HyTEC Phase 2 NRA.pdf

NATIONAL AERONAUTICS AND SPACE

ADMINISTRATION (NASA)

NASA Hybrid Thermally Efficient Core (HyTEC) Project

NASA Glenn Research Center (GRC) NASA Research Announcement (NRA) for

Phase 2 – Integrated Core Technology Demonstration

ANNOUNCEMENT NUMBER:

80GRC023N0001

ISSUED: March 16, 2023

KEY DATES

Questions Due: 5:00 PM, March 31, 2023, EDT*

Proposals Due: 5:00 PM, April 19, 2023, EDT*

*Subject to change. Please monitor SAM.gov for the most updated deadlines.

Hybrid Thermally Efficient Core (HyTEC) – 80GRC023N0001

Table of Contents

1. INTRODUCTION

2. BACKGROUND

3. HYTEC PROJECT GOALS AND TECHNICAL MEASUREMENTS

4. DESCRIPTION OF SOLICITED TOPIC

5. APPROACH

6. EXPECTED OUTCOMES AND DELIVERABLES

7. INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY

8. REVIEWS AND REPORTING

9. ELIGIBILITY INFORMATION

10. PROPOSAL AND SUBMISSION INFORMATION

11. PROPOSAL REVIEW INFORMATION

12. PROVISIONS

13. SUMMARY OF KEY INFORMATION

14. LIST OF ATTACHMENTS

Appendix A. Review Entrance and Success Criteria

Appendix B. Review Definitions

Appendix C. Technology Readiness Levels (TRL) Definitions

OVERVIEW

This Glenn Research Center (GRC) Center-Level NASA Research Announcement (NRA) is issued in accordance with NASA Federal Acquisitions Regulations (NFS) 1835.016-71. This NRA shall be used to announce a core demonstration opportunity for the Hybrid Thermally Efficient Core (HyTEC) Project. Unlike a traditional Request for Proposal (RFP) containing a defined statement of work (SOW) or specification to which Offerors are to respond, this NRA provides for the submission of competitive project ideas, conceived by the Offerors, in one or more program areas of interest. Specifically, this solicitation seeks to demonstrate integrated (TRL 4-5) thermally efficient small core engine technologies to TRL 6 through a core demonstration (See Section 4 for further information). Additionally, whereas a traditional RFP provides the Government’s defined SOW within Section C of the RFP, this NRA is requesting that Offerors submit a Work Plan in the form of a SOW as part of their proposal that, if selected, is intended to become the SOW included in Section C on any awarded contract(s). In addition, this NRA includes a Model Contract (see attachment A) with all potential clauses that will be included in the final contract(s) to inform Offerors of NASA’s expectations to expedite contract award at the conclusion of this NRA. There is a possibility NASA under this NRA may award research and development work on behalf of other government agencies. For example, as referenced in section 6.5, it is currently expected that the Department of Defense (DoD) will participate in this acquisition. Such research and development work may be subject to different and/or other terms and conditions than what is currently in the model contract for NASA-funded work. If applicable this possibility will be addressed during negotiations.

Upon completion of the NRA proposal evaluations, NASA intends to award cost-share contract(s) to Offerors who best meet the goals set forth in this NRA. In accordance with NFS 1835.016-71(d)(4), a competitive range will not be established, and final proposal revisions shall not be requested/accepted. If an Offeror’s proposal is selected at the conclusion of the Final NRA evaluation period, NASA will advise the Offeror that the Government intends on entering into negotiations and will follow up with a contract that includes (if necessary), modifications contemplated in the Offeror's SOW, and request agreement or identification of any exceptions.

NASA will request the Offeror to complete and return certifications and representations and Standard Form 33, Solicitation, Offer, and Award. If FAR 52.219-9, Small Business Subcontracting Plan, is required for the resultant contract, the Offeror shall provide a subcontracting plan. Any necessary negotiations will be conducted in accordance with FAR Subparts 15.3 and 15.4.

Issuing Office: NASA Glenn Research Center

Office of Procurement, MS 60-1 21000 Brookpark Road Cleveland, OH 44135-3127

Agency Contact:

Ian C. Park, Contracting Officer, phone - (216) 433-3130, Email – ian.park@nasa.gov

Linda M. Nabors, Contracting Officer, Phone – (216) 433-2407, Email – linda.m.nabors@nasa.gov

1. INTRODUCTION

As part of the NASA Advanced Air Vehicles Program (AAVP), the Hybrid Thermally Efficient Core (HyTEC) Project was established to accelerate the development of small turbofan engine core technologies, culminating in an advanced core ground demonstration in the 2027 timeframe.

NASA intends to collaborate with industry in a cost sharing arrangement for the integration and demonstration of key technologies that can strengthen the U.S. industry’s position on small cores for a future single-aisle aircraft. NASA has identified several key technology areas for this collaboration: High Pressure Compressor (HPC), High Pressure Turbine (HPT), Advanced Materials, Power Extraction, and Combustor. The project is separated into two development phases. HyTEC’s first phase, currently in progress, focuses on the development of these individual technologies through subsystem or component tests. These efforts will accelerate and mature the needed technologies to Technology Readiness Levels (TRL) of 4-5 by 2023, with the exception of the Combustor and Power Extraction technologies, which will be matured to TRL 4-5 by 2025. The second phase intends to integrate TRL 4-5 technologies into a full engine core to demonstrate a functional high power-density small core at TRL 6 no later than the end of government fiscal year 2027 (end of September 2027).

This solicitation focuses only on Phase 2 of the HyTEC effort. NASA will consider funding HyTEC Phase 1 technologies that were successful in performance and TRL maturation and also other TRL 4-5 small core technologies as described in sections 4.1-4.4. HyTEC plans on cost sharing the technology maturation and integration in Phase 2, as part of the overall full engine core demonstration. The core demonstration would take the technologies to TRL 6 for insertion into future products. Similar to Phase 1, these technologies should carry more risk than any baseline planned (i.e., without NASA investment) core demonstrations. The NASA investment is to help to offset the risks of integrating these more aggressive technologies thereby creating more robust commercial products. Technologies that show significant promise in terms of fuel burn reduction goals will be prioritized. The HyTEC contribution should show that the final engine products are more fuel efficient, durable, sustainable, and give the U.S. aircraft engine manufacturers a clear competitive advantage.

[End of Section]

2. BACKGROUND

The NASA Aeronautics Research Mission Directorate (ARMD) has developed an integrated subsonic technology strategy called the Sustainable Flight National Partnership (SFNP) to improve commercial transport market sustainability and U.S. competitiveness by dramatically reducing aircraft fuel burn and associated emissions. The approach focuses on accelerating the development and demonstration of commercial subsonic transport aircraft technologies during the 2020’s to impact the next generation of commercial transports beginning in the early 2030’s.

Prior research and development identified a suite of key technologies with significant potential benefits but is beyond the risk threshold of industry alone for next generation transports: ultra-efficient, high aspect ratio wings such as the transonic truss-braced wing; lightweight composite airframes enabled by high-rate manufacturing approaches; electrified aircraft propulsion; and high-power density, small core gas turbine engines.

NASA ARMD partners with U.S. industry and regulators to enable the highest likelihood of adoption and resulting fleet impact. NASA/industry partnerships will require data rights and intellectual property consideration that implements an appropriate balance between wide dissemination and protecting competitiveness. NASA ARMD intends to facilitate coordination and integration of this research and development strategy across technologies and organizations to address these needs and achieve the highest impact. NASA plans to use model-based systems analysis and engineering as a central integration hub among separate technology development and demonstration efforts addressing these key technologies. Each technology development and demonstration effort will encourage the use of model-based engineering approaches for execution efficiencies, data transfer, and technology validation.

The HyTEC Project is part of the Sustainable Flight National Partnership and focuses on the development and demonstration of high-power density, small core gas turbine engine technologies. HyTEC’s focus on these small core technologies will provide direct benefits to the next single-aisle class aircraft in terms of thermal efficiency, as well as integrate with other technologies, through increased hybridization, as they mature to provide substantial continuous fuel burn reductions during the aircraft lifecycle. These advances will strengthen the US position in the commercial aviation engine market, and enable cost benefits in commercial aviation, while simultaneously reducing adverse environmental impacts to society.

3. HYTEC PROJECT GOALS AND TECHNICAL MEASUREMENTS

In order to contribute to the ARMD Strategic Goals, the HyTEC Project has an overarching goal to accelerate the development of the next generation small-core turbofan engine technologies with improvements in efficiency, durability, performance, hybridization and sustainability in order to meet the next Entry into Service (EIS) single-aisle aircraft expected in the 2030’s.

The HyTEC core demonstration will achieve the following objectives:

Demonstrate increased thermal efficiency with integrated high-power density-core engine technologies achieving a 5- to 10-percent fuel burn benefit, versus 2020 best in class, for early 2030s EIS single-aisle aircraft.

Achieve up to 10-percent power extraction from a modern commercial turbofan engine core with the thrust, efficiency, operability, and durability to enable the benefits of electrified aircraft propulsion at a vehicle level.

Demonstrate the effective and efficient operability of high blend (>80%) Sustainable Aviation Fuels (SAFs) in small core combustors.

A set of technical measures were identified to provide insight into the progress of the definition and development of the technical solution, ongoing assessment of the associated risks and issues, and the likelihood of meeting the critical objectives of the stakeholder. These technical measures are comprised of: Measures of Effectiveness (MOEs), Key Performance Parameters (KPPs), Measures of Performance (MOPs), and Technical Performance Measures (TPMs). The HyTEC technical measures will be used to track progress of the TRL 6 advanced core ground demonstration.

3.1. Measures of Effectiveness (MOE)

The HyTEC MOEs in Table 1 will be used to establish the HyTEC stakeholder’s expectations and HyTEC’s goals.

Table 1. HyTEC Measures of Effectiveness

MOE # Measure of Effectiveness (MOE)

MOE -1

Define a viable path that identifies key high power density core technologies needed to accelerate U.S. Industry product that is enhanced by Government participation.

MOE-2

Establish a turbofan engine with a high-power density core that addresses the next generation single-aisle for EIS in the 2035 timeframe.

MOE-3

Demonstrate increased power extraction at altitude from a modern commercial turbofan engine with the thrust, efficiency, operability, and durability to enable the benefits of electrified aircraft propulsion at a vehicle level.

MOE-4

Advance small core combustor design capabilities for effective and efficient operability using high-blend SAF.

3.2. Measures of Performance (MOP)

The MOPs in Tables 2 and 3 define the objectives HyTEC seeks to achieve through the hybrid thermally efficient core ground demonstration. The MOPs in Table 3 are highly-desired while the MOPs in Table 2 are required.

Table 2. HyTEC Measures of Performance

MOP # Required Measures of Performance (MOP)

MOP-2

Develop and demonstrate via ground test an advanced high power density core engine.

MOP-4

Raise the TRL level of high-power density core technologies to TRL 6 through ground testing by 2027.

MOP-8

Integrate a small core combustor design at TRL 6 that provides reliable ignition and lean blowout performance when burning > 80% blend (by volume) SAF by 2027.

Table 3. HyTEC Measures of Performance

MOP # Highly-Desirable Measures of Performance (MOP)

MOP-7

Raise TRL of turbofan power extraction and insertion to TRL 6 through integration into a core demonstration by 2027.

3.3. Key Performance Parameter (KPP)

The KPPs in Tables 4 and 5 define the success criteria of the HyTEC thermally efficient core ground demonstration. The Offeror shall address how the KPPs in Table 4 will be met with traceability to a future single aisle product.

3.4. Technical Performance Measures (TPM)

Technical Performance Measures (TPMs) are a set of quantitative performance measures that are precisely defined and used to assess and track the technical progress of the technology development effort. Additionally, these TPMs will monitor progress and identify deficiencies that may jeopardize meeting the MOPs.

The Offeror is expected to define the TPMs for the proposed work. The TPM(s) shall be identified in the proposal and the contribution to the appropriate KPPs in Tables 4 and 5 shall be provided.

The KPP’s in Table 4 shall be addressed by all proposed technologies as these, in aggregate, are indicative of small core performance in a future single-aisle aircraft engine. TPMs shall be proposed that contribute to these KPPs.

KPPs contained within Table 5 are desirable, as they are applicable to certain specific technologies that may be proposed under the portfolio for the core demonstration. If the proposed technologies contribute to these specific KPPs in Table 5, then TPMs shall be proposed.

The TPMs should include a range to meet the full and minimum KPP. Furthermore, additional TPMs and information may be required for NASA to perform an independent analysis to assess the overall system benefits of the technologies proposed. The baseline engine and advanced configuration shall also be specified by which improvements in TPMs are assessed.

3.5. Additional Considerations

To align with the next generation single-aisle aircraft, any technologies developed under HyTEC shall have a direct path to a core ground demonstration of an engine for that aircraft class.

Therefore, the technologies in the core demonstration shall have a direct path to a future product, which is assumed to have the following characteristics: ~180 passengers, with a minimum range of 1,500nm and requiring a thrust of 25,000 – 35,000 lbf.

Utilizing the OEM’s vision of a turbofan engine to meet the requirements for the next generation single-aisle aircraft, the technology demonstration proposed to this NRA shall trace to the MOEs, MOPs and KPPs in Sections 3.1, 3.2, and 3.3.

NASA intends to focus the HyTEC portfolio of technologies to those that require NASA involvement. The intention of this effort is to invest in aggressive, impactful small core turbofan technologies with development risk, and raise their TRL levels to 6 by 2027. Offerors shall demonstrate how NASA investment and contribution is required to accelerate, enhance, and/or reduce the risks for the next generation single-aisle aircraft for a 2030’s entry into service.

4. DESCRIPTION OF SOLICITED TOPIC

This solicitation seeks to accelerate and mature thermally efficient small core engine technology concepts by integrating them into a core demonstration test, advancing these technologies to TRL 6 by 2027. HyTEC is interested in a technology demonstration portfolio that will result in efficiency, durability, performance, hybridization, and sustainability improvements for the next generation single-aisle aircraft. The demonstration will have a focus on impactful technologies, in an effort to reduce the risk to industry for successful integration into future products.

HyTEC intends to cost share the advanced technologies that will be integrated into the core demonstration test. This includes the development, design, fabrication, and integration of only the advanced technologies in the Phase 2 portfolio. Through this cost share configuration, NASA can focus the investment on technology development and integration, rather than cost sharing the full demo itself. This approach is intended to make the Government funds go further, so that more technologies can be integrated into the core for even greater fuel burn benefits, and ultimately robust US aircraft engine manufacturer competitive advantage. The technologies selected for integration into the core will make up the core technology demonstration portfolio.

Portfolios that Offerors propose may be subjected to partial awards. To facilitate this, if an intermediate TRL 5 development period or test is needed as part of Phase 2, the Offeror shall propose that portion of the development as a Contract Line Item Number (CLIN). The Offeror shall propose the integration of the technologies into the core demonstration as a separate CLIN with proposing Core-Demonstration technologies as Sub-CLIN Line Item Number (SLINs).

Please refer to Section 9.3-9.5 and Section 10.1.2 for details on partial awards and setting up the proposal in this manner.

The technology demonstration portfolio proposed can include Phase 1 technologies developed under HyTEC, and/or additional TRL 4-5 small core technologies as described in sections 4.1-

4.4. The Offeror shall provide a detailed plan and schedule for selected small core technologies to reach TRL 4-5 (if they have not already at the time of proposal) and to be integrated into the core demonstrator. The proposal shall identify the technical performance measurement(s) and the contribution to the appropriate Key Performance Parameters (KPP). See Tables 4 and 5 as well as Section 4.3 for more guidance.

Below is an outline of the technologies HyTEC would consider for integration in the technology core demonstration. The Offeror may propose the demonstration of a technology listed below that was not originally awarded to them under Phase 1.

4.1. Advanced High-Pressure Compressor

4.1.1. Demonstrate advanced HPC design with smaller parts and tighter clearances for high OPR, small core compressors that maintain operability while optimizing performance and efficiency.

4.2. Advanced High-Pressure Turbine

4.2.1. Demonstrate efficient and durable turbine operation by minimizing turbine cooling penalties incorporating advanced airfoils, aerodynamic features, and effective cooling.

4.2.2. Demonstrate ceramic matrix composite (CMCs) and environmental barrier coatings (EBCs) for turbine components to increase temperatures and efficiency of turbines.

4.3. Combustion Technologies

4.3.1. Demonstrate ceramic matrix composite (CMCs) and environmental barrier coatings (EBCs) applied to combustor components to increase performance and durability.

4.3.2. Demonstrate compatibility of near drop-in sustainable aviation fuels (SAF) without blending with Jet-A/A-1 in small core combustor designs.

4.4. Core Engine Hybridization

4.4.1. Demonstrate a configuration to achieve power extraction and/or insertion at relevant operating conditions from the proposed next-generation engine core to enable the benefits of electrified aircraft propulsion at a vehicle level.

4.4.2. Demonstrate progress toward practical electric machine and engine spool integration solutions that achieve significant power transmission at high efficiency.

5. APPROACH

The HyTEC Project’s goal is to complete the TRL 6 technology demonstration activities by the end of FY2027 (September 30, 2027), thereby enabling the technologies to be incorporated into the next single-aisle engine product. Key tasks are described below and should be used for the technology demonstration activity. Task goals are to establish the core demonstration and technology validation plans, design and develop necessary hardware, and perform the TRL 6 core demonstration test.

5.1. Project Management

Conduct the program management activities needed to supervise, direct, and manage the demonstration of the technology portfolio to a TRL 6 as described in Section 4. Project management and planning tools shall be used to ensure the accomplishment of each work element in a timely manner and within budget constraints. This task includes the planning, monitoring, analysis and reporting of Offeror cost, schedule, and technical performance.

5.2. Core Demonstration Design

Design and develop a TRL 6 core demonstration. It is important to consider:

Develop and document system and subsystem level requirements with clear traceability to HyTEC goals and objectives, MOEs, MOPs and KPPs, as defined in Sections 3.1, 3.2, 3.3, including the verification approach and methodology.

Throughout the design, document the anticipated benefit of each technology as it relates to the HyTEC goals and metrics.

The Offeror shall hold key system (core demo) and subsystem (specific technology) Life Cycle Reviews (LCR) as a mechanism for evaluating the programmatic and engineering design, integration, and test development. The Offerors LCR shall be tied to the HyTEC project phases and review material shall be detailed in content to enable adequate assessment of the project management and engineering design in each phase of the project lifecycle, assessed against the success criteria as described in Appendix A. Final content, scope, objectives, success criteria, and deliverables shall be coordinated and agreed upon by the Offeror and NASA. Additional periodic reviews shall be required and will be coordinated between the Offeror and NASA.

For any test being conducted in a NASA Facility, the Offeror shall plan for providing material, in addition to supporting and participating in Government led Facility related reviews such as Facility Integration Reviews, Test Readiness Reviews and Safety Reviews.

5.3. Fabrication and Assembly

Provide the plans and process Offeror will use to verify assembly, integration, and verification of the technology demonstration hardware; including but not limited to communication and coordination, a master fabrication, instrumentation, and assembly schedule, and interface documentation (if proposing the use of a NASA facility). If NASA facilities are being utilized for the testing, this shall be coordinated in advance with the NASA facility and the HyTEC test team prior to proposing this arrangement.

High value (>1Million) TRL 6 Core Demonstration hardware will be considered “Critical and Complex” by NASA GRC and will require implementation of an SAE AS9100D quality system.

A summary of quality compliance shall be part of life cycle reviews.

5.4. Technology Demonstration Testing

A core test shall be conducted to integrate and mature the technologies to a TRL 6. The core demonstration shall have the necessary measurements to evaluate the HyTEC technologies and TPMs. Measurements shall be acquired to evaluate and quantify the contribution to the metrics identified in Section 3.

5.5. Technology Assessment

The primary goal of HyTEC is to obtain ground data that will be used by the Industry/NASA teams to validate the configuration and associated technologies developed to reduce engine fuel burn and increase engine efficiency. Offeror acknowledges that this primary objective of HyTEC is to collect design and ground data that will contribute to validating integrated small turbofan engine core demonstrator performance and Industry/NASA analytical and predictive models/tools. Some of these analytical and predictive models/tools will be made available to the propulsion community to promote and improve the usefulness, performance, speed, safety, and efficiency of aeronautical vehicles. By submitting a proposal, Offeror acknowledges that any design and ground data provided or developed under the HyTEC Phase 2 NRA, including data which is marked Limited Rights, may be used by NASA to validate/update any such analytical and predictive models/tools.

The Offeror shall conduct an assessment of the overall system to indicate the performance gains of the technology integration versus a 2020 best-in-class comparable product. The assessment shall determine if the TPMs submitted were successfully met and to what degree. The Offeror shall also, via analytical assessment, indicate how the TPMs from the technology demonstrations are traceable to satisfying the success criteria for each KPP.

At the end of Phase 2, the HyTEC project will assess the progress made on technical metrics. A vehicle-level systems assessment will be conducted to determine the integrated technology benefits. In addition to the required Offeror assessment, NASA will perform independent assessments in parallel. Therefore, the necessary data and models shall be delivered to NASA so that the internal HyTEC assessment can be completed. Each advanced technology’s independent contribution to the KPPs shall be quantified.

6. EXPECTED OUTCOMES AND DELIVERABLES

6.1 Technical Measures

Offeror shall submit quantitative technical performance measures (TPM) associated with each technology area in the proposal. These TPMs will be precisely defined and used to assess and track the technical progress of the technology development effort. All TPMs shall be linked to the required KPPs in Table 4 and desired KPPs in Table 5 if applicable. The baseline engine and technology shall also be specified by which improvements in TPMs are assessed. Unlimited rights TPMs shall be quoted as deltas to the performance of the targeted technology in the specified baseline engine without disclosing proprietary details of the baseline technology performance in the baseline engine. Baseline data necessary for independently assessing the effect of the TPM on the engine system shall be provided but may be marked as limited rights information.

Offeror shall provide the core engine’s contribution to the applicable KPPs along with a clear explanation of all assumptions and methods used to show the traceability of the TPMs to the KPPs. The Offeror shall status each technology’s TPMs and KPP contributions at lifecycle and periodic reviews.

Offeror shall provide the design and ground data required to complete the NASA independent technical assessment.

6.2 Systems Engineering

As part of the proposal, provide information on system engineering processes and approach that include:

How the Offeror will implement systems engineering processes to:

o Ensure compatibility with the allocated resources (cost, schedule, personnel, facilities, and deliverables) o Identify and evaluate the technical team support and involvement required o Make a technical risk assessment

How the Offeror will coordinate with NASA on agreed upon key LCRs, as described in Section 5.2, with NASA recommendations and identification of technical forums and communication protocols with NASA to address topics such as developing requirements, interfaces, verification and validation, integration and testing activities, including how NASA will participate and witness some of the key verification tests and activities throughout the life of the project.

Approach for NASA technical team participation such as Subject Matter Expert utilization and technical support in Offerors planning and execution of critical tasks and activities leading to and planned between each system level Life Cycle Review. This includes but not limited to test plan development and instrumentation requirements, test readiness reviews, post-test reviews, lower level (subsystem) design reviews, integration and test issues or anomalies and other technical issues status and resolution that impact HyTEC goals and objectives.

Processes for the assessment, evaluation and approval of waivers and deviations, including identifying involvement of NASA in that process when it impacts compliance to or meeting HyTEC requirements, goals and/or objectives.

The Offeror shall collaboratively develop, with the HyTEC team, a list of key industry partners’ verification activities that NASA can witness.

The Offeror shall acquire the NASA HyTEC chief engineer and the project manager approval of all industry partner waivers that affect the goals and objectives.

6.3 Technical Metrics Assessment and Deliverables

The Offeror shall conduct an integrated core system assessment (see Section 5.5) that provides the following deliverables:

Quantification of any effects of the technology on engine performance, operability, durability, and physical characteristics.

Identification of gaps or risks for maturing and integrating technologies in a small core ground demonstration.

Quantification of the benefits of quoted and measured TPMs relative to the HyTEC goals and contribution to the KPP’s identified in Section 3.3.

Quantification of the integrated benefits of the funded advanced technologies that are implemented into the core demonstration (the combined benefit of the advanced technologies should meet the applicable KPPs when the assessment is performed for an EIS 2030’s future engine compared to the 2020 baseline).

Evaluation of the TRL level achieved using the TRL definitions found in Appendix C.

Identify lessons learned and technology gaps needed to mature the technology for product insertion

In addition, the Offeror shall provide the following deliverables for an independent integrated core system assessment that will be performed by NASA:

Offeror shall provide the information necessary for NASA to conduct an independent assessment of the core engine technology benefits; inclusive of utilizing the TPM’s (measured) to evaluate impact on the KPP’s in Tables 4 and 5.

o Offeror shall provide a definition for all 2020 baseline technologies, equipment, systems, or procedures used to quantify the integrated effects and benefits of the technology. This information may include but is not limited to:

Baseline engine model number Baseline engine bypass ratio Baseline engine overall pressure ratio Baseline engine corrected core flow Baseline engine and aircraft weights

Baseline engine component definition (efficiencies, pressure ratios, cooling flow requirements)

Baseline airframe and overall fuel burn or mission description o Offeror shall provide the systems-level information necessary to trace the effect of TPMs (predicted and measured) on the KPPs. This information may include but is not limited to:

Delta component efficiency Delta component pressure ratio Delta maximum allowable temperature Delta component size Delta component weight Delta bleed/cooling air along with delta efficiency estimates of change.

o Offeror shall provide systems-level information for any vision cycle assumptions that must be made to achieve all the effects and benefits, quantified by the offeror, for the integrated technology. Example assumptions include, but are not limited to:

Propulsor configuration Hybrid electric system utilization Advanced airframe configuration Advanced thermal systems Aircraft degree of hybridization Degree of sustainable aviation fuel utilization Advanced material utilization o If agreed upon, the offeror may provide the information required to perform the independent technical assessment in the form of analytical and/or predictive models/tools that present the required information.

6.4 Documentation

The Offeror shall work collaboratively with NASA to determine key opportunities to take non-studio photographs. This photographic process can occur during manufacturing, assembly, verifications, and integration and testing phases of the project.

The Offeror shall use the United States Customary Units (USCU) – length (ft or in), force (lbf), temperature (deg F or deg R), mass (slug or lbm), and time (s, min, hr) as the primary set of units in conjunction with equivalent SI units shown in parentheses.

The Offeror shall use the NASA BOX system for deliverables and exchange of technical material.

The required deliverables of a successfully awarded contract include:

Kickoff Meeting Presentation

Monthly status reports documenting the technical, financial, and schedule progress (PowerPoint acceptable, Limited version only)

Monthly and Quarterly 533 financial reports Technology development approach o Technical performance measurements (TPMs) and methodology to assess KPP’s, instrumentation, test facility and setup, and test points to be run.

Life Cycle Review Documentation - delivery of associated documentation during a particular phase (Preliminary Design; Detailed Design; Fabrication, Assembly, Integration and Test; as well as detailed engineering design documentation) shall be provided. The documentation required will be as agreed upon during review planning, and as stated in section 5.2. Additional reviews will be required if using a NASA Facility for testing. Each LCR presentation package shall include, at a minimum, the following, (at appropriate level of maturity):

o Technical performance measures (TPMs).

o Electrical, thermal, aerodynamic, and mechanical systems life cycle review includes engineering design data packages with the following details:

electrical /mechanical system architecture diagram, system/ subsystem schematics, drawings and models, systems/subsystems structural and thermal analysis, mechanical drawings, all updated through all lifecycle and peer reviews as required.

o Verification approach.

o CAD models and data (drawings, models, 3D models, FEM, etc.).

o Interface definitions- Systems/subsystems ICDs and Integration and Test approach.

o Instrumentation layout and Master Measurement List (MML) o Quality and Safety summary o Risk Management summary

Fabrication and assembly o Fabrication, assembly, and integration schedule o If applicable, documentation to support Government led Facility related reviews such as Facility Integration Reviews, Test Readiness Reviews and Safety Reviews

Interface Control Document (ICD) identifying the interfaces between NASA and Offeror systems/subsystems or hardware, (as applicable) and due dates for when the interfaces should be ready to support any fabrication, assembly, or test milestones.

Hardware and any specialized tooling delivered to NASA Facility (as applicable) Final Test approach o FOR NASA FACILITY USAGE ONLY: Hazard Analysis with Risk

Assessment Codes suitable for integration with the NASA Facility Safety Permit per the Glenn Safety Manual.

Data (preliminary data due 60 days after core demo test completion, final data 120 days after test completion) o Delivery of component level characteristics, operating limits, and input data that is required for system-level modeling and analysis of the proposed technologies.

o Test reports, including test and CFD analysis data.

o Pre and post-test CFD predictions, identifying potential areas of NASA participation to reduce risk by exercising off-design CFD simulations.

o System Model verification data/ tools necessary for NASA to evaluate the technology modeling and associated benefits.

Annual Contract progress presentation (Limited version only).

Annual Contract progress report that includes: (Limited and Unlimited version).

o Initial assessment on the overall system performance and TPM/KPP status.

Final Contract presentation (Limited and Unlimited version) due 180 days after core demo test completion Final Contract report (due 180 days after core demo test completion) that includes:

(Limited and Unlimited version).

o Final assessment of the overall system performance, including TPMs and

KPPs met by the technology integration, versus a comparable 2020 best-in-class product.

All deliverables shall be delivered in the proposed period of performance of the contract.

6.5. Department of Defense (DoD) Requirements

DoD is expected to participate in HyTEC Phase 2 for certain technologies. If an Offeror is awarded with DoD funding, the contract will include applicable Defense Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement (DFARS) provisions and clauses. Should there be multiple CLIN/SLINs awarded, the DFARS provisions and clauses apply only to the technology(ies) funded by DoD. Refer to Section H in the model contract for the DFARS requirements.

7. INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY

Data Rights. Normally, the Government has unlimited rights in technical data created under a NASA agreement. Knowledge gained about key parameters related to proposed technology, resulting from the analysis of the test data by NASA researchers, shall become the property of NASA, as long as it does not disclose company proprietary engine / rig geometry or engine-specific aerodynamic performance parameters. The knowledge gained by NASA shall be publishable and unlimited immediately after the testing and analysis is complete. Delivery or third-party licensing of proprietary software or data developed solely at private expense will not normally be required except as specifically negotiated in a particular agreement to satisfy NASA's own needs or to ensure the commercialization of technology developed under a NASA agreement.

A clear statement is required of what intellectual property is expected to be available to the Government, U.S. Aeronautics Community, and Public at the conclusion of the work. It is NASA’s preference that all deliverables under the contract be provided to NASA with unrestricted/unlimited rights; thus, any restrictions must demonstrate a significant net benefit to the Government.

A Model contract is provided with a sample Pre-Award Data Rights Assertion table (DRAT) in Attachment A.

Patent Rights. The Government will have certain statutory rights in an invention that is conceived or first actually reduced to practice under a NASA award. 51 U.S.C. 20135 provides that title to such inventions vests in the United States, except where 35 U.S.C. 202 provides otherwise for nonprofit organizations or small business firms. However, NASA may waive all or any part of the rights of the United States subject to certain conditions.

8. REVIEWS AND REPORTING

The required reviews and reporting of a successfully awarded contract include:

Project Coordination

Technical and schedule progress meeting monthly (or as agreed upon) remotely to assess progress

Reviews

Kick-off review Annual Contract review Agreed upon key LCRs, as described in Section 5.2 Peer Reviews and Tabletop Reviews may be considered if appropriate for the work and agreed to by NASA.

Test Plan Review – with NASA concurrence on instrumentation and test points. Can be held in conjunction with other reviews Test Readiness Review Facility Integration Review, and Safety Review if work is being conducted at a NASA facility Pre and post-test CFD and data analysis reviews if applicable Final Contract Review

Reports

Monthly status reports documenting the technical, financial, and schedule progress (PowerPoint acceptable, limited only version)

Monthly and Quarterly 533 financial reports Annual progress report (limited and unlimited versions) Annual oral report and presentation materials (limited only) Final report (limited and unlimited versions) documenting the results of the entire contract, recommendations, and conclusions.

o This report shall be prepared in accordance with NFS 1852.235-73 Final

Scientific and Technical Reports (DEC 2006) Final oral report and presentation materials (limited and unlimited versions) o The final contract review shall consist of a public and Government-only review NASA requests two versions of the presentation, one with non-proprietary content suitable for presenting in a public forum and one for NASA Government review only

Data Rights Identification

Any technical data or computer software developed, delivered, or used under this contract (including reviews and reports) for which the Offeror anticipates that the Government will receive less than Unlimited Rights must be identified on the Data Rights Assertion

Table (See Model Contract Section H.11 for instruction) and appropriately marked at the lowest segregable level. Limited Rights technical data must be identified and marked at the lowest segregable level pertaining to an item, component, or process and Restricted Computer Software data must be identified and marked at the lowest segregable level pertaining to computer software.

9. ELIGIBILITY INFORMATION

9.1. Eligibility

Participation in this program is open to all categories of U.S. organizations, including educational institutions, industry, and not-for-profit institutions. Historically black colleges and universities, other minority universities, small disadvantaged businesses, veteran-owned small businesses, service-disabled veteran-owned small businesses, historically under-utilized business zone small businesses, and women-owned small businesses are encouraged to apply.

Participation by non-U.S. organizations is not permitted.

9.2. Teaming Arrangements

NASA recognizes and supports the benefits of having diverse and inclusive scientific, engineering, and technology communities and fully expects that such values will be reflected in the composition of all panels and teams, including peer review panels (science, engineering, and technology), proposal teams, science definition teams, and mission and instrument teams.

If the Offeror proposes subcontracting goals that include an US academic institution(s), it may receive an additional 5 percentage points weighted total toward Proposed Work Plan evaluation. Determinations made under this paragraph are unilateral decisions made solely at the discretion of the Government.

9.3 Partial Awards

NASA reserves the right to select only a portion of a proposed activity, usually at a level of support reduced from that requested in the original proposal. Offerors should specify if a proposal is offered as a non-separable package of work. Additionally, NASA may decide to award an effort for less than the full period of the proposal. In these cases, the Offeror will be given the opportunity to accept or decline such selection. If the Offeror accepts such an offer, a revised budget and SOW may be required before funding action on the proposal can be initiated. If the Offeror declines the offer of a partial selection, or participation in a joint investigation, the offer of selection may be withdrawn in its entirety by NASA. To assist determining costs for a partial award, the Cost Proposal shall be split into separate CLINs and SLINs. This is described in more detail in Section 10.1.2

Teaming Arrangements with non-U.S. organizations is not permitted.

9.4. Cost Proposal

Each proposal shall provide a budget justification for each phase/year of the proposed effort and supported by appropriate details by category. Attachment B1 (TRL 5 CLIN) and B2 (TRL 6 CLIN/SLIN) shall be used for the cost proposal submittal and contains required cost proposal details.

The cost proposal shall identify the Offeror’s estimated costs. The cost share and the contributions proposed making up the cost share shall be shown. Any in-kind contributions shall be identified in the proposal. If the Offeror is planning to utilize NASA testing facilities, see Section 9.5. Proposed Use of Unique NASA Capabilities for additional information required for the proposal. Additional instructions regarding the cost proposal can be found on Section 10.1.2 Cost Proposal.

9.5. Proposed Use of Unique NASA Capabilities

NASA uses a variety of specialized test facilities to achieve its mission. Any need for these specific facilities for the proposed research must be explicitly described in the proposal, including the asset, rationale, and justification of the need, how it supports the investigation, and when during the proposed period the resource will be required. NASA will not cover facility modifications that may be necessary to meet test requirements.

NASA will not cost share any test costs at NASA facilities. NASA will provide pricing estimate upon request to the Contracting Officers whose contact information is provided in the Document Overview. Specific time frame and duration of testing will be negotiated upon selection of a proposal.

When using a NASA facility, the test schedule should account for the two-month summer shutdown that occurs between June-August and a winter shutdown the last two weeks of December. Non-test activities can be conducted in facilities during these shutdown periods.

General information on NASA test and evaluation facilities, can be found using the websites given below.

NASA Glenn Facilities: https://www1.grc.nasa.gov/facilities/ Engine Research Building: https://www1.grc.nasa.gov/facilities/erb/ Combustor Facilities: https://www1.grc.nasa.gov/facilities/erb/#combustor-facilities Combustion Facilities: https://www1.grc.nasa.gov/facilities/#combustion-facilities

Propulsion Systems Laboratory (PSL): https://www1.grc.nasa.gov/facilities/psl-3/ PSL Facility Virtual Tour: https://www.nasa.gov/specials/psl360/

9.6. Cost Sharing

Proposals to the HyTEC project shall have a minimum 50/50 cost share. Contributions may be cash, noncash (in-kind) or both. Acceptable non-cash or in-kind resources include such items as equipment, labor, office space, etc. Unacceptable contributions include work currently being performed using other NASA project or other U.S. funding.

Any in-kind contributions should be identified in the proposal. If the Offeror is planning to utilize NASA testing facilities, NASA will not cost share or cover any costs associated with testing or NASA facility modifications. NASA personnel will not be included in the in-kind contribution. More details on facility usage can be found in Section 9.5. Proposed Use of Unique NASA Capabilities above.

9.7. Programmatic Considerations

Currently, the total Government contribution to cost share for HyTEC Phase 2 is anticipated to be in the $80-100 million range, dependent upon future NASA Aeronautics funding profiles. The actual number and value of the awards will depend on the quality of the proposals received and the availability of Government funds. The NASA cost share shall not include any direct facility test costs or upgrade/capability enhancements required. Facility and testing costs are considered out of scope of these contracts. NASA research personnel will not be included in the cost share. Cost for design modifications to advanced core demo hardware other than targeted technologies in Section 4 shall not be cost shared (i.e., actuators, bearings, shafts, etc.)

10. PROPOSAL AND SUBMISSION INFORMATION

10.1. Instructions for Proposals (1852.215-81 Proposal Page Limitations (APR 2015))

The proposal format and content requirements as outlined in this section below shall be submitted as one searchable, unlocked PDF file with edit permission enabled as well as Attachment B Cost Proposal in an unlocked Microsoft Excel file. Applicants must comply with the format and page limit requirements as described in this section.

There is a 19 MB limit for the electronic media file size for emails. Any proposal that exceeds that limit shall be submitted in multiple emails. The requested proposal electronic naming convention is as follows: Company Name – NRA #80GRC023N0001 – HyTEC Phase 2.

Documents exceeding page limits for each section shall not be evaluated. A page is defined as one side of a sheet, 8 1/2" x 11" with at least one-inch margins on all sides, using not smaller than 12-point font, with the exception of tables and figures, diagrams, schedules, and charts which may use 8-point font. It is recommended that expository text necessary for the proposal not be located solely in figures or tables, or in their captions. Offerors may submit foldout pages (11” x 17” or smaller) however the fold out will be considered as two (2) 8 ½” x 11” pages. Any font that the Government determines smaller than this amount shall not be evaluated.

A Work Plan in the form of a Statement of Work (SOW) shall be provided in the proposal for the solicited topic described in Section 4, including a schedule and cost proposal. If any additional background or rationale is required to support the SOW, please provide it as a separate document. The separate Work Plan (SOW) shall be submitted as an unlocked Microsoft Word file and an unlocked PDF file.

All proposals shall be valid for at least 280 calendar days from the proposal due date, as indicated on Sam.gov.

Proposal Section Page Limitations

Title Page 1 Offeror’s Executive Summary 2 Offeror’s Past Experience 3 Relevance, Potential for Implementation, and Impact 5 Technical Approach and Capabilities 10 Proposed Work Plan(s) (SOW) 10 per CLIN/SLIN

Background Information/ Narrative 5 per CLIN/SLIN Cost Proposal(s) No limit Signed Model Contract No limit

Title Page

Include any notice of restriction on use and disclosure of proposal information.

An optional graphic image may be included.

The Offeror’s name of the proposal or proposed project Date of the proposal The title and solicitation number Organization name and address Offeror’s point of contact name, title, e-mail address, and phone number

The following two sub-sections will describe in more detail the technical and cost sections of the proposal.

10.1.1. Technical Content

A. Offeror’s Executive Summary – Describe the proposal’s prominent and distinguishing features. The executive summary should provide an overview of the proposed effort that is suitable for release through a publicly accessible archive should the proposal be selected.

B. Offeror’s Past Experience – Describe experience providing services performed in the past that are of a similar size, scope, and complexity to the technology demonstration proposed. Include any work related to the proposed technology area such as current and pending support.

C. Relevance, Potential for Implementation, and Impact

a. Identify the technical metrics described in Section 3 that are addressed by the integrated technology demonstration (both technologies that may be cost shared by NASA and technologies not included in this NRA) and the approach on how they will be met by the overall core…