B-2 ENGINE AUXILIARY INLET DOOR (EAID) PBL

Program: B-2 Main Engine Auxiliary Inlet Door (EAID) Performance Based Logistics (PBL) Strategy

Organization: 423rd Supply Chain Management Squadron (SCMS), and 429 SCMS/Enterprise Commodity Council (ECC)

Scope

The ECC has developed a Cross-Functional Team (CFT) comprised of members of the 423rd SCMS, B-2 AFLCMC Program Office, and 531 CMXG squadron. The B-2 EAID team is seeking information towards developing a PBL support strategy to improve supply chain efficiencies, material availability, and supplier base of the B-2 EAID and its subcomponents. The CFT plans to utilize Key Performance Indicators (KPI) to measure Contractor performance to meet critical goals in support of the warfighter mission.

Background

The EAIDs are vital components of the B-2 Spirit and are used to prevent air flow separation to reduce power loss at low aircraft speeds. Ahead of each air intake inlet is a serrated slit-like auxiliary inlet which removes the turbulent boundary layer air, preventing it from entering the engine. This boundary layer air is then mixed with the exhaust to cool its temperature and reduce the infrared signature of the aircraft, part of its low observable system. The B-2 is a multi-role, long-range, high-altitude bomber, capable of flying intercontinental missions without refueling, then penetrating present and predicted sophisticated enemy defenses.

Current EAID end-item depot activation and repair constraints are impacting 100% of scheduled aircraft Program Depot Maintenance (PDM). A 100% PDM task to replace EAIDs with serviceable assets was signed in 2017 but has been deferred since 2019. The B-2 Spirit is scheduled to be in service through 2058.

Developing Strategy

The objectives of this PBL contract are to: (1) improve and sustain readiness; (2) Improve piece part supportability; (3) Activate, increase throughput, and maximize capability within the OO-ALC depot; (4) Improve demand planning and forecast collaboration, and (5) Gain increased OEM end item and tooling engineering support.

Under a performance-based approach, end-item sustainment is managed through integrated packages driven by output performance metrics (availability and reliability) rather than input-based measures. To establish clear accountability, this strategy will be structured under a single product support integrator. Flexible sustainment that incorporates direct vendor delivery, technology insertion, reliability-centered maintenance, process improvement engineering, and public/private partnering will be needed to achieve mission support objectives outlined above.

It is anticipated the performance-based support and measurement will be tracked on an end-item level to include 100% of the material needed to successfully overhaul each B-2 EAID end-item.

The CFT seeks to develop a contract that will support the following strategic requirements:

• Complete material support for AF/DLA managed items
• 10-year Long-Term Contract (LTC), fixed price agreement (five-year base with one five-year option)
• Develop and maintain an accurate Bill of Material (BOM)
• OEM Engineering, technical, and tooling support
• Specific incentives/disincentives applied to OEM performance
• Enhanced and preserved depot workforce
• Full transparency of AF demands and depot repair requirements
• Update technical data procedures and specifications
  • Improve repair/testing processes
  • Repair and restore tooling
• Improved demand planning & forecast collaboration
• Increased end-item availability and reliability
• Increase potential vendor base to alleviate DMSMS constraints

As part of this requirement, it is expected the Contractor will accept the responsibility of identifying and developing new (AF engineering approved) sources of manufacture and working with the 423rd SCMS, B-2 AFLCMC Program Office, and 531 CMXG maintenance squadron to ensure all parts are available upon demand.

The CFT is asking for feedback from the OEM, Northrop Grumman Corporation (NGC), representatives regarding the performance-based support for the B-2 EAID and components through the construct of a US Air Force (USAF)/DLA contractual relationship. The CFT is looking to NGC to help shape the strategy of this effort through their open comments/feedback on the topics/questions below.

Questions:

1. Please provide the following business information for your company and for any teaming and joint venture programs:
   1. Company Name
   2. Address
   3. Point of Contact
   4. Cage Code
   5. Phone Number
   6. E-mail Address
   7. Web Page URL
   8. Size of Business and North American Industry Classification (NAICS) Code
2. What is your experience in identifying DMSMS issues and what solutions can you implement to improve the availability of engineering approved manufacturing sources?
3. What rights to technical data does your company possess regarding the manufacture or repair of the attached NSN list?
4. Does your company have repair capability for the population of NSNs (see attachment) associated with this program, or are third parties used? If so, what level of rights is given to other companies?
5. A potential piece of this program is to establish some level of a Public Private Partnership (PPP). What experience do you have with PPPs, and how can that experience assist in providing solutions to the B-2 EAID issues described above?
6. To help alleviate current overhaul issues, what solutions do you recommend implementing to increase the successful throughput and repair of B-2 EAID end-items?  How do you anticipate maintaining the health of the tooling on a long-term basis?
7. How many suppliers/manufacturers does your company purchase B-2 EAID parts from?
   1. How many of these suppliers/manufactures have long-term supply agreements with your company?
   2. What is the average lead-time with these suppliers?
8. What is your current process for forecasting demand to ensure parts availability?
9. What do you see as the major concerns for this performance-based effort, and do you have recommendations for mitigation of those concerns?
10. Do you prefer contracts with award terms or option years?
    1. Would you manage your business differently based on one or the other? Explain.
11. The current Contractor performance metrics under consideration are Material Availability, Reliability, and On Time Delivery to Customer.
    1. What are your thoughts on the considered Contractor performance metrics?
    2. Would industry suggest additional metrics or a different group of metrics? Please explain.
12. What commercial best practices and/or depot process improvements do you feel could be incorporated in a performance-based strategy such as this?
13. Some items may require First Article Testing (FAT) be completed at the USAF testing facility.
    1. What are the perceived risks with utilizing USAF facilities for FAT evaluations?
    2. What are your thoughts on the ability to utilize third party FAT facilities?
    3. What are your thoughts on the ability to utilize manufacturing FAT labs with government oversight (DCMA)?
    4. What suggestions can you provide to improve the FAT evaluation process and how the suggestion will affect risk associated with using USAF facilities or non-USAF facilities?
14. Is long-term pricing feasible for this effort? If not, what are the constraints hindering long-term pricing? Are there ways to mitigate these constraints?
15. Is NGC currently involved with any strategic type arrangements (Government or Commercial) that are outcome based as opposed to traditional type manufacture/remanufacture (eaches) contracts? If so, can you provide high-level details as to how the contract is structured (i.e. length, payment approach, performance measurements, etc.)?
16. Under most performance-based strategies, payment is not tied to the traditional support of NSNs by “eaches” and is typically indexed to applicable operational activities such as flying hours, landings, demand bands, etc. What is NGC position on using aircraft flying hours and/or other B-2 operational activities to index payment to and what are the risks (if any)? Is NGC aware of any other operational activities in which payment could be indexed to? If yes, please explain.
17. In the past, AF performance-based contractual payment structures have been designed to calculate the contract year’s total payment to the Contractor and then divide that total into periodic payments. What is NGCs position/thoughts on periodic payments received throughout the year for Contractor support and what are the pros/cons associated with that payment structure?

The government is accepting responses to this request for information via email only. Please provide written responses to the Contracting Officer and Program Manager by 22 July 2026 at the following email addressed:

Justin Rogers

Contracting Officer

justin.rogers.28@us.af.mil

David Olson

Lead Program Manager

david.olson.25@us.af.mil

Attachments:

1. B2 EAID Identified Parts List