1. Background & Introduction. The Center for Aircraft Structural Life Extension (CAStLE) at the United States Air Force Academy (USAFA) requires Contractor support for the structural sustainment of the T-XX aircraft. The Task described by this Work Statement (WS) is intended to address Aircraft Structural Integrity Program (ASIP) related efforts for the T-XX fleet.

For proposal purposes, the following fleet information may be assumed.

Average aircraft age is 50 years.

Programmed retirement year is 2040.

Fleet size is 200 aircraft.

Aircraft is a two-seat supersonic training aircraft powered by a single afterburning turbofan engine, and the aircraft structure is composed primarily of legacy 2000-and 7000-series aluminum alloys.

The depot maintenance facility has enclosed, climate-controlled workspace with docks for 10 aircraft. The aircraft is on a five-year depot maintenance cycle, and the depot is assumed to be at Randolph AFB, TX.

The fleet is managed by offices at Hill AFB, UT.

1.1 Summary. The Center for Aircraft Structural Life Extension (CAStLE) at the United States Air Force Academy requires Contractor support to perform multiple ASIP-related subtasks for structural sustainment and structural sustainment research. The Task and the subtasks comprising it are described in paragraph 2. The Task Order (TO) defined by this WS supports the ASIP data collection and analysis efforts of CAStLE and the Air Force.

1.2 Basic Contract and WS. Definitions of terms specific to this document or to the Aging Systems program can be found in the basic contract. Where specific tasks, terms, or conditions in this WS and base contract (FA7000-20-D-XXXX) conflict, this WS governs (except in cases necessitating deviations from the Federal Acquisition Regulations [FAR] or applicable supplements).

1.3 Scope. The following seven subtasks are in direct support of the Chief Engineer’s and ASIP Manager’s ability to maintain engineering and technical capabilities for fleet sustainment out to programmed retirement. The anticipated total period of performance for this project is 12 months. Government estimates notwithstanding, the Contractor is expected to propose a realistic schedule and associated PoP for this effort.

1.3.1 Subtask 1: Flight Loads Data Collection, Analysis, and Reporting. This Subtask addresses continued data collection and evaluation of flight loads from 10 previously

Source Selection Information-See FAR 2.101 and 3.104 1 of 26Page

Attachment 12 14 July 2020

Source Selection Information-See FAR 2.101 and 3.104 Page 2 of 26 instrumented aircraft. It includes the associated program management, engineering, and technical support required for this program.

1.3.2 Subtask 2: Contractor Nondestructive Inspection (NDI) Support. This Subtask is directly related to the day-to-day airframe safety and long-term structural sustainment of the fleet. Quick-response, flexible travel, budget for inspection tool and standard development, prototype fabrication, and field support, as well as the need to deal with the unknowns associated with a 50-year old weapon system are vital to this activity.

1.3.3 Subtask 3: Durability and Damage Tolerance Analyses (DADTA). This Subtask focuses on the continued improvement of the DADTA documentation.

1.3.4 Subtask 4: Analytical Risk Management. Probabilistic risk analysis with the goal of generating a Single Flight Probability of Failure (SFPOF) is required under this Subtask.

1.3.5 Subtask 5: Force Structure Maintenance Plan (FSMP). This Subtask requires supporting a thorough review and update of the FSMP documentation.

1.3.6 Subtask 6: ASIP Master Plan Update. A review and update of the ASIP Master Plan per the direction of the USAF ASIP Manager is required under this Subtask.

1.3.7 Subtask 7: On‐Site Support. Providing Contractor on-site support at the T-XX Program Office is the requirement of this Subtask.

2. Description of the Subtasks. The Contractor shall describe in their proposal how they would perform flight loads data collection, processing, testing, analysis, and reporting efforts in accordance with the contract terms and conditions and this WS. The Contractor shall furnish all labor, material and support necessary to satisfactorily perform the efforts specifically identified in this WS.

Note: The reporting for each of the technical subtasks identified in paragraph 2.1 through

2.6 of this WS is summarized in paragraph 3.

2.1. Subtask 1: Flight Loads Data Collection, Analysis, and Reporting. The Contractor shall describe in their proposal how they would provide ASIP-related flight loads data collection, processed data, analysis, and reporting to the United States Air Force as described herein.

Attachment 12 14 July 2020

Source Selection Information-See FAR 2.101 and 3.104 Page 3 of 26

2.1.1 FLDR Program Continued Data Collection (Objective I). In support of the requirements of CAStLE and the SPO for ASIP-related data collection, analysis, and reporting activities, the Contractor shall address the following continuation of activities:

2.1.1.1 Aircraft. The Government will provide access to 10 T-XX aircraft with previously installed recorder systems. Substitutions will be coordinated with the Chief Engineer or ASIP Manager. The ten aircraft for the T-XX FLDR program (as per this WS) are located at two host U.S. Air Force bases within the continental United States (CONUS).

2.1.1.2 FLDR System Support. The Contractor is responsible for providing all tooling (and tool control) for this program. In addition, the Contractor shall be responsible for all on-site maintenance of the recorder systems they install.

2.1.1.3 FLDR System Maintenance. The Contractor is responsible for operating, calibrating and maintaining the FLDR systems at the host USAF bases for the duration of the 12 month PoP. This includes the collection of supplemental data for all operational flights of the instrumented aircraft, which may include crew logs and forms (see paragraph 2.1.1.5).

2.1.1.4 Base Coordination. The Contractor shall coordinate the operation of the instrumentation systems with the ASIP Manager and host base personnel to assure a satisfactory program. Any necessary instrumentation installation shall be accomplished at the host base(s). All other support not specified as Government furnished support shall be the sole responsibility of the Contractor. This includes any items necessary for installation and routing of electrical wires and/or components.

2.1.1.5 Data Collection. The Contractor shall collect supplemental data forms for processing with the instrumentation data. The data from these forms shall be used to enhance and correlate FLDR analyses, which will be provided to the ASIP Manager in the subtask 1 report. These forms may be paper or electronic, and as a minimum will include

(1) aircraft identification data, (2) weight and balance data, (3) fueling data (for aerial refueling and/or multi-leg flights with fuel stops) and (4) max g data (from the aircraft g meter).

2.1.1.5.1 Hours. The flight-hour collection objective for this Subtask is 1,000 hours of valid flight loads data from amongst the ten aircraft. The Contractor shall notify the Government if it becomes apparent that this goal cannot be met due to ops tempo, unscheduled aircraft maintenance or downtime, etc. The currently installed FLDR system is capable of collecting the following parameters: 1) airspeed, 2) altitude, 3) normal load factor (Nz), 4) horizontal stabilizer torque tube strain, and 5) weight-on-wheels. A time slice of all data parameters shall be provided every 30 seconds, or when a peak or valley occurs (reference paragraph 2.1.1.5.2). The Contractor shall provide recorded data that are

Attachment 12 14 July 2020

Source Selection Information-See FAR 2.101 and 3.104 Page 4 of 26 determined at Nz, and strain peaks and valleys (and 30 second intervals) in lieu of continuous data.

2.1.1.5.2 Peak/Valley Determination. Peaks and valleys are determined using range pair counting techniques. A “peak” may be either a peak or a valley. The former are denoted as maximums, and the latter are denoted as minimums. An in-flight peak may be identified when the difference (rise or fall) of 0.5g (Nz) or 5,000 psi (converted strain) is determined.

For lateral in-flight loads, a peak may be identified when the difference (rise or fall) of 0.1g (Nx or Ny) or 1,000 psi (converted strain) is determined. For taxi and ground handling loads, the above lateral load limits shall be used for Nx, Ny, and Nz.

2.1.1.5.3 G‐Loads. The Contractor shall document the highest g pulled during a flight according to the HUD recorder (if equipped) or cockpit accelerometer so that a comparison may be made with the highest g level recorded by the FLDR. Fifty comparisons are required. All over-gs shall be included. Cockpit accelerometer information can be obtained from the aircraft’s forms or the crew chief and should be entered on the supplemental data form by USAF personnel (paragraph 2.1.1.5).

2.1.1.5.4 Supplemental Information. Pertinent supplemental information shall be recorded for each flight. The following eight items comprise the minimum required for this program:

1. Aircraft tail number

2. Takeoff base and field altitude

3. Mission identification

4. Flight time for mission (based on takeoff and landing time)

5. Date of flight and takeoff and landing times

6. Takeoff and landing fuel weight

7. Configuration

8. Maximum cockpit accelerometer (front and rear cockpits) reading during the flight.

2.1.2 FLDR Program Data Analysis (Objective II). Following the FLDR data collection, the Contractor shall address the following data analysis activities:

2.1.2.1 Flight Data. The Contractor shall provide the processed and analyzed flight data in tabular, graphical, and electronic form. In addition, the Contractor shall specify and report the data accuracy. The required graphs/tables to be included in the final report are shown below. The Contractor should assume that FLDR data must be converted to a format compatible with USAF computer analysis systems. The Contractor shall describe their tools and methods and previous experience in converting raw flight data to USAF-compatible format(s), with the understanding that a major emphasis of this effort is to use these data for updating the T-XX Damage Tolerance Analysis (DTA) program. The Contractor may

Attachment 12

Source Selection Information-See FAR 2.101 and 3.104 Page 5 of 26 assume the raw data required by paragraph 2.1.1.5.1 above are originally collected at a nominal sample rate of about 50Hz on all channels (after filtering).

2.1.2.2 Mission‐segregated Data. The Contractor shall describe a procedure by which all flights could be segregated by mission types provided by the ASIP Manager.

2.2 Subtask 2: Contractor Nondestructive Inspection (NDI) Support

2.2.1 NDI Methods. Working in close concert with the T-XX ASIP and NDI Offices, the Contractor shall perform research to develop the necessary methods and procedures for structural inspections. It is anticipated that two structural details will be evaluated as part of this Subtask, with the ASIP or NDI offices providing the specific locations. These two structural details are shown in Figure 1.

side of the structure.

2.2.2 NDI Tools. The Contractor shall describe in their proposal their approach to designing and developing the necessary probes and calibration standards to ensure accurate and precise inspection procedures are being fielded. The Contractor shall also manufacture three prototypes of each NDI tool and its associated calibration standard(s) for field evaluation/development purposes. For the purposes of the proposal, the contractor shall describe (1) their design approach to NDI tools and standards, (2) their proposed approach to addressing each of the details of Figure 1 (i.e., what kind of probe might be developed and what NDI technique used), and (3) their expectations, based on knowledge of the current state-of-the-art, for what size flaw would be detectable. A detailed design of NDI tools/standards is not required in the proposal.

2.2.3 Probability of Detection (POD). The Contractor shall describe in their proposal an overview of their procedure for performing a POD study for each of the two details (one

(a)

(b)

Attachment 12

Source Selection Information-See FAR 2.101 and 3.104 Page 6 of 26 page maximum to include both details). Important parameters affecting validity of the study shall be identified.

2.3 Subtask 3: Durability and Damage Tolerance Analysis (DADTA)

2.3.1 DADTA Updates. The Contractor shall describe in their proposal their approach to updating the documentation with new information per the following paragraphs in support of the requirement for an annual update to the DADTA documentation.

2.3.2 DADTA Improvements. The T-XX has identified two primary flight loads spectra:

Spectrum A and Spectrum B. Recent FLDR data has resulted in an update to both spectra.

The Contractor shall assess the effects of these updated spectra on the damage tolerance of a fatigue-critical wing location (wing rear spar; spar chord). The critical crack length corresponds with the crack reaching the end of the spar chord ligament (see Figure 2).

Figure 2. Location of fatigue critical location for Damage Tolerance Analysis (DTA).

The Contractor shall completely describe all data (excluding the spectra) that would be required to perform the DTA, and what supporting testing (if any) might be necessary to develop key analysis parameters. (For proposal preparation purposes, the Contractor may assume that reliable fatigue crack growth curves for a wide range of stress ratios, R, are available for the alloys and product forms used.)

The Contractor shall consult with the ASIP Manager to determine which analytical tool(s) are preferred for performing the analyses, and shall describe in their proposal any simplifying assumptions (geometric or otherwise) that would be necessary to use the tool(s), along with any risks introduced by those assumptions. The Contractor shall describe how data would be presented, what impact DTA results would have on inspection intervals and what aircraft documentation would require updating as a result. Assuming the fleet aircraft have not been segregated by spectrum type during the fleet life, the

Attachment 12

Source Selection Information-See FAR 2.101 and 3.104 Page 7 of 26

Contractor shall suggest how the impact of two different inspection intervals for this location might be addressed in their structural sustainment scheme.

2.4 Subtask 4: Analytical Risk Management

The Contractor shall describe their process for performing a risk analysis for a given fatigue-critical location on the aircraft, with the intention of producing results in terms of a Single Flight Probability of Failure as a function of flight hours, and include the effect on risk of periodic inspections.

The Contractor shall identify what analytical tool(s) would be used for such an analysis, the key parameters needed for the tool and what data would be needed to be generated/collected for such an analysis. The Contractor shall indicate the relative sensitivity of the results to the various input parameters. For proposal purposes, the Contractor shall assume the fatigue-critical location of paragraph 2.3 above is the location under study.

The Contractor may assume that data are available from ongoing teardown analyses and maintenance records from both the field and the depot. Compatibility of contractor-produced data and analyses with the Probability of Fracture (PROF) analysis tool is highly desirable, as the T-XX office uses the PROF tool for their analysis.

2.5 Subtask 5: T‐XX Force Structural Maintenance Plan (FSMP). The Contractor shall revise/update the FSMP.

The T-XX FSMP is a core ASIP-related document that requires support per this WS. A number of ASIP elements (see MIL-STD-1530D, paragraph 5.4.3) need to be addressed as major categories of the FSMP. The contractor shall also determine and indicate in their proposal the documents impacted by any recommended changes to the FSMP (e.g.

Technical Orders).

The Contractor shall describe in their proposal their methodology and experience in updating the FSMP for a USAF aircraft, and estimate the effort required to do an annual update for a fleet as described herein.

2.6 Subtask 6: T‐XX ASIP Master Plan Update. The Contractor shall describe in their proposal their approach to revising/updating the ASIP Master Plan (see MIL-STD-1530D, paragraph 5.1.1).

The Contractor shall describe their methodology and experience in updating the Master Plan for structural sustainment of a USAF aircraft in their proposal, and estimate the effort required to do an annual update for a fleet as described herein.

Attachment 12

Source Selection Information-See FAR 2.101 and 3.104 Page 8 of 26

2.7 Subtask 7: On‐Site Support. The Contractor shall describe how they would provide T-XX ASIP technical liaison on-site support at Hill AFB, UT at a sufficient level to support all subtasks of this Task Order. The objective of this requirement is to provide for seamless technical interchange between the Contractor, any sub-Contractors, and the T-XX Chief Engineer. The Contractor shall plan on-site support at levels appropriate to supporting the technical subtasks of this WS throughout the PoP.

In addition to supporting all subtasks in this WS, on-site support activities may include, but are not limited to

Evaluation and prioritization of indications from teardown analyses Assisting in developing responses to engineering disposition requests (107s, 202s) Assisting in responding to inquiries from higher headquarters Performing engineering modeling and analysis related to T-XX structural sustainment Evaluating existing processes and recommending improvements Supporting efforts in airworthiness and certification Developing, and reviewing test plans and procedures Analyzing test (including flight test) data Facilitating cross-platform ASIP Acting as liaison between on-site and off-site program personnel; Government and

Contractor Acting as liaison between depot maintenance and engineering

The on-site support engineers shall have a demonstrated two years of experience working on the T-XX structure and (preferably) have an ASIP background. Prior related experience with the T-XX is considered met by OEM, USAF, and/or Contractor service.

A non-inclusive list of the technical skills required of the on-site support engineers are:

1) FEM/FEA, 2) DTA, 3) risk assessments, 4) NDI and tech data, 5) static strength analysis, and 6) failure analysis evaluation and reporting.

The Contractor shall estimate the level of on-site support in terms of hours and labor categories to support the requirements of this Subtask.

3. DELIVERABLES

3.1 Deliverable Items. Basic contract deliverables include Quarterly Reports, Contract Funds Status Reports (CFSR) and an Integrated Master Schedule. In addition, the following deliverables are required.

Attachment 12

Source Selection Information-See FAR 2.101 and 3.104 Page 9 of 26

3.1.1 Final Reports. The following Task Order-specific reports are required in addition to any required by the basic contract.

Subtask 1: Flight Loads Data Recorder (FLDR) Program (Final Report, paragraph

2.1)

Document, paragraph 2.3)

paragraph 2.5) Subtask 6: ASIP Master Plan (Update to Existing Document, paragraph 2.6)

Final reports are required and shall be submitted to the Government as per the definitions in the basic contract. A draft of each deliverable is required with a single subsequent revision incorporating Government comments.

3.1.2 Final Deliverable Acceptance and Quality Assurance. All deliverables listed in paragraph 3.1 shall be approved by the T-XX Chief Engineer, ASIP Manager or their designee before they are deemed final and acceptable by the Government.

3.2 Document Markings. The technical reports, drawings and digital media delivered under this TO shall include the following markings as specified in their respective CDRLs.

3.2.1 Basic Contract Deliverable Markings.

“DISTRIBUTION STATEMENT C. Distribution authorized to U.S. Government Agencies and their Contractors, Test and Evaluation, <publication date>. Other requests for this document shall be referred to The Director, U.S. Air Force Academy Center for Aircraft Structural Life Extension (CAStLE), HQ USAFA/DFEM, 2354 Fairchild Dr Ste 6L173, USAF Academy CO 80840-6240.”

3.2.2 Other Contract Deliverable Markings.

“Statement of Rights: The Government’s rights to use, modify, reproduce, release, perform, provide to other Contractors, display and disclose these technical data are unlimited. No restrictions apply.”

“DISTRIBUTION STATEMENT D. Distribution authorized to Department of Defense and U.S.

DoD Contractors only for Administrative and Operational use. Date of Determination – <insert publication date>. Other requests for this document shall be referred to the T-XX

SPO.”

Attachment 12

Source Selection Information-See FAR 2.101 and 3.104 Page 10 of 26

“WARNING: This document contains technical data whose export is restricted by the Arms Export Control Act (Title 22, U.S.C., Sec 2751, et seq.) or the Export Administration Act of 1979 (Title 50, U.S.C., App. 2401 et seq.), as amended. Violations of these export laws are subject to severe criminal penalties. Disseminate in accordance with provisions of DoD directive 5230.25.”

“HANDLING AND DESTRUCTION NOTICE: Comply with distribution statement and destroy by any method that will prevent disclosure of the contents or reconstruction of the document.”

4. GOVERNMENT PROPERTY

The Government will provide access to instrumented aircraft or aircraft to be instrumented (see paragraph 2.1).

Outside of tech data, engineering models, and other engineering documentation, no other Government furnished property, equipment, or information will be provided under this TO.

5. REQUIRED SUPPORT

5.1 Travel. Travel will be required in support of this TO. The Contractor would normally propose travel appropriate to the scope of the WS for any site visits, a kick-off meeting, technical interchange meetings, service trips, conferences, and program reviews. Typical travel requirements for a program of this type are shown in Table 1. However, because travel is prescribed and is a cost-reimbursable expense, the Contractor is not required to propose travel for this Task and its evaluation.

Table 1. Suggested Contractor Travel

FY Travel Purpose Location 2021 FLDR Service x2 CONUS T-XX Bases 2021 NDI Site-Visit Hill AFB 2021 Depot Site-Visit RAFB AFB, TX

2021 USAF ASIP Conference (Nov 2020)

TBD

2021 ASIP Summit (Jan 2021) Hill AFB

2021 Final Program Review Hill AFB

Attachment 12

Source Selection Information-See FAR 2.101 and 3.104 Page 11 of 26

5.2 Materials. Materials will be required in support of this TO per the technical Task description (paragraph 2). The Contractor shall propose material appropriate to the scope of the subtasks described. The Contractor shall indicate in their proposal the itemized cost of each material item and the subtask supported by the line item.

6. DATA RIGHTS

All data, products, software tools and analysis produced will be unclassified and non-proprietary. The U.S. Government will have unlimited rights to all such items produced under this Task. The contractor shall ensure no data is delivered in proprietary format or in a format requiring the Government to use proprietary products to interrogate the data.

Attachment 12

Source Selection Information-See FAR 2.101 and 3.104 Page 12 of 26

1 BACKGROUND AND INTRODUCTION

1.1 Summary. The Center for Aircraft Structural Life Extension (CAStLE) at the United States Air Force Academy (USAFA) requires contractor support to conduct a damage tolerance test and a destructive teardown analysis of A-10 center lower wing structure in the area of the fuel tank access panels (reference Appendix A). The task described by this Work Statement (WS) is intended to help assess viability of proposed repair designs to the fuel tank access panel flange. Data obtained from this task is intended to be used to begin establishing the fatigue life limit and damage tolerance inspection requirements for one of the proposed modifications. Specifically, this WS has two primary objectives: 1) conduct a damage tolerance test of the fuel tank access opening to aid in validation of a previously created crack growth prediction model, and 2) conduct a teardown analysis of a machined lower cover with auxiliary spar cap and WS 110 fittings assembly which was removed from service.

1.2 Basic Contract. This Work Statement (WS) describes only specific tasks and objectives applicable to this effort. The terms and conditions of the basic contract apply. Definitions of terms specific to this document or to the CAStLE Aging Systems program can be found in the basic contract. Where specific tasks, terms, or conditions in this Task Order (TO) WS and basic contract/contract clauses conflict, the WS governs.

1.3 Scope. The anticipated period of performance (PoP) for this WS is ten (10) months—to be proposed by the Contractor and, if necessary, negotiated with the government prior to contract award.

1.4 Task Subjects. Scrap A-10 lower wing aircraft structure from within the area of interest (reference Figure 1 and Appendix A) will be provided by the Government within 20 business days of TO award. This structure shall encompass the subject structure for WS Subtask 2 (reference paragraph 2.2). Specifically, the subject structure for this subtask

Attachment 12 14 July 2020

Source Selection Information-See FAR 2.101 and 3.104 Page 13 of 26

Figure 1: Overview of center wing area of interest from Appendix A.

2 DESCRIPTION OF SUBTASKS

2.1 Subtask 1: Damage Tolerance Test. The Contractor shall describe their approach for executing a damage tolerance test of a simulated lower cover fuel tank access opening. The

2.1.1 Kick‐off Meeting. The Contractor shall prepare materials (A005) for and conduct a kick-off meeting with the Government Technical Lead (GTL) and the GTL’s technical representatives within 30 calendar days of TO award. This review shall address the Contractor’s initial plan for addressing all WS requirements. This review shall be conducted at the CAStLE USAFA site. Participants may be connected via videoconference or teleconference.

2.1.2 Test Specimen Preparation. The Contractor shall describe their approach to design and fabricate a specimen which satisfies the WS Subtask 1 overall objective. For the purposes of the proposal the Contractor shall address the following test section requirements. The test specimen shall be fabricated from AA 2024-T351 plate. The specimen geometry shall be 0.56-inch uniform thickness with the exception of step geometry at the fuel tank access opening flange addressed later. This opening is an ellipse shape with a minor axis transverse to the loading direction of 12.0 inches. The opening ellipse major axis is along the load direction and has a dimension of 18.0 inches. The ellipse is to be centered in a panel of total width 20.5 inches. These dimensions are depicted in Figure 2. The panel length shall be sufficient to ensure a uniform remote stress near the fuel tank panel opening (reference paragraph 2.1.5).

Attachment 12

Source Selection Information-See FAR 2.101 and 3.104 Page 14 of 26

The edge of the simulated fuel tank opening, the flange, shall be machined to match the profile depicted in Figure 3. Note that the purpose of the dimensioning in Figure 3 is to describe the profile of the fuel tank opening cross-section profile—the right-side reference point of the dimension lines is not intended to indicate the edge of the test section on any given axis of the ellipse. The test specimen shall have a single initial edge crack, or initial flaw size, of 0.080 inches through the 0.080 inch thickness at the ellipse minor axis.

edge. All dimensions shown are in inches.

Attachment 12

Source Selection Information-See FAR 2.101 and 3.104 Page 15 of 26

2.1.3 Instrumentation Plan. The Contractor proposal shall describe an instrumentation plan deemed appropriate to the subtask objective. Data obtained during testing shall be sufficient to, at minimum, quantify crack dimensions and growth rate correlated to test conditions. The Contractor proposal shall describe data to be measured, type of instrumentation to be used, and application site(s) for that instrumentation.

2.1.4 Test Specimen to Test Frame Load Interface. The Contractor shall describe their approach for designing, fabricating, and validating an interface between the test specimen (proposed in response to paragraph 2.1.2) and the proposed servo-hydraulic test frame to ensure uniform load introduction across the width (transverse to the load) of the test section. The Contractor proposal shall include any assumptions used and limitations or caveats to their approach.

2.1.5 Pre‐Test Specimen Preparation. The Contractor proposal shall specify pre-test specimen preparation steps required to execute the WS and efficiently achieve the subtask objective to include the timing of each step. Preparation steps include, but are not necessarily limited to, machining of specimen overall specimen geometry, creating the pre-test edge crack, interfacing with load transition adapter (proposed in response to paragraph 2.1.4), and application of the specimen instrumentation proposed in response to WS paragraph 2.1.3.

2.1.6 Test Readiness Review. The Contractor shall conduct a test readiness review (TRR) prior to performing any tests. The TRR shall address all sections of the proposal for WS Subtask 1 and is intended to assess the Contractor’s readiness to proceed with loading. This review shall be conducted via teleconference but the GTL representatives may also have access to the test site during the review. The Contractor shall coordinate the date and time of the TRR with the GTL not less than 15 business days in advance of the review. The GTL representatives shall also have access to the test specimens/site during all phases of the damage tolerance test execution (reference paragraph 2.1.7).

2.1.7 Damage tolerance Test Execution. The Contractor shall conduct a damage tolerance test of the proposed test specimen using the spectrum provided by the Government. For proposal purposes the Contractor shall assume each pass through the spectrum contains 7831 cycles. Each flight hour is equivalent to 30.7 cycles. The maximum tensile stress in the spectrum is 30.39 ksi. The maximum compressive stress is -1.83 ksi.

Normalized spectrum stresses vs. exceedances are plotted in Figure 4.

The existing crack growth model predicts critical crack size is reached at 17,602 flight hours. The damage tolerance test shall therefore be continued to not less than 20,000 equivalent flight hours or test section failure whichever occurs first. The Contractor shall specify an appropriate test site and test frame for executing this test. The Contractor cost proposal shall include any required tests site charges. The Contractor shall propose an appropriate inspection interval and method to be used both during the test as well as inspections to be performed after test completion. The Contractor proposal shall include a test schedule and include any assumptions, exceptions, and caveats used in creating this

Attachment 12

Source Selection Information-See FAR 2.101 and 3.104 Page 16 of 26 schedule. Lastly, the Contractor proposal shall address any risks associated with the proposed test schedule and the plan to mitigate those risks.

Figure 4: Spectrum stress normalized to peak stress vs. exceedances.

2.1.8 Post‐Test Analysis. The Contractor shall propose post-test analysis appropriate to accomplishing the WS Subtask 1 objective.

2.1.9 Reporting. Within 90 days of the completion the damage tolerance test the Contractor shall deliver to the GTL formal documentation (A003) of the damage tolerance test program for the tested specimen. This Specimen Damage Tolerance Test report shall include, at minimum, details of the test set-up, inspection results, test data, data analysis findings, and representative photographs.

2.2 Subtask 2: Lower Wing Cover Teardown Analysis. The Contractor shall use processes which meet the requirements of CAStLE Teardown Analysis Protocols 1, 2, 4, 5, 7 and 8 to execute a teardown analysis program (TAP) of the subject structure (reference

Contractor proposal shall describe their approach to execute TAP subtasks, as required by these protocols. The Contractor shall include, at minimum, the approach to:

Use qualified personnel as defined by each applicable protocol. The Contractor shall include provisions for the GTL to audit protocol processes during the execution of

Attachment 12

Source Selection Information-See FAR 2.101 and 3.104 Page 17 of 26 this WS. The Contractor qualification plan shall include provisions for qualification demonstration and audits of all vendors used by the Contractor to perform protocol tasks in support of this WS.

Develop, deploy, host, and maintain a data management system (ref. paragraph 2.2.1)

Prevent incidental damage to subject structure before, during and after teardown analysis.

Ensure the security and accurate location tracking of all TAP subjects.

Ensure the accurate tracking of protocol process status and TAP requirements.

2.2.1 Teardown Analysis Program Data Management. The CAStLE Protocols include the requirement to record and maintain a data set which captures TAP process status and protocol analysis data. All protocols refer to data capture using, as a benchmark, a system formerly hosted on government servers by CAStLE and referred to as the Teardown analysis program Data Management System (TDMS). Therefore, for compatibility with the protocols, the Contractor system is henceforth referred to in this WS as “TDMS”. The Contractor proposal shall describe their approach to develop, deploy, host, and maintain a system which will capture the same data as the TDMS referenced throughout applicable sections of the CAStLE Protocols and meets the WS requirements. All data in TDMS shall be available to the GTL upon request during the PoP and delivered to the GTL upon TO completion. The Contractor shall accomplish TAP data entry within 48 hours of the collection of protocol specified data. In the event that the Contractor’s electronic means of data storage/transfer is unavailable, data shall be recorded manually by the Contractor.

Upon the restoration of the system availability the manually-recorded data shall then be electronically recorded by the Contractor within 48 hours. The Contractor shall accomplish recording of all protocol data requirements into TDMS prior to reporting status complete for any given Protocol process.

2.2.2 Part Identification and Tracking. The Contractor proposal shall describe their approach to perform Part Identification and Tracking in accordance with Protocol 2. The identification of the part geometry shall be sufficient such that any discovered damage can be located using the identification information recorded in TDMS to within ¼ of an inch of the actual location.

2.2.3 Teardown Section Disassembly. In preparation for coating removal and subsequent nondestructive inspection (NDI), the Contractor proposal shall describe their approach for Teardown Section (TS) disassembly per Protocol 4. The TS for this subtask is defined as the entire subject structure as an assembly after it has been separated from the Government provided scrap aircraft structure (reference paragraph 1.4). As previously stated in

Protocol 4, disassembly, the Contractor shall photo document the condition of the as-received scrap aircraft structure for inclusion in the TS definition in TDMS and the final report (A006). Per CAStLE Protocol 4, the Contractor shall record incidental damage along

Attachment 12

Source Selection Information-See FAR 2.101 and 3.104 Page 18 of 26

from the scrap aircraft structure. The Contractor shall describe their approach to perform disassembly of the subject parts from the TS.

2.2.4 Coating Removal. In preparation for NDI, the Contractor proposal shall describe their approach to remove all aircraft coatings, sealants, and corrosion protective systems from the disassembled subject structure parts per CAStLE Protocol 5 without causing incidental damage to the parts. Incidental damage shall be reported as described in the protocols.

2.2.5 Nondestructive Inspection (NDI). The Contractor proposal shall describe their approach to perform qualified NDI per CAStLE Protocol 7 on all disassembled subject parts that have undergone the coatings removal process. Each part of the subject structure shall be inspected by the CVI and FPI techniques defined in Protocol 7. The Contractor shall inspect the following fastener holes via the eddy current techniques defined in Protocol 7:

all fuel access opening flange fastener holes on the aft wing lower cover all fastener holes in the auxiliary aft spar which mate to the aft wing lower cover all fastener holes in the aft wing lower cover which mate to the auxiliary aft spar

The Contractor shall describe their approach for locating indications on the subject parts.

2.2.6 Root Cause Analysis. The Contractor shall describe their approach to prioritize NDI indications for consideration by the GTL for detailed root cause analysis per CAStLE Protocol 8. The Contractor’s prioritization rubric shall favor those NDI indications which are most likely to be damage of interest to A-10 structural fleet managers. In the case of a single structural site with multiple indications (such as a fastener hole) the contractor shall consider the group of indications when executing their prioritization rubric. The GTL shall have final authority on selection of NDI indications for this root-cause analysis. The Contractor proposal shall describe their approach to conduct root cause analyses of twenty

(20) selected NDI indication regions in accordance with CAStLE Protocol 8.

3 REQUIRED DELIVERABLES

3.1 Deliverable Items. Contract Data Requirements List (CDRL) deliverables A001, A003, A004 and A005 apply to this TO. In addition, the Contractor shall deliver a Final Report (A006) which contains, at minimum, the content described in paragraph 3.1.2.

3.1.1 Briefing Material (A005). The Contractor shall prepare and deliver briefing materials to support the following meetings and deliver them to the GTL not less than 5 business days prior to conducting the meeting.

a. Kick-off meeting (reference paragraph 2.1.1)

b. TRR (reference paragraph 2.1.6)

Attachment 12

Source Selection Information-See FAR 2.101 and 3.104 Page 19 of 26

of damage tolerance test completion for each test panel. The GTL will have 15 business days for review and comment.

3.1.3 Final Report (A006). The Contractor shall deliver a final report which summarizes the damage tolerance tests (reference paragraph 2.1) and the TAP execution (reference paragraph 2.2). Quad charts and associated data generated by CAStLE Protocol 8 (reference Section 2.2.6) shall be included in the final report as an appendix. A draft final report shall be delivered to the GTL for review 45 calendar days prior to the end of the PoP. The government shall have 30 days to provide comments for Contractor incorporation into the final report. The final report shall include an electronic delivery of all TAP data recorded in the Contractor’s TDMS. These data shall not be transferred by the Contractor to a third party for any reason unless specifically directed by the GTL. These data shall have a searchable file structure that is defined to the GTL in a “Read Me” file as part of the electronic delivery. A portable hard drive, not flash memory, is the desired form of delivery.

Other means may be approved by the GTL upon request from the Contractor. The proposed file structure for electronically delivered data shall be included in the Contractor’s proposal.

3.1.4 Final Briefing (A005). The contractor shall deliver materials which could be used by the GTL to deliver a 30-45 minute final briefing of the TO results. This briefing shall summarize, at minimum, the Contractor’s processes used to satisfy the WS requirements and most important findings.

3.2 Aircraft Parts. All Government supplied teardown subjects, resulting parts, failure analysis subjects and residual structure shall be retained by the Contractor in safe storage in accordance with the terms of the basic contract for TAP parts for the duration of the PoP.

At the conclusion of the PoP the Contractor shall disposition the supplied parts as follows:

a. All WS analysis subjects, to include Protocol 8 specimens, shall be delivered to CAStLE’s USAFA site.

b. All residual structure, not included in paragraph 3.2 a. shall be dispositioned by the Contractor, in accordance with the DCMA Plant Clearance Officer’s instruction, see DoD 4160.28-M Vol 3, found at:

http://www.esd.whs.mil/Portals/54/Documents/DD/issuances/dodm/416028m_vol3.pdf

3.3 Document Markings. Administrative deliverables, including the project schedule (A004) shall be marked IAW paragraph 3.3.1 below. Deliverables having technical content (A003, A005, A006 and possibly A001) shall be marked IAW paragraph 3.3.2 below.

3.3.1 Administrative Contract Deliverable Markings.

“DISTRIBUTION STATEMENT C. Distribution authorized to U.S. Government Agencies and their Contractors, Test and Evaluation, <publication date>. Other requests for this document shall be referred to The Director, U.S. Air Force Academy Center for Aircraft

Attachment 12

Source Selection Information-See FAR 2.101 and 3.104 Page 20 of 26

Structural Life Extension (CAStLE), HQ USAFA/DFME, 2354 Fairchild Dr, Ste 6L173, USAF Academy CO 80840-6240.”

3.3.2 Other Contract Deliverable Markings.

“DISTRIBUTION STATEMENT D. Distribution authorized to the Department of Defense and U.S. DoD Contractors only, Test and Evaluation, <publication date>. Other requests for this document shall be referred to The Director, U.S. Air Force Academy Center for Aircraft Structural Life Extension (CAStLE), HQ USAFA/DFME, 2354 Fairchild Dr, Ste 6L173, USAF Academy CO 80840-6240.”

“WARNING: This document contains technical data whose export is restricted by the Arms Export Control Act (Title 22, U.S.C., Sec 2751, et seq.) or the Export Administration Act of 1979 (Title 50, U.S.C, Disseminate in accordance with provisions of DoD directive 5230.25.”

“HANDLING AND DESTRUCTION NOTICE: Comply with distribution statement and destroy by any method that will prevent disclosure of the contents or reconstruction of the document.”

4.0 GOVERNMENT FURNISHED PROPERTY AND EQUIPMENT

Teardown subjects are de-militarized scrap provided to the Contractor for WS execution.

This property shall be dispositioned per paragraph 3.2 at the conclusion of the TO.

5.0 REQUIRED SUPPORT

The Contractor shall describe the need for the use of each category of support to meet the Task requirements. Proposed costs should be included in the accompanying cost/price proposal.

5.1 Travel. The Contractor shall propose travel appropriate to the WS requirements. In such case the Contractor shall provide number of travelers, travel duration, itemized travel costs, justification, and sub-task association for each prosed travel item.

5.2 Transportation. The GTL does not anticipate a need for transportation to support the WS requirements.

5.3 Storage. The GTL does not anticipate a need for storage to support the WS requirements.

5.4 Materials and Other Direct Costs. The Government anticipates materials, shipping, and potential facility/site charges will be required to fulfill the WS requirements. Provide necessary quantities and types of material proposed, as well as the purpose of each item and its subtask association.

6.0 OTHER CONSIDERATIONS

If the USAFA Applied Mechanics Laboratory does not have equipment capable of performing the tests described in this WS as proposed by the Contractor, the Government will not provide an alternative facility/equipment. Therefore, in such case, the Contractor

Attachment 12

Source Selection Information-See FAR 2.101 and 3.104 Page 21 of 26 shall identify and propose an appropriate test facility to execute the WS requirements. The Contractor shall be responsible for all aspects of testing, including (but not limited to) design, manufacture, installation of the proposed test specimens, as well access to and operation of the proposed test facility.

Attachment 12

Source Selection Information-See FAR 2.101 and 3.104 Page 22 of 26

18 May 2020

1 BACKGROUND AND INTRODUCTION

1.1 Summary. The Center for Aircraft Structural Life Extension (CAStLE) at the United States Air Force (USAF) Academy requires contractor support to conduct a research experimental testing program to investigate the inhibition of corrosion fatigue in aerospace materials. Specifically, the objective of this Task Order (TO) Work Statement (WS) is to quantify the effect of different corrosion prevention coatings on fatigue crack growth rate via a well-supported test methodology under operationally realistic environments thereby facilitating more informed program management decisions when removing chrome from weapon systems.

1.2 Background. The presence of hexavalent chromium in coating systems used on aerospace materials to inhibit corrosion has been long been believed to also inhibit fatigue crack growthi,ii. The national (and global) priority to remove chromium from all coating systems has led to program management decisions to comply with the priority. These decisions are sometimes made without fully understanding the resulting impact to the existing crack growth rate predictions which drive safe inspection intervals and other aspects of the USAF Aircraft Structural Integrity Program (ASIP). Critics of past work which implied a quantifiable impact of chrome on crack growth rates have disputed “conclusive” results due, in part, to the lack of consistent testing methodology. CAStLE therefore recognizes a need to not only produce comparative data but also establish a well-supported test methodology for obtaining comparative data of other material/coating system combinations in the future.

1.3 Basic Contract. This WS describes only specific tasks and objectives applicable to this effort. The terms and conditions of the basic contract apply. Definitions of terms specific to this document or to the Aging Systems program can be found in the basic contract. Where specific tasks, terms, or conditions in this WS conflict with clauses of the basic contract, this WS governs.

1.4 Scope. The anticipated period of performance (PoP) for this WS is twelve (12) months—to be proposed by the Contractor and, if necessary, negotiated with the government prior to contract award.

2 DESCRIPTION OF SUBTASKS

The Contractor shall design, plan and execute an experimental and analysis program which provides quantitative distinction between not less than three different coating systems, one of which is to be a chromated system, applied to not less than two aerospace alloys.

2.1 Subtask 1: Experimental Configuration. The Contractor shall propose a test configuration best suited to efficiently achieve the TO research objectives. The proposed

Attachment 12

Source Selection Information-See FAR 2.