Accessibility Information

Users of assistive technologies such as screen readers should use the following link to activate Accessibility Mode before continuing: Learn more and Activate accessibility mode.

28--Broad Agency Announcement for Alternative Engine Conceptual Design and Analysis (AECDA)

Solicitation Number: W911W6-13-R-0003
Agency: Department of the Army
Office: Army Contracting Command
Location: ACC-RSA-AATD - (SPS)
  • Print

Note:

There have been modifications to this notice. You are currently viewing the original synopsis. To view the most recent modification/amendment, click here
:
W911W6-13-R-0003
:
Sources Sought
:
Added: Mar 18, 2013 11:37 am
DESCRIPTION: Using the Broad Agency Announcement (BAA) process, the Aviation Applied Technology Directorate (AATD) is soliciting technical and cost proposals to conduct a Research and Development effort called Alternative Engine Conceptual Design and Analysis (AECDA). This research effort is intended to provide foundational ideas/plans for component/subsystem and system level demonstration in support of future Alternative Concept Engine (ACE) program efforts for next generation Army Aviation platforms. Interested sources shall submit proposals in accordance with the guidelines contained in this announcement. This BAA constitutes the only announcement for the AECDA program. There will be no other notices issued in regard to this funding opportunity. Interested sources should be alert for any amendments.

INTRODUCTION: Recently, the Department of Defense (DoD) has concluded that the rotary wing aviation fleet is aging and upgrades to current fleet aircraft will not provide the capabilities required for future operations. Additionally, because of the time in service for currently fielded helicopters, many of the decision points for the future fleet will occur within the next ten (10) years. The Operational Tempo (OPTEMPO) in Operation Iraqi Freedom (OIF) was, and Operation Enduring Freedom (OEF) is, five times that of peacetime, and much higher than the design usage spectrum, further taxing the already aging fleet. The current fleet of DoD rotorcraft cannot continue to be incrementally improved to meet future operational requirements. Significant improvement in vertical lift, range, speed, payload, survivability, reliability, and reduced logistical footprint are all required to meet future needs and can only be achieved through the application of new technologies and designs. Operational costs must be reduced to a fraction of those for the current fleet.

The Future Vertical Lift (FVL) Working Group, a joint DoD activity led by the Army Aviation Center of Excellence, is in the process of developing an Initial Capabilities Document (ICD) to describe the requirements for a fleet of next-generation rotorcraft known collectively as the FVL family of systems. The capabilities to be defined in the ICD will include combinations of ambient condition hover, speed, range, fuel efficiencies and troop/payload capacities beyond any current rotorcraft.

Mission requirements for FVL rotorcraft are still in development. Possible missions may include operating in hover at sea level to around 10,000 ft altitudes in hot/cold climates and cruising at altitudes possibly up to 30,000 ft. With such a wide array of missions under consideration for future rotorcraft, a robust, innovative propulsion system design is necessary to meet these versatile, wide operating range requirements. Moreover, a significant technological advancement in engine/power systems is envisioned to affordably provide the needed performance capability of FVL platforms.

Similarly, the Army is currently in the process of examining future unmanned aircraft systems (UAS) capability gaps. It is anticipated that future UAS platforms will require alternative, advanced engine/power system configurations that enable enhanced mission capability such as improved time on station, increased mission radius, and quieter operation. Engine/power system improvements in weight, fuel consumption, maintainability, reliability, and noise are all integral to providing future UAS platforms with leap-ahead performance capability.

In order to meet the envisioned leap-ahead platform capabilities, the Army is anticipating the development of new engine/power system concepts to include enhancements to advanced developmental engine/power systems that are more adaptable with wide operating range capability, which provide optimally designed power to weight ratio and specific fuel consumption, while addressing affordability and life/durability. Alternative engine/power system design concepts should consider affordable approaches to effectively manage power, efficiency, and thermal management to provide an optimum, integrated propulsion configuration to meet envisioned attributes of future Army Aviation platforms - both manned and unmanned.

TECHNICAL GUIDANCE:

Technical Description: The objective of this announcement is to conduct a research and development effort to complete conceptual design/trade analyses of various adaptive and/or alternate engine/power system concepts with various advanced technologies to determine the most promising configuration and suite of technologies to enable significantly improved performance, as a primary factor (specific fuel consumption, horsepower to weight ratio, etc), across the mission spectrum while maintaining high levels of durability, reliability, and maintainability with reduced life cycle cost for future Army Aviation platforms, as secondary factors. It is recognized that different technologies/configurations may be more effective/optimum for a given engine/power system size class. Therefore, conceptual design analysis of technologies/configurations may be performed for different engine/power system size classes, ranging from 40 shaft horsepower (shp) - 10,000 shp (i.e., small UAS, scout, attack/utility, or cargo sized engine/power systems).

Many technologies have the potential to help meet the program objectives including, but not limited to, variable speed power turbines, advanced thermal management systems, hybrid systems, adaptive engine/power system architectures, novel architectures/cycles, more electrical accessories/generators with the ability to turn off certain accessories when not needed or modulate them over a range of conditions, and adaptive component and secondary flow technologies to include inlets and exhausts.

As part of this effort, the offeror shall develop an ACE concept engine/power system design that will seek to optimize future Army aircraft mission performance (fuel consumption, range, time on station, etc) across the full spectrum of ambient conditions (high hot, high cold, etc). While improved mission performance is a priority, the offeror's ACE concept(s) must also consider system level trades that optimize engine/power system weight, cost, durability, maintainability, and reliability. As such, the offeror shall present well-defined methodologies and analysis techniques to be utilized in their system trades to demonstrate a rationale for why the down-selected ACE concept is the best total system architecture in terms of all design aspects.

The offeror shall provide a detailed analytical data set for ambient conditions around the operational envelope (possible missions may include operating in hover at sea level to around 10,000 ft altitudes in hot/cold climates and cruising at altitudes possibly up to 30,000 ft) to substantiate design and off-design performance of the proposed ACE conceptual engine/power system designs and how each of the key identified component technologies support the overall engine/power system level performance. Certain key identified technologies may also leverage other key technologies in an integrated approach that will yield specific engine/power system level performance benefits. It is important that these integrated performance benefits be clearly identified to substantiate the benefits of, and the emphasis for, development of the key identified integrated component technologies.

The proposed ACE conceptual engine/power system architecture should include advanced technologies that address the anticipated mission needs of future Army Aviation platforms while also identifying potential relevancy to current Army Aviation platforms. The offeror, in performance of their ACE conceptual engine/power systems design and analysis, should:

- Emphasize development of technologies that optimize fuel consumption across the power demand spectrum (flatten specific fuel consumption (SFC) curve)

- Emphasize development of versatile technologies to optimize performance and operability for non-conventional, higher speed rotorcraft under large ambient extremes (cold high & hot high)

- Assess development of systems technologies that optimizes platform performance capabilities with minimum installation losses for contemporary environment (e.g. variable output speed, adaptable inlet/exhaust)

This effort shall seek to analyze the quantitative benefits of alternate concept engine/power system designs over traditional engine design approaches to show a clear business case for investing in advanced, alternate concept engine/power systems. Therefore, the proposed effort shall clearly substantiate the proposed benefits and results of trade analyses relative to an identified baseline engine/power system/aircraft for the DoD relevant aircraft/UAV class being addressed (examples include RR 250-C30R3/OH-58D baseline for scout/attack; T700/UH-60 baseline for utility; T55/CH-47 baseline for Cargo class; and AR741/RQ-7or Thielert Centurion 1.7/MQ-1C baselines for UAVs).

This effort shall also include an assessment of the current technology readiness level (TRL) of the identified most promising technologies and assessments of when each of these technologies would be sufficiently developed to warrant applied research and advanced development funding.

The offeror shall provide a detailed technology maturation roadmap for their ACE conceptual design in order to support the Army's planned 6.3 ACE Demonstrator effort currently slated to start in fiscal year 2017 (FY17). The technology maturation roadmap shall include detailed component/subsystem level development plans that successfully mature critical component/subsystem technologies to a TRL 4 prior to FY17. TRL 4 is defined as: Basic technological components are integrated to establish that they will work together. This is relatively quote mark low fidelity quote mark compared to the eventual system. Examples include integration of quote mark ad hoc quote mark hardware in the laboratory.

Technology development roadmaps should also depict planned internal research and development (IRAD) or other internal/external funded efforts that support the development of a full suite of ACE relevant component/subsystem technologies to TRL 4 in advance of FY17. In order to obtain cost effective technology maturation to TRL 6, offeror should discuss potential validation plans to perform engine/power system level demonstration of the technologies through the use of existing demonstrator assets in addition to new centerline demonstrators. TRL 6 is defined as: Representative model or prototype system, which is well beyond that of TRL 5, is tested in a relevant environment. TRL 6 also represents a major step up in a technology's demonstrated readiness. Examples include testing a prototype in a high-fidelity laboratory environment or in simulated operational environment.

Offeror's identified detailed technology maturation plan shall be accompanied by a set of recommendations relative to the need for specific component/subsystem technology development efforts to enable the offeror's ACE conceptual engine/power system design to meet the intended FY17 timeframe for system level demonstration. The recommendations should prioritize the critical component/subsystem technology development needs to meet the technical objectives of the offeror's ACE conceptual design. The prioritization process should clearly identify the associated risk and payoffs of the candidate ACE technologies and the criteria used to recommend future investments.

ANTICIPATED FUNDING LEVEL AND PERIOD OF PERFORMANCE: Anticipated Funding for all awards under this program is as follows: $1,200,000 (Distribution FY13-$700K, FY14-$300K, FY15-$200K). It is the intent of the Government to make at least one award, with the potential for up to four (4) awards. Any award made under this Announcement is subject to the availability of funds. Anticipated Period of Performance: 18 months total (15 technical and 3 for data/final report). Offerors should clearly depict their proposed schedule.

TYPE OF FUNDING INSTRUMENT: The Government prefers offerors propose a Technology Investment Agreement (TIA) (Cooperative Agreement under 10 U.S.C 2358) and the Department of Defense Grant and Agreement Regulations (DoDGARS), 3210.6R, which is more flexible than traditional Government funding instruments. This does not preclude other funding instruments from being used. A variety of funding instruments are available pursuant to this announcement depending upon the proposed effort, the entity submitting the successful proposal(s), and statutory and regulatory requirements the Government must satisfy. Such instruments include conventional Cost-Plus-Fixed-Fee (CPFF) contracts subject to the Federal Acquisition Regulation, as supplemented. Other Transaction (OT) for Research (10 U.S.C. 2371) is also an acceptable funding instrument. Under TIAs or OTs, it is DoD policy to obtain, to the maximum extent practical, cost sharing of half the cost of the project to ensure the recipient has a vested interest in the project's success. Cost participation may be in the form of cash or in-kind contributions, where cash is considered of significantly higher quality in demonstrating commitment to the project. Cost participation will be considered in accordance with the DOD Grant and Agreement Regulations, DOD 3210.6-R paragraph 34.13 (Cooperative Agreement) (but also see paragraph 37.530 pertaining to Other Transactions for Research) is accessible at: http://www.dtic.mil/whs/directives/corres/pdf/321006r34p.pdf. The type of funding instrument is a subject for negotiation, but the offeror's desire shall be clearly stated in the cost proposal.

DATA ITEMS / DELIVERABLES: All awards under this Announcement will require a kickoff meeting following award. In addition, all agreements will require delivery of the following data items: (1) Program Management Plan (delivered 45 days after award), (2) Briefing Charts, (3) Bi-Monthly Progress, Cost and Performance Reports, and a (4) Final Report. (Note: Each of these items shall be delivered in Contractor's format). All awards under this Announcement will also include a requirement to present the results of the work in a Final Briefing at Ft. Eustis, Virginia upon completion of all technical effort.

SECURITY REQUIREMENTS: This effort will likely generate technical data that is subject to export control laws and regulations. Only those offerors registered and certified with the Defense Logistics Services Center (DLSC) and that have a legitimate business purpose may participate in this BAA. Contact the Defense Logistics Services Center, 74 Washington Avenue N., Battle Creek, Michigan 40917-3084 (1-800-352-3572) for further information on the certification process. Offerors must submit a copy of the offerors' approved DD Form 2345, Militarily Critical Technical Data Agreement, with its proposal. The Government does not anticipate the generation of classified data as part of this effort. Pre-award access to or submission of a classified proposal is not authorized. This Announcement is limited to U.S. firms as Prime Contractors.

GOVERNMENT FURNISHED EQUIPEMENT (GFE): It is the offeror's responsibility to identify, coordinate, and furnish documentation for use of any GFE.

DATA RIGHTS: The Government prefers Unlimited Rights, and desires, at a minimum, quote mark Government Purpose Rights quote mark as defined by the DFARS 252.227-7013, to all technical data, deliverable, and computer software to be delivered. It is the offeror's responsibility to clearly acknowledge or take exception to the Government's desire for at least quote mark Government Purpose Rights. quote mark The Contractor should propose legends for each data item identified as other than unlimited rights. In addition, all offerors shall identify the technical data or computer software that they assert would be furnished with restrictions on use, release or disclosure if an award is made under this Announcement. This information shall be provided with your proposal using the format/table included in DFARS 252.227-7017 Identification and Assertion of Use, Release, or Disclosure Restrictions.

SUBCONTRACTING PLAN: Not applicable if proposing award under a non-FAR instrument (i.e. TIA) or if the offeror is a SMALL BUSINESS CONCERN. Pursuant to the requirements of FAR part 19.702(a)(1), if the total amount of the proposal exceeds $650,000, and there are subcontracting possibilities, offerors must submit a subcontracting plan. FAR part 52.219-9 defines a subcontracting plan and its requirements. Offerors shall incorporate the subcontracting plan as part of the offeror's proposal submission. DFARS 226.370-8 discusses subcontracting incentive and goals with the Historically Black Colleges and Universities and Minority Institutions. DFARS 219.708(b)(1)(A) and (B), discusses the appropriate use of DFARS Clauses 252.219-7003 and 252.219-7004 in solicitations and contract related to small, small disadvantaged and women-owned small business subcontracting plans. Offerors are cautioned that in solicitations where subcontracting opportunities exist, the Government will not execute a contract unless the Contracting Officer determines that the negotiated plan provides the maximum practicable opportunity for SBs, SDB, WOSB, HUBZone, and Veteran-owned Small Business concerns or HBCUs/MIs to participate in the performance of the contract. Offerors should note that DFARS 219.705-4 provides for a goal of 5% for SDB concerns and HBCUs/MIs.

PROPOSAL PREPARATION

Proposals are required to be submitted in accordance with the guidelines set forth herein.

Proposals: The proposal shall consist of two volumes, a technical volume and a cost volume. In presenting the proposal material, prospective Offerors are advised that the quality of the information is significantly more important than quantity. Offerors should confine the submissions to essential matters providing sufficient information to define their offer and establish an adequate basis for the Government to conduct its evaluation. Offerors may submit multiple proposals.

COST PROPOSAL: The cost proposal shall:

1. Include a funding profile of cost and man-hours by month totaled by Government fiscal year for each task and the total program;

2. Include cost at the total program level showing all cost elements by cost category (including applicable rates and factors) by year (calendar or contractor year used to develop proposed rates and factors).

3. Present all costs by cost category and by separate individual tasks (i.e., Conceptual Design, System/Subsystem Level Trade-Offs and Performance Benefits Analysis, Management and Reporting) by Government fiscal year in order to facilitate selection and potential award of individual parts of the proposed effort.

4. Display cost share for each Government fiscal year.

The cost proposal shall substantiate the reasonableness of the cost to the Government of the proposed tasks along with the realism of the proposed man-hours, material costs and other costs to accomplish the individual tasks and the overall effort. Proposals should support the likelihood of achieving a desirable end-state within the defined funding and schedule constraints.

Subcontractor/sub recipient proposals, if applicable, including pricing rate details, shall be provided concurrent with the offeror's submission of its proposal. Subcontractor/sub recipient proposals may be provided directly to the Government to protect proprietary cost data.

Any resulting agreement value will exclude recipient's quote mark sunk quote mark costs of prior research as cost match. Only additional resources that will be provided by the recipient to carry out the current project will be counted towards an offeror's proposed cost share. The cost proposal shall not contain overflow of information suited for the technical proposal. Any technical information in the cost proposal will not be evaluated. In the case of any conflict between the technical and cost proposals, cost information in the cost proposal will take precedence.

TECHNICAL PROPOSAL: The technical proposal shall:

1. Describe potential engine/power system concepts and component/subsystem technologies to extend beyond targeted baseline engine/power system/platform capabilities in order to meet the program objectives.

2. Define a thorough, complete and clear approach to conducting component/subsystem level technology trade analyses and system level conceptual design trade analyses with respect to program objectives

3. Describe the extent to which the conceptual design process (including design and analysis tools) is adequate and at an appropriate level of detail in order to communicate the overall conceptual design.

4. Describe the extent to which the developed data will convey to the Government the benefits of the candidate engine/power system concepts/technologies and the appropriateness and timeliness of the associated technology maturation plan.

5. Identify and provide detailed description of the proposed engine/power system concept and key component/subsystem technologies as well as a clear justification for the selection of the proposed engine/power system concept and the key component/subsystem technologies for evaluation against the program objectives.

The technical volume shall also describe the offeror's ability to transition the engine/power system concept and component/subsystem technologies of the proposed effort to include:

1. Suitability and availability of facilities and qualified personnel to generate necessary technical data and conduct component/subsystem trade analyses and engine/power system conceptual design.

2. Ability to apply tools and affordably transition technologies, data and designs to component/component/subsystem development programs and technology demonstrator programs.

3. Ability to conduct design, fabrication and testing of a engine/power system technology demonstrator.

The proposal shall include a Statement of Work (SOW) that utilizes the following general task outline: 1) Task I - System/Subsystem Level Trade/Benefits Analysis; 2) Task II - System Level Conceptual Design; 3) Task III- Technology Maturation Plan and Component Development Plan Recommendations; 4) Task IV - Management and Reporting.

It shall also contain program milestones, a brief biographical section describing key personnel and a program management section.

PAGE LIMITATIONS: The technical proposal shall be limited to 30 pages, exclusive of title page, section dividers, table of contents, list of figures/tables, glossary of terms, key personnel bios, and cross-referencing indices. The evaluators will read only up to the maximum number of pages specified. Submission shall be limited to the number of pages specified, total inclusive of any drawings, charts, etc. Type shall be no smaller than a font size of ten (10) and shall be at least single spaced (applies to body text, tables, and figures). Page size shall not exceed 8 quote mark x 11 quote mark and margins shall be a minimum of 1 quote mark . Fold-out illustrations required for reader ease are allowed, however, illustration shall be counted in 8 quote mark x 11 quote mark increments (e.g., an 11 quote mark x 17 quote mark document will count as two pages).

EVALUATION CRITERIA/BASIS FOR AWARD:

Evaluation criteria are stated below with the following order of importance: 1) and 2) are equal and significantly more important than 3).

1. Technical Approach. The Government will evaluate the:

a. Degree to which the proposed concepts and/or technologies extend beyond targeted baseline engine/power system and platform capabilities in order to meet the program objectives. In addition, the Government will evaluate the degree to which the credibility of claims is substantiated.

b. Thoroughness, completeness and clarity of the proposed approach to conducting component/subsystem level technology trade analyses and system level conceptual design trade analyses with respect to program objectives.

c. Extent to which the conceptual design process (including design and analysis tools) is adequate and at an appropriate level of detail in order to communicate the overall conceptual design.

d. Extent to which the developed data will convey to the Government the benefits of the candidate engine/power system concepts/technologies and the appropriateness and timeliness of the associated technology maturation plan.

e. Identify and provide detailed description of the proposed engine/power system concept and key component/subsystem technologies as well as a clear justification for the selection of the proposed engine/power system concept and the key component/subsystem technologies for evaluation against the program objectives.

2. Ability to Mature Technology. The Government will evaluate the offeror's team in terms of:

a. Suitability and availability of facilities and qualified personnel to generate necessary technical data and conduct component/subsystem trade analyses and engine/power system conceptual design.

b. Ability to apply tools and affordably transition technologies, data and designs to component/subsystem development programs and technology demonstrator programs.

c. Ability to conduct design, fabrication and testing of an engine/power system technology demonstrator.

3. Cost. The Government will evaluate cost with respect to the reasonableness (see FAR 31.201-3 - quote mark Determining Reasonableness quote mark ) of the offeror's proposed cost to the Government for the proposed tasks. This includes the cost realism (see FAR 2.101 - quote mark Definitions quote mark ) of the proposed man-hours, material costs and other costs to accomplish the proposed individual tasks and the overall effort. The Government will also assess the likelihood of achieving a desirable end-state within the defined funding and schedule constraints. Any proposed cost share will be evaluated for its benefit in reducing program risk, achieving program objectives, and furthering the state-of-the-art.

SUBMISSION INSTRUCTIONS

Proposals are due May 2, 2013 by 2:00 P.M., E.D.T. Proposals shall be marked with the solicitation number and shall be submitted in original, plus five (5) paper copies and one (1) electronic copy (CD ROM disk format) to the Aviation Applied Technology Directorate, Attn: CCAM-RDT (Erika Matthews), 401 Lee Boulevard, Fort Eustis, VA 23604-5577. Facsimile or electronic proposal submission is not authorized under this Announcement. The cost proposal electronic copy will be used for verification purposes and shall be delivered in Excel or other compatible format. Proposals submitted after the closing date will be handled in accordance with FAR 52.215-1, Instructions to Offerors-Competitive Acquisition. A copy of this provision may be obtained from http://farsite.hill.af.mil. This announcement is an expression of interest only and does not commit the Government to pay any proposal preparation costs. Offerors desiring an explanation or interpretation of this announcement must submit requests in writing at the above address or email: erika.f.matthews.civ@mail.mil. Oral explanations or instructions given before the award of any agreement/contract will not be binding. Any information given to a prospective offeror concerning this announcement which is necessary in submitting offers or the lack of which would be prejudicial to any other prospective offeror(s) will be published as an amendment to this Announcement. Questions received less than two (2) weeks prior to the proposal due date may not be addressed. Offerors should be alert for any amendments to this Announcement. This Announcement is issued subject to the availability of funds.

The Government may incrementally fund any or all awards under this effort and all awards are subject to the availability of funds.

The Government reserves the right to select for award all or part of any proposal received. Partial awards are conditioned upon the Government and the offeror reaching mutually agreeable terms for such partial awards.

Upon notification by the Government, offerors may request a debriefing. The debriefing process will follow the time guidelines set out in 10 USC 2305(b)(5), but the debriefing content will vary to be consistent with the procedures set out in FAR 35.016 governing BAAs.
:
ACC-RSA-AATD - (SPS), ATTN: AMSRD-AMR-AA-C, Building 401, Lee Boulevard, Fort Eustis, VA 23604-5577
:
ACC-RSA-AATD - (SPS) ATTN: AMSRD-AMR-AA-C, Building 401, Lee Boulevard Fort Eustis VA
23604-5577
US
:
Erika Faith Matthews, (757) 878-4825

ACC-RSA-AATD - (SPS)