Qualification of Additive Manufacturing Vendors for Airworthiness Parts RFI.pdf

Request for Information on Qualification of Additive Manufacturing Vendors for Airworthiness Parts for the

Department of the Air Force (DAF) Advanced Manufacturing Program Office

Lead Organization submitting Concept: Rapid Sustainment Office/Advanced Manufacturing Program Office

Technical POC: Steven McCabe, 1865 4th St, Wright-Patterson AFB, OH, 45433, 937-713-5578, steven.mccabe.4@us.af.mil

Administrative POC: Brennan, Kyle, 1865 4th St, Wright-Patterson AFB, OH, 45433, 937-713-5578, kyle.brennan.1@us.af.mil

Author: Kyle Brennan

SYNOPSIS:

This Request for Information (RFI) is for source planning purposes only and shall not be considered as an invitation for bid, requests for quotation, request for proposal, abstracts, or as an obligation on the part of the Government to acquire any products or services. Your response to this RFI will be treated as informational only. No entitlement to pay, direct or indirect costs, or charges to the Government will arise, as a result of a contractor's submission of a response(s) to this announcement or the Government's use of such information. This request does not constitute a solicitation for future proposals or the authority to enter into negotiations to award a contract. The information provided may be used by the Government in developing its source acquisition strategy and Statement of Work/Statement of Objectives and performance specifications. The Government does not intend to award a contract solely on the basis of this RFI or to otherwise pay for the information submitted in response to this RFI. The purpose of this RFI is to gather information that will assist the Advanced Manufacturing Program Office (AMPO) in evaluating vendor capability of meeting its potential need. The Government has not determined the final acquisition approach. This market research will allow the AMPO to make an informed decision about how to proceed.

Executive Summary

The DAF’s desire to utilize additive manufacturing (AM) for flight-critical components necessitates the rigorous qualification of vendors. The US Air Force requests white papers that provide processes and procedures to qualify Additive Manufacturing (AM) vendors for parts with airworthiness considerations.

The responses should outline a vetted process to assess and qualify AM vendors for airworthy parts by reviewing their quality management systems (QMS), material quality, process controls, design capabilities, data management, data and equipment security, and adherence to relevant regulations, such as the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA), Amazon Web Service (AWS), Department of Defense Instruction (DoDI) and National Institute of Science and Technology (NIST) cybersecurity requirements, Automated Material System (AMS) or mailto:steven.mccabe.4@us.af.mil mailto:kyle.brennan.1@us.af.mil

Qualification of Additive Manufacturing Vendors for Airworthiness Parts – REQUEST FOR

INFORMATION

American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM) standards, specifications and practices. Ensuring that vendors meet these criteria is crucial for maintaining safety and performance in aviation. The purpose of this call for white papers is to develop a procedure that the USAF can follow to develop a qualified AM vendor list for parts with air worthiness considerations.

Problem Statement

The Air Force requires a standardized approach to qualify vendors for producing flight-critical components through additive manufacturing. This document invites vendors to provide procedures and recommendations for building a qualified provider list, including criteria for conducting audits and assessing compliance with airworthiness considerations.

Respondents should address the questions posed below along with any additional pertinent information deemed appropriate to fully characterize recommended solutions:

Technical Approach and Methodology (Considerations?)

1. Quality Management System (QMS):

• Question: What certifications or quality management practices does the vendor maintain to ensure consistent, high-quality output?

2. Material Qualification:

• Question: How does the vendor ensure that materials used in AM processes meet the necessary specifications and performance requirements for airworthiness?

• Question: What data (e.g. mechanical and physical properties) will the vendor provide to show the producibility and stability of their production processes?

3. Process Validation:

• Question: What steps does the vendor take to validate their AM processes, such as Initial Material Qualification (IMQ), Installation Qualification (IQ), Operational Qualification (OQ), and Performance Qualification (PQ)?

4. Design for Additive Manufacturing (DfAM):

• Question: How does the vendor approach design optimization specifically for additive manufacturing, including considerations for topology, weight, and stress?

5. Non-Destructive Inspection (NDI):

• Question: What inspection techniques, (e.g. NDE radiography, CT scanning, ultrasonic testing...) does the vendor use to ensure part integrity?

6. Documentation and Traceability:

• Question: What documentation systems and practices are in place to track part quality and compliance?

7. Collaboration with Airworthiness Authorities:

• Question: How does the vendor ensure compliance with regulatory requirements through collaboration with relevant authorities?

8. Data Management:

• Question: How does the vendor ensure compliance with accessing data and rights in technical data, computer software, and other IP in accordance with DoDI 5010.44 Intellectual Property (IP) Acquisition and Licensing?

9. Data and Equipment Security:

• Question: How does the vendor ensure compliance with existing cybersecurity processes and policies for AM data systems and equipment in accordance with DoDI 8500.01 Cybersecurity, DoDI 5000.82?

Key Performance Parameters (KPPs) and Metrics

The qualification process should assess vendors based on the following metrics:

Quality Management System (QMS) Certification

• Certification to industry standards such as AS9100 or ISO 9001.

• Evidence of compliance with IQ/OQ/PQ protocols as outlined in ISO/ASTM 52930, ensuring consistent quality control.

Material Compliance and Control

• Certified feedstock materials meeting the required mechanical properties.

• Documentation of feedstock handling, storage, and usage, adhering to standards from ISO/ASTM 52901.

Process Validation Metrics

• Installation Qualification (IQ): Equipment installation documented as per manufacturer’s specifications.

• Operational Qualification (OQ): Process control limits established, with validation runs demonstrating consistent quality.

• Performance Qualification (PQ): Evidence that the system can produce parts consistently over time, meeting all predetermined requirements.

• Process mapping and risk assessments must be part of the validation plan.

Non-Destructive Inspection (NDI)

• Use of advanced inspection methods such as CT scanning, ultrasonic testing, or laser surface scanning, with results recorded as part of the vendor’s quality control process.

• Defined acceptance criteria based on ISO/ASTM 52901 for detecting internal defects and ensuring structural integrity.

Mechanical Testing and Performance

• Comprehensive mechanical testing to demonstrate compliance with strength, fatigue, and other performance parameters.

• Regular calibration of testing equipment, documented in accordance with ISO/IEC 17025 or similar standards.

Documentation and Traceability

• Full traceability of all parts, including material lot numbers, process parameters, and inspection results.

• Detailed documentation of post-processing steps (if applicable) and alignment with customer specifications.

• Maintenance of equipment and process logs to ensure repeatability, as per ISO/ASTM 52930.

Collaboration with Airworthiness Authorities

• Documentation of ongoing collaboration with regulatory bodies such as the FAA or a Designated Engineering Representative (DER) to ensure compliance with airworthiness standards.

Data Management

• Documentation of secure, interoperable data management capabilities

• Documentation of processes to be in compliance with NIST SP 800.53, Security and Privacy

Controls for Information Systems and Organizations

Data and Equipment Security

• Documentation of cyber risk assessments

• Documentation of processes to prevent data loss and find and lessen significant exploitable vulnerabilities

• Documentation of secure configuration practices to reduce cyber vulnerabilities

• Documentation of processes to be in compliance with NIST SP 800.53, Security and Privacy

Controls for Information Systems and Organizations

Impact and Technology Transition Plan

By qualifying AM vendors, the Air Force can develop a list of suppliers qualified to produce flight-critical components that meet airworthiness standards, enhancing operational readiness and safety. The technology transition plan includes integrating qualified vendors into the Defense Industry Base, enabling them to supply high-quality, reliable parts for future military aircraft and systems.

Responses

Interested parties are requested to respond to this RFI with a PDF white paper not to exceed 12 pages using 12-point Times New Roman font. White papers are due no later than 22 April 2025, 1400 Eastern Time. Unclassified responses shall be submitted via secure e-mail or secure website only to the contracting officer, Andrew Gross (andrew.gross.4@us.af.mil) and the contract specialist, Matthew Mercer (matthew.mercer.5@us.af.mil). Classified responses shall be coordinated with MSgt Kyle Brennan (kyle.brennan.1@us.af.mil).

Interested parties shall follow the instructions above and below regarding how to deliver the White paper response package content. RFI responses shall be organized into two separate sections.

Section 1 of the White paper response shall provide administrative information to include the following as a minimum: Company name, mailing address, CAGE code, phone number, and both name and e-mail of designated point of contact.

Section 2 of the White paper response shall address the recommended approaches to address the problem identified in this RFI.

Responses should be marked, if applicable, with the appropriate Controlled Unclassified Information (CUI) caveats, to include any ITAR restrictions.

Responses should NOT include marketing information.

Proprietary information, if any, MUST BE CLEARLY MARKED. The U. S. Government shall not be liable for or suffer any consequential damages for any proprietary information not properly identified. Please be advised that all submissions become U. S. Government property and will not be returned. All information received in response to this RFI that is properly marked as “proprietary” will be handled accordingly.

Respondents are advised that employees under contract with the U.S. Government may be used to administratively process submissions and provide technical evaluations requiring access to other contractor's proprietary information. These contractors have executed nondisclosure agreements prohibiting their contractor employees from disclosing any information submitted by other respondents/contractors or using such information for any purpose other than that for which it was furnished.

Questions and Industry Discussion

Questions regarding this announcement shall be submitted in writing via e-mail to the contracting officer, Andrew Gross (andrew.gross.4@us.af.mil), contract specialist Matthew Mercer (matthew.mercer.5@us.af.mil), and technical coordinator Steven McCabe, (steven.mccabe.4@us.af.mil) . Verbal questions will NOT be accepted. Accordingly, questions shall NOT contain proprietary or classified information. The U.S. Government does not guarantee questions received after 07 April 2025, 1400 Eastern Time, will be answered in time for the 22 April white paper submittal deadline.

mailto:kyle.brennan.1@us.af.mil mailto:andrew.gross.4@us.af.mil mailto:matthew.mercer.5@us.af.mil

If warranted, U.S. Government representatives may consolidate and disseminate general feedback to all respondents after white papers are submitted. Follow-on discussions with individual interested parties may be coordinated. The intent of any such discussions would only be to obtain additional clarification of potential capabilities to meet U. S. Government requirements and further expose risks (especially development risks).