SPECIAL NOTICE
A -- REQUEST FOR INFORMATION - Hybrid-Electric VTOL Technology
- Notice Date
- 7/16/2024 11:57:34 AM
- Notice Type
- Special Notice
- NAICS
- 541715
— Research and Development in the Physical, Engineering, and Life Sciences (except Nanotechnology and Biotechnology)
- Contracting Office
- W6QK AATD CONTR OFF FORT EUSTIS VA 23604-5577 USA
- ZIP Code
- 23604-5577
- Solicitation Number
- W911W6-24-RFI-0005
- Response Due
- 8/30/2024 12:00:00 PM
- Archive Date
- 09/14/2024
- Point of Contact
- Laurie PIERCE, Phone: 7578782071
- E-Mail Address
-
laurie.a.pierce2.civ@army.mil
(laurie.a.pierce2.civ@army.mil)
- Description
- This is a request for information (RFI) only. The intent is to inform a request for proposal (RFP) for a Research, Development, Test and Evaluation (RDT&E)-funded, 6.3 technology demonstration effort. It provides insight to the technical subjects of interest, what information may be requested in a future solicitation, and ideas on how technical solutions may be assessed. Proposals are not desired, rather the Army requests feedback on all aspects of the following to inform a future solicitation release. Specific feedback items are requested at the end of this RFI. While this is a good-faith information request initiated with the intent to inform a follow-on solicitation, this RFI does not obligate the Government with respect to a future RFP, approach, or funded project.� This effort does not address a specific requirement and will not necessarily lead to generation of a new requirement.� Introduction The Army DEVCOM Aviation and Missile Center (AvMC) is developing a plan to conduct an RDT&E-funded (6.3) science and technology (S&T) demonstration of critical technologies that enable hybrid-electric vertical and very short take-off and landing (VTOL & STOL) aircraft systems. The Army Aviation Science and Technology enterprise continuously seeks improvements to its fleet of rotorcraft in terms of cost, performance, safety, survivability, lethality, and mission effectiveness. Occasionally, new technologies emerge that provide warfighters with new or additional tools to conduct operations more efficiently and effectively.� New technologies often require an investment of resources for stakeholders to understand how they work, how they are implemented, what are the likely use cases, and how they might fit into future concepts of operation. Electric, more-electric, and hybrid propulsion technologies for aircraft are being investigated and developed by many segments of industry, including large and small, new and established, non-DoD-affiliated and traditional defense contractor companies. Tremendous gains in individual components and system designs have brought the advanced air mobility industry to the cusp of success.� For the Army, many questions remain about the viability of these systems for military missions. Internal analysis based on best available knowledge has shown specific power and energy limitations may present mission performance challenges. Battery-electric-only systems limit mission flexibility (range, payload, sortie availability) and require additional ground charging equipment and time.� Hybrid systems may provide advantages, however due to the number of variables and large design space, a high level of expertise is required to properly optimize a system that shows mission benefits. Large rotor helicopters were co-developed with turboshaft engines and mechanical transmissions over the last nearly 70 years. Deep understanding and sophisticated analysis are needed to determine if and how hybrid propulsion technologies can be used to advantage in those designs. Although there are logistics and policy concerns associated with some alternative fuel sources, those issues are not the focus of this RFI or potential subsequent effort. Aircraft Demonstration Interest The primary motivations to conduct this technology demonstration effort are to: Enhance the Army�s knowledge and understanding of hybrid-electric aviation systems Reduce risk associated with hybrid-electric technology� Demonstrate advancement in aviation platform capability Inform the Army�s aviation science and technology (S&T) strategy, future requirements and program of record roadmaps There are multiple attributes of interest potentially offered by more-electric technology. Some notable examples are reduced fuel consumption, affordability (procure, operate, maintain), and potential operational advantages (e.g. silent approach, high speed cruise w/ low speed loiter, etc.). While cost and performance are primary attributes, military use cases require consideration of additional characteristics. Other important attributes include safety, reliability, crashworthiness, airworthiness and certification requirements, electromagnetic interference, cyber security, and signature management. For purposes of this RFI, a hybrid-electric aircraft is defined as one that has a propulsive system that combines multiple elements of energy storage; power production; and or thrust production that may be used simultaneously or separately, either independently or cooperatively. The hybrid propulsion system may contain combinations of primary power batteries, fuel cells, internal combustion engines, mechanical transmissions, electric machines, power electronics, electrical power distribution components, power management systems, and thermal management systems. Supplemental technologies that take advantage of onboard electric power generation, such as electric actuation or advanced mission systems, may be included. This definition is provided as a means of conveying intent and openness to different technical solutions.� It is not meant to be overly constraining or to hinder innovation. Along with the demonstration of technologies, the Army also desires an objective aircraft design as the basis for enabling technology evaluation and to help inform capability developers and program managers. To capture the expertise and creativity of a wide section of industry, the Army will consider designs that apply hybrid-electric technology and align with any of the general mission descriptions below: [Note: These mission descriptions do not reflect specific requirements. They are meant to explore applicability of hybrid-electric technology and indicate areas of interest. All values provided in the descriptions are approximate.] A militarized, autonomous, hybrid-electric VTOL or VSTOL aircraft capable of frequent and routine logistics movement of supplies with a payload capacity of 1200-2000 lbs. with an un-refueled/recharged combat radius of 130 n. mi. Secondary missions, such as launched effects deployment and casualty evacuation may be considered. A small helicopter (4000-5000 lbs. TOGW) capable of extended, precision hover that can carry 1200+ lbs. payload 200 n. mi. range at 180 kts. Medium-lift rotorcraft with measurable improvement in any of the following: range/payload capacity; operating and sustainment cost; fuel quantity use; or safety. � Group III or IV unmanned air vehicle using hybrid-electric technology to extend range and endurance, or to provide good flight performance characteristics in multiple flight regimes (e.g. efficient at both high-speed flight and low-speed loiter). For any of the above general cases, the following are examples of additional ideas considered of interest to the Army: Militarization considerations may include propulsion system sizing for quickness and agility; vehicle physical configuration and layout; austere environments and harsh environmental conditions; low flight above the ground near clutter and trees; survivability (damage tolerance, redundancy, separation) and signature management; cyber security; reliability; and limited required logistics support. Hybridization through auxiliary power kits (internal or external) for the systems above to provide range extension or mission performance-enhancing power. Special applications which take advantage of hybrid aircraft�s unique characteristics. For example, the excess peak/sustained electrical power available on these systems may enable flight systems capable of fielding high powered microwave (HPM), directed energy DE, or other electromagnetic (EM) emissions concepts. [Note: Values and descriptions may change based on on-going analysis.] Ideally, demonstrations will be conducted at an aircraft system-level to show integration, interfaces, dependencies, synergies, and constraints of constituent component technologies in a realistic, workable system.� Ground and, or flight demonstrations are desired as project cost and outcomes are balanced.� Surrogates such as iron/copper birds or alternative aircraft (including piloted) may be used to demonstrate critical enabling technologies as necessary to provide evidence that the objective design is credible. Technology Maturation: ��������������� The primary focus of the RFI is technology demonstration in an integrated system. This implies a level of maturity for each technology component. In the fast-evolving area of hybrid VTOL aircraft, there may be promising individual technologies that require further development before they are suitable for an aircraft system-level demonstrations. �Supporting component development, complimentary studies, and research in the hybrid electric area may be considered in parallel with the demonstration efforts. Digital engineering guidance: Digital engineering is a value-added process and will aid technology transition of this effort.� Model Based Systems Engineering (MBSE) provides a digital dataset can be directly applied to future requirements as they are informed by this effort. The degree of MBSE and other digital tools should be �right-sized� for this demonstration project. The intent is to streamline physical processes, minimize trial-and-error iterations, validate the degree to which design requirements are met, and facilitate technology transition. Testing should be used to develop data to calibrate and validate analyses, to fill in gaps where analysis is not effective, or to streamline data development where analysis would be significantly slower or more costly.� MBSE is a useful tool that is encouraged but is not the focus of this effort.� The following deliverables are envisioned: Program management plan to document cost, schedule, risk, roles and responsibilities, etc. Integrated Master Schedule (IMS) Quarterly status and financial reports to provide status of cost, schedule, technical risk, issues, progress, etc. Appropriate requirements, design, and readiness review reports (e.g. SRR, PDR, CDR, TRR) Technologies, architecture, integration, and building block test plans and reports, MBSE system models if used Objective aircraft design report detailing any differences between the surrogate/prototype systems and the object Anticipated Funding & Schedule For planning purposes, Army funding is inclusive of the years FY26-30, with approximately $5-$7 million per year. While available funding is significant, it may be insufficient to solely fund the design, fabrication and test of a new-build aircraft. �The Government is open to cost sharing/teaming opportunities with industry for technology demonstrations provided goals and schedules align, and data rights arrangements are suitable. The Government, however, does not intend to fund new test facilities under any future arrangements. Demonstration projects may start in FY26 and should complete no later than the end of FY30. The following sections describe the types of information that will be requested in a subsequent RFP. Feedback is desired on the clarity and completeness of these sections. Anticipated Proposal Content Description An objective aircraft design provides a target for technology development and indicates a capability that could potentially be adapted to satisfy a future requirement. While demonstration of the full objective aircraft may be cost prohibitive and unnecessary, critical enabling technologies integrated into practical systems can be demonstrated.� A future RFP would ask for information about both the objective aircraft design and how the integrated, enabling technology demonstrations would be executed. For the objective aircraft concept: The definition should demonstrate knowledge of aircraft function and design. Define a sizing mission and include basic aircraft sizing and layout, and design targets such as weights, cruise and hover efficiencies, and speed/range/payload. Define intended power architecture, propulsion system concept and power sizing, rotor/propeller sizing, and control concept.� Operational advantages and benefits of the concept should be explained. Supporting evidence or analysis for claims should be provided. The critical enabling technologies of the objective design; technical gaps, challenges and uncertainties; risks and proposed mitigations should be defined. � The design approach, tools, and design-informing dataset should be described. For the technology demonstration(s): Discuss system technical challenges, risks, and maturity and identify demonstration priorities.� Provide technical approach, describe demonstration building blocks and how, and to what level they validate the objective design. Describe facilities, permits or other items that provide the wherewithal to conduct demonstrator activities. If modifying and existing design or aircraft, provide cost, performance, development timeline, number of flight hours, and demonstrated envelope. A proposal should provide the Government with confidence that the project will be conducted effectively with likelihood of success. Some version of the following would be requested: Provide descriptions of similar past work by your company/team/organization Identify required Government (equipment/facilities/information/data) to successfully accomplish the effort Discuss ground- and flight-testing risks/safety, processes, and intended approach to obtaining proper authorizations. Describe systems engineering process and use of program controls for requirements management, risk management, configuration management, and design readiness reviews. Discuss how the Government team will be involved in the project and how project information/data will be shared. Provide schedule and cost proposal. Along with confidence in the technical approach and programmatic controls, the following information can also provide confidence in the proposing team: Describe your company/team/organization and its ability to provide credible results on this topic Identify key personnel, expertise and relevant experience, provide an organization chart Describe facilities relevant to project execution. Cost will also be assessed. Discuss anticipated demonstration costs which substantiate a funding profile that identifies total project price and follows projected funding. Categories of interest: Direct labor: Labor hours and unburdened labor rates. Identify if rates are DCMA-approved. Sub-awardees, partnerships. Indirect costs: Include rationale for proposed indirect rates Travel: Provide estimate basis (number of trips, destinations, duration). Materials � itemized with costs or estimated costs. Experimental test and associated costs. Other direct costs: Proposed items of equipment or facilities. Agreement Type: Indicate what type of business arrangement is desired (FAR contract, Other Transaction Agreement (OTA), Technology Investment Agreement (TIA), etc.). Performers: ������� For this project, the Government encourages inclusion of small companies and non-traditional defense contractors in primary or at least significant roles. Data Rights: It is anticipated that Technical Data and Software developed under this Agreement should be delivered to the Government with Government Purpose Rights.� Offerors may include a summary of any assertions of Offeror restrictions on Government use of any technical data or computer software with proper justification.� Other Considerations: While this document was intended to communicate Army intent and interests, it is not exhaustive or overly specific. Derived requirements or assumptions that shape any future proposal in a significant way should be highlighted. Notional Evaluation Criteria Description Criteria: The following factors are anticipated to be important in proposal evaluations: Technology to be demonstrated, and the proposed demonstration(s) are compelling and align with guidance provided. Technology claims are supported by substantiating data. �� The mix of analysis and testing are logical and result in a streamlined effort that is likely to be sufficient to develop data needed for successfully meeting project goals and objectives.�� The scope of the of the effort and schedule are described in enough detail to conclude that the work flow is logical and sufficient to adequately address technical and programmatic risks. Program controls are in place to identify and resolve issues in a timely fashion.� Description of the team and capabilities provides sufficient confidence that the work can be accomplished. Technical principles and challenges are well understood. The proposal communicates that the team has the wherewithal to achieve success.� The team has available staff and management support to focus energy on meeting technical program milestones. Required Government (equipment/facilities/information/data) to successfully accomplish the effort is identified and within the ability and resources of the Government team to provide. The data developed and provided to the Government, the access and insight provided to the Government team, and the associated data rights are conducive to informing requirements and transitioning technology.� Cost proposals which are well aligned with technical effort.� Effort is sufficiently resourced. Army funding resources, combined with any cost share, are assessed by the Government team to be sufficient to execute the work proposed. Selection Note: The future request for proposal opens the aperture to a wide range of technical solutions. As such, there is no single technical definition of success against which to measure proposals. Due to the range of potential responses, the Army reserves the flexibility to select work of the most interest, from credible sources, based on science and technology (S&T) value and data needs which may evolve over time.� The Army also reserves the right to fund multiple or a single effort, and to enter the design, fabricate, test and demonstrate cycle at any phase. However, top level funding is fixed, therefore these decisions will be guided by the proposals received, balancing S&T value and available resources.� Non-selection will not necessarily imply any deficiency in the proposal. Conclusion Information and feedback related to the topics discussed within the RFI is requested. Communication exchanges with market participants can add significant value to and create efficiencies in solicitation development. To that end, the Government is open to collaborative interchanges with industry.� Objectives of interchanges include: Facilitating improved understanding of the Government�s intent � Increase Government awareness and form realistic Government expectations of industry capabilities � Inform the Government of industry relevant, potential technical solutions Obtain Industry suggestions for changes to proposed topic description. The period of open engagement will be until this RFI is superseded by a follow-on RFI, RFP, or other published instructions.� Format and communication methods are flexible, with a mix of virtual, in person, and paper responses. However, the project team has a small staff and time is limited which will impact available time for engagement.� The specific RFI feedback is desired: Description of technical solutions that may be offered as a response to a subsequent project solicitation to include key technologies, aircraft concept and overview of potential demonstration approach. What level of design detail and information would be appropriate for the Government to ask for in a proposal?� What type/degree of design substantiation might be offered in a proposal?� Identify individual critical enabling technologies that require further maturation prior to being part of an integrated system demonstration. � Discuss the effort cost and value of an objective design and appropriate design level.� Sufficiency and appropriateness of the general aircraft descriptions. �Is further definition needed (e.g. SWAP allocations)? Provide additional descriptions that are thought to be relevant. Clarity of the Government�s expected project outcomes. Clarity of potential technology solutions that will be considered by the Government team.� Clarity and sufficiency of proposal expectations. Clarity and appropriateness of evaluation criteria. � Describe any data, equipment, or other sponsorship that would be requested from the Government. Discuss potential/desirable teaming schemes with the Government. ROM level of funding needed mapped to level of demonstration envisioned. What would an ideal funding profile look like? Special data rights or other issues that should be considered in the project planning phase by the Government team. Provide any additional thoughts that will strengthen the RFP. Responses and Questions Individual responses will be viewed by the Government team only. Items of clarification may be posted for general viewing. Please submit questions, inquiries, and responses to this RFI electronically via email to the points of contact noted; please include the RFI number in the subject line of the email and in the response.
- Web Link
-
SAM.gov Permalink
(https://sam.gov/opp/924c2b08df27463f92f7ea8accc857ad/view)
- Place of Performance
- Address: Fort Eustis, VA 23604, USA
- Zip Code: 23604
- Country: USA
- Zip Code: 23604
- Record
- SN07129570-F 20240718/240716230108 (samdaily.us)
- Source
-
SAM.gov Link to This Notice
(may not be valid after Archive Date)
| FSG Index | This Issue's Index | Today's SAM Daily Index Page |