99--BAA - Structural Usage Monitoring and Flight Regime Recognition Algorithm and Methodology Enhancement and Validation

Broad Agency Announcement (BAA) TCBAA-05-0002 Structural Usage Monitoring and Flight Regime Recognition Algorithm and Methodology Enhancement and Validation 1. Background Currently, no rotorcraft HUMS, along with the ground-based station, has been certified by the FAA to provide usage or condition-based monitoring (e.g., health monitoring) for maintenance credits. Certification of a HUMS for maintenance credit purposes is considered to be a complex endeavor. "Maintenance Credit" means to give approval to a HUMS application that adds to, replaces, or intervenes in industry accepted maintenance practices or flight operations. AC 29-2C, Section MG-15, is the only FAA Advisory Circular (AC) providing guidance for HUMS airworthiness approval. Section MG-15 provides guidance for Transport category rotorcraft to achieve airworthiness approval for installation, credit validation, and instructions for continued airworthiness (ICA) for a full range of HUMS applications. The AC establishes an acceptable means, but not the only means of certifying a rotorcraft HUMS regardless of complexity or intended usage to modify maintenance and/or operational actions. Installation approval covers the certification requirements (e.g. hardware and software qualification requirements) for systems and equipment that acquires, stores, processes, and displays HUMS data. The approval also includes the airframe installation or any one of these functions for a particular application. AC 29-2C, Section MG-15, addresses the most complex and extensive HUMS. Less complex systems may be covered by use of only the applicable parts of the AC. In addition, there may be different functional distributions between airborne and ground-based equipment. The requirements of HUMS equipment consists of common criteria; which apply to airborne, ground-based, and installation equipment; plus the unique criteria for airborne and ground based systems. The AC requires that any HUMS applications for which maintenance credits are sought must be validated. Evidence shall be provided to show that the physics involved for each application is understood. This will allow the monitoring technique/algorithm/parameter, rejection criteria, and associated intervention actions to be well chosen. If an approved system is going to be changed, re-evaluation is required to ensure the existing credit(s) are not invalidated. Re-evaluation efforts will vary and depend on the application type, the credit sought, and the degree of failure or malfunction associated with the component/equipment. HUMS applicants are also required to provide the Instructions for Continued Airworthiness developed in accordance with Federal Aviation Requirements (FAR) and Joint Aviation Requirements (JAR), Part 29. An applicant may be the airframe manufacturer, the HUMS OEM, or the aircraft operator. ICA should address the integration of HUMS with the aircraft. The applicant must address the ICA items listed in the AC for airborne and ground-based systems and equipment in addition to FAR/JAR Part 29. Section MG-15 of AC 29-2C was developed by the Rotorcraft Health Usage Monitoring System Advisory Group and first released in 1999. This advisory group consisted of representatives from the FAA Aircraft Certification Services, FAA Aircraft Evaluation Group, U.S. Industry, European Industry, and Joint Airworthiness Authority. This AC was written in a generic manner such that it provides the basic requirements and guidance for certification of HUMS. Since no HUMS have yet to be certified in accordance with this AC on a "maintenance credit" basis, the FAA intends to conduct research to assist in the validation of the certification guidance. Additionally, HUMS research efforts are to develop, validate, and/or demonstrate HUMS operational requirements, applicable technologies including processes; methodologies; and algorithms, and other required information including data to guide the certification of HUMS. The results of this R&D will also allow the FAA to expand the existing guidance by incorporating any lessons learned at the conclusion of the research. 2. Purpose The objective of this BAA is to solicit proposals to enhance and validate advanced structural usage monitoring and regime recognition algorithms and methodologies. Particularly, this effort shall support AC-29-2C, Section MG-15, which can be downloaded using the following link: http://www.airweb.faa.gov/Regulatory_and_Guidance_Library/rgAdvisoryCircular.nsf/MainFrame?OpenFrameSet 3. Submission Deadlines Technical summary proposals shall be prepared according to guidelines described in sections 4 (Submission Requirements) and 5 (Two-Page Technical Summary Requirements). Technical summary proposals will be accepted not later than thirty (30) working days from the date of this announcement or until fiscal year 2005 funding for this effort is fully committed, whichever occurs first. Upon request from the FAA, formal technical proposals addressing the research requirements described in section 6 shall be submitted not more than thirty (30) working days after the date of the request sent by email. FAA's request will be made via email followed up with an official letter. 4. Submission Requirements Offerors will submit two-page technical summaries prior to submitting a formal proposal. The two-page technical summary shall meet the requirements described below. Mail the two-page technical summaries to: FAA William J. Hughes Technical Center Code AAR-480, Building 210 (Attn: D. Le) Atlantic City Int'l Airport, NJ 08405 In addition (not as a substitute for the paper copy), an electronic version of the summary proposal will be emailed to contact@example.gov. The electronic version shall be provided in Microsoft Word or Adobe Acrobat format. Both versions (paper copy and electronic) of the summary proposal must be submitted not later than thirty (30) working days from the date of this announcement and by the close of business (6:00pm EST) on the 30th day to be reviewed and evaluated. Thirty (30) working days or earlier, after receipt of the two-page technical summaries, the FAA will respond to offerors in one of three ways: a. Request for the submission of a formal technical proposal. b. Recommendation to submit a formal technical proposal if certain changes are made or conditions met. c. Rejection of the summary proposal. If requested, the offeror shall submit a formal technical proposal, containing a detailed discussion of the items presented in the selected two-page technical summary. Additionally, the formal technical proposal shall address all or some of the research requirements described in section 6 of this announcement, Formal Proposal Requirements. The formal technical proposal will be mailed to the FAA at the same address as the summary proposal. In addition (not as a substitute for the paper copy), an electronic version of the formal technical proposal will be emailed to contact@example.gov. The FAA shall receive both versions of the formal technical proposals according to the submission deadlines required in section 3 5. Two-Page Technical Summary Requirements There is no specific format for the two page technical summary. The summary may be preceded by a cover letter, but the cover letter will not be considered in the evaluation, nor will pages in excess of two. At a minimum the summary shall contain the following items: a. Affiliation, contact or principal investigator name, phone, and mailing and email addresses. b. The specific purpose/objective of the proposed research applicable to AC-29-2C, Section MG-15. c. Description of the research approach. d. Description of the research outputs and how they will be incorporated in certification using AC-29-2C, Section MG-15. e. Description of the metrics used to measure research performance. f. Description of the current technology level (TRL) of the subject technology being proposed for validation and demonstration and the achieved TRL at the conclusion of the proposed research. Standard TRL, GAO/NSIAD-99-162 Best Practices Appendix I - Technology Readiness Level Descriptions, developed by the General Accounting Office should be used and can be downloaded using the following link: http://www.tswg.gov/tswg/techtrans/TRLDefinitions.pdf g. Description of research exit criteria (e.g., criteria used to determine if the defined objectives of research have been met). h. Estimated time (e.g., years) for the proposed research. i. Estimated funds required for the proposed effort, including in-house and sub-contracted funds. Matching funds or services-in-kind are not required but will be considered positively during technical summary and proposal evaluation. j. Description of research collaborations, if applicable. Collaborations with other research entity (e.g., Government agencies, rotorcraft industry, HUMS suppliers, and academia) are not required but will also be considered positively during technical summary and proposal evaluation. 6. Formal Proposal Requirements When requested by the FAA, formal technical proposals shall address all or some of the following items: a. Proposed structural usage monitoring and flight regime recognition and related technologies including advanced algorithms and methodologies. b. Refinement and validation of algorithms and methodologies for structural usage monitoring and performing regime recognition and estimating gross weight (GW) and center of gravity (CG). c. Usage data collection and storage methodologies and management. d. Flight testing or integration strategies with the FAA flight test program (Health and Usage Monitoring Systems (HUMS) Advisory Circular (AC) Compliance Validation and Demonstration - Structural Usage Monitoring and Flight Regime Recognition). e. Electronic component tracking. f. Details of component usage tracking/monitoring and strain data collection strategies. g. Data Enhancement - Procedures for addressing gaps, unrecognized data, out-of-range data. h. Comparison of actual versus estimated parameters/usages and development of error statistics for use in usage credit and life assessment. i. Physics of proposed credits. j. Statistics and other methods used to calculate credits (e.g., maintenance). k. Establishment of usage quality assurance algorithm. l. Structural usage monitoring credit validation and plan including, e.g., evidences of effectiveness of validated algorithms, acceptance limits, trend setting data, and the demonstration method used. m. Risks related to technology development, demonstration and validation, transfer, and/or implementation shall be identified. The proposal shall include mitigating strategies for each risk area. n. Implementation and technology transfer plan, describing how validated technologies will be used in certification using AC-29-2C, Section MG-15. The proposals that do not include the implementation and technology transfer plan will be considered non-applicable to the above AC and therefore outside the scope of this research program. o. Development of certification compliance report addressing structural usage monitoring and flight regime recognition algorithms and methodologies using HUMS. p. Offerors shall provide a detailed cost proposal. In-house funding including cost matching and/or services-in-kind will be identified in the cost proposal as necessary. All resources including manpower shall also be identified and categorized. q. Offerors shall propose a detailed work plan including milestones and schedules. 7. Method of Evaluation Proposals will be evaluated in the seven technical areas listed in order of decreasing importance: a. Technical merit. b. Utility to AC-29-2C, Section MG-15. c. Investigative team competency and HUMS experience. d. Logical and effective validation, demonstration, and certification implementation strategies. e. Technical and implementation risks and the mitigation plan for each. f. Effective plan for project completion. g. Availability and quality of equipment and facilities. Cost and cost realism will be evaluated as acceptable or unacceptable only. Acceptable proposals will have costs commensurate with the work load proposed and will not be in excess of $209,000 in any fiscal year. 8. Period of Performance: Efforts lasting between one and three years will be considered. Multiyear efforts will be funded in yearly increments, providing measurable and adequate performance is shown prior to each new funding increment.