News

Today's critical Department of Defense (DOD) systems and platforms rely on advanced electronics to address national security objectives. To help tackle obstacles facing a half-century of electronics advancement, DARPA launched the Electronics Resurgence Initiative (ERI) – a five-year, upwards of $1.5 billion investment in the future of domestic electronic systems. In November, DARPA expanded ERI with the announcement of ERI Phase II, which seeks to further enmesh the technology needs and capabilities of the defense enterprise with the commercial and manufacturing realities of the electronics industry. One key focus of ERI Phase II is on developing connections between the various ERI programs and their potential defense applications. On Wednesday, December 19, DARPA therefore plans to host a Proposers Day to convene leaders within the defense industry base (DIB) to discuss opportunities to further develop and demonstrate ERI's technological advances for DOD needs. During the event, DARPA program managers will share their ideas for potential ERI defense applications, which include but are not limited to autonomy and artificial intelligence, large-scale emulation, cybersecurity, space applications, cognitive electronic warfare, and intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance (ISR). To foster further dialogue and collaboration, attendees will have a chance to provide input on how best to support the transition of electronics innovations into national defense hardware. The Proposers Day will also support the development of a potential broad agency announcement (BAA) focused on defense transitions. Tentatively titled “Electronics Resurgence Initiative: Defense Applications (ERI:DA)”, the BAA would solicit innovative proposals to develop, demonstrate, and apply emerging ERI electronic technologies to deliver significant impact on DOD capabilities. “The success of ERI relies on cooperation with the commercial sector to address shared problems. However, as a DARPA effort, ERI must also demonstrate that its research findings bolster our nation's defenses and help create strategic surprise,” said Dr. William Chappell, director of DARPA's Microsystems Technology Office (MTO). “Through the ERI:DA Proposers Day and potential BAA, DARPA seeks to procure the expertise and transition support of industry and the defense community to help accelerate the delivery of ERI-derived innovations for national security needs.” The Electronic Resurgence Initiative: Defense Applications Proposers Day will take place on Wednesday, December 19, 2018 from 9:00am to 4:00pm EST, at the Hilton Arlington, 950 N Stafford St, Arlington, Virginia. Advanced registration is required. For those unable to attend in person, registered attendees may access the event via a livestream link available on the registration page. For more information, please visit: https://www.fbo.gov/index?s=opportunity&mode=form&id=aa83296cfdd337b4ca5dc8bd4929ddef&tab=core&_cview=0. https://www.darpa.mil/news-events/2018-12-10

Bradley Perrett | Aerospace Daily & Defense Report BEIJING—A national security meeting of Japan's ruling party has called for the acquisition of shipboard fighters capable of short takeoff and vertical landing (STOVL), as a newspaper reports that substantial orders are planned for the version of the Lockheed Martin F-35Lightning that has that ability. Japan needs STOVL aircraft operated from currently available ships to guard against threats from its Pacific Ocean side of the country, according to a summary of results of the meeting published by the office of Prime Minister Shinzo Abe, days before the expected release of a five-year defense acquisition program. Buying 100 F-35s, including some of the F-35B STOVL version, has been expected in the five-year plan, which will start on April 1, 2019; they would be in addition to a current program for 42 F-35As. In fact, there will be 42 F-35Bs, the Mainichi newspaper said. They will operate from the helicopter carrier Izumo, which will reportedly be modified for that purpose. Modification of Izumo's sibling, Kaga, is not mentioned but would surely also occur, to ensure that one ship with F-35Bs was always available. Full article: http://aviationweek.com/defense/japan-calls-stovl-fighters-plan-42-f-35bs-reported

OTTAWA, Ontario, and MIRABEL, Quebec, Dec. 13, 2018 – Lockheed Martin Canada and L3 MAS announced today they have joined forces to offer a military aircrew training solution for the Department of National Defence Future Aircrew Training (FAcT) project. The FAcT project will deliver a relevant, flexible, responsive, and effective aircrew training program for military pilots, Air Combat Systems Officers and Airborne Electronic Sensor Operators to meet the future requirements of the Canadian Armed Forces. Leveraging Lockheed Martin Corporation's global experience in designing, delivering, and operating full-spectrum training solutions, including those in the United States, United Kingdom, Singapore and Australia, Lockheed Martin Canada is prepared to deliver a Canadian solution to train the next generation of Canadian Armed Forces aircrew. “Lockheed Martin Canada is excited about the opportunity to team with L3 MAS to offer a fully integrated, innovative and low-risk solution for the Royal Canadian Air Force future aircrew training requirements,” said Charles Bouchard, Chief Executive, Lockheed Martin Canada. “Lockheed Martin is a world leader in providing leading-edge ‘full schoolhouse' aircrew training solutions, and we look forward to working with the Government of Canada to offer the right solution for Canada's next generation of aircrew.” L3 MAS, as the premier In-Service Support (ISS) integrator for the RCAF, will offer its proven fleet management, logistics and maintenance capabilities in support of all training assets to ensure optimum performance, flexibility and value for money for the Government of Canada. “L3 MAS is delighted to team with Lockheed Martin Canada to help deliver an advanced, world-class, integrated training system to future generations of RCAF aircrew,” said Jacques Comtois, vice president and general manager of L3 MAS. “L3 MAS will leverage our proven fleet management and ISS capabilities across many of the RCAF's major fleets to ensure maximum asset availability and best value.” Lockheed Martin was selected as a qualified supplier for the FAcT project in December 2018. The Lockheed Martin Canada-L3 MAS team will be supported by a wide range of Canadian companies. About Lockheed Martin Canada Lockheed Martin Canada, headquartered in Ottawa, is the Canadian-based arm of Lockheed Martin Corporation, a global security and aerospace company employing 100,000 people worldwide. Lockheed Martin Canada has been Canada's trusted defence partner for nearly 80 years specializing in the development, integration and sustainment of advanced technology systems, products and services. The company employs approximately 1,000 employees at major facilities in Ottawa, Montreal, Halifax, Calgary, and Victoria, working on a wide range of major programs spanning the aerospace, defence and commercial sectors. About L3 MAS L3 MAS, a division within L3's ISR Systems business segment, is Canada's leading In-Service Support (ISS) integrator. L3 MAS delivers innovative and integrated solutions that span the full spectrum of ISS. This includes fleet management, annual maintenance planning and optimization; Life-Cycle Material Management (LCMM); Integrated Logistics Support (ILS); Electronic Information Environments (EIE); systems engineering; material management; configuration management; publications; and data management. L3 MAS is also known for its design, prototyping, manufacture, repair and overhaul, and certification of aerospace components. The company is headquartered in Mirabel, Quebec, and employs 800 people at operating centres across Canada. To learn more about L3 MAS, please visit the company's website at www.L3T.com/MAS. https://www.lockheedmartin.ca/ca/news/2016/lockheed-martin-canada-and-l3-mas-join-forces-to-pursue-the-roya.html

Pat Host, Washington, DC - Jane's Defence Weekly Key Points The Pentagon is seeking better insight into F-35 sub-tier suppliers It is likely that the Pentagon is looking for vulnerability points or perhaps more accurate pricing The Pentagon is seeking a better understanding of the risks presented by key components and organisations in the Lockheed Martin F-35 Lightning II Joint Strike Fighter (JSF) sustainment supply chain that could have an impact on overall programme cost, schedule, and performance. The F-35 Joint Program Office (JPO) relies heavily on Lockheed Martin and F135 engine developer Pratt & Whitney to provide insight into sustainment supply chain risks for the air system. The JPO has a good understanding of Lockheed Martin, Pratt & Whitney, and their major suppliers, but the Pentagon said there is often limited visibility into the sub-tier suppliers who provide critical components and personnel to support sustainment. Naval Air Systems Command (NAVAIR) on 3 December posted a request for proposal (RFP) on Federal Business Opportunities for F-35 JPO Sustainment Supply Chain Risk Management (SCRM). The contractor will need to produce and maintain an F-35 supply chain mapping and associated risk assessment. The contractor will map the air system sustainment supply chain to at least the third tier, up to a total of 250 suppliers. The map will need to show how suppliers are mapped, both vertically and horizontally. The contractor will provide a high-level risk analysis, comprising a minimum of the supplier ownership history and manufacturing locations within the last 10 years for all 250 suppliers mapped. The contractor will then provide a full risk analysis for 80 of the 250 suppliers identified, including, at a minimum: ownership history, financial information, partnerships, legal issues, and countries of origin and manufacturing locations. https://www.janes.com/article/85171/pentagon-seeks-better-insight-into-f-35-sub-tier-suppliers

By: Frank Bakke-Jensen A serious security crisis in the northernmost corner of Europe would affect all of NATO. That is why the alliance just conducted the largest full-scale military exercise in decades— in Norway. In October and November, some 50,000 soldiers from 31 countries were engaged in a major exercise designed to test our ability to operate together in crisis or war. Around 65 ships, 250 aircraft and as many as 10,000 vehicles took part. Exercise Trident Juncture 2018 demonstrated NATO's revitalized focus on collective defense of its member states and the geopolitical importance of Europe's northern flank. Trident Juncture 2015 took place in the Mediterranean region. This year's Trident Juncture was a unique opportunity for NATO and our partners Sweden and Finland to test and further develop our ability to operate together in the north. Norway's rugged terrain, intricate coastline and demanding climate represent challenges in and of themselves to the war fighter, making this one of the reasons why it is so important to train here. Not just because it makes us better at defending ourselves, but also because it strengthens the bond between our countries and sends a strong signal to anyone who may want to use military power to force our will. The fact that 31 countries contributed to the exercise proves that we, as an alliance, stand together. Even more importantly, the exercise demonstrated our will and determination to come to each other's aid, should it ever be necessary. With Trident Juncture 2018, we have shown in a very visible way that we will come to the aid of any member nation, should any of us need it. We see no military threat against Norway today. However, we have seen a more assertive Russia with both the will and the ability to use military power to achieve political goals. Cyberattacks and disinformation are fueling political polarization in both Europe and the United States, which in turn is challenging democratic institutions and our ability to compromise. International terrorism is changing how we think about security; migration has emerged as perhaps the No. 1 dividing force; and climate change is affecting all of these issues in ways we cannot fully predict. As members of a successful alliance, we all share a common responsibility to maintain peace and stability in our neighborhoods — from the north to the south. Democracy, rule of law, freedom of speech and freedom of religion, as well as a rules-based world order, are at the heart of our nations. All 29 allies participated in exercise Trident Juncture. All 29 allies stand together in our 360-degree approach to security. And all 29 allies share the burdens of collective defense and deterrence. These are the fundamental values that make us capable of reacting to a rapidly changing security environment. We are firm believers in dialogue, transparency and a predictable world order based on international law and binding agreements. Unfortunately, we see that these values are increasingly challenged. That is why it is necessary to have a credible military capability. While Denmark, Norway and Iceland are members of NATO, Sweden and Finland are not. By including Sweden and Finland in a NATO exercise, we improve our ability to act together as neighbors. The Nordic contribution to Exercise Trident Juncture was substantial, with over 13,000 soldiers and a large number of civilian personnel. In a fine example of Nordic cooperation, army elements from Finland operated as part of a Swedish brigade, and Danish helicopters supported the Norwegian brigade. NATO and partner forces from Finland and Sweden used military bases and airfields in all the Nordic countries, with the strategically important Iceland serving as a central hub, gateway and staging area for deployment and sustainment of allied forces across the north Atlantic. From a Norwegian perspective, Trident Juncture 18 has been a success. For the first time in decades, the whole alliance came together in the High North to test reinforcement plans and to demonstrate that we are committed to collective defense. In addition, the sea lanes across the Atlantic are once again seen as vital. Being a host nation, with all it entails, is a daunting task for a small nation like Norway. With this exercise, we were able to test our abilities to receive and accommodate allied forces. All units were in position, with their equipment, on time. All supplies were delivered as planned. The infrastructure was satisfactory. In addition, we were able to put our total defense concept to the test. More than 50 other Norwegian actors — governmental as well as nongovernmental — were involved. Seen with Norwegian eyes, Exercise Trident Juncture 18 has contributed to continued stability in the High North. Frank Bakke-Jensen is Norway's defense minister. https://www.defensenews.com/outlook/2018/12/10/norways-defense-minister-ensuring-collective-defense-and-deterrence-in-the-northernmost-corner-of-europe/

By: Gen. David Goldfein Faced with the seemingly impossible task of solving the puzzle of the German military coding machine commonly known as “Enigma” during World War II, British mathematician Alan Turing and his team used a new kind of technology. They built a computing machine that foreshadowed the age of software and algorithms, breaking a code that the Germans changed every 24 hours. Turing's legacy is profound, in war and peace. Today, anyone who has spent time on the internet or social media can't help but have noticed the speed by which algorithms help companies direct targeted advertisements to us — in seconds and minutes — based on their ability to track online interests and behaviors. It is no overstatement to say that the same kind of intuitive speed in understanding and directing information is what our military needs in order to win future wars. This new kind of warfare will require us to defend against and attack foes on land and sea as well as in the air, space and cyberspace. In military parlance, the term for this is “multidomain operations,” an ungainly phrase that has nonetheless become a major focus for each of the military services, including my own, the U.S. Air Force. The term is in vogue now for good reason: Whoever figures out how to quickly gather information in various “domains” and just as quickly direct military actions will have the decisive advantage in battle. Figuring out how to master multidomain warfare will be difficult, but do it we must. History has many lessons here. One analogy I like dates to the American Revolution. As British military forces were preparing to attack Lexington and Concord, patriots devised a simple system to alert Colonial troops. They hung lanterns in the Old North Church in Boston — one if by land, and two if by sea. But how many lanterns would the patriots have hung if the British decided to conduct multidomain operations and attack from both the land and the sea? This would have created a dilemma because they would have to choose to either divide their force and defend both approaches or choose one to defend. However, the patriots had no need to worry about this because the British did not have the ability to control a split force using both land and sea approaches. Without a suitable command-and-control system, a military force cannot effectively take advantage of multidomain operations. Fast forward to today. Having the ability to credibly attack enemies independently by land, sea, air, space or cyberspace — or all at once — creates untenable dilemmas. I'd like our adversaries to always be in the lantern-buying business. Developing the systems, training and methods by which to practice this new brand of warfare will require extraordinary focus from our military. We will have to master and apply quantum computing, artificial intelligence, hypersonic flight, and new concepts for command-and-control that will need to span the globe. In order to build this capability, we will have to develop a new ethos that allows for experimental failure, just as the private sector has done in order to bring us smartphones, robotics and many other cutting-edge technologies that define the speed and precision of modern life. America's new National Defense Strategy correctly focuses the bulk of our nation's efforts on what is called great power conflict, the potential for war with formidable foes like Russian and China. We have known for some time that both are building militaries that harness AI, quantum computers, hypersonic flight and the ubiquitous threat from cyberattacks. To build a military capable of defending and deterring against such threats, it is imperative that the United States learn to fight and defend from beneath the ocean to the outer reaches of space, and everywhere in between. Last month the Air Force kicked off the inaugural Doolittle Wargame, named for the World War II hero Jimmy Doolittle, who led the daring air raid on Tokyo in 1942 that helped turn the tide of war in the Pacific. That mission personified multidomain warfare in that it was launched from an aircraft carrier hauling heavy bombers, something the Japanese were not expecting and were not prepared for. The Doolittle Wargame is the start of our efforts to learn how to harness the potential for extremely fast, unpredictable warfare from the heights of air and space to the expanses of cyberspace. If we can pull this off, it may redefine conventional deterrence in the 21st century. Gen. David Goldfein is the chief of staff for the U.S. Air Force. https://www.defensenews.com/outlook/2018/12/10/us-air-force-chief-of-staff-our-military-must-harness-the-potential-of-multidomain-operations/

By: Sebastian Sprenger BERLIN — As the European Union positions itself to become a defense force in its own right, some in Washington have wondered if such moves would weaken NATO as the dominant trans-Atlantic security pact. Alliance leaders, including Camille Grand, who serves as NATO's assistant secretary general for defense investment, have defended EU efforts, arguing something good will come out of it if both organizations manage to cooperate. Grand sat down with Defense News Europe Editor Sebastian Sprenger during the NATO-Industry Forum in Berlin in November to discuss the state of play between the EU and NATO, defense spending by allies, and new technologies on the horizon. NATO Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg has said the alliance can benefit from the European Union's newfound interest in all things defense. How so? It can be fruitful for both organizations as long as we work well together. Of course it is good news to see the European Union as a more active player in the field of defense, provided that we operate in an environment where we avoid competing guidance to the member states and the allies, especially those who are members of both organizations, and provided that the EU effort strengthens trans-Atlantic security by enabling the European allies to acquire capabilities earlier or faster or in a more efficient way. Outlook 2019: World leaders and analysts speak on the state of global security and the defense industry We have a number of areas of cooperation between the EU and NATO, including in the field of capability development. Could things be better? Yes, probably, for example in terms of interaction between both organizations and fostering transparency, access to relevant documents, and so forth. Ultimately, I think the issue is whether the European effort can be a good contribution to a broader burden-sharing effort. But I think we also have to keep in mind that the effort in the field of defense remains primarily with nations. There is still a sizable trans-Atlantic imbalance as it pertains to the size of the defense-industrial base. Is that detrimental in the long run? The situation is relatively well-known. The defense market in North America, and especially in the United States, is larger than in Europe. There is an imbalance in defense spending; that's the whole point about the defense investment pledge, to partially correct that and having European members invest more in defense. Beyond that, the consolidation of defense industries took place in the United States earlier. In Europe it is still a process that is underway. There are still many companies competing for all sorts of markets. We have a fragmented demand and a fragmented supply, if you will. The issue is not to end up with a single company in Europe or in the U.S.; I think competition is healthy. The issue is: Can we tackle the issue of fragmentation in a European market? As seen from NATO, we don't really do industrial policy, per se. That's really a European Commission perspective. If it enables Europeans to be more efficient in delivering the capabilities we all need in the alliance, that can be good news. What do you expect to come out of industry consolidation in Europe? First of all, I think it has to be a business-driven process, primarily. It's not for organizations such as the EU or NATO to decide. I think what is true is that we see repeatedly cases of where there are a very large number of types of equipment in the same category available. There are a number of medium and small players in Europe that are part of the defense equation, and the defense industry is something where states look carefully at preserving some national capacity. The issue is: Should that organization evolve over time into a slightly more consolidated market? For me, the key criteria is to promote opportunities for multinational cooperations, which is something that we do both at NATO and the EU. It's very important that allies who are EU member states, when they are in a position to do so, decide to go for multinational solutions — with or without a single industrial champion. The European NATO members have pledge to spend more on defense. How does that manifest itself from where you sit? First of all, they are indeed spending more on defense. The increase in defense spending for this year is expected to be more than 5 percent for Europe and Canada. It's a complete overturn from the previous 25 years. We are now in the fourth year in a row of increasing defense spending. This is starting to make a real difference. In the last couple of years, Europe and Canada have spent €36 billion (U.S. $27 billion) more on defense than they had done previously. This starts being real money. It enables us to do three things: First of all, to fill some of the very serious gaps that we have — whether in ammunition or spare parts, for example. Secondly, to reinvest in building up capabilities for identified shortfalls, for example air-to-air refueling, anti-submarine warfare, all sorts of domains. Thirdly, to invest in defense for innovation. For example, take a deeper look at disruptive technologies, 21st century technologies. From where I sit, I can see two things. First of all, the NATO defense-planning targets have been apportioned by all allies. It's the first time in history that all allies have agreed to deliver what they are being asked. Secondly, all allies have agreed to keep increasing their defense spending. We might see nuances in terms of when they intend to reach 2 percent of GDP, which has partly to do with the politics in each country. But I think the political commitment is very strong and was strengthened by the Brussels summit in many ways. There is more money coming, and that creates more opportunities not only for new capabilities but also more cooperation. I think altogether, we have a dynamic that is very positive. Ultimately it makes a difference. People were always pointing at the fact that the Russian Federation had tripled its defense budget over the previous decade. Without trying to match that in any shape or form into an arms race, we also have seen now that reinvesting massively in defense, as the Russian Federation has done, has given Moscow more ability to act in the Middle East, to modernize its conventional and nuclear forces, and so on and so forth. The notion that investing in defense doesn't make a difference is wrong. What are the top three of four areas that need more investment for NATO? One that we are focusing on is the joint intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance domain. This is something where modern warfare requires us to have an edge. Then also I would emphasize mobility, both tactical and strategic. All of our missions require the alliance to be very mobile and be able to forward-deploy quite quickly. I would also cite integrated air and missile defense as a domain of focus. And lastly, the maritime domain, especially anti-submarine warfare. But those are only examples. We are in the process of designing NATO for the 21st century, which needs to be more agile and regain a degree of robustness that we didn't necessarily anticipate 10 years ago when we were working on the assumption that the primary objective of NATO would be to have light, deployable forces to go out of area. I could have mentioned cyber, of course, as a priority. I didn't mention it because while it is obviously a major, major domain for building our capabilities on, it is probably not as cash-intensive as others. The Germans seems to be perpetually moving toward 2 percent of GDP on defense, as opposed to saying when they will reach it. Is that enough? Is the GDP-percentage metric suitable for defense contributions? First of all, Germany has turned a corner on defense spending. I would note that Germany has a commitment to move to 1.5 percent, which is significant. Is this enough? Probably not. And Germany should meet its political commitment like other allies and aim towards moving as quickly as possible to the 2 percent objective. Having said this, 2 percent is a figure that is quite reasonable. The Cold War figure for Germany was more in the 3 percent realm. The notion that 2 percent would be a massive and disruptive number doesn't seem to me quite convincing. The second argument that I sometimes hear in the wealthy European countries is that 2 percent when you're rich is much more difficult to achieve. I could exactly reverse that argument, saying 2 percent when you're poor is much more difficult to achieve because then you're competing with much more immediate, existential needs in terms of infrastructure, education and so on. From that perspective, the good news with the 2 percent concept is that the burden is the same for everyone. Of course, with Germany being the largest economy in Europe, a lot of effort tends to be indeed with Germany. Germany already has demonstrated a willingness to move significantly in this direction, and there are high expectations that it will continue down that route and meet the target. I honestly think it's both doable and manageable. But then, of course, that doesn't happen overnight. Are NATO and the EU on the same page when it comes to modernizing the members' combat aircraft fleets, especially in Europe? I wouldn't say there is a NATO-EU competition or disagreement over that because, first of all, NATO doesn't take sides in terms of choosing equipment. NATO identified the need to modernize and keep an effective air force. And then each ally can decided which way they want to go. Some of them, quite a number now, have decided to go for the F-35 solution. On the other hand, other allies have either recently acquired planes that are quite modern — whether it's the Eurofighter or the Rafale — or are projecting to build together — as the French and the Germans [are] — the next generation of aircraft. Britain is also contemplating its own. From a NATO perspective, I think it's fair to say that we recognize every ally's right to pursue what they think is the best approach to address a capability challenge. The European Union is pursuing a slightly different perspective because the EU does have a dimension in terms of industrial policy and research policy where they can see benefits in supporting technological development in Europe. The United States, Russia and China are spending significant amounts of money on artificial intelligence research and development. Where does NATO as a whole stand on investments in this area? We have to look very seriously, as NATO allies, at the latest generation of disruptive technologies. And artificial intelligence is one of them. There is a major challenge coming from other major powers, starting with China. The United States is already well into it, Europe is starting to do that. I would nevertheless put AI in the broader context of new and disruptive technologies because I think it's one of them. And AI can also probably bring a lot to our intelligence efforts. But I would put it in the broader context of all sorts of technology revolutions underway. And maybe sometimes we over-focus on AI only, as if it was the single game changer. Nobody has fully assessed how much it's going to change the way we do military operations. Is AI going to be a tool to assist in decisions, or is AI going to allow for more autonomous systems to operate? On this, we've been working very, very hard, including with Allied Command Transformation. https://www.defensenews.com/outlook/2018/12/10/nato-defense-investment-official-talks-european-security-and-artificial-intelligence

NAVY The Boeing Co., St. Louis, Missouri, is awarded a $92,361,661 not-to-exceed firm-fixed-price, cost-plus-fixed-fee contract for Phase 1 integrated logistics support for 22 F/A-18E and 6 F/A-18F Super Hornet aircraft in support of the government of Kuwait under the Foreign Military Sales program. Work will be performed in St. Louis, Missouri (85 percent); Fort Walton Beach, Florida (8 percent); New Orleans, Louisiana (5.5 percent); China Lake, California (.5 percent); Patuxent River, Maryland (.5 percent); and Gulf Port, Mississippi (.5 percent), and is expected to be completed in December 2020. Foreign Military Sales funds in the amount of $38,792,947 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)(1). The Naval Air Systems Command, Patuxent River, Maryland, is the contracting activity (N00019-19-C-0033). CRL Technologies Inc., Alexandria, Virginia, is awarded an $84,327,079 cost-plus-fixed-fee indefinite-delivery/indefinite-quantity contract for lead systems integrator contractor support services to perform engineering, technical and project management for a wide variety of new and existing programs and platforms in support of the Naval Air Warfare Center Aircraft Division's AIRWorks organization. Work will be performed in Lexington Park, Maryland, and is expected to be completed in December 2023. No funds will be obligated at time of award; funds will be obligated on individual orders as they are issued. This contract was competitively procured via an electronic request for proposals; five offers were received. The Naval Air Warfare Center Aircraft Division, Patuxent River, Maryland, is the contracting activity (N00421-19-D-0026). Envisioneering Inc.,* Alexandria, Virginia (N00173-19-D-2002); R&M Technology Solutions LLC,* Fredericksburg, Virginia (N00173-19-D-2003); Technology Service Corp.,* Arlington, Virginia (N00173-19-D-2005); Remcom Inc.,* State College, Pennsylvania (N00173-19-D-2004); and Cutlass Systems Engineering LLC,* Laurel, Maryland (N00173-19-D-2001), are awarded indefinite-delivery/indefinite-quantity, multiple award contracts for Modeling, Analysis, Research, and Simulation (MARS). The cumulative face value on this multiple award contract is a combined $48,400,000. This action does not include options. Work will be performed at the Naval Research Laboratory, Washington, District of Columbia (90 percent); and depending on each task order, one of the following contractor's facility - Alexandria, Virginia; Fredericksburg, Virginia; Arlington, Virginia; State College, Pennsylvania; Laurel, Maryland (10 percent). This contract has a five-year ordering period and is expected to be completed Dec. 11, 2023. No funds will be obligated at the time of award. Funds will be obligated as task orders are issued. This contract is one of five contracts being competitively procured under a request for proposal #N00173-16-R-JH03 for which six proposals were received. The Naval Research Laboratory, Washington, District of Columbia, is the contracting activity. General Dynamics Mission Systems, Pittsfield, Massachusetts, is awarded $35,034,283 for modification P00001 to a previously awarded cost-plus-incentive-fee, cost-plus-fixed-fee contract (N00030-19-C-0003) for research and development, and sustainment efforts for the U.S. SSBN Fire Control Sub-system (FCS), the U.K FCS and the U.S. SSGN Attack Weapon Control System, including training and support equipment and U.S./UK Shipboard data system. Work will be performed in Pittsfield, Massachusetts (98 percent); Kings Bay, Georgia (1 percent); and Dahlgren, Virginia (1 percent), with an expected completion date of September 2019. Fiscal 2019 other procurement (Navy) funds in the amount of $23,665,513; fiscal 2019 operations and maintenance (Navy) funds in the amount of $5,666,207; fiscal 2019 research, development, test and evaluation (Navy) funds in the amount of $2,857,813, and U.K. funds in the amount of $2,844,750 are being obligated on this award. Funds in the amount of $5,666,207 will expire at the end of the current fiscal year. Strategic Systems Programs, Washington, District of Columbia, is the contracting activity. Jacobs Government Services Co., Fort Worth, Texas, is awarded a $25,000,000 firm-fixed-price modification to increase the maximum dollar value of a previously awarded indefinite-delivery/indefinite-quantity contract (N62742-17-D-0003) for Architect-Engineering (A-E) services for design, engineering, specification writing, cost estimating, and related services at various locations under the cognizance of Naval Facilities Engineering Command (NAVFAC) Pacific. The work to be performed provides for services that include, but are not limited to, design and engineering services for the preparation of plans; specifications utilizing NAVFAC SpecsIntact program: cost estimates utilizing the micro-computer aided cost estimating system; second generation cost estimating system: and other services such as design and engineering services for functional analysis and concept development, request for proposal (RFP) documentation for design-build projects, RFP documentation, and plans and specifications for design-bid-build projects. After award of this modification, the total cumulative contract value will be $55,000,000. Work will be performed predominantly in Tinian (54 percent); Guam (25 percent); Hawaii (19 percent); and Diego Garcia (1 percent); and other areas within the Naval Facilities Engineering Command (NAVFAC) Pacific area of responsibility (1 percent), and is expected to be completed by August 2022. No funds will be obligated at time of award; funds will be obligated on individual task orders as they are issued. Task orders will be primarily funded by customer reimbursable funds. The Naval Facilities Engineering Command, Pacific, Joint Base Pearl Harbor-Hickam, Hawaii, is the contracting activity. General Electric Aviation, Lynn, Massachusetts, is awarded $11,626,714 for cost-plus-fixed-fee delivery order N0042119F0231 against a previously issued basic ordering agreement (N0042119G0001). This order provides for engineering and engine system improvement in support of the F414 engine component improvement program. Work will be performed in Lynn, Massachusetts, and is expected to be completed in December 2019. Fiscal 2019 research, development, test and evaluation; and fiscal 2019 aircraft procurement (Navy) funds in the amount of $10,817,305 are being obligated on this award, none of which will expire at the end of the current fiscal year. The Naval Air Warfare Center Aircraft Division, Patuxent River, Maryland, is the contracting activity. EDO LLC, Amityville, New York, is awarded $8,661,189 for modification P00010 to a previously awarded cost-plus-fixed-fee, firm-fixed-price, cost reimbursable contract (N00019-17-C-0029). This modification provides for the procurement of 77 BRU-55A/A aircraft bomb ejector racks for the F/A-18A/B/C/D/E/F aircraft. Work will be performed in Amityville, New York, and is expected to be completed in June 2021. Fiscal 2019 aircraft procurement (Navy) funds in the amount of $8,661,189 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 DRS Sustainment Systems Inc., St. Louis, Missouri, was awarded a $48,741,559 cost-plus-fixed-fee contract for technical support services. One bid was solicited with one bid received. Work locations and funding will be determined with each order, with an estimated completion date of Dec. 12, 2023. U.S. Army Contracting Command, Warren, Michigan, is the contracting activity (W56HZV-19-D-0006). Lockheed Martin Corp., Orlando, Florida, was awarded a $40,372,494 cost-plus-fixed-fee contract for analysis, design, development, integration, test, help desk, product improvements, fielding, software development, and exercise support. One bid was solicited with one bid received. Work will be performed in Orlando, Florida, with an estimated completion date of Dec. 12, 2020. Fiscal 2018 and 2019 research, development, test and evaluation; operations and maintenance Army; and other procurement, Army funds in the combined amount of $31,199,618 were obligated at the time of the award. U.S. Army Contracting Command, Orlando, Florida, is the contracting activity (W900KK-19-C-0012). General Atomics Aeronautical, Poway, California, was awarded a $40,000,000 modification (P00029) to contract W58RGZ-17-C-0035 for services on the Gray Eagle unmanned aircraft system. Work will be performed in Poway, California, with an estimated completion date of June 15, 2019. Fiscal 2019 operations and maintenance Army funds in the amount of $25,000,000 were obligated at the time of the award. U.S. Army Contracting Command, Redstone Arsenal, Alabama, is the contracting activity. The RAND Corp., Santa Monica, California, was awarded a $21,898,593 cost-plus-fixed-fee contract for research and analytic projects. One bid was solicited with one bid received. Work will be performed in Santa Monica, California, with an estimated completion date of Sept. 30, 2020. Fiscal 2019 research, development, test and evaluation funds in the amount of $18,974,861 were obligated at the time of the award. U.S. Army Contracting Command, Aberdeen Proving Ground, Maryland, is the contracting activity (W91CRB-19-F-0038). AIR FORCE The Boeing Co., Fort Walton Beach, Florida, has been awarded an $11,746,605, cost-plus-fixed-fee modification (P00014) to exercise Option Three of contract FA8509-16-C-0001 for the integrated sustainment support of the AC‐130U gunships. This modification provides for the continuation of services for the development, modification, sustainment, and maintenance of the AC‐130U gunship. Work will be performed at Fort Walton Beach, Florida, and deployed locations in Afghanistan and Kuwait, and is expected to be completed by Dec. 31, 2019 for the negotiated option. This award is the result of a sole-source acquisition and is incrementally funded. Fiscal 2019 operations and maintenance funds in the amount of $6,000,000 are being obligated at the time of award. Total cumulative face value of the contract modification is $11,746,605. Air Force Life Cycle Management Center, Robins Air Force Base, Georgia, is the contracting activity. DEFENSE FINANCE AND ACCOUNTING SERVICES Kearney & Company PC, Alexandria, Virginia, is being awarded a labor-hour contract option with a maximum value of $8,799,484 for audit services of the Marine Corps General Fund financial statements. Work will be performed in Alexandria, Virginia, with an expected completion date of Dec 31, 2019. This contract is the result of a competitive acquisition for which four quotes were received. The contract had a 15-month base period plus three individual one-year option periods, with a maximum value of $38,372,103. This award brings the total cumulative value of the contract to $29,328,747. Fiscal 2019 operations and maintenance, Navy funds in the amount of $8,799,484 are being obligated at the time of this option award. The Defense Finance and Accounting Service, Contract Services Directorate, Columbus, Ohio, is the contracting activity (HQ0423-16-F-0114). DEFENSE LOGISTICS AGENCY UPDATE: Kipper Tool Co., Gainesville, Georgia (SPE8EC-19-D-0035), has been added as an awardee to the multiple-award contract for commercial construction equipment, issued against solicitation SPE8EC-17-R-0005 announced April 5, 2017. *Small business https://dod.defense.gov/News/Contracts/Contract-View/Article/1713264/

NAVY Clark Construction Group LLC, Bethesda, Maryland, is awarded a $298,211,055 firm-fixed-price construction contract to construct a VC-25B hangar complex. The contract provides for the construction of a hangar complex, an aircraft access taxiway/parking apron, associated lighting, engine run-up pads, and a hydrant refueling system with storage tanks. Additional requirements include, but are not limited to, site preparation, wetland/stream mitigation, storm water management, a parking lot, and a fire detection, and suppression system. This contract contains options, which if exercised, will bring the contract value to a ceiling of $315,481,000. Work will be performed at Joint Base Andrews, Camp Springs, Maryland, and is expected to be completed April 2022. Fiscal 2018 and 2019 military construction (Air Force) contract funds in the amount of $220,000,000 are obligated on this award and will not expire at the end of the current fiscal year. This contract was the result of a competitive acquisition via the Navy Electronic Commerce Online website, with 10 proposals received. The Naval Facilities Engineering Command Washington, Washington, District of Columbia, is the contracting activity (N40080-19-C-0008). Bell Boeing Joint Project Office, Amarillo, Texas, is awarded $18,000,000 for modification P00004 to a previously awarded cost-plus-fixed-fee, indefinite-delivery/indefinite-quantity contract (N00019-18-D-0103) to exercise an option for technical analysis, engineering and integration on V-22 aircraft platform for the Navy, Marine Corps,. Air Force, and the government of Japan under the Foreign Military Sales program. Work will be performed in Fort Worth, Texas (50 percent); and Philadelphia, Pennsylvania (50 percent), and is expected to be completed in December 2022. No funds are being obligated at time of award, funds will be obligated on individual delivery orders as they are issued. The Naval Air Systems Command, Patuxent River, Maryland, is the contracting activity. Edison Chouest Offshore, Cut Off, Louisiana, is awarded $7,374,825 to exercise an option under previously awarded firm-fixed-price contract (N3220517C3513) with reimbursable elements for one maritime support vessel. This vessel will be utilized to launch, recover, refuel, and resupply of small crafts in the U.S. Pacific Command's (USPACOM) area of responsibility. This contract includes a 12-month base period, three 12-month option periods, and one 11-month option period. This is option one of the current contract. If all options are exercised this would bring the cumulative value of the contract to $41,079,507. Work will be performed in the USPACOM's area of responsibility, and is expected to be completed Dec. 22, 2019. If all options are exercised, work will continue through Nov. 22, 2022. Navy working capital funds in the amount of $6,018,015 are obligated for fiscal 2019 and will expire at the end of current fiscal year. This contract was competitively procured with 50-plus proposals solicited via the Federal Business Opportunities website, with five offers received. The U.S. Navy's Military Sealift Command, Norfolk, Virginia, is the contracting activity. DEFENSE LOGISTICS AGENCY General Electric – Aviation, Lynn, Massachusetts, has been awarded a maximum $157,731,567 fixed-price prospective redetermination, requirements contract for holistic engine support of the T64 aircraft engine. This was a sole-source acquisition using justification 10 U.S. Code. 2304 (c)(1), as stated in Federal Acquisition Regulation 6.302-1. This is a five and a half year base contract with one five-year option period. Location of performance is Massachusetts, with a June 6, 2024, performance completion date. Using military service is Navy. Type of appropriation is fiscal 2019 through 2024 defense working capital funds. The contracting activity is Defense Logistics Agency Aviation, Richmond, Virginia (SPE4AX-19-D-9400). Michelin North America Inc., Greenville, South Carolina, has been awarded an estimated $42,246,789 fixed-price, indefinite-delivery, requirements contract for aircraft tires supporting the Global Tire Program. This is a three-year contract with no option periods. Location of performance is South Carolina, with a Dec. 11, 2021, performance completion date. Using military services are Army, Navy, Air Force, and Marine Corps. Type of appropriation is fiscal 2019 through 2021 defense working capital funds. The contracting activity is the Defense Logistics Agency Land and Maritime, Columbus, Ohio (SPE7LX-19-D-0043). Goodyear Tire and Rubber Co., Akron, Ohio, has been awarded an estimated $35,168,525 fixed-price, indefinite-delivery, requirements contract for aircraft tires supporting the Global Tire Program. This was a competitive acquisition with two offers received. This is a three-year contract with no option periods. Location of performance is Ohio, with a Dec. 11, 2021, performance completion date. Using military services are Army, Navy, Air Force, and Marine Corps. Type of appropriation is fiscal 2019 through 2021 defense working capital funds. The contracting activity is the Defense Logistics Agency Land and Maritime, Columbus, Ohio (SPE7LX-19-D-0051). Michelin North America Inc., Greenville, South Carolina, has been awarded a maximum $19,960,116 firm-fixed-price, indefinite-quantity, requirements contract to provide tire support for the Global Tires Program. This was a competitive acquisition with two responses received. This is a three-year contract with no option periods. Location of performance is South Carolina, with a Dec. 11, 2021, performance completion date. Using military service is Army. Type of appropriation is fiscal 2019 through 2021 defense working capital funds. The contracting activity is the Defense Logistics Agency Land and Maritime, Columbus, Ohio (SPE7LX-19-D-0054). ARMY Lockheed Martin Corp., Orlando, Florida, was awarded a $13,364,769 modification (P00002) to Foreign Military Sales (Saudi Arabia) contract W900KK-17-C-0040 for modernization of a number of live fire ranges; support of infrastructure; procurement of installation of targets for ranges; automated shoothouse; urban assault course; range control systems; spare parts, and new equipment training courses. One bid was solicited with one bid received. Work will be performed in Orlando, Florida and Swanee, Georgia, with an estimated completion date of Feb. 28, 2021. Fiscal 2019 foreign military sales funds in the amount of $13,364,769 were obligated at the time of the award. U.S. Army Contracting Command, Orlando, Florida, is the contracting activity. URS Federal Services Inc., Germantown, Maryland, was awarded a $9,742,253 modification (P00129) to contract W58RGZ-16-C-0001 for aviation maintenance. Work will be performed in Fort Campbell, Kentucky; Louisville, Tennessee; and Fort Polk, Louisiana, with an estimated completion date of June 29, 2019. Fiscal 2019 aircraft procurement, Army; and operations and maintenance, Army funds in the amount of $9,742,253 were obligated at the time of the award. U.S. Army Contracting Command, Redstone Arsenal, Alabama, is the contracting activity. AIR FORCE Galois Inc., Portland Oregon, has been awarded an $8,589,384 cost-plus-fixed-fee (completion) contract for merged-analysis-to-prevent-exploits software, testing and demonstrations. This contract provides for a software system that will enable computers and humans to collaboratively reason over software artifacts with the goal of finding zero-day vulnerabilities at a scale and speed appropriate for the complex software ecosystem. Work will be performed in Portland, Oregon, and is expected to be completed by May 31, 2021. This award is the result of a competitive acquisition and 50 offers were received. Fiscal 2019 research, development, test and evaluation funds in the amount of $1,321,974 are being obligated at the time of award. Air force Research Laboratory, Rome, New York, is the contracting activity (FA8750-19-C-0004). *Small business https://dod.defense.gov/News/Contracts/Contract-View/Article/1712047/