R&D Contracting Directorate, Bldg 7, 2530 C Street, WPAFB, OH 45433-7607

A -- CORROSION FATIGUE STRUCTURAL DEMONSTRATION PROGRAM SOL PRDA 97-05-FIK DUE 050597 POC Mr Raleigh Haney, Contract Negotiator, (937) 255-5901, Mr Lawrence W. Kopa, Contracting Officer, (937) 255-5901 INTRODUCTION: Wright Laboratory (WL/FIBA) is interested in receiving proposals (technical and cost) on the research effort described below. Proposals in response to this PRDA shall be submitted by 5 May 1997, 1500 hours Eastern Standard Time, addressed to Wright Laboratory, Directorate of R&D Contracting, Building 7, Area B, Attn: Raleigh Haney, WL/FIK, Wright-Patterson AFB OH 45433-7607. This is an unrestricted solicitation. Small businesses are encouraged to propose on all or part of this solicitation. Proposal submission after the cutoff date specified herein shall be treated in accordance with restrictions of FAR 52.215-10; copy of this provision may be obtained from the contracting point of contact. There will be no other solicitation issued in regard to this requirement. Offerors should be alert for any PRDA amendments that may permit subsequent submission. Offerors who do not already have a copy of the current Nov 92 WL Guide entitled, "PRDA and BAA Guide for Industry" should request a copy from the contracting focal point above. This guide was specifically designed to assist offerors in understanding the PRDA/BAA proposal process. This guide is also available on the internet, address www.wl.wpafb.af.mil/contract. B REQUIREMENTS: The objective of the Corrosion Fatigue Structural Demonstration Program is to develop, verify, and apply analytical techniques that include the effects of corrosion and cyclic fatigue on the assessment of aircraft structural life and residual strength. A need exists to develop this capability for USAF aging aircraft. The age of some USAF aircraft, and the intention to operate them well beyond their original design service lives raises legitimate concerns about service life predictions that lack consideration of the effects of corrosion. Some of the ways corrosion is known to influence material and structural behavior are classical corrosion fatigue, influence of corrosion on fatigue crack nucleation and propagation, alternate structural load paths due to presence of corrosion, and increased stress due to loss of material. This effort will develop the tools, whether they be analytical, software, or hardware, that may be used to better gauge the condition of the fleets including the effects of corrosion. The contractor should describe the level of testing they feel will be required in terms of simple element (for example specimen with fastener or specimen with holes), detailed element (for example lap joint or wing plank stringer assemblies), and sub-component (for example lap joint and stringer assemblies). The primary airframes of interest are the C/KC-135, C-130, and C-5; however, the T-38, C-141, F-16, F-15, A-10 and other USAF aircraft are viable candidates for demonstration of the analytical capability. The final demonstration is expected to be a component test (for example, wing or fuselage); the proposal shall include candidate demonstration articles. (1) Technical Description: Phase I will involve preliminary analysis and/or appropriate testing, while Phase II will be an option and will involve advanced development as well as experimental testing and validation of the concepts. During Phase I, the contractor may perform preliminary analysis, testing, sensitivity studies, and/or trade studies to focus the development and validation effort of Phase II on the generic structural details and analytical approaches with the highest payoff and probability of success. This will involve interaction with the government to determine candidate structural applications for later demonstration of the developed technology. At completion of phase I, the contractor shall report the findings and present a clear plan describing the methodology that will be used to include the effects of corrosion in the calculation of structural life and residual strength. The plan will include the approach to acquire the necessary data (be it test, in house, tear down, or other) for development of this capability to evaluate corrosion in terms of structural integrity and service life prediction. In addition, the contractor shall identify the proposed demonstration test article to validate their development effort. Phase II option requirements, if exercised, will involve development, validation, and demonstration of the chosen analytic method(s). The contractor shall develop analytical method(s) and correlate with in-service and experimental data. The contractor may perform element and subcomponent tests to develop and validate the analytical/modeling capability. The validation/verification effort will culminate in a full-scale demonstration. The structural demonstration will address actual AF corrosion problem(s). In preparation for the full scale demonstration, the contractor shall apply the analysis techniques to primary and secondary structural components used to predict inspection intervals, remaining structural life and residual strength. The contractor shall generate the full scale demonstration test plan. The contractor shall propose to conduct the final demonstration at a contractor facility and at a government facility; however, the final demonstration will only be done at one or the other of these facilities. If the demonstration is conducted at a government facility, the contractor shall support critical portions of the testing. In either case, the contractor shall reduce all test data for presentation in the final report. Any developments resulting from this contract activity that have dual-use benefits should be clearly identified in the final report. The contractor shall assess the logistical feasibility of the technology developed throughout this effort by conducting a formal integrated logistic support program commensurate with the level of effort of this R&D program. The logistic support program shall: (a) establish Reliability, Maintainability, and Supportability (RM&S) objectives/goals to optimize the technology to be delivered; (b) identify RM&S deficiencies (i.e., software updates, compatibility and integration issues, etc.); and (c) document action required to correct deficiencies during this or future development (reported during program reviews). The contractor shall also consider MIL-PRF-49506 logistic planning elements, where appropriate. Although general guidance is given above, many approaches are possible and our desire is to encourage effective solutions through any of the many research and development approaches. (2) Deliverable Items: If hardware is developed in response to this PRDA, the functional prototype will be delivered at contract completion. The following deliverable data items shall be proposed: (a) Status Report, DI-MGMT-80368/T, monthly; (b) Funds and Man-Hour Expenditure Report, DI-FNCL-80331/T, monthly; (c) Project Planning Chart, DI-MGMT-80507A/T, monthly; (d) Contract Funds Status Report (CFSR), DI-FNCL-81468/T, quarterly ; (e) Presentation Material, DI-ADMN 81373/T, as required; (f) Contractor Billing Voucher, DI-MISC-80711/T, monthly; and (g) Scientific and Technical Reports -- Final Phase I and, if option is exercised, Final Phase II, DI-MISC-80711/T, (Draft and Reproducible); (h) Test Plan, DI-NDTI-80566/T, Full-scale evaluation; (i) Engineering Drawings, DI-DRPR-80651/T; (j) Computer Software End Items DI-MCCR-80700. Contractor's format is encouraged on all deliverables. A kick-off meeting will be held at the contractor's facility within 60 days after contract start. The contractor will further be required to conduct program reviews quarterly and at the end of contractor defined tasks. These reviews are to be attended by government and industry. (3) Security Requirements: The work performed under this contract shall be unclassified. (4) Other Special Requirements: Equipment/technical data generated or delivered in performance of this contract is controlled by the International Traffic in Arms Regulations (ITAR) C ADDITIONAL INFORMATION: (1) Anticipated Period of Performance: The total length of the technical effort is estimated to be 11 months for Phase I plus 4 months for processing and completion of the final report. Phase II option, if exercised, will be an additional 36 months of technical effort plus 4 months for final reporting commencing on or before 13 MAC. (2) Expected Award Date: Fourth Quarter FY97. (3) Government Estimate: The government intends to pursue at least one and possibly two awards for the Phase I effort. Each Phase I award is estimated at $800K with an additional $6718K estimated for Phase II option requirements. The government anticipates a funding breakout by fiscal year as follows: FY97-$ 55K, FY98-$1615K, FY99-$1911K, FY00-$2594K, and FY01-$2143K for a total of $ 8318K. The Government funding profile is an estimate only and is not a promise for funding as all funding is subject to change due to Government discretion and availability. (4) Type of Contract: Cost Plus Fixed Fee (CPFF). (5) Government Furnished Property: The government has sections of a disassembled aircraft available for use. These sections are located at building 65, Area B, Wright-Patterson AFB. For more information, or to view the sections, contact the Technical Point of Contact cited in this announcement. No other government furnished property is anticipated for this contractual program. (6) Base Support: No base support is anticipated for this contractual effort. (7) Size Status: For the purpose of this acquisition, the size standard is 500 employees (SIC 8731). (8) Notice to Foreign-Owned Firms: Such firms are asked to immediately notify the Air Force point of contact cited at the end of this PRDA upon deciding to respond to this announcement. (9) In the event that more than one Phase I offeror is selected, the decision to exercise the option and select one offeror for Phase II will be based on an evaluation of the following criteria in terms of both technical performance and cost. The technical aspect, which is ranked as the first order of priority, shall be evaluated based on the following criteria which are of equal importance: (a) soundness of the offeror's approach to complete Phase II; (b) viability of technology transition with emphasis on performance, supportability, and application to specific USAF corrosion problems; (c) minimal development risk associated with phase II; (d) effective Phase I program management and technical performance. Cost includes consideration of budgets, effective use of funds, and funding profiles but is ranked second in order of priority. The technical and cost information will be evaluated at the same time. D PROPOSAL PREPARATION INSTRUCTIONS: (1) General Instructions: Offerors should apply the restrictive notice prescribed in the provision at FAR 52.215-12, Restriction on Disclosure and Use of Data, to trade secrets or privileged commercial and financial information contained in their proposals. Proposal questions should be directed to one of the points of contact listed at the end of the PRDA. Offerors should consider instructions contained in the "WL PRDA and BAA Guide for Industry" referenced in Section A of this announcement. Technical and cost proposals, submitted in separate volumes, are required and must be valid for 180 days. Proposals must reference the above PRDA number. Proposals shall be submitted in an original and six copies. All responsible sources may submit a proposal which shall be considered against the criteria set forth herein. Offerors are advised that only contracting officers are legally authorized to contractually bind or otherwise commit the government. (2) Cost Proposal: Adequate price competition is anticipated. The accompanying cost proposal/price breakdown shall be furnished with supporting schedules, and shall contain a person-hour breakdown per task. The costs should be broken down by task to facilitate partial award of a separate task if appropriate. The costs shall be broken down by phase to facilitate separate award of Phase I and pricing of Phase II option requirements. The costs of conducting the final demonstration at a contractor facility and the government facility shall be clearly segregated such that a separate Phase II option total can be priced and negotiated for either test facility. Note: The contractor will be responsible for providing appropriate evidence for use and approval of the government test site facility proposed. (3) Technical Proposal: The technical proposal shall include a discussion of the nature and scope of the research and the technical approach. Additional information on prior work in this area, including a discussion on the state of the art and your particular past experience in predicting the effect of corrosion on fatigue, descriptions of available equipment, data and facilities, and r sum s of personnel who will be participating in this effort should also be included as attachments to the technical proposal. The technical proposal shall include a Statement of Work (SOW) detailing the technical tasks proposed to be accomplished under the proposed effort and suitable for contract incorporation. Offerors shall refer to the WL Guide referenced in Section A to assist in SOW preparation. PL 98-94 applies. Any questions concerning the technical proposal or SOW preparation shall be referred to the Technical Point of Contact cited in this announcement. (4) Page Limitations: The technical proposal shall be limited to 75 pages (12 pitch or larger type), double spaced, single-sided, 8.5 by 11 inches. The page limitation includes all information, i.e. indexes, photographs, foldouts, appendices, attachments, etc. Pages in excess of these limitations will not be considered by the Government. Cost proposals have no limitations; however, offerors are requested to keep cost proposals to 50 pages as a goal. (5) Preparation Cost: If selected for negotiations, qualifying offerors will be required to submit a subcontracting plan. This announcement does not commit the Government to pay for any response preparation cost. The cost of preparing proposals in response to this PRDA is not considered an allowable direct charge to any resulting or any other contract. However, it may be an allowable expense to the normal bid and proposal indirect cost as specified in FAR 31.205-18. E BASIS FOR AWARD: The selection of one or more sources for award will be based on an evaluation of an offeror's response (both technical and cost aspects) to determine the overall merit of the proposal in response to this announcement. The technical aspect, which is ranked as the first order of priority, shall be evaluated based on the following criteria in descending order of importance: (a) offeror's understanding of the scope of the technical effort; (b) viability of technology transition with emphasis on performance, supportability, and application to specific USAF corrosion problems; (c) soundness of the offeror's technical approach;(d) availability of qualified technical personnel and their experience with aircraft structural fatigue and the effects of corrosion; (e) organization, clarity, and thoroughness of the proposed SOW; (f) effective solutions to the technical problem. Cost, which includes consideration of proposed budgets, and funding profiles is a substantial factor, but ranked second in order of priority. The technical and cost information will be evaluated at the same time. The Air Force reserves the right to select for award of a contract, grant, or cooperative agreement any, all, part or none of the proposals received. Award of a grant to universities or nonprofit institutions or a cooperative agreement, in lieu of a contract, will be considered and will be subject to the mutual agreement of the parties. F POINTS OF CONTACT: (1) Technical Point of Contact: Wright Laboratory, Attn: WL/FIBA Captain Dan Groner, 2130 Eighth Street Suite 1, Wright-Patterson AFB, OH 45433-7542, e-mail gronerdj@b045mail.wpafb.af.mil, phone (937) 255-5664. (2) An Ombudsman has been appointed to hear concern from offerors and potential offerors during the proposal development phase of this acquisition. The purpose of the Ombudsman is not to diminish the authority of the Contracting Officer, but to communicate contractor concerns, issues, disagreements and recommendations to the appropriate government personnel. All potential offerors should use established channels to voice concerns before resorting to use of the Ombudsman. When requested, the Ombudsman will maintain strict confidentiality as to the source of the concern. The Ombudsman does not participate in the evaluation of proposals or in the selection decision. Interested parties should direct all routine communication concerning this acquisition to Mr. Raleigh Haney, Contract Negotiator, Wright Laboratory, R&D Contracting Directorate WL/FIK, 2530 C Street, Bldg7, Wright-Patterson Air Force Base, OH 45433-6503, telephone (937) 255-4427. The Ombudsman should only be contacted with issues or problems that have been previously brought to the attention of the contracting officer and could not be satisfactorily resolved at that level. These serious concerns only may be directed to the Ombudsman, Michael S. Coalson, ASC/SY Bldg 52, 2475 K St, Suite 1, Wright-Patterson AFB, OH 45433-7642, e-mail coalsoms@sy.wpafb.af.mil, phone (937)-255-9279, Ext. 232. See Note 26. (0079)

Loren Data Corp. http://www.ld.com (SYN# 0002 19970324\A-0002.SOL)