OT-2014-30010_DID--Engine_CIP_Engineering_Project_Description - FINAL.pdf

DATA ITEM DESCRIPTION

Title: Engine CIP Engineering Project Description (EPD)

Number: OT-2014-30010 Approval Date: 20140129

AMSC Number: Limitation: Component Improvement

Program

DTIC Applicable: GIDEP Applicable: No

Office of Primary Responsibility: AFLCMC/LP

Applicable Forms: N/A

Use/relationship: An EPD is a detailed plan for a Component Improvement Program (CIP) project and provides the contractual baseline of each discrete task in support of the CIP. The purpose of this document is to provide the Government the information necessary to assess, rank, and monitor projects proposed by OEMs and subsequently put on contract. The content of the EPD becomes the framework for reporting technical progress at periodic reviews held in accordance with the CIP contract.

This data item description (DID) contains the format and content preparation instructions for the data product generated by the specific and discrete task requirements as delineated in the Component

Improvement Program (CIP) contracts. This one-time DID is for use on the CIP program.

Requirements:

1. Reference documents. The applicable issue of the documents cited herein, including their approval dates and dates of any applicable amendments, notices, and revisions, shall be as cited in ASSIST at the time of the solicitation; or, for non ASSIST-listed documents, as stated herein. ASSIST can be accessed at https://assist.dla.mil.

2. Format. Contractor format is acceptable.

3. Content. The Engineering Project Description (EPD) is a description of a proposed technical effort prepared by the contractor and submitted to the Government for approval. Each EPD shall relate to a specific program, area, or problem and describes the proposed engineering program along with the anticipated completion date. When approved by the government, the EPD will be the official contractual work scope definition for the task, and the record of technical progress and related actions will be presented at periodic program reviews. The EPDs shall include all engineering tasks investigated in this program, including work arising from non-Government operations. Each EPD shall include all data elements identified below.

3.1 Project Title: The title shall identify both part(s) involved and the nature of the problem, e.g., Second Stage Compressor Disk Dovetail Fretting.

3.2 EPD Project Number: All EPDs in this report shall be identified by a serial numbering system. Numbers shall not be reused unless a previously closed problem is reopened.

3.3 EPD Owner: Indicate which IPT or group is responsible for execution of this EPD (e.g., HPC, compression systems, exhaust systems, test)

OT-2014-30010

3.4 Original Project Start Date: Initial contract award date or task initiation date for immediate flight safety, mission degradation, or safety-related EPDs (see 2.7 below). This date does not change.

3.5 P roject Revision Date: Date of latest EPD revision.

3.6 Models Affected: Indicate all engine models affected by this EPD.

3.7 Safety/Mission Degradation: Indicate whether the task affects immediate flight safety or mission capability degradation, or is safety-related. The definitions are as follows:

a. Immediate Flight Safety: Tasks addressing an engine problem that caused a Class A Mishap, or a problem that is predicted to have a high hazard risk index (unacceptable) IAW MIL-STD-882.

b. Mission Capability Degradation: Tasks addressing an engine problem that seriously impacts mission accomplishment. These problems may include: 1) production stoppages at the Sustainment

Center requiring part redesign, 2) safety-related inspections which are time consuming and expensive, and 3) survivability issues related to exhaust plume signature, visible smoke, or environmental issues.

c. Safety Related: Tasks addressing an engine problem that is safety related, but the risk of aircraft loss or significant engine damage is low to moderate IAW MIL-STD-882.

Items 3.1 to 3.7 above shall be indicated on the EPD cover sheet.

3.8 Problem Definition: Briefly explain the problem this EPD will address. This section shall include a background narrative, technical description of the suspected or known failure mode(s), possible damage, part number(s) of the affected and related items, associated operations and maintenance impacts, and other EPDs which relate to or impact the problem. This section should be accompanied by sufficient drawings, photos, diagrams, etc., to convey to the reader the location of affected components on the engine (including the relationship to the next higher assembly and subassemblies), relevant local features, and the extent/nature of the distress/condition in question. Relevant tech order data (allowable limits, etc.) can also be referenced for comparison.

3.9 Failure History/Risk/Field Impacts: This section shall provide the failure history by model number of the items in question including the following:

a. Dates, time period, and operating locations where failures have occurred.

b. Failures should be clearly indicated as installed, uninstalled, ground, or in flight.

c. Reliability, Maintainability, and Safety (RM&S) statistics that convey the scope of the problem. The RM&S statistics should be those relevant to the affected engine program.

(e.g., ground/flight abort numbers and rates, in-flight shutdowns, non-recoverable in-flight shutdowns, unscheduled removals).

d. Specific failure reports related to the EPD must be identified by number (e.g., Deficiency

Report (DR) numbers, Failure/Malfunction Report (FMR) numbers, Design Problem

Report (DPR) numbers, Service Reports (SR), Material Improvement Program (MIP) reports, Quality Deficiency Reports (QDR), depot findings, data obtained from the contractor's records). All sources must be cited and the document references retained with the EPD.

e. Weibull plots of relevant failure data (with interpretation) shall be included when available

f. For safety tasks (per 3.7 above) include baseline risk rates and associated mitigation actions.

g. Variations in failure history/statistics across engine populations/fleets (e.g., USAF, USN, foreign partner operations) or across similar engine models must be presented with interpretation.

3.10 Objective/Goals/Constraints: Describe the primary task objective (e.g., Revise the existing design to improve part life by reducing risk of … ). Describe collateral goals of the task (e.g., exceed spec life, design for multiple variants or configurations, weight reduction, flow improvement, cost goal). State the projected improvement in applicable Engine Life Management

Plan (ELMP) or Propulsion System Life Management Plan (PSLMP) metrics to be realized by completion of the EPD. Describe pertinent design constraints (e.g., no cost or weight increase, fully interchangeable, no effect on associated interfaces, no proprietary processes).

3.11 Engineering Approach: A statement of the general plan to obtain problem resolution, including the approach, type of testing required, and planned program objectives (e.g., rework of existing parts, design of new parts, revised field or depot procedures, engineering trade space).

3.12 New Technology: Identify any use of new technology in the EPD. New Technology is defined as, “Any proposed change using new design tools, materials, manufacturing processes, analysis techniques, programmatic processes and test techniques/processes developed in government or contractor laboratory facilities.” Include a description, rationale for use, technology source, applicable Technology Readiness Level (TRL) and Manufacturing Readiness

Level (MRL), associated Technology Transition Plans (TTPs), and associated cost/schedule/technical risks.

3.13 Data Rights Assertions: Identify all data rights assertions in accordance with the PWS.

Include a listing of data to be furnished with restrictions, the basis for assertions, asserted rights category, EPDs affected by the assertions, and use of government funds in development/demonstration of the data (including contract numbers). If a data rights limitation has been granted on another contract, provide the contract identification and associated contracts letter submittal date.

3.14 Systems Effects: Indicate any change to the system by annotating (yes, no, N/A, improve/degrade) in the appropriate block and explain the nature of the change.

a. Model Specification: Indicate whether the project design change will affect a change in engine model specification. If yes, the specification number and applicable paragraph shall be listed.

b. Performance/Operability: Indicate whether a design change resulting from the project would affect engine performance (including performance retention) or operability. If yes, the nature of performance/operability change and model specification paragraph number(s), if applicable, shall be stated.

c. Weight/Dimension/CG: Indicate whether a design change resulting from the project would affect engine weight, dimensions, or center of gravity (CG) location. If yes, the anticipated weight/dimensions/CG change and model specification paragraph number(s), if applicable, shall be stated.

d. Physical and Functional Interfaces. Indicate whether a design change resulting from this project will require interface changes with the airframe or subsystem manufacturers. If yes, the affected interfaces shall be listed.

e. Interchangeability: Indicate whether a design change resulting from this project will affect interchangeability with existing hardware or functional interfaces. If yes, the affected parts shall be listed.

f. Airworthiness Certification: Indicate whether a design change resulting from this project impacts the documentation supporting adherence to the MIL-HDBK-516B (Expanded)

Airworthiness Certification Criteria.

g. Propulsion Characteristics Guide (Gray Book): Indicate whether a design change from this project results in a change to a reported characteristic in the Gray Book.

h. Reliability: Indicate whether a design change resulting from this project will affect the reliability of the applicable engine components.

i. Overhaul/Inspection Interval: Indicate whether a design change resulting from this project will affect the overhaul/inspection interval of the applicable component and the associated impact to the engine system overhaul/inspection interval.

j. Maintainability. Indicate whether a design change resulting from this project will affect the maintainability of the applicable engine component.

k. Field Tools: Indicate whether a design change resulting from this project will generate a requirement for new or redesigned tools, or the deletion of existing tools.

l. Depot Tools: Indicate whether a design change resulting from this project will generate a requirement for new or redesigned tools, or the deletion of existing tools.

m. Publication/Technical Data: Indicate whether a design change resulting from this project will generate a requirement for new, updated, or deleted publication/technical data. If yes, list the affected documents.

n. Lifecycle Cost: Indicate whether a design change resulting from this project will affect

Lifecycle Cost.

o. Facilities: Indicate whether a design change resulting from this project will affect the facility requirements of the system.

p. Spares/Provisioning: Indicate whether a design change resulting from this project will affect the spares or provisioning required for the system.

q. Training: Indicate whether a design change resulting from this project will affect the system training requirements.

3.15 Verification Plan: This shall include discussion of planned verification activities including similarity, analysis, mock ups, fit/function checks, coupon/component/rig tests, engine tests

(including instrumentation needs), flight test, field service evaluation, or other pertinent activities.

Activities shall be grouped into development, qualification, and implementation risk reduction categories and success criteria identified. Required test hours and test assets shall be identified for all tests. Verification plans should be tailored to the scope of the EPD as appropriate and must be consistent with program specifications and integrity plans (PSIP, ENSIP, etc.) unless an exception is granted by the Government.

3.16 Schedule: Provide a schedule for completion of the specific EPD including project milestones and identification of major project milestones. If the planned or actual date changes from the initial input, the reasons for this change shall be reflected and explained in 2.20 below.

3.17 Implementation Plan and Estimated Cost: This section shall include the implementation plan and an estimate of the implementation costs as indicated below. Items that do not pertain to the

EPD should be marked N/A (not applicable). If an estimated implementation cost is presently not available, indicate N/E (not estimated), and include the estimated availability date. If implementation plans vary by engine model then each plan shall be shown separately.

a. Type: Indicate retrofit or attrition as defined herein.

(1) Retrofit – The incorporation of an approved engineering change into deployed equipment at a specific point in time (first periodic, first return to depot, etc.).

Scrapping or reworking the superseded part(s) will be required regardless of condition or time in service if use in other applications/models is not feasible.

Implementation plans that result in changes to connecting or mating parts, and replacement or rework of multiple parts, shall also be considered as retrofit.

(2) Attrition - The inventory of the present items must be depleted by any cause, e.g., wear out or combat, prior to incorporation of new design items. Attrition is similar to

"parts supersede" and is applied where there is an economic advantage to utilizing existing stock. Attrition is always a one-for-one replacement.

b. Cost Per Engine:

(1) Current Part. The current spare parts selling price of the existing component hardware.

(2) Proposed New Part. A preliminary cost estimate of the redesigned hardware under consideration. This information will be revised as redesign concepts are better defined.

(3) Proposed Reworked Part. The material and labor cost to rework existing parts, if applicable.

(4) Kit Costs. The anticipated cost for each engine kit.

c. Production Cost:

(1) Tooling. The cost of fixtures, dies, machinery, and tools needed to support the proposed design change in production.

(2) Facilities. The cost to install machinery, modify existing facilities, or construct new facilities.

(3) Support Equipment. The cost of support equipment required to support the design change once incorporated into the fleet. Overhaul tools are considered in the tooling cost.

(4) Publication/Technical Data Costs. The cost to add, update, or delete publications/technical data.

3.18 CDRLs: Include a list of all relevant CDRLs for each EPD.

3.19 Planned Total EPD Cost: Provide the total estimated cost for the entire life of the EPD broken down by calendar year. Provide actuals for past years and estimates for future years.

3.20 Revision History and Justification: EPD revision history and supporting rationale for each revision shall be provided in this section. This section is not applicable for initial EPD submittal.

3.21 Cost Effectiveness Analysis (CEA): A Cost Effectiveness Analysis (CEA) created consistent with the PWS shall be included.

4. End of OT-2014-30010.