Armament Contracting Division (WL/MNK), Building 13, 101 West Eglin Boulevard, Suite 337, Eglin AFB FL 32542-6810

A -- ARMAMENT TECHNOLOGIES (PART 3 OF 4) SOL BAA NO. MNK-97-0001 POC Contracting Officer, Jean Pulley (904) 882-4294, ext 3402 CONTINUATION OF PREVIOUS SYNOPSIS for Armament Technologies. ADVANCED WEAPONS LETHALITY RESEARCH -- The development of advanced conventional weapon systems requires the capabilities to assess complex weapon/target interaction phenomena and to predict environments produced by detonating warheads. Areas of particular interest include penetration mechanics, high strain rate fracture dynamics, and structural response modeling of geologic and geologically derived materials. Theoretical and experimental projects that represent a physical understanding of problems of interest are the goal. Dr. Kenneth B. Milligan WL/MNSA, 904-882-5151 ext 3317, Fax: 904-882-5152, e-mail: millig@eglin.af.mil HYDROCODE ALGORITHM AND INTERFACE DEVELOPMENTS -- The Computational Weapon Physics Branch is interested in accurately and responsively predicting the performance of fixed-hardened-target penetrating weapons. While for system studies, simplified engineering models such as SAMPLL or PENCURV are the analysis methods ofchoice, for more detailed design decisions, Lagrangian hydrocodes such as EPIC or DYNA and Eulerian hydrocodes such as HULL or CTH are the analysis methods of choice. This topic addresses primarily the more detailed design process with hydrocodes. The application of hydrocodes to large three dimensional problems while retaining sufficient resolution to identify significant local design issues such as fuze structural integrity, bomb case fracture, and nose survivability presents technical challenges on at least two levels. First, more accuracy is required in the modeling of key physical processes, and second, more timely application of large 3 dimensional hydrocode models must be achieved. In terms of physical accuracy, techniques are required to allow critical physical phenomena involving large local gradients to be resolved in calculations involving global length scales that are very large in comparison to the local process. Some examples of this problem include explosive reaction zone modeling, shear banding, and crack growth. Solutions such as extremely large models on parallel computers, unstructured adaptive regridding, overset methods, linked calculations, subcycled regions, etc. all appear to have promise, but are not generally used or widely available. Also in the realm of accuracy of modeling, continued development of accurate constitutive models for materials are required, with an expanded emphasis on both the mechanical and reaction properties of reactive materials. Material models are desired that are useful in multiple hydrocodes, rather than code-specific implementations. Successful hydrocodes require interfaces that allow the rapid development of complex 3 dimensional models that provide problem definition-to-resolution times in terms of days to weeks rather than weeks to months. Responsiveness requires not only simplicity of initial setups, but also robustness of solution technique in association with the rapid initial setup. Interfaces to commercial geometry/meshing programs, dedicated graphicaluser interfaces, predefined weapon/target libraries, on-line help systems, expert systems, etc. appear to have promise in this area. Dr. Lawrence Lijewski, WL/MNSI, 904-882-2141 ext 2203, FAX (904) 882-9790, email: lijewski @eglin.af.mil. PART II -- PROPOSAL EVALUATION A. Proposals submitted in response to this BAA will be evaluated as received using the factors given below. The factors are listed in descending order of importance. No further evaluation criteria will be used in selecting the proposals. 1. The overall scientific and/or technical merits of the proposal. 2. The potential contributions of the effort to the WL/MN mission and the extent to which the research effort will contribute to balancing the overall contract research program of this directorate. 3. The offeror's capabilities, related experience, facilities, techniques, or unique combinations of these which are integral factors for achieving the proposal objectives. 4. The qualifications, capabilities, and experience of the proposed principal investigator, team leader, and other key personnel who are critical to achieving the proposal objectives. 5. The offeror's record of past and present performance. 6. The reasonableness and realism of proposed costs and fees if any, and the availability of funds. B. Upon receipt of a proposal, the WL/MN technical staff will perform an initial review of its scientific merit and potential contribution to the Air Force mission and also determine if funds are expected to be available for the effort. Proposals not considered to have sufficient scientific merit or relevance to Air Force needs, or those in areas for which funds are not expected to be available, may be declined without further review. C. It is the policy of WL/MN to treat all proposals as privileged information prior to award, and to disclose the contents only for the purposes of evaluation. Proposals not declined as a result of initial review will be subject to an extensive evaluation by highly qualified scientists from within the Government. Theofferor must indicate on the appropriate form any limitation to be placed on disclosure of information contained in the proposal. D. Each proposal will be evaluated based on the merit and relevance of the specific research proposed as it relates to the overall WL/MN program, rather than against other proposals for research in the same general area. PART III -- PROPOSAL PREPARATION A. Each proposal submitted should consist of two volumes. Volume 1 should provide the technical proposal and Volume 2 should address the price/cost portions of the proposal. Volume 1 should be limited to a total of 50 pages, including resumes, charts, figures, tables, etc. Pages in excess of the specified 50 pages will be removed and returned to the offeror before evaluation starts. A page is defined to be one side of a 8.5 x 11 inch piece of paper with information on it. Minimum print size is 10 point type, or 12 pitch. Submit four copies of the proposal. B. The technical portion of the proposal, Volume 1, should contain the following: 1. A title and abstract that includes a concise Statement of Work and basic approaches to be utilized. The Statement of Work should indicate the effort intended for each period of research. 2. A reasonably complete discussion stating the background and objectives of the proposed work, the approaches to be considered, and the resources to be employed. Include also the nature and extent of the anticipated results, and if known, the manner in which the work will contribute to the accomplishment of the agency's mission. 3. The names, brief biographical information, and a list of recent publications of the offeror's key personnel who will be involved in the research. Documentation of previous work or experience of the proposer in the field is especially important. 4. The type of support, if any, the offeror requests of the Armament Directorate, e.g. facilities, equipment, and materials. 5. The names of federal, state, local agencies or other parties receiving the proposals and/or funding the proposed effort of a similar nature. If none, so state. 6. The identity of facilities, specialized equipment, or other real property to be used for the work, if appropriate for an understanding of the technical work to be conducted. 7. Identify all on-going Government contracts and related past contracts or assistance instruments. Provide a technical point of contact and telephone number for each contract cited. (SEE 4 OF 4) (0057)

Loren Data Corp. http://www.ld.com (SYN# 0012 19970228\A-0012.SOL)