To keep weapon sales in place, US offers new options for payment

On the same subject

• 

  March 20, 2019 | International, C4ISR, Security, Other Defence

  UK Defence Cyber Protection Partnership

  The Defence Cyber Protection Partnership (DCPP), a government industry initiative was formed to create a joint response to the cyber threat. The DCPP aims to protect our military capability by improving cyber defence through the MOD's supply chain while preserving existing investment in cyber security measures. As part of the partnership the Ministry of Defence has created a number of cyber security standards that have to be met to contract with MOD, these are outlined in the Cyber Security Model (CSM). In order for a supplier to demonstrate their compliance MOD has created Octavian/Supplier Cyber Protection. This free online tool enables you to complete both risk assessments (RA) and supplier assurance questionnaires (SAQ). . DCPP events 19 to 20 March 2019: Pharma Security World 28 March 2019: DPRTE 2 April 2019: DISA Northern 10 to 11 April 2019: Defence Information '19 24 to 25 April 2019: Cyber UK 1 May 2019: DISA Western 15 May DISA Central 20 May 2019: Total Supply Chain Summit 25 June 2019: Manufacturing Supply Chain Conference 17 July 2019: 3 Counties Defence and Security Expo 10 September to 13 September 2019: DSEI https://www.gov.uk/government/collections/defence-cyber-protection-partnership

• 

  November 24, 2020 | International, Aerospace, Naval, Land, C4ISR, Security

  Contract Awards by US Department of Defense - November 20, 2020

  AIR FORCE Northrop Grumman Systems Corp., Clearfield, Utah, has been awarded a $185,700,000 indefinite-delivery/indefinite-quantity contract for the A-10 Aircraft Structural Integrity Program Legacy VII. This contract provides for sustaining engineering services of A-10 aircraft. Work will be performed in Clearfield, Utah, and is expected to be completed Nov. 22, 2030. This award is the result of a sole-source acquisition. Fiscal 2021 operation and maintenance funds in the amount of $6,480,694 are being obligated at the time of award. The Air Force Life Cycle Management Center, Hill Air Force Base, Utah, is the contracting activity (FA8202-21-D-0001). L-3 Communications Vertex Aerospace LLC, Madison, Mississippi, has been awarded a $65,603,271 firm-fixed-price contract for contractor operated and maintained base supply of the Air Education and Training Command fleet of 178 T-1A Trainer aircraft. Work will be performed at Randolph Air Force Base, Texas; Laughlin AFB, Texas; Vance AFB, Oklahoma; Columbus AFB, Mississippi; and Pensacola Naval Air Station, Florida, and is expected to be completed Nov. 30, 2021. This award for Option Three is the result of a competitive acquisition and three offers were received. Fiscal 2021 operation and maintenance funds in the amount $17,946,903 are being obligated at the time of award. The Air Force Life Cycle Management Center, Tinker AFB, Oklahoma, is the contracting activity (FA8106-18-C-0001). Lockheed Martin Corp., King of Prussia, Pennsylvania, has been awarded a $34,939,734, cost-type modification (P00014) to contract FA8219-20-C-0001 for Mk21A technology maturation and risk reduction (TMRR) research and development for reentry vehicles (RVs). The contract modifies the TMRR prototype flight test plan, to now include preparations for a second flight test and development of two prototype RVs with telemetry capability in order to further mature technology. Work will be performed in King of Prussia, Pennsylvania, and is expected to be completed Oct. 21, 2022. Fiscal 2020 research, development, test and evaluation funds are being used with no funds being obligated at the time of award. Total cumulative face value of the contract is $151,943,606. The Air Force Nuclear War Center, Hill Air Force Base, Utah, is the contracting activity. AT2 LLC, Severn, Maryland, has been awarded a $15,751,876 firm-fixed-price modification (P00017) to contract FA4890-18-C-0008 for Air Combat Command and Air Force Global Strike Command Primary Training Ranges operation and maintenance (O&M) support services. This contract provides for O&M of range threat, scoring and feedback systems. Work will be performed at Dare County Range, North Carolina; Poinsett Range, South Carolina; Grand Bay Range, Georgia; Avon Park Range, Georgia; Snyder Range, Texas; Belle Fourche Range, South Dakota; Holloman Ranges, New Mexico; and Mountain Home Ranges, Idaho. Work is expected to be completed Dec. 31, 2021. Fiscal 2021 O&M funds in the amount of $15,044,766 are being obligated at the time of award. Headquarters Air Combat Command, Joint Base Langley‐Eustis, Virginia, is the contracting activity (FA4890‐18‐C‐0008). Lockheed Martin Corp., King of Prussia, Pennsylvania, has been awarded a $14,068,093 cost-plus-fixed-fee modification (P00022) to contract FA8620-14-C-4022 to develop, integrate and lab test detection, removal and characterization operations. Work will be performed in King of Prussia, Pennsylvania, and is expected to be completed Nov. 30, 2023. This contract was the result of a sole-source acquisition and one offer was received. Fiscal 2020 research, development, test and evaluation funds in the amount of $1,699,000 are being obligated at the time of award. The Air Force Life Cycle Management Center, Wright-Patterson Air Force Base, Ohio, is the contracting activity. Lockheed Martin Aeronautics Co., Fort Worth, Texas, has been awarded a $9,326,062 cost-plus-fixed-fee contract for the Long Range Systems Division seeking to integrate the Navy Advanced Anti-Radiation Guided Missile-Extended Range (AARGM-ER) into the F-35. The AARGM-ER is a Navy weapon that will provide the F-35A advanced suppression of enemy air defenses/destruction of enemy air defenses capability. This contract includes one contract line item number and is the result of a sole-source acquisition. Fiscal 2020 research, development, test and evaluation funds in the full amount are being obligated at the time of award. The Air Force Life Cycle Management Center, Eglin Air Force Base, Florida, is the contracting activity (FA8682-21-C-2000). CORRECTION: The Nov. 13, 2020, announcement of a $9,703,375 contract modification awarded to Raytheon Missile Systems Co., Tucson, Arizona, included an incorrect modification number. The number of the modification to contract FA8675-20-C-0033 for Advanced Medium Range Air-to-Air Missile (AMRAAM) production baseline rocket motors is P00008, not P00007. NAVY AAR Government Services Inc., Wood Dale, Illinois, is awarded a $148,357,084 firm-fixed-price, indefinite-delivery/indefinite-quantity contract. This contract provides contractor logistics support required for operating and maintaining the C-40A aircraft, aircraft subsystems, appliances and support equipment, including depot-level, main operating base and supply support and commercial line maintenance. Work will be performed in Oklahoma City, Oklahoma (40%); Fort Worth, Texas (16.5%); Jacksonville, Florida (9%); North Island, California (9%); Oceana, Virginia (9%); Whidbey Island, Washington (9%); and Kaneohe Bay, Hawaii (7.5%), and is expected to be completed in December 2025. No funds will be obligated at the time of award. Funds will be obligated on individual orders as they are issued. This contract was competitively procured via electronic request for proposal; three offers were received. The Naval Air Systems Command, Patuxent River, Maryland, is the contracting activity (N00019-21-D-0004). Lockheed Martin Space, Titusville, Florida, is awarded a $108,778,290 cost-plus-incentive-fee and cost-plus-fixed-fee modification (P00002) to exercise options under previously awarded contract N00030-20-C-0100 for Trident II (D5) missile production and deployed systems support. Work will be performed in Denver, Colorado (25%); Cape Canaveral, Florida (23.5%); Borgo San Dalmazzo, Italy (12%); Sunnyvale, California (9.7%); Hoffman Estates, Illinois (4.3%); Titusville, Florida (3.4%); Melbourne, Florida (2.6%); Berlin, Connecticut (1.8%); Modesto, California (1.3%); Bangor, Washington (1.1%); Kings Bay, Georgia (1.1%); Clearwater, Florida (1%); and other various locations (less than 1% each, 13.2% total). Work is expected to be completed Sept. 30, 2025. Fiscal 2021 weapons procurement (Navy) funds in the amount of $94,943,006; fiscal 2021 other procurement (Navy) funds in the amount of $10,176,348; United Kingdom funds in the amount of $3,618,936; and fiscal 2021 operation and maintenance (Navy) funds in the amount of $40,000 are being obligated on this award, $40,000 of which will expire at the end of the current fiscal year. This contract is being awarded to the contractor on a sole-source basis under 10 U.S. Code 2304(c)(1) and was previously synopsized on the Federal Business Opportunities website. The Strategic Systems Programs, Washington, D.C., is the contracting activity. Lockheed Martin Corp., Rotary and Mission Systems, Orlando, Florida, is awarded a $9,574,093 modification (P00047) to previously awarded cost-plus-fixed-fee contract N68335-17-C-0253. This modification exercises an option to provide the second phase of interim contractor support for fleet Repair of Repairables (RoR), non-fleet RoR and installation RoR support for the Common Aviation Support Equipment program office. Work will be performed in Orlando, Florida, and is expected to be completed in March 2021. Fiscal 2021 aircraft procurement (Navy) funds in the amount of $2,335,259; and fiscal 2021 working capital (Navy) funds in the amount of $727,619 will be obligated at time of award, none of which will expire at the end of the current fiscal year. The Naval Air Warfare Center, Aircraft Division, Lakehurst, New Jersey, is the contracting activity. ARMY Carahsoft Technology Corp., Reston, Virginia, was awarded a $38,611,275 firm-fixed-price contract for a one-time license buy for SAP software. Bids were solicited via the internet with three received. Work will be performed in Reston, Virginia, with an estimated completion date of Nov. 30, 2021. Fiscal 2021 other procurement (Army); operation and maintenance (Army); and Army working capital funds in the amount of $38,611,275 were obligated at the time of the award. The U.S. Army Contracting Command, Rock Island Arsenal, Illinois, is the contracting activity (W52P1J-21-F-0042). Great Lakes Dredge & Dock LLC, Oakbrook Terrace, Illinois, was awarded a $15,844,050 firm-fixed-price contract for maintenance dredging. Bids were solicited via the internet with two received. Work will be performed in St. Mary's, Georgia, with an estimated completion date of June 5, 2021. Fiscal 2020 operation and maintenance (Defense) funds in the amount of $15,844,050 were obligated at the time of the award. The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Jacksonville, Florida, is the contracting activity (W912EP-21-C-0002). McCarthy HITT - Next NGA West JV, St. Louis, Missouri, was awarded an $8,982,180 modification (P00012) to contract W912DQ-19-C-7001 for a resident management system. Work will be performed in St. Louis, Missouri, with an estimated completion date of April 24, 2023. Fiscal 2020 military construction (Defense wide) funds in the amount of $8,982,180 were obligated at the time of the award. The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Kansas City, Missouri, is the contracting activity. *Small business https://www.defense.gov/Newsroom/Contracts/Contract/Article/2425497/source/GovDelivery/

• 

  October 29, 2019 | International, Naval

  After a leadership shakeup at General Dynamics, a murky future for submarine building

  By: David B. Larter WASHINGTON — Submarine building, the pride of the U.S. Navy's shipbuilding efforts over the past decade, is facing a mountain of uncertainty, a point underscored by the replacement of senior members of General Dynamics leadership, compounding delays with construction of the Virginia-class submarine and nagging questions about the quality of the work after a high-profile welding issue threatened to trip up the Columbia-class ballistic missile sub program at the starting line. Adding to the uncertainty for General Dynamics, which operates the Electric Boat shipyard in Connecticut, are indications that profits from constructing Virginia-class subs may be slipping. And challenges in training new workers in the complex world of building subs as well as concerns that the Columbia program might negatively affect General Dynamics' bottom line are impacting General Dynamics' partner yard Huntington Ingalls Industries in Newport News, Virginia, as well as the U.S. Navy. Furthermore, a contract for the significantly larger Block V Virginia-class submarine, expected to be one of the largest in the Navy's history, has been repeatedly delayed amid disputes over labor rates, sources told Defense News. That contract is more than a year past due, according to Navy budget documents. In September, General Dynamics pushed out Electric Boat President Jeffrey Geiger. Industry and Navy sources, speaking on the condition of anonymity, said Geiger's replacement was the culmination of mounting frustration on the part of the Navy. That came to a head when quality control issues surfaced with missile tubes in production destined for the Virginia Payload Module, Columbia-class subs and the United Kingdom's replacement ballistic missile sub. Geiger's ouster came on the heals of General Dynamics replacing long-time executive John Casey as head of the Marine Systems division when he retired earlier this year. The shakeup, delays and lingering issues put the Navy and the submarine-building enterprise at a crossroads. It's clear that the Navy's efforts to ramp up production of its Virginia-class attack boats ahead of Columbia have encountered myriad issues and delays. But while delays may be acceptable for the Virginia program, the interconnected nature of submarine building means those delays could eek into a program that the Navy has for years insisted cannot be delayed any further: the replacement of its aging Ohio-class ballistic missile subs, part of the nuclear deterrent triad. The Navy has said Columbia must be ready for its first patrol in 2031 to ensure the nation doesn't fall below a dangerous threshold where retiring Ohio-class submarines leaving the country without an adequate number of boats to execute its deterrent strategy. But to head that off, the Navy may have reduce its expectations of the industrial base's capacity to build submarines, said Bryan Clark, a senior fellow at the Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessments think tank and a retired submarine officer. “The Navy is going to have to reduce its appetite for submarine capacity while it gets the construction process in a better position,” he said. “All of the things we have seen in the past year in the submarine-building enterprise are the results of the ramped-up production levels and the challenges that EB [Electric Boat] faces in hiring more workers up in Connecticut. “They've been growing capacity, investing in infrastructure; they're trying to hire a bunch of workers and design engineers. [But] there just isn't a large workforce of those kinds of people up there as opposed to in Hampton Roads or the Gulf Coast. So there are a lot of challenges in ramping up production to [increase] Virginia-class production and, in addition, starting Columbia and beginning the Virginia Payload Module-equipped Virginias, which is a 30 percent larger submarine.” A bridge to Columbia In March, Defense News reported that all the Virginia-class submarines under construction were between four and seven months behind schedule. Naval Sea Systems Command pointed to the cumulative effect of ramping up to building two Virginia-class submarines per year. In a statement, the service's top acquisition official said the Navy was continuing to confront material, labor and shipyard infrastructure issues. Labor issues in particular hit the Newport News yard, which told investors in a recent earnings call that profits had slipped by about 23 percent on the Virginia sub building because of delays associated with labor issues. In the face of the mounting issues, the Navy should be willing to make difficult choices to get back on an even footing, Clark said. “Are we going to make some tough choices and dial back submarine construction deliberately to make sure we can get Columbia started correctly?” he asked. “And that means maybe we slow down Virginia, maybe we go to one per year for at least a couple of years to catch up.” Clark said the Navy should continue to fund two submarines per year but should expect that they will take longer to build while General Dynamics and Newport News stabilize their labor and parts issues. Paring back submarine production is a tough pill to swallow for the Navy, as it's been fighting for years to prevent a shortfall of attack submarines in the coming decade. The Navy expects its inventory of attack boats to drop from 52 to 42 by the late 2020s as Cold War-era Los Angeles-class attack subs retire. Furthermore, there's the question of whether scaling back production might invite a funding cut, which could make matters worse. The supplier and labor issues, after all, primarily stem from the 1990s when the Navy all but stopped buying submarines, which resulted in a contraction of the number of businesses that built submarine parts and a loss in skilled laborers who knew how to build them. Less funding would likely have a detrimental effect on sub-building efforts, said Bill Greenwalt, a former Senate Armed Services Committee staffer. “Under our current budget and appropriations process, slowing down — which likely implies cutting program funding — would exacerbate industrial base problems as it already has in the past due to lack of program demand,” Greenwalt said. “Congress and the Navy need to be prepared for industrial base surprises and seriously face the past problem of the underfunding of naval shipbuilding.” “A flexible schedule and more realistic and flexible funding mechanisms will be needed to meet whatever industrial base challenges ... will inevitably arise,” he added. “In the near term we may even need to look at some of our allies' capabilities to meet shortfalls and help us keep on schedule until we rebuild U.S. capacity.” Greenwalt's view tracks with that of General Dynamics, according to a source with knowledge of the company's thinking on the difficulties it has faced. The company considers ramping up production on the Virginia-class sub as essential to building a sufficient labor force and supplier capacity so the resources are available to build Columbia class on schedule, the source said. ‘Two-hump camel' The Navy's top acquisition official, James Geurts, has similarly described the issue. On the possibility of building a third Virginia-class submarine in 2023, Geurts told the House Armed Services Committee's sea power panel in March that it would benefit the Columbia-building effort. “We can get some of the additional workforce trained up, get some more of the supplier base and get some of the supplier builds out of the way before Columbia gets here,” he said. Officials everywhere seem to agree that the labor force is the most critical factor when it comes to getting submarine building on track. In an exit interview with Defense News in August, outgoing Chief of Naval Operations Adm. John Richardson said turnover at shipyards was a challenge but also an exciting chance to build a new generation of skilled labor. “We're asking a lot of the submarine industrial base right now to continue with Virginia, two to three per year including that payload module, and deliver Columbia,” Richardson said. “And the workforce is going through a transformation. “The people who built and delivered the Virginia program, the Los Angeles program and Seawolf — those folks are retiring. We used to have this two-hump camel in terms of the demographics of the shipyard: You had the Cold Warriors and you had the post-9/11 folks. And that Cold War hump is gone. And I think that although it's going through some friction right now, it's really inculcating, indoctrinating and educating a brand-new workforce.” Richardson also sounded a note of warning about work quality, saying that the managers overseeing the work for the submarine-building enterprise must be on top of their jobs. “We've had some welding issues: We've got to be on that,” he said. “[It's] a lot closer oversight as we educate this new team.” Clarification: The story has been updated to better reflect the arguments surrounding the future of submarine building. https://www.defensenews.com/naval/2019/10/28/after-a-leadership-shakeup-at-general-dynamics-a-murky-future-for-submarine-building/