C-130_MLGTorqueStrut_Redesign_PWS_RevB.docx

C-130 MLG Torque Strut Redesign PWS 417th SCMS FA8203-15-X-XXXXX

Performance Work Statement

For

C-130 MLG Torque Strut Assembly Redesign Program

PREPARATION DATE: 13 Jul 2015

REVISION NUMBER: B

PREPARING ORGANIZATION: 417 Supply Chain Management Squadron, HILL AFB UT 84056

C-130 MLG Torque Strut Redesign PWS 417 SCMS/GUEA FA8203-15-X-XXXXX

SECTION I –DESCRIPTION OF SERVICES

1.0 GENERAL SCOPE

1.0.1. The objectives and requirements identified within this Performance Work Statement (PWS) are described in general landing systems specific terms. The Tasks in the SOO are the specific requirements related to this overall effort, project scheduling, and other related performance criteria, as applicable. All CLINs for which execution begins in FY15 are fully funded.

1.0.2. The Contractor shall provide all resources, property, personnel, travel, tools, indirect support material, software, and/or other indirect equipment and materials necessary to provide the engineering services outlined in the individual requirements herein. As a Firm Fixed Price (FFP) contract, the contractor is fully burdened with all deliverables and support for contract execution.

1.0.2.1. The overall objective of this program is to examine C-130 MLG Torque Strut components that have historically had issues with fatigue and stress corrosion cracking, premature failure, and corrosion and reliability and maintainability problems. The parts to be examined are:

PN 388064 – MLG Torque Strut Assy, including:

PN 388065 – MLG Torque Strut, Fwd PN 388066 – MLG Torque Strut, Aft

1.0.2.2. The Tasks will be used to mitigate Safety of Flight (SOF) and other problems with the C-130 main landing gear Torque Strut Assembly and ensure appropriate program management, design, qualification and test, and technical data and implementation efforts in support of 417 SCMS mission objectives and OSS&E requirements.

1.0.2.3. The specific scope for each Task is outlined in the SOO.

1.0.3. The contract scope does not include advisory and assistance services (refer FAR 2.101): management or professional support, policy development, or engineering services for which the program office is responsible (e.g. design services for weapons systems that aren’t beyond Full Rate Production).

1.2 CONTRACT OBJECTIVES:

1.2.1. The overall primary contract objective is for engineering services for the redesign of C-130 main landing gear Torque Strut Assembly components to address Safety of Flight (SOF) issues with fatigue, stress corrosion cracking, premature failures, and inadequate design and function. Secondary contract objectives are reduction of high lifecycle costs due to corrosion and reliability and maintainability deficiencies.

1.2.2. Support activities will include: all program management activities; development, design, and manufacturing/procurement; qualification and test of redesigned components to meet all airworthiness requirements; full structural, finite element analyses (FEA) and digital fatigue analyses (DFA) of listed components, as required, using existing C-130 component models; development of full procurement, overhaul, and maintenance technical data; complete support of 417 SCMS implementation and logistics activities to ensure seamless and timely implementation of the improved designs into fleet use; and operational service evaluations and supporting activities, as needed, and complete integration support for a successful program.

1.2.3. Technical data shall include Type 2D production-level Technical Data Package (TDP) per MIL-STD-31000, per CDRL A004.

1.2.4. While not currently expected, any design changes that affect the functional baseline of the landing gear struts may require full-scale testing to justify engineering recommendations. It is expected that any full-scale strut testing would be dictated by the nature of the design changes and shall be accomplished at the Landing Gear Test Facility (LGTF), Wright-Patterson AFB, OH. In the event of full-scale testing at LGTF, funding will be provided directly to LGTF for that effort. Qualification testing for individual components or systems of components, to validate FEA and DFA models and demonstrate appropriate airworthiness compliance, may be performed at the Contractor’s facility, through sub-contracted testing, or LGTF, where appropriate. Prototype hardware will be provided by the Contractor to accomplish objectives for each individual Task, to meet airworthiness and qualification requirements, as outlined in the Tasks in the SOO.

1.2.5. It is anticipated that some forging die modifications may be necessary as a result of design selections. The Contractor shall be responsible for obtaining ESA approval for use of the dies prior to manufacturing. Alterations, refurbishment, repairs or any other changes to forging dies shall not be made without USAF contracting officer approval. The Government will always retain unlimited usage rights of forging dies for reprocurement.

1.2.6. Support for required engineering reviews and approvals shall be provided. By example, these reviews include: Preliminary Design Review (PDR), Critical Design Review (CDR), Technical Interchange Meetings (TIM), Engineering Review Boards (ERB), Qualification Test Plans (QTP), Qualiication Test Reports (QTR), Test Readiness Reviews (TRR), Configuration Control Boards (CCB), etc…

1.2.7. The Contractor will utilize a contract Integrated Master Schedule (IMS) that captures the overall effort with all milestones for each Task, per CDRL A010. The IMS should allow reasonable time for Government technical reviews and approvals at critical program milestones. A contract Integrated Master Plan (IMP) is not required for the proposal.

1.2.8. The deliverables outlined in each SOO Task may not be inclusive of all foreseen deliverables. It is the contractor’s responsibility to determine which deliverables are appropriate for the offeror’s proposed approach, and if any additional deliverables are necessary to satisfy the intent of the project and grading criteria outlined in the Modified Delphi, and graded per Section M. The contractor should outline its proposed deliverables in its Technical Proposal.

1.2.9. The Contractor will be required to submit a Contractor Management Plan IAW CDRL A014.

1.4 TECHNICAL PROPOSAL

1.4.1. The contractor’s Technical Proposal will form the basis from which the contractor shall manage the program and prepare all project status reports. The contractor’s compliance with this PWS and execution in accordance with the contractor’s Technical Proposal will also form the basis from which the Government will evaluate actual contract performance (CPARS) to the Contractor’s stated deliverables, levels of effort, and methodology for the overall contract and individual Tasks.

1.5 PERIOD OF PERFORMANCE

1.5.1. The overall period of performance to complete all tasks and requirements is expected to be between 48-72 month. The overall schedule shall be proposed in the contractor’s IMS with an explanation of the offeror’s rationale in the Technical Approach.

SECTION II – SERVICE SUMMARY

2.1. Services

Services shall be rendered in conformance with this PWS and demonstrate accomplishment of contract objectives in accordance with thresholds established in the QASP.

2.2. Performance

Performance measurement and thresholds are indicated in the QASP. Thresholds are utilized to establish a quality standard that’s measured prior to intervention (contract performance) and post intervention to determine the effectiveness of the Contractor’s performance.

2.3. Surveillance

Surveillance will be conducted monthly throughout the performance of work as outlined in the contract and in the QASP; and, must be accomplished by the Contract Manager, or Principal Engineer or Program Manager, if so delegated, as outlined in Section IV, para 4.3 and Section V prior to exercise of an Option (i.e. severable phase of completion) or upon Task completion (refer Section V for additional information). Overall contract surveillance will occur a minimum of once every 6 months, on-site at Hill AFB, Utah (or at the Contractor’s facility in the immediate local vicinity to Hill AFB) with the Contract Manager.

2.4. Cost surveillance will not be performed, other than for reasonableness of invoiced progress payments per FAR 32.502-4(a), since this is a fully-burdened, firm fixed price (FFP) contract.

SECTION III - GOVERNMENT FURNISHED PROPERTY

3.1. Government Furnished Property (GFP)

3.1.1. The Air Force anticipates that furnishing real property may be required to facilitate contract performance. However, it is the Contractor’s responsibility to identify any necessary GFP in the Contractor’s Technical Proposal, based upon its approach to mitigating issues with the MLG Torque Strut Assembly. In the event GFP is required, the Contractor must conform to the provisions of AFI 31-101 for safeguarding the GFP and have a Property Management Plan (CDRL A014). All records, files, documents, and work papers provided by the Air Force or generated by the Contractor in support of the contract are Government property and shall be maintained and disposed of per Air Force Manual (AFMAN) 37-139.

3.1.2. GFP may be provided (personal property: investment, or expense) as required and identified in the specific Task, but will be delineated at the contract level. All GFP, if required, will be agreed upon by 417 SCMS, with post-award monitoring accomplished by the Contracting Officer’s Representative (COR). For purposes of post-award monitoring, GFP will be reported upon to the Engineering Program Manager, weapon system program manager, and/or COR and tracked at the Task level for which the GFP was required. Control of GFP will be accomplished IAW FAR Part 45 and through the incorporation of supply information in the individual Task.

3.2. Data

3.2.1. The Air Force may provide access to electronic systems and data pursuant to Task accomplishment subject to compliance with applicable statues and regulations. Examples of electronic systems and data include but are not limited to: (JEDMICS, D200, D035, D043, e-mail, Form 202, LAN, etc.) If access is provided, the Contractor must agree to and comply with the applicable system restrictions (non-disclosure agreements, security clearance requirements, etc.). Existing, recent, and relevant access to these systems for similar workload is strongly preferred and will be given preference during technical evaluations of Contractors’ proposals.

SECTION IV – GENERAL INFORMATION.

4.1. Authority

4.1.1. Procuring Contracting Officer’s (PCO) Authority. The PCO is the only person authorized to approve changes, in any, of the requirements under this PWS and any provisions contained elsewhere in this contract. In the event the Contractor implements any such change at the direction of any person other than the PCO, the change will be considered to have been made without authority.

4.2. Data Rights

4.2.1. All data shall be developed and provided per the contract Task (Appendix A), where applicable, in accordance with contract CDRLs and clauses. Unless the Contractor expresses a specific claim in their Technical Proposal to providing data to the Government with less than unlimited data rights, with demonstrated justification for the Contractor’s claimed exception, the Government will have unlimited data rights (see DFARS 252.227-7013 for definition of data rights). In some cases, the Contractor shall be required to provide proprietary data for government use. Examples of these cases include, but are not limited to: Government determinations of deliverable accuracy, quality, and methodology when proprietary data was utilized to create the end-deliverable.

4.2.2. Data developed and/or manipulated on commercially available software (e.g Microsoft Office, Matlab, Mathcad, Ansys, N-Code, Solidworks, etc…), used to perform the services outlined in this contract, shall be provided in their entirety with unlimited rights to the Government. This will allow the Government to validate that the contractor’s methodology, quality, and accuracy of deliverables to meet the deliverable requirements for each Task.

4.3. Contractor Personnel

4.3.1. The Contractor shall outline in its technical proposal its key personnel and how it meets the needs of the contract consistent with the levels identified in Table 5.0., per Section L & M. While the Contractor may not need the entire complement of personnel outlined in Table 5.0 to execute the requirements of this contract, it is the Contractor’s responsibility to explain its key personnel, their duties and responsibilities, expertise, experience, and qualifications, and their current and projected workload to provide confidence to the Government that the Contractor can seamlessly and efficiently manage the requirements of this contract.

4.3.1.1. To facilitate a team environment, efficient management of contract requirements to meet specific landing gear design and analysis needs, meetings, reviews, and close integrated product team support, the contractor may find it advantageous if its principal engineering team and principal logistics support staff be located in the local area to Hill AFB, UT (i.e. within 30 miles).

4.3.2. The Contractor shall identify a single Contract Manager (CM) as the overall point of contact for management of the contract, including all deliverables. The CM will be responsible for ensuring contract Task objectives are met by utilizing the Contractor’s resources (support, personnel, sub-contractors, time, resources, and so forth) effectively. The CM may elect to delegate monthly reporting and surveillance of individual Task execution to the Program Manager (PM) or Principal Engineer (PE) provided uniform methods of reporting, as required in paras 1.2.7., 1.4.3., Section II, etc… are employed. The Contractor must also demonstrate manpower workloading in its Technical Proposal that the proposed PM or PE is sufficiently unencumbered and technically and administratively capable to manage this delegated workload as outlined in Section I, para 1.4.3., (d).

4.3.3. The Contractor shall identify a single Principle Engineer (PE) as the point of contact for each Task’s technical solutions and objective accomplishments. The CM may elect to delegate program management functions to the PE for Contractor resources (personnel, tools, time, et al.) for the specific Task, but overall contract health and responsibility resides with the CM. The Contractor must demonstrate manpower workloading in its Technical Proposal that the proposed PE is sufficiently unencumbered and technically capable to manage the proposed workload as outlined in Section I, para 1.4.3., (d).

4.3.4. The selection, hiring, assignment of duties, reassignment of duties, transfer, supervision, management, control, and termination of Contractor employees in performance of this PWS shall be the responsibility and prerogative of the Contractor, subject to the minimum qualifications and labor categories identified in Table 5.0. below. The specified qualifications represent a minimum individual requirement in terms of academic achievement, or experience, or both for a particular individual in a given category. The Contractor shall ensure all Contractor employees wear appropriate attire, depending on particular job assignment. The contractor will be responsible to identify that they are a Contractor employee whenever executing their job assignments on Air Force installations and/or with Government personnel unfamiliar with their role.

4.3.5. Academic achievement level shall have been obtained at a regionally accredited (college, university, vocational school) institution in consequence of rigorous study of the applicable subject. Levels of achievement are: (a) Baccalaureate of Science (BS); (b) Masters of Science (MS) or Masters of Engineering (ME); and, (c) Doctor of Science (PhD).

4.3.6. For all labor categories not identified as “Junior” a waiver request must be submitted in writing articulating adequate technical justification for the waiver and the projected benefit to the Air Force in the event it’s approved.

Table 5.0. – Labor Categories

Labor Category

Duties /Responsibilities

Qualifications

12 years’ experience in direct landing gear or aerospace program management;

3 years’ experience in project management.

PhD or MS/ME or BS in Mechanical, Structural, Aerospace, or Materials Engineering.

BS or working towards completion of BS in Mechanical, Structural, Aerospace, or Materials Engineering.

PhD or MS/ME or BS in Mechanical, Aerospace, Electrical, or Materials Engineering 8, 10, or 12 years’ experience, respectively;

PhD or MS/ME or BS in Mechanical, Aerospace, Electrical, or Materials Engineering.

12 years’ experience with USAF logistics

7 years’ experience with USAF logistics

2 years’ experience in logistics.

12 years’ experience with USAF logistics and/or Program Management

7 years’ experience with USAF logistics and/or Program Management

2 years’ experience in logistics.

4.4. Security

4.4.1. The Contractor shall ensure all Contractor employees obtain identification badges as required. Contractor personnel shall comply with directives pertaining to operation of privately owned vehicles on Hill AFB per AFI 91-207, USAF Traffic Safety Program. The Contractor shall also submit a Safety Plan per Appendix B that is not part of the Technical Proposal page count.

4.5. Past Experience and Performance

4.5.1. The offeror shall provide a description of “recent” and “relevant” contracts for the Prime Contractor, as outlined in Sections L & M of the solicitation, and, if applicable, any sub-contractors that will play a significant role in the offeror's approach.

4.6. Sub-contracts

4.6.1. Subcontracting plan requirements will be accomplished IAW FAR subpart 19.7 The Small Business Subcontracting Program. Submit the Individual Subcontract Report (ISR), and the Summary Subcontract Report (SRR) using the Electronic Subcontracting Reporting System (eSRS) (http://www.esrs.gov).

4.6.2. The Contractor shall be responsible for the management of any and all sub-contractors performing work in support of contract objectives.

4.6.3. ENHANCED SMALL BUSINESS SUBCONTRACTING REQUIREMENT: The Air Force has set a small business subcontracting requirement of eighteen-percent (18%) of subcontracted dollars (inclusive of all small business subcategories contemplated by FAR – Part 19) for this contract. All large business prime contractors will be required to establish a program to meet and maintain the minimum participation (18%) throughout the Contract’s period of performance.

4.6.3.1. In the event the contract is awarded to a large business prime contractor, the Contractor shall manage their subcontracting plan in accordance with FAR 52.244-5, 52.219-8, 52.219-9, 52.219-24 and 52.219-25 to ensure requirements of para 4.6.3. are met. “Small business concern,” as used in this clause, means small business, veteran-owned small business, service-disabled veteran-owned small business, HUB Zone small business, small disadvantaged business, and woman-owned small business as defined by FAR Part 19 and this contract.

4.6.3.2. Small business Contractors’ Small Business Participation will be monitored on a semiannual basis, IAW CDRL A015 and eSRS (ref para 4.6.1.), throughout the Contractor’s period of performance to ensure that small business subcontracting targets are met. Small Business Contractors are exempt from the requirement at FAR 19.702(a) to submit a Small Business Subcontracting Plan, but shall instead submit a Small Business Participation report IAW CDRL A015. For the purpose of this contract, Small Business Participation is defined as the cost of contract performance of the small business prime combined with the dollars subcontracted to small business. Small Business Participation Report shall show separation of the following small business entities: Small and Small Disadvantaged Business, Veteran-Owned Small Business, Service-Disabled Veteran-Owned Small Business, Women-Owned Small Business, HUB Zone Small Business, and Historically Black Colleges and Universities, and Minority Institutions. The Contractor shall choose the apportionment of the 18% among the Small Business types.

4.6.4. The Contractor may submit a waiver request to the requirements of para 4.6.3. if the Contractor feels there is a compelling or insurmountable technical or program risk if subcontracting specific requirements are maintained. A waiver request must be submitted in writing articulating adequate justification for the waiver; the projected benefit to the Air Force in the event it’s approved and/or the programmatic or technical risk associated with a waiver disapproval. The Contracting Officer has the complete discretion whether to grant the requested waiver.

4.7. Environmental

4.7.1. The Contractor shall be knowledgeable of and comply with all applicable Federal, State, and Local laws, regulations, and requirements regarding environmental protection.

4.7.2. In the event environmental laws and regulations change during the term of this contract, the Contractor shall be required to comply with such laws when they come into effect. If there is an increase or decrease in cost as a result of the change, the Contractor shall inform the Procurement Contracting Officer (PCO) of the change and the PCO will determine if an equitable adjustment is required.

SECTION V -- QUALITY SURVEILLANCE

5.1. Contractor’s Quality Plan

5.1.1. The Contractor shall develop and explain a Quality Plan that follows the offeror’s Technical Proposal that encompasses the work to be performed for the contract. The contractor’s Quality Plan must be limited to 20 pages or less and is not included Technical Proposal page count.

5.1.2. The Contractor’s Quality Plan shall develop and implement procedures to identify, prevent, and ensure non-recurrence of defective services. In addition, the Contractor shall develop quality control procedures addressing the areas identified in Section II, Service Summary. The Contractor shall update the quality section as applicable noting the results of internal quality audits that may be performed pursuant to Task quality metrics or objectives. The CM will be generally responsible for contract’s quality program and the PE will be responsible for the Task quality accomplishment.

1.3.7. The Quality Plan must explain how the solution impacts the quality metric(s) throughout the performance period and 2) a Quality Plan that monitors the proposed solutions impact (i, ii, iii) throughout the performance period.

1.3.7.1. Quality standards for Tasks may be event, or time driven, and may include ISO-9001, or American National Standards Institute (ANSI) / EIA 632, Processes for Engineering a System (e.g., availability, reliability, safety, performance, accuracy, maintainability, supportability, deploy-ability, survivability, cost effectiveness, and service life of the particular component, subsystem, system, or process). When feasible, quality measurement will be implemented and monitored by: (1) citing the quality metric(s); (2) stating the objective; (3) stating the current state of nature; (4) utilize a rate of change to prove the intervention; and, (5) determining its effectiveness. Below, table 2.0.—Quality Exhibit provides an example of this approach.

Table 2.0. – Quality Exhibit

5.2. Surveillance

5.2.1. The Contractor shall support Air Force quality assurance surveillance. The Air Force (or a DCMA representative) will periodically evaluate the Contractor’s performance IAW, Paragraph 2.3. (monthly review of Contractor’s submissions), the Contract’s Quality Assurance Surveillance Plan and PWS Section II, or Task criteria as identified. For those requirements listed in Section II, the Contracting Officer’s Representative (COR) will follow the methods of surveillance specified in the QASP and PWS Section II, or Task criteria as identified. The COR is the Air Force’s authorized representative for the Contracting Officer (CO) and will participate in the administration of this contract.

5.2.2. The COR may inform the CM or PE in person when discrepancies occur and may request corrective action. The COR will make a notation of the discrepancy on the Quality Surveillance Form, Table 6.0. below, with the date and time the discrepancy was observed and will request the CM or PE initial the entry on the surveillance checklist. The CM or PE shall initial next to the defective performance observation indicating acknowledgment of deficiency. The initialing of the observation does not necessarily constitute Contractor concurrence with the observation, only acknowledgment that the Contractor is aware of the defective performance.

5.2.3. The absence of any contract requirement from the service summary (since the Air Force may otherwise identify quality criteria) does not detract from its enforceability nor limit the rights or remedies of the Air Force under any other provision of the contract.

5.2.4. The Contractor shall on a non-interference basis allow Government audits to be performed on Contractor maintained files. Contractors shall expect the Surveillance form, Table 6.0, below, to be utilized on a monthly basis to inspect the Status Reports, subsequent to completion of Task options, and/or Task completion. Results of the surveillance will be input into the PPIRS/CPARS system annually.

5.2.5. In the event that a defect occurs the CM or PE shall respond to the concern within one week, 7 calendar days after Quality Surveillance Form’s initialed by CM, indicating: (a) cause of the defect; (b) resolution plan with time-line; and (c) plan to mitigate recurrence. If the CM/PE disagrees with the observation they shall so state and the CO will determine whether the discrepancy is valid. Valid discrepancies will be tracked to ensure resolution and to document repeat occurrences. It’s the CM’s responsibility to marshal resources to address valid discrepancies (fewer than 3 errors per Task—inclusive of Options) and prevent recurrence (no more than one repeated valid discrepancy—inclusive of all Task’s Contractor has performed work on).

5.2.6. For CPARS and subsequent ordering purposes the COR will utilize a scoring system. The ratings consist of: (1) Unacceptable—does not meet most contract requirements, serious problems with recovery not likely and ineffective corrective action; (2) Marginal—does not meet some contract requirements, serious problems with recovery still possible and corrective actions are marginally effective but not fully implemented; (3) Satisfactory—Meets all contract requirements, some minor problems and corrective action is satisfactory; (4) Very Good—Contractor exceeds some contract requirements, some minor problems and corrective actions were effective (5) Exceptional—exceeds many contract requirements, few minor problems and corrective actions where highly effective.

TABLE 6.0.: Quality Surveillance Form

Quality Surveillance Form

Date of Surveillance: _____________________________________

COR Conducting Surveillance: ______________________________

COR/PM Notes Discrepancy

OSS&E

Submission’s timeliness

Submissions accuracy

Sub-Contractor Management

Surveillance

Contract Manager’s Comments (& Initials) Regarding Surveillance: ____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Final Disposition (Completed by Contracting Officer):

Statement of Objectives (SOO)

STATEMENT OF OBJECTIVES (SOO)

FOR

C-130 MLG TORQUE STRUT ASSEMBLY REDESIGN

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE:

The C-130 MLG utilizes a torque strut assembly that absorbs and balances torsional loads between the MLG strut assemblies on the aircraft. The MLG torque strut assemblies are pinned at the bottom of the MLG strut assemblies by the torque strut bolt through the respective lugs on each assembly. In addition to at least 4 known USAF and NAVAIR mishaps, since 2005 there have been at least 43 known condemnations of forward and aft torque strut assemblies at depot overhaul due to fatigue and stress corrosion cracking (SCC) in the torque lugs, the “I-beam” area in between the torque lugs, in the webs, and occasionally longitudinal cracks in the relief radius of the forward torque strut cylinder. The purpose of this contract is to mitigate Safety of Flight issues with failing C-130 MLG Torque Strut Assemblies.

SCOPE:

A redesign effort is needed in order to mitigate extensive history with cracking of the forward and aft torque struts and to mitigate the Safety of Flight (SOF) risk of failures during service. The redesign effort shall investigate mitigations for both fatigue and SCC margins and redesign and qualify both the forward and aft torque struts, per safe-life design, to mitigate these causes of failures. The redesign effort will investigate possible material changes and may include geometrical changes, as necessary, but would ideally remain within the current forging dimensions. Ideally, any geometrical changes will not affect the interface between the MLG Torque Strut Assembly and the MLG Piston Assembly, but the primary objective is the mitigation of future failures due to fatigue and SCC. Mating components must also be evaluated to ensure that any increased stiffness will not alter operational characteristics or drive failures to other locations.

Secondary goals of the project include the feasibility of forging elimination to improve component availability and reduce production lead time and reduction of condemnations due to corrosion (which may be mitigated with materials or processing changes).

PERIOD OF PERFORMANCE:

Overall Period of Performance is discussed in PWS, Section I, para 1.5. Period of Performance for each discrete Task is addressed in the descriptions of each Task requirement and objective, as outlined below.

PRIMARY OBJECTIVES:

The purpose of this task is to seek engineering services in support of resolving current Safety of Flight (SOF) issues with the MLG Torque Strut Assembly failing due to fatigue and SCC. In general, the resolution is envisioned to be a redesign of both the forward and aft torque struts.

To control costs, analysis will be utilized in lieu of component testing wherever possible. Additionally, elimination of forgings and reduction of condemnations at depot overhaul due to corrosion shall be analyzed as secondary objectives. This support has been broken down into four (4) Tasks:

TASK 1 - PROGRAM MANAGEMENT AND INTEGRATED PRODUCT TEAM SUPPORT:

The Contractor will provide all program management and engineering services to support the USAF Integrated Product Team (IPT) from cradle-to-implementation for the C-130 MLG Torque Strut Assembly redesign, including, but not limited to: program execution, economic analyses and justifications, a recommended funding and detailed implementation strategy, preparation of all documentation, briefings, and materials necessary for for the initial USAF acquisition of spares and provisioning of the final design solution(s).

This includes support to the Program Manager(s), Item Manager(s), Equipment Specialist(s), and Weapon System engineer(s) for all IPT-related functions associated with implementation. This also includes support, as directed by 417 SCMS, for enterprise stakeholders to ensure program success and all approvals, briefings, documentation, forms, source data, and support for a successful program.

This section encompasses the overall program execution for all efforts not specifically outlined in other Task objectives, as necessary for program success. The detailed Integrated Master Schedule, that covers projected program efforts and milestones throughout this Task, and economic analyses may be combined with similar efforts and documentation for other Tasks, where appropriate, to minimize cost and duplication of efforts, and to ensure program fidelity for the contract.

For purposes of contract surveillance, monthly reporting for Task objectives will be managed under this Task even though overall contract performance will be managed as a combined effort. Monthly surveillance for this Task will be separate from the bi-annual reporting associated with the overall contract.

This effort is expected to begin before August 31, 2015 and extend through the duration of the program.

Deliverables include, but are not limited to:

· Project folders

· Meeting minutes and Action Items (inclusive of all program efforts)

· Briefing materials (inclusive of all program efforts)

· Detailed Implementation Plans and Economic Analyses to meet SPO, 417 SCMS, and IIRP requirements (where applicable), per AFI65-501 and AFMAN65-506, including any and all assumptions, justifications, methodology, source data, spreadsheets, point papers and working papers, macros, formulae, etc...

TASK 2 - PRODUCT DESIGN, ANALYSIS, PROTOTYPING, AND TECHNICAL DATA:

The contractor will provide all engineering services to design, develop, analyze, evaluate, and document a redesigned C-130 MLG Torque Strut Assembly for safe-life design and improved reliability and maintainability. The contractor will also procure prototype assets for qualification. Given acquisition lead times for prototype assets, the contractor will also procure any assets necessary for operational evaluations, where appropriate.

The contractor will provide the Government with appropriate alternatives, with its recommended approach, to mitigate stress corrosion cracking (SCC) and fatigue failures of the C-130 MLG Torque Strut Assembly. The approach should be implementable and cost effective, with a primary focus on also on improving reliability, maintainability, and reparability.

The contractor will update all digital FE models and analyses for all affected components, as outlined in Section I, para 1.2.8 and contract CDRLs (e.g. CDRL A009). The contractor will also provide complete, detailed stress manual updates and update the production level technical data packages and all technical data for procurement, maintenance, and complete overhaul of the affected components.

This effort encompasses the entire non-recurring engineering effort for design, analysis, and technical data for the C-130 MLG Torque Strut Assembly and associated hardware and prototyping. Where appropriate, the Contractor may combine test efforts, fixturing, approvals, etc… with other Tasks outlined herein to maximize cost savings, synergy, and simplification of approvals.

This effort is expected to begin before September 30, 2015 and may potentially extend through CCB for technical data updates.

Deliverables include, but are not limited to:

· Detailed, complete Stress Manual updates for all affected components

· Analysis of Alternatives

· Recommendation reports

· All Engineering Milestone Approval Documentation (e.g. PDR, CDR, ERB, etc…)

· Finite Element Analyses (FEA), Digital Fatigue Analyses (DFA), multibody dynamic simulations, and 3D solid models and all associated data and files per contract CDRL A009.

· Complete Type 2D Production level TDPs per MIL-STD-31000, including any 3D model updates per contract CDRLs.

· Complete Technical Order (T.O.) source data in Word (.doc) and Adobe PDF (.pdf) format, along with all system level source data in the format designated by the System Program Office (e.g. Standard Generalized Markup Language (SGML) for Aircraft System T.O.s; Computer Graphics Metafile (.cgm), vector images with a minimum resolution of 300 DPI, or as required (e.g. .TIFF, vector), for Illustration files.) If the SPO requires SGML source data, the offeror can assume availability of the original native files.

· Prototype Parts, as required, for lab qualification, fit checks, and operational evaluations

TASK 3 – QUALIFICATION, TESTING, AND AIRWORTHINESS CERTIFICATION:

The Contractor will provide all engineering services for, and manage qualification of, the redesigned MLG Torque Strut Assembly for safe-life design. The Contractor will develop a Qualification Test Plan, develop any necessary test fixturing and/or partnering agreements for testing, and execute a qualification test program of the redesigned assembly. The contractor will also develop and provide all airworthiness documentation to meet 417 SCMS and System Program Office (SPO) requirements for final certifications and CCB.

The offeror’s proposal should demonstrate a logical, sound engineering approach to qualification, with all necessary approvals, milestones, documentation, and test articles and testing, if applicable, to meet all airworthiness requirements.

Additionally, FE models and analyses (including the digital fatigue analyses) shall be updated as necessary to reflect any required changes based on FEA validation and qualification testing. The initial MACC-CR shall consider the full spectrum of qualification options, including analysis through full fatigue testing. If the Contractor recommends qualification without full laboratory testing, the Contractor should provide a detailed explanation of its position how it will demonstrate safe-life compliance for SPO approval, as well as, discuss program and cost risk mitigation if the SPO requires full testing.

This portion of the Task encompasses the entire non-recurring engineering effort to qualify the final C-130 MLG Torque Strut Assembly design per safe-life requirements and to demonstrate and document compliance with airworthiness certification requirements. Where appropriate, the Contractor may combine test efforts, fixturing, approvals, etc… with other Tasks outlined herein to maximize cost savings, synergy, and simplification of approvals.

This effort is expected to begin before September 30, 2016 and may potentially extend through CCB for test reporting updates to meet SPO requirements.

Deliverables include, but are not limited to:

· Qualification documentation (e.g. QTP, TRR, QTR, etc…), including any and all raw data, software, algorithms, macros, formulae, assumptions and methodology, et cetera, as necessary for correct and complete data reduction from raw data to the final product.

· All airworthiness documentation (e.g. FMECAs, SSEs, 1067s, MACC-CRs, CCB documentation, etc…)

· Updated FE models and all analyses, if applicable

TASK 4 - OPERATIONAL PROGRAM EVALUATION:

The Contractor will assist the government with all efforts necessary for operational evaluation, tracking, Val/Ver, etc…, of the prototype assets, to demonstrate program success (e.g. OSS&E, reliability improvements). As a fatigue and Stress corrosion cracking redesign, a traditional, full field service evaluation may not be applicable, but this allows a place holder for other constructive efforts, as needed, for the Contractor to meet the overall primary and secondary objectives of the contract. The contractor should provide a detailed explanation of it position in its technical approach that outlines its projected efforts for this portion of the Task.

If applicable, the Contractor will generate a qualification test plan (QTP), perform a test readiness review (TRR), perform operational tracking or testing and generate a test report (TR), including all necessary approvals, milestones, and documentation.

This effort is expected to begin before September 30, 2018 and will extend through the duration of the program.

Deliverables include, but are not limited to:

· Qualification documentation (e.g. QTP, TRR, QTR, etc…), including any and all raw data, software, algorithms, assumptions, macros, formulae, and methodology, et cetera, as necessary for correct and complete data reduction from raw data to the final product.

· Technical Order (T.O.) source data updates in Word (.doc) and Adobe PDF (.pdf) format, along with any system level source data updates, to capture operational, end-user, production and manufacturing, and maintenance lesson-learned that occurred after the Technical Order source data provided in the Technical Data portions of the individual Task efforts.

- 2 -image1.emf