TEAMS3_Amendment2_DRFP.pdf

For the best experience, open this PDF portfolio in

Acrobat X or Adobe Reader X, or later.

Get Adobe Reader Now!

http://www.adobe.com/go/reader

Engineering Directorate

Overview

Junilla Applin Associate Director for Space Technology and Exploration

October 2016

10/25/2016 2

Engineering Directorate

The Engineering Directorate provides system concepts, advanced technology solutions, ground test systems, flight systems, and operational systems to support the research, technology, and development objectives of the Agency aeronautics, science and exploration missions.

10/25/2016 4

Engineering Products: “Concept to Flight”

Design, Development, Demonstration, and Deployment

10/25/2016 5

Engineering Capabilities & Expertise

Advanced Concepts Development

Advanced Technology

Technology Demonstration

Flight Systems

Lidar/Laser Technology Sensor/Sensing Technology Fabrication & Manufacturing

Areas of Expertise

Capabilities

Environmental Testing Entry, Descent & Landing

ARES

10/25/2016 6

Lidar/Laser Technology – Conduct lidar and solid-state laser technology development and provide analysis, advanced concepts, laser materials, components, system development, risk reduction, technology maturation, engineering model demonstrations, testing, integration, and flight qualification to support the development of active remote instruments to support atmospheric characterization, landing systems, and in-space rendezvous and proximity operations.

Functional Capabilities

• Electronic System Development

•Remote Sensing System Development

• Software Engineering

• Sensor/Electro-Optical System Development

• Lidar/Laser System Development

•Hardware Integration and Environmental Testing

•Requirements Definition and Planning

•Management and Administration

Lidar/Laser Technology

10/25/2016 7

Sensor/Sensing Technology – Conduct electro-optic radiation detection and sensor system technology development, including providing analysis, advanced concepts, component, system development, risk reduction, technology maturation, engineering model demonstrations, and flight instrument development.

Functional Capabilities:

•Remote Sensing System Development

• Sensor/Electro-Optical System Development

•Hardware Integration and Environmental Testing

•Requirements Definition and Planning

•Management and Administration

Sensor/Sensing Technology

10/25/2016 8

Fabrication Technology Development •Develop, fabricate, and instrument unique test articles comprising of unmanned aerial systems; spin, dynamically scaled, aero-elastic, and free flight wind tunnel models; scaled remotely piloted models; flight and ground support hardware; mock-ups of habitats and rovers; along with facility components and laboratory test apparatus

Metals Applications Technology

• Developing and applying advanced machining processes in metals technology including multi-axis computer aided machining, CNC water jet cutting and EDM programming/processing for metallic test article fabrication

Fabrication/Manufacturing Technology

UAS Grease Lightning – 10

1.75%

SLS

SAGE-III

NADIR Viewing

Platform

10/25/2016 9

Flight Systems – Provide integrated aerodynamic, aerothermodynamic, flight dynamics, mechanical, structural, thermal, optical, electronics, and flight software systems design, development, and validation to enable the Center research mission in atmospheric sciences and the development, test, evaluation, and integration expertise to support the deployment of instruments, payloads, technology demonstrators, and flight vehicle systems.

Functional Capabilities:

• Mechanical/Structural System Development

• Structural and Thermal Analysis

• Optical System Development

• Electro-Optical System Development

• Hardware Integration and Environmental Testing

• Requirements Definition and Planning

• Management and Administration

10/25/2016 10

Environmental Test and Development Capabilities

Complete ability to test spaceflight hardware.

Facility Usable Test Volume Characteristics

Thermal Vacuum Chambers

5 ft x 5 ft 4 ft-6in x 4 ft-3in x 4 ft-6in Graphite heaters (3000°F), <5x10E-6 Torr

6 ft x 6 ft 3 ft-6 in x 5 ft. x 4 ft-10 in GN2 thermal shroud (- 150C - +150C), <1 x10E-6 Torr

8 ft x 15 ft 6 ft-8in x 14 ft.

Quartz Lamps, LN2 shrouds, <1x10E-6 Torr

Vacuum Ovens (x3)

2 ft. x 2ft. X 2 ft-6 in.

Hot walls with cold plate (-30C to +200C), <1x10E- 6 Torr

Vibration Testing

LING Model 308V 1ft mounting cube, 1.5in stroke

3000 force-lb, sin

UNHOLTZ-DICKIE

T-2000

45in x 28in slip table, 1in stroke

24000 force-lb, sin

UNHOLTZ-DICKIE

T-4000

48in x 61.5in. slip table, 1in stroke

40000 force-lb, sin

Mass Properties

Space Electronics KSR1320 Mass, MOI, and CG Test articles up to 1320lb

Electromagnetic Compatibility

Radiated & Conducted emission/susceptibility

9mx6mx5.5m Provide testing per MIL- STD-461 and similar

10/25/2016 11

’05 MRO

’11 MSL / MEDLI

Entry, Descent & Landing (EDL) Controlled flight of a vehicle system through all appreciable atmospheres, including safe landing where applicable

Sample Return EEV

Integrated Systems

• Systems Engineering

• Systems Integration

• Guidance & Control

• Trajectories

• Independent Verification & Validation

Mission Design and Ops

• Systems Studies

• Mission Architectures

• Hardware Concepts

• Aerobraking

• Entry Trajectory Analysis

• Troubleshooting

• Entry Console

’06 Stardust

ARES

Flight Environments

• Atmospheric Characterization

• Wind tunnel testing

• Computational fluid dynamics

• Flight testing

• Database assembly

• Decelerators

Supersonic Retro-Propulsion Flight Mechanics

Outer Planet Aerocapture

Autonomous Aerobraking

Flight Vehicle Tech Development

• Aeroshells & thermal protection

• Air Maneuvering, mission abort

• Decelerators

• Parachutes, HIADs, SRP

• Landing systems (liquid & land)

Advanced Modsim

• Modeling & Analysis Tools

• Development and Testing

• Concept to Flight

• Validation

’03 MER

ORION MPCV

10/25/2016 12

• We provide engineering, discipline technologies, and advanced fabrication capabilities to support Agency missions

• Our capabilities and highly skilled workforce enable development of technologies and systems from “Concept-to-Flight”

• We continually and actively seek opportunities to more broadly apply our capabilities and technologies to support Science, Exploration, Space Technology, and Aeronautics

• We collaborate with other Langley organizations and with other Centers, government agencies, industry, and academia to achieve the mission

Summary

Langley Research Center We are our People…

Delivering today and preparing for tomorrow http://www.nasa.gov/ http://www.nasa.gov/

NASA Engineering and Safety Center

October 2016

Engineering Excellence

Independent technical assessment is a critical component of the safety and mission success of NASA’s program

NESC has established itself as the “value added” independent test and analysis organization for the Agency with over 600 Assessments in 10 + years

NESC was a key contributor to the Space Shuttle Program return to flight and the safe and successful fly-out of the program

NESC workload remains high and is distributed across all of NASA missions. The Centers provide outstanding support to the NESC

NESC is engaged in mitigating the OCE’s top technical risks and laying the groundwork for technical capability management

With three human spaceflight programs in development, one in operation, and multiple earth and planetary science programs in every lifecycle phase, a robust independent technical capability is necessary for NASA to continue to accomplish its mission

Bottom Line – Up Front

NESC is cultivating a Safety culture focused on engineering and technical excellence, while fostering an open environment and attacking challenges with unequalled tenacity

NESC Background and Mission

NESC was established in July 2003 in response to the Columbia accident

Built on NASA’s traditional safety philosophy:

– Strong in-line checks and balances

– Healthy tension between organizational elements

– Value-added independent assessment

NESC provides independent assessment of technical issues for NASA programs and projects

Apollo Saturn 5 Launch Vehicle

Institutionalized “Tiger Team” approach to solving problems

Agency-recognized NASA Technical Fellows lead Technical Discipline Teams (TDT)

– “Ready” experts from across NASA, industry, academia and other agencies

– Diverse, expert technical teams provide robust technical solutions

Assemble independent, diverse, expert technical teams that provide robust technical solutions to the Agency’s highest-risk and most complex issues

– NESC involvement ranges from supporting reviews, augmenting project teams, and solving problems through independent test and analysis, to exploring alternate design concepts

Strong Systems Engineering function for proactive trending and identification of problem areas before failures occur

NESC Model

Space Shuttle on Mobile Launch Platform

Focus on technical rigor and engineering excellence

NESC Organization Distributed NESC Team

NESC has ~60 full-time employees selected from across the Agency and externally

NESC Chief Engineers at each Center provide technical insight and liaison roles

18 NASA Technical Fellows are recognized experts in their respective engineering fields

21 Technical Discipline Teams comprised of 19 engineering and 2 operations disciplines create a network of over 500 engineers available for matrix support

194 TDT members are intentionally drawn from industry, academia and other government agencies to prevent insularity

Participation on NESC teams provides value to home organizations

– Valuable problem-solving experience

– Broad Agency-wide perspective

– Engage next generation of engineers

Over 800 national engineering experts support the NESC nationwide

Data as of July 12, 2016

Industry

NASA

Other US Gov’t

University

NESC and TEAMS

NESC brings together subject matter experts from industry, academia, and other government agencies to solve complex problems

TEAMS is a major contract for engineering, test, and analysis support as well as administrative project coordinators, schedulers, and technical editors Engineering, Test, and Analysis Support

− Procure technical experts required to support Technical Discipline Teams (TDT’s) and Technical Assessments

− Supports engineering and safety challenges − Level of effort changes throughout the FY − Historically about 40-50 active TDNs each fiscal year, procuring 150-200 subcontactors/consultants Administrative Support

− Project Coordination − 50–80 active assessments being supported

− Scheduling − Document Preparation / Report Writing

− 50–70 per year

Monthly cost reports at the task and vendor/subcontractor level are provided and interface with the NESC Management Analysis and Planning System (MAPS)

Backup

NASA Technical Fellows (within NESC)

Outstanding senior-level engineers and scientists with distinguished and sustained records of technical achievement

Agency’s leading experts in their respective technical disciplines

Maintain NESC Technical Discipline Teams with ready-experts

Provide leadership and act as role models for NASA discipline engineering communities beyond the Technical Discipline Teams

Provide technical consistency across NASA through inputs to Agency-level specifications and standards and the tailoring of those standards for programs and projects

Promote discipline stewardship through workshops, conferences and assorted discipline-advancing activities

Ensure lessons learned are identified, widely shared across engineering organizations, and incorporated into Agency processes

Conduct discipline specific gap analyses to identify areas that require strategic investment to develop fundamental engineering sciences

(within NESC)

Steve Gentz

MSFC

Ken Hamm

ARC

George Jackson

GSFC

NESC Chief Engineers

Rob Jankovsky

GRC

Lloyd Keith

JPL

Steve Minute

KSC

Lance Richards

AFRC

Paul Roberts LaRC

Mike Smiles

SSC

Scott West

JSC

Liaison between resident Center and NESC

Proactive involvement with programs and projects at resident Center

Provide technical expertise and technical resources external to the program/project to assist with resolving issues

Provide program/project insight to rest of NESC through participation at major boards and panels

Review assessment requests, clarify issue, perform risk assessment, recommend NESC course of action, develop associated cost ROM, and present to NESC Review Board

Manage NESC resources at resident center

Assist Principal Engineers and NASA Technical Fellows staff NESC technical activities with resident Center resources

Contribute to Technical Discipline Teams and NESC technical activities – both assessments and support activities – based on their areas of expertise

The NESC Assessment Team

Assessment Team

NESC Matrix Team

NASA Engineers at the division and directorate levels of each Center

Industry Experts

Members of the Academic

Community

21 Technical Discipline Teams Aerosciences

Avionics Electrical Power Flight Mechanics

Guidance, Navigation & Control Human Factors

Human Spaceflight Operations Life Support/Active Thermal

Loads and Dynamics Materials

Mechanical Systems Non-Destructive Evaluation

Nuclear Power and Propulsion Passive Thermal

Propulsion Robotic Spaceflight

Sensors/Instrumentation Space Environments

Software Structures

Systems Engineering

NESC Core Team

Management and Technical Support Office Contracts, Budgets, Partnerships

Senior Technical Experts

NESC Principal Engineers Assessment Team Leads

NESC Points of Contact at each Center

NESC Integration Office Programmatic and Technical Integration

NESC requests evaluated on risk for the Agency and NESC task priorities (currently primarily focused on priorities 1 and 2):

1. Technical support of projects in the flight phase

2. Technical support of projects in the design phase

3. Known problems not being addressed by any project

4. Work to avoid potential future problems

5. Work to improve a system

Performing NESC Assessments Overview Flowchart

Request Submitted

(from anyone)

Request Processed, Evaluated and Accepted

Assessment Team Formed;

Plan Developed and Approved

Proceed with Assessment (Testing, Modeling, Analysis, Data Collection)

Peer Review and Document Findings, Observations and Recommendations

Deliver Final Report to

Stakeholders

NESC Review

Team NESC Review

NESC Review

NESC Priorities

Sources of Accepted Requests

Anonymous 0.7%

Center Management 1.9%

Engineering 45.9%

External 3.7%

NESC

19.2%

OCE

2.4%

OSMA

2.3%

Other NASA Office 3.0%

Program Management 17.8%

SMA

3.0%

Annual traffic volume of assessments has been consistent at ~54/yr

The make up of the assessment traffic has shifted from primarily Space Operations to a good mixture of all of NASA’s Mission Directorates

Expect continued growth in new human spaceflight programs

NESC Activities Trends Accepted Requests by Mission Directorate

2012 2013 2014 2015 2016

R eq u es ts

FY

Aeronautics

Broad Agency/External

HEOMD (Exploration)

HEOMD (Operations)

Science

Space Technology

TOTAL

NESC Technical Highlights

The NESC focuses on the Agency’s most critical programs

– The NESC’s emphasis has moved from the Space Shuttle Program to the new human spaceflight and science mission programs

The NESC is filling the increasing need of ensuring safety through independent, engineering excellence

– Two new human spaceflight programs are currently in development – the best time to provide strong technical input

– International Space Station in operation

– Robust earth and planetary science programs

The NESC is a place to turn for help addressing difficult decisions

– Provide decision makers impartial, data-driven inputs to address dissenting opinions or multiple alternatives

Typical NESC Activities Projects in Operations or Flight Phase

Provide real-time problem solving for programs and projects in operations or flight phase

– Space Shuttle External Tank Stringer

Cracking Issue

– Space Shuttle Orbiter Wing Leading

Edge Reinforced Carbon-Carbon Spalling Issue

– ISS Control Moment Gyroscope (CMG) Performance Investigation

– ISS Solar Array Mast Shadowing

– EVA Glove Damage Root Cause Determination

– Hubble Space Telescope Attitude Observer Anomaly

– Assessment of ISS/EVA Lithium-ion Battery Thermal Runaway Severity Reduction Measure

– Support to US-EVA-23 EMU Anomaly Mishap Investigation

Stringer Testing Greg Shanks LaRC

CMG Flywheel Modal Testing

ISS Solar Array Thermal Tests

EVA Li-Ion Battery Thermal Runaway

Assessments

EMU Anomaly MIB Support

Conduct independent testing and analysis for the next generation of launch vehicles and spacecraft

– Structural Dynamics Analysis Review of Stennis Space Center A-3 Test Stand

– Crew Module Water Landing Modeling

– Certification of Chute Systems for High Altitude Deployments

– Exploration Systems Independent Modeling and Simulation

– Orion Thermal Protection System Margin Study

– Development of Orion Crew Seat Energy Attenuation Mechanical Concepts

– Review of SLS and Orion Program Modal Test, DFI, and Dynamic Model Correlation Plans

Thrust Oscillation System Under Test

Lester Langford SSC

Projects in Development

Independent Modeling and Simulation

CPAS

Pendulum

Support

Support the development of critical robotic spacecraft and aeronautics missions

– Mars Science Laboratory Aero/Reaction Control System Interaction Model Validation

– Mars Science Laboratory Ground Test and Checkout Review

– James Webb Space Telescope Thermal Shield Venting Analysis

– James Webb Space Telescope NIRSpec Micro Shutter Subsystem

– Hypersonic Air Breathing Launch Vehicle Study

– Low Density Supersonic Decelerator Sub-Scale Wind Tunnel Tests

Mars Science Laboratory

Computational Fluid Dynamics

Mars Science Laboratory Wind

Tunnel Tests

NIRSpec Instrumentation

Robotic Spacecraft and Aeronautics Projects

Hypersonic Air Breathing Launch Vehicle Study

LDSD Wind Tunnel Tests

Improve system performance and increase system safety

– Shell Buckling Knockdown Factor

Investigate alternate design concepts to inform program baseline designs

– Max Launch Abort System (MLAS)

– Composite Crew Module

– Crew Seat Energy Attenuation Mechanism

Shell Buckling Knockdown Factor Test

Mark Hilburger LaRC Michael Roberts MSFC

Max Launch Abort System Team

Sarah Quach KSC Gary Dittemore JSC

Improving System Safety and Performance

MLAS 2009

Dragon 2

Crew Module Water Landing

Modeling

Composite Crew Module

Commercial Crew Program Temporal Insight Support Approach

Commercial Crew Projects

Share best practices and lessons learned with new commercial partners

– Launch Abort Systems

– Landing Systems & Water Landing

– Constructing Aerodynamic Databases using Computational Fluid Dynamics (CFD) and Wind Tunnel Testing

– Aerodynamic Testing and Database

– Composite Spacecraft Design

– Rendezvous and Proximity Operations

– Use of Commercial-Off-The-Shelf Electronic Parts

NESC technical expertise is specifically called out in the Commercial Crew Program Insight Plan

– Provide surge capability and temporal support as required

– Based on engagement to date, the demand for NESC engagement will grow significantly

COTS Parts

Resolve critical Agency cross-cutting technical challenges

– COPV Life Prediction Model

– Reaction Wheel Assembly Lubricant Contamination

– Carbon Fiber Strand Failure Characterization

– Lithium Ion Battery Assessment

Develop engineering guidelines and recommended best practices

– NASA Fault Management Practitioners Handbook

– Determining Readiness for Crewed Flight on New Spacecraft Systems

– NASA Models and Simulations Guidebook

– Technology Roadmap Teams

Composite Overwrap Pressure Vessel Team Thomas Hanson WSTF Marene Carillo WSTF

Carbon Fiber Strand Failure

Resolving Cross-Cutting Challenges

Provide technical support to investigations outside the Agency

– National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) Unintended Acceleration Investigation

– Rescue of trapped Chilean miners

– British Royal Navy Self-Contained Oxygen Generator Failure Investigation

– Impact of Unsteady Loads on the Tail Appendages of the Navy Advanced SEAL Delivery System (ASDS) Vehicle

– Los Alamos National Laboratory (LANL)/ Nuclear Explosive Safety Team Threaded Fastener Guidance

– Air Force F-22 Life Support System Independent Analysis

Mike Kirsch, NESC Principal Engineer, with NHTSA representatives

Chilean Miner Rescue

Air Force F-22

NHTSA Investigation Team Members:

Dr. Phillip Tang KSC Omar Torres LaRC

Supporting Other Government Agencies

Summary and Challenges

After 13 years and 700+ technical assessments, the NESC has become the “value added” independent technical organization for the Agency the CAIB envisioned

NESC workload remains high despite Space Shuttle retirement and completion of ISS assembly. Thank you to the Centers for their continued support!

The NESC model provides an excellent example of the benefits of agency wide collaboration to solve the complex engineering problems

− Creative, robust technical solutions

− Stronger checks and balances

− Well informed decision making

History has taught us that a strong focus on safety and mission assurance is easier right after a critical event – but maintaining the same level of vigilance in the years that follow is required to prevent future accidents

NESC Organization

NESC Organizational Structure

Updated: February 2012

Could result in death or permanent total disability ;

Irreversible severe environmental damage

Could result in permanent partial disability;

Reversible

Could result in injury or illness resulting in one or more lost work days;

Mitigatable env.

Could result in injury or illness not resulting in lost work days;

Minimal

Minimal/no safety or health plan violations;

Minimal/no impacts

Safety, Health, &

Environment

4 5321Level

If the risk scenario occurs, what are the consequences?

C O N S E Q U E N C E S

Hardware loss

$10M - $50M and/or

Failure to meet

> 50% MMOs

> $50 M and/or

Failure to meet all

MMOs

$1M - $10M and/or

Failure to meet

> 25% of MMOs

$100k -$1M and/or

Failure to meet > 10% of MMOs

< $100K and/or

Failure to meet any one Major Mission

Objective (MMO)

Mission

Success

(Crewed &

Non-Crewed

Missions)

CONSEQUENCES

1 2 3 4 5

LEGEND

High – Probable NESC independent assessment

(IA) or technical support.

Medium – NESC, other

NASA IA org. and/or

Program/project action may be required.

Low – No NESC action required. May be referred to another NASA

IA organization.

How likely is this condition, situation, or risk scenario?

Qualitative Guidance (Crewed and Non-Crewed Missions)

Level

Probability

Highly

Likely

Likely to occur multiple times.

Existing controls have little or no effect.

Likely Expected to occur.

Existing controls have serious uncertainties or limitations.

Moderate Significant potential to occur.

Existing controls have some

Unlikely Unlikely but possible to occur.

Existing controls have minor

Not likely to occur.

Strong controls are in place.

RISK

DEFINITIONS

RISK MANAGEMENT: An organized, systematic decision-making process that efficiently identifies risks, assesses or analyzes risks, communicates risks, and effectively reduces or eliminates risks to achieving program goals.

RISK SCORING METHODOLOGY: The NESC focuses on technical risks. Risk scoring is accomplished by numerical value which is reflective of the ordered pair Likelihood (L), Consequence (C). The highest score is represented in the NESC Risk Matrix as a single score value.

Risk: Measure of the potential inability to achieve overall program objectives within defined constraints and has two components: (1) the probability/likelihood of failing to achieve a particular outcome, and (2) the consequences/ impacts of failing to achieve that outcome.

Likelihood: Chance of a risk occurring within a stated timeframe.

Consequences: Impacts (typically categorized as negative) to program/project (i.e., hardware and/or science loss, injury, illness, and environmental damage)

Note: A risk scenario can be written as a statement; “given a defined condition, there is a possibility (likelihood) that a consequence(s) will occur.” The estimates of likelihood and consequences may have associated uncertainties.

NESC RISK ASSESSMENT

L I K E L I H O

D

L

K E L I H O

D

NESC RISK MATRIX

Safety, Health, and Environment consequences include adverse impacts to life, health, working environments, and/or natural environments.

Mission Success consequences include hardware losses and/or adverse impacts to science returns as defined by Major Mission Objectives (MMOs).

Safety, Health, Environment, and Mission Success consequences can exist concurrently and are not mutually exclusive.

RISK CONSEQUENCE SCORING

Quantitative

Guidance:

Crewed Missions

Estimated probability greater than 0.10 (>10%)

Highly

Unlikely

Quantitative

Guidance:

Non-Crewed Missions

Between 0.01 and 0.10 (1% - 10%)

Between 0.001 and 0.01 (0.1% - 1%)

Between 0.000001 and 0.001 (0.0001% - 0.1%)

Less than 0.000001 (< 0.0001%)

Estimated probability greater than 0.50 (>50%)

Between 0.25 and 0.50 (25% - 50%)

Between 0.05 and 0.25 (5% - 25%)

Between 0.01 and 0.05 (1% - 5%)

Less than 1% (< 1%)

Purpose: The NESC risk assessment is used to communicate one factor in the initial evaluation of requests for NESC independent assessments and technical support. The NESC risk matrix supports the evaluation and prioritization of Program/project technical risks from an overall Agency perspective.

NESC Timeline

2015 NESC Leadership Team

The NESC provides a strong technical team to coordinate and conduct robust, independent engineering and safety assessments across the Agency.

2003 2004 2005 2006

July 2003

NESC

Created

October 2005 100th Technical

Initiated

June 2007 200th Technical

2009 2010

September 2009 300th Technical

CEV Smart Buyer ALAS

MLAS

Composite Crew Module

February 2011 400th Technical

2012 2013

January 2013 500th Technical

Shell Buckling Support to SLS 2014 2015

October 2014 600th Technical

Ms. Lesa Roe, Director May 3, 2012

L A N G L E Y R E S E A R C H C E N T E R

Research Directorate

• INSIGHT: We leverage external/internal research to discover, understand and predict fundamental physics to enable ourselves and others to understand technical challenges that are barriers to advancing the future in aerospace.

• INVENTION: We collaborate to conceive and develop technology solutions to make our desired future real and/or an even better future possible.

• IMPACT: We partner to integrate technology solutions to demonstrate system-level benefits that enable the Agency’s missions and solve the Nation’s aerospace challenges.

Turning Insight and Invention into Impact

10/25/2016 3

RD Vision, Strategy, Mission & Values

NASA

Vision

Center Vision

RD Vision Our research & technology is sought out by the aerospace and science communities because we solve their challenges and create future opportunities.

RD Strategy We integrate our technical excellence and extensive global collaborations in an agile and creative environment to develop innovative, systems-relevant research and technology that enables the Center and Agency visions by solving challenges and creating breakthroughs that shape the future.

RD Mission We conduct research and develop advanced technology to support the research and technology objectives of NASA’s Aeronautics, Human Exploration and Operations, Space Technology, and Science Missions.

RD Values Safety Excellence Teamwork Integrity Innovation Entrepreneurial Spirit

Our foundation, what we believe in

What we are here to do

What we aspire to achieve, The brass rings we reach for, technically

& organizationally

How we plan to reach our goals and grab those rings

Adv. Technology Assessments Tony Washburn, Chf Technologist Deputy Chf Technologist (SACD) Sr. Scientists/Researchers (STs)

Dana Hammond, High Performance Computing

Incubator Lead

D301 Configuration Aerodynamics Zachary Applin, Head

Sally Viken, Asst. Head

D302 Computational AeroSciences Bil Kleb, Head

Beth Lee-Rausch, Asst. Head Mujeeb Malik, Aerodynamics ST

D308 Aeroelasticity Branch Russ Rausch, Head (Acting)

VACANT, Asst. Head

D307 Advanced Materials & Processing

Robert Bryant, Head Catharine Fay, Asst. Head Terryl Wallace, Asst. Head

Brian Jensen, Advanced Materials ST

D306 Hypersonic Airbreathing Propulsion

Richard Gaffney, Head

D305 Aerothermodynamics William Wood, Head

Kelly Murphy, Asst. Head Peter Gnoffo, Aerothermodyn. ST

D303 Flow Physics and Control Catherine McGinley, Head Luther Jenkins, Asst. Head D304 Advanced Measurements

& Data Systems Tom Jones, Head

Tony Humphreys, Asst. Head VACANT, Adv. Measurements ST

D313 Nondestructive Evaluation Sciences

K. Elliott Cramer, Head D. Michele Heath, Asst. Head

D309 Durability, Damage Tolerance, & Reliability

Steve Smith, Head Gretchen Murri, Asst. Head

Ed Glaessgen, Computational Materials ST

D312 Structural Mechanics & Concepts

Ted Johnson, Head Kevin Roscoe, Asst. Head (Acting)D314 Aeroacoustics

Mike Doty, Head Steve Rizzi, Aeroacoustics ST

D316 Dynamic Systems & Control Jack Ryan, Head

Irene Gregory, Advanced Controls ST

D317 Flight Dynamics C. Mike Fremaux, Head

D320 Safety-Critical Avionics Systems

Eric Cooper, Head Roger Bailey, Asst. Head (Acting)

D318 Crew Systems & Aviation Ops.

Steven Velotas, Head (Acting)

Vince Schultz, Asst. Head (Acting) B. Danette Allen, Intelligent Flight

Systems ST

D319 Electromagnetics & Sensors

Charmaine Franck, Head Jay Ely, Asst. Head

D322 Structural Dynamics W. Keats Wilkie, Head

D325 Materials & Structures Experiments

Kelly Tarkenton, Head

D327 Subsonic/Transonic Testing

Roman Paryz, Head D327A Richard White, Asst. Hd.

D328 Supersonic/Hypersonic Testing

Michael Difulvio, Head D328A David Aliff, Asst. Head D328B Lynn Curtis, Asst. Head

D329 Structures Testing Lisa Jones, Head

D329A George Palko, Asst. Hd.

RESEARCH DIRECTORATE (D3)

Jill Marlowe, Director

H. Kevin Rivers, Deputy Director Ken Wright, Chief Operations Officer

Joe Morrison, Chief Engineer for Modeling & Simulation Eric Walker, Chief Engineer for Test Operations

Bill Winfree, Chief Engineer for Measurement Systems

D331 Revolutionary Aviation Technologies

Jeff Yetter, Head (Acting)

Key Personnel Assignments

D321 Structural Acoustics Kevin Shepherd, Head Ran Cabell, Asst. Head

Administrative (OHCM) Tracy Fuller, Lead AMS

Maria Dee, Mgmt. Specialist Jennifer Frost, Mgmt. Specialist Lisa Peckham, Mgmt. Specialist

Tracy Hunter, Mgmt. Support Asst

Business Management (OCFO) Deneace Hines, Bus. Mgr.

Yvonne Beyer, Bus. Mgr.

Jennifer Schuetz, Prg. Analyst Sandra Palko, Prg. Analyst

Ronda McMullen, Prg. Analyst

Technical Services Management

Marisol Garcia, BAART COR Rick Ross, NIA COR

Dexter Blackstock, TEAMS2 COR Pete Kjeldsen, CMOE DCOR-Ops Roger Wagner, Sr. Safety Eng.

Charles Zeitman, Safety Eng.

Shawn R. Britton, Met/Cal SPE Stacy Sigmon, Metrology QA David Shinn, Facility Projects

Dave Cordner, IT Manager Bill Hollingsworth, Agreements John R. Micol, Test Partnerships

OUM Approved: __________________ Date:

W. Allen Kilgore, Deputy Director for

VACANT,

Associate Director for

Steve Bauer, Chief Engineer for

D3XX Autonomous Systems Testing (TBC)

VACANT, Head

Integrated Technology Projects Leads (Detailed)

Examples: QueSST CE, ERA ITD Leads, …

Structures &

Materials

H. Kevin Rivers, Jonathan Ransom, Intelligent Flight

Systems

Steve Reznick, Brent Weathered

NASA Langley Product Lines

Atmospheric Characterization

Entry, Descent & Landing Intelligent Flight SystemsMeasurement Systems

Systems Analysis & Concepts

Advanced Materials & Structural Systems

Research Directorate Areas of Expertise

•Structures (integrated multifunctional design, damage mechanics, nonlinear mechanics, radiation physics, loads and dynamics)

•Materials (lightweight materials, multifunctional materials, computational design, environmental interactions, innovative processing)

•Measurement Sciences (noninvasive measurement techniques and physics-based models of measurement methodologies)

•Acoustics (source noise, system noise, structural acoustics, and psychoacoustics)

•Aerodynamics (subsonic/transonic/supersonic aerodynamics, aeroelasticity & controls, fluid physics & modeling, flow control, computational methods, uncertainties)

• Hypersonics (Physics & chemistry modeling, aerothermodynamics, air-breathing propulsion)

•Flight Dynamics and Controls (flight dynamics, control theory, systems identification, guidance & trajectory optimization, flying qualities)

•Crew Systems & Aviation Operations (air traffic operations, flight deck interface, human automation integration, atmospheric hazards and wake turbulence)

•Safety-Critical Avionics Systems (high confidence software-intensive systems)

•Test Technologies (methods and advanced tools to improve experimental facility data quality and fidelity; and operational processes and automation to improve experimental facility productivity and reduce operation costs) 6

We are the Research Directorate

Deliver on Today’s

Commitments

Create Tomorrow’s

Opportunities

Technology, Engineering, and Aerospace Mission

Support 3 (TEAMS 3)

PRE-SOLICITATION CONFERENCE

Cost Overview

Laurie Avery

October 20, 2016

NASA Langley Research Center

• This presentation is intended to assist potential Offerors in their understanding of the Section L - Instructions, Conditions, and Notices to Offerors, Business Proposal – Volume II, Factor 2 - Cost

• In the event of any inconsistency between data provided in these charts and the Final RFP, the language in the Final RFP, including any amendments, will govern

• General clarification questions on the presentation will be responded to; however, any other questions must be submitted in writing

• Volume II – Factor 2 - Cost

– No Page Limit – pages must be numbered

– Cost information only – NO technical data

– Cost must reflect Technical proposal

• Cost Forms – General Instructions

– Compatible with Microsoft Excel 2010

– No PDF or Word Processing Files

– No External Links

– Spreadsheets must be self-calculating

– Explain any Absolute Values

– No Hidden Cells

– No Locked or Password Protected Files

• Attachment I – Cost Forms

– Cost Form 1 – FAR 52.219-14 (Limitations on Subcontracting)

• At least 50% of the cost of contract performance shall be proposed for the prime Offeror

• Calculated based on burdened labor cost excluding profit/fee

• Prime Offeror burdened labor cost from Cost Forms A1 and A2

• Subcontract burdened labor cost from Cost Forms E1 and E2

• The CLIN 004 IDIQ Maximum Value shall not be included for this calculation

– Cost Form A – Summary of Proposed Costs and Fee by Contract Year (All CLINs)

• Total Costs and Fee for Each Contract Year from Cost Forms A1 (CLINs 002 and 005) and A2 (CLINs 003 and 006)

• Total IDIQ Not to Exceed Amount (CLIN 004)

• Attachment I – Cost Forms (cont.)

– Cost Forms A1 and A2 – Summary of Proposed Hours and Costs by Cost Element and Fee

• Cost Form A1 Summary of PWS Sections 4.1 to 4.12

• Cost Form A2 Summary of PWS Section 4.13

• Total Costs and Fee shall flow to Cost Form A

– Cost Forms B1 and B2 – Direct Labor Rates, WYEs, Hours and Costs by Labor Category by PWS Section for each Contract Year

• Cost Form B1 summary of PWS Sections 4.1 to 4.12

• Cost Form B2 summary of PWS Section 4.13

• Labor Rates from Cost Form C

• Show Productive Work-Year and WYEs

– Cost Forms B1 and B2 – Direct Labor Rates, WYEs, Hours and Costs by Labor Category by PWS Section for each Contract Year (cont.)

• Labor Hours and WYEs shall flow to Cost Form G

• Labor Hours and Costs shall flow to Cost Forms A1 and A2

– Cost Form C – Labor Rate Chart

• Provide Contractor Fiscal Year (CFY) Rates and Contract Year (CY) Rates

• Provide Basis of CFY Labor Rates

• Show Calculation of Composite Rates (CFY rates to CY rates)

• CY Rates shall flow to Cost Forms B1-B12

– Cost Form D – Indirect Rates

• Provide CFY Rates and CY Rates

• Provide Basis of CFY Indirect Rates

• Identify the Allocation Base for each Indirect Rate

• Show Calculation of Composite Rates (CFY rates to CY rates)

• CY Rates are used to Determine Indirect Costs on Cost Forms A1 and A2

– Cost Forms E1 and E2 – Other Subcontractors

• Completed by Prime Offeror only

• Cost Form E1 Summary of PWS Sections 4.1 to 4.12

• Cost Form E2 Summary of PWS Section 4.13

• List Separately all Subcontractors < $25M

• Identify PWS Section, Hours, Costs, Fee, and Price by CY

• Other Subcontractors Price for each CY flows to Cost Forms A1 and A2

• Other Subcontractors Hours for each CY flow to Cost Form G

– Cost Form F – Contractor Systems

• Identify Status of Contractor Systems

• Provide evidence of an Adequate Accounting System

• Disclosure Statement and CAS Non-compliances (Significant Subcontractors subject to CAS)

• Provide Forward Pricing Rate Agreement

– Cost Form G – Summary of Hours and WYEs by PWS Section for Prime, Significant Subcontractors, and Other Subcontractors for each Contract Year

• Completed by Prime Offeror only

• Total Hours for Other Subcontractors from Cost Forms E1 and E2

• Total Hours by Contract Year to Cost Form A

• Other Instructions

– Data Other than Cost or Pricing Data Required

– Provide Sufficient Detail to Support and Explain All Costs

– Provide Evidence of Adequate Accounting System or provide completed SF 1408 (Attachment 5)

– Identify DCAA/DCMA Offices

– Significant Subcontractors (any subcontract with a total proposed price that is greater than $25M over the five year period of performance)

• Identify Separately on Cost Forms A1 and A2

• Same Level of Detail as Prime

• Send Proprietary Cost Data directly to NASA

• Other Instructions (cont.)

– Other Direct Costs (ODCs) – Cost Forms A1 and A2

• Government provided plug numbers see DRFP, Section L.19, paragraph f (NOTE: Plug amount for SMEs is for PWS Section 4.13 only)

• List Separately any ODCs not listed in Section L.19, paragraph f.

• ODCs shall only be proposed by the Prime Offeror

– Award Fee – Provide Fee % and Identify Fee Base

• Cost Forms A1 and A2 and Cost Form D

– Fixed Fee - Provide Fee % and Identify Fee Base

• Cost Forms A1 and A2 and Cost Form D

• Other Instructions (cont.)

– Phase-In, if proposed – cost form in Attachment Ia

• Provide Sufficient Detail to Support and Explain All Costs

• Phase-In amount is included in Total Contract Value and will be included as part of the Total Evaluated Price

• Things to Remember

– Adequate Accounting System

• Accurately collects, segregates, and records costs by contract, by individual task order and by CLIN

• Excludes unallowable costs

• Meets the requirements contained in FAR 52.216-7, Allowable Cost and Payment clause

• See reverse side of SF 1408, Attachment 5, for more specific requirements

• Things to Remember (cont.)

– Indirect Rates

• Show impact of this contract on proposed indirect rates (forecasted indirect bases and pools)

• Forecasted rates should NOT include CLIN 004 IDIQ Maximum amount

• If indirect rates have not been reviewed within the last 12 months, provide cost history for the last three years

– Provide a detailed breakdown by cost element of the actual indirect cost pools and bases

• Things to Remember (cont.)

– Subject Matter Experts (SMEs)

• Plug amount in Section L.19 (f) – Other Direct Costs – is for PWS Section 4.13 only

• SMEs for other PWS Sections shall be proposed as either Direct Labor (Prime) or Subcontract cost depending on arrangement

Questions

Welcome/Introduction

Sandie Chellis

Conference Guidelines

• All questions/communications pertaining to the Draft Request for Proposal (DRFP) or conference must be submitted in writing to Sandie Chellis at larc-teams3@mail.nasa.gov

• Questions during the presentations are not permitted (except for during the Cost Overview)

– We will be taking questions via index cards that will be collected at the break

• Preliminary responses will be provided when possible during the Questions and Answers session; however, the official responses will be posted on the FedBizOpps website

• After October 26, 2016, all questions and responses will be posted on the FedBizOpps website

• List of attendees and conference presentations will be posted on the FedBizOpps website

• Communications blackout will be invoked once the Final RFP is issued

• Ensure that your visitor badge is displayed at all times mailto:larc-teams3@mail.nasa.gov

Facility Tour Guidelines

• Please ensure that you sign up for Facility Tour Group 1 or Group 2, the same material will be presented on each tour

• Everyone must stay together as a group

• Photography is not allowed on the tours

• Questions which arise during the facility tours should be submitted in writing to Sandie Chellis at larc-teams3@mail.nasa.gov

• You will be able to ask facility related questions during the tour;

however, presenters will not disclose the following information:

- Information proprietary or confidential to the incumbent contractor

(including employee names, salaries, fringe benefits, personnel policies, organization structure, subcontractors, and cost data such as burden rates )

- Projected TEAMS 3 workload

- Performance of incumbent contractor

• The Conference will conclude following the tours

Disclaimer

• Nothing stated at this conference or during the tours should be construed as a revision unless subsequently issued in an amendment or incorporated into the Final RFP

• In the event of any inconsistency between data provided in these charts and the Final RFP, the language in the Final RFP, including any amendments, will govern

Conference Agenda

Start

Time

End

Time

Duration Item Presenter

9:00 9:10 10 min Welcome/Introduction Sandie Chellis

9:10 9:30 20 min Langley Research Center Overview Kevin Rivers

9:30 9:45 15 min TEAMS 3 PWS Structure Overview Stan Cole

9:45 10:00 15 min Procurement Overview Sandie Chellis

10:00 10:15 15 min Cost Overview Laurie Avery

10:15 10:30 15 min Break

10:30 10:45 15 min Research Directorate Overview Kevin Rivers

10:45 11:00 15 min Engineering Directorate Overview Junilla Applin

11:00 11:15 15 min Systems Analysis & Concepts Directorate Overview Bill Kimmel

11:15 11:30 15 min Flight Projects Directorate Overview Don Shick

11:30 11:45 15 min NASA Engineering and Safety Center Overview Mike Kirsch

11:45 12:00 15 min Questions and Answers

12:00 1:00 1 hr Lunch

1:00 4:30 3 ½ hrs Facility Tours

Facility Tours Agenda

• 1:00 – 1:10 Meet Groups at Bldg. 2102 (Front Entrance)

• 1:10 – 1:20

– Bus 1: Pick up Group 1 from Bldg. 2102 and Travel to Bldg. 1232

– Bus 2: Pick up Group 2 from Bldg. 2102 and Travel to Bldg. 1208

• 1:20 – 2:05

– Group 1: Tour ISAAC and Electron-Beam Free-Form Fabrication

– Group 2: Tour Exterior Effects Room and Quiet Flow Facility

• 2:05 – 2:15

– Bus 1: Pick up Group 1 from Bldg. 1232 and Travel to Bldg. 1236

– Bus 2: Pick up Group 2 from Bldg. 1208 and Travel to Bldg. 1297

• 2:15 – 2:45

– Group 1: Tour National Transonic Facility

– Group 2: Tour Landing and Impact Research Facility

Facility Tours Agenda (cont.)

• 2:45 – 2:55

– Bus 1: Pick up Group 1 from Bldg. 1236 and Travel to Bldg. 1297

– Bus 2: Pick up Group 2 from Bldg. 1297 and Travel to Bldg. 1236

• 2:55 – 3:25

– Group 1: Tour Landing and Impact Research Facility

– Group 2: Tour National Transonic Facility

• 3:25 – 3:35

– Bus 1: Pick up Group 1 from Bldg. 1297 and Travel to Bldg. 1208

– Bus 2: Pick up Group 2 from Bldg. 1236 and Travel to Bldg. 1232

• 3:35 – 4:20

– Group 1: Tour Exterior Effects Room and Quiet Flow Facility

– Group 2: Tour ISAAC and Electron-Beam Free-Form Fabrication

• 4:20 – 4:30

– Bus 1: Pick up Group 1 from Bldg. 1208 and Return to Bldg. 2102

– Bus 2: Pick up Group 2 from Bldg. 1232 and Return to Bldg. 2102

Performance Work Statement (PWS) Overview

Stan Cole

PWS Content Summary

• Introduction / Background

• Scope

• Contract Management Requirements

• Technical Requirements

• Indefinite Delivery / Indefinite Quantity (IDIQ)

Introduction / Background

• PWS defines requirements to support research and technology development in order to meet evolving NASA mission objectives

• Requirements identified in three sections

– Contract Management

– Technical Requirements

– IDIQ

• Contract Management section addresses overall contract level

• Technical requirements are organized into thirteen technical disciplines that define the services to be provided under the Core Mission Support (Core), defined by Technical Direction Notices (TDNs)

• IDIQ Task Orders (TOs) may be issued to accommodate programmatic uncertainty and potential new work (short term technical efforts and new work where the enduring nature is uncertain)

•Scope of the TEAMS 3 contract

• Contract encompasses a wide breadth of work supporting:

– Multiple programs/projects

– Full range of Technology Readiness Levels (TRLs) from fundamental research through flight ready hardware design/development

– One of a kind, “never been done before” efforts

– Quick response technical assessments to support NESC

• Requires an agile, diverse, integrated, and experienced Contractor workforce

• Work objectives include:

– Support of scientific research

– Technology Readiness Level (TRL) advancement

– Implementation of technology programs

– Test implementation and operations

– Systems analysis and conceptual design

– Program / project management support

Scope of Work

• Contractor will support multiple long term, complex, NASA missions

(programs/projects) including:

– Aeronautics Research Mission Directorate

• Aeronautics Air Vehicles Program (AAVP)

• Airspace Operations and Safety Program (AOSP)

• Integrated Aviation Systems Program (IASP)

• Transformative Aeronautics Systems Program (TACP)

– Human Exploration and Operations Mission Directorate

• Exploration Systems Development

• Commercial Space Transportation

• Research and Technology

• Operations

– Space Technology Mission Directorate (STMD)

• Technology Demonstration Mission (TDM)

• Game Changing Directorate (GCD)

– NASA Engineering & Safety Center (NESC): Independent technical analyses and assessments for NASA through the use of Subject Matter

Experts

– Science Mission Directorate

•Contract Management Requirements

• Contractor shall:

– Provide overall effective, efficient, and responsible management and administrative functions to ensure resources are available and allocated, adequate reports and documentation are prepared, and overall work environment supports PWS requirements

– Provide an organizational structure with clear lines of authority and clearly identified Government interfaces

– Be responsible for ensuring all Contractor and subcontractor personnel have appropriate qualifications, knowledge, clearances, certifications, and are free from conflicts of interest

– Maintain a Facility Clearance of Top Secret

– Comply with Export Control laws and regulations, including ITAR and EAR

• Contractor Management Requirements include:

– Annual Work Plan

– Electronic Contract Management System

– Management Meetings

– Training

– Software Management

•Annual Work Plan (AWP)

• Defines and integrates contract work activity and requirements

– Across the contract

– Including subcontract efforts

– Shall reflect the most efficient operational approach within and across the technical disciplines

• Developed in coordination and collaboration with NASA personnel

• Flexible working document to be submitted annually with bi-annual updates, incorporating changes throughout the year

• Details in PWS regarding:

– Objectives and content of the AWP

– Government provided information

– AWP submission requirements

•Electronic Contract Management System

• The Government will provide a commercial-off-the-shelf Electronic

Contract Management System (ECMS) implemented as a web-based ordering system

• Contractor shall use the Government-provided ECMS to facilitate contract management, for both Core and IDIQ work that will:

– Create, schedule, approve, document, track, and monitor contract activities

– Plan and manage resources

• Contractor shall maintain financial data in ECMS

•Management Meetings

• Contractor shall participate in:

– Periodic meetings with the CO

• To discuss contract performance issues, process improvements, risks and related issues, corrective actions, recovery plans, other details of contract operations

• Informal meetings attended by CO, COR, and TMs

– Reviews with CO

• To discuss cost planning, phasing and performance of overall progress of the Contractor, subcontractors and vendors as required by the CO

• Formal or informal discussions with multiple customers requiring multiple products/reports

– Meetings/teleconferences including, but not limited to, program/project status, team planning, technical interchange, and conferences

• Contractor personnel shall:

– Participate in quarterly meeting with CO, COR, and discipline representatives to discuss AWP requirements

– Maintain frequent communications with the Government regarding technical challenges, accomplishments, findings, problems, risks, corrective actions, progress and other details of contract operations

•Training

• Contractor shall provide specialized training to Government personnel regarding products including, but not limited to, tools, methods, procedures, and techniques developed or implemented by the

Contractor

•Software Management

• Contractor shall develop/maintain a Software Management Plan (SMP)

– In accordance with NPR 7150.2 NASA Software Engineering Requirements

– Requirements depend on software class (work may exist across all classes)

• Class A: Human-rated Space Software Systems

• Class B: Non-Human Space Rated Software Systems or Large Scale

Aeronautics Vehicles

• Class C: Mission Support Software or Aeronautic Vehicles, or Major

Engineering/Research Facility Software

• Class D: Basic Science/Engineering Design and Research and

Technology Software

• Class E: Small Light Weight Design Concept and Research Technology

Software

– Based on software class, additional requirements, software products, and documentation contents will be specified by NASA in TDNs and TOs

• PWS expounds on:

– Use of Off-the-shelf, Reused, or Open-source Software

– Automatic Generation of Software Source Code

•Technical Requirements: Discipline Areas

• 4.1: Acoustics

• 4.2: Aerodynamics

• 4.3: Avionics Systems

• 4.4: Crew Systems & Aviation Operations

• 4.5: Engineering, Integration & Flight Hardware Technology Development

• 4.6: Flight Dynamics and Controls

• 4.7: Hypersonics

• 4.8: Materials and Advanced Processing Technology Development

• 4.9: Measurement Systems

• 4.10: Program/Project Support

• 4.11: Structures

• 4.12: Systems Analysis and Concepts Development

• 4.13: NASA Engineering and Safety Center (NESC)

•Key Aspects of Tech Requirements

• Primarily engineering and scientific work (including data acquisition systems, data handling)

• Includes, but is not limited to, program/project control support, new business development, and technical writing support

• Technical work:

– Involves theoretical, analytical, computational, and experimental research (fundamental and applied)

– Includes research and methodology development aimed at understanding, predicting, and controlling phenomena pertinent to aerospace applications

– Involves use of existing software tools as well as development of new software capabilities

–…