Source Selection Statement - Final_Redacted.pdf

Source Selection Information – See FAR 2.101 and 3.104

SOURCE SELECTION STATEMENT

NASA Armstrong Flight Research Center Electrified Powertrain Flight Demonstration

Solicitation No. 80AFRC21R0009

This Source Selection Statement documents the Procurement History, Source Evaluation Board (SEB) Findings, and Source Selection Decision for the NASA Aeronautics Research Mission Directorate (ARMD) Electrified Powertrain Flight Demonstration (EPFD) requirement. All information contained in this document is in compliance with the Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) and NASA FAR Supplement (NFS) guidance.

PROCUREMENT HISTORY NARRATIVE

This procurement is a new acquisition for the successful development, ground test, and flight test of an Integrated Megawatt (MW)-Class Powertrain System relevant to a large market and related services for ARMD. NASA previously awarded six contracts to develop 12 steps to a demonstrator and five risk reduction contracts. These contracts helped NASA develop the current new EPFD requirement.

The EPFD requirement provides services required to support NASA in investigating the utilization of flight demonstrations to rapidly mature Electrified Aircraft Propulsion (EAP) technologies and associated EAP-based vision systems for introduction into the US fleet no later than 2035.

RFI 80AFRC20SS016 was posted on 15 May 2020. The RFI provided Industry a first look at the EPFD Draft Statement of Objectives (SOO). A virtual Government – Contractor Interchange Meeting was held to provide further clarification of the SOO elements. Industry was allowed to submit questions and concerns relating to the SOO. The answers to the questions and concerns were posted under the RFI in beta.SAM.gov on 19 Jun 2020. Six companies responded to the RFI; two small businesses and four large businesses.

The result of the conducted market research established that of the two interested small businesses, only one small business company was capable of meeting the ground and flight test requirements of the RFI. The Contracting Officer (CO) determined there was not a reasonable expectation of obtaining offers from two or more responsible small business concerns that would be competitive in terms of fair market prices, quality, and delivery. Therefore, this EPFD requirement was conducted under unrestricted full and open competition.

Request for Proposals (RFP) No. 80AFRC21R0009 was released on February 22, 2021 with a proposal due date and time of April 20, 2021 at 2:00 p.m. P.T.

There were three amendments to the RFP as follows: Amendment No. 00001 dated March 19, 2021 was issued to provide answers to questions received from the Industry Day held on December 10, 2020, and to extend the proposal due date to May 11, 2021 at 2:00 p.m. P.T.

Amendment No. 00002 dated April 8, 2021 and Amendment No. 00003 dated May 3, 2021 were issued to update the solicitation’s terms and conditions and to post additional documents.

The RFP required three volumes and a copy of the oral presentation to be submitted: (1) Oral Presentation, (2) Volume I – Mission Suitability, (3) Volume II – Past Performance, and (4) Volume III – Price. Volume I – Mission Suitability was to be separated into five sections, one for each of the Mission Suitability Subfactors.

Seven Offerors submitted proposals that met the date and time requirement of the RFP. The Offerors that submitted proposals were: (1) MagniX USA Inc. (“MagniX”), (2) Wright Electric, Inc. (“Wright”), (3) ZeroAvia, Inc. (“ZeroAvia”), (4) Pratt and Whitney (“P&W”), (5) GE Aviation (“GE”), (6) Ampaire, Inc. (“Ampaire”), and (7) GLX Power Systems, Inc. (“GLX”).

After proposal receipt, the CO conducted an initial review of the proposals to determine acceptability in accordance with NFS 1815.305-70, Identification of Unacceptable Proposals.

The CO also conducted a record check through System for Award Management to ensure all Offerors had an active registration and no active exclusions; and verified the Offeror’s Representations and Certifications were current and complete. A page verification for each volume was conducted to ensure compliance with the RFP.

Potential Offeror GLX was determined unacceptable based on the following: (1) the proposal did not represent a reasonable initial effort to address the essential requirements of the RFP, and (2) the CO determined discussions could not reasonably cure the major omissions within the proposal. The proposal did not contain an Oral Presentation, Statement of Work or required DRDs in response to the Mission Suitability factor of the solicitation. Additionally, the proposal did not provide a Past Performance Volume to show the ability of GLX to successfully perform the contract.

The following factors were used to evaluate the proposals: (1) Mission Suitability, (2) Past Performance, and (3) Price. All evaluation factors other than cost or price, when combined, were significantly more important than cost or price.

1) MISSION SUITABILITY

The Mission Suitability factor was numerically weighted and scored on a 1000-point scale. The source selection evaluation team members independently evaluated each proposed Mission Suitability Volume and the oral presentation to identify and document all significant strengths, strengths, weaknesses, significant weaknesses, and deficiencies.

In evaluating the Mission Suitability subfactors, the following definitions were used to determine a significant strength, strength, weakness, significant weakness, and deficiency:

Significant Strength is some aspect of the proposal that greatly enhances the potential for successful contract performance.

Strength is an aspect of the proposal that will have some positive impact on the successful performance of the contract.

Mission Suitability Subfactors

i. Project Objectives

The Program/Project Needs, Goals, and Objectives were evaluated to determine if the proposed Project Objectives met or exceeded the requirements of the SOO Section II, the solicitation, and provided in clear understandable terms detailed documentation of:

a. The Offeror’s preferred EAP-based transport Vision Vehicle and system architecture for EAP-based transport concepts with associated justification.

b. A proposed effort to accelerate the introduction of MW-class EAP systems into future aircraft products by the U.S. industry.

c. How the technologies demonstrated in the ground and flight test effort will transition into the EAP-based Vision Vehicle product.

d. Plan to transition the integrated MW-class powertrain system demonstrated through ground and flight tests into the EAP-based transport Vision Vehicle product.

e. How the proposed effort will identify and retire barrier technical and integration risks associated with commercial transports utilizing integrated MW-class powertrain systems.

f. How the proposed effort will identify and address gaps in regulations and standards associated with commercial transports utilizing integrated MW-class powertrain systems.

g. How the proposed effort will acquire necessary ground and flight test data to advance design and modeling tools pertinent to EAP-based Vision Vehicle and to validate technical performance measures of the integrated MW-class powertrain systems.

h. How the proposed effort will fulfill and align with the EPFD Project Objectives described in section II of the SOO.

i. A description of required partnerships and interfaces for the Offeror’s preferred EAP flight demonstrations, including preferred cost and risk sharing plan.

ii. Statement of Work

The Statement of Work (SOW) was evaluated to determine if the Offeror’s proposed efforts met or exceeded the requirements of the SOO, the solicitation, and if it provided in clear understandable terms detailed documentation of:

a. The services to be performed.

b. How the proposed ground and flight tests demonstrate the ability to accomplish the “Project Objectives” defined in Section II of the SOO.

c. How the proposed ground and flight tests demonstrate the ability to accomplish the “Contract Objectives” outlined in Section III of the SOO.

d. The SOW’s traceability, alignment, and relevance to the four other mission suitability subfactors.

iii. Capability & Technology Development

The Capability and Technology Development Plan was evaluated to determine if it met or exceeded DRD-TE-02 of the solicitation, and provided in clear understandable terms detailed documentation of:

a. The Offeror’s current technology readiness level (TRL), technology maturation process through ground and flight tests, projected TRL levels as significant tasks are completed, and path to TRL 6 flight demonstrations.

b. The remaining technology development plans to enable the preferred integrated MW-class powertrain flight demonstrations.

c. The Offeror’s capability to execute the proposed technology development and risk reduction efforts.

d. The Offeror’s preferred flight demonstration aircraft, integrated MW-class powertrain system architecture, and description of key interfaces.

e. The Offeror’s capability to perform first integrated MW-class powertrain flight demonstration by 2023 and shall conduct first flight no later than August 2024.

f. The Offeror’s capability to establish airworthiness of the preferred integrated MW-class powertrain flight demonstration aircraft.

g. A credible concept of operations of the preferred integrated MW-class powertrain flight demonstration.

h. A credible approach for Human System Integration for the flight demonstration aircraft.

i. A credible Safety and Mission Assurance approach for the Offeror’s preferred integrated MW-class powertrain flight demonstrations Data Collection and Technical Performance Validation.

iv. Data Collection and Technical Performance Validation

The Data and Intellectual Property Management Plan and System Requirements Document was evaluated to determine if it met or exceeded the DRD and solicitation requirements; and provided in clear understandable terms:

a. A credible plan of how data will be collected and combined with modeling to project the Measures of Effectiveness (MOE) and Key Performance Parameters (KPP) relative to the proposed EAP-based transport Vision Vehicle.

b. A credible plan of how the data collected will be used to validate the Measures of Performance (MOP) and Technical Performance Measures (TPM) associated with the Offeror’s preferred integrated MW-class powertrain flight demonstration.

c. A description of what data is being collected and how the proposed effort leverages the data to support the development of standards necessary to address integrated MW-class powertrain system technology gaps identified through the development of gap analyses for relevant regulations and standards.

d. A description of how the data collected will support other NASA project EAP model validation and collaborative research.

e. A credible plan to develop and provide system and subsystem requirements for the Offeror’s preferred integrated MW-class powertrain flight demonstration.

f. A credible plan to develop/provide a System Integration approach for the Offeror’s preferred integrated MW-class powertrain flight demonstration.

g. A description of how the proposed effort will meet the requirements described in the EPFD System Requirements Document.

h. A credible plan of how the data collected will be used to validate and verify that the ground and flight test effort will meet the requirements described in the System Requirements Document (EPFD-02-02).

v. Cost, Schedule, Risk, and Technical Performance Management

The Cost, Schedule, Risk, and Technical Performance Management Plan was evaluated to determine if it met or exceeded the DRD and solicitation requirements; and provided in clear understandable terms a credible:

a. Process for sound Project, technical, resource, schedule, and risk management.

b. Technical, Cost and Schedule plan in terms of traditional Phase A-E break outs over time as described in NPR 7120.5.

c. Technical and programmatic risk assessment (safety, technical, cost and schedule) with associated risk mitigation plans for the Offeror’s preferred integrated MW-class powertrain flight demonstration.

d. Probabilistic, risk-infused cost and schedule estimate for the Offeror’s preferred EAP flight demonstrations to within 50 percent and 70 percent joint confidence levels through Monte-Carlo simulations.

e. Process for assessing uncertainty in data collection and technical assessments.

2) PRICE

FFP CLIN 0001: Contract award through CDR

The total evaluated price for CLIN 0001 was determined by adding the proposed price for all life cycles identified under CLIN 0001.

In accordance with FAR 19.702, upon selection for award, the proposed subcontracting plan of the apparently successful Offeror will be reviewed for acceptability. If changes to the submitted plan are required, the CO will enter into negotiations with the apparently successful offeror for a period not to exceed 10 calendar days. If the apparently successful Offeror fails to negotiate a subcontracting plan acceptable to the CO within the time limit prescribed by the CO, the Offeror will be ineligible for award per FAR 19.702(a)(1).

Once an acceptable subcontracting plan is negotiated, a written notice of award or acceptance of a proposal mailed or otherwise furnished to the successful Offeror(s) within the time for acceptance specified in the proposal, shall result in a binding contract without further action by either party. Before the proposal’s specified expiration time, the Government may accept a proposal (or part of a proposal), whether or not there are negotiations after its receipt, unless a written notice of withdrawal is received before award.

INITIAL EVALUATION FINDINGS

Each proposal was evaluated in accordance with FAR Part 15, NFS 1815 and the evaluation criteria identified in Section M “Evaluation Factors for Award” of the solicitation. On August 5, 2021, the initial findings of the Source Evaluation Board were presented to the Source Selection Authority (SSA). Based on the presented findings, the SSA determined award on initial proposals was not appropriate. The CO recommended the establishment of a competitive range of the four most highly rated proposals and the SSA concurred with the CO’s recommendation.

The Offerors determined to be within the competitive range were: MagniX, Wright Electric, Pratt and Whitney, and GE Aviation.

ZeroAvia was not included in the competitive range because it did not have a reasonable chance of being selected for award. The basis for the determination was ZeroAvia’s overall Mission Suitability score was significantly lower than the companies included in the competitive range.

Ampaire was not included in the competitive range because it did not have a reasonable chance of being selected for award. The basis for the determination was Ampaire’s overall Mission Suitability score was significantly lower than the companies included in the competitive range.

EVALUATION OF FINAL PROPOSAL REVISIONS

Discussions were held with each Offeror within the competitive range. Offerors were informed of any deficiencies, significant weaknesses, or other aspects of their submitted proposal that could alter potential for award. Offerors were instructed to submit a Final Proposal Revision (FPR) incorporating all changes to their proposal resulting from discussions and provide clear traceability from the initial proposal. Offerors were also instructed to include a signed model contract in the FPR and to submit their most favorable and realistic price proposal. In accordance with FAR 15.307, the established common due date and time for the FPR and the signed model contract was no later than August 24, 2021, 2:00 p.m. PT.

The SEB evaluated and re-scored each Offeror’s FPR in accordance with FAR Part 15, NFS 1815 and the evaluation criteria identified in Section M of the solicitation, and documented the following findings.

FINDINGS NARRATIVE

MAGNIX USA, INC.

MISSION SUITABILITY

MagniX received 11 significant strengths, 15 strengths, and 5 weaknesses. The mission suitability subfactor ratings were as follows:

Subfactor Rating Project Objectives Very Good Statement of Work Very Good Capability and Technology Development Excellent Data Collection and Technical Performance Validation Excellent Cost, Schedule, Risk, and Technical Performance Management Very Good

The overall Mission Suitability point score was 915 points.

1) Project Objectives

Significant Strengths

The Vision Vehicle selection and system architecture was exceptional from both a technical and product introduction standpoint. The use of a four-engine aircraft/combination configuration enabled the use of a hybrid system and a significant amount of battery power while limiting aircraft modification and power/propulsion system integration issues. Depending on the mission requirement, the use of the combination configuration allowed easy exchange of batteries or passenger count.

The Demonstrator and Vision Vehicle were the same configuration, thus lowering the risk to reach the Vision Vehicle. In addition, MagniX provided a detailed testing approach in support of the “final” vehicle configuration.

MagniX seemed well-versed in how to approach regulation gaps identification and analysis to determine how to close the gaps. They previously obtained a Supplemental Type Certificate (STC) for their existing aircraft, working closely with the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA). MagniX described a clear process for identifying and reducing gaps. They noted they “will analyze all FAR regulations and their latest amendments”. MagniX also correctly identified the relevant FAR Regulations sections to be reviewed. MagniX obtained a FAR Part 33 Special Condition from the FAA for electric engines, and thus they were very familiar with the FAA processes leading to certification. Key committees and regulations and standard categories to be addressed were also specifically identified.

2) Statement of Work

Significant Strength

The services to be performed are a significant strength, the details are concise and provide a good approach. Deliverables were defined and key reports were specifically called out. There was a clear link to the other subfactors and their specific impact. MagniX developed a very thorough SOW that included development activities in the major project life cycles. Developing a thorough SOW increases the likelihood of project success.

3) Capability and Technology Development

MagniX has successfully flown similar Electric Propulsion Units (EPUs) with lower power capability through modifying existing aircrafts, demonstrating the ability to integrate MW-class powertrain systems. Moreover, the proposed technology development and risk reduction efforts are enhanced by the expertise of the team, as well as the Partner’s experience with modifying and obtaining type certificates for large aircraft.

The use of a four engine flight test aircraft enables the use of a hybrid system while limiting aircraft modification and power/propulsion system integration issues. Specifically, the hybrid system is a hybrid at the aircraft level, but essentially two separate propulsion systems with two fully electric engines and two unmodified turboprop engines. The use of the same flight test aircraft as the Vision Vehicle ensures the architecture and key interfaces map directly.

MagniX has a clear development plan to enable their integrated MW-class powertrain flight demonstrations describes a very detailed and clear testing path to the demonstration. It is very clear that MagniX knows how to accomplish what they have proposed because they have been down this path several times before. The upgrade from the magni 500 to the magni 650 is not too much of a stretch for them, and these factors will greatly enhance the potential for successful contract performance.

4) Data Collection and Technical Performance Validation

Data collected during the flight test will directly confirm the key performance parameters of the Vision Vehicle since the systems are the same. The linkage of data categories that are tied to validation of the Technical Performance Measures (TPM) is clearly stated within the proposal.

The specific associated measurements are listed for the ground test cell, the ground vibration test cell, and the flight test.

The Offeror had a credible plan of how data will be collected to validate the Measures of Effectiveness (MOE) and Key Performance Parameters (KPP) relative to the proposed EAP-based transport Vision Vehicle, Measures of Performance (MOP), and TPM associated with the

Offeror’s preferred integrated MW-class powertrain flight demonstration. The KPPs will be assessed in a clear and meaningful way given that the Vision Vehicle is the same as the demonstrator. There is a clear preliminary Master Measurement List (MML) that connects to the performance measures.

The categories of data needed to support the standards development process and how the data will be used was clearly stated and associated with specific elements of the proposed effort.

5) Cost, Schedule, Risk, and Technical Performance Management

The Offeror’s approach for including NASA subject matter expert participation in key technical interactions provided excellent opportunities for NASA contributions into critical project activities. The activities will include, but may not be limited to: critical engineering review boards, system integration reviews, test readiness reviews, post-test reviews, lower-level design reviews, timely status/resolution of integration and test issues or anomalies, waivers and deviations, and timely status/resolution of issues or anomalies occurring during flight operations.

These collaborative opportunities provide NASA with enhanced insight into decision-making and prioritization of tasking for the Offeror’s timely delivery of promised milestones.

PAST PERFORMANCE

The Government reviewed the past performance information provided in the Offeror’s Past Performance Volume, and performed a search in PPIRS. The Offeror's past performance volume provided examples of specialized experience, but there was no record of evaluated past performance. A search was conducted in PPIRS and no past performance records were located for the Offeror. The Offeror's performance record was unknown and therefore assigned an “Acceptable” rating.

PRICE

The total evaluated price for CLIN 0001 was determined by adding the proposed price for all life cycles identified under CLIN 0001.

The total evaluated price for CLIN 0002 was determined by performing an assessment of the proposed cost to determine cost realism. The evaluated cost, as determined by the Government’s cost realism analysis, was then multiplied by the proposed Government cost-share percentage to determine the total evaluated price.

The Offeror’s total evaluated price was determined by adding the total price of CLIN 0001 and the Government’s cost-share amount calculated under CLIN 0002.

After an initial review and analysis of the Offeror’s total evaluated price, the CO entered discussions with the Offeror to identify task(s) that could be eliminated to reduce overall project costs, and requested the Offeror submit their most favorable and realistic price proposal. The final proposal revision provided a lower total evaluated price.

WRIGHT ELECTRIC, INC.

Wright received 9 significant strengths, 7 strengths, and 2 weaknesses. The mission suitability subfactor ratings were as follows:

Project Objectives Excellent Statement of Work Excellent Capability and Technology Development Very Good

Cost, Schedule, Risk, and Technical Performance Management Very Good

The overall Mission Suitability point score was 901 points.

The proposed effort made significant progress in demonstrating a 2MW electric engine at single aisle flight conditions which was highly aligned with EPFD objectives. The 2MW system significantly exceeded the power metrics TPMs and KPPs. Upon completion, the Offeror will fly the system to the full single aisle level altitudes and speeds. Wright proposed tracking TRL maturation for the electric powertrain at both the component and system level.

Wright identified the barrier risks in DRD-TE-01, along with the detailed approach that the Offeror intends to take in order to retire or reduce the risks over the project lifecycle. There was a comprehensive approach for the modeling work involved with the integrated MW-class powertrain on the flight demonstration system. The modeling work established a clear connection between the flight demonstration and the reduction of barrier risks with supporting data collection. Not only did the proposal identify the key EPFD barriers, they also identified barriers that will not be addressed by EPFD and identified associated internal research and development (IRAD) efforts to begin reducing those barrier risks.

Wright outlined a detailed approach for identification of gaps in the regulations and standards and how they intended to address those gaps. Their discussion indicated a deep understanding of the needed approach. Their list of highest priority gaps provided an excellent summary and focus. They specifically addressed what was asked for in the solicitation, complete with providing tables and figures that illustrated a rather mature process to address certification with a good reference to the right parts of the FAA certification (e.g., CECI).

The proposed described effort was a significant strength towards meeting the contract objectives.

The integrated MW-class system that will be tested in flight met or exceeded the full success criteria in the Statement of Objectives (SOO). The Offeror presented concise traceability and linkage between the proposed tests and the relevant systems and subsystems, which provided clear data and reporting deliverables. The services to be performed represented an overall integrated approach to complete the proposed work. Tables were provided which illustrated how the SOW met contract objectives. Clear linkage was established between the services provided and the DRDs. The Offeror’s well-developed SOW and its services to be performed increases confidence in their ability to accomplish the flight test demonstration.

The proposed ground and flight test efforts was a significant strength for the ability to meet the project objectives and are reflected in the SOW. The effort will accelerate development of integrated MW-class powertrain system maturation in the 2MW and kV class through ground and flight tests, and is directly applicable to single-aisle and turboprop class aircraft. The Offeror identified key barrier technical and integration risks, and linked risk reduction activities in the SOW. There was a clear plan for identification of gaps in regulations and standards as well as the linkage to data requirements and reporting for closure of those gaps. Tables were provided that illustrated how the SOW met project objectives and how their progress will be communicated via DRDs. The Offeror’s well-developed SOW and its alignment with the project objectives in the SOO supports achievement of NASA EPFD goals.

The proposed demonstration of an integrated 2MW electric engine with power supplied by a combination of a battery and a MW-class turbogenerator was well thought out and demonstrated the key features of an integrated MW-class powertrain. The flight demonstration on a 757 aircraft allowed for the demonstration to be conducted in a single aisle aircraft environment.

Wright addressed their intentions to share data with NASA from their models, simulators, ground, and flight tests. The data sharing aspect of the proposal greatly enhances NASA’s ability to contribute to the development of future standards for technologies in this area. A design of experiments framework will identify the data required to address key applicable standards.

This method will further ensure appropriate data is collected and documented to address high priority gaps in regulations and standards. The Offeror did an exemplary job of identifying their specific participation in committees for regulations and standards development. A Master Measurement List was developed that supported collecting data for regulations and standards.

The proposal leveraged best practices contained in TE-03, SE-03, and SE-05 for the common purpose of regulations and standards data transmittal to the appropriate working groups.

The Offeror provided very clear tables of verification methods and planned documentation at the system, subsystem, and component level. The thorough detail in the requirements that support data collection will significantly increase the likelihood of NASA obtaining the data needed to verify that the requirements are met. The Offeror developed requirements at the system and subsystem level which specified the data needed to validate the requirements. A thorough Master Measurement List that supported collecting data for validating system and subsystem requirements was provided.

The proposal demonstrated the Offeror understood risk-infused analyses and provided evidence in the proposal. The Offeror had a well-developed set of risks, a sound cost estimate, and a detailed schedule that enabled them to conduct a comprehensive JCL analysis resulting in a significant improvement in schedule margin, project completion date realism, and risk reserve posture. This greatly enhanced the likelihood of successful performance of the contract.

PAST PERFORMANCE

The Government reviewed PPIRS and determined the Offeror received a satisfactory or above rating on multiple contracts listed within the system. The Offeror’s past performance was assigned an “Acceptable” rating.

PRICE

The total evaluated price for CLIN 0001 was determined by adding the proposed price for all life cycles identified under CLIN 0001.

The total evaluated price for CLIN 0002 was determined by performing an assessment of the proposed cost to determine cost realism. The evaluated cost, as determined by the Government’s cost realism analysis, was then multiplied by the proposed Government cost-share percentage to determine the total evaluated price.

The Offeror’s total evaluated price was determined by adding the total price of CLIN 0001 and the Government’s cost-share amount calculated under CLIN 0002.

After an initial review and analysis of the Offeror’s total evaluated price, the CO entered discussions with the Offeror to identify task(s) that could be eliminated to reduce overall project

PRATT AND WHITNEY

MISSION SUITABILITY

Pratt and Whitney received 11 significant strengths, 10 strengths, 2 weaknesses, and 1 significant weakness. The mission suitability subfactor ratings were as follows:

Statement of Work Very Good Capability and Technology Development Excellent

Cost, Schedule, Risk, and Technical Performance Management Good

The overall Mission Suitability point score was 886 points.

The vision vehicle was a well-defined and outstanding concept which targeted fuel burn reduction of the single aisle fleet as the largest source of emissions and fuel burn. The clear and realistic definition of the vision vehicle provided ample description on the benefits derived from electrification of turbine engines. The Offeror intends to modify the state-of-the-art engines for single aisle by integrating electric machines into the high spool and low spool sections of the turbofan engine. This is representative of the architecture that would be used by a single aisle aircraft. The clear description of vision vehicle and its realistic approach to electrification of single aisle fleet allows for achieving NASA’s objectives.

The proposed parallel hybrid propulsion system was appropriate for single-aisle aircraft applications and had a direct path of technology transition by 2035. The use of the PW1100G- JM GTF engine for the electric machine integration has the potential to be the fastest introduction into the segment of the aviation market with the largest impact. The flexible architecture proposed by the Offeror allowed for a subset of the key technologies developed for the single-aisle EAP system to be reconfigured for producing a turboprop regional aircraft configuration. The proposed system rapidly accelerates the introduction of hybrid-electric architecture into future products using battery system technology that already exists.

The proposed effort met or exceeded the full success criteria on all KPPs and TPMs. The proposal surpassed EPFD full success criteria for total power, EDT specific power, and end to end loss while it met the full success criteria for the remaining KPPs. The proposal exceeded full success criteria for operating voltage, altitude capability, EDT specific power and end to end loss while meeting the full success criteria on the remaining TPMs. By exceeding the specific power, the efficiency, the operating voltage, and the overall power ratings of the integrated MW-class power system, the probability of achieving better overall fuel efficiency for the aircraft is significantly increased.

The proposal clearly identified and described seven “Barrier Technical and Integration Risks”.

The cohesion between the TRL assessments and the identified risks increased confidence in the Offeror’s consequence and likelihood evaluations. The mitigation steps to reduce and retire the identified risks were properly defined in the proposal along with the expected risk scoring over the project lifecycle. Since the proposed ground and flight test efforts effectively outlines a path to bring the system to TRL 6 which is correlated with the barrier risks, it increases the likelihood of the product introduction.

A description of required partnerships and interfaces for the Offeror’s preferred EAP flight demonstrations was a significant strength. The partnership included a leading propulsion company, industry leading aviation power system company, and the only remaining US airframer company capable of developing single aisle aircrafts. This is a world class team that has set the current industry state of the art for the single aisle market. The proposal used US domestic suppliers for all major systems including aircraft and powertrain components. It also incorporated NASA technologies. The partnerships between P&W (turbomachinery), a power electronics company, and their identified battery provider and airframer, are highly beneficial to the aerospace industry and will accelerate the transition of MW-class EAP technology to the commercial fleet.

The SOW directly confirmed that the proposed work will accomplish the “Project Objectives” defined in Section II of the SOO. Specifically, the SOW called out the 2035 entry into service, the direct path to single aisle, and the integrated MW-class powertrain that exceeded the requirements. The strength of the SOW was that key ground and flight tests logically increased TRL. Reduced barrier risks were explicitly called out including: testing of the integrated control system, integrated electrical system test, ground testing of the hybrid engine in various operating modes, and flight tests to fully demonstrate that the system achieves the EPFD project objectives.

The clear and direct connection between the SOW and EPFD project objectives, significantly increases the likelihood of full project success.

The flight demonstration will use a P&W B747SP flight testbed aircraft. The aircraft has already been modified to accommodate the PW 1100G-JM turbofan engine which is proposed to be "hybridized” in this work. This aircraft has a similar performance envelope (speed, altitude, and operating conditions) to the vision vehicle, thus providing a relevant test platform to validate and mature electric powertrain technologies under EPFD. The components on the test bed are directly relevant to the vision vehicle components. Since the testbed aircraft is already modified to accommodate the proposed engine, the risks associated with the addition of the engine are significantly reduced.

The Offeror provided a credible concept of operations for the preferred integrated MW-class powertrain flight demonstration as the Offeror defined links to the demonstrator, and included test objectives. The Offeror outlined the benefits of using hybrid electric propulsion in a future vision vehicle and the demonstration will explore that concept of operations using appropriately scaled MW-class powertrain components. Proposed flight tests will demonstrate all operational modes of propulsion system that will be used by the vision vehicle in a flight profile representative of actual operation. This will support validation of the concept of the operation proposed for the vision vehicle.

The Offeror’s capability to execute the proposed technology development and risk reduction efforts was a significant strength as the partners have developed a thorough plan, have state of the art facilities, and knowledge to develop and mature the technologies. The Offeror brings significant capabilities with electrical components, and engine development and testing. The identified battery provider and airframer’s Electric Lab Facility also added significant capabilities to the proposal.

There was a clear plan to make the key measurements combined with analytical modeling of the Vision Vehicle to demonstrate the KPPs and MOEs have been met. The Offeror utilized an integrated approach combining lab tests, ground engine tests and flight tests. The proposal states “uncertainties will be quantified during each test campaign. The uncertainty assessment will be used to understand the component and system performance.” The most appropriate data will be combined with physics-based modeling to derive the KPP results. For instance, complete airframe, engine, and component system-level modeling will be performed and combined with demonstrated in-flight component measurements to validate the estimated Vision Vehicle energy reduction benefit. Thus, there is a clear plan to make the key measurements to demonstrate the KPPs, TPMs, and MOPs have been met and it is supported by extensive initial provided MML.

The proposal presented a deep understanding for approach to Identification & Closure of Regulatory Gaps. The Offeror presented a credible detailed approach to critical regulatory gap identification and closure. The Offeror and its partners have long legacies working with Standards & Regulatory Communities. The proposal had full compliance with DRD-SE-

02. The Offeror provided specific examples and mitigations of the highest priority gaps and their mitigations across several areas. The experience of the Offeror and its partners will ensure that regulations and standards will be developed properly through EPFD activities. The results of the gap analysis will facilitate the ultimate certification of these components with FAA.

Significant Weakness

Probabilistic, risk-infused cost and schedule estimate for the Offeror’s preferred EAP flight demonstrations to within 50 percent and 70 percent joint confidence levels through Monte-Carlo simulations was a significant weakness, as an approach was discussed but the analysis results were not provided. Lack of the probabilistic cost, schedule, and risk analysis combined with the late date of the first flight significantly reduces confidence in the completion of the project within time frame and budget if a risk occur.

PAST PERFORMANCE

The Government reviewed PPIRS and determined the Offeror received a satisfactory or above rating on multiple contracts listed within the system. The Offeror’s past performance was assigned an “Acceptable” rating.

PRICE

cycles identified under CLIN 0001.

The total evaluated price for CLIN 0002 was determined by performing an assessment of the proposed cost to determine cost realism. The evaluated cost, as determined by the Government’s cost realism analysis, was then multiplied by the proposed Government cost-share percentage to determine the total evaluated price.

The Offeror’s total evaluated price was determined by adding the total price of CLIN 0001 and the Government’s cost-share amount calculated under CLIN 0002.

After an initial review and analysis of the Offeror’s total evaluated price, the CO entered discussions with the Offeror to identify task(s) that could be eliminated to reduce overall project

GE AVIATION

GE Aviation received 13 significant strengths, 6 strengths, and 1 weakness. The mission suitability subfactor ratings were as follows:

Statement of Work Excellent Capability and Technology Development Excellent

Cost, Schedule, Risk, and Technical Performance Management Excellent

The overall Mission Suitability point score was 922 points.

The Offeror targeted a hybrid single aisle MW-class open rotor configuration as their vision vehicle to target fuel burn improvements. This concept and class of vehicle aims at reducing a dominant source of emissions in the aviation market. The vision vehicle met or exceeded the KPPs full success, with an integrated powertrain providing 2 MW of power. This performance exceeded what NASA required. The proposal's ground and flight testing pushed the operating power and voltage levels and addressed integration issues relevant to the vision vehicle concepts.

The Offeror provided multiple paths for technology to be applied to a future product, having two near-term electric powertrain options and one far-term distributed electric propulsion concept.

This provided a flexibility that will increase confidence of the developed technology to enable the desired fuel improvements for the vision vehicle.

The proposed plan significantly addressed risks for MW EAP in commercial transports. The proposal laid out a list of key barrier risks and a detailed plan on how the demonstrator assisted in retiring those risks. A projected risk burn down was provided over the project life, and links that burn down to major actionable events. The key barrier risks identified provided a clear outline for how the data collected from the ground and flight test would assist in this risk reduction. The proposal provided a very high degree of confidence toward meeting the NASA objectives.

The regulation and standards approach for the Offeror and its partners was comprehensive and competent; starting with the Advisory Circulars (ACs) for FAR 25 & 33, followed by citing specific standards within the American Society for Testing and Materials, Radio Technical Committee for Aeronautics, and Society of Automotive Engineers, along with citations from other standards bodies.

A list of the highest priority regulatory gaps was provided with significant supporting detail.

Standards such as DO-160 and DC-311 were used in the ground test plans. This provides increased probability of successful demonstration and opportunities to review these standards with respect to the integrated MW-class powertrain. The proposed gap closure activities would not only support the eventual certification of the vision vehicle, but also benefit other prospective 14 CFR Part 23, 25, 33, or 35 Type Certificate holders in thin-haul, regional, and single-aisle markets.

The Offeror is a lead propulsion company that has partnered with the only U.S. single aisle airframer, a world class research organization, and battery systems manufacturer which could implement the Vision Vehicle in the future. The current program responsibilities were logically allocated based on the capabilities of a propulsion prime, an airframer prime, a research group, and a power system/controls group. In addition, the Offeror is broadly engaged with NASA to develop and mature Integrated MW-class powertrain technology. This partnership will improve the likelihood of flight demonstration success and single aisle product entry.

The Offeror’s proposed services to be performed in the SOW exceeded expectations for showing a clear linkage to individual data requirements documents, the system requirements, and the driving requirements. The Offeror provided clear delineation and traceability from the SOW back to the DRDs and requirements both in writing and through visual tables/figures. This provides confidence that the required deliverables are fully understood by the Offeror and will be provided as required.

The Offeror’s proposed demonstrator architecture offered a credible path toward exceeding the minimum stated Project Objectives. The Offeror outlined extensive test facilities and capabilities for risk reduction testing of subcomponent, component, and subsystem level. The Offeror also had capabilities for increasingly comprehensive ground testing at internal, partner, and NASA facilities. The Offeror outlined services to be performed with well-defined testing capability, which provided confidence in the Offeror accomplishing the EPFD goals and objectives.

The proposal outlined a highly capable team supported by strong facilities and relevant experience for developing integrated powertrains. The team included a propulsion prime, an airframer prime, a key energy storage company, and a world class research organization with a wide range of staff and facilities to support the proposed activity. The proposed test facilities were extensive and included the use of NASA’s facilities to incorporate integrated testing that reduced risk for flight. The Offeror’s proven track record of conducting TRL maturation outlined in the proposal provided a significant likelihood of succeeding in meeting NASA’s stated goals and objectives.

The Offeror and its subcontractors on the team have conducted multiple generations of development on all of the key integrated powertrain components. Additionally, some integrated system testing was conducted, which put this proposal in a very strong position in terms of TRL at the beginning of the program and demonstrated the capability to mature this type of system.

For the remaining development, a solid technology maturation approach using spirals was laid out, with identified specific steps, through ground testing and into flight testing. This will more readily enable the retiring of identified barrier technical and integration risks. The proposal’s strong attention to technology maturation, supported by evidence, significantly increases the probability of successfully meeting NASA’s goals.

A credible plan of how data will be collected and combined with modeling to project the KPPs relative to the proposed EAP-based transport vision vehicle was provided, along with the TPMs associated with the Offeror’s preferred integrated MW-class powertrain flight demonstration.

The proposal described use of model-based systems engineering (MBSE) for design, which would be leveraged for mapping of modeling validation from the demonstrator to the vision aircraft powertrain models and translation of the TPMs to vision aircraft KPPs. A preliminary master measurement list was defined, along with a list of additional parameters supported by modeling data. The proposal’s clear descriptions of data collection and use of model-based tools provided high confidence in translating findings to the vision vehicles. The proposal offered detailed explanations of TPM validation processes and measurement methods/approaches. This will enable a higher likelihood for the successful collection of critical data needed to mature the technology development of the integrated MW-class powertrain.

A detailed description of how the data collected will support other NASA project EAP model validation and collaborative research was provided. The proposal’s clear descriptions of data collection and use of model-based tools provided high confidence in translating findings to the vision vehicles. The Offeror planned to conduct high-fidelity system modeling and to develop faster executing system performance and models. The collected data will validate NPSS models and digital systems models for component weight and geometry. The proposed design and modeling workflow relied on common tools that will benefit an independent NASA assessment.

The proposal offered clear opportunities to leverage the work and data collected through this flight test program for other NASA EAP efforts. This provided a high likelihood of having a broad positive impact on NASA’s goals and objectives by providing data for validation of NASA's common modeling tools and internal work.

A clear plan for data collection and how the proposed effort leverages the data to support development of gap analyses for relevant regulations and standards was provided. The proposal demonstrated a deep understanding for the process of identification and closure of regulatory gaps. This included a broad engagement with Standards & Regulatory Communities. The Offeror and their partners provided an extensive list of active engagements with Standards committees and Regulatory bodies. This deep understanding of what is needed to close critical gaps will reduce the risk for certification of the vision vehicle.

The Offeror provided a clear process that leveraged prior experience to bring products and technology to market, which exceeded expectations for project, technical, resource, schedule, and risk management. The Offeror provided a clear mapping of the proposed effort in terms of cost and schedule elements as requested in the NASA Phase A-E. There was an explicit decomposition of costs to specific technical maturation areas, as well as the group that will perform each work element and deliverable. In addition, a robust process for execution of milestone reviews, project status meetings, and a final closeout meeting that is inclusive of NASA; provides a clear mechanism to provide feedback with a process of response from the Offeror.

The Offeror’s defined technical and programmatic risk assessment with associated risk mitigation plans met all required expectations. A detailed list of risks was provided with a clear risk score card and the associated impacts of the risks with regard to safety, technical, cost and schedule.