25 août 2020 | International, Aérospatial, Naval, Terrestre, C4ISR, Sécurité, Autre défense

Contract Awards by US Department of Defense - August 24, 2020

ARMY

Veraxx Engineering Corp., Chantilly, Virginia, was awarded a $218,000,000 hybrid (cost-plus-fixed-fee, firm-fixed-price, fixed-price-incentive and time-and-materials) contract for advanced planning and preview systems, mission simulators and rehearsal capabilities that enable live, virtual and constructive training in support of special operation's unique joint training and mission requirements. Bids were solicited via the internet with three received. Work locations and funding will be determined with each order, with an estimated completion date of Aug. 23, 2028. U.S. Army Contracting Command, Orlando, Florida, is the contracting activity (W900KK-20-D-0014).

Astlanda Ehitus Ou, Harjumaa, Estonia (W912GB-20-D-0017); Framaco International Inc., Rye Brook, New York, (W912GB-20-D-0018); Relyant Global LLC, Maryville, Tennessee (W912GB-20-D-0019); Semi SA, Madrid, Spain (W912GB-20-D-0020); SKE Support Services GmbH, Goldbach, Germany (W912GB-20-D-0021); and Tartu Bryan JV, Colorado Springs, Colorado (W912GB-20-D-0022), will compete for each order of the $49,950,000 firm-fixed-price contract for providing real property repair and maintenance, design build, environmental work, force protection work and construction services for U.S. forces and/or facilities throughout Estonia. Bids were solicited via the internet with 11 received. Work locations and funding will be determined with each order, with an estimated completion date of Aug. 23, 2025. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Wiesbaden, Germany, is the contracting activity.

Southwest Water Design LLC,* Albuquerque, New Mexico, was awarded a $40,000,000 firm-fixed-price contract for civil works and hydrology and hydraulics services. Bids were solicited via the internet with 15 received. Work locations and funding will be determined with each order, with an estimated completion date of Aug. 24, 2025. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Albuquerque, New Mexico, is the contracting activity (W912PP-20-D-0003).

Phillips Contracting Co. Inc.,* Columbus, Mississippi, was awarded a $24,000,000 firm-fixed-price contract for rental of construction equipment. Bids were solicited via the internet with one received. Work locations and funding will be determined with each order, with an estimated completion date of Aug. 23, 2025. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Mobile, Alabama, is the contracting activity (W91278-20-D-0076).

B&K Construction Co. LLC,* Mandeville, Louisiana, was awarded a $15,218,859 firm-fixed-price contract for construction of hurricane protection features in Plaquemines Parrish, Louisiana. Bids were solicited via the internet with four received. Work will be performed in New Orleans, Louisiana, with an estimated completion date of Aug. 21, 2025. Fiscal 2020 civil construction funds in the amount of $15,218,859 were obligated at the time of the award. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Vicksburg, Mississippi, is the contracting activity (W912P8-20-C-0050).

Sikorsky Aircraft Corp., Stratford, Connecticut, was awarded a $13,500,000 order-dependent contract for technologies to be developed and demonstrated in the Future Attack Reconnaissance Aircraft technology risk mitigation and maturation effort. Bids were solicited via the internet with two received. Work locations and funding will be determined with each order, with an estimated completion date of Aug. 23, 2025. U.S. Army Contracting Command, Redstone Arsenal, Alabama, is the contracting activity (W911W6-20-D-0005).

GiaCare and MedTrust JV LLC,* Fort Lauderdale, Florida, was awarded a $7,779,386 modification (P00001) to contract W81K04-19-D-0021 for registered nursing services for the San Antonio Military Health System. Work locations and funding will be determined with each order, with an estimated completion date of Sept. 30, 2024. U.S. Army Health Contracting Activity, San Antonio, Texas, is the contracting activity.

AIR FORCE

SRC Tec, North Syracuse, New York, has been awarded a not-to-exceed $90,000,000 indefinite-delivery/indefinite-quantity contract for force protection Counter-small Unmanned Aerial System (C-sUAS) with Medusa sustainment. This contract provides for the acquisition, upgrade, sustainment, installation support and design and analysis support of C-sUAS and subsystems manufactured by SRC Tec. Work will be performed at locations to be determined in each delivery order and is expected to be completed Aug. 24, 2028. This award is the result of a sole-source acquisition. Fiscal 2020 procurement funds in the amount of $2,137,000 are being obligated at the time of award. Air Force Life Cycle Management Center, Hanscom Air Force Base, Massachusetts, is the contracting activity (FA8730-20-D-0045).

DEFENSE LOGISTICS AGENCY

Aurora Industries LLC,** Orocovis, Puerto Rico, has been awarded a maximum $25,608,088 firm-fixed-price, indefinite-delivery/indefinite-quantity contract for coats. This is a one-year base contract with four one-year option periods. This was a competitive acquisition with 10 responses received. Location of performance is Puerto Rico, with an Aug. 23, 2021, ordering period end date. Using military services are Army and Air Force. Type of appropriation is fiscal 2020 through 2021 defense working capital funds. The contracting activity is the Defense Logistics Agency Troop Support, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania (SPE1C1-20-D-1283).

NAVY

General Atomics Aeronautical Systems Inc., Poway, California, is awarded a $15,485,103 modification (P00009) to previously awarded firm-fixed-price contract N00019-18-C-1063. This modification adds performance for site relocation activities and exercises an option to extend intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance services utilizing contractor-owned/contractor-operated MQ-9 unmanned air systems. Work will be performed in Yuma, Arizona (34%); Poway, California (14%); and various locations outside the continental U.S. (52%), and is expected to be completed in December 2020. Fiscal 2020 operations and maintenance (Navy) funds in the amount of $15,485,103 will be obligated at time of award, all of which will expire at the end of the current fiscal year. The Naval Air Systems Command, Patuxent River, Maryland, is the contracting activity.

Management Services Group Inc.,* doing business as Global Technical Systems, Virginia Beach, Virginia, is awarded a $13,601,735 firm-fixed-price modification to previously-awarded contract N00024-20-C-5608 for procurement of network, processing, and storage technical Insertion 16 (NPS), Modification 1 storage equipment, which will be incorporated into area storage area network cabinets during production. The NPS program consists of enterprise products in use across surface Navy combat systems which introduce powerful commercially available off-the-shelf processors as part of a general strategy to achieve a modular and open architecture design. Work will be performed in Virginia Beach, Virginia, and is expected to be completed by June 2021. Fiscal 2020 shipbuilding and conversion (Navy); fiscal 2020 other procurement (Navy); fiscal 2019 shipbuilding and conversion (Navy); fiscal 2018 shipbuilding and conversion (Navy); fiscal 2018 other procurement (Navy); fiscal 2015 shipbuilding and conversion (Navy); fiscal 2014 shipbuilding and conversion (Navy); and government of Australia funding in the amount of $13,601,735 will be obligated at time of award and funding in the amount of $2,069,033 will expire at the end of the current fiscal year. The Naval Sea Systems Command, Washington, D.C., is the contracting activity.

Areté Associates, Northridge, California, is awarded a $9,745,580 cost-plus-fixed-fee, firm-fixed-price, cost-with-no-fee contract for integration services supporting incremental upgrades, block upgrades and future generations of MK 18 Family of Systems unmanned underwater vehicles (UUVs), additional UUVs and remotely operated vehicles. This 17-month contract includes no options. Work will be performed at Tucson, Arizona (75%); and Valparaiso, Florida (25%). The period of performance is from Aug. 24, 2020, through Jan. 23, 2022. Fiscal 2020 funds will be obligated using other procurement (Navy). Funds in the amount of $6,885,495 will be obligated at the time of award. Contract funds will not expire at the end of the current fiscal year. This contract is awarded using other than full and open competition in accordance with Federal Acquisition Regulations Subpart 6.302-5 and 10 U.S. Code 2304(c)(5). Naval Information Warfare Center Pacific in San Diego, California, is the contract activity (N66001-20-C-0025).

*Small Business
**Small disadvantaged business

https://www.defense.gov/Newsroom/Contracts/Contract/Article/2323086/

Sur le même sujet

  • L’avion qui aurait pu remplacer le F-35

    22 juin 2020 | International, Aérospatial

    L’avion qui aurait pu remplacer le F-35

    Point clé: L'armée avait le choix entre quelques options lorsqu'elle recherchait le prochain chasseur furtif. Il a finalement décidé de ce qui allait devenir le F-35. Le ministère de la Défense (DoD) n'a pas eu à opter pour le F-35. Dans les années 1990, Boeing et Lockheed Martin ont soumissionné pour le prochain gros contrat de chasse, un avion qui servirait dans chacune des forces aériennes, navales et marines, ainsi que pour soutenir les forces aériennes de nombreux alliés américains. Boeing a servi le X-32; Lockheed le X-35. Le Pentagone a choisi le F-35. Compte tenu des luttes de la dernière décennie avec le Joint Strike Fighter, il est impossible de ne pas se demander ce qui aurait pu être; Et si le DoD était parti avec le X-32 de Boeing à la place, ou avec une combinaison des deux appareils? Histoire: À la fin de la guerre froide, le Pentagone a proposé un projet de chasseurs conjoints dans l'espoir de réduire la queue logistique globale des forces en campagne, ainsi que de minimiser les coûts de développement. Chacun des trois services d'avions de chasse avait besoin d'être remplacé par l'avion de 4e génération dans son inventaire; les F-15 et F-16 dans le cas de l'Air Force, et les F / A-18 et AV-8B Harrier dans le cas de la Navy et du Marine Corps. Le nouveau chasseur avait donc besoin de configurations conventionnelles, porteuses et STOVL (atterrissage vertical à décollage court). Historiquement, le DoD n'avait pas eu de chance avec les programmes conjoints, mais l'espoir était qu'une «articulation» accrue entre les services, combinée à des techniques de production plus avancées et à des procédures logistiques plus soigneusement affinées, ferait qu'un combattant partagé en valait la peine. Toutes les parties ont compris que le vainqueur de la compétition connaîtrait probablement un grand succès à l'exportation, car de nombreuses forces aériennes du monde entier avaient besoin d'un chasseur de cinquième génération. En bref, il s'agissait de la plus grosse transaction à l'horizon de l'industrie de la défense de l'après-guerre froide. Boeing et Lockheed Martin ont remporté des contrats pour développer chacun deux démonstrateurs. L'histoire continue Capacités: Construits selon les mêmes spécifications, le X-32 et le F-35 avaient des paramètres de performances relativement similaires. Décidant de rivaliser sur les coûts, Boeing a conçu le X-32 autour d'une aile delta monobloc qui s'adapterait aux trois variantes. Le X-32 n'avait pas la portance du turboréacteur entraîné par l'arbre du F-35, utilisant à la place le même système de vectorisation de poussée que l'AV-8 Harrier. Le système du X-32 était moins avancé que celui du F-35, mais aussi moins complexe. Le X-32 a été conçu pour atteindre Mach 1,6 en vol conventionnel. Il pourrait transporter six AMRAAM ou deux missiles et deux bombes dans sa baie d'armes interne. Les caractéristiques de portée et de furtivité étaient généralement similaires à celles attendues du F-35, et le corps de l'avion pouvait accueillir une grande partie de l'équipement électronique avancé que le F-35 transporte maintenant. Décision: Une chose est sûre; le X-32 était un avion ridiculement laid. Cela ne ressemblait pas tellement à la ponte d'un A-7 Corsair et à un lamantin hideusement déformé. Le F-35 n'est pas un prix d'un point de vue esthétique, sans les lignes élégantes et dangereuses du F-22, mais le X-32 a rendu le F-35 positivement sexy en comparaison. Quelle importance cela devrait-il avoir? Pas du tout. Quelle importance cela avait-il? Bonne question. Les pilotes de chasse n'aiment pas piloter des avions qui semblent pouvoir être écrasés par un hors-bord en Floride. Pour des raisons plus concrètes, la stratégie de Boeing a probablement nui à ses chances. Au lieu de construire un démonstrateur capable de répondre aux exigences des trois services, Boeing en a construit deux; l'un capable de vol supersonique conventionnel, et l'autre de décollage et d'atterrissage vertical. Le prototype de Lockheed pourrait faire les deux. Le Pentagone a également apprécié la nature innovante (bien que risquée) du turbolift du F-35. Enfin, l'expérience de Lockheed avec le F-22 a suggéré qu'il pourrait probablement gérer un autre grand projet de chasseur furtif. Conclusion: Choisi en 2001, le F-35 est devenu le plus grand projet d'approvisionnement du Pentagone de tous les temps et l'un des plus assaillis. Le X-32 a échappé à tous les défis les plus importants pour le F-35. Le X-32 n'a jamais fait face à des décennies de tests et de refonte; il n'a jamais connu de dépassements de coûts massifs; il n'a jamais été soumis à une série interminable d'articles sur la façon dont il ne pouvait pas déjouer un F-16A. La nostalgie de ce qui aurait pu être est courante dans les compétitions d'avions, et il est impossible de dire si le X-32 aurait rencontré les mêmes difficultés que le F-35. Étant donné la nature complexe des projets de chasse avancés, la réponse est presque certainement «oui». Mais avec le recul, il aurait presque certainement été plus logique de choisir un chasseur alternatif VSTOL pour le Marine Corps. Cela aurait éliminé l'aspect le plus complexe du projet «conjoint»; la nécessité de créer un avion qui partage des composants critiques à travers trois variantes très différentes. Cela aurait également aidé à répartir la richesse entre les différents grands entrepreneurs de la défense, une pratique qui est devenue de plus en plus une priorité du Pentagone. Bien sûr, étant donné que les aspects STOVL des F-35 et X-32 ont été intégrés au stade de la proposition, cela aurait nécessité de revenir en arrière jusqu'en 1993, pas seulement en 2001. Robert Farley, un contributeur fréquent de TNI, est l'auteur du Battleship Book. Il est maître de conférences à la Patterson School of Diplomacy and International Commerce de l'Université du Kentucky. Son travail comprend la doctrine militaire, la sécurité nationale et les affaires maritimes. Il blogue sur Avocats, Armes à feu et Diffusion d'argent et d'informations et Le Diplomate. Cela est apparu pour la première fois en 2016. https://www.breakingnews.fr/international/lavion-qui-aurait-pu-remplacer-le-f-35-523306.html

  • Remplacement des CF-18 | Boeing n’est officiellement plus dans la course

    3 décembre 2021 | International, Aérospatial

    Remplacement des CF-18 | Boeing n’est officiellement plus dans la course

    Le gouvernement fédéral confirme que l’avion de chasse « Super Hornet » de Boeing n’est plus en lice pour remplacer les CF-18 du Canada.

  • RUAG International implements full remote supervision support for Live simulation and training system to include AAR

    18 novembre 2020 | International, Aérospatial, Naval, Terrestre, C4ISR

    RUAG International implements full remote supervision support for Live simulation and training system to include AAR

    November 16, 2020 - RUAG Simulation & Training has confirmed its capabilities for full remote monitoring and supervision support for Live training systems on behalf of a European customer. The comprehensive event specifically featured the inclusion of after-action review (AAR) reporting and analysis and was provided to full customer satisfaction. The remote supervision was supported from Switzerland and enabled the customer's scheduled training to proceed in keeping with pandemic guidelines. RUAG Simulation & Training supported army and police forces, deploying force-on-force and Mobile Combat Training Center (CTC) services featuring Gladiator Modular Tactical Engagement Training System. RUAG Simulation & Training's competency for full remote supervision, including data transfer necessary to AAR, was proven within the scope of laser-based force-on-force training exercises. The implementation of the remote protocols was a prerequisite to ensuring highest training fidelity despite COVID-19 pandemic conditions. Remote supervision offset the need for the standard on-site presence of two to four professional supervisors, assuring that international travel from Switzerland was avoided. The customer experienced a reliable and realistic training and a thorough and accurate AAR debriefing, all within their protected training-site environment. The scheduled training, featuring a special operations program, proceeded according to plan, with multiple units and their various specialisations included within the Live system. RUAG's Gladiator Supervision Equipment ensured the data transmitted from positioning and interaction sensors, from the various modules, components and participants comprised in the Mobile CTC Live system, was recorded and analysed for an effective AAR. This achievement strengthened collaboration in an ongoing series of comprehensive laser-based force-on-force trainings commissioned by the customer. The Training-as-a-Service approach included full rental of Gladiator Modular Tactical Engagement Training System components and local consultants for operational system checks and servicing. Together with the customer, the team from RUAG Simulation & Training defined system configuration and component needs to target highest training fidelity and performance accuracy within budget guidelines. RUAG Simulation & Training AG is a professional and trusted partner for Live, Virtual and Constructive (LVC) simulation & training solutions. Combining cutting-edge technology with an unparalleled depth of experience, RUAG develops affordable products tailored to training goals and designed for saving lives and protecting assets in the complex environment of today's and tomorrow's battlefields. Gladiator Modular Tactical Engagement Training Systems enable live conflict scenario simulations to proceed at the highest levels of fidelity. __________________________________________________________ RUAG MRO International is an independent supplier, support provider and integrator of systems and components for civil and military aviation worldwide. It also develops and supports simulation and training systems and solutions for international trained security forces. Highly specialized in the support of aircraft and helicopters throughout their entire life cycle, the company includes maintenance, repair and overhaul services, upgrades, and the development, manufacture and integration of subsystems and components in their service portfolio. In addition, as the manufacturer (OEM) of the Dornier 228, a versatile aircraft for special missions as well as passenger and cargo operations, RUAG International focuses on customer support solutions, including OEM services. Moreover, RUAG MRO International is a developer, OEM and system support provider for simulation and training systems technology for live, virtual and constructive (LVC) training. Complex and flexible functions, and a holistic approach, support realistic training scenarios, adapted to mission goals, at individual, team and unit instruction levels. View source version on RUAG : https://www.ruag.com/en/news/ruag-international-implements-full-remote-supervision-support-live-simulation-training-system

Toutes les nouvelles