Back to news

June 10, 2019 | International, Aerospace

How did the two offerings competing to be the US Army’s future engine measure up?

By:

WASHINGTON — Cost appears to have played a major role in the Army's decision to pick GE Aviation's T901 engine for its future helicopter engine, based on a look at documents laying out the service's post-award analysis, obtained by Defense News.

Yet, other factors not shown could have also contributed to the Army's choice, which the Government Accountability Office upheld following a protest from losing team Advanced Turbine Engine Company (ATEC) — a partnership between Honeywell and Pratt & Whitney.

The GAO is expected to release a redacted version of its decision next week, which could shed more light on how the Army decided to move forward with GE.

While the cost of GE'S engine seems to have been a deciding factor, the document outlining the service's criteria to determine a winning engine design to move into the engineering and manufacturing development phase states that “all non-cost/price factors when combined are significantly more important than cost/price factor.”

According to that chart, the Army said it would primarily measure the engine submissions against its engine design and development, followed by cost/price, followed by life-cycle costs and then small business participation in order of importance.

The Army assessed ATEC's and GE's technical risk as good and gave ATEC a risk rating of low while it gave GE a risk rating of moderate when considering engineering design and development for each offering.

Both GE and ATEC had moderate risk ratings when it came to engine design and performance.

And while GE received a technical risk rating of moderate for component design and systems test and evaluation, ATEC received low risk ratings for both.

Almost all other technology risk assessments and risk ratings were the same for both engine offerings.

GE scored “outstanding” in platform integration capabilities.

Based off the chart, it appears ATEC won, so its likely the documents are not an exhaustive representation of how the Army decided to move forward with GE.

While both ATEC and GE offered prices within the Army's requirements, GE came in 30 percent lower in cost.

And according to Brig. Gen. Thomas Todd, the program executive officer for aviation, in an interview with Defense News in April, GE was also working on trying to shrink the timeline within the EMD phase by roughly a year.

But, in ATEC's view, the charts show it had offered the best value product to the Army.

ATEC's president, Craig Madden, told Defense News that the company took the Army's selection criteria laid out in the request for proposals seriously across the board from engineering design and development factors to cost to even small business participation, where it scored higher than GE in the analysis chart.

“We did come in higher in cost but this was considered a best value evaluation and not lowest price, technically acceptable,” Madden said. “I think low price is good for a plastic canteen or a bayonet, it's not good for a highly technical turbine engine.”

And despite coming in at a higher cost, Jerry Wheeler, ATEC's vice president said, the up front cost in the EMD phase will be higher but the delta would shrink when considering life-cycle costs of both engine offerings.

Both ATEC and GE received good technical ratings and were given risk ratings of low.

When just going by the chart, GE's four moderate risk ratings in key categories means “they could have disruption in schedule, increased cost and degradation of performance,” Madden said.

He added ATEC was also focused on lowering risk, so that, although the Army offered incentives to finish the EMD phase earlier than 66 months, ATEC presented a plan to complete at 66 months with a plan to look at acceleration wherever possible.

ATEC is now pushing to be a part of the EMD phase, essentially extending the competition, so that more data on engines can be garnered.

The Army had periodically weighed keeping the EMD phase competitive with two vendors, but ultimately chose to downselect to one.

For GE, the Army made the right decision and had enough data to do so.

“The U.S. Army competitively selected GE's T901 engine over ATEC T900 engine after more than 12 years of development,” David Wilson told Defense News in a statement.

“Those 12 years included the Advanced Affordable Turbine Engine (AATE) program, during which both companies ran tow full engine tests,” he said.

Additionally, both companies executed a 24-month technology maturation and risk reduction contract where GE self-funded and successfully completed and tested a third engine, a full-sized T901 prototype engine, with successful tests on all components, Wilson said.

“We've done three full-engine tests and provided an unprecedented amount of test data to the Army for them to determine which engine was the best to move forward with in EMD,” he added.

Funding a second engine through EMD would cost more than twice as much and delay critical Army modernization by at least two years, Wilson argued.

https://www.defensenews.com/land/2019/06/07/how-did-the-two-offerings-competing-to-be-the-us-armys-future-engine-measure-up/

On the same subject

  • Poll: Germans, Americans far apart on use of military, defense spending

    March 11, 2020 | International, Aerospace, Naval, Land, C4ISR, Security

    Poll: Germans, Americans far apart on use of military, defense spending

    By: Sebastian Sprenger COLOGNE, Germany — Germans and Americans remain far apart on defense issues, ranging from when to use the military, how much to spend on defense and which country poses a bigger challenge — Russia or China — according to a new study unveiled Monday. “Three years into a turbulent period of American-German relations, with Donald Trump at the helm of American foreign policy and Angela Merkel leading Germany, there continues to be a wide divergence in views of bilateral relations and security policy between the publics of both countries,” said a Pew Research Center study published in cooperation with Koerber Stiftung, a German think tank. The two organizations each polled about 1,000 adults in September 2019 in the United States and Germany. Also included in the data are results from Pew's “global attitudes” survey conducted in both countries during the spring and summer of 2019. The results are unlikely to surprise anyone following trans-Atlantic relations, but they put into perspective why deep-seated differences persist in crafting a more coherent political show of force between the two nations. While roughly 80 percent Americans believe that using military might is sometimes necessary to maintain order in the world, Germans were almost split evenly on the same question, with a slight majority disagreeing. On the question of defending a fellow NATO ally against Russia in the event of a conflict, 6 in 10 Americans said the United States should help, whereas 6 in 10 German respondents said their country should not get involved. At the same time, Germans saw the United States high up in the list of key foreign policy allies, much higher than Americans viewed Germany. Asked to name their most or second-most important partner, 42 percent of Germans mentioned the United Sates, surpassed only by the their top choice of France, at 60 percent. For Americans, the British ranked highest on the same question, at 36 percent, followed by China (23 percent), Canada (20 percent) and Israel (15 percent). “One area of convergence is the broad support in both the U.S. and Germany for more cooperation with France and Japan. And similar majorities in the U.S. and Germany want to cooperate more with China,” the study read. As for cooperation with Russia, “Germans are almost twice as likely as Americans to want greater collaboration,” it added. When it comes to defense spending, 35 percent of Americans felt that Europeans should up their military budget, with 50 percent saying it should stay the same and 9 percent saying it should decrease. In 2017, the share of Americans wanting an increase was 45 percent. In Germany, the acceptance for defense budget increases has grown since 2017, when only 32 percent of those polled voiced support and 50 percent wanted it to remain the same. In 2018, 43 percent of respondents supported an increase. At the mid-February Munich Security Conference, much was made about the European Union's need to “learn to use the language of power,” as Josep Borrell, the bloc's defense and foreign policy chief, put it. That, of course, would cost money. Germans have traditionally frowned upon that kind of talk, though there is an increasing awareness of geopolitical perils in the wake of Russia's annexation of Crimea in 2014, Jeffrey Rathke, president of the American Institute for Contemporary German Studies at Johns Hopkins University, said in an interview last month. “Germany has been able to get by with its rhetorical response to the deteriorating security environment,” he said. “Now it's increasingly obvious that that is no longer enough.” While the country has significantly upped its defense spending, sensitizing the public for operational contributions to Europe's security will be a crucial next step for this government and the next, Rathke argued. The Pew and Koerber figures point to a generational change in the general attitudes of Germans and Americans about one another. “Despite these divergences in opinion, young people in both countries have more positive views of the U.S.-German relationship,” the study read. “In the U.S., for example, 82 percent of people ages 18 to 29 say the relationship is good, compared with 73 percent of those ages 65 and older. Similarly, in Germany, four-in-ten young people say relations with the U.S. are good, compared with only 31 percent of those 65 and older.” Notably, the two countries' militaries enjoy a much closer level of cooperation than the political discourse suggests, especially during the Trump administration, a fact that officials in both countries keep stressing when the tone between Berlin and Washington turns particularly icy. “There is an instinctive perception in the German public to defense matters anchored in Europe and the trans-Atlantic alliance,” Rathke said. https://www.defensenews.com/global/europe/2020/03/09/poll-germans-americans-far-apart-on-use-of-military-defense-spending/

  • Boeing to Modernize Entire Spanish Chinook Helicopter Fleet

    January 4, 2019 | International, Aerospace

    Boeing to Modernize Entire Spanish Chinook Helicopter Fleet

    Will remanufacture 17 CH-47D Chinooks to the CH-47F configuration for Spain's Army PHILADELPHIA, Pa., Jan. 3, 2019 — Boeing [NYSE: BA] will upgrade all 17 of Spain's CH-47D Chinook helicopters to the F-model configuration, adding features such as the digital automatic flight control system, common avionics architecture system and advanced cargo handling to align that country's fleet with those of other nations. This is the first order from a non-U.S. customer placed through a contract Boeing and the U.S. Army signed in July. That contract covers six new F-models for the U.S. and options for up to 150 more Chinooks for U.S. and international customers. Deliveries to Spain begin in 2021. “The Chinook is a versatile aircraft flown by eight NATO nations, including Spain,” said Chuck Dabundo, vice president, Cargo and Utility Helicopters and H-47 program manager. “With this contract, Spain's Chinook crews will enjoy the platform's current technology and capability, while the country gets an affordable upgrade that builds on its existing H-47 investment.” The CH-47F is a twin-engine, tandem rotor, heavy-lift helicopter. In addition to the U.S. Army and Special Operations Forces, Chinooks are currently in service or under contract with 19 international defense forces. It can fly at speeds exceeding 175 mph and carry payloads greater than 21,000 lbs. In 2017, Boeing and the U.S. Army announced development of CH-47F Block II, which will incorporate a new rotor blade, redesigned fuel system, improved drivetrain and structural improvements to the fuselage. For more information on Defense, Space & Security, visit www.boeing.com. Follow us on Twitter: @BoeingDefense and @BoeingSpace. # # # Contacts: Marcia Costley Defense, Space & Security Office: +1 310-364-8409 Mobile: +1 714-316-4267 marcia.b.costley@boeing.com Andrew Africk Defense, Space & Security Office: +1 610-591-2393 Mobile: +1 610-379-6208 andrew.africk@boeing.com https://boeing.mediaroom.com/2019-01-03-Boeing-to-Modernize-Entire-Spanish-Chinook-Helicopter-Fleet

  • GSA chooses 22 companies to assist IT modernization solutions

    June 7, 2019 | International, C4ISR, Security, Other Defence

    GSA chooses 22 companies to assist IT modernization solutions

    By: Jessie Bur Federal agencies that participate in the Centers of Excellence program will soon have more tools at their disposal for discovering the areas of greatest IT modernization need within their organization. The General Services Administration announced June 4 that it had issued a blanket purchase agreement to 22 companies to provide future CoE partners with the speed and flexibility to perform numerous discovery and assessment efforts simultaneously. “With just about a third of the agreements going to small businesses, we are proud of the cross-section of American industry and technological expertise represented,” said GSA CoE Executive Director Bob De Luca in a news release. “We selected companies who demonstrated the potential to discover issues related to current legacy systems and develop recommendations for modern-day technological solutions to the problems our citizens face when interacting with government services.” The Centers of Excellence program, started in December 2017 under a partnership between GSA and the White House, has so far had three agencies sign on to use the program to improve their IT: the Department of Agriculture, Department of Housing and Urban Development and the Office of Personnel Management. The 22 BPA awardees span seven areas of change, with some companies receiving awards under multiple categories: Change Management Ambit Group, LLC Deloitte Consulting LLP Ernst & Young, LLP ICF Incorporated LLC International Business Machines Corporation McKinsey & Company, Inc., Washington, D.C. Cloud Adoption Capgemini Government Solutions LLC Flexion Inc. ICF Incorporated LLC McKinsey & Company, Inc., Washington, D.C. Contact Center Deloitte Consulting LLP Digital Management LLC HighPoint Digital, Inc. ICF Incorporated LLC McKinsey & Company, Inc., Washington, D.C. Slalom, LLC Customer Experience Arc Aspicio LLC Deloitte Consulting LLP Grant Thornton LLP Guidehouse LLP ICF Incorporated LLC International Business Machines Corporation Data Analytics Guidehouse LLP KPMG LLP McKinsey & Company, Inc., Washington, D.C. Information Security Centennial Technologies Inc. Deloitte Consulting LLP Electrosoft Services, Inc. Ernst & Young, LLP Grant Thornton LLP ICF Incorporated LLC International Business Machines Corporation KPMG LLP McKinsey & Company, Inc., Washington, D.C. MindPoint Group, LLC ShorePoint, Inc. Veris Group, LLC d/b/a Coalfire Federal IT Infrastructure Optimization Capgemini Government Solutions LLC Deloitte Consulting LLP Ernst & Young, LLP Gartner, Inc. Guidehouse LLP ICF Incorporated LLC International Business Machines Corporation KPMG LLP McKinsey & Company, Inc., Washington, D.C. Systems Engineering Solutions Corporation https://www.federaltimes.com/acquisition/2019/06/04/gsa-chooses-22-companies-to-help-centers-of-excellence-discoveries/

All news