FA9101-25-Q-Slipper_Wear-541330.pdf

10 Jan 25

MEMORANDUM FOR VENDORS REGISTERED UNDER NAICS CODE 541330 – ENGINEERING

SERVICES

FROM: AFMC/AFTC/PZIA (Arnold)

SUBJECT: Sources Sought Market Research Request: JESTR Slipper Wear - Software for Modeling and

Simulation

Disclaimer:

This sources sought notice is for information purposes to assist the Government in developing an acquisition strategy, if funding is received. It does not constitute a solicitation and shall not be construed as a commitment by the Government; therefore, this is not a request for quote. Responses in any form are not offers or quotes and the Government is under no obligation to award a contract / agreement as a result of this announcement. No funds are available to pay for preparation of responses to this announcement. Any information submitted by respondents to this request is strictly voluntary.

North American Industry Classification System (NAICS) Code:

The anticipated NAICS code for this requirement is 541330 – Engineering Services with the business size standard of $25M.

Requirement Overview:

This notice is to inform Industry that the Arnold Engineering Development Complex is seeking sources that has the capability to provide and/or develop a comprehensive suite of software to predict and mitigate slipper wear during high-speed long duration rocket sled tests at the Holloman High Speed Test Track, located at Holloman AFB, New Mexico. The software shall provide analysis, modeling, simulation and demonstration of physical and software tool(s) to predict, model and mitigate slipper wear. The contractor must be capable of furnishing all required labor, material, facilities, and equipment to produce the required software for the modeling and simulation tool.

Sleds connect to the rail via metal ‘slippers’ that wrap around the rail and ensure the sled follows the trajectory defined by the track. Slipper wear, or the excessive removal of slipper material, continues to be a limitation to certain classes of sled tests. Excessive wear is caused by the large forces generated from impacts between the slippers and the rail, and by large friction forces applied over time caused by sleds traveling extended distances on the rail. Sled tests that utilize significant amounts of track length, e.g., more than about 35,000 ft, or sleds that reach velocities >6,000 ft/s (~M5.4) are susceptible to wear-induced structural failure of the slippers. When this happens, the slippers are no longer capable of constraining the sled to the rail, and the sled can depart the facility. One of the central problems in the development of wear-resistant materials for use in slippers is the lack of a validated, high-speed slipper wear prediction algorithm.

Without a validated prediction tool, it is very difficult to accurately predict the amount of wear slippers are likely to experience during a sled test.

The objective effort here is to develop and validate a slipper wear prediction algorithm utilizing

Government furnished equipment slipper wear data. The algorithm would then be used to provide a

DEPARTMENT OF THE AIR FORCE

HEADQUARTERS AIR FORCE TEST CENTER (AFMC)

EDWARDS AIR FORCE BASE CALIFORNIA

materials recommendation to be used in wear resistant slipper designs, and the amount of wear the slipper would be expected to experience under specified test conditions.

The Key System Attribute (KSA) in the table below shows the desired reduction in slipper wear that would be provided by utilizing the prediction algorithm to optimize the slipper design with alternative materials using untreated SAE AISI 4130 steel slippers as the measurement baseline.

KSA Threshold Objective

Identify materials capable of reducing slipper wear

By 50%

Baseline material: untreated

SAE AISI 4130 steel

By 75%

Baseline material: untreated

SAE AISI 4130 steel

Government Market Research Request from Vendor

1. Provide supporting documentation justifying the vendor’s capability of meeting this requirement.

If the vendor has been awarded previous contract(s) and / or agreements that are similar in nature, provide details.

a.

2. Provide business CAGE code and business size – large or small. If a small business, identify if the business is a HUBZone, 8(a), SDVOSB, WOSB, or EDWOSB.

3. If available, identify pre-existing contract vehicle(s) that would be available to the Government for the procurement of the requirement such as: DoD ESI, General Service Administration (GSA)

Federal Supply Schedules, NASA SEWP, or any other decentralized contract vehicle the

Government could utilize.

4. If the Government determined to utilize a FAR based contract to procure the requirement, provide an estimated total evaluated price.

5. Identify subcontractors that would be needed to support this requirement, if any.

6. If the Government made the determination to procure the requirement using authority 10 U.S.C.

4022 - Authority of the Department of Defense to carry out certain prototype projects, provide supporting documentation justifying how the company would satisfy at least one criteria of the

Appropriate Use of Authority requirement detailed in (d)(1)(A)-(C) within the authority:

(A) There is at least one nontraditional defense contractor or nonprofit research institution participating to a significant extent in the prototype project.

(B) All significant participants in the transaction other than the Federal Government are small businesses (including small businesses participating in a program described under section 9 of the Small Business Act (15 U.S.C. 638)) or nontraditional defense contractors.

(C) At least one third of the total cost of the prototype project is to be paid out of funds provided by sources other than the Federal Government.

7. If the Government determined to procure the requirement utilizing 10 U.S.C. 4022, provide an estimated cost to develop a prototype for this requirement, and specify which prototype definition, or combination of definitions, that best fits the vendor’s vision of prototype development. Prototype definition – 10 U.S.C 4022 (e)(5)(A)-(F):

(A) a proof of concept, model, or process, including a business process;

(B) reverse engineering to address obsolescence;

(C) a pilot or novel application of commercial technologies for defense purposes;

(D) agile development activity;

(E) the creation, design, development, or demonstration of operational utility; or

(F) any combination of subparagraphs (A) through (E).

8. If the Government determined to procure the requirement utilizing 10 U.S.C. 4022, provide an estimated cost to develop the finalized requirement in the follow-on production phase once the prototype was determined successful (10 U.S.C. 4022(f)).

9. Provide any notable standard business practices in regards to data rights and intellectual property pertaining to the prototype and follow-on production phase.

NOTE:

- Upon receipt of vendor’s submission, the Agreements Officer (AO) / Contracting Officer (CO) will pull the vendor’s NIST SP 800-171 Assessment date and score. The vendor’s assessment date shall be no older than three (3) years old to receive other than Distribution A documentation, if other than Distribution A documentation arises.

- The AO / CO will pull and consider the vendor’s Supplier Performance Risk System (SPRS)

Supplier Risk score from Procurement Integrated Enterprise Environment (PIEE) upon receipt of submission.

Submission Details:

- Submit Responses To: greggory.jones.4@us.af.mil

- Submission Due Date: 24 January 2025, 10:00 AM CST

- Submission Requirements: 11 – 12 Font Size, no more than 10 pages (excluding cover page), Word or PowerPoint

GREGGORY C. JONES, NH-III, DAF

Contracting Officer / Agreements Officer mailto:greggory.jones.4@us.af.mil