Request for Information F16 Drag Brace Study

Re: F-16 Landing Gear Bushing and Rigging Fixture Evaluation Introduction The General Services Administration (GSA) is considering a new requirement for an evaluation/ study of F-16 Landing Gear Bushing and Rigging Fixture. The information obtained from this RFI will be used to assist in developing the most suitable acquisition strategy. Furthermore, interested parties will not be reimbursed for any costs related to providing information in response to this RFI. Responses to this RFI are due no later than June 14, 2019 by 12:00 PM Mountain Time. Responses must be sent via email to adina.torberntsson@gsa.gov. If you are interested, but are unable to provide answers to the questions by June 10, 2019 please contact the Contracting Officer stating your interest. The proposed North American Industry Classification System (NAICS) code for these services is 541712, which falls under exception two in which the small business size standard is 1,250 employees. This RFI is meant to achieve the following goals: 1.) To survey the market place to determine what type of firms are available to do this work. 2.) Determine how the work will be carried out. 3.) To gain feedback from industry on proposed methods for the described work. A. General Description of the Services Requested 1.0 BACKGROUND OF REQUIREMENT: The F-16 HW (or post-block 40) MLG drag brace is composed of an upper and lower drag brace, a toggle and link (over-center mechanism), and downlock actuator. The toggle and link constrain the upper and lower drag brace to an over-center position (i.e. geometric eccentricity) with respect to each other so the assembly can resist compression enabling a stable column structure. The original downlock actuator was designed with a redundant two-spring system exerting a 175 lb force to - lock the drag brace assembly for ground operations. Multiple un-commanded HW drag brace collapses have occurred, starting in the 1990s. The reasons for this were initially poorly understood and attributed solely to bushing wear, and phase based recurring bushing wear inspections were subsequently mandated initially via Time Compliance Technical Orders (TCTO) followed up with 1F-16()-6 T.O. inspections (currently at a six-year inspection interval). However, after many years of engineering study and flight test data collection, the phenomenon is now understood to be a dynamic interaction between the wheel and tire spinup-springback sequence and drag brace oscillation; this interaction can result in resonance effects which overcome the downlock actuator spring force. To prevent these collapses, the USAF redesigned the downlock actuator to employ hydraulic force as a primary drag brace locking mechanism while retaining springs to provide secondary locking force. This design is going to be implemented via Time Compliance Technical Order (TCTO) 1F-16-2855 in March 2019. Drag brace rigging to ensure proper over-center eccentricity (for optimum column stability) is done off-aircraft in a rigging fixture. These fixtures are notoriously tight tolerance with drawings containing archaic Geometric Dimensioning and Tolerancing (GD&T) practices, resulting in producibility and Precision Measurement Equipment Laboratory (PMEL) calibration difficulties. Procedures for these rigging fixture measurement and PMEL calibration differ from maintenance procedures for the other fixtures, and maintenance procedures to rig drag braces using the fixtures are difficult to understand. These factors negatively impact maintainability of the landing gear drag brace system. Landing gear maintainability is also affected by the six year busing wear inspections. Every six years, intermediate-level maintainers measure landing gear bushings, and replace bushings (or components not meeting minimum base metal dimensions) as required. When the gear was designed, the USAF purchased Engineering Stress Report data where lug features incorporate a 0.060 material allowance before margins of safety are affected, for installation of oversize bushings. However, the oversize base metal allowances have not generally been incorporated into field repair technical data (intermediate level T.O,s). Since F-16 landing gear components are not depot reparable due to cost, parts found out-of-limits by the field are thrown away; hence components without intermediate T.O. base metal repair data reflecting stress data allowable limits will be condemned. Disposal of parts with available material which could have been safely repaired to install oversize bushings represents service life waste and also places inflated logistics demand on the USAF supply system. 1.1 ORGANIZATION BEING SUPPORTED: Air National Guard Utah 2.0. SPECIFIC REQUIREMENTS 1.0 PRIMARY OBJECTIVES The purpose of this task is to seek engineering services to develop recommendations to improve maintainability of the F-16 landing gear system. Engineering recommendations representing significant departures from existing processes and/or equipment must be accompanied by strong rationale and system safety assessment(s). 2.0 REQUIREMENTS The contractor will consider the effect of the redesigned HW MLG downlock actuator implementation and use static and/or dynamic modeling, analysis and laboratory test methods to evaluate current inspection practices. The contractor shall recommend changes to existing dimensions and procedures, with supporting rationale. Recommendations will have the objective of reducing field maintenance burdens such as increasing inspection intervals, increasing service wear limits, altering or eliminating mid-phase wear checks, and expanding field (intermediate) level repair capability, if possible. Deliverables: 1) HW MLG Drag Brace Inspection Practice Engineering Recommendations Report 2) System Safety Evaluation (SSE) for Recommended Inspection Changes 2.1 TASK 2 - DRAG BRACE RIGGING RECOMMENDATIONS The contractor will perform a comprehensive review of current means of achieving on-aircraft drag brace overcenter rigging, and will recommend improved or new procedures and/or equipment (including calibration TO data if applicable) for the Lightweight (LW) and HW MLG and Nose Landing Gear (NLG). These recommendations will have the objective of reducing field maintenance demands, as well as increasing rigging equipment manufacturability, maintainability, and calibration/inspection pass rates. The following documents apply to this Task Order (TO): 1. Rig fixture dwgs AF2006500X117-1-1, AF2006000X133-1-1, AF2007500X107-1-1 and AF2007000X111-1-1 2. Drag Brace Rigging Fixture Calibration T.O.s. 33K6-4-3001-1, 33K6-4-3004-1, 33K6-4-3008-1, and 33K6-4-3010-1 3. T.O. 44H1-1-153, Limited Repair and Maintenance of Miscellaneous Equipment Deliverables: 1) Engineering Recommendations Report, Drag Brace Rigging and Equipment 2) Drag Brace Rigging and Equipment Recommendation System Safety Evaluation (SSE) 2.2 TASK 3 - TECHNICAL ORDER (T.O.) INSPECTION DATA The contractor shall compare bushing base metal allowable dimensions in design stress documents with same location intermediate and depot TO data for all current configurations pre-block 40 or LW and HW MLG and NLG assemblies. The contractor shall identify locations where bushing base metal design allowable oversize dimensions have not been incorporated into Technical Orders and recommend location and dimensional data for inclusion in Depot and Intermediate TOs. In addition, the contractor will assess the consistency of bushing bore and base metal service wear allowable limits between depot and intermediate T.O.s and recommend dimensions to reconcile the difference between manuals. These data will be tabulated for each of the Intermediate and Depot TOs referenced below. The following documents apply to this Task Order (TO): 1. Menasco Report TSR022, Nose Landing Gear Stress Analysis 2. Menasco Report TSR021, Main Landing Gear Stress Analysis 3. 16PR12308, Stress Analysis of F-16 A/B Block 20 4. 16PR7642 Change 1, Stress Analysis of Block 40/42 F-16C/D Nose Landing Gear 5. 16PR7643, Stress Analysis of Block 40/42 F-16 C/D Main Landing Gear 6. TO 4S2-80-12/13/14 Intermediate/Depot Maintenance Instructions/IPB for F-16 NLG Drag Brace PN 2006500-111 7. TOs 4S2-80-2/3/4, Intermediate/Depot Maintenance Instructions and Illustrated Parts Breakdown (IPB) for F-16 NLG Shock Strut PN 2006600-169 8. TOs 4SA6-32-2/3/4 Intermediate/Depot Maintenance Instructions/IPB for F-16 MLG Drag Brace PN 2006000-133 9. TOs 4S1-126-2/3/4 Intermediate/Depot Maintenance Instructions/IPB for F-16 MLG Shock Strut PN 2006100-123 10. TOs 4S1-109-2/3/4 Intermediate/Depot Maintenance Instructions/IPB for F-16 MLG Tension Strut PN 2006000-136 11. TOs 4SA6-38-2/3/4 Intermediate/Depot Maintenance Instructions/IPB for F-16 NLG Drag Brace PN 2007500-107 12. TOs 4S2-87-2/3/4, Intermediate/Depot Maintenance Instructions and Illustrated Parts Breakdown (IPB) for F-16 NLG Shock Strut PN 2007600-107 13. TOs 4SA6-39-2/3/4 Intermediate/Depot Maintenance Instructions/IPB for F-16 MLG Drag Brace PN 2007000-111 and 201416726 14. TOs 4S1-115-2/3/4 Intermediate/Depot Maintenance Instructions/IPB for F-16 MLG Shock Strut PN 965595-50 15. TOs 4S1-116-2/3/4 Intermediate/Depot Maintenance Instructions/IPB for F-16 MLG Tension Strut PN 2007000-108 Deliverables: 1) Engineering Report, Recommendations for Updated landing gear T.O. Bushing and Base Metal Inspection Data 2.3 TASK 4 - DRAG BRACE RIGGING FIXTURES (OPTIONAL) Based on the results of task 2, the contractor will design and manufacture drag brace rigging fixtures/equipment. The rigging fixtures will include manufacturing tolerances, and calibration wear limit tolerances. The contractor will complete a validation/verification on the drag brace rigging fixtures. Deliverables: 1) Drag Brace Rigging Fixture Drawings and Technical Order Data 2) Four Drag Brace Rigging Fixture prototypes (1 ea for HW and LW MLG and NLG) 3) Drag Brace Rigging Fixture Validation/Verification Report B. Responses from Industry Responses and input from interested parties is requested. In responding to this RFI please provide the following information: 1. A two to three page (2-3) summary of your company's services. 2. Answers for all of the questions listed below. The answers are in addition to the overall summary of the type of services your company provides. 3. Response to the following questions limiting your total response to up to 15 pages (8.5'x11, Times New Roman font, size 12). ? C. Questions for Industry Please include your company name, address, point of contact, telephone number, email address, and size of your organization using NAICS 541712 as the basis of your response. 1. Is the above description of the requirement understood as to what would be asked of your company regarding the tasks described? 2. Any suggestions as to how to make the above description requirement more clear? 3. Does your company hold a Secret or Top Secret Clearance? If yes, would your company also be able to provide personnel capable of obtaining an Air Force CAC card? 6. Is your company able to perform the tests on location at Hill Air Force Base? If you have your own testing facility please provide that information. 7. How many years of experience does your company have with similar projects? 8. What are the best practices or lessons learned based on your experience that you feel are important and applicable to the solicitation. 9. If subcontracting, which services listed in section A, of this RFI need to be subcontracted? 10. Are there any concerns with purchasing the grab brace, and other materials for the evaluation, in terms of being compliant with the Buy American Act? 11. What socio-economic category does your business identify as? (Hubzone, 8A, Women Owned Small Business, Veteran Owned Small Business, etc.). 12. Describe how you would address quality control in this type of contract, and how you mitigate impact to performance? 13. As a non-severable service procurement, what tactics would you use to ensure timely delivery of the requested tasks? 13. Briefly describe any teaming arrangements that you may have been involved in that may be relevant to the scope of services in this RFI. How were responsibilities distributed amongst them, and how was the team held accountable? 14. Briefly describe the qualifications of key personnel that you would use to work on the described tasks.