Back to news

June 26, 2019 | International, Aerospace, Naval, Land, C4ISR, Security, Other Defence

Contract Awards by US Department of Defense - June 25, 2019


Sikorsky Aircraft Corp., Stratford, Connecticut, was awarded a $91,291,064 hybrid (cost-plus-fixed-fee and firm-fixed-price) contract to provide engineering and other support services for all versions of the H-60 Blackhawk. One bid was solicited with one bid received. Work locations and funding will be determined with each order, with an estimated completion date of June 27, 2024. U.S. Army Contracting Command, Redstone Arsenal, Alabama, is the contracting activity (W58RGZ-19-D-0079).

DynCorp International LLC, Fort Worth, Texas, was awarded a $12,337,211 modification (P00034) to contract W58RGZ-17-C-0011 for modification of five C-12R aircraft to a C-12V. Work will be performed in Fort Worth, Texas, with an estimated completion date of May 31, 2023. Fiscal 2019 aircraft procurement, Army funds in the amount of $12,337,211 were obligated at the time of the award. U.S. Army Contracting Command, Redstone Arsenal, Alabama, is the contracting activity.

MCR Federal LLC,* McLean, Virginia, was awarded an $8,135,050 modification (0001 20) to contract W31P4Q-16-A-0016 for technical engineering support services. Work will be performed in Redstone Arsenal, Alabama, with an estimated completion date of June 29, 2020. Fiscal 2019 foreign military sales admin and other procurement, Army funds in the amount of $8,135,050 were obligated at the time of the award. U.S. Army Contracting Command, Redstone Arsenal, Alabama, is the contracting activity.


Leidos Inc., Reston, Virginia, is awarded a $62,975,474 cost-plus-fixed-fee, indefinite-delivery/indefinite-quantity contract for engineering and technical services to meet fleet requirements for Synthetic Signature Generation based training systems. This contract will provide scientific, engineering, and technical services required for the design, development, fabrication, integration, test, fleet implementation and maintenance. Work will be performed in Bethesda, Maryland, and is expected to be complete by December 2022. Fiscal 2019 other procurement (Navy), fiscal 2017 shipbuilding and conversion (Navy), and fiscal 2019 research, development, test and evaluation (Navy) funding in the amount of $10,762,779 will be obligated at time of award and will not expire at the end of the current fiscal year. This contract was competitively procured via the Federal Business Opportunities website, with one offer received. The Naval Surface Warfare Center, Carderock Division, West Bethesda, Maryland, is the contracting activity (N00167-19-D-0004).

L3 Systems Co., Camden, New Jersey, is awarded an estimated $41,518,454 indefinite-delivery/indefinite-quantity, firm-fixed-price, cost-plus fixed-fee contract. The Battle Force Tactical Network program requires the procurement and integration of commercial, off-the-shelf (COTS) high frequency internet protocol and subnet relay hardware, COTS software and government off-the-shelf software into a specified configuration for the Program Executive Office Command, Control, Communications, Computers and Intelligence. This contract has a five-year ordering period up to the contract award amount. There are no options. Work will be performed in Camden, New Jersey, and work is expected to be completed by June 2024. No funding is being placed on contract and obligated at the time of award. Contract actions will be issued and funds obligated as individual delivery orders. This contract was competitively procured as a full and open competition with proposals solicited via the Federal Business Opportunities website, with three offers received. The Naval Information Warfare Systems Command, San Diego, California, is the contracting activity (N00039-19-D-0035).

Wyle Laboratories Inc. (aka, KBRwyle), Huntsville, Alabama, is awarded a $41,081,160 cost-plus-fixed-fee, indefinite-delivery/indefinite-quantity contract to provide engineering, technical, operational, test and logistics services in support of the Naval Air Warfare Center Aircraft Division's (NAWCAD's) Surface/Aviation Interoperability Laboratory. In addition, this contract provides for facilities testing and laboratory equipment, installed avionics and ship-combat systems maintenance. Work will be performed at NAWCAD, Patuxent River, Maryland, and is expected to be completed in July 2024. No funds will be obligated at time of award; funds will be obligated on individual orders as they are issued. This contract was competitively procured via an electronic request for proposals; four offers were received. The Naval Air Warfare Center Aircraft Division, Patuxent River, Maryland, is the contracting activity (N00421-19-D-0070).

Gilbane Federal, Concord, California, is awarded a $31,683,336 firm-fixed-price contract for unaccompanied enlisted housing at the Naval Base Guam. Buildings 5, 6, 18 and 20, will undergo conversion and alteration of each structure to house double-occupancy, permanent-party housing units and building common areas including multipurpose spaces, shared kitchens, vending areas, shared laundries and other miscellaneous support spaces. This project will also include the full renovation of the second floor existing double-occupancy permanent-party housing units in Building 18. The contract also contains one unexercised option, which if exercised, would increase cumulative contract value to $32,966,436. Work will be performed in Joint Region Marianas, Guam, and is expected to be completed by October 2022. Fiscal 2019 military construction (Navy) contract funds in the amount of $31,683,336 are obligated on this award and will not expire at the end of the current fiscal year. This contract was competitively procured via the Navy Electronic Commerce Online website, with four proposals received. The Naval Facilities Engineering Command, Pacific, Joint Base Pearl Harbor-Hickam, Hawaii, is the contracting activity (N62742-19-C-1310).

BAE Systems Land & Armaments L.P., Louisville, Kentucky, is awarded $14,134,492 for a firm-fixed-price, cost-plus-fixed-fee modification to previously awarded contract N00174-19-C-0004 for one overhauled/upgraded MK45 Mod 4 gun mount, and their associated components. The 5-inch MK 45 light weight gun mount system provides an effective weapon for anti-surface, naval surface fire support, and anti-air warfare missions, and is installed aboard DDG- 51 and CG-47 class ships. This contract is to provide all necessary material and services required to overhaul and upgrade MK 45 gun mounts to support AEGIS Modernization and Arleigh Burke new construction requirements. Work will be performed in Louisville, Kentucky, and is expected to be complete by October 2023. Fiscal 2019 shipbuilding and conversion (Navy) funding in the amount of $14,134,492 will be obligated at time of award and not expire at the end of the current fiscal year. The Naval Surface Warfare Center, Indian Head Explosive Ordnance Disposal Technology Division, Indian Head, Maryland, is the contracting activity.


Innovative Technologies International Inc., Lynchburg, Virginia, has been awarded a $7,000,000 indefinite-delivery/indefinite-quantity contract for Katana Hardware Fabrication effort. The contract provides for concept design analysis and advanced fabrication capabilities to rapidly manufacture products meeting specific characteristics through a partnering arrangement by fulfilling research, development, test and evaluation requirements for Eglin Air Force Base, Florida, with organization-specific tasks. Work will be performed at Lynchburg, Virginia, and is expected to be completed by June 25, 2024. This contract is the result of a sole source award. Fiscal 2018 research and development funds in the amount of $24,897.00 are being obligated at the time of award. The Air Force Research Laboratory, Eglin Air Force Base, Florida, is the contracting activity, Eglin AFB, Florida (FA8651-19).

*Small business

On the same subject

  • Harris and L3 CEOs talk merger, divestitures and why we all should have seen this coming

    October 15, 2018 | International, Aerospace, Naval, Land, C4ISR, Security

    Harris and L3 CEOs talk merger, divestitures and why we all should have seen this coming

    By: Jill Aitoro If you ask Chris Kubasik, CEO of L3 Technologies, the company's pending merger with Harris Corp. should not come as a surprise to anyone. Such a move made sense on paper for years, even if the timing was never quite right. Now it is: Both companies are on an upswing, and both companies are led by individuals with an inclination to get it done. The result will be a deal — the largest defense merger in history, if you look at market capitalization — to create the seventh largest defense prime in the world. Defense News spoke to Kubasik and Bill Brown, the CEO of Harris, to find out more about the newly rechristened L3 Harris Technologies. Chris, you called this an acquisition that many felt made sense. So what were the challenges to making it happen, and why is now the perfect time? Chris Kubasik: I think in reality, people thought for years that this combination made sense. It was due to Bill and I working hard that we actually got it done. I think that now is the perfect time because of the customer's needs and demands for innovation and solution. Like I said, with the upswing in both companies, and both companies being strong, I think that gives us the opportunity to put this together, generate the cash and the synergies and position us for long-term value creation for our shareholders. The challenges of all these acquisitions [are so often] culture and leadership. Here, the cultures are aligned. Bill and I are completely aligned. We've known each other for years. We have a clear understanding of roles and responsibilities. We're going to jointly chair the integration committee to make sure we get the best of the best — best people, best processes, best system. I'm sure I've never been more excited in my career than I am today, so it's going to be a lot of fun. The stakeholders are all going to benefit. Bill, how much was the 2015 acquisition of Exelis a building block toward this deal? Not necessarily a merger with L3 specifically, but really big merger that would really transform the company? Did you see this coming? Bill Brown: I've been here for seven years, so we really started early on in developing a culture of operational excellence. I think that has been pretty well embedded within the company. We've made some good progress here. We've leveraged a lot of those tools, effectively integrating Exelis. We reached the cost savings targets we thought we would deliver and we delivered it a year early. So I think we built a little bit of a muscle on how to do an integration. I think this is a great potential combination for us. It does position us well within the defense industrial based hierarchy. We'll generate a lot of savings. But more importantly, the portfolio capabilities is going to allow us to do different things, to provide different capabilities to the war fighter and different things that are clearly laid out in the National Defense Strategy. So as I look at this, it's the right transaction. It's the right time. It's the right environment to do this. A lot of this comes down to the leaders of the organization, and Chris and I [are] completely aligned in what to do and how to create value. So much of this also involves combining and integrating in a smart and efficient way, so should we expect any more divestitures? I know L3 just did a couple recently. Any more to come? Brown: I think if you look at what L3 has done recently, and what we've done over the last five or six years, we both have taken a critical eye to the business portfolio we had. If there's assets we think that are better owned by somebody other than [ourselves], we take a dispassionate view of that. And we transition those assets to a different owner. I think Chris and I will take a look at that going forward. I think there will be [divestitures], given the diversity of the business mix we'll have together. It does create the optionality for additional portfolio shaping. Nothing to mention today, but something we'll be taking a close look at over the coming months and years. Okay, so the couple of years before the transition, in terms of leadership — should I figure that those two years are going to be spent really establishing the integrated company? Kubasik: Absolutely. The top two focuses of Bill and I and the team will be the integration, and continuing to execute on our existing programs and commitments. That is first and foremost. We're going to generate a lot of cash. It's going to take several hundred million dollars of investments to integrate these companies. Then the rest of the cash we're going to maintain a competitive dividend, consistent with what we've done. We're very similar in that regard. In the first year, we're going to use the excess cash to repurchase shares. So the likelihood of acquisition from those first two years are very low. As Bill said, we'll look at the portfolio. We've clearly spent a lot of time together, but the next few months we'll get into it more and more and see what makes sense. The way I sum it up is, the merger creates better benefits and growth opportunities than either company could have achieved alone. I know both companies are incredibly strong in terms of C4ISR and a lot of what you might call the future warfare capabilities. What kind of growth do you anticipate in that area? Brown: When I look at the next several years, you're hitting on the right spot. When you look at C4ISR, it's a broad category. When you look at the pieces underneath that, I think Chris and I, our companies, bring great capabilities [that are] complementary. When you think about what we do at Harris, we've got a very strong position in tactical radios — global leadership, U.S. leadership. A lot of it's ground, starting the movements to airborne tier, starting to provide systems. Chris's business is very strong in avionics. It's very strong in data links, very strong in satcom, very strong between the two of us in optical capability. When you look at all of that broad way of getting better ISR information, I think we bring the right capabilities to the fight. Kubasik: We'll be spending about 4% of our revenues on R&D, which I think is aggressive. And we talk about the customers, just to clarify — we have two sets. We have the usual industry partners, who I think will benefit from this combination, the same way that our end-user DoD customer will as well. Are there any programs that you both were competing on, where there's going to need to be some sort management to eliminate conflicts of interest? Brown: Very, very small. It's almost negligible in terms of where we compete head to head. Again, it's a very complimentary set of businesses, so we don't see that as being a big concern. What kind of layoffs are you all anticipating? Brown: We expect half a billion dollars of cost savings, and half of it is going to come from supply chain and facility rationalization — consolidating our mutual footprint. About half of that other half, so 25 percent, is split from corporate and segment overhead reduction in functional efficiencies, shared services — things that we've done and Chris is now driving at all three. But we're in a market today where the unemployment rate's very low. We both were out there hiring people, trying to hire talented engineers and scientists, get people through clearances. So fortunately, we're in an environment where we need more people, not fewer people. Okay, so you think it'll be relatively modest, getting rid of where there might be overlap? Brown: There's going to be some overlap. There'll be some movement of people, but we're not prepared to talk about any employment reduction today. But again, look, it's an environment today where we're looking for more people, especially in the STEM field. The decision to make Melbourne, Florida the headquarters — will that be permanent? Brown: Yeah, it'll be as soon as we close. It'll be the headquarters in Melbourne, and Chris is going to move to Melbourne. We have about 7,000 people in Brevard County. We've been there for 40 years, very deep, entrenched infrastructure. If you know the area, a lot of the defense players, aerospace defense players, are moving now to the Space Coast. It's a very vibrant community. Again, we've been there for a while. We're deeply embedded into the community with a lot of infrastructure at Harris, so that's what we decided to do. Bill, I was convinced you guys were going to move to Washington for a while, but you proved me wrong. Brown: You know, it's interesting. Look, that came up for us, when we did Exelis, but Chris and I've talked about this. It just doesn't make sense for both companies to move headquarters at the same time. That provides an additional risk in a deal. We thought we need to move to one place or the other. We both thought that Melbourne was a better place for the headquarters of the company. Chris, you get to move again. Kubasik: You know, it's been a couple of years, time to move. I'm getting used to it, so if things slow down this week, maybe one night at 10:00 I'll log onto a real estate website and try to be a first mover before the prices increase down there. [laughter] I know you said in the next couple years no acquisitions would be on the horizon, but do you anticipate even more areas of business that would meld with those that you already play well in? Brown: Look, I would say you started out the question the way I'd answer it, which is: it's too soon to determine that. I think the next couple of years will be about integrating the companies. It'll be about divesting. If we see opportunities for portfolio shaping, making sure that happens, so we stay focused on the business where strategically it makes sense for us to be in longer term. But I think Chris and I both have talked very publicly, individually as companies, about M&A is a part of our long-term growth strategy. So over time, we do anticipate, under Chris's leadership, that there'll be other M&As that will happen over time. But I think in the next couple of years, unless it's something exceptional, must have, we're going to stand down on M&A and really focus on integrating the portfolios that we have. Kubasik: Now the organic growth opportunities, and the beauty of having two leaders at the top, will allow us to focus on our customers, not only in D.C., but globally. And you know how much I love to travel internationally — we're going to have customers in over 100 countries. I still look at that in amazement. We'll be able to deepen those relationships. We both work in a lot of the same countries, but when you have a larger combined content, I think we'll be able to advance internationally maybe further, quicker than we would have individually. So I think one of my focus areas is going to be to help grow the business and meet with those customers around the globe. Chris I've spoken to you a couple of times on the big plans and aspirations to be a non-traditional six prime. You got there way faster than I thought you would. Kubasik: Oh, thank you, I'm an impatient person. I know you also said to me that you didn't envision, and I quote, “building multi-billion-dollar satellites, airplanes and ships.” Does that vision of what the company is, and will be, as a six prime remain intact with this merger? Kubasik: We don't really have any major platforms, [but] when I look at the different domains that we're going to be able to serve, whether it's air, space, land or sea or cyber, that's the exciting part. On the air side, as an example, on a combined basis we have some pretty exciting capabilities with avionics and electronic warfare, as an example. So we'll be able to be on the legacy programs, like the F-16 and F-18, which we already are, and we'll have more content on the next-gen platforms like an F-35. So if we go domain by domain, you see the ability to better connect the different platforms to focus on the secured communication. I think we're well positioned for the multi-domain, command and control and communication systems. I'm excited about the small satellite business that Harris had. I think that's great. You know about our UUVs, our UAVs. I think it's going to work well in conjunction with the industry prime. It'll be a collaborative, cooperative relationship. Brown: I think we're not a company that does or will do a lot of these big, major platforms that the big primes are doing today. The way we look at it, 72 percent of the combined business will be prime, meaning sales to and customers. I think that's an important point to make. Bill you've talked to me about space superiority. How key is space to the combined business? Brown: We have a pretty broad business in space in terms of space superiority. A lot of it, it's ground-based capabilities that provide offensive and defensive capabilities to that space architecture. We've developed a lot of exquisite systems and components that have now moved into end-to-end mission solutions for small satellites. We've got a lot of capabilities on our end, in optics. Chris's business, L3, is also strong in small optics, and they've got really good signal intelligence capabilities that I think can augment the things that we do with some of the space architecture. So I see that as helping us continue to broaden that set of mission solutions in the space domain, that I think we spent the last several decades, actually, developing. What does this merger mean to the top primes? Brown: We have at Harris a great relationship with all of the primes. [We] do a lot of work particularly with Boeing and Lockheed. We do quite a bit now with Raytheon as well, so I think we have great partnerships, and I think if anything [this] is going to be additive to that partnership. I think it'll be favorably received by those guys. Kubasik: I agree a 100 percent. I think they're going to be equally excited as the DoD customer for the same reasons. We'll have the money to innovate the R&D, maybe bundle some solutions. They'll also share over time in the affordability of this synergy. I think it's a win-win for the industry and the DoD customers. Bill, in two years you hand the CEO spot to Chris. I'm asking you to look at a couple years down the road, and I know you're remaining on the board, but any other big plans? Brown: Look, that's three and a half years down the road. If I look at six months between sign and close – that's a lifetime year, as you can imagine. I've been CEO here for seven years. That puts me 10 years at the company. I think with Chris, we'll put the company together on the right track. Look, I'll find something productive to do with my life at that point.

  • UK headquarters planned for advanced jet fighter project of Japan, Britain, Italy - sources | Reuters

    September 21, 2023 | International, Aerospace

    UK headquarters planned for advanced jet fighter project of Japan, Britain, Italy - sources | Reuters

    The three countries established the Global Combat Air Programme in December for a ground-breaking collaboration that aims to deploy an advanced aircraft by the middle of the next decade.

  • The US military ran the largest stress test of its sealift fleet in years. It’s in big trouble.

    January 2, 2020 | International, Naval

    The US military ran the largest stress test of its sealift fleet in years. It’s in big trouble.

    By: David B. Larter WASHINGTON — The U.S. military in September ordered the largest stress test of its wartime sealift fleet in the command's history, with 33 out of 61 government-owned ships being activated simultaneously. The results were bad, according to a new report. In an unclassified U.S. Transportation Command report posted to its website, the so-called turbo activation revealed that less than half of the sealift fleet would be fully prepared to get underway for a major sealift operation in a crisis. “The relatively low ... Qualitative Mission Success Rate indicates the Organic Surge Fleet is challenged to be immediately available for a large-scale inter-theater force deployment without delays/impacts to force closure due to degraded readiness,” the report read. The Dec. 16 report confirms what senior military and transportation officials have been saying for years now: that the sealift fleet is in urgent need of recapitalization if it is to be relied upon to support a large-scale operation overseas. In a crisis, nearly 90 percent of all Army and Marine Corps equipment would be carried by ship. The Navy is on the hook to pay for recapitalization, but it has so far failed to land on a strategy to do so. Overall, 40.7 percent of the 61 ships operated by Military Sealift Command and the Maritime Administration were fully ready to support a major sealift operation. Sal Mercogliano, a merchant marine and current professor at Campbell University who closely follows these issues, said the major equipment casualties are the driving factor that is dragging down readiness. “You had 22 out of the 61 ships in either C-5 or C-4 condition,” Mercogliano said. “C-5 means that you can't even leave the dock; C-4 means you can leave the dock but you are not in any condition to sail any real distance. In my ballpark, that's non-mission capable. So right off the bat you lose 22 of the 61 ships. Then of the 33 that they activated, nine of them had issues. Three of them were C-4 level. “So when you add together the ones that had issues with the ones that couldn't be activated, they're saying you can only really count on about 40 percent of the fleet to active when they are aiming for 85 percent.” Ultimately, the degraded status of the sealift fleet means that combatant commanders won't be able to count on its capacity for logistics support, Mercogliano said. “If you are Indo-Pacific Command, or you are Central Command, and you are counting on a certain amount of square footage available to you, that's going to have huge ramifications,” he added. In recent testimony, INDOPACOM Commander Adm. Phil Davidson said as much, saying his operational plans depend on logistics support. “Clearly recapitalization of our sealift system is going to be critically important, as it's aging out and really has propulsion plants that [are] expiring in capability and our ability to maintain them,” Davidson said. “It's [a] risk to our troops and all of our people that are forward in the region if there is any delay in our ability to deliver the logistics in accordance with the [operation] plans.” Manning concerns In a November interview prior to the compilation of the final report, Maritime Administrator retired Rear Adm. Mark Buzby told Defense News that the test validated the data they had on ship readiness and the Maritime Administration's ability to crew the vessels, which he has long maintained is enough for initial activation but would suffer during a prolonged effort. “I think given the scale of the test, as we've been saying, we are OK for doing initial manning for our ships when they are activated,” Buzby said. “Something that we couldn't test in this fairly short-term activation was the follow-on aspect. “We believe we have plenty of manning to man up the ships initially, get them past the sea buoy and get them on the mission. But the problem is going to manifest itself four to six months down the line when some of them want to rotate. Who is going to be standing on the pier ready to take their place? That's where we have a problem. You just couldn't show that in this activation.” One of the primary issues has been, as Davidson intimated, that many of the plants in the Ready Reserve Force are steam-operated plants, which are all but nonexistent in the commercial world, so it is increasingly difficult to find qualified engineers. Finding steam engineers went well for the turbo activation, Buzby said, but it proved difficult and will only become more so as fewer opportunities to retain updated certifications become available. In a 2018 interview with Defense News, Buzby described a shortage of personnel that would affect the sealift fleet's ability to operate for an extended period of time. The Maritime Administration, part of the Department of Transportation, estimates it has 11,768 qualified mariners with unlimited credentials available to crew the Ready Reserve Force, a number that just exceeds the needed total of 11,678 to operate both the reserve and commercial fleets at the same time. But that comes with a catch: This service is entirely voluntary. “Maritime Workforce Working Group estimates that there are sufficient mariners working in the industry to activate the surge fleet if the entire pool of qualified United States citizen mariners identified by MWWG are available and willing to sail when required,” the report read. “This assumption is of paramount importance given the voluntary nature of mariner service.” Furthermore, that number is just what it would take to activate the ships and temporarily operate them. If the nation needed to sustain a large-scale effort, it would soon begin to falter. “We are about 1,800 mariners short for any kind of long-term sustainment effort,” Buzby said. “We believe we have enough today to activate all the ships we would need to activate. ... But anything less than an all-of-nation effort ... where everyone who went out to sea, stayed at sea, we start to run short of people as we rotate.”

All news