SPECIAL NOTICE
15 -- NAVAIR MH-60R/S Service Life Modernization (SLM) Program (PMA-299) - Request for Information 0001
- Notice Date
- 5/15/2025 1:44:47 PM
- Notice Type
- Special Notice
- NAICS
- 336411
— Aircraft Manufacturing
- Contracting Office
- NAVAL AIR SYSTEMS COMMAND PATUXENT RIVER MD 20670-5000 USA
- ZIP Code
- 20670-5000
- Solicitation Number
- PMA-299-SLM-RFI-0001
- Response Due
- 7/18/2025 2:00:00 PM
- Archive Date
- 09/30/2025
- Point of Contact
- Amber Yurko
- E-Mail Address
-
amber.f.yurko.civ@us.navy.mil
(amber.f.yurko.civ@us.navy.mil)
- Description
- REQUEST FOR INFORMATION (RFI) Subject: MH-60R/S Service Life Modernization (SLM) Program - Request for Information RFI Number: 0001 Issuance Date: 15 May 2025 Response Due Date: 18 July 2025 1.0 Introduction Purpose: The Naval Air Systems Command (NAVAIR), Program Management Activity (PMA)-299 is issuing this Request for Information (RFI) to solicit information from industry regarding potential solutions for the MH-60R/S Service Life Modernization (SLM) program. The information received in response to this RFI will be used to inform the development of the Request for Proposal (RFP) for the SLM program. This RFI is for informational purposes only and does not constitute a solicitation. Responses to this RFI are not offers and cannot be accepted by the Government to form a binding contract. Background: The MH-60R/S helicopter fleet is a critical asset for the U.S. Navy. To ensure the fleet remains capable and relevant for the foreseeable future, PMA-299 is planning a SLM program. The SLM program will modernize the MH-60R/S avionics, mission systems, and weapons system architectures to extend the aircraft's service life and enhance its operational capabilities. The modernization will be based on a Modular Open Systems Approach (MOSA) and will incorporate digital engineering principles. Disclaimer: This RFI is issued solely for information and planning purposes and does not constitute a solicitation. All information received in response to this RFI that is marked proprietary will be handled accordingly. The Government will not pay for any information received in response to this RFI. 2.0 Program Overview Objectives: The primary objectives of the SLM program are to: Enhance the operational capabilities of the MH-60R/S helicopters and employ a system architecture that enables rapid integration of future capabilities using a MOSA Improve the reliability and maintainability of the MH-60R/S helicopter Reduce the life cycle costs of the MH-60R/S helicopter Improve the cybersecurity posture of the MH-60R/S helicopter Maximize commonality across MH-60R/S US Fleets and Foreign Military Sales (FMS) customers Scope: The SLM program will modernize the avionics, mission systems, and weapons system architectures of the MH-60R/S helicopters. Architecture: The SLM system architecture will be based on a MOSA and will be divided into three distinct segments with a digital backbone: Flight Critical Avionics Segment: This segment will include all flight-critical avionics systems, such as the flight control computer, navigation system, and display systems. The Government intends to align this segment to the Future Airborne Capability Environment (FACE) standard. Mission Systems Segment: This segment will include all mission-related systems, such as the radar, sonar, and electronic warfare systems. The Government intends to align this segment with the Open Mission Systems (OMS) or Agile Mission Suite (AMS) Government Reference Architectures (GRA). Weapons Segment: This segment will include all weapons-related systems, such as the weapons control system and the missile launchers. The Government intends to align this segment with the OMS or AMS GRAs and the Weapon Open System Architecture, as applicable. Digital Backbone: The three segments will be interconnected by a shared digital backbone. This backbone will provide a high-speed, secure communication network for the segments. Key design patterns of interest include the digital backbone; segregation of system segments by areas of common flight criticality, function, and certification process; and use of an ARINC-661 Cockpit Display System. Prospective Contracting Strategy: PMA-299 envisions three prospective major contracts for the development of the SLM: Contract 1: Flight Critical Avionics Segment Development: This contract would encompass the development of the Flight Critical Avionics Segment, including the flight-critical avionics portion of the digital backbone and segment isolator. The anticipated period of performance is 3 years to complete successful lab demonstration, with follow-on support for full aircraft integration. Contract 2: Mission Systems and Weapons Segments Development: This contract would encompass the development of the Mission Systems and Weapons Segments, including the mission systems and weapons portions of the digital backbone. The digital backbone hardware would be expected to be the same as the Flight Critical Avionics Segment. The anticipated contract award is one year after Contract 1. The anticipated period of performance is 3 years to complete a successful lab demonstration, with follow-on support for full aircraft integration. Contract 3: Aircraft Integration: This contract will encompass the development of the SLM installation data package, including the installation of equipment developed under the two contracts above and other Government Furnished Equipment (GFE). The anticipated contract award is prior to the preliminary design review of Contract 1. The anticipated period of performance is 6 to 7 years. Prospective Government Furnished Equipment: The Government may provide certain GFE to the contractors for integration. This GFE may include: Re-used systems from legacy MH-60 avionics, mission system, and weapons architecture (Flight Critical Avionics, Mission Systems and Weapons), including but not limited to: Air Data Computer Data Concentrators Audio Management Computer & Controls Integrated Vehicle Health Monitoring Unit Anti-Vibration Control System Tactical Air Navigation (TACAN) VHF Omni-Directional Receiver / Instrument Landing System (VOR/ILS) Identification Friend or Foe (IFF) Transponder Multi-Mode Radar Airborne Low Frequency Sonar Common Data Link System Link 16 MIDS Terminal Multi-spectral targeting system Weapons (e.g. Torpedo, Hellfire Missiles, Advanced Precision Kill Weapon System) Countermeasures Dispensing System Anti-mine Countermeasures ARC-210 Gen 5/6 Radios New M-Code compliant EGI (Flight Critical Avionics) New Flight Control Computer (Flight Critical Avionics) New Radar Altimeter (Flight Critical Avionics) New Directed Aperture Infrared Countermeasures System (Mission Systems / Weapons) New Electronic Support System (Mission Systems / Weapons) New Proliferated Low Earth Orbit Satellite Communications Equipment (Mission Systems / Weapons) New Mesh Network System (Mission Systems / Weapons) Prospective Integration Strategy: The Government is considering the following integration strategy: The Government would release SysML models with the RFP describing the allocated system requirement baselines that will be comprised of required system functionality, allocated to logical components and key interfaces. Contractor 1 would develop the product baseline, or physical instantiation of hardware/software, of the Flight Critical Avionics system segment and its digital backbone components. Contractor 2 would develop the product baseline, or physical instantiation of hardware/software, for the Mission Systems and Weapons segments, as well as their digital backbone components. Digital backbone hardware is expected to be the same for all segments. All contractors would be required to use a cloud-based US Government Integrated Development Environment (USG IDE) for development and delivery of software, data, and cross contractor collaboration. The USG IDE would also provide each contractor a development �sandbox� that would enable virtual integration of the three system segments and digital backbone prior to aircraft integration. Contractors 1 and 2 would be required to perform virtual lab integration via the IDE. Contractor 3 would be responsible for the airworthy and operationally effective/suitable installation of the SLM equipment on the MH-60R and MH-60S. The aircraft integrator would develop the installation data package for SLM, support the validation and verification of the installation data package, conduct platform level environmental qualification testing, other platform level ground test, and support Government flight test. Contractors 1 and 2 would be responsible for Weapon Replacement Assembly (WRA) level qualification testing. All contractors would be required to provide source data contributing to lifecycle support artifacts. 3.0 Information Requested Respondents are requested to provide information in the following areas. Please be as specific and detailed as possible. Flight Critical Avionics Segment: What are your recommendations for aligning the Flight Critical Avionics Segment to the FACE standard? What FACE profiles and transport services are most suitable? How would you recommend demonstrating Unit of Conformance compliance? What are your recommendations for the architecture and design of the Flight Critical Avionics Segment, including the flight control computer, navigation system, and display systems? What are your recommendations for the digital backbone that will connect the Flight Critical Avionics Segment to the other segments? What risks do you see with using ARINC-661 for the Cockpit Display System? What are the key challenges in developing and integrating ARINC-661 compliant systems? What risks do you see in parallel development and integration of Flight Critical WRAs, such as the newly developed M-Code compliant EGI and the new Flight Control Computer? How would you recommend these risks be mitigated? What risks do you see of a FACE compliant DO-178C Level A software development and certification? Do you see a need for physical or virtual separation of hardware to mitigate certification impacts? Mission Systems and Weapons Segments: What are your recommendations for aligning the Mission Systems and Weapons Segments to the OMS or AMS GRAs? What specific profiles and services are most suitable? What are your recommendations for the architecture and design of the Weapons Segment, including the weapons control system and the missile launchers? What risks do you see in parallel development and integration the newly developed Electronic Support System? What challenges do you foresee in certifying AI/ML based systems for military applications? Digital Backbone: What are your recommendations for the architecture and design of the shared digital backbone? What are the key considerations for designing a robust and secure digital backbone? What technologies (e.g., Ethernet, data buses, protocols) are most suitable for the digital backbone? How would you ensure the security of the digital backbone? How would you manage the bandwidth and latency requirements of the digital backbone? How do you recommend integrating legacy subsystems and Weapons Replaceable Assemblies into the digital backbone? How would you employ MOSA to future proof digital backbone equipment against future transport standards and interfaces? What electrical / power distribution risks do you anticipate integrating a digital backbone into a legacy aircraft? How would you mitigate those risks? Modular Open Systems Approach: What are the challenges of using a MOSA approach for the SLM program? What are your recommendations for ensuring that the SLM system is truly modular and open? What are your recommendations for managing the interfaces between the different segments of the SLM system? Are there industry standards or tools that you would recommend? What technical data do you need to enable �plug and play� integration of systems? What are the potential challenges in achieving seamless integration between the Flight Critical Avionics Segment and the Mission Systems/Weapons Segments, given the different standards (FACE vs. OMS/AMS GRA)? Do you foresee any concerns relating to exportability of the open systems? Digital Engineering: How can digital engineering be used to improve the design, development, and integration of the SLM system? What are your recommendations for using digital engineering to reduce the cost and schedule of the SLM program? Government Furnished Equipment: What are the challenges associated with integrating GFE? What are your recommendations for mitigating the risks associated with GFE integration? What are your recommendations for integrating the re-used systems from legacy MH-60 avionics architecture into the SLM system? What technical data do you need for integration of existing systems? What existing Commercial-Off-The-Shelf (COTS) products do you think would be relevant to this effort? Integration and Testing: What concerns do you have with delivered software residing in a Government cloud IDE infrastructure? What are your recommendations for integrating the Flight Critical Avionics Segment, Mission Systems Segment, and Weapons Segment into a cohesive system? Do you anticipate needing WRAs from other segments to fully integrate/test your system segment? What are your recommendations for testing the integrated SLM system? What are your recommendations for using the USG IDE for cross contractor collaboration and for virtual integration of the three system segments? What risks do you see in potential DD-250 of the segment components prior to full SLM integration? How would you mitigate these risks? Cybersecurity: What are the key cybersecurity risks associated with the SLM program? What are your recommendations for mitigating these risks? What cybersecurity standards and certifications are relevant to the SLM program? How would you implement an architecture with multiple security levels? Cost and Schedule: What are your recommendations for reducing the cost and schedule of the SLM program? What are the key cost and schedule drivers for the SLM program? What innovative approaches can be used to reduce cost and schedule? Small Business Participation: What opportunities exist for small businesses to participate in the SLM program? Do you see opportunity for small business set asides? How do you envision this working? Contracting Approach: What potential issues or concerns do you see with the proposed contracting approach? Are there alternative contracting approaches that the Government should consider (e.g., Other Transaction Authority (OTA), Indefinite Delivery/Indefinite Quantity (IDIQ) contracts) and why? What concerns/risks do you see with collaborative development efforts involving multiple contractors? What contract fee structure would incentivize cost control while recognizing performance and schedule achievement? How would you recommend balancing cost, schedule, and performance contractually? Are the Government's notional period of performances for the SLM contracts realistic? Would you recommend any innovative technologies or approaches that could be applicable to the SLM program. Are there any emerging technologies or approaches that the Government should consider incorporating into the SLM program? (e.g. AI Assisted Mission Planning, Advanced Sensor Fusion). 4.0 Response Format Page Limit: Responses should be limited to 18 pages, excluding cover page and company information. Font and Margins: Use Times New Roman, 12-point font, with 1-inch margins. File Format: Submit responses in Adobe Portable Document Format (PDF). Proprietary Information: Clearly mark any proprietary information. Company Information: Include the following information on a separate cover page: Company Name Company Address Point of Contact Name Point of Contact Email Address Point of Contact Phone Number Company Website (if applicable) CAGE Code Small Business Status (if applicable) 5.0 Submission Instructions Electronic Submission: Submit responses electronically to the Procuring Contracting Officer, Amber Yurko at amber.f.yurko.civ@us.navy.mil. Subject Line: Use the following subject line: ""MH-60R/S SLM Program RFI Response - [Your Company Name]"". Due Date: Responses must be received no later than close of business 18 July 2025. 6.0 Government Point of Contact Amber Yurko, Procuring Contracting Officer, amber.f.yurko.civ@us.navy.mil 7.0 Closing Statement PMA-299 appreciates the time and effort industry invests in responding to this RFI. The information provided will be invaluable in shaping the acquisition strategy for the MH-60R/S SLM program.
- Web Link
-
SAM.gov Permalink
(https://sam.gov/opp/03cdbe22b6254d939f16c28220d21a10/view)
- Place of Performance
- Address: Patuxent River, MD 20670, USA
- Zip Code: 20670
- Country: USA
- Zip Code: 20670
- Record
- SN07444171-F 20250517/250515230045 (samdaily.us)
- Source
-
SAM.gov Link to This Notice
(may not be valid after Archive Date)
| FSG Index | This Issue's Index | Today's SAM Daily Index Page |