Phase Broad Agency Announcement (BAA) DTFACT-16-R-00054 Develop Methods of Compliance to Support Certification of Advanced Flight Controls in General Aviation and Hybrid Aircraft Vehicles 1. Background The sponsor of this research, the FAA’s Small Airplane Directorate, has been working for a number of years to address General Aviation (GA) safety and to create a regulatory environment that uses advances in technology to enhance GA safety. In that time, the certification process study and Part 23 rewrite have indicated a need for the FAA to keep pace with technology and specifically apply it to prevent fatal GA accidents. Using a data driven approach, the FAA, along with the General Aviation Joint Steering Committee (GA-JSC), have identified the top three causes of fatal GA accidents to be: loss of control (LOC), controlled flight into terrain (CFIT), and system or component failure - power plant. Advanced Flight Controls, including augmented flight path control can help address many of these root causes of fatal GA accidents. 2. Purpose The purpose of this BAA is to solicit proposals from the aviation community to develop proposed methods of compliance for certification of advanced flight control systems and address the root causes of fatal GA accidents. These proposals can focus on any one part of these causes, multiple parts of these causes, or all the causes. Offerors are welcome to submit multiple proposals if desired. This BAA is part of a proactive effort by the FAA to engage with industry and collaborate on emerging technologies. Furthermore, the FAA wants to identify barriers to certification and find ways to affordably certify systems and safety enhancements. Results will be used by the FAA and/or industry to capture best design practices, create industry standards, field new designs, and develop methods of compliance for certification of advanced flight control systems. Ultimately, the expected outcome will be a significant reduction of Loss of Control, CFIT, and power plant related GA accidents. 3. Requirements The FAA would like to address the specific areas listed below, however, proposals are not limited to these requirements. Innovative ideas are welcome and encouraged! • Address design best-practices, architectures, and methods of compliance to affordably implement basic envelope protection, augmented flight path control systems, and energy management concepts. • Propose ways to address pilot distraction, confusion or pilot errors that have resulted in GA accidents and incidents. Some examples are in the area of energy state awareness or pilot confusion regarding autopilot modes. Another example is unfiltered CAS (Warning, Caution, Advisory System) that are not distilled into a root cause of a system fault and expected pilot action. Current CAS systems inundate the pilot with overwhelming cascading faults. Consider integrated displays that are ipad-like intuitive. • Propose design best-practices, architectures, and methods of compliance to certify “refuse to crash� hazard avoidance systems. These systems have awareness of threats such as terrain, obstacles, weather, and other aircraft. This could include display and alerts that give the pilot situational awareness of the threat and what evasive action the pilot needs to perform to avoid the threat. It could also be an autopilot or flight control system that automatically performs the escape maneuver if the pilot does not respond appropriately. • Identify issues not mitigated by current safety assessment processes for integrated systems and their operational use. Consider the overall reliability of the pilot in the human machine interface. Also consider technology and automation in areas where humans are weak and human engagement in areas where humans are strong. • Develop specific technology interventions using augmented flight path control to address the root causes of accidents. • Address streamlined certification requirements to affordably implement simple autopilots in low end GA aircraft. • Propose affordable ways to certify advanced flight control systems, including assured autonomy, such as automatic ground collision avoidance, traffic separation, auto-take-off, auto-land, and 4D NextGen performance-based flight path trajectory management. • Recommend the development of design and certification requirements for a flight path control systems for part 23 and hybrid vehicles. Hybrid Vehicles may have wingborne flight modes as well as vertical take-off modes. This may include distributed propulsion and integrated controls. • Propose ways to incorporate innovative techniques in the certification process to make certification affordable and streamlined. • Propose design best practices acceptable architectures for certifiable Run Time Assurance (RTA). The concept of RTA uses independent monitors that can be easily certified to bound the behavior and proper function of a complex system, rather than relying on traditional development assurance to gain confidence in that system. The complex system is expected to fail, but the aircraft level RTA architecture accounts for these failures and allows for continued safe flight and landing. • Propose ways to leverage NASA’s Learn to Fly (using PID (parameter identification) and adaptive control techniques) to certify simple 2 axis autopilots for a broad class of GA aircraft. • Submit a construct such that Run Time Assurance can be evaluated. This evaluation would be for a certification process with a variety of vehicles that are representative of industry configurations. Consider an industry consortium to evaluate several scaled prototypes and/or full size vehicles. These different vehicles would be used to exploit Run Time Assurance as a possible avenue for streamlined certification. Consider mode transitions from propulsive lift to wing-borne flight. • Submit an evaluation of Run Time Assurance that uses a subscale vehicle for demonstration. Results of the flight tests should be extrapolated to manned aircraft. • Propose a way to certify a low cost enhanced stall warning system (including tactile cueing) or an angle of attack limiter system. • Submit ideas on Simplified Vehicle Operations (SVO) that make flying simpler and safer with less of an initial training burden and fewer specific pilot skills. • Propose any research efforts on ways to reduce fatal accidents caused by o Loss of Control o Controlled Flight Into Terrain o Engine Failures or Partial Power Loss 4. Submission Deadlines Phase I Technical summary proposals, prepared in accordance with this announcement, will be accepted through June 30, 2016 at 5:00PM EDT. Upon request by the FAA, Phase II proposals must be submitted within 30 calendar days after the date of the request. This request will be made via email. 5. Submission Requirements The submission process is two-phased as described below. Please note: The FAA will not pay for any information received or costs incurred in preparing the response to the BAA announcement. Any costs associated with the submittal is solely at the interested vendor’s expense. Phase I: Offerors will submit a 1-3 page, Phase I technical summary. This technical summary must meet the requirements described below in section 6. Offerors must submit the Phase I technical summary in Microsoft Word or Adobe Acrobat format to the following email addresses:
[email protected] [email protected] Phase II: Within 30 days of receipt of the Phase I technical summaries, the FAA will respond to offerors in one of four ways: a. Request for the submission of a Phase II proposal. b. Recommendation to submit a Phase II proposal if certain changes are made or conditions met. c. Notification that the Phase I proposal was good but due to insufficient funding, a formal proposal request is delayed until funding becomes available. d. Rejection of the Phase I proposal and no request for a Phase II proposal. If requested by the FAA, the offeror may submit a Phase II proposal, containing a detailed discussion of the subject presented in the Phase I technical summary. The Phase II proposal must address the requirements described in section 7 of this announcement, and must be submitted within 30 days of the FAA’s request. The proposal must be emailed to the address provided in the Phase I submission requirements. 6. Phase I Technical Summary Requirements There is no specific format for the technical summary. The summary may be preceded by a cover letter (the cover letter will not be counted toward the 3 pages), but the cover letter will not be considered in the evaluation, nor will pages in excess of three be considered. At a minimum the summary must contain the following items: a. The specific purpose of the proposed research; b. A description of the proposed research approach; c. The estimated time it would take to complete the proposed research and a schedule outline d. The estimated funds required for the proposed effort. e. Brief biography of the principal investigators and other relevant personnel (biographies will be counted toward the 3 page maximum). 7. Phase II Proposal Requirements ONLY OFFERORS WHOSE PHASE I TECHNICAL SUMMARY IS CONSIDERED CAPABLE OF MEETING EXISTING OR FUTURE PROGRAM REQUIREMENTS WILL BE ASKED TO SUBMIT A PHASE II PROPOSAL. REQUEST FOR SUBMISSION OF A PHASE II PROPOSAL DOES NOT GUARANTEE AWARD SELECTION. Proposals must be submitted, with the signature of an authorized official. Either electronic or scanned documents are acceptable. Proposals must be submitted electronically to the email address provided in the request for proposal. Proposal submission is not restricted in any way to any particular entity. Historically Black Colleges and Universities, Minority Institutions, Tribal Colleges and Universities, Small, Small Disadvantaged, Service Disabled Veteran Owned Small, HUBZone Small, Veteran Owned Small, and Women Owned Small Businesses are encouraged to participate. The NAICS Code for this BAA is 541712. Submit Phase II Proposals in two (2) volumes; (1) VOLUME I: TECHNICAL PROPOSAL, not to exceed ten (10) pages, should include the following: a. Detailed description of research approach b. Detailed Schedule c. Biography of all personnel to work on this research effort (biographies will count toward the 10 page maximum) (2) VOLUME II: COST/FUNDING PROPOSAL. Cost/funding proposals are not restricted in length, have no specific page layout requirements, and should address funding periods of performance. Formal Work Breakdown Structures (WBS) and certified cost or pricing data may be required, depending upon the type of contract utilized. Upon completion of negotiations and agreement on contract price, a Certificate of Current Cost or Pricing Data may be required. Furthermore, any offeror who is required to submit and certify cost or pricing data must submit accurate, current and complete cost or pricing data from his prospective subcontractors. Offeror’s proposals are subject to audit. Organize Cost/Funding proposals to include four (4) sections in the following order: • Section 1 - Total Project Cost: This section will give a detailed breakdown of costs of the project. Cost should also be broken out for each task appearing in the Performance Work Schedule (PWS) and should include all of the proposed costs to the Government and cost shared by the offeror. Present the following information for each phase of the effort: total cost of the particular project phase; total offeror cost share (mandatory for certain "other transaction agreements" see below); funding requested from the Government; and elements of cost (labor, direct materials, travel, other direct costs, equipment, software, patents, royalties, indirect costs, and cost of money). Sufficient information should be provided in supporting documents to allow the Government to evaluate the reasonableness of these proposed costs, including salaries, overhead, equipment purchases, fair market rental value of leased items, and the method used for making such valuations. Profit should not be included as a cost element if the contract type to be awarded will be cost sharing. . • Section 2 - Cost Sharing and In-Kind Contributions (if any): This section will include: (i) the sources of cash and amounts to be used for matching requirements; (ii) the specific in-kind contributions proposed, their value in monetary terms, and the methods by which their values were derived; and (iii) evidence of the existence of adequate cash or commitments to provide sufficient cash in the future. Affirmative, signed statements are required from outside sources of cash. Provide sufficient information regarding the sources of the offerors’ cost share so that a determination may be made by the Government regarding the availability, timeliness, and control of these resources. For example: How will the funds and resources be applied to advance the progress of the proposed effort? What is the role of any proposed in-kind contributions? • Section 3 - Cost to the Government (if any): This section will specify the total costs proposed to be borne by the Government and any technical or other assistance including equipment, facilities, and personnel of Federal laboratories, if any, required to support these activities. The cost to the Government should be that portion of the proposed effort, which is not covered, by the contractor's portion of the cost share. The costs incurred and work performed by any DoD or national laboratory "partnering" with the offeror under the proposal must normally be considered costs of the Government and not costs of the offeror for purposes of the cost-sharing requirement. Present sufficient information regarding the resources to be provided by the Government so that an evaluation of their availability, timeliness, and control may be made. • Section 4 - Off-Budget Supporting Resources (if any): This section will show cash or in-kind resources which will support the proposed activity but which are not intended to be included in the total project cost. Items in this category do not count as cost share or as Federal funds, which must be matched. Examples of items to place in this category include: Commitments of cash or in-kind resources from other Federal sources, such as national laboratories, and projections of fee-based income where there is substantial uncertainty about the level which will actually be collected and where the income is not needed to meet cost-share requirements. After selection, the FAA will require: • A kick-off meeting at a location TBD by the FAA • 1 page written monthly progress reports • At least 1 monthly conference call to discuss research progress • A final report written in standard FAA format (format to be provided) 8. Method Of Evaluation Proposals will be evaluated in the three technical areas listed in order of descending importance: a. Overall Approach and Technical Merit b. Team Competency and Experience c. Schedule Cost and cost realism will be evaluated as acceptable or unacceptable only. 9. Period of Performance: To be determined If you're viewing this announcement from a source other than Federal Aviation Administration Contract Opportunities (FAACO), visit https://faaco.faa.gov/index.cfm/announcement/view/24584 to view the original announcement.