99--Broad Agency Announcement (BAA) TCBAA-06-0001 Rotorcraft Damage Tolerance (RCDT) for Metallic Materials

This BAA has been edited to change the following under section (7): Acceptable proposals will have costs commensurate with the work load proposed and will not be in excess of $300,000 in any fiscal year. ****************************************************************************** Broad Agency Announcement (BAA) TCBAA-06-0001 Rotorcraft Damage Tolerance (RCDT) For Metallic Materials 1. Background The FAA is currently considering the damage tolerance requirement for rotorcraft structures and dynamic components. While the damage tolerance methodology has been extensively and successfully used in fix-wing aircraft structures, rotorcraft has just begun to use it in addition to the safe-life approach. Generally, safe-life, in flight hours, is experimentally determined using the mission profile, flight loads, and S-N data. Using Miner's cumulative fatigue damage rule, a fatigue damage rate for each flight condition is typically calculated by assessing the damaging load cycles per hour from the flight spectrum and loads data, the ratio of the alternating load to the endurance limit, and the cycles-to-failure from a standard component S-N curve. A reciprocal summation of each fatigue damage rate for each flight condition then determines the retirement life of the part being analyzed. In contrast to safe-life, the damage tolerance (DT) approach assumes that an inherent flaw or crack exists in the manufactured part. The life of the part is determined using fracture mechanics methodologies, load spectrum, manufacturing process and operating environment. Based on the computed crack growth life of the inherent flaw or crack, suitable inspection intervals are established so that cracks can be found and repaired long before they achieve a critical length. The effectiveness of the damage tolerance approach depends on several factors that include fatigue crack growth data, initial crack sizes, fracture mechanics and computational methods, effects of shot-peening and cold working, and inspection techniques. The success of implementing the damage tolerance approach to fixed-wing aircraft structures, coupled with the FAA's goal to enhance aircraft safety has lead to RCDT research and development (R&D) efforts for rotorcraft. In 2005, the FAA assessed the current state of RCDT and fracture mechanics technologies. During the assessment, the FAA asked the rotorcraft community for their inputs on fracture mechanics and RCDT-related technologies. The FAA then conducted the gap analysis to identify research needs for supporting FAA rulemaking. Identified RCDT research tasks were then prioritized using the FAA prioritization process and criteria. Finally, a roadmap for RCDT was developed to guide the research to support FAA rulemaking and the implementation of RCDT requirement. 2. Purpose The objective of this BAA is to solicit proposals to conduct the RCDT research to support FAA rulemaking. Particularly, this effort shall support FAR 29.571, 27.571, AC 29-2A, AC 27-1A, AC-29-2C, FAA Order 8110.9 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 until fiscal year 2006 (FY-06) funding for the RCDT effort is fully committed. Offerors are therefore encouraged to submit the technical summary proposal as soon as they can before FY-06 funding is fully committed or exhausted. 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 only. 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 300 (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. Submitted electronic proposals shall not have any security protection requiring the FAA to obtain a password or an authorization from the offeror prior to opening the proposal or file. The FAA will not review submitted proposals having a security protection. 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 in Microsoft Word shall be emailed to contact@example.gov. Submitted electronic proposals shall not have any security protection requiring the FAA to obtain a password or an authorization from the offeror prior to opening the proposal or file. The FAA will not review submitted proposals having a security protection. The FAA shall receive both versions of the formal technical proposals according to the submission deadlines required in section 3. Formal proposals shall not exceed 50 pages. 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 FAA rulemaking on RCDT. c. Description of the research approach. d. Description of research outputs and how they will be incorporated in RCDT regulations. 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. j. Description of research collaborations, if applicable. Collaborations with other research entity (e.g., Government agencies, rotorcraft industry, 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 approaches: a. Advancement of rotorcraft component stress distribution calculation and analysis. b. Development of initial flaw/crack size state (equivalent initial flaw/crack size) and methodology. c. Enhancement, validation, and technology transfer of fracture mechanics and computational methodologies for rotorcraft design and certification. d. Enhancement, validation, and incorporation of fatigue crack growth models into fatigue life prediction algorithms or codes. e. Development, validation, and incorporation of risk assessment and probabilistic methods to address uncertainties in rotorcraft design, maintenance, and inspection. f. Validation and incorporation of fatigue life enhancement techniques and models into fatigue life prediction methods, algorithms, or codes. g. Demonstration of the RCDT approach for certification compliance by conducting the DT analysis and full-scaled component testing implementing developed RCDT and fracture mechanics methods. h. 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. The proposals that do not include risks and mitigation strategies will be considered non-applicable and therefore outside the scope of this research program. i. Implementation and technology transfer plan to describe how validated technologies will be used in applicable regulations. The proposals that do not include the implementation and technology transfer plan will be considered non-applicable and therefore outside the scope of this research program. j. Offerors shall provide a detailed cost proposal. All resources including manpower, equipment, and material shall also be identified and categorized. k. Offerors shall propose a detailed work plan including milestones and schedules for the proposed period of performance. 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 RCDT regulations c. Investigative team competency and RCDT 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 $250,000 in any fiscal year. 8. Period of Performance: Efforts lasting five years or less will be considered. Multiyear efforts will be funded in yearly increments, providing measurable and adequate performance is shown prior to each new funding increment. 9. Award: Awards will be made on rolling basis and according to the submission deadlines required in section 3.