United States - REQUEST FOR INFORMATION FOR UH-60 FLIGHT CONTROL COMPUTER (FCC)

Description

Added: Apr 03, 2019 3:01 pm

   

REQUEST FOR INFORMATION FOR UH-60 FLIGHT CONTROL COMPUTER

Date: 3 April 2019

Response Due Date: 22 May 2019 by 11:00 AM US Central Daylight Time

Email: Correspond directly with the POCs delineated in paragraph 5.4. Questions submitted by a method other than email will not be accepted or answered. Please ensure your email response has "RFI for Prototype UH-60M FCC Development Program for Rapid Software Change and Reduced Obsolescence Impact" in the subject line.  Responses to this RFI shall be submitted IAW paragraph 5.0 below.

Issued by: This Request for Information (RFI) is being issued by Army Contracting Command in support of the Utility Helicopters Project Office (UHPO).

Disclaimer.  THIS IS A REQUEST FOR INFORMATION ONLY. This RFI is issued solely for information and planning purposes - it does not constitute a Request for Proposal (RFP) or a promise to issue an RFP in the future. This request for information does not commit the Government to contract for any supply or service whatsoever. Further, the Army is not seeking proposals at this time and will not accept unsolicited proposals. Responders are advised that the U.S. Government will not pay for any information, discussions, or administrative costs incurred in response to this RFI; all costs associated with responding to this RFI will be solely at the interested party's expense. Not responding to this RFI does not preclude participation in any future RFP, if an RFP is issued.  No solicitation exists; therefore, do not request a copy of the solicitation.  

 Table of Contents
(Please see attached PDF file entitled FCC Request For Information 3 Apr 2019_FBO)
Acronyms ... 2
1.0 Description ... 4
2.0 Background ... 4
3.0 Use of Proprietary or Confidential Data ... 5

4.0 Requested Information ... 5
5.0 Responses ... 7
6.0 Industry Discussions ... 8
7.0 Questions ... 8
8.0 Appendices ... 8
Appendix A -Prototype UH-60M FCC Architecture ...10
Appendix B -Prototype UH-60M FCC Development Program Milestones, Expected Deliverables and Top Level Schedule ...11

1.  Schedule ...11

2.  Prototype UH-60M FCC Development Program Proposed Milestones (12 units - 6 kits) ...11

3.  Expected Deliverables ...12

4.  Technical Reviews ...14

5.  First Flight Qualification Testing ...14

6.  Logistics Documentation ...15

7.  Reliability, Maintainability and Sustainability ...15

8.  Software Development and Testing ...15

9.  Safety Requirements ...16

Appendix C - Specific questions requested to be addressed ...17

Appendix D - First Flight Qualification Requirements ...21

Appendix F - Government Support Contractors ...25

Acronyms

AED - Aviation Engineering Directorate
ARO - After Receipt of Order
AWR - Air Worthiness Release
CDRL - Contract Data Requirements List
DAL - Design Assurance Level

EMI - Electromagnetic Interference
FACEä - Future Airborne Capability Environment
FCC - Flight Control Computer
FHA - Functional Hazard Assessment
FMECA - Failure Modes, Effects, and Criticality Analysis
FTA - Fault Tree Analysis
FW - Firmware
GPR - Government Purpose Rights
HOST - Hardware Open Systems Technology
HW - Hardware
IAS - Integrated Avionics Suite
ICD - Interface Control Drawing
MBSE - Model Based System Engineering
MWO - Modification Work Order
NDA - Non-Discloser Agreement
PCA - Physical Configuration Audit
PCR - Problem Change Report
POC - Point Of Contact
PSAC - Plan for Software Aspects of Certification
RFI - Request for Information
RFP - Request for Proposal
ROM - Rough Order of Magnitude
SIL - System Integration Lab
SOF - Safety of Flight
SW - Software

UHPO - Utility Helicopters Project Office 

1.0  Description

UHPO is seeking information on a replacement for the UH-60M Black Hawk Flight Control Computer (FCC). UHPO is beginning to plan for the development of a new prototype FCC for the UH-60M/V to include a new architecture and program plan. The goal of the replacement FCC is to improve functional capabilities and to reduce the obsolescence impact facing the existing UH-60M FCCs.  Additionally, the new UH-60M FCC may be integrated into the UH-60V to enable common handling qualities and integrate UH-60M fully coupled flight director functionality by replacing the UH-60L flight control system and interfacing with the Integrated Avionics Suite (IAS) for the UH-60V.

The UH-60M Flight Control Computer (FCC) is a digital computer that provides the Stabilator, Stability Augmentation System (SAS), trim, flight path stabilization (FPS), and Flight Director Functions of the AFCS. The SAS function provides aircraft body rate damping in pitch, roll, yaw and collective. The trim system maintains stick trim in pitch, roll, yaw and collective through the respective trim actuators. The FPS function maintains helicopter flight path through control of attitudes, heading, and lateral acceleration. The Flight Director provides pitch, roll and collective steering to various guidance commands.

THIS IS A REQUEST FOR INFORMATION ONLY to identify sources that can provide information in support of the Prototype UH-60M FCC Development Program. The information provided in the RFI is subject to change and is not binding on the Government. The Army has not made a commitment to procure any of the items discussed, and release of this RFI should not be construed as such a commitment or as authorization to incur cost for which reimbursement would be required or sought. All submissions become Government property and will not be returned.

The UHPO will accept NO LESS THAN GOVERNMENT PURPOSE RIGHTS (GPR) for all data, hardware and software elements of the UH‑60M replacement FCC including the prototypes built under a potential future RFP. The UHPO requires access to the existing documentation to commercially certified DO-178 B/C operating systems, or FAA certified Flight management systems in order to obtain AED approval for use.

2.0  Background

The UH-60M FCC has obsolescence issues, therefore the Government is considering new hardware and software architecture that supports more rapid change in flight control laws and interfaces with more existing sensors required for implementation of advanced flight control laws. The new prototype hardware and software architecture would need to maintain relevance and improve the Government's ability to more rapidly modernize control laws to meet mission needs and address obsolescence issues affordably. 
 
UHPO is working to develop the requirements for Flight Control hardware and software that enables rapid capability insertion via software changes and addresses obsolescence issues by adopting Modular Open System Architecture (MOSA). Development of these requirements will form the basis of a prototype hardware and software architecture that may serve as a functional prototype replacement of the UH-60M FCC while at the same time interfacing with sensors and interfaces required for the implementation of advanced flight control laws. The prototype UH-60M FCC hardware may be integrated into the UH-60V to enable common aircraft handling qualities and integrate UH-60M fully coupled flight director functionality by replacing the UH-60L automatic flight control system and interfacing with the IAS for the UH-60V.  The prototype FCC may require a software solution capable of compatibility with both the UH-60M and the UH-60V Avionics Systems.

3.0  Use of Proprietary or Confidential Data

Responses must be unclassified and any Proprietary information provided must be marked accordingly.  To protect proprietary data, each line or paragraph on the pages containing such data must be specifically identified and marked with a legend. 
 
It is not UHPO's intent to publicly disclose vendor proprietary information obtained during this solicitation. To the full extent that it is protected pursuant to the Freedom of Information Act and other laws and regulations, information identified by a respondent as "Proprietary or Confidential" will be kept confidential. Proprietary information, if any, should be minimized and MUST BE CLEARLY MARKED. To aid the Government, please segregate proprietary information. Please be advised that all submissions become Government property and will not be returned.

4.0  Requested Information
 
Requirements have been developed for a functionally similar prototype for the UH-60M FCC that incorporates internal hardware and software architecture enhancements to enable rapid software change and reduces the obsolescence impact of hardware components.  All existing UH-60M functions of the current FCC remain with some additional functionality to support flight director and advanced flight control laws integrity following failure of a single FCC.  The prototype UH-60M FCC will be developed to integrate with the IAS architecture of the UH-60V to enable common handling qualities and fully coupled flight director functionality nearly identical to that of the UH-60M. 

The intent of the prototype UH-60M FCC is to implement an open system architecture using Future Airborne Capability Environment (FACEä) standard for software and employ the tenants of Hardware Open Systems Technology (HOST) to reduce the impacts of obsolescence. 

An overview of the hardware and software architecture is contained in Appendix A.  Upon completion of the prototype UH-60M FCC development effort, the UHPO may use the prototype hardware and software data to execute a program to procure a replacement FCC for the UH-60M to address obsolescence issues as well as integrate the new FCC into the UH-60V to enable the fully coupled flight director functionality and improved handling qualities in the UH-60V.

UHPO is providing this RFI and inviting industry to supply information on their capabilities and interest in design and implementation of the software and hardware for the Prototype UH-60M FCC Development Program based on the new FCC Architecture.

To assist UHPO in conducting a market survey of potential developers, interested parties shall review all appendices to this RFI prior to developing their response.

Through this RFI, UHPO would like to obtain Rough Order Magnitude (ROM) cost and schedule estimates for the execution of the UH-60M FCC Development Program from potential vendors who have experience with the development of flight critical avionics/flight control hardware and software. This data will be used solely to inform the UHPO for internal budgetary planning purposes and will not be used to pre-select or rank potential suppliers for any future procurement.  The overview of Milestones, Deliverables and Top level schedule is shown in Appendix B.  A detailed architecture model of the Prototype UH-60M FCC can be obtained following the instructions in Appendix A.  Both should be utilized to develop the ROM for the Prototype UH-60M FCC Development Program.

5.0  Responses

5.1 Interested parties are requested to respond to this RFI with completed versions of Appendix C and Appendix D, if applicable.  Additional material (brochures and other media), regarding the technical specifications and demonstrated performance of the proposed system, provided by interested parties is encouraged, but not required.

5.2 To consolidate our planning, responses from industry are requested by 22 May 2019, in the form of written estimates for development costs and schedule, assumptions used for cost and schedule estimates including interface and design recommendations/assumptions, and descriptions of capabilities. Vendors should address all questions provided in Appendix C as part of their response.  Recommendations by the vendor for improved model definition or design are welcome. Responses and technical or procurement questions, if under 10MB, should be directed via email to the points-of-contact (POCs) listed in paragraph 5.4 of this RFI. The subject line of the submission should be "RFI for Prototype UH-60M FCC Development Program for Rapid Software Change and Reduced Obsolescence Impact" and appendices should be in Microsoft WORD, POWERPOINT, or PDF format. The email text must give a POC and provide his/her name, address, telephone/fax numbers, and email address. If submission exceeds the 10MBs, please use https://safe.amrdec.army.mil/safe.  Please note:
•·         SAFE supports file sizes up to 2GB
•·         SAFE is not for personal use and is to be used only in direct support of your job function.
•·         SAFE is for UNCLASSIFIED data only to include PII and FOUO.
•·         Files will be available for two (2) days after upload.
•·         Contact the intended recipient(s) before submitting a package to ensure they are available to receive the file(s).
•·         You and your organization will be held accountable for non-compliant activity on SAFE. 
5.3  The US Government support contractors identified at Appendix E will assist in the review of any data provided by respondents to this RFI.  If the responses include proprietary data, complete evaluations of such responses will not be possible unless respondents execute non-disclosure agreements (NDA) with these contractors.  If additional support contractors are to be utilized during the assessment process, respondents will be notified to obtain necessary agreements. 
Respondents who submit proprietary data with their responses.  All information will be handled by US Government as procurement sensitive information subject to the protections, restrictions and requirements set forth in FAR 3.104. 
  
5.4  Responses to this RFI shall be emailed to both of the following POCs: 
lynn.w.lewis.civ@mail.mil

virginia.m.adkins.civ@mail.mil

6.0  Industry Discussions 

UHPO may choose to meet or correspond with potential interested parties who submit responses to this RFI. Such discussions will take place approximately two weeks after receiving the RFI response.  These follow up meetings are intended to obtain further clarification to the RFI responses in order to properly determine the potential to meet the requirements/capability or any system integration risks.

7.0  Questions

Questions regarding this announcement shall be submitted in writing by e-mail to both the POCs in paragraph 5.4. Verbal questions will NOT be accepted. Questions will be answered by email; accordingly, questions shall NOT contain proprietary or classified information.

8.0  Appendices 

•Ø  Appendix A - Overview of the prototype UH-60M FCC Architecture. The architecture will be delivered as an HTML file created from a Sparx Systems Enterprise Architect Model for reference in the development of each industry member's response to this RFI. It is expected that the prototype UH-60M FCC development will be based upon a Model Based procurement.  This data will be provided after receiving a completely filled out and signed DD Form 2345.

•Ø  Appendix B - A top-level schedule for the Prototype UH-60M FCC Development Program, as well as the Milestones and CDRLs.

•Ø  Appendix C -The prototype UH-60M FCC Questionnaire that contains a list of specific questions requested to be addressed as part of the RFI response.

•Ø  Appendix D -First Flight Requirements.  This section is provided for reference only and to be used for estimating the effort required to achieve airworthiness release

•Ø  Appendix E - Government Support Contractors

Appendix A - Prototype UH-60M

In order to receive the overview of the Prototype UH-60M FCC architecture please submit an email request with a fully completed DD Form 2345 Military Critical Technical Data Agreement. A link to DD Form 2345 is below:

http://www.dla.mil/Portals/104/Documents/InformationOperations/LogisticsInformationServices/Logistics%20Applications/J6_dd2345_170629.pdf
Do not mail the DD2345 information to the U.S./Canada Joint Certification Office, DLA Logistics Information Service. The information shall be e-mailed to the POCs identified in paragraph 5.4 of the RFI.
Once this information is received and the respondent's information is verified, the respondent will receive an HTML copy of the UH-60M FCC Architecture via AMRDEC SAFE Site.

Appendix B -Prototype UH-60M FCC Development Program Milestones, Expected Deliverables and Top Level Schedule

1.  Schedule

The Prototype UH-60M FCC Development Program requires a top level schedule for design, engineering, fabrication, testing and delivery of all FCC hardware and software, component and integration testing to support flight test approval, delivery of data items, and support of flight test with enough detail to identify major milestone durations of the development process through completion of development flight test. The schedule should identify any assumptions made. Vendors should identify if their approach plans to use commercial off the shelf equipment and verify that the vendor will provide the Government with no less than GPR data rights as part of the effort.

It is anticipated that four prototype FCCs and associated wiring kits will be required for environmental and electromagnetic interference (EMI) hardware testing, four FCCs and associated wiring kits will be required for software testing, and four FCCs with associated wiring kits will be required for developmental flight test, Physical Configuration Audit (PCA) and other tests. Software upgrades for the UH-60M will be evaluated in the UH-60M System Integration Lab (SIL) to demonstrate software performance and functionality with the IAS. Wiring modifications for the UH-60V are part of a separate program effort and other tests.

2.  Prototype UH-60M FCC Development Program Proposed Milestones (12 units - 6 kits) 

Anticipated Award                                                              FY 2020                          System Requirements Review/Systems Functional Review      1 mo ARO
Preliminary Design Review                                                       6 mo ARO
Critical Design Review                                                            13 mo ARO
Test Readiness Review                                                           25 mo ARO
Aircraft Modifications Complete                                               34 mo ARO
Safety of Flight Airworthiness Release                                   36 mo ARO
Flight Test Complete                                                              44 mo ARO
System Verification Review                                                    46 mo ARO
Final Technical Data Package Delivery                                   48 mo ARO

3.  Expected Deliverables

The following deliverables are expected once the contract is awarded as part of the UH-60M Prototype FCC Development Program effort. This list is for planning purposes and may change slightly.

1.  System/Subsystem Specification

2.  System/Subsystem Design Description

3.  Interface Control Documents

4.  Full traceability of all system requirements in DOORS-compatible format including
the identification of safety critical requirements

5.  Failure Modes Effects and Criticality Analysis (FMECA)

6.  Design Assurance Level for Hardware and Software Components based upon the System Level Functional Hazard Assessment (FHA) IAW SAE ARP-4754A and ARP-4761 allocated to the prototype FCC

7.  Fault Tree Analysis (FTA) IAW SAE ARP-4761 for the prototype FCC

8.  Qualification Test Plans, Procedures and Reports for Environmental and EMI Testing in accordance with RTCA/DO-160, MIL-STD-810 and MIL-STD-461.

9.  All software artifacts required by DO-178C as applicable including Plan for Software Aspects of Certification (PSAC), Software Product Specification (SPS), Software Requirements Specification (SRS), Interface Requirements Specification (IRS), Interface Control Document (ICD), Interface Design Description (IDD), Software Development Documents (SDD), Software Development Plan (SDP), Software Verification Description (SVD), Software Verification Plan (SVP), Software Configuration Management Plan (SCMP), Software Qualification Assurance Plan (SQAP), Software Installation Plan (SIP), Software Test Description (STD), Control Law Diagrams and Autocoding Tools, Software Traceability, Software FMECA, Hazard Analysis, Software Verification Report (SVR), Software Change Impact Analysis, Test Coverage and Structural Coverage Analysis based upon the Design Assurance Level (DAL) of the Software Component Software Configuration Items (CSCIs), Problem Reports and Problem Change Reports, Software Life Cycle Environment Configuration Index (SECI), Software Configuration Index (SCI), Software Configuration Management Records (SCMR), Software Quality Assurance Records (SQAR), Software

Accomplishment Summary (SAS)

10.  Software Tool Qualification Plan and Report

11.  Software Tool Configuration Management Plan

12.  Software Tool Operational Requirements Specification

13.  Software Tool Verification and Validation Cases

14.  Software Tool Verification and Validation Reports

15.  Software Tool Accomplishment Summary

16.  Software Tool Installation Report

17.  Software Tool Quality Assurance Records

18.  Software Tool Life Cycle Environmental Configuration

Index

19.  All hardware artifacts required by DO-254 as applicable including PSAC, Hardware/Firmware Design Plan (HDP), Hardware/Firmware Validation Plan (HVP), Hardware/Firmware Validation Procedures, Hardware/Firmware Validation Plan, Hardware/Firmware Verification Procedures, Hardware/Firmware Verification Report, Hardware/Firmware Version Description, Hardware/Firmware Traceability Data, Hardware/Firmware Validation Report (HVR), Hardware/Firmware Tool Qualification, Hardware/Firmware/ Software Interface Control Document (FICD), Hardware/Firmware Drawings, Hardware/Firmware Integration Laboratory Test Report, Hardware/Firmware Problem Reports/Problem Change Reports, Hardware/Firmware Configuration Management Records (HCMR), Hardware/Firmware Process/Quality Assurance Records (HQAR), Hardware/Firmware Accomplishment Summary (HAS), Hardware/Firmware requirement Specifications (HRS).

20.  Electrical Load Analysis

21.  Electromagnetic Environmental Effects (E3) Integration and Analysis Report (E3IA Report)

22.  Acceptance Test Plan and Report

23.  Corrosion Prevention Control Plan

24.  Electrical Performance Test Plans and Reports

25.  Bill of Materials (BOM)

26.  Component Drawings - Mechanical, Electrical and Wiring Schematic and Installation

27.  SIL Plans and Procedures, SIL Report, Fault Simulation and Introduction, and Common Mode Multiple Signal Failure

28.  Presentation charts and Minutes for all Reviews

29.  Logistics Documentation including ILS Guidance conference, ILS design Review entrance and exit criteria, Maintenance Task Analysis (MTA), Sources data for LORAMTA, Level of repair analysis, Provisioning Technical Documentation, Provisioning Parts List (PPL), USG and Federal Specs, Common and Bulk Items, Reference Number Category Code (RNCC), Reference Number Variation Code (RNVC), Repair Kit/Spares, J&K Cards, Provisioning and Other Pre-Procurement Screening Data, Engineering Data for Provisioning (EDFP), Maintenance Allocation Chart (MAC),Functional Group Codes (FGC), Provisioning Conference, Publications, Repair Parts and Special Tools List (RPSTL), Logistic Management Information (LMI), Critical Safety items 9CSI), Source Materials, (RPSTL), Publication Validation/Verification, Depot Maintenance Work Requirement (DMWR), Modification Work Order (MWO), Training Operator/Maintenance, Preservation and Packaging and Wire Data List

30.  Weight and Balance Report

31.  Cyber Security and Information Assurance Plan and Report

32.  Flight Test Plan and Report

4. Technical Reviews

The UH-60M Prototype FCC Development Program is expected to complete the following technical reviews for both hardware and software aspects of the system: System Requirements Review/ System Functional Review, Preliminary Design Review, Critical Design Review, Test Readiness Review, and System Verification Review. Software SOI audits will also be scheduled when appropriate.

5.  First Flight Qualification Testing

The UH-60M Prototype FCC Development Program must meet all of the First Flight safety requirements called out in Appendix D. Test plans, procedures and reports are all expected to be completed and delivered to the Aviation Engineering Directorate for review and approval. Development of an Airworthiness Substantiation Report based upon the First Flight testing is expected.

6.  Logistics Documentation

The Contractor ILS manager shall coordinate all logistics related functions identified in AR 700-127 between the USG logistics agencies and Contractor logistic element management (LEM) counterparts. This coordination shall include participation and conduct of IPT's, support of the PDR/CDR, support, review and approval ECP functional input, monitoring and scheduling of all logistics and training activities or conferences. The Contractor shall also provide continuous liaison with the USG ILS, readiness and fleet management and technical management division team.

7.  Reliability, Maintainability and Sustainability

The Contractor shall provide its reliability and maintainability predictions with the analysis and substantiating data to support its predictions. The analysis shall be developed in accordance with MIL-HDBK 217F as appropriate. The Contractor shall use any historical component data, making adjustments to reflect operating environment/mission profile, and incorporate all known component data and substantiated reliability estimates in similar operating environments/mission profiles. It is expected that reliability and maintainability deliverables will include but not limited to Failure Mode, Effects, and Criticality Analysis (FMECA) and Reliability and Maintainability Predictions and Allocations.

8.  Software Development and Testing

Software developed for the operation of the FCC shall be at a minimum aligned with the FACE 2.1 technical standard and the vendor shall provide the FACE environment inclusive of the Transport System Layer (TSS), and Platform Specific Layer (PSS). Software and Firmware are expected to be developed and tested in accordance with DO-178C and DO-254, respectively, to include the delivery of all artifacts commensurate with the design assurance level of the FCC which is expected to be either DAL A or B for the flight critical functions of the FCC. Vendors should specify their assumptions if lower DAL levels are considered as part of their cost estimates and associated schedules. Vendors should specify which software development and testing efforts are planned to be completed in the development effort if different than those specified in the Expected deliverable section of this appendix.

9.  Safety Requirements

Safety documentation shall be developed in accordance with SAE ARP 4761,SAE ARP 4754A and MIL-STD-882E. A functional hazard assessment for the aircraft functions associated with the FCC is contained in Appendix E. It is expected that safety deliverables will include the development of a preliminary hazards list, functional hazard assessment of the FCC, Preliminary System Safety Assessment, System Safety Assessment, Dependency Diagrams, Markov Analysis, Fault Trees, Common Cause Analysis including Particular Risks Analysis (PRA), Common Mode Analysis (CMA), and Zonal Safety Analysis (ZSA) and Safety Assessment Report, etc.

Appendix C - Specific questions requested to be addressed

1.  Are you willing to provide no less than Government Purpose Rights for the hardware and software elements of the program required to implement the architecture outlined in Appendix A? Are you willing to allow UHPO access to the artifacts necessary to commercially certify DO-178 B/C operating systems, or FAA certified Flight management systems in order to obtain AED approval for use? If you are not able to provide GPR for the software and hardware on the system, then please identify what data or software or hardware you believe will be difficult to provide the Government with GPR.

2.  Provide ROM cost and schedule estimate that supports the architecture contained in Appendix A and the overall development effort called out in Appendix B?

3.  Based upon your cost and schedule, what percent of the proposed hardware is new?

4.  Can you meet milestones shown in Appendix B? If not, what are more realistic milestones based upon your schedule?

5.  Describe how the proposed architecture addresses obsolescence through open system architecture approaches (HOST, POSIX, etc...) and how you plan to address product changes and hardware lifecycle management.

6.  Does your design incorporate MultiCore Processors and if so address how your offer intends to meet CAST-32A Issue Paper.

7.  What is your experience with FACE and the development of software using the FACE Standards? Is your architecture FACE compliant and, if so, to which version of FACE?

8.  What is your experience with Model Based System Engineering (MBSE) and what deliverables would you propose being delivered as part of the model as opposed to being delivered using text based deliverables?

9.  What MBSE tools do you have experience with and what tools do you intend to use for the development effort to show compliance with the architecture provided? Will the output of your tool be compatible with MagicDraw 19? What is your experience with HOST and the development of hardware using HOST principles?

10.  What is your experience with the implementation and certification of flight control laws, Flight Director and Autopilot functions within flight critical hardware components?

11.  What is your experience with safety-critical hardware and software development?

12.  What is your experience with certifying flight critical hardware and software applications for the US Army? Other services or civilian helicopter?

13.  Do you intend to use any subcontractors? If yes, specify why they are required and who you intend to use to develop the hardware and software.

14.  What other military applications have you delivered? Do you have hardware that is qualified/approved for use by the US military?

15.  What are your production capabilities (100/1,000/10,000 units a year)?

16.  Do you have SIL capabilities?

17.  What are your quality assurance and configuration management practices? Is your company ISO9001, CMMI3+ certified?

18.  What is your past performance with respect to the areas outlined in Appendix B paragraphs 3-8. Provide examples of previous flight critical avionics that have been supplied to other customers and indicate any future plans similar to this RFI. Please clearly articulate your experience with the standards and processes outlined in paragraphs 3-8 of Appendix B. Indicate when you have used such processes in the delivery of past products.

19.  What is your experience with Army, or other Cybersecurity Policies and the Risk Management Framework, as detailed in DoDI 8500.01 and DoDI 8510.01?

20.  What is your experience with Cooperative Vulnerability Testing (CVT) and Adversarial Assessments (AA) of end products in Developmental and Operational test environments?

System Level Questions

1. In terms of Engineering complexity which of the following apply to your estimate:  The proposed product will be...

     2.1 A simple modification on an existing design.
    
     2.2 An extensive modification on an existing design.
    
     2.3 A new design with an existing technology.
    
     2.4 A new design with a new product line. [if applicable identify the hardware/software product(s) that applies]
    
     2.5 A new design with an unfamiliar technology. [if applicable identify the hardware/software product(s) that applies]

     If your FCC solution is a new design with BOTH a new product line and an unfamiliar technology, identify the hardware/software product(s) that applies.

Hardware Questions

1.  How many electronics total boards are you proposing?

2.  What type of electronic boards will be used and how many of each (e.g. Power Supply, Processor (CPU), Memory, I/O, Backplanes, etc)?

3.  What is the estimated weight of each electronics board indicated above?

4.  What is the estimated power consumption of the electronics?

5.  Will the electronics be ambient cooled or require forced air cooling to meet the operational conditions?

6.  Please identify for each electronics card whether it is used as is, existing but modified, or brand new design?

7.  For each electronics card that is being modified, what percent of modification will you be expecting (e.g. 10% new, 25% new)?

8.  Will your FCC solution use an existing or previously qualified FCC chassis? If so, how much of the structure will be modified or is new (e.g. 10% new, 25% new)?

9.  What is the estimated weight of the Chassis?

10.  What is the total estimated weight of each FCC box?

Software Questions

1.  What programming languages will be used for this project (e.g. C, C++, XML, Java, Python, Visual Basic)?

2.  What is the estimated number of Logical Lines of Code (LLOC) for this project (Excluding blank lines and comments)?

3.  What percent of each of the LLOC will be new? What percent will be modified or adapted? What percent will be reused (existing, not modified)?

4.  How much of the original code will be deleted?

5.  Will an integrated product team be used to integrate the software with the new design?

6.  What level of relevant work experience does the development team with the planned programming language for this project? (E.G. 0-1 year, 1-3 years, 3-5 years, 5-10 years)

7.  What level of relevant work experience does the development team with working on military airborne flight computers? (E.G. 0-1 year, 1-3 years, 3-5 years, 5-10 years)

8.  What level of relevant work experience does the development team have with the code platform used to develop software for military airborne FCCs? (e.g. 0-1 year, 1-3 years, 3-5 years, 5-10 years)

9.  Does your company have a CMMI rating and if so what is your CMMI Level?

10.  What is the experience level of the software development team in terms of projects completed as a team?

11.  Do you utilize Automated Source Code Analysis Tools during the software development process? If so, which tools do you use and what is their application / usage?

Appendix D - First Flight Qualification Requirements

1. The following artifacts shall be delivered and approved by Aviation Engineering Directorate (AED) prior to flight test Air Worthiness Release (AWR) with FCC equipment installed:

     a.  Submittal and approval of structural substantiation demonstrating the installation of the FCC equipment does not impact the airworthiness or crashworthiness of the host aircraft or crash loads as defined by the applicable system specifications.
    
     b.  Submittal and approval of test plans, procedures, and reports for the first flight component (box) level testing. The component (box) level testing includes: Electromagnetic Environmental Effects, High Temperature, Low Temperature, Explosive Atmosphere, Vibration, and the Electrical testing.
    
     c.  Submittal and approval of mechanical (Detail and Assembly level) drawings, which completely define the configuration and installation to include all structural penetrations and interface hard points.
     
     d.  Submittal and approval of firmware (FW) drawings, FW Requirements Specification, FW component (box) level Test Plan, FW component (box) level Test Report, FW component (box) level Firmware Version Description, and FW component (box) level Problem Change Report (PCR) list.
    
     e.  Submittal and approval of software (SW) drawings, SW Requirements Specification, SW component (box) level Test Plan, SW component (box) level Test Report, SW component (box) level Firmware Version Description, and SW component (box) level PCR list.
    
     f.  Submittal and approval of the Flight Control System (FCS) FHA, FTA, Preliminary System Safety Assessment (PSSA), Cutsets List, Dependencies Diagrams, FHA and FTA List of Assumptions, DAL Assignment Report, Common Mode Analysis, Zonal Safety Analysis, Particular Risk Assessment, and FW, SW, HW FMECAs.
     
    g.  Submittal and approval of Software/Firmware/Hardware Integration Laboratory (SIL) Test Plan.
    
    h.  Submittal and approval of Software/Firmware/Hardware Integration Laboratory (SIL) Test Report.
    
     i.  Submittal and approval of SIL Test PCR List.
   
     j.  Submittal and approval of ICD.
    
     k.  Submittal and approval of Operator/Maintenance Instructions for the FCC equipment (if changed from the existing documents).
     
     l.  Submittal and approval of aircraft level Ground Test Procedure.
    
     m.  Submittal and approval of Flight Test Plan and Procedure. (Government requirement)

     n.  Submittal and approval of FCC equipment wiring diagrams/schematics (if changed from existing wiring diagrams for the UH-60M).
    
     o.  Submittal and approval of FCC equipment wire harness fabrication drawings (if changed from existing wiring diagrams for the UH-60M).
    
      p.  Submittal and approval of FCC equipment wire harness installation drawings (if changed from existing wiring diagrams for the UH-60M).
    
     q.  Submittal and approval of aircraft level Electrical Load Analysis (ELA).
     
      r.  Submittal and approval of aircraft level Weigh and Balance data.
    
     s.  A frequency response/modal analysis impact (a.k.a. rap) test shall be conducted on components installed on an aircraft. The components requiring testing shall be those that have not previously flown, have been modified in some form, have had their installation changed, or have had their installation locations changed. Components shall be tested in the longitudinal, lateral, and vertical directions as installation constraints permit. Components that move shall be tested in the extremes of motion, as a minimum. Airframe components located not near drive train components shall be tested, as a minimum, in the frequency range of 0 to 100 Hz (hertz). Components located near drive train components shall be tested, as a minimum, in the frequency range of 0 to 2 kilohertz (kHz). The component response frequencies shall not occur within ±10% of the primary main and tail rotor forcing frequencies. Engineering analysis and judgment shall be used in determining the criticality of each modal frequency placement. Modal frequency placement, amplitude, and damping shall be taken into account in this analysis. Should the response characteristics be determined to be of concern, one or all of the following shall occur:

(1) Retain Current Design - If the measured natural frequencies are between ±3% and ±10% avoid bands, then engineering judgment is utilized to disposition the findings. No flight test measurements on that item are generally recommended. This disposition process includes, but not limited to:

     (a)  Determining if the component is flight critical.

     (b)  Evaluation of the actual on-aircraft forcing frequency amplitude.

     (c)  Comparing to rap test data on a similar installation.

     (d)  Modal damping ratio (above 6% is considered sufficient to assure an installation with adequate component life). 

     (e)  Exposure duration (less exposure time towards extreme ends of the ±10 % band).

     (f)   Amplitude reduction of 35% or more relative to resonance peak at rotor forcing frequency.

     (g)  Visually observe item in flight for excessive vibration relative to its attaching structure.

(2) Redesign - Modify the component/structure to move the response frequency away from the forcing frequency, with results confirmed by post-modification rap test.

(3) Flight Test - The aircraft will be instrumented and flight tested to determine if the in-flight vibration levels remain within the qualification levels of the unit(s) in question. In general, the flight test profile shall include level flight airspeed sweeps and rotor speed seep at one typical cruise airspeed.

     (a)  If the measured flight test levels are equal to or lower than the un-accelerated vibration qualification test levels, the component installation is considered acceptable.

     (b)  If the measured flight test levels are higher than those of the component's un-accelerated vibration qualification test, then further evaluation of the installation (installation retuning, relocation, risk assumption, etc.) may be required.

2. Flight Test Configuration

     a.  The FCC equipment software (SW), firmware (FW), and hardware (HW) configuration shall be defined by assembly and detail level drawings, the Bill of Materials (BOM), Weight and Balance Report, and Engineering Change Proposal (ECP).
    
     b.  The FCC equipment software and firmware configuration shall be defined by the SW SVD and FW SVD, SW and FW part/configuration number.
    
     c.  The SW and FW part/configuration number tested in the SIL shall match the one being flight tested.

3. Flight Test Software Change Procedures

Upon receiving an AWR, the software configuration at that time shall be specified as the "baseline." Any changes to "field changeable parameters" (FLIGHT TEST VARIABLES, LOOK UP TABLES) shall not be made unless specifically approved by the AED. From that point forward, each proposed change to software parameters shall be provided to AED for approval.

Informal Remarks:

     a.  This should not be confused with software/firmware regression testing. The above text applies to changing parameter especially separated from software/firmware code, meant to be experimentally manipulated during flight test to optimize the system.

     b.  Generally, this technique requires a separate SOP and agreement between flight test and AED to document the formal process.

Appendix E - Government Support Contractors

Government Support Contractors

1  Integrated Thought Corp
2  Iron Mountain Solutions
3  CGI Federal
4  PeopleTech
5  Intuitive Research Technology Corporation
6  MTSI
7  JHNA
8   UAH
9   Jovian
10 GTRI

Opportunity closing date

22 May 2019

Value of contract

to be confirmed