Back to news

July 16, 2019 | International, Aerospace, Naval, Land, C4ISR, Security, Other Defence

Contract Awards by US Department of Defense - July 15, 2019

ARMY

Lockheed Martin Corp., Grand Prairie, Texas, was awarded a $492,108,514 fixed-price-incentive contract for High Mobility Artillery Rocket Systems M142 launchers and support requirements to include Product Data Definition Package Maintenance, training, support equipment, qualification testing, initial spares/repair parts and software. One bid was solicited with one bid received. Work will be performed in Camden, Arizona; Boca Raton, Florida; Budd Lake, New Jersey; Whippany, New Jersey; Dallas, Texas; Palm Bay, Florida; Archbald, Pennsylvania; York, Pennsylvania; Clearwater, Florida; Jackson, Mississippi; and Brownboro, Alabama, with an estimated completion date of May 30, 2023. Fiscal 2019 operations and maintenance, Army funds in the amount of $66,404,293 were obligated at the time of the award. U.S. Army Contracting Command, Redstone Arsenal, Alabama, is the contracting activity (W31P4Q-19-C-0101).

General Atomics Aeronautical Systems Inc., Poway, California, was awarded a $275,000,000 hybrid (cost-plus-fixed-fee and firm-fixed-price) contract for aircraft, satellite communications air data terminals, universal ground data terminals, program management, and equipment maintenance and repair. Bids were solicited via the internet with one received. Work will be performed in Poway, California, with an estimated completion date of July 30, 2021. Fiscal 2017, 2018 and 2019 aircraft procurement, Army funds in the amount of $275,000,000 were obligated at the time of the award. U.S. Army Contracting Command, Redstone Arsenal, Alabama, is the contracting activity (W58RGZ-19-C-0022).

TetraTech, Arlington, Virginia, was awarded a $9,626,655 firm-fixed-price contract for biological and environmental services. Bids were solicited via the internet with four received. Work locations and funding will be determined with each order, with an estimated completion date of Jan. 2, 2031. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, is the contracting activity (W912BU-19-D-0010).

NAVY

Manson/Connolly Seal Beach JV, Seattle, Washington, is being awarded an $88,147,000 firm-fixed-price contract for P-224 Causeway Boat Channel and Turning Basin and P-226 Ammunition Pier at Naval Weapons Station Seal Beach. The contract also contains five unexercised options and one planned modification, which if exercised would increase the cumulative contract value to $154,771,611. The work to be performed provides a public boat channel, naval ship channel and naval ship turning basin; ship mooring dolphins, excavation of above water moles, salvage and reuse of armor/riprap, paving, striping, signage, fencing, hauling and disposing of excess dredge material, placing fill for vehicle causeway and habitat enhancement; and constructing rock breakwater, rock armor shore protection, security structure and wharf improvements to support large deck amphibious ship ordnance operations. This project also includes relocating naval barge mooring buoys, installing marine navigation aids, utility infrastructure upgrades and communication infrastructure and security improvements. Work will be performed in Seal Beach, California, and is expected to be completed by June 2024. Fiscal 2019 military construction (Navy) funds for P-224 in the amount of $117,780,000 are obligated at the time of award, and the funds will not expire at the end of the current fiscal year. When fiscal 2020 military construction (Navy) funds are available they will be obligated using one of the unexercised options for P-226. This contract was competitively procured via the Navy Electronic Commerce Online website with two proposals received. Naval Facilities Engineering Command Southwest, San Diego, California, is the contracting activity (N62473-19-C-2450).

Huntington Ingalls Inc., Newport News, Virginia, is being awarded a $40,000,000 cost-plus-incentive-fee modification to previously awarded contract N00024-17-C-2105 for additional supplemental work for the refueling complex overhaul of USS George Washington (CVN 73). Work includes accomplishment of the overhaul, modernization, repair, maintenance and refueling. This modification provides additional funds required to support mandatory and essential work performed by Huntington Ingalls Industries Newport News. All work is approved by the government and will ensure that the ship is returned to the fleet fully mission capable at redelivery. The supplemental refueling work for CVN 73 will be accomplished by Huntington Ingalls Inc., located in Newport News, Virginia, under the authority of 10 U.S. Code 2304(c)(1). Huntington Ingalls Inc. is the original building yard contractor for all ships of the CVN 68 class, the reactor planning yard, the lead design refueling yard and the only private shipyard capable of refueling and overhauling nuclear powered aircraft carriers. Therefore, it is the only source with the knowledge, experience and facilities required to accomplish this effort in support of the refueling of CVN 73 without an unacceptable disruption of Navy-wide overhaul and repair schedule. This additional effort will ensure that the ship is returned to the fleet fully mission capable at redelivery. Work will be performed in Newport News, Virginia, and is expected to complete by August 2021. Fiscal 2018 shipbuilding and construction (Navy) funding in the amount of $40,000,000 will be obligated at time of award and will not expire at the end of the current fiscal year. The Naval Sea Systems Command, Washington, District of Columbia, is the contracting activity.

Bethel-Webcor Pacific JV,* Anchorage, Alaska, is being awarded firm-fixed-price task order N6247319F4865 at $39,300,000 under a multiple award construction contract for a maritime skills training center at Naval Base San Diego. The task order also contains three unexercised options and one planned modification, which if exercised would increase cumulative task order value to $41,868,747. The work to be performed provides for converting a portion of Building 3304 to house computer simulator trainers to support the Surface Warfare Officers School's mission to train sea-bound warriors to serve on surface combatants as officers. The planned modification, if issued, provides for furniture, fixtures and equipment. The options, if exercised, provide for an electrical switch, fiber optic cable and new duct bank installation and removal of existing cages in a portion of the building. Work will be performed in San Diego, California, and is expected to be completed by December 2020. Fiscal 2019 operations and maintenance, (Navy) contract funds in the amount of $39,300,000 are obligated on this award and will expire at the end of the current fiscal year. Four proposals were received for this task order. Naval Facilities Engineering Command Southwest, San Diego, California, is the contracting activity (N62473-18-D-5856).

Keysight Technologies Inc., Englewood, Colorado, is being awarded a $9,850,400 indefinite-delivery, indefinite-quantity contract for up to 350 radio frequency vector signal generators in support of the Naval Air Systems Command's Metrology and Calibration Division. Work will be performed in Singapore, and is expected to be completed in January 2026. Fiscal 2019 aircraft procurement (Navy) funds in the amount of $84,432 will be obligated at time of award, none of which will expire at the end of the current fiscal year. This contract was competitively procured via an electronic request for proposals; two offers were received. The Naval Air Warfare Center Aircraft Division, Lakehurst, New Jersey, is the contracting activity (N6833519D0137).

Bluewater Management Group LLC, Norfolk, Virginia (N3220519D2002), is being awarded a $7,926,050 indefinite-delivery, requirements contract for Customer Support Unit-West for civil service mariners' lodging and transportation. The contract includes a one-year base period with four, one-year option periods, which, if exercised, would bring the cumulative value of this contract to $42,691,305. Work will be performed in San Diego, California, and is expected to be completed if all options are exercised by Sept. 30, 2024. Navy operation and maintenance funds in the amount of $7,926,050 are obligated for fiscal 2020 and will expire Oct. 1, 2020. This contract was competitively procured with proposals solicited via the Federal Business Opportunities website and five offers received. The U.S. Navy's Military Sealift Command, headquartered in Norfolk, Virginia, is the contracting activity (N3220519D2002).

Harris Corp., Rochester, New York, is being awarded a $7,392,098 firm-fixed-price, indefinite-delivery/indefinite-quantity contract with a base ordering period of one year for the refurbishment of Marine Corps Radio components associated with controlled cryptographic communications. This contract includes two one-year option ordering periods which, if exercised, could bring the cumulative value of this contract to $22,850,412. Work will be performed in Rochester, New York. Work is expected to be completed October 2020. If all options are exercised, work will continue through January 2023. Fiscal 2019 working capital (Navy) funds in the amount of $1,012,868 will be obligated on the first delivery order at the time of award and will not expire at the end of the current fiscal year. This contract was not competitively procured in accordance with 10 U.S. Code 2304(c)(1) - only one source and no other supplies or services will satisfy agency requirements. The Marine Corps Logistics Command, Albany, Georgia, is the contracting activity for (M67004-19-D-0002).

*Small Business

https://dod.defense.gov/News/Contracts/Contract-View/Article/1905262/source/GovDelivery/

On the same subject

  • Should Army Compete With Industry On OMFV?

    July 27, 2020 | International, Land

    Should Army Compete With Industry On OMFV?

    Industry sources say the Army shouldn't enter its own in-house design team in the race to replace the M2 Bradley. Top Army officials told us why it would work. By SYDNEY J. FREEDBERG JR.on July 24, 2020 at 7:00 AM WASHINGTON: Is fourth time the charm? After three failed attempts to replace the Reagan-era M2 Bradley troop carrier with better tech for modern warfare, the Army has a bold new strategy – one that could include a government design team competing head-to-head against contractors. The draft Request For Proposals (RFP), released Friday, raised some eyebrows in industry. But in an exclusive interview with Breaking Defense, Army officials told me a government team should stimulate, not stifle, much-needed innovation and competition. “We recognize that this does generate some concerns about potential organizational conflicts of interest,” said James Schirmer, the Deputy Program Executive Officer for Ground Combat Systems. “We certainly take those seriously.” The potential government team is now developing a formal “Organizational Conflict of Interest Mitigation Plan,” creating organizational firewalls so the Army team can't influence the requirements or selection process, Schirmer told me. If that plan doesn't pass muster with Army lawyers, he said bluntly, “then we would be prohibited from awarding a contract to the government team.” “To my knowledge, there's not a direct example of something similar occurring,” Schirmer agreed. But armored combat vehicles are a uniquely military design problem with few equivalents in the commercial world. “If you look at small arms, while we do have expertise in-house, there's a commercial industry that is very, very similar to the small arms that we're procuring for the military,” Schirmer told me. “If you look at aviation, while there's obviously some very important differences with military aircraft versus civilian ones, there's an awful lot of similarities.” “On the combat vehicle side, they're aren't as many similarities,” he said. “The engines that we use in commercial trucking can't survive under armor without cooling.... Our suspension systems are not unlike some commercial construction equipment, but we drive our vehicles at much higher speeds and are generally much heavier.” Meanwhile, Army scientists and engineers have spent decades studying everything from engines to armaments, from automated targeting systems to complete concepts for new vehicles. “We've got government folks that are really experts on combat vehicles and have good ideas,” Schirmer told me. “This phase primarily is generating ideas... potentially some innovation from inside our own halls.” That said, Schirmer didn't rule out the possibility that a government team might compete in later phases of the program – not just in developing “preliminary digital designs,” the subject of the draft RFP, but potentially in building a physical prototype vehicle as well. Actual mass production, however, would definitely be up to the private sector. “The government's got the ability to build prototypes,” he said. “The challenge would be the transition from an EMD [Engineering & Manufacturing Development]-like prototype into a production asset. That's something, typically, the government has not done.” So, he said, “the government team might need some help in that phase.” A government team might need help crafting a sufficiently detailed design that a contractor could actually build a working vehicle from it. Conversely, the manufacture would have to set up their supply chain and production line without the benefit of having done a prototype beforehand. “We'd have to figure out how we do that if the government were to continue as a competitor,” Schirmer said. “But to be honest, we have not thought beyond this phase” in any detail. Remember, the Army's still seeking industry feedback on the draft RFP; it has until next year to revise and finalize it. So at this point, it's not certain that a government team will even enter the current phase of the competition, let alone win a contract to develop the preliminary digital design. “We have room to award up to five contracts,” Schirmer said. “Even if the government team is one of those, there will be four additional contracts for industry.” “There's plenty of room for industry to get in and win,” he said. “I don't think they're going to be at a disadvantage relative to ... the government team.” Industry experts and insiders weren't so sure. Skeptics Speak Out “Let's face some reality first,” said Bill Greenwalt, an acquisition veteran who's worked in both the Pentagon and Congress. “There is no way the Army can effectively mitigate conflict of interest with a government design team, and there is no way that the government team will not have an advantage, through access to information flow within the Army's chain of command not available to the private sector.” After three previous failed attempts to replace the Bradley – FCS, GCV, and the first version of OMFV – the Army rebooted the Optionally Manned Fighting Vehicle program and tried to give industry wide leeway to come up with solutions, instead of prescribing rigid requirements. But with the new mandate for a two-man crew and the proposal for a government design team, Greenwalt lamented, “just when the Army has finally asked industry to come up with a solution rather than dictate it to them, it seems they have signaled what they really want to do is dictate the solution.” “Unfortunately, for decades, the Army has [been] wanting to return to the pre-World War II arsenal system where they controlled everything but were woefully un-innovative,” Greenwalt told me. “Rather than this half measure they should just nationalize the industrial base and get it over with and then see what kind of innovation they come up with.” Two industry sources, who asked to remain anonymous, expressed similar skepticism that the Army's Combat Capabilities Development Center (CCDC) and its subordinate commands, particularly the Ground Vehicle Systems Center (GVSC), can pull this off. “I anticipate the CCDC and its conglomerate of R&D facilities will think they can compete and win,” one industry source told me. “Their design will be exquisite and probably un-manufacturable.” “The CCDC and its R&D teams are under intense pressure from Futures Command to prove their value for the voluminous funding they have received over the last 10 years,” the source continued. “Armaments Center (formerly ARDEC) has the best track record for working with industry on guns, cannons (ERCA) and ammo, but GVSC (formerly TARDEC) has an abysmal record of having any of its technology investment migrating to a fielded platform.” “I'm not in agreement with the Army on the acquisition strategy,” another industry source told me. “They think there are companies that would welcome the government business [to mass-produce a government design]. But I'm always skeptical of a build-to-print proposal when the company doing the production has little invested in the design. The government loses out on innovation and cost in the process, because there is no incentive to improve or advance the product.” Greenwalt put the skeptics' bottom line most bluntly: “Private industry should think long and hard about whether to potentially waste their valuable engineering talent and bid & proposal dollars on such a competition.” Army officials, however, argued that they've set the competition up to let industry participate at minimal risk. “They submit a proposal, and then the government is paying them for their initial design,” said Brig. Gen. Richard Ross Coffman, director of armored vehicle modernization at Army Futures Command. While the final value is still being worked out, each of the up to five contract awards for the next phase should include enough funding for industry to get through Preliminary Design Review (PDR) without having to invest additional money of their own. But what if a company feels it's not competitive without investing its own Independent Research And Development (IRAD), as General Dynamics in particular has already done over the years? “That's a question for industry, [but] that is not the intent of the program,” Coffman told me. “We're trying to reduce risk for industry.” The Army wants a wide range of competitors – definitely from industry, but perhaps in-house as well – to offer the widest possible range of ideas. OMFV could resemble a Bradley rebuilt with the best available 21st century tech, or it could look nothing like a 20th century Infantry Fighting Vehicle at all. “Industry has a choice,” Coffman said. “Industry can use a traditional IFV model... or industry can provide a different manner in which we will transport our infantrymen on the battlefield in the most dangerous places on Earth.” “I think we're going to see a lot of unique solutions to the problem,” he said. The biggest technological innovation the Army's seeking: replacing the three-man crew used in the Bradley – and almost every comparable IFV worldwide – with just two humans assisted by powerful software. Why the Army thinks that's achievable, and why some are skeptical, is the topic for Part II of this story, coming Monday. https://breakingdefense.com/2020/07/should-army-compete-with-industry-on-omfv/

  • Lockheed, Rheinmetall pair up to build Europe-made rocket launcher

    June 23, 2023 | International, Land

    Lockheed, Rheinmetall pair up to build Europe-made rocket launcher

    The companies have an eye on the business of replacing the Bundeswehr's MARS 2 weapons.

  • Entretien avec Pierre Éric Pommellet, dirigeant de Naval Group

    June 5, 2020 | International, Naval

    Entretien avec Pierre Éric Pommellet, dirigeant de Naval Group

    Le PDG de Naval Group, Pierre Éric Pommellet, s'exprime dans Le Figaro. Il évoque la gestion de la crise sanitaire et ses conséquences : «Naval Group n'a perdu aucun client et ne déplore aucune annulation de contrats. Le carnet de commandes est solide. Nous préparons toutefois un recalage des calendriers de livraisons, dont nous discutons avec nos clients, afin de nous organiser», explique le dirigeant, qui souligne sa confiance dans l'entreprise, dont il a visité les sites et rencontré les équipes : «le navire est solide, il est préparé pour croiser au long cours», déclare-t-il. Naval Group a confirmé son engagement en faveur de la jeunesse, avec l'arrivée, d'ici à la fin 2020, de 400 apprentis, qui n'avaient pas pu être accueillis en mars pour cause de confinement. Le Figaro du 5 juin

All news