UNITED24 - Make a charitable donation in support of Ukraine!


Joint Multi-Mission Submersible (JMMS)

The Joint Multi-Mission Submersible (JMMS) is a manned, dry combatant submersible to provide a clandestine mobility platform. According to budget documents submitted with the 2010 defense budget request, the JMMS "will provide improved performance over the ASDS and will permit small, highly-trained forces to operate in denied areas increasingly controlled by a sophisticated threat." The Pentagon asked for $43.4 million to begin analysis and technology development phase efforts. The Joint Multi-Mission Submersible (JMMS) is a manned, dry combatant submersible that provides a clandestine mobility platform. It will be capable of operatingin a wide range of littoral and threat environments and will be tactically transported by specially modified submarines. The JMMS will provide improved performanceover the Advanced SEAL Delivery System and will permit small, highly trained forces to operate in denied areas increasingly controlled by a sophisticated threat. Theproject provides RDT&E funds for materiel solutions analysis and technology development phase efforts.

The draft acquisition strategy includes a full and open competition leading to the selection of at least twocapable offerors based on a best value source selection in FY10 for pre-design refinement contracts with options for detailed design and construction. Technology riskwill be reduced by encouraging re-use of the reliable technology proven in the Advanced Seal Delivery System, while permitting industry to compete and propose a lowrisk design solution for JMMS.

The House version of the National Defense Authorization Act For Fiscal Year 2010 contained a provision (sec. 212) that would require the Secretary of Defense, in consultation with the Director of National Intelligence, to complete an assessment of the feasibility of implementing a cost-sharing agreement between the Department of Defense and the intelligence community pertaining to the Joint Multi-Mission Submersible Program. The provision would also prohibit the expenditure of funds for the Joint Multi-Mission Submersible Program until such an assessment is complete. The Senate amendment contained no similar provision.

The Senate receded with an amendment that would prohibit the expenditure of funds for the Joint Multi-Mission Submersible Program to proceed beyond Defense Acquisition Milestone B Approval until such time as the Secretary of Defense, in consultation with the Director of National Intelligence, certifies that the agreement reached as a result of the assessment represents the most effective and affordable means of delivery for meeting a validated program requirement. The conferees expect that the required assessment will take into account any past use of submersible assets by the Department of Defense and the intelligence community.

The conferees strongly supported the Department's decision to designate the Joint Multi-Mission Submersible Program as an Acquisition Category 1D Special Interest program, significantly increasing the level of program oversight from what was given to the Advanced SEAL Delivery System.

A future combat submersible should provide theater Special Operation Forces (SOF) commanders the operational capability to conduct insertion and extraction of SOF personnel and/or payloads into and from denied areas from strategic distances. These submersibles would mate to a host submarine using the same interface as that of ASDS-1. The submersibles should be able to conduct clandestine surveillance during extended loiter times at close-in distances. A modular capability and capacity to hold varying payload would enhance its utility for a broad range of missions including intelligence collection, surveillance, and reconnaissance in support of SOF objectives. An Initial Operating Capability (IOC) of FY 2016 is desired for the first of three potential submersible units.

The 30 December 2008 RFI N0002409N6213 was conducted to determine if there is industry interest to produce combat submersible vehicles as described should the Government decide to procure such vehicles. The decision to procure said vehicles has not yet been made, but this RFI would help inform programmatic questions inherent in that decision. This RFI is for fact finding only and does not constitute a commitment or obligation by the Government to issue an RFP, contract or order. The Government will not pay for any effort expended or any material provided in response to this announcement, nor would the Government return any data provided.

The Advanced Seal Delivery System (ASDS), a first generation submarine launched, diver lockout, long duration combat submersible for SOF, was developed and completed final acceptance by the Government in CY 2003. However, in CY 2006, the Department of Defense (DoD) cancelled the ASDS program due to operational reliability and cost issues. A comprehensive and combined Government and Industry series of Critical System Reviews was undertaken, leading to development of design changes to improve reliability. The fabrication, installation, and testing of these modifications are in progress.

In CY 2008, a DoD directed analysis of alternate material solutions to the ASDS program was conducted and concluded that a dry submersible launched from a host support submarine was the preferred alternative to fulfill the required mission. Should the Navy go forward with a program, it would require an expeditious and low technological risk approach to filling this mission need!. It is anticipated that if the Government decides to enter into a procurement that up to 3 systems may be initially procured.

In order to minimize technical risk and expeditiously deliver the capability to the fleet in a cost effective manner, the designer would be expected to leverage appropriate portions of the ASDS-1 design in developing the detailed design. The effort should take into account ASDS-1 lessons learned including operational history, investigations and results of the Critical Systems Reviews, and other available information on the ASDS program specifically to include Government Furnished Information. One criterion for risk evaluation of potential designs would be the designer's approach to re-use of successful design elements and details from ASDS-1 as well as recommendation of appropriate and necessary changes to achieve specified reliability requirements including material availability, mean time between failure and mean time to repair.

The design is also expected to accommodate appropriate changes to facilitate cost-effective manufacture at the construction facility! and would be expected to include changes for producibility (including potential weight reduction) and changes to account for obsolescence and/or diminished manufacturing sources. It would be the responsibility of the designer to propose the balance of reuse and new development in the vehicle. However, new design elements must be shown to have high technical readiness levels and minimum risk in integration with the remaining vehicle systems.

A total design effort of less than 2 years would be anticipated. The Government expects the design drawings necessary to build the combat submersible vehicle can be completed in approximately 9 months and that a full Critical Design Review would be conducted by the Government prior to authorizing commencement of first unit construction. The Government expects that the following potential items would be GFE: a)Propulsor b)Forward Looking Sonar c) Hatches (unless bidder's proposal shows that CFE would be more economical) d)External communications equipment and cryptographic equipment (excluding antenna system)

The Government was evaluating the following acquisition strategy, timeline, and schedule: A full and open competition would result in award of a fixed priced multi-phased Preliminary Design-Detailed Design-Build Contract to multiple offerors. These contracts would establish a firm fixed price preliminary design period followed by options to conduct detailed design and further individual options for the purchase of long lead time material and then actual construction for each vehicle. Contract award would be based on consideration of the proposal for the entire design-build effort, not only the preliminary design period. Contracts would be awarded to capable and experienced designers and builders whose proposals offer best value and demonstrates low risk solutions that can comply with the required technical requirements. The design and construction specification would work to minimize program risk by encouraging reuse of reliable portions of the ASDS design including previous improvements and by making other appropriate reliability upgrades, producibility, acoustic, diminished manufacturing supply and obsolescence modifications.

The offerors would propose the balance between reuse of ASDS design including its current improvements and new design. Exceptions to proposed new design elements are no changes will be allowed from the ASDS-1 Host Interface and the proposed hull design must not warrant the conduct of a new hull confirmation model or strain-gaging of the lead hull. Additionally, the following GFE items would have essentially the same interface and performance capabilities as those currently installed in ASDS-1: SOF Communications Gear, the propulsor, and Forward Look Sonar. The vehicle hatches shall be consistent with the 25 and 30 inch hatches used in ASDS-1 although updated design versions such as the Virginia Class bridge access trunk hatch may be proposed and the source is negotiable. Following review of the preliminary design information, it is intended to award options to only one of the initial contractors th! at produced preliminary designs.

The detailed design, long lead time material and construction options on the contract would be established as fixed price options with incentives possible for cost and or schedule as appropriate to the individual option. In the first contract year, award of multi-phased contracts would begin with a 3-Month preliminary design effort followed by approximately 2 months of evaluation at a not to exceed price. The output of the preliminary design phase would also include preliminary design approaches to the contractor's perceived highest risk areas. At the conclusion of the preliminary design phase, offerors would provide a Best and Final Offer (BAFO) including performance, technical features, cost, and schedule compared to the original bid and negotiated values and conditions. Increased costs would not be accepted and a down-selection to a single designer and builder would be made based on the BAFO using the same source selection criteria used to award the contract but would also include analysis of products delivered as part of the preliminary design phase.

The option for the design effort starting in the second contract year would then be exercised using the BAFO pricing and the detailed d! esign effort would commence. The contract priced options would also be adjusted based on the BAFO. The option for the purchase of Long Lead Time Material (LLTM) in the third contract year may be exercised upon Government approval of the design drawings and details. The fixed priced option for construction of System #1 may be exercised in the fourth contract year. Similarly the fixed priced options for LLTM and Construction for System #2 may be exercised approximately one year later. System delivery would be required NLT 36 months after contract. Options might also exist for a third system. A performance based specification for designing and building the system is being prepared to require adherence to appropriate specified design and construction standards where applicable, established quality control program, submission of design drawings and design data for government submission as well as the conduct of factory floor, and at sea testing culminating in a combined acceptance trials. The specification for designing and building is under development and if the Government decides to enter into a procurement, it is expected to be released for review and comment as part of a draft RFP that may be issued as early as CY 2009.

These unclassified system key performance parameter areas are applicable: A) Combat Range, B) Endurance, C) Passengers, D) Lock-In/Out Operations, E) Cruise Speed, F) Vehicle Signature, G) Interoperability/Net Ready Capability, H) Operational/Material Availability, I) Force Protection, and J) Survivability. Additionally, other applicable performance parameters are: A) Operational Temperature, B) Transport Speed, C) Transportability D) External Payload, E) Crew, F) Transport Depth, G) Vibration, H) Storage Temperature, I) Lock-In/Out Depth, J) Operational Depth, K) # of Cycles at Maximum Lock-In/Out Depth, L) Mission Reliability, Sea State/Speed Towed, M) Information System, and N) Mission Profile.

Information is desired in the following areas:

  • A) What level of effort would be expected to be conducted during a 3 month preliminary design period in order to support a BAFO and the cost associated with that effort. The responses should identify and address the highest risk areas that warrant more effort in the preliminary design period than others.
  • B) Approach/Extent that Respondent Would Leverage ASDS-1 technical information and how that should be measured and evaluated with respect to a determination of technical risk for the system.
  • C) What changes would the respondent make from the ASDS-1 design based on the Critical Systems Reviews and other deficiencies noted in the Operational Test and Evaluation Report. Acoustic performance is of specific interest. Responses should include a list, collated by system, of how a proposed system design would accomplish resolution for each of the CSR recommendations.
  • D) Identification of a suitable Main Power Source and effort necessary to demonstrate reliability, performance and safety.
  • E) Areas that would use new/different technologies and maturity (TRL) of those technologies.
  • F) Expected level of effort required to redesign/reformat Government provided ASDS-1 technical information for production use at the respondent' plant.
  • G) Intended Approach to Manage Obsolescence including Diminished Material Sources and Electronic systems.
  • H) What additional changes are needed to the design to meet material availability/reliability requirements? How would the respondent propose to measure material availability/reliability? How could this be incentivized in a Fixed Price Incentive Fee contract?
  • I) Discussion of the implications of delivering in accordance with the notional Program Schedule above. Recommendations regarding alternate schedules for detailed design, construction, trials, and final delivery of production systems that optimize for technical risk and cost.
  • J) Evaluation of what specific extent/content of design work must be complete to order LLTM and to begin construction. Evaluation of how this metric would be tracked and reported to ensure on time performance of the required design review prior to authorization of purchase of LLTM and construction.K)Evaluation of duration required to conduct the Detailed Design.L)Identification of items that should be procured/built under LLTM and the duration of that effort.M)Assessment of top 10 technical and top 10 programmatic risks and mitigation strategies.
  • N) Recommended Approach to Address Logistics and Life Cycle Support including expected commonality with ASDS-1 including proposed/recommended maintenance philosophy.
  • O) Ability to Execute Effort under a Fixed Price Contract with individual options for each unit's LLTM and Construction. What incentives would be appropriate for the LLTM and Construction options of the contract? What Earned Value Management parameters would be appropriate to support this type of contract?
  • P) Method of compliance with the Berry Amendment and the Byrnes-Tollefson Amendment.
  • Q) Items or design areas which should have specific wording in the Ship Design Specification to ensure understanding between the Government and the builder. Examples of potential wording for those areas.
  • R) Method of ensuring Government and builder agreement on method of implementation of Deep Submergence Systems Scope of Certification requirements.
  • S) Cost estimates: Specifically, estimated costs for conducting Preliminary Design. Estimated cost of conducting Detailed Design. Estimated types, cost and lead time for procuring long-lead material. Estimated construction cost of the production systems.

Join the GlobalSecurity.org mailing list

Page last modified: 07-07-2011 12:47:04 ZULU