4- C-LGIP B-52 SOO 20201001.pdf

FA820320R0007

1 October 2020

B-52 C-LGIP SOO

STATEMENT OF OBJECTIVES (SOO)

FOR

B-52 COMPREHENSIVE-LANDING GEAR INTEGRITY PROGRAM (C-LGIP)

1. PURPOSE:

1.1. This Statement of Objectives provides the Government’s key program objectives and contract deliverables for the B-52 Comprehensive-Landing Gear Integrity Program (C-LGIP). It is not intended to be all-inclusive and shall not limit the Contractor in addressing those areas that the Contractor foresees as being crucial to the success of the program. The government strongly encourages Contractors to bring forward innovative approaches as part of their proposals. The Contractor must use this SOO together with other applicable portions of the Fair Opportunity Proposal Request as the basis for preparing their proposals. Proposals must include a Statement of Work (SOW), Integrated Master Schedule (IMS) and Work Breakdown Structure (WBS).

1.2. The Contractor must ensure all aspects of this SOO are addressed in their proposals.

The SOW, IMS and WBS must specify in clear, understandable terms the work to be performed by the Contractor, their teaming partners and subcontractors to accomplish the SOO objectives. If a teaming arrangement is proposed, the proposal must include a letter of agreement signed by all parties.

2. BACKGROUND:

2.1. The 417 Supply Chain Management Squadron (417 SCMS) has worked a number of integrity programs in the past, but these were limited in their scope. More specifically, these previous efforts focused solely on structurally critical components, rather than all components critical to the function of the landing gear system. Age-based failure events, such as the 2017 grounding of the C-5 fleet, highlighted the need for a comprehensive landing gear integrity program that encompasses all Air Force (AF) managed weapon systems. The output of the C- LGIP will enable 417 SCMS to proactively manage both the safety and supportability risks associated with all AF landing gear systems that fall under its engineering authority.

3. SCOPE:

3.1. This C-LGIP program will develop and execute objectives for the B-52 landing gear system utilizing AFI63-101/20-101 Integrated Life Cycle Management, MIL-STD- 1530 Aircraft Structural Integrity Program (ASIP), MIL-STD-1798 Mechanical Equipment and Subsystems Integrity Program (MECSIP), and Draft SAE ARP6412 Recommended Practice for Landing Gear Integrity Programs. Air Force ASIP and MECSIP requirements specify that structural and functional integrity be maintained for the life of the aircraft to ensure Operational Safety, Suitability, and Effectiveness (OSS&E) of the weapon system. This requires that the design service life and service history for all landing gear components be known and monitored; however, these

B-52 C-LGIP SOO

criteria have not been efficiently tracked or monitored since the B-52 was introduced into service. It is also possible that the B-52 operational loads and fatigue spectrum have shifted over time, and therefore the remaining service life of landing gear components is unknown and needs to be analyzed. Additionally, the condition of all landing gear components in relation to their service history needs to be understood, to enable the supply chain to take proactive steps to ensure uninterrupted spares supportability. The primary objectives for this C-LGIP, outlined below, are to establish the tools and technical data necessary to ensure integrity throughout the system’s remaining operational service life. Again, the government strongly encourages Contractors to bring forward innovative approaches as part of their proposals.

3.2. The following high-level questions are intended to be answered by this program, however, this is not intended to be an all-inclusive list:

- How is the B-52 landing gear performing and what deficiencies (age based, design based, supply chain management based, etc.) should be addressed?

- What are the risks (safety, supportability, economic, etc.) associated with the identified deficiencies and what should be done to mitigate the risks?

- Given the efforts made on prior LGIPs (see Appendix A), how can the LGIP approach outlined in the Draft SAE ARP 6412 (see Appendix A) be improved and what innovations can be made?

3.3. Running concurrently with the B-52 C-LGIP contract will be the B-52 Wheel and Brake System Improvement (WBSI) contract. To optimize resources for both of these efforts, the loads survey portion of Task 7 for the C-LGIP contract will need to occur in the same timeframe, using the same aircraft, as the qualification testing for the WBSI contract. Coordination between the 417 SCMS, all involved Contractors (if more than one), the B-52 System Program Office (SPO) and the 419 Flight Test Squadron (FLTS) will be required.

3.4. For the primary objectives listed below, the Contractor’s proposal shall include all

B-52 landing gear components in each effort. However, after award and at task order execution it is acknowledged that there may be justification to preclude certain components from certain tasks. Accordingly, for each task of the B-52 C-LGIP, the Contractor may provide an additional deliverable outlining which parts are suggested to be included or excluded in that task of the C-LGIP effort with justification for any exclusions. The Government will have the exclusive right to determine if an exclusion justification is acceptable.

4. PRIMARY OBJECTIVES:

Task 1: Initial Integration of B-52 C-LGIP Data into Teamcenter

The Contractor will be responsible for integration of B-52 C-LGIP data, in accordance with USAF AFI 63-1201 (Life Cycle Systems Engineering) and AFMCI 63-1201 (Implementing OSS&E and Life Cycle Systems Engineering), into Siemens Teamcenter Product Lifecycle Management (PLM). The objective of this task is to develop a well-

B-52 C-LGIP SOO

documented and detailed Configuration Management (CM) structure within USAF Teamcenter for B-52 landing gear. The Contractor must provide a plan of the proposed CM structure that defines the process and methodology by which the B-52 C-LGIP data will be organized and integrated into the Teamcenter PLM system. Additionally, the Contractor must show how this management tool satisfies the CM requirements of the applicable AFI and AFMCI. Initial Integration of the B-52 C-LGIP data into Teamcenter must include, at a minimum, the following:

‐ A Teamcenter structure plan for how the Contractor will organize and provision for complete Engineering Bill of Material (E-BOM) structures in Teamcenter for all current B-52 landing gear configurations.

‐ Build the Teamcenter structure, in accordance with a plan agreed to by the government, for all current configurations of the B-52 landing gear using parts list data from drawings and Technical Orders (T.O.s) beginning with the highest level assemblies, including all components associated with those assemblies, down to the lowest level.

‐ A report demonstrating how the Contractor’s developed Teamcenter structure is in compliance with their proposed structure plan and how the proposed CM structure satisfies the CM requirements of USAF AFI 63-1201 and AFMCI 63- 1201.

Mandatory Deliverables:

a. CM structure plan (CDRL A014)

b. Teamcenter structure for all B-52 landing gear configurations (CDRL A020)

c. CM structure compliance report (CDRL A014)

Task 2: Probabilistic Age Assessment

The Contractor must perform a probabilistic age analysis of B-52 landing gear assemblies and their associated components (under 417 SCMS engineering authority, EXCLUDING wheels, brakes, antiskid system and associated hardware) currently in service or in supply. Currently, landing gear components do not have their usage serially tracked, therefore, a probabilistic approach must be taken to quantify the age of components. This information, coupled with the data from other tasks in this program, will provide the information required for the service life risk assessment task. Additionally, the Contractor must develop a plan to address components with complete, partial, or no procurement history. The probabilistic age assessment must include, at a minimum, the following:

- A list of applicable components to be analyzed in this task, ref. paragraph 3.4

- An Analysis of Alternatives (AoA) for the probabilistic age assessment comparing the current approach provided in SAE ARP6412 with that of an alternative approach, which may better utilize information provided in government supply and maintenance systems, such as REMIS, IMDS, IMPRESA, etc.

- Develop a MATLAB algorithm, based on the approach agreed to by the government via the AoA, to perform the age analyses. The MATLAB source code shall be editable for future use by the government.

- An age assessment report quantifying the statistical age of applicable landing gear components. The age must be expressed in probabilistic terms, and will likely be based on a combination of historical fleet size and component purchasing history.

B-52 C-LGIP SOO

Ages must be expressed in calendar (years), flight hours, and number of landings.

Include an extrapolation for the probabilistic age for the next 10 years, using conservative assumptions regarding USAF procurement practices.

- Final probabilistic age assessment report demonstrating compliance with the approved analysis approach and results of component analyses.

Mandatory deliverables:

a. If applicable, a list of included or excluded components (CDRL A017)

b. AoA for the probabilistic age assessment approach (CDRL A017)

c. Sample probabilistic age assessment of a component and report (CDRL A017, A020)

d. Editable MATLAB® source code (CDRL A020)

e. Probabilistic age assessment final report (CDRL A017)

Task 3: Analytical Condition Inspection (ACI)

The Contractor must perform an ACI of B-52 landing gear assemblies and their associated components (under 417 SCMS engineering authority, EXCLUDING wheels, brakes, valves and associated hardware) currently in service that are applicable to this task. The B-52 has components which are currently not overhauled on a regular basis, meaning they are never overhauled or their maintenance cycle exceeds that of the Program Depot Maintenance (PDM) cycle of the aircraft. These are the assemblies/components that should be the focus of this task. The Contractor will be required to arrange for, and conduct, on-site inspections at B-52 Programmed Depot Maintenance (PDM) facility at Tinker AFB and/or Active Duty and/or Reserve Bases.

The objective of this task is to identify existing or developing failure modes, such as wear, corrosion, cracking, impact damage, thermal effects, grease or hydraulic oil degradation, etc.; determine the remaining component life for the fleet population of parts (based on failure modes observed in the ACI parts); and document the results. The ACI must include, at a minimum, the following:

- A list of applicable components to be analyzed in this task, ref. paragraph 3.4.

- Develop a plan in accordance with AFMCI 21-102, Analytical Condition

Inspection Programs, to enable the inspection of a representative number of subject components (sample size to be determined). The Contractor’s plan must account for cases where spares are not available.

- Develop detailed inspection instructions for each component applicable to this task, for use by the participating units. These instructions are to include types of inspections, the extent of any disassembly required, specifics on locations of the components to inspect, etc.

- Perform site visits to conduct the ACI inspections and document said activities and any observations made in a report.

- Final ACI analysis report demonstrating compliance with the government approved analysis approach, results of component analyses based on the data gathered during the ACI inspections, and highlighting any areas of concern.

a. A list of included or excluded components (CDRL A017)

B-52 C-LGIP SOO

b. ACI plan (CDRL A017)

c. Inspection Instructions (CDRL A017)

d. Site visit report(s) (CDRL A017)

e. ACI final report (CDRL A017)

Task 4: Landing Gear Modeling

The Contractor must develop and validate 3D solid models of ALL B-52 Landing Gear assemblies and their associated components (under 417 SCMS engineering authority INCLUDING legacy wheels, brakes, valves and associated hardware) currently in service. For components with unknown geometries (e.g proprietary parts, missing drawings, ambiguous drawings, etc.) and/or that lack sufficient supply for reverse engineering techniques, the Contractor must provide a robust process for reliably estimating these geometries based upon known envelope and sub-systems design parameters. The Contractor must provide in its modeling process and validation/verification report on how the Contractor arrived at its conclusions to provide confidence that the data is typical for similar sub-systems and components. This landing gear modeling task must include, at a minimum, the following:

‐ A list of applicable components to be analyzed in this task, ref. paragraph 3.4

‐ Develop 3D and validate solid models in accordance with the ‘Landing Gear Structural Analysis’ drawing provided in Appendix A.

‐ Modeling process plan for components with unknown geometries. The Contractor’s proposal shall provide a general approach, while specific details shall be provided when the task is executed.

‐ Validation/Verification report for 3D models with known and unknown geometries to ensure they were created in accordance with the previously mentioned drawing.

a. If applicable, a list included or excluded components (CDRL A017)

b. Modeling process plan for components with unknown geometries (CDRL

A017)

c. Main Landing Gear (MLG) and associated component digital models (CDRL

A019)

d. Tip Protection Gear (TPG) and associated component digital models (CDRL

A019)

e. Validation/Verification report for components with known and unknown geometries (CDRL A017)

Task 5: Landing Gear Structural Analysis

The Contractor shall perform static structural analysis of the B-52 landing gear assemblies and their associated components (under 417 SCMS engineering authority, EXCLUDING wheels, brakes, valves and associated hardware) currently in service, using Original Equipment Manufacturer (OEM) developed loads. The Contractor shall also perform structural analysis of landing gear components at 1G loads and compare the results to stress corrosion cracking (SCC) thresholds of the materials. These analyses are

B-52 C-LGIP SOO

to be done by creating Finite Element Models (FEM) from the models created in Task 4 and performing Finite Element Analyses (FEA) of the B-52 landing gear system. The FEMs shall use non-linear material curves (bi-linear as a minimum), for all models that exceed yield strength at ultimate load. The Contractor shall use the FEA results to verify the OEM static stress analysis. Additionally, the Contractor is to convert OEM static stress manual data into a digital format for use by 417 SCMS engineering. These digital stress manual calculations shall be compared to the FEA results to determine if any discrepancies exist. Necessary corrections shall be added to the spreadsheets as highlighted additions. The landing gear structural analysis must include, at a minimum, the following:

‐ A list of applicable components to be analyzed in this task, ref. paragraph 3.4

‐ Documented plans describing the Contractor’s approach for accomplishing the 1G and static structural analyses.

‐ Perform FEM based 1G stress analysis of the MLG and TPG using the requirements specified in the ‘Landing Gear Structural Analysis’ drawing provided in Appendix A to determine stress corrosion cracking potential.

‐ Perform FEM based static structural analysis of limit and ultimate loads using the requirements specified in the ‘Landing Gear Structural Analysis’ drawing provided in Appendix A.

‐ Final 1G and static structural analysis reports demonstrating compliance with the government approved analysis approach, results of component analyses, and highlights areas of concern with corresponding mitigating recommendations.

‐ Convert OEM static stress manual data into self-contained electronic format using the requirements specified in Appendix B.

‐ Provide justification and updates to the OEM static stress manual based on the results of the FEM based static structural analysis.

‐ Mandatory deliverables:

a. If applicable, a list of included and excluded components (CDRL A017)

b. 1G structural analysis plan (CDRL A017)

c. Sample 1G structural analysis model and report (CDRL A017, A019).

d. 1G structural analysis final report for the MLG (CDRL A017)

e. 1G structural analysis final report for the TPG (CDRL A017)

f. Structural analysis plan (CDRL A017)

g. Sample structural analysis model and report (CDRL A017, A019)

h. Structural analysis models for the MLG (CDRL A019)

i. Structural analysis models for the TPG (CDRL A019)

j. Structural analysis final report for the MLG (CDRL A017)

k. Structural analysis final report for the TPG (CDRL A017)

l. Sample electronic stress analysis spreadsheet (CDRL A020)

m. Electronic stress analysis spreadsheets for the MLG (CDRL A020)

n. Electronic stress analysis spreadsheets for the TPG (CDRL A020)

o. OEM analysis modification report (CDRL A017)

B-52 C-LGIP SOO

Task 6: Reliability, Availability, and Maintainability (RAM) Analysis The Contractor shall conduct a RAM analysis consisting of a systematic inspection and evaluation process of B-52 landing gear assemblies and their associated components (under 417 SCMS engineering authority EXCLUDING wheels, brakes, brake control valve and associated hardware) currently in service. The Contractor must make arrangements for, and conduct, site surveys of maintenance, supply, and operations personnel at active duty and/or reserve bases and/or the B-52 PDM facility at Tinker AFB, regarding apparent deficiencies and potential improvements. The objective of this task is to identify and document existing or developing failure modes, such as wear, corrosion, cracking, impact damage, thermal effects, grease or hydraulic oil degradation, etc. The RAM analysis must include, at a minimum, the following:

- A list of applicable components to be analyzed in this task, ref. paragraph 3.4

- Documented plan describing the Contractor’s approach to the RAM analysis to include a systematic review of service history and failure data from the applicable government maintenance and supply systems including REMIS, AFMC Form 202 records, Technical Order 00-25-107 Technical Assistance Request (TAR) records, Joint Deficiency Reporting System (JDRS), Product Deficiency Reporting and Evaluation Program (PDREP), Landing Gear Met Lab Failure Reports, the Air Force Safety Automated System (AFSAS), etc.

- Perform an evaluation of available data to identify the remaining component useful life (based on documented repair limits) for components currently overhauled.

- Planning and execution of site visits to USAF B-52 units to conduct component assessments and interview maintainers about top maintenance drivers.

- Final RAM analysis report demonstrating compliance with the government approved approach, results of RAM analysis, and highlights RAM related issues with their corresponding mitigation recommendations.

a. If applicable, a list of included or excluded components, ref. paragraph 3.4

(CDRL A017)

b. RAM analysis plan (CDRL A017)

c. Site visit reports (CDRL A017)

d. RAM analysis final report for the MLG and associated components (CDRL

A017)

e. RAM analysis final report for the TPG and associated components (CDRL

A017)

Task 7: Fatigue Spectrum Determination

The Contractor must plan, coordinate, and execute on-aircraft load survey for the B-52 landing gear system. The B-52 currently does not have a Flight Data Recorder (FDR) system, or equivalent. Thus, a spectrum will need to be developed utilizing the data obtained during the loads survey, the data available from flight crews, and any other applicable sources for this analysis. The Contractor must coordinate technical planning and logistics with the 417 SCMS and other pertinent organizations, as required. The Contractor will be also be expected to support the C-LGIP team in obtaining the necessary temporary aircraft modification approvals and coordinating all related activities

B-52 C-LGIP SOO

with the System Program Office (SPO), SPO designated responsible test activity, flight test unit(s), and all other applicable stakeholders necessary to conduct a loads survey.

As previously mentioned in the scope, this loads survey task is expected to occur concurrently with the B-52 WBSI qualification testing. As such, high levels of coordination between all involved parties will be required for both program objectives to be successful. Estimated dates, testing conditions, and instrumentation details for WBSI qualification testing are included in Appendix A. The instrumentation portion of this task will focus primarily on the TPG as the instrumentation for the MLG will be primarily covered under the WBSI program, see drawing for TPG included in Appendix A.

However, during task execution the Contractor must include in their plans instrumentation requirements for the MLG and testing conditions for both the MLG and TPG, if there are instrumentation and test requirements beyond what is included in the WBSI program.

The objective of this task is to establish a current operational fatigue spectrum for both the MLG and TPG and document the results. The fatigue spectrum determination task must include, at a minimum, the following:

- Prepare a Program Introduction document for the test organization (419 FLTS/TGMGB). The Program Introduction must include, but not limited to, the program objectives, 419th support requirements, testing requirements, test schedule, test equipment, test conditions, data acquisition requirements, photographic requirements, and meteorological requirements.

- An instrumentation and calibration plan for the TPG and MLG (as required) that includes a FEM based loads analysis to optimize strain gage locations, calibration for collection of load spectrum, and consideration of previous component failures.

a. The MLG will be instrumented as part of the WBSI program flight test and the awardee for the B-52 C-LGIP shall identify any instrumentation and data collection needs not included in the approved WBSI documentation (i.e. MLG Instrumentation and Calibration Plan, Detailed Test Requirements, and Aircraft Instrumentation List for the WBSI program).

b. The Contractor will be expected to develop all instrumentation requirements for the TPG as they will not be included in the WBSI testing.

c. FEM based analysis to identify strain gage location requirements to include an explanation of why the locations were chosen.

- Analysis of Alternatives (AoA) for development of a historical usage spectrum.

Since the B-52 currently does not have a Flight Data Recorder (FDR) system, or equivalent, a spectrum will need to be developed utilizing the data obtained during the loads survey, the data available from flight crews, and any other applicable source for this analysis

- The B-52 C-LGIP Loads Survey Test Plan shall document the test requirements that can/will be captured during the WBSI flight test program and any additional requirements outside of the WBSI scope. The test plan should include determination of aircraft sortie conditions (aircraft weight and center of gravity, landing conditions [sink rate, angle of attack, etc.], ground handling conditions

B-52 C-LGIP SOO

[braking events, turns, towing, etc.], etc.). This plan must consider the WBSI test conditions and outline those which are above and beyond those required for the WBSI program.

- Assist the 417th to obtain all B-52 SPO airworthiness temporary modification approvals by completing all associated documentation to include but not limited to the Modified Airworthiness Certification Criteria (MACC), Test Readiness Review (TRR), Engineering Review Board (ERB), B-52 Configuration Control Board (CCB), etc.

- Collection of operational loads and compilation of an operational loads spectrum.

If a load case is found to be influential that was not originally captured, such as towing, the new load case will be included in the loads and usage spectra.

- Establishment of a fatigue usage spectrum for use in HBM nCode. Use the loads survey data to establish a correlation between the test instrumentation data and the chosen historical usage spectrum from the AoA. If possible, account for changes in the way the B-52 fleet has operated over time. Inputs from additional sources (such as the OEM spectrum, MIL-STD-8866, USAF Damage Tolerant Design Handbook: Guidelines for the Analysis and Design of Damage Tolerant Aircraft, etc., which must be approved by the 417 SCMS/GUEA Landing Gear Systems Engineering) will be needed, particularly to represent the low occurrence/high load events that likely cannot be built into the loads survey test plan due to the high risk nature of including such events during on-aircraft testing. Comparison of the generated spectrum(s) to the original OEM spectrum must be conducted and all differences examined, as a means of checking all assumptions made during spectrum generation.

- Final Fatigue Spectrum Determination report demonstrating compliance with the government approved approach and results of the efforts performed.

- Government material disposition report that identifies and categorizes the status of items used during this task that were provided by the government or are government owned.

a. Revision to the WBSI Instrumentation and calibration plan for the MLG

(CDRL A017)

b. Instrumentation and calibration plan for the TPG (CDRL A017)

c. Program Introduction (CDRL A017)

d. AoA for the historical usage spectrum (CDRL A017)

e. Loads survey test plan (CDRL A006)

f. Modified Airworthiness Certification Criteria (MACC), Test Readiness

Review (TRR), Engineering Review Board (ERB), Configuration Control Board (CCB) (CDRLs A021, A025, A024, A023)

g. Loads survey test raw data (CDRL A020)

h. Loads survey test report (CDRL A007)

i. Developed HBM nCode spectrum file (CDRL A020)

j. Fatigue spectrum determination report (CDRL A017)

k. Government Material Disposition Closing Report (CDRL A016)

B-52 C-LGIP SOO

Task 8: Landing Gear Fatigue Analysis

The Contractor is to perform a FEM based fatigue analysis on B-52 landing gear assemblies and their associated components (under 417 SCMS engineering authority EXCLUDING wheels, brakes, brake control valve and associated hardware) currently in service. This is to be done by creating FEM fatigue models from those created in Task 4 and perform a fatigue analysis using the spectrum(s) developed in Task 7. Material property information will be provided, if they are available, in the 417 SCMS material library (see Appendix C). However, in the event a component requires analysis for which the material property data is not available the Contractor will need to obtain or develop the material properties for the material in question that abide by the requirements of ASTM E606. The objective of this task is to obtain the data required for the service life risk assessment task. The landing gear fatigue analysis must include, at a minimum, the following:

‐ A list of applicable components to be analyzed in this task, ref. paragraph 3.4

‐ Documented plan describing the Contractor’s approach for accomplishing the fatigue analysis.

‐ Perform FEM based strain life fatigue analysis for components at nominal design dimensions using the requirements specified in the ‘Landing Gear Structural Analysis’ drawing, provided in Appendix A, and the developed fatigue spectrum(s).

‐ Final fatigue analysis report demonstrating compliance with the government approved approach, results of fatigue analyses, and highlights areas of concern with corresponding mitigating recommendations..

‐ If required, develop material properties for those materials with no previously established strain life data.

a. If applicable, list of included or excluded components (CDRL A017)

b. Fatigue analysis plan (CDRL A017)

c. Fatigue analysis models for the MLG (CDRL A019)

d. Fatigue analysis models for the TPG (CDRL A019)

e. Sample analysis model and report (CDRL A017, A019)

f. Fatigue analysis final report for the MLG (CDRL A017)

g. Fatigue analysis final report for the TPG (CDRL A017)

h. If applicable, material property curve development data (CDRL A020)

Task 9: Service Life Risk Assessment

The Contractor must establish remaining service life by determining probability of failure for B-52 landing gear assemblies and their associated components (under 417 SCMS engineering authority excluding wheels, brakes, brake control valve and associated hardware) currently in service. This task will require the Contractor to identify the original design methodology of each component (e.g. safe-life, fail-safe, redundant, inherently improbable, leak-before-burst, or any other applicable design methodology identified in MIL-STD-1530 and/or MIL-STD-1798). The Contractor shall then confirm whether the original design life methodology is still appropriate, then determine the remaining life based on the original (or reclassified) design methodology. The objective

B-52 C-LGIP SOO

of this task is to assess the landing gear system’s ability to perform without mishap or degradation due to past, current, and anticipated future operational requirements and document the results of these analyses. The service life risk assessment shall include, at a minimum, the following:

For structurally critical components (e.g. axles, struts, drag braces, torque arms, etc.):

- A list of applicable components to be analyzed in this task, ref. paragraph 3.4

- Documented plan describing the Contractor’s approach for assessing the service life of structurally critical components.

- Analyze and estimate the current condition of B-52 landing gear based on results from probabilistic age assessment, ACI and RAM tasks, and fatigue life predictions.

- Establish new service life baselines for components. Previously this has been accomplished creating a cumulative failure probability density function using a Birnbaum-Saunders distribution, ref. past LGIP efforts included in Appendix A.

- Identify in component service life risk assessment report components that are at risk of fatigue failure (either currently, or within the next 10 years) and perform risk assessment in accordance with MIL-STD-882. In additional to analyzing the risk of fatigue failure, if other failure modes have been identified during the LGIP process for the structurally critical components, those risks will be required to be included in the risk assessment as well.

For mechanically critical components (e.g. actuators, valves, gear boxes, etc.):

- A list of applicable components to be analyzed in this task, ref. paragraph 3.4

- Documented plan describing the Contractor’s approach for assessing the service life of mechanically critical components.

- Analyze and estimate the current condition of components based on inputs from the probabilistic age assessment, ACI, and RAM analyses; the analysis differs from the approach required for structurally critical components, and shall address the following questions:

a. What was the original design life methodology of each assembly and its associated components?

b. Was the original design life methodology accurate and/or appropriate based on operational loads/environment spectra?

c. What is the remaining service life of each component?

- Identify in component service life risk assessment report components that are at risk of failure (either currently, or within the next 10 years) and perform risk assessment in accordance with MIL-STD-882.

a. If applicable, list of included or excluded components (CDRL A031)

b. Service life risk assessment plan (CDRL A017)

c. Service life risk assessment report for the MLG and associated components

(CDRL A017)

d. Service life risk assessment report for the TPG and associated components

(CDRL A017)

B-52 C-LGIP SOO

Task 10: Service Life Risk Assessment at Least Material Condition (LMC)

The Contractor must establish remaining service life for Critical Safety Items (CSI) of the B-52 landing gear in the LMC currently in service (see Appendix A for CSI list). The objective of this task is to assess the current landing gear systems ability to perform without mishap or degradation due to past, current, and anticipated future operational requirements in the LMC and to document the results of these analyses. The service life risk assessment in the LMC shall include, at a minimum, the following:

- Documented plan describing the Contractor’s approach for assessing the service life of B-52 landing gear CSI components in the LMC.

- Perform FEM based structural and strain life fatigue analyses using the requirements specified in the ‘Landing Gear Structural Analysis’ drawing, provided in Appendix A, and the spectrum(s) developed in Task 7 on components in the LMC condition. Determine the LMC condition for each component by referencing established 417 SCMS repairs in the component’s respective Technical Order and/or AFMC form 202s.

- Analyze and estimate the current service life condition of CSI components based on probabilistic age assessment and landing gear fatigue life predictions at LMC.

If the service life expectancy for components in the LMC differs significantly from those established in Task 9, establish a new service life baseline for applicable components. Previously this has been accomplished creating a cumulative failure probability density function using a Birnbaum-Saunders distribution.

- Identify in service life risk assessment at LMC report components that are at risk of fatigue failure (either currently, or within the next 10 years) and perform risk assessment in accordance with MIL-STD-882. Account for the probability of components operating at LMC based on actual material conditions obtained from RAM analysis.

a. LMC analysis plan (CDRL A017)

b. LMC Structural analysis models for the MLG (CDRL A019)

c. LMC Structural analysis models for the TPG (CDRL A019)

d. Sample of structural analysis model and report (CDRL A017, A019)

e. LMC Structural Analysis report for the MLG (CDRL A017)

f. LMC structural analysis report for the TPG (CDRL A017)

g. LMC fatigue analysis models for the MLG (CDRL A019)

h. LMC fatigue analysis models for the TPG (CDRL A019)

i. Sample of fatigue analysis model and report (CDRL A017, A019)

j. LMC fatigue analysis report for the MLG (CDRL A017)

k. LMC fatigue analysis report for the TPG (CDRL A017)

l. Service life risk assessment report for MLG components at LMC (CDRL

A017)

m. Service life risk assessment report for TPG components at LMC (CDRL A017)

Task 11: Final Integration of B-52 C-LGIP Data into Teamcenter

The Contractor will be responsible for integration of B-52 C-LGIP data, in accordance with USAF AFI 63-1201 and AFMCI 63-1201, into Siemens Teamcenter Product

B-52 C-LGIP SOO

Lifecycle Management (PLM). The objective of this task is to ensure migration of all existing B-52 and C-LGIP generated data into the Teamcenter structure. Integration of the B-52 C-LGIP data into Teamcenter must include, at a minimum, the following:

‐ Migration of existing B-52 data (CAD files, mishap reports, engineering and technical reports, stress analysis, FEA models, pictures etc.) to the Teamcenter environment, linked to applicable E-BOM object.

‐ All final deliverables derived from the B-52 C-LGIP effort (loads data, technical reports, stress and fatigue analysis, FEA, CAD files, supply chain recommendation memos, etc.) with all pertinent relationships defined and linked to E-BOM objects.

‐ Report that identifies and categorizes the final status of data that was provided by the government or is government owned.

a. Final B-52 C-LGIP Data Integration Report (CDRL A017)

b. Government Material Disposition Closing Report (CDRL A016)

Task 12: C-LGIP Recommendations and Implementation

Based on the inputs from the prior tasks, the Contractor must provide recommendations to improve the integrity and RAM of the B-52 landing gear systems and answer questions such as, but not limited to: What should be done to prevent potential safety issues (driven by fatigue, corrosion, wear, etc.)? What should be done to improve the supportability (ensuring that components are available on time, in the appropriate quantities)? What should be done to improve the efficiency and reduce both cost and lead time of the landing gear supply chain? The main objective of this task is to create a recommended implementation plan to allow the supply chain to operate proactively by: recommending procurement adjustments (i.e. factor adjustments, end of part life MICAP avoidance, etc.), recommending maintenance interval adjustments (i.e. depot and field level inspection/overhaul intervals), etc. Additional objectives are to create a C-LGIP master plan report for B-52 landing gear systems to include an integrity monitoring plan to account for changes in aircraft usage over time and provide any recommended changes to the SAE ARP6412 for LGIPs. The C-LGIP Recommendations and Implementation task should include, at a minimum, the following:

- Develop a supply chain recommendation and implementation report to include action items, points of contact and estimated completion dates. The implementation approach will serve as a roadmap from completion of the contracted effort to the envisioned future state that describes all recommended actions to be completed. This report must be derived from efforts performed throughout the B-52 C-LGIP and be a culmination of all the recommendations developed from each task. Contractor must provide justifications for all recommendations.

- Recommended monitoring plan to identify changes in aircraft usage overtime to determine if service life reassessment is required.

- Recommended changes to the SAE ARP6412 for LGIPs.

- Develop C-LGIP master plan, utilizing ASIP and MECSIP principles, for B-52 landing gear systems for SPO master plan incorporation.

B-52 C-LGIP SOO

- List of all the data generated during this effort, or the Data Accession List (DAL)

- Report that identifies and categorizes the final status of items, in addition to those required for Task 7, 11, that were provided by the government or are government owned.

- If a redesign is recommended to improve reliability of a component or assembly an Economic Analysis (EA) must be provided for each recommendation to show cost savings of performing the redesign over continuing with the status quo.

a. Recommendations and implementation report to include a monitoring plan and updates to SAE ARP6412 (CDRL A017)

b. C-LGIP SPO master plan report for B-52 Landing Gear Systems (CDRL

A017)

c. DAL (CDRL A013)

d. Government Material Disposition Closing Report (CDRL A016)

e. An EA for each reliability based redesign recommendation (CDRL A009)

Program Management

The Contractor shall accomplish all program management efforts necessary to successfully manage and document the execution of each funded Task. The Contractor shall document the risks and mitigations of all funded Tasks (i.e. GFP availability, lack of engineering data, etc.) and provide additional submittals as required by the PWS and this SOO. The Contractor shall accurately allocate the portion of program management effort necessary for each Task within their proposal.

a. Program Management Review (CDRL A001) – each PMR should address all currently exercised and funded tasks.

b. Monthly Cost and Performance Report (CDRL A003) – each monthly report should address all currently exercised and funded tasks.

c. WBS and IMS updates, as required (CDRL A004 & A005).

d. Meeting minutes (CDRL A002).

e. Task risk mitigation report (CDRL A017).

5. OPERATING CONSTRAINTS:

The primary operating constraint for the B-52 C-LGIP effort is the availability of GFP. It is anticipated the landing gear shipset will not be available at contract award due to pending scheduling arrangements with Landing Gear Depot production facility.

Additionally, unforeseen scheduling issues could arise between Contractor, B-52 PDM, Active Duty units, and Landing Gear Overhaul Depot in order to accomplish SOO tasks.

It is expected that all necessary subcontracting efforts will be completed, funded, and directed by the Contractor.

B-52 C-LGIP SOO

During the course of this effort, the government will provide all available data pertinent to each task. However, the Contractor may be required to develop mitigation strategies when data is missing or otherwise not available to the government.

6. PERIOD AND PLACE OF PERFORMANCE:

The majority of the work will take place at the Contractor’s facility. Other places of performance include B-52 PDM line at Tinker AFB, Landing Gear Overhaul Depot at Hill AFB, FLT test center at Edwards AFB, and various Active Duty and/or Reserve Base locations. Period of performance is estimated to be between 4 and 6 years.

7. GENERAL REQUIREMENTS:

The government will provide the best available historical data for original landing gear loads spectrum and fatigue life calculations. It may be necessary for the Contractor to enter into agreements with the aircraft OEM or landing gear OEM for data usage rights.

The Integrated Master Schedule must allow reasonable time for Government technical reviews and approvals at critical program milestones. The SOW must address support for airworthiness activities and allow for Engineering Review Boards and Project Folders.

Project folders must include as a minimum: all contract documentation, funding tracking, material purchase orders, email communications with SPO and MAJCOM personnel, significant notes, meeting minutes, draft documents/drawings, and final deliverables.

Project folders must be updated monthly and be readily accessible by the Government.

The Contractor is also required to support monthly project reviews with the key government personnel. All assumptions must be outlined in the Contractor’s SOW.

8. QUALITY ASSURANCE:

For purposes of the solicitation, Quality Assurance is satified by monthly status reviews at which the Contractor must provide cost, schedule, performance accounting and reporting in the form of customer defined quad-charts.

9. ATTACHMENTS:

B-52 C-LGIP Notional CLINs.pdf

B-52 C-LGIP SOO

APPENDIX A

1. KC-135 LGIP Data

2. C-130 LGIP Data

3. SAE ARP6412

4. Landing Gear Structural Analysis Drawing

5. B-52 WBSI Qualification Testing Synopsis

6. B-52 Landing Gear Drawings

7. Applicable B-52 T.O.s

8. B-52 CSI List

B-52 C-LGIP SOO

APPENDIX B

Requirements for OEM Stress Analysis Spreadsheets

1. Electronic stress analysis spreadsheets will be developed from OEM stress analysis and manuals.

2. The spreadsheets shall be completed and delivered in unlocked, editable Microsoft Excel format.

3. The sheets shall include the following:

a. Part number.

b. National Stock Number (when applicable).

c. Images of the most recent revision of OEM analysis.

d. All charts, figures, graphs, or references used in the analysis linked within the same workbook as the digital calculator.

e. All equations shall display the formula (shown in variable format).

f. Proper units shall be displayed.

g. Variables shall be identified with labels (e.g. First moment of area, Lug width, Axial load, etc.).

h. Sub and superscripts shall be displayed as such.

i. All geometry inputs shall be highlighted.

j. All dynamic variables (e.g. Stress concentration factors, Plastic bending factors, Bending modulus, Slenderness ratios, etc.) shall update automatically based on equations.

k. If values are interpolated from graphs, the digitalized graph shall be dynamically linked in the sheet and shall display trend-line equations and correlation coefficients.

B-52 C-LGIP SOO

APPENDIX C

Material strain-life data is available for the following materials:

300M 4330V 4340 (260ksi) 4340 (180ksi) 7049 T73 7050 T74 7075 T73 7175 T74 AerMet 100 S53