News

DEFENSE LOGISTICS AGENCY LB&B Associates Inc., Columbia, Maryland, has been awarded a maximum $37,018,357 modification (P0006) exercising the third one-year option period of a one-year base contract (SPE60016D0493) with four one-year option periods for transportation services. This is a firm-fixed-price contract. This was a competitive acquisition with five responses received. Locations of performance are Connecticut, Maine, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, Rhode Island, New Jersey, New York, Delaware, Maryland, Pennsylvania, Virginia, West Virginia, Alabama, Florida, Georgia, Kentucky, Mississippi, North Carolina, South Carolina, Tennessee, Arkansas, Louisiana, New Mexico, Oklahoma, Texas, Colorado, Montana, North Dakota, South Dakota, Utah, Wyoming, Arizona, California, Nevada, Idaho, Oregon, and Washington, with a June 30, 2020, performance completion date. Using customer is Department of Defense. Type of appropriation is fiscal 2020 procurement and war-stopper funds. The contracting activity is the Defense Logistics Agency Energy, Fort Belvoir, Virginia. Transaero Inc., Melville, New York, has been awarded a maximum $8,827,535 firm-fixed-price, indefinite-delivery/indefinite-quantity contract for a hydraulic manifold. 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-year contract with no option periods. Locations of performance are California and New York, with a June 5, 2024, performance completion date. Using military service is Army. Type of appropriation is fiscal 2019 through 2024 Army working capital funds. The contracting activity is the Defense Logistics Agency Land and Maritime, Warren, Michigan (SPRDL1-19-D-0127). ARMY General Dynamics Land Systems, Sterling Heights, Michigan, was awarded a $16,269,197 modification (P00082) to domestic and foreign military sales (Morocco) contract W56HZV-17-C-0067 to provide systems technical support for the Abrams family of vehicles. Work will be performed in Sterling Heights, Michigan, with an estimated completion date of June 30, 2020. Fiscal 2019 research, development, test and evaluation; Army working capital; foreign military sales; and other procurement, Army funds in the amount of $16,269,197 were obligated at the time of the award. U.S. Army Contracting Command, Warren, Michigan, is the contracting activity. NAVY General Electric Co., Cincinnati, Ohio, is awarded $9,211,724 for firm-fixed priced delivery order N0002419F4127 under a previously awarded basic ordering agreement N00024-18-G-4113 for LM2500 Single Shank Hot Section Kits. The material procured under this delivery order will be used to replace worn out nozzles and blades during the repair process, thus extending the life of the engine. Work will be performed in Cincinnati, Ohio, and is expected to be completed by August 2020. Fiscal 2019 operations and maintenance (Navy) funding in the amount of $9,211,724 will be obligated at time of award and will expire at the end of the current fiscal year. In accordance with 10 U.S. Code 2304(c)(1), this order was not competitively procured -- only one responsible source and no other supplies or services will satisfy agency requirements. The Naval Sea Systems Command, Washington, District of Columbia, is the contracting activity. *Small business https://dod.defense.gov/News/Contracts/Contract-View/Article/1872748/source/GovDelivery/

David Pugliese The criteria that will govern the selection of the winning bid to provide Canada's next fleet of fighter jets will prioritize strategic attack and foreign ground-strike capabilities, according to government documents obtained by Postmedia — guidelines that are seen to favour Lockheed Martin's controversial F-35. In 2010 the Conservative government under Prime Minister Stephen Harper selected the F-35 to replace the Canadian Forces' aging CF-18s, but later abandoned the plan after concerns about the technology used for the plane and its growing cost. During the 2015 election campaign Justin Trudeau promised that a Liberal government would not purchase the F-35, at the same time vowing to hold an open competition for the purchase of the country's new jet. Once in office, however, the Liberals backed away from their promise to freeze out the F-35 and the aircraft is now seen as a front-runner in the upcoming competition, with many supporters in the Royal Canadian Air Force. Though the Liberal government has highlighted the need to buy new jets to protect Canadian airspace and meet the country's commitments to NORAD, the procurement criteria obtained by Postmedia, currently in draft form, indicate the bidding process will assign additional weight to aircraft that excel at ground attack for overseas operations. Those criteria are seen to favour Lockheed Martin's F-35 stealth jet, say industry representatives allied with Lockheed's rivals in the upcoming $19-billion competition. The evaluation criteria also place less emphasis on sustainability — something else that may play to the advantage of the F-35, which has been dogged by high maintenance bills. But Pat Finn, the Department of National Defence's procurement chief, says there is such a wide variety of requirements to meet in the competition that while some aircraft might be seen to do well in some areas, they may not excel in others. “Somebody may be better in a high-end scenario but they're worst for cost,” Finn explained. “That's why we say it's the whole piece” that will be considered in the competition. At this point four aircraft are expected to be considered: two U.S.-built aircraft, the F-35, and the Super Hornet, and two European planes, the Eurofighter Typhoon and the Gripen. Finn said bidding companies must meet mandatory requirements when it comes to long-term sustainment of the planes. But industry representatives, both from Lockheed Martin rivals and those not directly involved in the competition, point out that beyond the mandatory requirements there is little emphasis on the important area of long-term maintenance and sutainability. So a company with an aircraft that costs relatively little to maintain won't get that recognition in the competition, they claimed. Finn said discussions are still ongoing with various companies and their feedback is being assessed. The request for proposals, which will outlined the final requirements for the aircraft, is expected to be released around mid-July, he added. Royal Canadian Air force commander Lt.-Gen. Al Meinzinger said key capabilities for a new plane are survivability and having an operational advantage. “We are very confident we are actually meeting the requirements of NATO and NORAD,” he said, pointing to the requirements for the new aircraft. “Both of those missions are well represented.” Canada already changed some of the industrial benefits criteria of the competition in May to satisfy concerns from the U.S. government that the F-35 would be penalized or couldn't be considered because of how that program was set up. U.S. officials had warned that the F-35 development agreement Canada signed years ago prohibits partner nations from imposing requirements for industrial benefits. Under the F-35 agreement, partner nations such as Canada are prohibited from demanding domestic companies receive contracts for work on the fighter jet, those companies instead having to compete for work. Over the last 12 years, Canadian firms have earned more than $1.3 billion in contracts to build F-35 parts. The changes made in May would now allow some of those F-35 contracts to be considered when weighing the industrial benefits offered by the planes. The winning bidder will build 88 jets for Canada, and the first delivery is expected in the mid-2020s with the full capability available in the early 2030s, according to documents produced by the Department of National Defence. https://nationalpost.com/news/bidding-criteria-for-canadas-19b-fighter-jet-competition-will-emphasize-strategic-attack-and-ground-strike-capabilities-seeming-to-favour-the-f-35

by Michael O'Hanlon All is busy on NATO's eastern front. That was our main conclusion during a recent study delegation to Lithuania sponsored by the Lithuanian Ministry of National Defense and organized by the Atlantic Council. A lot is happening on the defense preparation front, and the overall security situation is improving considerably compared with a few years ago. But problems remain and work still has to be done, if deterrence and stability are to be ensured, and a potentially devastating war with Russia prevented. As many people will recall, the Baltic nations of Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania, with a combined population of some six million and combined military strength of some thirty thousand active-duty troops, joined NATO in 2004. All three border Russia, though in the case of Lithuania, that border is in the western part of the country (near Russia's Kaliningrad pocket). Lithuania's eastern frontier is shared with Belarus, a close ally of Moscow, at Vladimir Putin's insistence. Its southern border touches Poland, along the famed “Suwalki gap,” the narrow land corridor through which NATO would likely send most of its tens of thousands of reinforcements during any major crisis or conflict with Russia over the Baltics. All three Baltic states, plus Poland, are now among the seven of NATO's twenty-nine members that meet their obligations to spend at least 2 percent of gross domestic product on their militaries, however imperfect a metric of burden-sharing that formal NATO requirement may be. In Lithuania's case, this represents a tripling of military spending since 2013. Give President Donald Trump and President Barack Obama some of the credit for recent increases if you wish. But give the Lithuanians, Latvians, Estonians, and Poles the majority of the credit—with a nod, of course, to Vladimir Putin, who has done more to unify and motivate eastern Europeans' security efforts than anyone else this century. Since 2014, when Russia seized Crimea in Ukraine and stoked a conflict in Ukraine's east that continues to this day, NATO has been gradually fortifying its eastern flank, in the Baltic states and Poland. It now has a multinational battalion-size battlegroup (of about one thousand soldiers) in each of the three Baltic states, plus a larger U.S. brigade-sized presence in Poland (with occasional, but intermittent, American deployments into the Baltic states for exercising and signaling resolve). The battalion in Lithuania is backstopped by Germany, with additional major contributions from the Czech Republic and the Netherlands. These battalions are collectively described as the “enhanced forward presence” or eFP program, following NATO's Operation Atlantic Resolve; the U.S. element is often described as the European deterrence initiative. Adding in those rotational deployments, there are some thirty-five thousand total NATO troops in the Baltics, with only a smattering of Americans on most days. Russia has well over one hundred thousand of its own recently-improved forces just across the border and could probably muster closer to two hundred thousand with little effort under the guise of an exercise, if it wished. The Lithuanians' recent defense efforts need to be put in perspective. The nation is resolute, with 80 percent supporting NATO forces deployed to its territory and all of the recent major presidential candidates—and eventual winner—favoring the ongoing defense buildup. But it does not seem paranoid, or on serious edge, even as the officials we saw were clear about the challenge and legitimately focused on progress. While a military budget at 2 percent of GDP, headed towards 2.5 percent, is an impressive defense effort, it does not reflect the dire sense of urgency of a society expecting imminent war. After all, the United States and Russia each spend more than 3 percent of GDP on their armed forces; in fact, NATO aimed for a 3 percent minimum during the Cold War, when the United States typically spent upwards of 5 percent of GDP on its military. And for all the enhancements to its two main combat brigades, Lithuania has restrained from fortifying the eastern and western flanks of the country with smart minefields or other barriers to invasion. For its part, NATO more generally has stationed the eFP forces but has not tied them into a truly integrated combat force; nor has it deployed many helicopters or air defense systems into the Baltic states. It certainly has not prestationed the seven brigades of capability that a 2016 RAND Corporation simulation estimated as necessary to constitute a viable forward defense position. The current level of effort, vigilant but tempered, strikes us as roughly appropriate to the circumstances at hand. While there are still conflict scenarios that can be imagined, it is hard to think that President Putin believes he could really get away with naked aggression against any NATO member, including those in the Baltic region. Even if NATO does not have an adequate forward defense in place against hypothetical Russian aggression, it does have a rather robust forward tripwire, combined with increasingly credible ways of rapidly reinforcing that tripwire in a crisis. Still, there are three additional lines of effort that Washington and other NATO capitals should pursue in the interest of greater deterrence, stability, and predictability in eastern Europe. First, as a recent Atlantic Council report, “Permanent Deterrence,” underscored, NATO should strengthen key pieces of its modest military presence in Poland and the Baltic states. Much of this can happen in the Polish/American sector, but elements of it should extend to the Baltics as well. It makes good sense to combine greater combat engineering capability for military mobility, so as to better move reinforcements into the east in the face of possible Russian opposition, together with plugging gaps in areas such as combat aviation and air defense, and pre-stocking certain equipment. Moscow may complain, but it cannot credibly view such additions as major NATO additions or provocations, especially because they are modest, and because Russian actions have necessitated them. Second, nonmilitary elements of NATO resoluteness need to be strengthened, too. As discussed in The Senkaku Paradox: Risking Great Power War over Small Stakes, there are various types of very small Russian probing attacks that could leave NATO flummoxed and paralyzed over how to respond. These attacks might not reach the threshold where all alliance members would wish to invoke NATO's Article V mutual-defense clause and send military forces in response, yet they could be too serious to ignore. NATO should conceptualize such scenarios and exercise crisis decisionmaking in advance while honing various economic and diplomatic approaches to complement any military responses. NATO also needs to develop more contingency plans for economic warfare with Russia that would provide alternative energy sources in a crisis. Lithuania's recent development of a liquefied natural gas terminal is exemplary in this regard. Third, while projecting resolve vis-à-vis Moscow, including retention of the EU and U.S. sanctions that have been imposed on Russia in recent years, NATO needs to rethink its broader strategy towards Russia. This strategy should include options for bettering relations in a post–Putin Russia. Various types of security architectures and arrangements should be explored and debated. For now, with a new president in Kiev, a concerted effort to help Ukraine reform its economy and further weed out corruption makes eminent sense. Things are moving in the right direction in eastern Europe, but there is considerable work left to be done. Michael O'Hanlon is a senior fellow at the Brookings Institution and author of the new book, The Senkaku Paradox; Christopher Skaluba is the director of the Transatlantic Security Initiative at the Atlantic Council. https://nationalinterest.org/feature/report-natos-front-lines-62067

DANIEL LEBLANC The federal government's plan to buy new fighter jets puts greater emphasis on the aircraft's ability to conduct “strategic attacks” in foreign countries than their capacity to defend Canada and North America from enemy incursions, government documents show. The importance awarded to the new aircraft's offensive and first-strike capabilities abroad, rather than their defensive capabilities in places such as the Arctic, is causing concerns among some companies in the running for the $19-billion contract to replace Canada's CF-18s, industry sources said. In particular, some manufacturers have told the government they are worried the process will end up favouring the Lockheed-Martin F-35 at the expense of bids from the Boeing Super Hornet, Saab's Gripen and the Eurofighter Typhoon, which is built by a consortium led by Airbus. The industry sources who spoke about the matter were granted anonymity because federal rules prevent them from speaking publicly. Federal officials said they are aware of the concerns from various aircraft manufacturers and that government experts are reviewing the evaluation grid. The government is planning to launch the competition for new fighter jets by the end of July. “We are continuing to have discussions with the companies,” said Pat Finn, the assistant deputy minister in charge of procurement at National Defence. He added that 80 per cent of the technical requirements are related to NORAD and NATO operations, while the rest are needed to be able to respond to government missions in hot spots around the world. “We're in a good spot for a competition,” he said. Canada's defence policy, which was released in 2017, made it clear that the priority for the new fighter jets would be defending the country's territory. “The fighter aircraft fleet is a critical Canadian Armed Forces capability necessary to enforce Canada's sovereignty, enable continental security, and contribute to international peace and stability,” the policy said. David Perry, a military analyst at the Canadian Global Affairs Institute, said the acquisition process to this point gives the impression that foreign missions are more important than domestic ones. “At the high level, the optics of the way it is presented aren't very good at all,” he said. The federal government's assessment grid for the new fighter jets is based on an evaluation of all requirements worth a total of 100 points, with 60 points going to technical capabilities, 20 points to the acquisition and sustainment costs, and 20 points to the package of industrial benefits. The government has shared its draft evaluation grid with potential bidders, a copy of which was provided to The Globe and Mail. Of the 60 points going to technical requirements, 31.5 points are based on the aircraft's performance on six potential missions: conducting NORAD operations, intercepting a foreign aircraft carrying a cruise missile, carrying missions against maritime targets, detecting and attacking foreign aircraft such as enemy fighter jets, providing “close air support” in an attack against targets on foreign soil and participating in a “strategic attack” against a foreign country. The first two missions, which are seen to be domestic in nature, are worth a total of 3.5 points. By contrast, the mission worth the most points (12 out of 31.5, or nearly 40 per cent of the points in this category) is the one based on an aircraft's ability to conduct a first-strike “strategic attack” in a foreign country, which is known to be a forte of the F-35. The evaluation grid has led some companies to complain to the government that the process favoured the F-35 at the expense of their aircraft, industry and government sources said. Following complaints from the American government, the federal government changed last month the way it will evaluate the 20 points related to industrial benefits. Under a new process, Ottawa will no longer force all bidders to commit 100 per cent of the value of the aircraft's acquisition and sustainment on spending in Canada. Instead, manufacturers will lose points in the scoring system if they do not make this commitment, but they will still be allowed to remain in the competition Before the changes were made, the F-35 could have been automatically disqualified because the international consortium that builds the aircraft doesn't allow for the provision of traditional industrial benefits. Of the 20 points that are attributed to the cost of the new aircraft, 10 are determined based on the acquisition costs and 10 are determined based on the sustainment of the aircraft after their purchase. https://www.theglobeandmail.com/politics/article-canada-puts-premium-on-fighter-jets-ability-to-conduct-attacks-on/

By: Jen Judson WASHINGTON — After evaluating two active protection systems in a demonstration late last fall and determining neither were the right fit for the Stryker, the Army is now evaluating how to protect one of its critical combat vehicle. “Unfortunately for Stryker, we have not found a system that is suitable for the platform,” Col. Glenn Dean, Stryker project manager told Defense News in a June 7 interview. The Army has found interim APS for both its Abrams tank and Bradley infantry fighting vehicle but has struggled to find one for Stryker. The service has moved quickly to field combat vehicle protection against rocket-propelled grenades and anti-tank guided missiles while it develops a future system. The service originally considered Herndon,Virginia-based Artis Corporation's Iron Curtain APS for Stryker, but decided in August 2018not to move forward in fielding it to Stryker units. In an effort to expand its search for an appropriate system, the Army then decided to host a demonstration in late fall last year of two additional systems: Rafael's Trophy VPS and Rheinmetall's Active Defense Systems. Signs the demonstration wasn't proving fruitful cropped up in March, when the service said they'd need extra time — an entire year — to evaluate options for Stryker. Dean said the Army was hoping they'd see promise in one of the systems at the end of the demonstration and be able to carry it through more complex characterization for better evaluation in order to make a decision. But as the demonstration wrapped up, the Army decided neither would work. “Both Rheinmetall and the medium-weight Trophy, both have maturity challenges, but the bottom line is that they turned out to not be a suitable fit for Stryker,” Dean said. “We did see some potential in systems,” Dean said, adding, “it is our desire to continue to evaluate them further so we can understand them at a greater level of detail.” Neither system received the same level of testing as Rafael's Trophy on Abrams, IMI's Iron Fist on Bradley or Iron Curtain, Dean said, and the systems could end up being the right fit for some future effort to outfit other vehicles such as the Next-Generation Combat Vehicle program's Optionally Manned Fighting Vehicle, Mobile Protected Firepower and the Armored Multipurpose Vehicle, “none of which we have identified APS solutions for yet,” Dean said. Through continued evaluation “maybe we will eventually learn something that brings us back to Stryker,” he added. Unlike Bradley and Abrams, Stryker is a relatively light-weight platform, Dean said. “It has challenges in its space, weight and power integration. It has proven difficult for us to find a system that is entirely suitable for integration.” And while no operational APS system evaluated so far seems to work for Stryker, the Army is still looking into ways to protect it as its value on the battlefield only increases with the addition of bigger guns and more expensive weapon systems. Under the Vehicle Protection System (VPS) program office, the Army is working on reactive armor improvements focused on Bradley and AMPV, but that could be of particular value for Stryker, Dean said. The Army's laser warning program that is tied to the Modular Active Protection System (MAPS) program could also contribute to Stryker protection. MAPS is a system under development with the Army featuring a common controller into which hard-kill and soft-kill protection can be plugged. And the Army will be conducting a demonstration with layered hard-kill and soft-kill protection capability later this year as part of culminating exercise for its MAPS program, according to Dean. “The soft-kill may ultimately prove to be particularly well suited for Stryker,” Dean said. Those soft-kill systems are jammers and smoke systems that help obscure and tend to take up relatively little space and are less expensive then hard-kill APS that require the reloading of countermeasures. The service is also studying what it may need for a future APS and plans to initiate a program in the late part of the next fiscal year, which could also be an opportunity to develop something more suitable for Stryker, according to Dean. While the Army does have plans to protect its combat vehicles from rockets and missiles, in a June 6 letter sent to Army Secretary Mark Esper, a group of 13 House lawmakers expressed concern the service isn't doing enough to outfit its current fleet with APS and asked the Army to explain why it hadn't requested any further funding for APS upgrades in the budget According to Dean, for Abrams and Bradley, “we are resourced to meet the requirements that we have on an urgent basis to outfit a limited number of brigades. We are doing analysis right now to support development programs of record in active protection.” He added, “What we are buying is not the end of APS activity, but it is the urgent requirements we have been given.” https://www.defensenews.com/land/2019/06/10/active-protection-systems-demo-hits-dead-end-for-stryker-army-evaluating-next-steps/

By: Aaron Mehta WASHINGTON — “Platform agnostic.” It's a term getting a lot of play from United Technologies CEO Greg Hayes and Raytheon CEO Tom Kennedy, in the wake of this weekend's surprise announcement that the two companies would be merging into a new firm,known as Raytheon Technologies Corporation. Neither company works as a platform producer, eschewing the production of aircraft or ground vehicles and instead focusing on the technology that makes them work. It's a business model that has produced well for both firms, and in a Monday interview with Defense News, the two CEOs made it clear they see no need to deviate now. “One of the first and foremost things we absolutely agree on is, we want to be platform agnostic,” Hayes said, noting that UTC sold off its Sikorsky helicopter unit almost five years ago because “we didn't like the programmatic risk associated with platforms.” “We'll supply all the content and all the systems, all of the offensive, defensive capabilities necessary to make the system successful, but we really think it's important that we remain agnostic among the platform providers,” Hayes added. Said Kennedy, “Neither of us essentially develop platforms or sell platforms. Why that's important is, really, the amount of capital that you have to go and spend in maintaining and creating these platforms kind of takes your eye off the ball relative to investing in technology moving forward. So that was a big feature, that both companies are platform agnostic.” Instead, both men said the new firm will remains focused on developing high-end technologies which can be inserted on, or in, platforms developed by the other major defense primes. With that goal in mind, the company is preparing to spend $8 billion in R&D funds in the year following its merger. When the merger is completed in early 2020, Kennedy will become chairman of the board, with Hayes serving as CEO. Two years later, Kennedy will step down, with Hayes adding the chairman title. One area Kennedy highlighted as having good synergies is hypersonic weapons, a major interest for the Pentagon. Raytheon has already been working on hypersonic missiles, including the guidance and control systems, but UTC's experience with propulsion and materials science might be able to help deal with a specific challenge for Raytheon's weapon designers. “It just turns out when you're flying at Mach 5, you really increase your temperature on all your surfaces," Kennedy said. "If you have a propulsion system, the air is coming in at such a high speed, that creates a significant amount of heat; it has to be dissipated in a very efficient way,” Kennedy said. “And one of the areas that the United Technologies has, really based in the Pratt & Whitney guys, is all the technology that they've developed over the years in working very high temperatures internal to their turbine engines,” he continued. “So not only do they have, I would call it the heat management capabilities, but also the material science to go implement those.” Hayes identified two areas where shared R&D will have a near-term impact, and they underline the benefit of having a new company that will be roughly 50-50 defense and non-defense business. The first is on aircraft control systems, where each company has technologies that can be brought to bear for the FAA's next-generation air traffic control networks. The second comes in the form of cybersecurity. “I think Raytheon is second to none as it relates to cyber, and we view this as a core competency that can benefit the entire commercial aerospace ecosystem,” Hayes said. “Not just the connected aircraft, which is probably the first order of business, but the whole ecosystem. How do you protect passenger data, how do you protect the equipment that's on the ground? How do you protect the airplane while it's flying? “I think we'll see that shortly in the marketplace.” https://www.defensenews.com/industry/2019/06/10/why-the-new-raytheon-technologies-will-eschew-platforms-for-new-technology-development/

NAVY Sikorsky Aircraft Corp., Stratford, Connecticut, a Lockheed Martin Co., is awarded $542,023,016 for firm-fixed price modification P00074 to a previously awarded fixed-price-incentive-firm contract (N00019-14-C-0050) in support of the Presidential Helicopter Replacement Program (VH-92A). This modification exercises an option for the procurement of six Low Rate Initial Production Lot 1 Presidential Helicopters, as well as interim contractor support, initial spares, support equipment, and system parts replenishment. Work will be performed in Stratford, Connecticut (50 percent); Coatesville, Pennsylvania (36 percent); Owego, New York (10 percent); Patuxent River, Maryland (3 percent); and Quantico, Virginia (1 percent), and is expected to be completed in April 2022. Fiscal 2019 aircraft procurement (Navy) funds in the amount of $542,023,016 will be obligated at time of award, none of which will expire at the end of the current fiscal year. The Naval Air Systems Command, Patuxent River, Maryland, is the contracting activity. Taylor Defense Products LLC, Louisville, Mississippi, is awarded a ceiling $84,000,000 indefinite-delivery/indefinite-quantity contract for the Service Life Extension Program (SLEP) for up to a maximum of 145 all-terrain cranes. Work will be performed in Louisville, Mississippi, and is expected to be complete by June 2029. Fiscal 2019 procurement (Marine Corps) funds in the amount of $9,719,457 will be obligated on the first delivery order immediately following contract award and funds will not expire at the end of the current fiscal year. This contract was competitively procured via the Federal Business Opportunities website, with three offers received. The Marine Corps Systems Command, Quantico, Virginia, is the contracting activity (M67854-19-D-5018). QED Systems Inc.,* Virginia Beach, Virginia (N32253-19-D-0008); ORBIS Inc.,* Mount Pleasant, South Carolina (N32253-19-D-0009); Oceaneering International Inc., Chesapeake, Virginia (N32253-19-D-0010); Delphinus Engineering, Inc.,* Eddystone, Pennsylvania (N32253-19-D-0011); Electric Boat Corp., Groton, Connecticut (N32253-19-D-0012); and Confluence Corp. doing business as Regal Service Co.,* Honolulu, Hawaii (N32253-19-D-0013), are awarded a multiple award, indefinite-delivery/indefinite-quantity contract with firm-fixed-pricing for the procurement of non-nuclear, non-SUBSAFE touch labor at Pearl Harbor Naval Shipyard and Intermediate Maintenance Facility, Hawaii. The maximum ceiling value for all six contracts is $49,000,000 with options included. Touch labor trades include: marine electrician, electronics technician, temporary service sheetmetal mechanic, temporary service electrician, temporary service pipefitter, inside machinist, marine machinery mechanic, shipwright, plastic fabricator/woodcrafting, fabric worker, sandblaster, painter, painter/sandblaster, laborer, shipfitter mechanic, sheetmetal mechanic, firewatch/tankwatch, welder, pipefitter, and insulator. The six contractors may compete for task orders under the terms and conditions of the awarded contracts. Work will be performed in the state of Hawaii, and is expected to be complete by June 2020. Fiscal 2019 operation and maintenance (Navy) funding in the amount of $15,000 ($2,500 per awardee) will be obligated at the time of award and will expire at the end of the fiscal year. These contracts were competitively procured with six offers received via the Federal Business Opportunities website. The Naval Sea Systems Command, Pearl Harbor Naval Shipyard and Intermediate Maintenance Facility is the contracting activity. The Boeing Co., Huntington Beach, California, is awarded $22,834,133 for modification 0017 to delivery order 2001 previously issued against basic ordering agreement N00019-16-G-0001. This modification provides for additional acoustics software support activity and engineering support for the P-8A Poseidon aircraft. In addition, this modification incorporates virtual machine efforts and develops and integrates software for Multi-static Active Coherent Enhancements. Work will be performed in Huntington Beach, California, and is expected to be completed in January 2022. Fiscal 2019 research, development, test and evaluation (Navy) funds in the amount of $7,800,000 will be obligated at time of award, none of which will expire at the end of the fiscal year. The Naval Air Systems Command, Patuxent River, Maryland, is the contracting activity. BAE Systems Land & Armaments L.P., Minneapolis, Minnesota, is awarded a $19,636,725 modification to a previously awarded firm-fixed-price supply contract N00174-17-C-0022 to exercise option year two for the fiscal 2017-2020 production of the MK38 MOD 3 Machine Gun System (MGS) and associated spares. This contract is to fulfill specified requirements and technical performance requirements for the MK38 MOD 3 25mm MGS Ordnance Alteration and associated spares. The MGS produced is derived from application of an ordnance alteration to the MK 38 MOD 1 25mm MGS. Once installed, incorporates two-axis stabilization, an improved electro-optical sight system (EOS), improved multi-function display, modified main control panel, a new main computing unit, a 7.62mm machine gun and remote control operation. Work will be performed in Haifa, Israel (67 percent); and Louisville, Kentucky (33 percent), and is expected to be completed by September 2021. Fiscal 2017 shipbuilding and conversion (Navy); 2019 weapons procurement (Navy); and fiscal 2019 weapons procurement (Coast Guard) funds in the amount of $19,636,725 will be obligated at the time of award and will not expire at the end of the current fiscal year. The Naval Surface Warfare Center, Indian Head, Maryland, is the contracting activity (N00174-17-C-0022). ARMY XL Scientific LLC,* Albuquerque, New Mexico, was awarded a $48,000,000 cost-plus-fixed-fee contract for non-kinetic, T&E needs, addressing Directed Energy, Electronic Warfare and nuclear systems and effects. One bid was were solicited via the internet with one bid received. Work locations and funding will be determined with an estimated completion date of May 31, 2029. U.S. Army Contracting Command, Orlando, Florida, is the contracting activity (W900KK-19-D-0007). Louisiana State University System, Baton Rouge, Louisiana, was awarded a $12,908,650 firm-fixed-price contract for Nutritional Biochemistries Analysis 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 June 9, 2024. U.S. Army Medical Research Acquisition Activity, Fort Detrick, Maryland, is the contracting activity (W81XWH-19-D-0010). Mahaffey Tent & Awning Co. Inc.,* Memphis, Tennessee, was awarded a $8,976,868 modification (P00006) to contract W9124E-16-D-0006 for shower trailers, environment control units, light sets, tentage of various sizes and configurations, hand washing stations, generators, cots, and other logistical life support equipment. Work will be performed in Fort Polk, Louisiana, with an estimated completion date of June 20, 2021. Fiscal 2019 operations and maintenance Army funds in the amount of $8,976,868 were obligated at the time of the award. U.S. Army Mission and Installation Contracting Command, Fort Polk, Louisiana, is the contracting activity. DEFENSE LOGISTICS AGENCY Kaba Mas, Lexington, Kentucky, has been awarded a maximum $20,548,845 fixed-price with economic-price-adjustment, indefinite-quantity contract for combination locks. This was a competitive acquisition with one response received. This is a two-year base contract with three one-year option periods. Location of performance is Kentucky, with a June 9, 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 Troop Support, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania (SPE5EY-19-D-0542). Defense Energy Syndicate LLC, Bronx, New York (SPE600-19-D-0757, $10,580,489); and TC Chemicals LLC Pearland, Texas (SPE600-19-D-0795, $8,193,690), have each been awarded a firm-fixed-price, requirements contract with economic-price-adjustment under solicitation SPE602-19-R-0702 for additives. These were competitive acquisitions with nine responses received. They are two-year contracts with a 30-day carry-over periods. Locations of performance are New York, Delaware, New Jersey, Louisiana, Texas and California, with a June 30, 2021, performance completion date. Using customer is Defense Logistics Agency. Type of appropriation is fiscal 2019 through 2021 defense working capital funds. The contracting activity is the Defense Logistics Agency Energy, Fort Belvoir, Virginia. AIR FORCE Advanced Concepts and Technologies International LLC, Waco, Texas, has been awarded a $7,202,973 firm-fixed-price modification (P00003) to previously awarded contract FA4890-18-F-5102 for the 505th Training Group academic and training support. This contract provides for the exercise of option period one for services to cover requirements in the areas of course instruction, mission support, exercise support and lessons learned to the government-led maintenance and execution of select 505th Training Group courses. Work will be performed primarily at Hurlburt Field, Florida, as well as various other locations worldwide, and is expected to be complete by June 9, 2020. Fiscal 2019 operations and maintenance funds in the full amount are being obligated at the time of award. Air Combat Command Acquisition Management and Integration Center, Hurlburt Field, Florida, is the contracting activity. *Small business https://dod.defense.gov/News/Contracts/Contract-View/Article/1871303/source/GovDelivery/

NAVY Lockheed Martin Corp., Lockheed Martin Aeronautics Co., Fort Worth, Texas, is awarded a $1,808,545,655 cost-plus-incentive-fee, cost-plus-award-fee, cost-plus-fixed-fee contract for continued design maturation and development of Block 4 capabilities in support of the F-35 Lightning II Phase 2.3 Pre-Modernization for the Air Force, Navy, Marine Corps; and non-U.S. Department of Defense (DoD) participants. Work will be performed in Fort Worth, Texas, and is expected to be completed in August 2026. Fiscal 2019 research, development, test and evaluation (Air Force, Navy, and Marine Corps); and non-U.S. DoD participant funds in the amount of $98,998,910 will be obligated at time of award, none of which will expire at the end of the current fiscal year. This contract combines purchases for the Air Force ($732,460,990; 40.50 percent); Navy ($371,475,278; 20.54 percent), Marine Corps ($345,974,784; 19.13 percent) and non-U.S. DoD participants ($358,634,603; 19.83 percent). This contract was not competitive procured pursuant to U.S. Code 2304(c)(1). The Naval Air Systems Command, Patuxent River, Maryland, is the contracting activity (N00019-19-C-0010). Northrop Grumman Systems Corp., Baltimore, Maryland, is awarded a $958,049,562 firm-fixed-price contract for the procurement of 30 full-rate production Ground/Air Task Oriented Radar units under the portfolio management of Program Executive Officer Land Systems, Quantico, Virginia. This procurement also includes spares parts and retrofit kits. Work will be performed in Linthicum, Maryland (37 percent); East Syracuse, New York (28 percent); Stafford Springs, Connecticut (7 percent); Tulsa, Oklahoma (6 percent); Syracuse, New York (4 percent); Valencia, California (3 percent); San Diego, California (3 percent); Richardson, Texas (3 percent); Farmingdale, New York (2 percent); St. Paul, Minnesota (2 percent); Gilbert, Arizona (1 percent); Phoenix, Arizona (1 percent); Lowell, Massachusetts (1 percent); Littleton, Colorado (1 percent); and Durham, North Carolina (1 percent), and is expected to be complete by Jan. 13, 2025. Fiscal 2019 procurement funds (Marine Corps) in the amount of $194,748,327 will be obligated at the time of award and will not expire at the end of the current fiscal year. This contract award was not competitively procured in accordance with Federal Acquisition Regulation 6.302-1 and 10 U.S. Code § 2304(c)(1). The Marine Corps Systems Command, Quantico, Virginia, is the contracting activity (M67854-19-C-0043). Bath Iron Works, Bath, Maine, is awarded a $61,697,197 cost-plus-award-fee modification to previously-awarded contract N00024-18-C-2313 to exercise options for accomplishment of lead yard services (LYS) for the DDG 51-class destroyer program. LYS provides necessary engineering, technical, material procurement and production support; configuration; class flight and baseline upgrades and new technology support; data and logistics management; lessons-learned analysis; acceptance trials; post-delivery test and trials; post-shakedown availability support; reliability and maintainability; system safety program support; material and fleet turnover support; shipyard engineering team; turnkey; crew indoctrination, design tool/design standardization, detail design development, and other technical and engineering analyses for the purpose of supporting DDG 51 Class ship construction and test and trials. In addition, DDG 51 Class LYS may provide design, engineering, procurement and manufacturing/production services to support design feasibility studies and analyses that modify DDG 51-class destroyers for foreign military sales programs sponsored by the Department of the Navy and the Department of Defense. Work will be performed in Bath, Maine (95 percent); Brunswick, Maine (4 percent), and other locations below one percent (1 percent) and is expected to be completed by June 2020. Fiscal 2015, 2016 and 2017 shipbuilding and conversion (Navy) funding in the amount of $58,345,440 will be obligated at time of award and will not expire at the end of the current fiscal year. The Naval Sea Systems Command, Washington, District of Columbia, is the contracting activity. L3 Communications MariPro Inc., Goleta, California, is awarded a $41,440,334 cost-plus-fixed-fee, indefinite-delivery/indefinite-quantity, sole-source contract to provide support services to sustain U.S. and allied navy training and test and evaluation ranges around the world. L3 will repair or replace original equipment manufacturer systems. Services and associated deliverables include the design, production and installation of both shore electronic systems and ocean sensor system hardware assemblies; operation and maintenance of the delivered hardware to support operational test events of the delivered system, and data products identified in the contract data requirements lists. Other services under this requirement include operating, maintaining, repairing, performing logistics support, refurbishing, modernizing, upgrading, revising, improving, performing information assurance and expanding of range hardware, software and its performance. Work will be performed at various locations throughout the world and is expected to be completed by June 2024. Fiscal 2019 operation and maintenance (Navy) funding in the amount of $245,477 will be obligated at time of award and will expire at the end of the current fiscal year. This contract was not competitively procured, in accordance with 10 U.S. Code 2304(c)(1) - only one responsible source and no other supplies or services will satisfy agency requirements. The Naval Undersea Warfare Center Division Newport, Newport, Rhode Island, is the contracting activity (N66604-19-D-A900). AIR FORCE EMC Corp., Irvine, California, has been awarded a $74,423,388 firm-fixed-price, indefinite-delivery/indefinite-quantity contract for instrumentation support, configuration, management, development, loading, integration, analysis and decommutation (ILIAD) and flight test instrumentation systems operation. This contract provides for greater mission capabilities by accessing contractor personnel with specialized training and expertise in utilization and troubleshooting of the ILIAD system. Work will be performed at Edwards Air Force Base and Irvine, California, and is expected to be complete by June 6, 2024. This award is the result of a sole-source acquisition. Fiscal 2019 research and development funds in the amount of $109,387 are being obligated at the time of award. The Air Force Test Center, Directorate of Contracting, Test Range and Specialized Contracting Branch, Edwards AFB, California, is the contracting activity (FA9304-19-D-0001). DEFENSE LOGISTICS AGENCY Science Applications International Corp., Fairfield, New Jersey, has been awarded a maximum $90,000,000 firm-fixed-price, 254-day bridge contract for facilities maintenance, repair, and operations items. This was a sole-source acquisition using justification 10 U.S. Code 2304 (c)(1), as stated in Federal Acquisition Regulation 6.302-1. Locations of performance are New Jersey, California, Arizona, Nevada, and Utah, with a Feb. 18, 2020, performance completion date. Using military services are Army, Navy, Air Force, and Marine Corps. Type of appropriation is fiscal 2019 through 2020 defense working capital funds. The contracting activity is the Defense Logistics Agency Troop Support, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania (SPE8E3-19-D0008). ARMY Quantum Spatial Inc., St. Petersburg, Florida (W912GB-19-D-0021); and Woolpert-Black & Veatch, Beavercreek, Ohio (W912GB-19-D-0022) will compete for each order of the $49,000,000 firm-fixed-price contract for surveying and mapping services. Bids were solicited via the internet with 10 received. Work locations and funding will be determined with each order, with an estimated completion date of June 6, 2024. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Wiesbaden, Germany, is the contracting activity. Encanto Facility Services 2 LLC,* Albuquerque, New Mexico, was awarded a $45,000,000 firm-fixed-price contract for maintenance, repair, upgrade and minor construction of real property facilities at Fort Hood, Texas. Bids were solicited via the internet with 10 received. Work locations and funding will be determined with each order, with an estimated completion date of June 7, 2022. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Fort Worth, Texas, is the contracting activity (W9126G-19-D-0031). Exp Federal, Chicago, Illinois (W912GB-19-D-0013); Stanley COWI JV, Muscatine, Iowa (W912GB-19-D-0014); Black & Veatch, Overland Park, Kansas (W912GB-19-D-0012); and WSP USA Inc., Virginia Beach, Virginia (W912GB-19-D-0015) will compete for each order of the $36,000,000 firm-fixed-price contract for general architect and engineering services. Bids were solicited via the internet with five received. Work locations and funding will be determined with each order, with an estimated completion date of June 6, 2024. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Wiesbaden, Germany, is the contracting activity. Komada LLC,* Colorado Springs, Colorado, was awarded a $22,090,954 firm-fixed-price contract for repair of Teller Dam at Fort Carson, Colorado. Bids were solicited via the internet with seven received. Work will be performed in Fort Carson, Colorado, with an estimated completion date of Oct. 30, 2020. Fiscal 2019 operations and maintenance Army funds in the amount of $22,090,954 were obligated at the time of the award. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Omaha, Nebraska, is the contracting activity (W9128F-19-C-0028). Medvolt Construction Services LLC,* Kansas City, Missouri, was awarded a $18,058,404 firm-fixed-price contract for construction of flood walls, earthen levees, interior storm water piping, tributary channel realignment and bank stabilization, and detention pond with gatewell, at Swope Park Industrial Area in Kansas City, Missouri. Bids were solicited via the internet with three received. Work will be performed in Kansas City, Missouri, with an estimated completion date of Nov. 28, 2022. Fiscal 2019 civil construction funds in the amount of $18,058,404 were obligated at the time of the award. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Kansas City, Missouri, is the contracting activity (W912DQ-19-C-1074). The Boeing Co., Ridley Park, Pennsylvania, was awarded a $10,115,993 modification (P00025) to contract W58RGZ-17-C-0059 to support CH-47F Block II Engineering and Manufacturing Development program. Work will be performed in Ridley Park, Pennsylvania, with an estimated completion date of July 27, 2021. Fiscal 2019 research, development, test and evaluation funds in the amount of $10,115,993 were obligated at the time of the award. U.S. Army Contracting Command, Redstone Arsenal, Alabama, is the contracting activity. Eco & Associates Inc.,* Tustin, California, was awarded a $10,000,000 firm-fixed-price contract for architect and engineer services. Bids were solicited via the internet with nine received. Work locations and funding will be determined with each order, with an estimated completion date of Dec. 7, 2024. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, San Francisco, California, is the contracting activity (W912P7-19-D-0004). NWI&T Atkins SB JV LLC,* Idaho Falls, Idaho, was awarded a $10,000,000 firm-fixed-price contract for architect and engineer services. Bids were solicited via the internet with nine received. Work locations and funding will be determined with each order, with an estimated completion date of Dec. 7, 2024. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, San Francisco, California, is the contracting activity (W912P7-19-D-0005). WASHINGTON HEADQUARTERS SERVICES Copper River Technologies, Anchorage, Alaska, has been awarded a firm-fixed-price, indefinite-delivery/indefinite-quantity with a maximum amount of $21,000,000. The contract is to provide professional-level analytical, communication, event management, and logistics services as well as administrative-level general and executive services to provide continuous process improvement, business process reengineering, and organizational efficiencies support services to Facilities Services Directorate (FSD), Space Portfolio Management Division, other FSD Divisions and satisfy Department of Defense, Office of the Secretary of Defense, and Washington Headquarters Services requirements. Work performance will take place in Arlington, Virginia. Fiscal 2019 operations and maintenance funds in the amount of $3,322,696 are being obligated at time of award. The expected completion date is June 6, 2024. Washington Headquarters Services, Arlington, Virginia, is the contracting activity (HQ0034-19-D-0015). *Small business https://dod.defense.gov/News/Contracts/Contract-View/Article/1870180/source/GovDelivery/

Updated with comments from officials on June 10, 2019, at 9:21 a.m. ET. WASHINGTON — Raytheon and United Technologies Corporation will officially merge into a new entity called Raytheon Technologies Corporation, with the deal taking place in first half of 2020. Following Saturday reports that a merger was imminent, the two firms made the news official Sunday, launching a website about the planned all-stock deal. On Monday, Raytheon CEO Thomas Kennedy and UTC CEO Greg Hayes held a conference call, where the two revealed that discussions about a potential merger started in summer 2018, before taking off in earnest this January. “It's like a mirror,” Kennedy said of UTC, noting both companies invest heavily in new technologies while remaining “platform agnostic.” Hayes added that there is roughly a one percent overlap between the two firms portfolios. The new company will be roughly 50-50 defense and commercial, with plans to spend $8 billion on R&D after combining. Much of that funding will go towards high-end defense programs, including, per a news release, “hypersonics and future missile systems; directed energy weapons; intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance (ISR) in contested environments; cyber protection for connected aircraft; next generation connected airspace; and advanced analytics and artificial intelligence for commercial aviation.” The new firm has a “tremendous opportunity to invest” in the future, Hayes said. “The resources of the combined company will allow us to do things on a stand alone basis that would have been very difficult” individually. Hayes also expressed his belief the Pentagon would not see major issues, given the limited overlap. However, other trouble may be brewing; during a Monday interview with CNBC, U.S. President Donald Trump expressed concern about the agreement. While being billed as a “merger of equals,” UTC shareowners will own approximately 57 percent and Raytheon shareowners will own approximately 43 percent of the combined company. A spokesperson for Raytheon confirmed to Defense News Sunday that the combined company will be based in the greater Boston area. Raytheon is based in the Boston suburb of Waltham, while UTC is based in Farmington, Conn. Per a news release, the new company will have approximately $74 billion in pro forma 2019 sales. The release also highlights that the merged company will be a major player in both the defense and commercial aerospace markets, giving greater market resiliency. Byron Callan, a defense analyst with Capital Alpha Partners, wrote Sunday in a note to investors that the merger may be a sign of market trends to come. “An RTN-UTX deal may be a signal (a siren?) that 1) this U.S. defense cycle is peaking, and firms need to start repositioning for growth in 2021 and beyond; 2) Maybe the commercial aerospace outlook is looking wobbly too and Western firms need to hedge against fallout from a U.S.-China trade split. A U.S. recession is overdue; 3) Defense firms will need to fund more of their own R&D in the future so joining a larger firm will limit margin pressure which could be evidenced in the 2020s,” Callan wrote. Callan also sees “some overlap in the defense portfolios” for the two companies, primarily through the Mission Systems segment of Collins Aerospace. That could require some small divestitures down the road as the deal is finalized, but there do not appear to be any major issues that would lead to objections from the Pentagon. “Both are active in defense communications, though Collins has a larger share. Both have imaging/IR products, though Raytheon has a larger product offering,” he wrote. “Collins provides large space imaging mirrors used in surveillance satellites but it's not clear to us if there is an overlap with Raytheon's classified space payload work.” The deal should create a mammoth defense contractor second only to Lockheed Martin. Raytheon already ranked number two on the most recent Defense News Top 100 list, with $23.5 billion in defense revenues, 93 percent of its overall revenue total; UTC has $7.83 billion in defense revenues, a mere 13 percent of its overall figures. However, that UTC number came before its acquisition of Rockwell Collins and its $2.28 billion in defense revenues, which will naturally increase United's overall number. The move comes after 18 months of major defense consolidation. In addition to UTC's move on Rockwell, there was the General Dynamics acquisition of CSRA, Northrop Grumman's acquisition of Orbital ATK, and L3 and Harris announcing in Oct. 2018 that they would combine to form what at the time appeared to be the seventh largest global defense firm. https://www.defensenews.com/industry/2019/06/09/raytheon-technologies-corporation-utc-raytheon-make-marriage-official/