News

Mark Pomerleau WASHINGTON — The Army has signed a cooperative research and development deal with Estonia focused on cyber defense and other technologies. The Sept. 14th agreement, signed by the Army Futures Command's Combat Capabilities Development Command's Command, Control, Communications, Computers, Cyber, Intelligence, Surveillance and Reconnaissance (C5ISR) Center and the ministry of defense, will establish a working group to identify new technologies mutually beneficial to each nation, mostly in the multidomain operations sphere. “This is part of Army Futures Command's' mission: to discover and deliver technology. We're reaching out to pretty much any source that we can find something innovative, whether it's innovative thoughts and ways of doing business or if it's potentially altering a product or modifying it for use by government and by the military,” Brian Lyttle, division chief for cybersecurity at the C5ISR Center, told C4ISRNET in an interview. Under the agreement, the two nations will identify technological areas of mutual interest and share researchers to develop them, Robert Kimball, senior research scientist for cybersecurity at the C5ISR Center, told C4ISRNET. He noted the agreement is in preliminary stages and researchers haven't identified specific projects yet. Andri Rebane, director of the Cyber Defense Department at the Estonian Ministry of Defense, also told C4SIRNET in an emailed response that the joint working group will hold regular meetings to identify those technologies and explore experimentation on those they both agree to. “The ambition is to develop long term research and development projects in cyber defense to encounter the threats from disruptive technologies,” he said. Estonia is considered one of the most digitally connected nations in the world and has continued to up its game in the digital realm following a 2007 cyberattack, largely attributed to Russia. The Army's research and development community wants to chase new technology that can better serve soldiers. “Our mission in the R&D area is to identify those technologies that will benefit the Army as a whole. Our ability to identify those technologies extends far beyond what's available in our own government labs, in research institutions in the United States,” Kimball said. “We're interested in new cyber technologies from wherever they exist. The Estonians have deep capabilities because of their past that they've spent a lot of time working on.” Rebane explained this agreement is part of a larger partnership between the two NATO nations. “In a more practical view the two parties can leverage their vast experience to invest into new research and development to mitigate cyber threats across the spectrum of conflict. In the long term this agreement will benefit also our other allies countering the threats emerging from the shared cyberspace,” he said. Lyttle noted that the Army – and Department of Defense – will never fight alone and thus agreements like this help to foster greater interoperability with coalition partners. https://www.c4isrnet.com/cyber/2020/09/21/army-mints-new-cyber-research-and-development-agreement-with-estonia/

Aaron Mehta WASHINGTON — A longtime industry executive, Ellen Lord was confirmed as the Pentagon's undersecretary of defense for acquisition and sustainment in August 2017. In that role, Lord — who is now the longest serving political appointee at the department from the Trump administration — oversees billions of dollars in weapons procurement and sustainment, while also overseeing the health of the defense industrial base, a particularly important role in the wake of the coronavirus pandemic. Lord was a keynote speaker at this year's Defense News Conference, where she touched on a number of issues affecting the Department of Defense. This interview has been edited for length and clarity. We're about six months after COVID-19 first hit the defense industry. How do you judge the health of the defense industrial base? We use the Defense Contract Management Agency and the Defense Logistics Agency to track about 22,000 key companies that the department works with. And going back over the last six months, we did have hundreds of companies shut down, but now we're down to only about 30. So that's very, very good news. We monitor them on a daily basis; we look at on-time deliveries, deliveries missed and, most importantly, we listen to what the issues are, really leveraging the industry associations to do a lot of listening. What we are looking for is whether or not we're maintaining war-fighter readiness for our production programs, and then relative to modernization, whether we are hitting key milestones relative to development programs. We have seen some slowdowns. We are carefully monitoring, using monthly metrics, where we are. That's something that I'm actually extremely proud of the team over the last few years — we have developed a very data-driven way of doing business. The Pentagon is seeking billions of dollars from Congress to help fund reimbursements for the defense industry's pandemic-related costs. But we've heard criticism of this from a number of sectors, with some saying financial reports last quarter were not so bad. Why is that funding needed, and why now? All the [quarterly] reports that have come out in large part don't reflect the hits that were taken by business. I would contend that most of the effects of COVID-19 haven't yet been seen because most companies gave their employees time off, they stretched out production, paid a lot of people for working 100 percent when perhaps they were only getting 50 percent of the hours in and so forth. So I think the system has absorbed it up to this point in time. Now when we get to the point where we're having payments and incentive fees and award fees earned, and if we haven't done the deliveries, that's where you're going to see the hit. So I believe there's a bit of a delayed response. We want to make sure that we have a one-time accounting for these major COVID hits — very, very well defined in terms of a period of time, March 15-Sept. 15, that we take a very, very data driven approach [saying]: “Send us a proposal showing what the impact was; we will assess them all at once and get back.” However, we can't do that at this point in time because we have an authorization through Section 3610 [of the Coronavirus Aid, Relief and Economic Security Act] and so forth, but we don't have an appropriation. We believe we need that appropriation to maintain readiness because if we do not get that, what we are going to find is we are not going to get the number of units delivered, we are not going to maintain war-fighter readiness, we're not going to move forward in modernization. We would like to take the one-time hit and then see where we go from there. Assuming you get the appropriation, much money is needed? When will industry see it? We think it's somewhere between $10 billion and $20 billion. We think it would take five to six months because once we got an appropriation, we would go out for a request for proposals, and the larger companies are going to have to flow down those RFPs through their supply chain, gather the data — because again, this has to be a very data-driven drill. So we would get all of that back; we think that would take two to three months. Then we want to look at all of the proposals at once. It isn't going to be a first-in, first-out [situation], and we have to rationalize using the rules we've put in place, what would be reimbursable and what's not. So overall we think five to six months, in terms of a process. We're at about the two-year mark from the executive order 13806 study, which assessed the health of the defense industrial base and included some dire warnings about the supply chain. How has work on fixing those issues gone? We had several areas that we pointed out were problematic, that we were concerned that the U.S. had too great of a dependency on non-friendly nations and that we just didn't have the security and resiliency that we were looking for. In fiscal 2019, we actually had 14 presidential determinations, which is the process you go through to actually say: “Yes, these are areas that are worthy of looking at.” Then we go to get the appropriation to be able to use [the Defense Production Act's Title III authorities]. A number of the areas we looked at were small unmanned aerial systems, rare earth [minerals], that type of thing. When COVID-19 hit, it shone a spotlight on the concern we had with this fragility and helped us tell the story. Because of another executive order coming in declaring a federal emergency, we no longer had to go through the presidential determination route, which is a bit time consuming, to identify areas where we needed to invest. Then [with the pandemic] we had new areas bubble up, probably the most significant of which was aviation propulsion, where we have a number of our key suppliers who are extremely dependent on commercial aviation that was grinding almost to a halt for a while — huge impacts there. So what we did was we were now able to move a little bit more quickly, which is always helpful. And we made a number of awards to aviation companies that literally kept those companies in business, which allowed us to continue to support the war fighter. COVID-19 has helped us accelerate some of those areas. Others are perhaps not getting as much attention as they were pre-COVID-19, looking at our defense industrial base for nuclear modernization for instance, also for hypersonics. But overall, the team is working very hard, and we have put out almost a billion dollars in DPA Title III over the last six months. It sounds like the pandemic may have been beneficial in addressing these long-term issues. What it did was allow us to really put speed in the system, peel away all of what I would call the non-value-added bureaucracy. COVID-19 gave us a burning platform to really demonstrate we could be very responsible in terms of taxpayer dollars, very responsible in terms of security of the war fighter, but move at the speed of relevance to get things done. So I don't want to backslide there. And I want to make sure we really take advantage of all of that. Companies are concerned about being in compliance with the Section 889 rules, which prohibit the government from buying a system that might have Chinese equipment in it from the telecommunications supply chain. Are more waivers for companies possible? We are incredibly supportive of making sure that we don't have Chinese technology in a lot of our telecom systems, which has proven to be a problem in terms of exfiltration of data. So what we did is we got a waiver from [the Office of the Director of National Intelligence] for noncritical weapon systems. We continue to discuss an extension beyond September of that with them. We are getting waivers on a case-by-case basis, we will look at those. However, we are encouraging industry and we are very, very pleased at how we see industry still stepping up to really get these systems out of their supply chains. So it will be by exception that we will do waivers, and we are looking to really have a clean path through everything. There have been significant mergers and acquisitions during your tenure at the Pentagon. Are you seeing a downside for the department, given the desire for more competition on programs? I actually put a process in place early on, when we are notified of M&A deals, that we go out very formally to all the services and agencies and ask for objective evidence as to whether or not these mergers or acquisitions will constrain competition in any way. We then work very, very closely with either [the Federal Trade Commission or the Justice Department] on those deals to make sure there are divestitures if needed. Where I'm really focused, and the team is focused, is really getting the small companies going. That's where the predominance of our innovation comes from. That's what bubbles up to these larger companies. So we are holding all kinds of webinars and meetings connecting not only our traditional defense industrial base, small company partners, but nontraditional [firms] with our DoD efforts. We're partnering with the services to get more of that activity. So we want that diverse group coming in, and I'm really excited about what I see coming up through. That doesn't sound like you have many concerns about what you've seen. We watch very carefully. And at this point, we think we've made some smart divestitures on some of those. And we like competition. It's our friend. https://www.defensenews.com/interviews/2020/09/21/pentagon-acquisition-boss-talks-industry-mergers-and-coronavirus/

David B. Larter WASHINGTON — The U.S. Marine Corps is moving as fast as it can to field a new class of light amphibious warship, but it remains unclear what it will do, where it will be based or what capabilities it will bring to the fight. The idea behind the ship is to take a commercial design or adapt a historic design to make a vessel capable of accommodating up to 40 sailors and at least 75 Marines to transport Marine kit over a range of about 3,500 nautical miles, according to a recent industry day presentation. While the presentation noted that the ship should have few tailored Navy requirements, that also creates a problem: If the Navy is going to pay tens of millions to develop, build, crew and operate them, should it not provide some additional value to the fleet? Analysts, experts and sources with knowledge of internal discussions who spoke to Defense News say the answer to that question is a source of friction inside the Pentagon. The idea of the warship arrived on the scene in 2019 with the ascension of Gen. David Berger as commandant of the Marine Corps. His planning guidance called for a smaller, more agile amphibious force that could operate inside the Chinese anti-access, area denial window in the South China Sea. In a recent virtual meeting of the Surface Navy Association, the chief of naval operations' director of expeditionary warfare, Maj. Gen. Tracy King, emphasized that above all, the platform must be cheap and come online quickly. “I see the efficacy of this [light amphibious warship] is really to help us in the phases and stages we're in right now,” King said Aug. 27. “We need to start doing things differently, as an extension of the fleet, under the watchful eye of our Navy, engaging with our partners and allies and building partner capacity: We ought to be doing that right now. I think we're late to need with building the light amphibious warship, which is why we're trying to go so quickly.” When asked whether the ship should contribute to a more distributed sensor architecture to align with the Navy's desire to be more spread out over a large area during a fight, King answered in the affirmative. "[But] I really see it benefiting from [that architecture] more,” he said. “We need to build an affordable ship that can get after the ability to do maritime campaigning in the littorals.” The unstated implication appeared to be that if the ship is loaded up with sensors and requirements, it will slow down the process and increase the cost. Analysts who spoke to Defense News agreed with that, saying the Navy is likely trying to put more systems on the platform that will make it more complex and more expensive. The Navy has said it wants to keep the price under $100 million per platform and begin purchasing them as early as the latter half of 2022. “The hardest part is going to be appetite suppression, especially on the part of the Navy,” said Dakota Wood, a retired Marine officer and analyst with The Heritage Foundation. "This is what we saw in the littoral combat ship: It started out as a very light, near-shore, small and inexpensive street fighter. And then people started adding on requirements. You had ballooning costs, increasing complexity of the platform, and you get into all kinds of problems. “The Marine Corps wants this quickly. It needs it to be inexpensive so you can have 28-30 of them over a three- to four-year period.” There is the additional challenge of where the ships will be based, since they will probably not be built to the kinds of standards of normal Navy vessels built to last for 30-40 years in service. The minimum service life for the light amphibious warship will be about 10 years, according to the industry day presentation. Wood said that would be a challenge for the Marines and the State Department to work out in parallel with the effort to get the hulls quickly built. Jerry Hendrix, a retied Navy captain and analyst with the Telemus Group, agreed with that assessment, saying the Marines are eager to move forward to get something fielded, in part to make sure this transition to a lighter, more distributed force being pushed by Berger actually happens. "The commandant can't divest of some of the legacy platforms he's building — these big, expensive and vulnerable platforms — until he has something that replaces it in the water. And so he's anxious to get going with something else so he then has a reason to move away from what he has. “The commandant is well aware he has a four-year clock and its ticking. So if he's going to make changes, he's got to get moving to get those changes in place and commit the Marine Corps to them to make sure it's going to last. And right now I'm not sure there's a lot of high confidence that they are going to last.” Hendrix acknowledged that the Navy has good reason to want the light amphibious warship to have more capability, but added that the Corps is more interested in something simple than something costly and elaborate. “What that does,” Hendrix said, “is drive up unit cost and drive down the numbers that can be purchased.” https://www.defensenews.com/naval/2020/09/21/us-marines-wants-to-move-fast-on-a-light-amphibious-warship-but-what-is-it/

Sebastian Sprenger COLOGNE, Germany — Time is ticking for Germany to find a compromise on letting American, British and other non-European Union countries tap into the bloc's emerging defense cooperation scheme. The government of Chancellor Angela Merkel has taken on the task of sorting out the issue by the end of the year, when Germany's six-month term at the helm of the European Council concludes. “It is an important issue to solve, particularly for close NATO partners,” Karl-Heinz Kamp, special envoy of the political director at the German Ministry of Defence, said during a panel discussion at the annual Defense News Conference this month. The challenge is to find common ground between two camps within the EU: member states seeking ties with outsiders, and those countries who prefer treating the nascent defense agenda as a members-only affair. https://www.defensenews.com/global/europe/2020/09/21/germany-tries-to-forge-a-deal-on-who-can-play-ball-in-europe/ Poland, Sweden and the Netherlands are leading a group of nations advocating for openness. But France, for example, is pursuing a more restrictive stance, especially toward Turkey and the United States. From the beginning, the Trump administration has eyed the EU's creation of a defense cooperation mechanism, dubbed PESCO, and the proposed multibillion-dollar European Defence Fund with a degree of mistrust. The efforts run the risk of undermining NATO if America and its powerful defense companies are kept out, Washington claims. The tone has softened more recently, however, as officials on both sides of the Atlantic try to broker a compromise. “One of the things that COVID-19 has really brought into sharp focus is the significance of our integrated defense industrial base,” said Gregory Kausner, executive director for international cooperation, who works in the Pentagon for acquisition chief Ellen Lord. At NATO headquarters in Brussels, leaders are striking a similar chord. “We welcome the EU's effort to invest in defense, and I think altogether this is a good-news story. In a way, the more money put into defense, including by EU institutions, the better,” said Camille Grand, the alliance's assistant secretary general for defense investment. “Then there is a second point: that it is important those projects are allowed as full as possible [the] involvement of non-EU allies. Because the reality is indeed that those non-EU allies have strong connections with the European defense market, with the European defense industry,” Grand added. German officials have been optimistic about reaching a compromise since they took on the third-country challenge this summer. That is because their proposal piggybacks on a paper by the previous, Finnish-run presidency that was only narrowly rejected last year. A few modifications would be enough to clinch a deal. According to a German MoD spokesman, officials aim to present a workable solution to defense ministers at an EU foreign affairs council meeting slated for Nov. 20. Poisoned politics The current political context hasn't exactly been helpful for forging a deal. For one, there is the frosty climate between Germany and United States that stems from President Donald Trump's testy relationship with the country, and his assertion that the EU is taking advantage of American taxpayers on trade and defense. That rift makes the proposition of importing the powerful American defense industrial base into the bloc's defense cooperation calculus an uphill battle, especially in the European Parliament, a Brussels-based analyst argued. And Turkey, which is part of NATO but not the EU, is creating the perfect case study against allowing nonmembers into the inner workings of European defense cooperation because of its dispute with Greece and Cyprus over gas reserves in the eastern Mediterranean Sea. “The German government is fairly optimistic that we will be able to find a compromise. The problem is that currently neither the Turkish policy nor the U.S. policy terribly helps to find such a consensus,” Kamp said. “We have a severe problem in NATO with its internal cohesion because some allies have issues with other allies,” he added. “We have a Turkish-French dispute in the Mediterranean and we have a Greek-Turkish dispute. Turkey is not always behaving in — let me say — in the way of an ideal NATO ally, and that just makes things a little bit more difficult.” At the same time, the flareup has yet to touch the ongoing third-party access negotiations, according to officials and analysts. “Concerns over dependencies, intellectual property and security predate the standoff between Greece and Turkey," said Yvonni-Stefania Efstathiou, a Greece-based defense analyst. Meanwhile, Pentagon officials have begun diving into a set of case studies designed to help them think through the nitty-gritty involved in setting up future cooperative programs under an EU umbrella, according to Kausner. “Those case studies illuminate the potential challenges on things such as intellectual property and re-transfer that we feel are still problematic,” the Defense Department official said. Another avenue to glean lessons for a wider EU application lies in the so-called European Defence Industrial Development Programme, or EDIDP, which aims to boost the bloc's defense industry cooperation through all manners of military technology. In June, the European Commission announced 16 projects eligible for funding from a two-year, €500 million (U.S. $593 million) pot. The selection includes “four participants controlled by entities from Canada, Japan and the United States,” the commission statement read. In theory, those projects “demonstrate the possibility to involve EU-based subsidiaries controlled by third countries or third country entities provided they fulfill appropriate security-based guarantees approved by Member States,” the statement noted. The commission has yet to say which participants hail from North America and Japan, and what roles they play, which suggests their integration into the project structure remains unfinished. As officials continue to sort out the details on intellectual property rights, liabilities and consortium structures, for example, a few principles are beginning to take shape. For one, the four non-EU countries in the European Free Trade Association — Iceland, Liechtenstein, Norway and Switzerland — stand to get rights to partake in EU defense projects similar to member states. In addition, officials consider it easier to include British or American companies in projects when they are removed from immediate funding through the European Defence Fund. While European companies have their eyes on possible subsidies from the fund whenever they enter into PESCO agreements, there may not be an automatic funding eligibility for outside participants. https://www.defensenews.com/global/europe/2020/09/21/germany-tries-to-forge-a-deal-on-who-can-play-ball-in-europe/

NAVY Heffler Contracting Group,* El Cajon, California (N62473-20-D-1122); HHI Corp.,* Ogden, Utah (N62473-20-D-1123); I.E.-Pacific Inc.,* Escondido, California (N62473-20-D-1124); Peter Vander Werff Construction Inc.,* El Cajon, California (N62473-20-D-1125); and R. A. Burch Construction Co., Inc., Ramona, California (N62473-20-D-1126), are each being awarded an indefinite-delivery/indefinite-quantity multiple award construction contract for new construction, renovation and repair of general building construction at various government installations located in California, Arizona, Nevada, Utah, Colorado and New Mexico. The maximum dollar value including the base period and one option period for all five contracts combined is $495,000,000. The work to be performed provides for new construction, renovation and repair of administration buildings, armories, auditoriums, bachelor enlisted quarters, child care centers, fire stations, gymnasiums, hangars, hospitals, maintenance/repair facilities, warehouses and other similar facilities. The initial task orders will be to issue minimum guarantees in the amount of $5,000 for all five offerors. All work on these contracts will be performed at various government installations within the Naval Facilities Engineering Command (NAVFAC) Southwest area of responsibility including, but not limited to, California (90%); Arizona (6%); Nevada (1%); Utah (1%); Colorado (1%); and New Mexico (1%). The terms of the contracts are not to exceed 60 months, with an expected completion date of September 2025. Fiscal 2020 operations and maintenance (O&M) (Navy) contract funds in the amount of $25,000 are obligated on this award and will expire at the end of the current fiscal year. Future task orders will be primarily funded by military construction (Navy); O&M (Navy); O&M (Marine Corps); and Navy working capital funds. This contract was competitively procured as a small business set-aside procurement via the Navy Electronic Commerce Online website with 16 proposals received. These five contractors may compete for task orders under the terms and conditions of the awarded contracts. NAVFAC Southwest, San Diego, California, is the contracting activity. Huntington Ingalls Inc., Newport News, Virginia, is awarded a $351,810,277 cost-plus-fixed-fee modification to previously awarded contract N00024-18-C-4314 for the USS Boise (SSN 764) early production period that encompasses continued advance planning, execution services, production and availability preparations for the USS Boise engineered overhaul. This contract modification includes options, which if exercised, will bring the cumulative value of this action to $355,015,496. Work will be performed in Newport News, Virginia, and is expected to be completed by May 2023. Fiscal 2020 operations and maintenance (Navy) funding in the amount of $351,810,277 will be obligated at time of award, of which, funds in the amount of $351,810,277 will expire at the end of the current fiscal year. The Naval Sea Systems Command, Washington, D.C., is the contracting activity. Vertex Aerospace LLC, Madison, Mississippi, is awarded a $21,747,155 modification (P00014) to previously awarded firm-fixed-price, cost reimbursable, indefinite-delivery/indefinite-quantity contract N61340-17-D-0005. This modification exercises options to provide intermediate-level maintenance, repair and logistics support services to include labor, direct and indirect material for Chief of Naval Air Training aircraft. Additionally, this modification procures tooling and equipment required to support and maintain four aircraft intermediate maintenance departments and related support equipment. Work will be performed in Pensacola, Florida (47%); Corpus Christi, Texas (40%); Whiting Field, Florida (10%); and Meridian, Mississippi (3%), and is expected to be completed in September 2021. No funds are being obligated at time of award, funds will be obligated on individual orders as they are issued. The Naval Air Warfare Center Training Systems Division, Orlando, Florida, is the contracting activity. USA Waste of California Inc., doing business as Waste Management, Los Angeles, California, is awarded a maximum amount of $21,658,159 indefinite-delivery/indefinite-quantity, firm-fixed-price contract for integrated solid waste management services at various Navy and Marine Corps installations within the San Diego metropolitan and San Diego County areas. The work to be performed provides for labor, supervision, management and materials to perform various integrated solid waste management service functions as follows: refuse and recycling collection and disposal services. An initial task order is being awarded at $2,317,525 for integrated solid waste management services at Naval Base, San Diego, California (45%); Marine Corps Air Station, Miramar, California (24%); Naval Base Point, Loma, California (24%); Marine Corps Recruit Depot, California (6%); Camp Michael, Monsoor, California (less than 1%); Remote Survival, Evasion, Resistance, and Escape Camp, Warner Springs, California (less than 1%); and Camp Morena, California (less than 1%). Work for this task order is expected to be completed by September 2021. The term of the contract is not to exceed 96 months with an expected completion date of September 2028. Fiscal 2021 operations and maintenance Navy (O&M, N); operations and maintenance Defense Health Program (O&M, DHP); and Navy working capital funds (NWCF) in the amount of $2,317,525 will be obligated at the beginning of the fiscal year and will expire at the end of that fiscal year. Future task orders will be primarily funded by O&M, N; O&M, DHP; and NWCF contract funds. This contract was competitively procured via the Federal Business Opportunities website with two proposals received. Naval Facilities Engineering Command Southwest, San Diego, California, is the contracting activity (N62473-20-D-1128). Management Services Group Inc., doing business as Global Technical Systems,* Virginia Beach, Virginia, is awarded a $21,580,941 firm-fixed-priced modification to previously awarded contract N63394-19-C-0008 to exercise options for the production of ordnance alteration kits, on-board allowance spares and installation and checkout kits for Technical Insertion 12H of the Common Processing System. Work will be performed in Virginia Beach, Virginia, and is expected to be completed by April 2021. Fiscal 2019 other procurement (Navy); fiscal 2019 procurement (defense-wide) funding; and fiscal 2019 research, development, test and evaluation (Navy) funding in the amount of $21,580,941 will be obligated at time of award and will not expire at the end of the current fiscal year. The Naval Surface Warfare Center, Port Hueneme Division, Port Hueneme, California, is the contracting activity. Lockheed Martin Corp., Marietta, Georgia, is awarded a $12,772,525 modification (P00012) to previously awarded firm-fixed-price, indefinite-delivery/indefinite-quantity contract N00019-19-D-0014. This modification exercises options to procure consumable parts and material in support of the C/KC-130J aircraft for the Marine Corps, Marine Corps Reserves, Coast Guard and the government of Kuwait. Work will be performed in Marietta, Georgia (66.5%); Palmdale, California (15.5%); Abdullah Al-Mubarak Air Base, Kuwait (2.5%); Iwakuni, Japan (2.5%); Miramar, California (2.5%); Cherry Point, North Carolina (2.5%); Elizabeth City, North Carolina (2.5%); Fort Worth, Texas (2.5%), Newburgh, New York (2.5%); and Greenville, South Carolina (0.5%), and is expected to be completed by December 2023. No funds are being obligated at time of award, funds will be obligated on individual orders as they are issued. The Naval Air Systems Command, Patuxent River, Maryland, is the contracting activity. Alexandra Construction Inc.,* Newton, Massachusetts, is awarded an $11,213,400 firm-fixed-price contract for the renovation of the communications building at Portsmouth Naval Shipyard, Kittery, Maine. The work to be performed will consist of a total interior and partial exterior renovation of Building 13, including abating hazardous materials; a new stair and elevator tower; upgrading the building's structural support system; restoring original window openings; providing offices, conference and break areas; providing accessibility via ramp and elevator; and completely overhauling the building's mechanical, electrical, data and fire protection systems. Work will be performed in Kittery, Maine, and is expected to be completed by November 2021. Fiscal 2020 operations and maintenance (Navy) contract funds in the amount of $11,213,400 are obligated on this award and will not expire at the end of the current fiscal year. This contract was competitively procured via the Contract Opportunities website with three proposals received. Naval Facilities Engineering Command Mid-Atlantic, Norfolk, Virginia, is the contracting activity (N40085-20-C-0071). L3Harris Technologies Inc., North Amityville, New York, is awarded a $7,363,788 firm-fixed-price contract that continues efforts associated with Small Business Innovation Research Phase III Topic Number 9895 titled “MIL-STD-1760A Compatible Multiple Smart Weapon Employment Mechanism.” This contract provides for the production and delivery of 1,168 umbilical cables and attaching hardware for use on the Bomb Rack Unit (BRU)-55. Work will be performed in Brighton, United Kingdom (79.13%); Franklin, Pennsylvania (10.51%); and Amityville, New York (10.36%), and is expected to be completed by May 2022. Fiscal 2020 aircraft procurement (Navy) funds in the amount of $7,363,788 will be obligated at time of award, none of which will expire at the end of the current fiscal year. This contract was not competitively procured pursuant to 10 U.S. Code 2304(c)(5). The Naval Air Warfare Center Aircraft Division, Lakehurst, New Jersey, is the contracting activity (N68335-20-C-0368). Delphinus Engineering Inc.,* Eddystone, Pennsylvania (N55236-18-D-0001); Q.E.D. Systems Inc.,* Virginia Beach, Virginia (N55236-18-D-0002); Epsilon Systems Solutions Inc.,* National City, California (N55236-18-D-0003); Tecnico Corp.,* Chesapeake, Virginia (N55236-18-D-0004); Southcoast Welding and Manufacturing LLC,* Chula Vista, California (N55236-18-D-0005); Bay City Marine Inc.,* National City, California (N55236-18-D-0006); Pacific Ship Repair and Fabrications Inc.,* San Diego, California (N55236-18-D-0007); and Miller Marine Inc.,* San Diego, California (N55236-18-D-0008), are each awarded firm-fixed-price contract modifications with a combined overall ceiling increase of $7,208,259 to exercise Option Year Three of their respective previously awarded indefinite-delivery/indefinite-quantity, multiple award contracts to provide depot level repairs, interior and exterior preservation, barge modernization upgrades, dockside and dry dock services for Navy barges. Work will be performed in San Diego, California, and is expected to be completed by October 2021. No funding is being obligated at time of award. Each contractor was awarded one contract and subsequently will compete for each delivery order when a requirement is identified. The Southwest Regional Maintenance Center, San Diego, California, is the contracting activity. AIR FORCE The MITRE Corp., Bedford, Massachusetts, has been awarded a $463,002,062 cost reimbursement option contract for support to the Air Force from MITRE as the administrator of the National Security Engineering Center Federally-Funded Research and Development Center. Work will be performed in Bedford, Massachusetts; McLean, Virginia; and various locations throughout the continental U.S. and outside the continental U.S., and is expected to be completed by Sept. 30, 2021. This award is the result of a sole-source acquisition. Foreign Military Sales funds in the amount of $158,100 are being obligated at the time of award. The Air Force Life Cycle Management Center, Hanscom Air Force Base, Massachusetts, is the contracting activity (FA8702-19-C-0001). L3Harris Technologies Inc., Colorado Springs, Colorado, has been awarded a $119,172,657 cost-plus-incentive-fee modification (P00007) to contract FA8823-20-C-0004 for the Ground-Based Electro Optical Deep Space Surveillance (GEODSS) System upgrade on Ground-Based Optical Sensor System (GBOSS) engineering and manufacturing development (EMD) pre-priced option. This modification provides for the exercise of an option for the GBOSS EMD Phase to complete the design for the integrated system; develop and/or modify software required to support the system; design and build new European and Pacific sites and add an additional sensor tower enclosure to the GEODSS White Sands Missile Range site; upgrade and/or acquire, integrate, test and field the 12 GEODSS Enhanced Technology sensor towers; and design, develop and/or acquire, integrate, test and field the three Advanced Technology Sensor towers. Work will be performed in Colorado Springs, Colorado, and is expected to be completed by June 27, 2024. Fiscal 2020 research, development, test and evaluation funds in the amount of $12,000,000 are being obligated at the time of award. Total cumulative face value of the contract is $218,167,008. The Space and Missile Systems Center Directorate of Contracting, Peterson Air Force Base, Colorado, is the contracting activity. PAR Government Systems Corp., Rome, New York, has been awarded an $11,972,009 cost-plus-fixed-fee contract for software deliverables. This contract provides for the research, design, development, assembly, integration, demonstration, experimentation, analysis, testing and further development of innovative technologies, concepts, architectures, capabilities and a concept of operations using the Air Force Research Laboratory (AFRL) Integrated Information Management System Cyber Technology Maturation Framework Form, Fit, and Function prototype environment and other relevant frameworks. Work will be performed in Rome, New York, and is expected to be completed by October 2025. This award is the result of a competitive acquisition and two offers were received. Fiscal 2020 research, development, test and evaluation funds in the amount of $190,000 are being obligated at the time of award. AFRL, Rome, New York, is the contracting activity (FA8750-20-C-1545). Rockwell Collins Inc., Cedar Rapids, Iowa, has been awarded an $8,714,641 cost-plus-fixed-fee contract for Software Programmable Agile Radio for Tactical Connected Ubiquitous Systems software/hardware system prototype. This contract provides for the communication challenges of multi-domain operation by combining the Software Programmable Agile Radio next program's true Software Defined Radio approach with low-cost, state-of-the-art, digital hardware and front-end modularity, to develop a low-cost, high-performance ground radio that supports multiple waveforms. Work will be performed in Cedar Rapids, Iowa, and is expected to be completed Sept. by 21, 2023. This award is the result of a competitive acquisition and two offers were received. Fiscal 2020 research, development, test and evaluation funds in the amount of $530,000 are being obligated at time of award. Air Force Research Laboratory, Rome, New York, is the contracting activity (FA8750-20-C-1542). DEFENSE LOGISTICS AGENCY Alliant Enterprises LLC,* Grand Rapids, Michigan, has been awarded a maximum $225,000,000 fixed-price with economic-price-adjustment, indefinite-delivery/indefinite-quantity contract for patient monitoring and capital equipment systems and accessories. This was a competitive acquisition with 50 offers received. This is a five-year base contract with one five-year option period. Location of performance is Michigan, with a Sept. 20, 2025, ordering period end date. Using customers are Army, Navy, Air Force, Marine Corps and federal civilian agencies. Type of appropriation is fiscal 2020 through 2025 defense working capital funds. The contracting activity is the Defense Logistics Agency Troop Support, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania (SPE2D1-20-D-0012). ARMY BAE Systems Ordnance Systems, Kingsport, Tennessee, was awarded a $17,470,393 modification (P00727) to contract DAAA09-98-E-0006 to complete the modernization of existing neutralization basins and upgrade clarifiers at the industrial wastewater treatment facility and complete facility maintenance at Holston Army Ammunition Plant. Work will be performed in Kingsport, Tennessee, with an estimated completion date of March 31, 2023. Fiscal 2020 procurement of ammunition (Army) funds in the amount of $17,470,393 were obligated at the time of the award. Army Contracting Command, Rock Island Arsenal, Illinois, is the contracting activity. BAE Systems Ordnance System, Kingsport, Tennessee, was awarded a $17,211,588 modification (P00716) to contract DAAA09-98-E-0006 to complete the design of the Filter Wash Facility Building E at Holston Army Ammunition Plant. Work will be performed in Kingsport, Tennessee, with an estimated completion date of Oct. 31, 2021. Fiscal 2020 procurement of ammunition (Army) funds in the amount of $17,211,588 were obligated at the time of the award. Army Contracting Command, Rock Island Arsenal, Illinois, is the contracting activity. *Small business https://www.defense.gov/Newsroom/Contracts/Contract/Article/2355497/source/GovDelivery/

Jen Judson WASHINGTON — The U.S. Army is preparing to enter into programs of record for light- and medium-class robotic combat vehicles in a few years, with plans to award separate contracts for a lead systems integrator for each program, according to the service's robotic combat vehicles product manager. The service wants to field a light, medium and heavy robotic combat vehicle, and it is experimenting with technology and how the vehicles might fit into future formations through the Army's Next-Generation Combat Vehicle modernization office. Developing NGCV capability is the second-highest priority for the Army. The plan is to make a decision to move the Army's RCV-Light out of technical maturation and into the engineering and manufacturing development phase in the second quarter of fiscal 2023. The service would do the same with the RCV-Medium program in FY24, Lt. Col. Chris Orlowski said Sept. 10 during a conference hosted by the Association for Unmanned Vehicle Systems International. Orlowski noted that the potential RCV-Heavy program of record would fall behind the start of the medium and light programs by “a pretty significant margin.” At the same conference during a separate keynote presentation, Bruce Jette, the Army's acquisition chief, said decisions were made that “put pieces in place that will establish a formal program for robotic systems with the [program manager], not just following the tech base but in fact being the centerpiece for building light and medium systems inside of an architecture that fits within the entire operational vehicle architecture. In fact, it will leap over into the aircraft as well. It will be everything from driving to operations of the vehicle to visual sensing to probably a broader array of technical capabilities that you may not have even thought possible.” The Army plans to award a contract to a lead systems integrator that will combine the RCV's control station, network, platform, software and payloads, Orlowski said. Anticipated government-furnished equipment for the programs would include autonomy software, radios, war-fighter machine interface software, aided target recognition software and lethality payloads “minus the turret,” according to Orlowski. Other potential government-furnished equipment could be a tethered drone; assured position, navigation and timing technology; hostile fire detection; and other vehicle protection systems, he said. As the Army ventures into developing robotic vehicles that don't just do the dull, dirty and dangerous work, “the biggest thing is going to be software development, improving autonomous and automation software,” he added. “Teleoperation is nice; it works OK if you've got the right radios and the right environments, but long term, when those environments become tested, I think teleoperation will be less viable and we will have to really push the automation and autonomy on these platforms. But also, that being said, there is always going to have to be some soldier interaction with the platforms. How do we improve that interaction for the soldiers, reducing that cognitive burden?" he said. “I know everybody likes cool, big, awesome robots, but it's really a software thing that is going to make these things go, so anything that is kind of tied to software I think is a critical technology in my view,” he added. The Army's rough acquisition strategy for the robots calls for a first unit to receive RCV-Light vehicles in FY28 and a first unit to receive RCV-Medium in FY30, according to a slide from Orlowski's conference presentation. The Army recently wrapped up its first phase of experimentation with RCV-Heavy surrogates fashioned out of M113 armored personnel carriers at Camp Red Devil on Fort Carson, Colorado, which added complexity to an ongoing evaluation of the government-developed platforms. The Army also awarded contracts to a Textron and Howe & Howe team to build an RCV-Medium prototype, and to a QinetiQ North America and Pratt & Miller team to build the lighter version late last year and early this year. Those are being built now. Orlowski stressed those prototypes are being built “primarily to support future planned experimentation” in FY22 and FY24 and “in support of defining and informing requirements for the RCV program of record.” He added there is no plan to transition any of those systems into any type of limited fielding. “They are not designed for that. They are designed for a campaign of learning,” he said. Now that the first major experiment is done, the Army plans to build up to a company-level operation in the first quarter of FY22 at Fort Hood, Texas, with four RCV-Medium and four RCV-Light prototypes. While the experimentation at Fort Carson with RCV-Heavy was focused on cavalry operations where the robots served more in a scout mission and proved they could be effective in a reconnaissance and security role, the experiment in FY22 will move the robots into more of an attack-and-defend role. While the Army has to officially complete a critical technology assessment from the Fort Carson experimentation, Orlowski said the autonomy software “needs to improve.” The experimentation in FY22 will focus on improvements and the Army will work with industry partners to “improve that tether,” he said. “It needs to be robust in contested environments, which we haven't fully explored yet.” The service will also need to look at some alternate communications pathways between the control vehicle and the robots. Aided target recognition needs more maturity, Orlowski explained, “especially on the move to support the platforms.” Anything that reduces the soldier interaction with the platforms will also be incorporated, “and there are other things that soldiers asked for, which when we are ready to release we will. [The ideas from the feedback] were pretty perceptive," he said. "So how critical that becomes, we will see.” https://www.defensenews.com/land/2020/09/21/laying-the-groundwork-us-army-unveils-rough-plan-to-formalize-robotic-combat-vehicles-effort/

Andrew Eversden WASHINGTON — The U.S. Army is seeing improvements in anti-jam capabilities in new radios crucial to securing manned-unmanned communications at its annual Network Modernization Experiment. At NetModX '20, which runs from late July to early October at Joint Base McGuire-Dix-Lakehurst in New Jersey, the Army's Combat Capabilities Development Command's C5ISR Center — or Command, Control, Communication, Computers, Cyber, Intelligence, Surveillance, and Reconnaissance Center — is testing the resiliency of the new radios. The effort will help the service observe how they would perform in the field as the Army looks to partner humans and machines. Initial data from the event suggests the two companies involved — Silvus and Persistent Systems — have improved their radio capabilities from last year, specifically in regard to anti-jam, according to Daniel Duvak, chief of the C5ISR Center's Radio Frequency Communications division. But one major challenge is making the radios less detectable as the Army's tactical network team starts to focus on command post survivability — or reducing the electromagnetic signature of command post communications — while not sacrificing latency and throughput. “If you want to make it less detectable, you know oftentimes you have to trade off the throughput or the range or one of those other products,” Duvak said. “So that's the piece and the real technical challenge that they're continuing to work on over the next few months. We've seen progress that they've made in those areas, but that's the piece that they're still working on.” Robert Stevens, an electronics engineer at the Radio Frequency Communications division, told C4ISRNET that the radios are an important piece of the next-generation combat vehicle. And Duvak said the Army's tactical network modernization team — made up of the Network Cross-Functional Team and Program Executive Office Command, Control, Communications-Tactical — wants to use the radios as a mid-tier radio solution. The development and fielding of new science and technology projects can take more than five years; however, the Army wants to speed that up as it seeks to modernize systems in preparation for future conflicts with near-peer adversaries. At last year's Network Modernization Experiment, the C5ISR Center tested several vendors' radios to see where commercial technology stood. Alternative contracting options, like broad agency announcements as well as cooperative research and development agreements, have proved critical to quickening radio development. Under the contracting mechanisms, vendors and the Army have more flexibility to experiment with radios and make iterative modifications as requirements change. Duvak said this is different from how the Army did business years ago, when it would award yearslong contracts but eventually receive radios that no longer met current requirements. “What we were able to do at this program was, in just about a year and a half of development time, take a couple of those products that we saw that were very promising and we were able to add and actually fund vendors to enhance those radios with those resiliency features that we were just talking about for the contested environment,” Duvak said. “Things like making them anti-jam, or more difficult for the adversary to jam, making them more difficult for the adversary to detect or intercept our communications.” Duvak said the Army wants the new radio capabilities for Capability Set '23, a collection of new tactical network tools to be fielded to soldiers in fiscal 2023. The resiliency of communications is critical as the tactical network modernization team pivots to reduce the electronic signature of the service's command post under Capability Set '23. The team is looking to increase bandwidth and reduce latency as part of that set of tools. Preliminary design review for Capability Set '23 is scheduled for April next year. https://www.c4isrnet.com/battlefield-tech/it-networks/2020/09/21/new-us-army-radios-show-anti-jam-progress-at-network-experiment/

David B. Larter WASHINGTON — The U.S. Navy, beset by maintenance delays, is making progress on getting its ships out of the shipyards on time, fleet officials say. Over the past three years, the Navy is on track to more than double the percentage of ships getting out of maintenance on time, key to the service's efforts to make deployments more sustainable for its ships and sailors, Capt. Dave Wroe, U.S. Fleet Forces Command's deputy fleet readiness officer told Defense News in an email. “On-time ship maintenance availability completion rates in private shipyards improved from 24% in FY18 to 37% in FY19,” Wroe said. “Current performance trends in FY20 are projected to be 65%.” The improvement is a sign that the Navy may be turning the corner on a fight to restore readiness from its nadir in the early part of the last decade, when the Navy was running ragged filling unsustainable requirements for forces around the globe. Getting ships through their maintenance cycles on time is the linchpin of what the Navy calls its “optimized fleet response plan,” which is the system through which the Navy generates deployable ships that are maintained, manned and trained. Late last year and again in January, Chief of Naval Operations Adm. Michael Gilday told audiences that repeated delays in the shipyards was undermining the Navy's Optimized Fleet Response Plan, and turning that around was vital. “We are getting 35 to 40 percent of our ships out of maintenance on time: that's unacceptable,” Gilday said at the USNI Defense Forum in December. “I can't sustain the fleet I have with that kind of track record.” A recent Government Accountability Office report found that between 2015 and 2019, only 25 percent of the Navy's maintenance periods for ships and submarines. Improvements Getting out of that hole has been difficult for a number of reasons: High operational demand for Navy forces makes planning maintenance difficult, and inevitably when the ships go into maintenance after years of hard use, workers discover more work that needs to be done, creating delays. And those delays make executing OFRP difficult, Wroe said. “OFRP provides the construct to best assess and optimize readiness production — down to a unit level — taking into account all the various competing factors to produced Navy readiness,” Wroe said. “Bottom line: OFRP helps mitigate fundamental points of friction, such as shipyard capacity and manning gaps at sea — but in itself doesn't solve key degraders like depot level maintenance delays and extensions.” But some key factors in the delays have been identified and the Navy is working to mitigate them, Fleet Forces Commander Adm. Chris Grady said this week at this week's Fleet Maintenance and Modernization Symposium. One area that has a tendency to drive delays is when workers discover things that need to be fixed, the fix may not cost much but the adjustment must go through an approval process that slows everything down. Those kinds of changes add up to about 70 percent of the so-called “growth work.” Part of it is anticipating and building in ways to deal with growth work into every maintenance period, and the other part is making it easier to address small changes to the scope of the work, Grady said. “When we began this initiative, cycle time for the small value changes averaged about 30 days,” he said “We're now at six and aim to bring it down further to only two days.” Other things that have helped the problem has been bundling maintenance periods for ships, meaning that contractors bid on multiple ships to fix, and can plan hiring further out, Grady said. Additionally, improving base access for contractors has helped, as well. “Last year, we averaged 110 days delayed per ship in private avails,” Grady said, using the short-hand term for “maintenance availability.” “Things much better this year — even with COVID-19,” he continued. “We go from about one-third avails finishing on-time to two-thirds. That is great. But, again, each delay has real impact on our readiness, and we need to keep working together to do better.” What happened? Because the U.S. Navy is set up to meet standing presence requirements and missions around the world, it must cycle its ships through a system of tiered readiness. That means ships go on deployment fully manned, trained and equipped. Then the ships come home, and after a period of sustained readiness where the ship can be redeployed, it goes into a reduced readiness status while undergoing maintenance. Following maintenance, the ship and crew goes into a training cycle for another deployment as an individual unit, then as a group, then returns to deployment. The whole cycle takes 36 months: Rinse and repeat. OFRP was designed in the 2013-2014 time-frame when the Navy was deploying well beyond its means, with carrier strike groups and amphibious ready groups going out for nine-to-10 months at a time. The excess use wore hard on the ships and sailors who manned them and put more wear on the hulls than they were designed to sustain. That meant that when ships went in for maintenance they were more broken than they were supposed to be, and funding to fix them was hampered by spending cuts. For nuclear ships — submarines and aircraft carriers — the funding cuts were a double whammy of work stoppages and furloughs that contributed to a wave of retirements in the yards, meaning the public yards were understaffed and had to hire and train new workers. Work took longer, throwing a wrench into an already complicated system of generating readiness. All that added up to significant delays in getting ships through their maintenance cycles and contributed to astonishing delays in attack submarine maintenance especially. What OFRP was meant to do was create a system whereby the Navy could meet combatant commander demands but not break the system. That meant that the Navy would generate as much readiness as it possibly could but that the demand would have to be limited to what the Navy could reasonably maintain, man, train and equip. But getting to that system has been immensely difficult because of the deep hole the Navy dug meeting requirements that well outstripped funding and supply. For example, there was a two year period when the service was forced to supply two carrier strike groups to the Arabian Gulf at all times, a requirement only canceled when automatic across-the-board spending cuts in 2013 made it impossible for the Navy to fund the two-carrier requirement. Adding to the difficulty: some of OFRP's founding requirements were nigh impossible to pull off. One was that the all the ships in group would go into and come out of their maintenance availabilities on time and together. Another was that a group would go into the first phase of their training, the so-called basic phase right after coming out of maintenance, fully manned. Both have been immensely difficult to pull off. But Fleet Forces, headed then by OFRP architect Adm. Phil Davidson, was given ample warning that those assumptions would be difficult to achieve. Then-NAVSEA head Vice Adm. William Hilarides told USNI News in January 2015 that getting ships to come out of the yards simultaneously would be hard. “The challenge to me is, let's say you want four destroyers in a battle group, all to come out at the same time in one port? That's a real challenge,” Hilarides told USNI News. The current head of NAVSEA, who at the time was in charge of the Regional Maintenance Center enterprise, backed up his boss to USNI News, saying it would be particularly challenging in places with less infrastructure. “Your big rub there is, the challenge of OFRP is ... all those ships [in a carrier strike group], they go through maintenance together, they go through training together and they deploy together,” said then-Rear Adm. William Galinis. "So, what our challenge is, is to be able to take all that work from all those ships and try to schedule it for roughly about the same time, and to get all that work done on time. So that's our challenge. “Now, in a port like Norfolk or San Diego, we have big shipyards, a lot of people, a lot of ships. You can kind of absorb that type of workload. When you go to Mayport, they've got like 10 ships down there [and typically cannot work on more than one or two destroyers at a time.],” he told USNI. Galinis said that Fleet Forces would have to be responsive to the shipyards because at least that way they could plan for delays. “They know if they give us all this work at one time, it's going to go long anyway,” he told USNI. “So they'd rather be able to plan that and at least know when they're getting the ship back, as opposed to, ‘nope, we're not going to talk to you, you've got to go do it,' and then the ships go long because we don't have enough people to do the work.” Fleet Forces Command has been reviewing its assumptions this year and is preparing to release a revised OFRP instruction, but the core is likely to remain the same. In any case, Wroe said in the email, it was always going to take a long time to dig out of the hole the Navy found itself in when OFRP was implemented fully in 2015. “It was clear at the inception of OFRP, and remains clear today, that it will take the entire 2015-2025 period to recover readiness and establish stable readiness production,” Wroe said. “That makes sense when readiness production is planned over 9-years and large blocks of time have already been scheduled for depot maintenance periods.” Ultimately, if the process of OFRP is funded correctly and ships can get out of maintenance on time, it's a sound way of moving forward, Fleet Forces Commander Grady told the audience this week. “My bottom line here is that, as a process, OFRP works,” he said. “If we are looking where to improve upon it, each of these studies came to the same conclusion: the biggest inhibitor to fleet readiness is maintenance and modernization performance in the shipyards. We simply must get better, and I know you share my concern.” https://www.defensenews.com/naval/2020/09/19/is-the-us-navy-winning-the-war-on-maintenance/

Nathan Strout Relativity Space wants to be the first company to launch an entirely 3D-printed rocket into orbit and it wants the Pentagon as a customer. While the COVID-19 pandemic has thrown a wrench into plans, a growing number of companies are looking to provide small and medium launch services to the U.S. government. The establishment of the U.S. Space Force, Space Development Agency and U.S. Space Command in 2019 signaled the Pentagon's ambitious plans for launching more payloads into space, and providing a vehicle for just a portion of those launches would prove lucrative to any company. For Vice President of Business Development and Government Affairs Josh Brost, Relativity Space stands out from the competition, bringing disruptive 3D printing technology to bear on the small launch sector. Prior to joining Relativity, he worked at SpaceX for nine years, where he was responsible for the company's government sales. Even as the company works toward the launch of its first Terran One rocket in fall 2021, Relativity has worked to secure contracts in the commercial world. In June, the company announced it had secured a deal with Iridium Communications for six dedicated launches to low Earth orbit, with the first launch taking place no earlier than 2023. That same month, Relativity also announced a Right of Entry Agreement with the 30th Space Wing for development of rocket launch facilities at Vandenberg Air Force Base. Recently, Brost and Relativity Space co-founder and CEO Tim Ellis spoke with C4ISRNET about how the company plans to win launch contracts with the U.S. government. https://www.c4isrnet.com/battlefield-tech/space/2020/09/21/how-relativity-space-plans-to-win-the-pentagons-launch-contracts/