Nouvelles

U.S. SPECIAL OPERATIONS COMMAND Wyle Laboratories Inc. (KBRwyle), Houston, Texas, has been awarded a $500,000,000 maximum ceiling value, indefinite-delivery/indefinite-quantity contract (H92400-19-D-0001) for contractor-provided personal services and expertise to U.S. Special Operations Command (USSOCOM) to support the Preservation of the Force and Family Program. The support will be provided at 26 geographic locations inside and outside of the continental U.S. The contract has a base period of five years with one three-year option period for a total ordering period of up to eight years. This contract was awarded through full and open competition with eight proposals received. USSOCOM, Tampa, Florida, is the contracting activity. ARMY General Atomics Aeronautical Systems Inc., Poway, California, was awarded a $192,660,310 modification (P00071) to contract W58RGZ-17-C-0018 for Gray Eagle performance-based logistics. Work will be performed in Poway, California, with an estimated completion date of April 23, 2019. Fiscal 2019 operations and maintenance, Army funds in the amount of $41,825,728 were obligated at the time of the award. U.S. Army Contracting Command, Redstone Arsenal, Alabama, is the contracting activity. NAVY Konecranes Nuclear Equipment and Services LLC, New Berlin, Wisconsin, is awarded a $54,928,445 firm-fixed-price contract to provide one 140-ton portal crane at Portsmouth Naval Shipyard. The work to be performed provides for the contractor to design, fabricate, assemble, shop test, deliver, install, inspect, field test and make ready for use one 140-ton portal crane. The crane shall be a portal type with a rotating superstructure, luffing boom, main hoist and an auxiliary hoist designed to meet the dimensional and functional requirements of the specification. Crane installation and utilization will be performed in Kittery, Maine, and is expected to be completed by May 2021. Fiscal 2019 other procurement (Navy) funds in the amount of $54,928,445 are obligated on this award and will not expire at the end of the current fiscal year. This contract was competitively procured via the Navy Electronic Commerce Online website with two proposals received. The Naval Facilities Engineering Command, Atlantic, Norfolk, Virginia, is the contracting activity (N62470-19-C-1000). General Dynamics Mission Systems, Pittsfield, Massachusetts, is awarded a $18,537,696 cost-plus-incentive-fee, cost-plus-fixed-fee contract for research and development, and sustainment efforts for the U.S. SSBN Fire Control Sub-system (FCS); the United Kingdom 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 $7,904,897; United Kingdom funds in the amount of $2,635,000; and fiscal 2019 operations and maintenance (Navy) funds in the amount of $406,801 are being obligated on this award. Funds in the amount of $406,801 will expire at the end of the current fiscal year. Subject to the availability of funding, fiscal 2019 operations and maintenance (Navy) funds in the amount of $7,590,998 will be obligated which will also expire at the end of the current fiscal year. Strategic Systems Programs, Washington, District of Columbia, is the contracting activity (N00030-19-C-0003). Lockheed Martin Corp., Lockheed Martin Aeronautics Co., Fort Worth, Texas, is being awarded $8,700,187 for cost-plus-fixed-fee order N0001919F0276 against a previously issued basic ordering agreement (N00019-14-G-0020). This order provides support services to design a non-Department of Defense (DoD) participant strategic facility in support of the F-35 aircraft. Work will be performed in Kansas City, Missouri (72 percent); and Fort Worth, Texas (28 percent), and is expected to be completed in March 2020. Non-DoD participant funds in the amount of $8,700,187 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. General Dynamics, Electric Boat Corp., Groton, Connecticut, is being awarded a $7,316,141 cost-plus-fixed-fee modification to a previously awarded contract (N00024-15-C-4305) to exercise a priced option to maintain Navy certification, protect and operate the Navy floating dry dock, ARDM-4 Shippingport. The contractor will also accomplish organizational level repairs and preservation to the government furnished dry dock. Work will be performed in Groton, Connecticut, and is expected to be completed by October 2019. Fiscal 2019 operations and maintenance (Navy) funding in the amount of $1,900,000 will be obligated at time of award and will expire at the end of the current fiscal year. The Supervisor of Shipbuilding Conversion and Repair, Groton, Connecticut, is the contracting activity. DEFENSE LOGISTICS AGENCY Unimed Government Services,* Lakeville, Minnesota, has been awarded a maximum $25,000,000 fixed-price with economic-price-adjustment, indefinite-delivery/indefinite-quantity contract for hospital equipment and accessories for the Defense Logistics Agency electronic catalog. This is a five-year contract with no option periods. This was a competitive acquisition with 58 responses received; 17 contracts have been awarded to date. Using customers are Department of Defense and other federal organizations. Location of performance is Minnesota, with an Oct. 22, 2023, performance completion date. Type of appropriation is fiscal 2018 through 2023 defense working capital funds. The contracting activity is the Defense Logistics Agency Troop Support, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania (SPE2DH-19-D-0005). *Woman-owned small business https://dod.defense.gov/News/Contracts/Contract-View/Article/1669872/

Richard Scott, London and Luca Peruzzi, Genoa - Jane's Navy International Romania's Ministry of Defence is nearing a decision on the procurement of new multirole corvettes after receiving final bids at the beginning of October from Damen Schelde Naval Shipbuilding of the Netherlands, Italy's Fincantieri, and France's Naval Group. The EUR1.6 billion (USD1.85 billion) programme covers the acquisition of four corvettes, as well as the combat system modernisation of the Romanian Navy's two ex-UK Royal Navy Type 22 frigates Regina Maria and Regele Ferdinand . A source selection is scheduled for 26 October, although industry sources suggest this could slip by a number of weeks. Romania's requirement calls for a 2,500-tonne class multipurpose ship with capabilities across anti-submarine warfare, anti-surface warfare, anti-air warfare, electronic warfare, naval gunfire support, and search and rescue. The design is also required to provide aviation facilities suitable for an IAR 330 Puma 10-tonne helicopter and a shipborne unmanned aircraft system. In line with Romanian stipulations for local industry participation, all three contenders are proposing build and in-service support in conjunction with subsidiaries or partners based in country. Romania has asked for the first corvette to be delivered inside three years, with the programme to be completed in seven years. Damen Schelde Naval Shipbuilding is bidding a variant of its SIGMA 10514 design with sister yard Damen Shipyards Galati. To meet the Romanian requirement, Daman has specified a Thales Nederland combat management system (CMS)/sensor fit, the Raytheon Evolved SeaSparrow Missile System and Boeing Harpoon Block II anti-ship missiles. The underwater warfare suite would be provided by General Dynamics Mission Systems-Canada. Fincantieri, which owns the Vard Braila and Tulcea shipyards in Romania, is offering a customised variant of the Abu Dhabi corvette previously built for the United Arab Emirates. It is likely that Vard Braila would be the focal point for both construction and in-service support if Fincantieri is selected. https://www.janes.com/article/83937/romania-set-to-choose-four-new-corvettes-frigate-upgrade

By: Tom Kington , Pierre Tran , Andrew Chuter , and Sebastian Sprenger Is there enough drive to reach a unified shipbuilding enterprise? ROME, LONDON, PARIS AND COLOGNE, Germany — As European shipbuilders prepare to transform their nations' rising military budgets into naval power, local priorities are acting as formidable forces against the integration of a fragmented market. Two years ago, Italian defense think tank CESI produced a document lamenting the fractured state of the European naval industry, warning that firms on the continent would be swept aside by foreign competition if they failed to team up and take on the world. The paper provided the ideological underpinning for proposals by Italian shipyard Fincantieri to jointly build vessels with France's Naval Group, a plan being considered by both governments. But today, one of the authors of the report, Francesco Tosato, says that despite European Union moves to integrate the defense industry, little has changed in the naval sector. “We still have six or eight types of frigates, each with manufacturing runs of no more than 10 vessels, which is unsustainable,” he said. Supporters of integration say shipyards will be able to cut costs through synergies and avoid competing against each other in export markets. “The Germans are building U-212NG submarines with the Norwegians, but they are not integrating,” he added. A second analyst agreed that integration is not happening, but offered a positive outlook. “With European governments not wanting to spend on naval vessels, it is all about exports, and buyers in Asia and the Middle East want to deal with one government, not with Europe,” said Peter Roberts, director of military sciences at the Royal United Services Institute in London. “They may want a German frigate with a French radar and MBDA missiles, but they still want one national point of contact,” he added. Roberts also argued that European multinational shipbuilders risked stifling competition. “That could lead to poorer designs and higher prices,” he said. In addition, one European industrial giant may be unable to offer different types of vessels to export customers with a variety of requirements. “Customers have bespoke needs, which means systems integrators are crucial,” Roberts said. “Why not have systems intergrators working on a European basis? That could be the starting point for integrating Europe's industry, rather than putting together shipyards.” German angst In Germany, meanwhile, industry officials and lawmakers are bickering over whether surface shipbuilding is, or should be, a national priority so critical that contracts must go to German yards. (The Ministry of Defence has only designated submarine construction as such a key capability.) That debate permeates the competition for the MKS-180 program, a novel multi-use combat ship. The thought that Dutch contractor Damen, one of the bidders still in the race, could win the contract over the purely German team of German Naval Yards and ThyssenKrupp Marine Systems has some coastal politicians and trade unions up in arms. There is a lot at stake for German shipbuilders. A recent MoD strategy document proclaimed a national objective of restoring the balance between out-of-area missions and homeland defense. The latter area has been chronically underfunded in the rush to provide troops at the tip of the spear with equipment that works, the argument goes. That dynamic will “inevitably mean an increase in forces, including warships and modernization of the fleet,” a spokesman for the Germany Navy told Defense News. For example, the service plans to buy at least one new warship annually over the next 10 years, plus 46 helicopters. Combined with a new deployment and manning scheme, officials hope to raise the entire fleet's operational availability to 50 percent compared with today's 30 percent, meaning more vessels theoretically will be ready to fight at any given time. Those plans could directly translate into jobs in Germany, and domestic shipbuilders, including heavyweight TKMS, are doing their part to support the demand for government favoritism toward their own yards. British exclusivity The situation is similar in the United Kingdom, where shipbuilding for the Royal Navy is by definition a domestic affair. It has been a little more than a year since the British government published a national shipbuilding strategy, which in part called for a greater surface warship building capability. BAE Systems has had a stranglehold on the business since it first merged and then in 2009 acquired VT Shipbuilding. BAE Systems' two surface warship building yards in Glasgow, Scotland, meet the government requirement that complex warships must be locally built. The Conservative government, however, made it clear in its shipbuilding strategy that while BAE would continue to build in Glasgow the planned eight Type 26 anti-submarine warfare frigates destined for the Royal Navy, it wanted another yard to build a fleet of five Type 31e general purpose frigates. Peter Parker, the author of the strategy report, justified the creation of a second naval build center, saying it would be unprecedented for BAE to run two new programs side by side. But it hasn't been smooth sailing for British Ministry of Defence officials running the Type 31e program, as they seek sufficient bidders to hold a robust competition. Building frigates in a British yard with a price of no more than £250 million (U.S. $329 million) and an in-service date of 2023 has proved a challenge. The government stopped the competition earlier this year after it failed to attract a sufficient level of interest from qualified vendors. But officials got the show back on the road Aug. 20, restarting discussions with potential suppliers on a revised plan. Competition documents were issued to industry last month, with potential bidders mandated to reply by Oct. 19. With German and the British shipyards hoping to secure their respective turfs at home, the Fincantieri-Naval Group deal could still become the poster child for European naval-industry consolidation. At least, that's the theory. French maneuvers French officials appeared to get cold feet earlier this month on a key aspect of the merger arrangement: a proposed cross-shareholding of 5 to 10 percent. “Bercy is not keen,” said an industry executive, referring to the French Economy and Finance Ministry, located in a vast modern building resembling a bridge by the river Seine. A source with the French Armed Forces Ministry would only say: “Negotiations take time. We need more time.” Even before that wrinkle, the French and Italian governments requested “clarification” from Fincantieri and Naval Group after the two companies submitted dossiers in mid-July for a partnership. The request for clarification referred to the key elements of cooperation in research and development, common purchase of parts and offers in export markets, an industry executive told Defense News. Cross-border cooperation in foreign sales is seen as significant, as Naval Group has set a target of exports accounting for half of annual sales compared to the present estimated one-third of revenue. Competition with Fincantieri raises the cost of sales and cuts profit margins, as each seeks to submit competitive offers. If Naval Group and Fincantieri do manage to forge an industrial alliance, that will reverse a declining trend in cooperation. Previous French attempts to work with Italy in building a common MU90 light torpedo led to nothing, while the level of common parts on the FREMM multimission frigate fell compared to that realized on the Horizon air-defense frigate. European industrial cooperation also stalled on the Scorpene attack submarine, with Spanish shipbuilder Navantia opting to pursue its own S-80 diesel-electric boat rather than work with Naval Group. Tom Kington, Andrew Chuter, Pierre Tran and Sebastian Sprenger contributed to this report. https://www.defensenews.com/global/europe/2018/10/21/for-europe-its-naval-business-as-usual/

By: David B. Larter WASHINGTON — The U.S. and its NATO allies are teaming up to more closely cooperate on the development and fielding of unmanned maritime systems, according to an agreement signed by the defense heads of 13 NATO allies. During the July summit, the powers signed onto a plan to jointly pursue technologies aimed at mine and sub hunting, according to an October news release making the agreement public. “The use of unmanned systems is a potentially game changing leap forward in maritime technology,” the release read. “Working alongside traditional naval assets, these unmanned systems will increase both our situational awareness and our control of the seas.” The release, while short on details, seems to open up the possibility that development of underwater and surface drones could be even more lucrative for companies involved, as it hints at the alliance seeking common, interoperable systems. That means a proven drone might be competing for business in 13 markets simultaneously instead of just one. “Through this initiative, Allies will also be able to exploit economies of scale to reduce costs, allowing increasing defence budgets to go even further,” the release said. The countries involved in the agreement are Belgium, Denmark, Germany, Greece, Italy, the Netherlands, Norway, Poland, Portugal, Spain, Turkey, the United Kingdom and the United States. For NATO watchers, the agreement is the latest sign of just how seriously the alliance is taking the threat from Russian submarines. “NATO members are alarmed by the growing threat from Russian submarines, and are investing more resources to deal with it,” said Jorge Benitez, a senior fellow at the Atlantic Council who previously served as the lead on NATO issues for the Office of the Secretary of Defense. “Under [President Vladimir] Putin, Russia has deployed new, stealthier submarines in the north Atlantic that are much harder for NATO navies to track. “This new multinational cooperation in undersea drones is the most recent example that NATO is taking the Russian threat in the north Atlantic much more seriously than it has in the past quarter century.” Expanding role The agreement also reflects the ever-expanding role of unmanned systems in the underwater domain, which countries are banking on to offset the ever-quieter and more advanced submarines. As the U.S. submarine fleet has dipped to 56 attack and guided-missile boats, and the Navy projects that number is slated to further drop to 42 by 2028 and hold below 48 boats through 2032, according to a recent Congressional Research Service report. The Navy's 2019 30-year shipbuilding plan shows the number of attack submarines dropping precipitously in the mid-2020s, something CRS has warned about for years as the Los Angeles-class boats begin to retire in numbers. That shortfall is prompting an all-out push on developing unmanned systems that can perform some functions to free up the big hunters for missions where they are more needed. When it comes to cooperating in development of drones, monitoring the littorals in and around the Baltic — and in the Greenland, Iceland and the United Kingdom gap — is an area where this kind of cooperation could be helpful, said Bryan Clark, a retired submariner and analyst with the Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessments. The Battle of the Atlantic The renewed threat from Russian submarines has triggered what the U.S. Navy's Europe commander, Adm. James Foggo, has dubbed “The Fourth Battle of the Atlantic,” harkening back to the fight with German U-boats in World War I, World War II and the standoff with Russia in the Cold War. But with the expansion of NATO to former Soviet satellite states, the Battle of the Atlantic will sprawl from the Eastern Seaboard all the way to the Baltic and Black seas, areas that Russia has fortified with anti-access, area denial weapons and other capabilities in recent years. That battlespace, however, extends not only to the undersea domain but all the way to the ocean floor, which is home to everything from pop-up mines to undersea internet cables that transmit the vast majority of the world's data. That means the alliance will need to know more than ever about what's on the sea floor, a job that simply can't be done with the declining number of attack submarines needed to shadow nuclear missile subs and conduct high-risk intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance missions around the globe. In that arena, experts say that underwater systems — be it drones or stationary systems — will be necessary to monitor crucial chokepoints. "We don't have to know everything everywhere,” retired Vice Adm. Michael Connor, former head of American's submarine forces, told the House Seapower and Projection Forces Subcommittee in a 2015 hearing. “But there are places where you would like to have very good knowledge. We have critical things we want to protect, like some of the undersea infrastructure that is so critical to our economy. “There may be places we decide we want to have some volume of systems and that relatively small area around that infrastructure where you would have sufficient vehicles to obtain perfect knowledge.” Pawns Developing and using autonomous underwater unmanned vehicles has proven to be a challenge. The issues are multifarious, but they boil down to three core problems: communications, navigation and endurance. Communicating underwater is a challenge in the best of circumstances, and surveillance drones aren't worth much if they can't tell others what they find. To that end, they must either have a home base to which they can navigate and upload data, or they need to surface and transmit, said Clark, the CSBA analyst. A second challenge is navigating around obstacles. Fish, which know quite a bit about navigating underwater, have trouble avoiding commercial fishing nets that are common in sea lanes. Likewise, drones have issues finding and avoiding them, and that's just one example. Endurance is another challenge. Some of the best underwater drones in the U.S. Navy's inventory, under ideal usage conditions, last a day underwater, Clark said. “UUVs can only go a few knots, and that's of limited duration,” he said. Underwater drones are showing promise in the areas of mine hunting and mine sweeping, but perhaps even more promising — in terms of becoming an adequate stand-in for an attack boat — are some of the surface drones in development. Clark said programs such as the Sea Hunter, a medium-displacement unmanned surface vessel, could be a huge leap forward for monitoring chokepoints. Developed by the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency, the Anti-Submarine Warfare Continuous Trail Unmanned Vessel, or ACTUV, was designed to track enemy subs while avoiding collisions and abiding by the rules of the road. The first Sea Hunter was christened in 2016, and in January the project transitioned to the Office of Naval Research for further development. The idea behind Sea Hunter is that one can field a multitude to cover a lot of area at a fraction of the cost of a frigate of destroyer. “ACTUV represents a new vision of naval surface warfare that trades small numbers of very capable, high-value assets for large numbers of commoditized, simpler platforms that are more capable in the aggregate,” Fred Kennedy, head of DARPA's Tactical Technology Office, said in a January news release. “The U.S. military has talked about the strategic importance of replacing ‘king' and ‘queen' pieces on the maritime chessboard with lots of ‘pawns,' and ACTUV is a first step toward doing exactly that.” Other technologies have also shown promise. Liquid Robotics' Wave Glider, which uses ocean current and solar panels to power itself, can stay at sea for months at a time and provide persistent surveillance for anywhere from $250,000 to $300,000 a unit, a company representative told Defense News last year. The agreement reached by 13 NATO powers is just the latest indication of how countries see unmanned systems impacting the future of warfare. “It's an important statement that NATO allies and partners are thinking seriously about these emerging capabilities — and they need to think about them,” said Michael Horowitz, a political science professor at the University of Pennsylvania whose research has centered on unmanned systems. “It's a reflection of how they see these systems impacting the maritime domain.” https://www.defensenews.com/naval/2018/10/21/to-combat-russian-subs-nato-allies-are-teaming-up-to-develop-unmanned-systems-at-sea/

Murray Brewster · CBC News A group of companies led by multinational defence giant Lockheed Martin has been selected as the preferred designer for Canada's next generation of warships, the Liberal government said Friday. The announcement that the group's BAE Type 26 design won the design competition represents a significant step forward for the long-anticipated $60-billion program to replace the navy's aging fleet of frigates. "The Canadian Surface Combatant project is the largest, most complex procurement ever undertaken by the Government of Canada. These ships will form the backbone of our Royal Canadian Navy and will be Canada's major surface component of maritime combat power for decades to come," Public Services and Procurement Canada said in a press release. Procurement and defence officials say this is not the final step; they will now enter into negotiations with the winning bidder to confirm it can deliver everything promised in the complex proposal. (Some observers have compared the process to placing a conditional offer on a home.) The evaluation, which will take place over the winter, involves verifying the winning company's financial wherewithal to complete the project, confirming that the proposal meets the military's combat requirements and hammering down aspects of intellectual property licences. Cindy Tessier, head of communications for Lockheed Martin Canada, said today the company is "confident that our proposed solution meets the requirements established, offering the best ship for Canada, with the world's most advanced warship design ... "Our proposal is a true industry team effort, and we look forward to providing any additional information to the Government of Canada and Irving Shipbuilding. We are ready on Day 1." The federal government now says it expects to award the final design contract sometime over the winter. It could be 2023 before construction actually gets underway at the go-to yard for warships — Irving Shipbuilding of Halifax. But finally pulling the trigger on a designer is a "huge step," Dave Perry, an Ottawa-based procurement specialist at the Canadian Global Affairs Institute, said in an interview with CBC's Power & Politics. "There's a huge degree of interest in having this done by the spring, and certainly before the next election." Perry said the importance of this order should not be underestimated, as the new ships will provide the navy with the bulk of its ocean-going fleet — vessels that can be used in war, to protect trade routes or to deliver humanitarian aid. "They can basically do anything the government wants them to do," he said. Perry said the $60-billion contract to build the frigates will be a major boon for the Halifax shipyard in particular. "When the economic impact starts spinning, it's really going to be meaningful," he said. André Fillion, the assistant deputy minister of defence and marine procurement at Public Services and Procurement Canada, said if the federal government is not satisfied that the top bidder can deliver, it will open negotiations with the second-place team of companies. Alion Science and Technology, along with its subsidiary Alion Canada, had submitted their proposal based on the Dutch De Zeven Provinciën Air Defence and Command (LCF) frigate. Navantia, a Spanish-based company, headed a team that included Saab and CEA Technologies. Its proposal was based on the F-105 frigate design, a ship in service with the Spanish navy. "The former naval officer in me is very excited," said Pat Finn, a retired rear admiral who heads up the Department of National Defence's material branch. "I've been around this for a long time." Fillion would not say which aspect of the "due diligence assessment" will be the toughest to overcome. Prior to asking for ship design bids, federal procurement officials spent a lot of time dealing with issues related to intellectual property on the complex systems that will be put into the new warships. Obtaining the necessary clearances is essential in order for the federal government to be able to maintain the vessels in the future. Failure to do so could cost taxpayers untold tens of millions of dollars — perhaps hundreds of millions — over the five decades the ships are expected to be in service. Some design changes are expected after the federal government selects an official winner and a contract is in place. How many changes will be required is a critical question; Finn would only say he doesn't anticipate cutting steel on the new warships for up to four years. That fuzzy timeline means the program is already months behind schedule. The design competition was launched almost two years ago, when the Liberal government said selecting a foreign, off-the-shelf design would be cheaper and faster than building a warship from scratch. Finn acknowledged there will be a production gap at the Irving yard in Halifax of about 18 months between construction of the navy's Arctic offshore patrol ships and the frigate replacements. He added, however, that the federal government is looking at a variety of options to keep the yard humming, including refit work on the existing frigates and possibly building an additional patrol ship, or ships. https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/lockheed-martin-selected-as-preferred-designer-for-canada-s-next-generation-of-warships-1.4869268

By Canadian Press OTTAWA — The federal government is giving U.S. defence giant Lockheed Martin the first crack at inking a contract to design Canada's $60-billion fleet of new warships. Government officials say Lockheed's proposed design beat out two rival submissions in what has been a long and extremely sensitive competition to design replacements for the navy's entire frigate and destroyer fleets. While the announcement marked the start of an important new phase in the largest and most expensive military purchase in Canadian history, it could also prove to be extremely controversial as some had questioned why the bid was allowed in the first place. Still, Lockheed executives may not be popping the champagne just yet. Negotiators for both sides as well as Halifax-based Irving Shipbuilding, which will actually build the vessels, must now work out details — including the final cost — before an actual contract is awarded. The stakes will be high for both sides, with hundreds of millions of dollars in play as well as pressure to make up for lost time as numerous delays — including in the design competition — have pushed the schedule for construction. Irving has warned that it could be forced to lay off hundreds of employees if work on the warships is not ready to start by the time it finishes building the navy's new Arctic patrol ships in 2021 or 2022. The Defence Department's head of military procurement, Patrick Finn, acknowledged the need for urgency. But he also noted the need for care as whatever decisions are taken during the negotiations could have ramifications on the navy and taxpayers for decades. “So it behooves us to stop and make sure we do the final checks in all of the areas,” Finn said this week in an interview. Lockheed's victory is likely to be contentious as the federal government had originally said it wanted a “mature design,” which was widely interpreted as meaning a vessel that has already been built and used by another navy. But the Type 26 frigate, upon which Lockheed's proposal is based, is only now being built by the British government and has not been used on operations. The federal government has reserved the right to walk away from the talks — if Lockheed drives too hard a bargain — and negotiate with the second-place bidder, which was not identified. However, officials hope that won't be necessary and a contract will be signed this winter. “We have notional time frames allocated,” said Andre Fillion, who oversees military and naval projects with Public Services and Procurement Canada. “And should everything go according to plan, we're looking at winter 2019 for the award of the contract. If it doesn't go according to plan, then we go to Plan B — and obviously that would take longer.” Lockheed's design was up against a pitch by U.S.-based defence company Alion, which proposed a design based on a Dutch frigate, and Spanish firm Navantia's proposal, which was modelled on a frigate used by the Spanish navy. One of the big questions heading into the negotiations will be how much of Lockheed's design will need to be changed to reflect the navy's needs and how much the navy will have to shift its requirements because changing the design will take more time and money. Government negotiators are also facing a potential battle over the amount of intellectual property that Lockheed will be required to hand over, which Ottawa wants so it can operate and maintain the vessels on its own after they are built. Companies had originally been told that the winner would be required to turn over the full blueprints, but after significant resistance the two sides agreed the matter would be negotiated before a contract is awarded. Officials remain focused on getting “the intellectual property access and rights that we need to not only build the ship but also to operate and maintain it for its entire life cycle,” Fillion said. — Follow @leeberthiaume on Twitter https://ipolitics.ca/2018/10/19/feds-give-lockheed-martin-first-shot-at-60-billion-warship-contract/

DAVID PUGLIESE, OTTAWA CITIZEN The Canadian Surface Combatant project will see the Halifax-based Irving build 15 warships, which will form the backbone of the future Royal Canadian Navy The Canadian government has selected a consortium closely linked to Irving Shipbuilding to provide it with a new warship design for the most expensive defence project the country has ever seen. Canada announced Friday it had chosen the Type 26 warship design by British defence firm BAE for the $60-billion program to replace the Royal Canadian Navy's Halifax-class frigates. Lockheed Martin Canada is leading the BAE consortium and will be the prime contractor. The group's win had been anticipated since 2016, however, after rival defence firms raised concerns that the competition had been rigged in favour of the British design. The Canadian Surface Combatant project will see the Halifax-based Irving Shipbuilding build 15 warships, which will form the backbone of the future Royal Canadian Navy. It will be the largest and most complex procurement in Canadian history. However, it is seen as a major departure from previous procurement processes, as Irving is playing a significant role in selecting the winning design. The previous federal procurement minister, Judy Foote, had said only mature existing designs or designs of ships already in service would be accepted for the bidding process, on the grounds they could be built faster and would be less risky — unproven designs can face challenges as problems are found once the vessel is in the water and operating. But the Liberal government and Irving accepted the BAE design into the process, though at the time it existed only on the drawing board. Construction began on the first Type 26 frigate in the summer of 2017 for Britain's Royal Navy, but it has not yet been completed. Both Irving and the federal government have insisted the procurement was being conducted in a way that ensures all bidders are treated equally, overseen by a fairness monitor with no unfair advantage given to any individual bidder. Nonetheless, while three consortiums submitted bids for the surface combatant program, several European shipbuilders decided against participating because of concerns about the fairness of the process. Others raised concerns about BAE's closeness with the Halifax firm. Last year a French-Italian consortium also declined to formally submit a bid and instead offered Canada a fleet of vessels at a fixed price. Officials with Fincantieri of Italy and Naval Group of France said they don't believe the procurement process as it is currently designed will be successful. The federal government, however, rejected the deal. The federal government had to remind Irving about the potential for conflict of interest when the firm joined forces with BAE in late 2016 to bid on a multi-billion dollar contract to provide maintenance and support for the navy's new Arctic patrol and supply ships. The Irving-BAE alliance was not successful in that bid, but it led the government to remind Irving it had an obligation to “ensure that the Canadian Surface Combatant competition is conducted in a manner that is free from real or perceived conflicts of interest,” according to February 2017 documents prepared for defence minister Harjit Sajjan and released to the Conservatives under the Access to Information law. Andre Fillion, assistant deputy minister for defence and marine procurement at Public Services and Procurement Canada, said Friday's decision is not a contract award. “It's an important step to getting to contract award in the coming months,” he said. Negotiations will now begin with Lockheed Martin. if negotiations proceed accordingly a contract is expected to be signed sometime between January and March 2019. But Fillion said if there are issues with those negotiations and an agreement is not reached, the government will then turn to the next highest-ranked bidder. The government has declined to identify that firm, but the other bidders were from the U.S. and Spain. The Canadian Surface Combatant program has already faced delays and rising costs. In 2008 the then-Conservative government estimated the project would cost roughly $26 billion. But in 2015, Vice-Admiral Mark Norman, then commander of the navy, voiced concern that taxpayers may not have been given all the information about the program, publicly predicting the cost for the warships alone would approach $30 billion. https://ottawacitizen.com/news/british-design-selected-for-canadas-60b-warship-replacement-program-amid-concerns-about-winners-links-to-irving/

AIR FORCE Raytheon Missile Systems, Tucson, Arizona, has been awarded a $62,016,768 cost-plus-incentive-fee option (P00012) to contract FA8675-16-C-0044 for the Advanced Medium Range Air to Air Missile (AMRAAM) program. This modification provides for the exercise of options for Phase 5 activities and foreign military sales (FMS) drawings for the form, fit and function refresh of the AMRAAM guidance section. Work will be performed in Tucson, Arizona, and is expected to be completed by Dec. 21, 2020. This contract involves FMS to Norway, Turkey, Japan, Romania, and Australia. FMS funds in the amount of $6,072,542 are being obligated at the time of award. Air Force Life Cycle Management Center, Eglin Air Force Base, Florida, is the contracting activity. Ball Aerospace & Technologies Corp., Boulder, Colorado, has been awarded a ceiling $36,043,319 cost-reimbursement type contract for Solid State Laser Effects and Modeling. This contract provides for developing innovative diagnostics/test methods, increasing fidelity, realism and confidence of predictive models, measuring and consolidating laser vulnerability data, and working synergistically with tri-service for high energy laser system research. Work will be performed at Kirtland Air Force Base, New Mexico, and is expected to be completed by Oct. 24, 2022. This contract award is the result of a competitive acquisition and one offer was received. Fiscal 2018 research, development, test and evaluation funds in the amount of $100,000 will be obligated at the time of award. Air Force Research Laboratory, Kirtland AFB, New Mexico, is the contracting activity (FA9451-19-C-0001). Infinity Systems Engineering LLC, Colorado Springs, Colorado, has been awarded a $22,653,934 firm-fixed-price contract for Global Positioning Systems Engineering, Analysis & Remote Site Sustainment II. The contract provides organizational maintenance and operational support services to the operational unit that will include remote site technicians, network administrative officers and operations support. Work will be performed in Colorado Springs, Colorado, and is expected to be completed by Dec. 31, 2025. This award is the result of a competitive acquisition and three offers were received. Fiscal 2019 operations and maintenance funds in the amount of $2,565,094 are being obligated at the time of award. Space and Missile Systems Center, Peterson Air Force Base, Colorado, is the contracting activity (FA8823‐19‐C‐0001). Advanced Electronics Co., Riyadh, Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, has been awarded a $9,437,259 modification (FA8505-11-D-0002-0006-12) to contract FA8505-11-D-0002 for the Royal Saudi Air Force Electronic System Test Set. The contract modification incorporates a 15-month extension in order to allow for the completion of the Royal Saudi Air Force Electronic System Test Sets configuration upgrade. Work will be performed Huntsville, Alabama and in the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia. It is expected to be completed by Dec. 28, 2019. This modification involves foreign military sales for the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia. Foreign military sales funds in the amount of 9,437,259 are being obligated at the time of award. Total cumulative face value of the contract is $28,518,831. Air Force Life Cycle Management Center, Robins Air Force Base, Georgia, is the contracting activity. Honeywell International Inc. Aerospace, Albuquerque, New Mexico, has been awarded a $7,838,175 firm-fixed-priced order, for the repair and upgrade of the C-5M Super Galaxy's Versatile Integrated Avionics/Avionics Integrated Units (VIA/AIU). This order provides for the repair and upgrade of 85 of the existing 903 and 904 configuration VIA/AIUs to the 905 configuration. The C-5M VIA/AIU repair and upgrade effort is a key component to the overall Core Mission Computer/Weather Radar aircraft modification/installation kit. Work will be performed in Albuquerque, New Mexico, and is expected to be completed by June 14, 2020. This award is the result of a sole-source acquisition. Fiscal 2017 aircraft procurement funds in the amount of $7,146,972; and fiscal 2018 aircraft procurement funds in the amount of $691,203 are being obligated at the time of award. Air Force Life Cycle Management Center, Wright-Patterson Air Force Base, Ohio, is the contracting (FA8625-18-F-6801). DEFENSE LOGISTICS AGENCY Rocky Brands Inc., Nelsonville, Ohio, has been awarded a maximum $20,566,240 modification (P00005) exercising the second one-year-option period of one-year base contract SPE1C1-17-D-1004 with four one-year option periods for hot-weather combat boots. This is a firm-fixed-price, indefinite-delivery/indefinite-quantity contract. Locations of performance are Ohio and Puerto Rico, with an Oct. 20, 2019, performance completion date. Using military service is Army. Type of appropriation is fiscal 2019 defense working capital funds. The contracting activity is the Defense Logistics Agency Troop Support, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. ARMY Science Applications International Corp., Reston, Virginia, was awarded a $13,567,362 firm-fixed-price contract for life cycle management of programs within multiple ammunition product lines. 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 Dec. 4, 2023. U.S. Army Contracting Command, New Jersey, is the contracting activity (W15QKN-19-D-0002). Fabritex Inc.,* Hartwell, Georgia, was awarded a $9,257,500 firm-fixed-price contract for non-corrosive 16-block wire mesh for the manufacture and assembly of articulated concrete mattress squares. Bids were solicited via the internet with one received. Work will be performed in Hartwell, Georgia, with an estimated completion date of Oct. 18, 2023. Fiscal 2019 operations and maintenance Army funds in the amount of $9,257,500 were obligated at the time of the award. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Memphis, Tennessee, is the contracting activity (W912EQ-19-C-0001). *Small Business https://dod.defense.gov/News/Contracts/Contract-View/Article/1667326/source/GovDelivery/

ARMY Absolute Business Solutions Inc.,* Herndon, Virginia (W15P7T-19-D-0001); Adams Communication & Engineering Technology Inc.,* Waldorf, Maryland (W15P7T-19-D-0002); Augustine Consulting Inc.,* Monterey, California (W15P7T-19-D-0003); Addx Corp.,* Alexandria, Virginia (W15P7T-19-D-0004); Altus LLC,* Darlington, Maryland (W15P7T-19-D-0005); American Electronic Warfare Associates Inc.,* California, Maryland (W15P7T-19-D-0006); Array Information Technology Inc.,* Greenbelt, Maryland (W15P7T-19-D-0007); Advanced Systems Development Inc.,* Alexandria, Virginia (W15P7T-19-D-0008) Attain LLC,* McLean, Virginia (W15P7T-19-D-0009); Avenge Inc.,* Fayetteville, North Carolina (W15P7T-19-D-0010) Axiom Resource Management Inc.,* Falls Church, Virginia (W15P7T-19-D-0011); B3 Solutions LLC,* Alexandria, Virginia (W15P7T-19-D-0012); Barbaricum LLC,* Washington, DC (W15P7T-19-D-0013); Bennett Aerospace Inc.,* Cary, North Carolina (W15P7T-19-D-0014); Bowhead Logistics Solutions LLC,* Alexandria, Virginia (W15P7T-19-D-0015); Brockwell Technologies Inc.,* Huntsville, Alabama (W15P7T-19-D-0016); By Light Professional IT Services LLC,* Arlington, Virginia (W15P7T-19-D-0017); C4 Planning Solutions LLC,* Blythe, Georgia (W15P7T-19-D-0018); Cambridge International Systems Inc.,* Arlington, Virginia (W15P7T-19-D-0019); Carley Corp.,* Orlando, Florida (W15P7T-19-D-0020); Chimera Enterprises International Inc.,* Edgewood, Maryland (W15P7T-19-D-0021); Centech Group Inc.,* Falls Church, Virginia (W15P7T-19-D-0022); Chenega Technical Innovations LLC,* Chantilly, Virginia (W15P7T-19-D-0023); Clearavenue LLC,* Columbia, Maryland (W15P7T-19-D-0024); Client Solution Architects LLC,* Mechanicsburg, Pennsylvania (W15P7T-19-D-0025); Client/Server Software Solutions Inc., doing business as Constellation,* West, Fairfax, Virginia (W15P7T-19-D-0026); Data Matrix Solutions Inc.,* Herndon, Virginia (W15P7T-19-D-0027); Decibel Research Inc.,* Huntsville, Alabama (W15P7T-19-D-0028); Decisive Analytics Corp.,* Arlington, Virginia (W15P7T-19-D-0029) Delan Associates Inc.,* Freeport, New York (W15P7T-19-D-0030); Data Intelligence LLC,* Marlton, New Jersey (W15P7T-19-D-0031); Edgesource Corp.,* Alexandria, Virginia (W15P7T-19-D-0032); Enterprise Information Services Inc.,* Vienna, Virginia (W15P7T-19-D-0033); Envistacom,* LLC, Atlanta, Georgia (W15P7T-19-D-0034); Polaris Alpha Advanced Systems Inc.,* Fredericksburg, Virginia (W15P7T-19-D-0035); Enterprise Resource Planning International LLC,* Laurel, Maryland (W15P7T-19-D-0036); Enterprise Resource Performance Inc.,* Fairfax, Virginia (W15P7T-19-D-0037); Fibertek Inc.,* Herndon, Virginia (W15P7T-19-D-0038); Five Rivers Services LLC,* Colorado Springs, Colorado (W15P7T-19-D-0039); Frontier Technologies Inc.,* Wilmington, Delaware (W15P7T-19-D-0040); Future Technologies Inc.,* Fairfax, Virginia (W15P7T-19-D-0041); Fulcrum It Services LLC,* Centreville, Virginia (W15P7T-19-D-0042); Futron Inc.,* Woodbridge, Virginia (W15P7T-19-D-0043); GaN Corp.,* Huntsville, Alabama (W15P7T-19-D-0044); GC&E Systems Group Inc.,* Peachtree Corners, Georgia (W15P7T-19-D-0045); Glacier Technologies LLC,* El Paso, Texas (W15P7T-19-D-0046); Global Dimensions LLC,* Fredericksburg, Virginia (W15P7T-19-D-0047); Global Infotek Inc.,* Reston, Virginia (W15P7T-19-D-0048); GS5 LLC,* Dumfries, Virginia (W15P7T-19-D-0049); Gstek Inc.,* Chesapeake, Virginia (W15P7T-19-D-0050); Hebco Inc.,* Oklahoma City, Oklahoma (W15P7T-19-D-0051); Holmes-Tucker International Inc.,* Lexington Park, Maryland (W15P7T-19-D-0052); Ideal Innovations Inc.,* Arlington, Virginia (W15P7T-19-D-0053); IDS International Government Services LLC,* Arlington, Virginia (W15P7T-19-D-0054); Intelligent Decision Systems Inc.,* Centreville, Virginia (W15P7T-19-D-0055); Innovative Emergency Management Inc.,* Morrisville, North Carolina (W15P7T-19-D-0056); Igov Technologies Inc.,* Reston, Virginia (W15P7T-19-D-0057); Information and Infrastructure Technologies Inc.,* Herndon, Virginia (W15P7T-19-D-0058); Information Management Group Inc.,* Fairfax, Virginia (W15P7T-19-D-0059); Integral Consulting Services Inc.,* Rockville, Maryland (W15P7T-19-D-0060); Intelitrac Inc.,* Fort Worth, Texas (W15P7T-19-D-0061); Intelligent Waves LLC,* Reston, Virginia (W15P7T-19-D-0062); Iomaxis LLC,* Lorton, Virginia (W15P7T-19-D-0063); IPKeys Technologies LLC,* Eatontown, New Jersey (W15P7T-19-D-0064); Ip Network Solutions Inc.,* Herndon, Virginia (W15P7T-19-D-0065); Impact Resources Inc.,* Springfield, Virginia (W15P7T-19-D-0066); ISHPI Information Technologies Inc.,* Mount Pleasant, South Carolina (W15P7T-19-D-0067); Janus Research Group Inc.,* Appling, Georgia (W15P7T-19-D-0068); Karthik Consulting LLC,* Reston. Virginia (W15P7T-19-D-0069); Keybridge Technologies Inc.,* Oklahoma City, Oklahoma (W15P7T-19-D-0070); Kinney Group Inc.,* Indianapolis, Indiana (W15P7T-19-D-0071); Knowledge Management Inc.,* Tyngsboro, Massachusetts (W15P7T-19-D-0072); Link Solutions Inc.,* McLean, Virginia (W15P7T-19-D-0073); Linquest Corp.,* Los Angeles, California (W15P7T-19-D-0074); Lintech Global Inc.,* Farmington Hills, Michigan (W15P7T-19-D-0075); Logyx LLC,* Mountain View, California (W15P7T-19-D-0076); Lufburrow & Co. Inc.,* Havre de Grace, Maryland (W15P7T-19-D-0077); Middle Bay Solutions LLC,* Huntsville, Alabama (W15P7T-19-D-0078); Millennium Corp.,* Arlington, Virginia (W15P7T-19-D-0079); Morgan Business Consulting LLC,* Arlington, Virginia (W15P7T-19-D-0080); MSK TriTech Group LLC,* Tampa, Florida (W15P7T-19-D-0081); Manufacturing Techniques Inc.,* Kilmarnock, Virginia (W15P7T-19-D-0082); Navmar Applied Sciences Corp.,* Warminster, Pennsylvania (W15P7T-19-D-0083); NES Associates LLC,* Alexandria, Virginia (W15P7T-19-D-0084); Nexagen Networks Inc.,* Morganville, New Jersey (W15P7T-19-D-0085); Nextgen Federal Systems LLC,* Morgantown, West Virginia (W15P7T-19-D-0086); Oak Grove Technologies LLC,* Raleigh, North Carolina (W15P7T-19-D-0087); Object CTalk Inc.,* King of Prussia, Pennsylvania (W15P7T-19-D-0088); OBXtek Inc.,* Tysons Corner, Virginia (W15P7T-19-D-0089); Odyssey Systems Consulting Group Ltd.,* Wakefield, Massachusetts (W15P7T-19-D-0090); OST Inc.,* Washington, DC (W15P7T-19-D-0091); Paragon Research Corp.,* Huntsville, Alabama (W15P7T-19-D-0092); PCI Strategic Management LLC,* Columbia, Maryland (W15P7T-19-D-0093); PD Systems Inc.,* Springfield, Virginia (W15P7T-19-D-0094); Peerless Technologies Corp.,* Fairborn, Ohio (W15P7T-19-D-0095); Pelatron Inc.,* Honolulu, Hawaii (W15P7T-19-D-0096); P E Systems Inc.,* Fairfax, Virginia (W15P7T-19-D-0097); Pitech Solutions Inc.,* Durham, North Carolina (W15P7T-19-D-0098); Pluribus International Corp.,* Alexandria, Virginia (W15P7T-19-D-0099); Pragmatics Inc.,* Reston, Virginia (W15P7T-19-D-0100); Praxis Engineering Technologies LLC,* Annapolis Junction, Maryland (W15P7T-19-D-0101); Premier Management Corp.,* Columbia, Maryland (W15P7T-19-D-0102); Professional Solutions1 LLC,* Alexandria, Virginia (W15P7T-19-D-0103); Pro-Sphere Tek Inc.,* Alexandria, Virginia (W15P7T-19-D-0104); Polaris Alpha Cyber and Sigint LLC,* Annapolis Junction, Maryland (W15P7T-19-D-0105); People, Technology and Processes LLC,* Lakeland, Florida (W15P7T-19-D-0106); QBase LLC,* Beavercreek, Ohio (W15P7T-19-D-0107); Research Innovations Inc.,* Alexandria, Virginia (W15P7T-19-D-0108); Sabre Systems Inc.,* Warrington, Pennsylvania (W15P7T-19-D-0109); Savantage Financial Services Inc.,* Rockville, Maryland (W15P7T-19-D-0110); SBG Technology Solutions Inc.,* Alexandria, Virginia (W15P7T-19-D-0111); Sealing Technologies Inc.,* Columbia, Maryland (W15P7T-19-D-0112); Secure Innovations LLC,* Columbia, Maryland (W15P7T-19-D-0113); Sev1tech Inc.,* Woodbridge, Virginia (W15P7T-19-D-0114); S&K Aerospace LLC,* Saint Ignatius, Montana (W15P7T-19-D-0115); SNR Systems LLC,* Ashburn, Virginia (W15P7T-19-D-0116); Solers Inc.,* Arlington, Virginia (W15P7T-19-D-0117); Soliel LLC,* Vienna, Virginia (W15P7T-19-D-0118); Sonalysts Inc.,* Waterford, Connecticut (W15P7T-19-D-0119); Spectrum Software Technology Inc.,* Egg Harbor Township, New Jersey (W15P7T-19-D-0120); Science and Technology Corp.,* Hampton, Virginia (W15P7T-19-D-0121); Systems Technology Forum Ltd.,* Fredericksburg, Virginia (W15P7T-19-D-0122); Strategic Operational Solutions Inc.,* Vienna, Virginia (W15P7T-19-D-0123); Subsystem Technologies Inc.,* Arlington, Virginia (W15P7T-19-D-0124); Superlative Technologies Inc.,* Ashburn, Virginia (W15P7T-19-D-0125); SURVICE Engineering Co. LLC,* Belcamp, Maryland (W15P7T-19-D-0126); Systems Technologies Inc.,* West Long Branch, New Jersey (W15P7T-19-D-0127); Technology and Management International LLC,* Toms River, New Jersey (W15P7T-19-D-0128); Total Computer Solutions Inc.,* Burke, Virginia (W15P7T-19-D-0129); Technatomy Corp.,* Fairfax, Virginia (W15P7T-19-D-0130); Telesis Corp.,* McLean, Virginia (W15P7T-19-D-0131) Informatics Applications Group Inc.,* Reston, Virginia (W15P7T-19-D-0132); Trace Systems Inc.,* Vienna, Virginia (W15P7T-19-D-0133); Tribalco LLC,* Bethesda, Maryland (W15P7T-19-D-0134); TriHawk LLC,* Houston, Texas (W15P7T-19-D-0135); TriMech Services LLC,* Glen Allen, Virginia (W15P7T-19-D-0136); Truestone LLC,* Herndon, Virginia (W15P7T-19-D-0137); Unified Business Technologies Inc.,* Troy, Michigan (W15P7T-19-D-0138); Universal Solutions International Inc.,* Newport News, Virginia (W15P7T-19-D-0139); Validatek Inc.,* McLean, Virginia (W15P7T-19-D-0140); Varen Technologies Inc.,* Columbia, Maryland (W15P7T-19-D-0141); Veteran Corps of America,* Huntsville, Alabama (W15P7T-19-D-0142); Wakelight Technologies Inc.,* Honolulu, Hawaii (W15P7T-19-D-0143); Windmill International Inc.,* Nashua, New Hampshire (W15P7T-19-D-0144); WinTec Arrowmaker Inc.,* Fort Washington, Maryland (W15P7T-19-D-0145); WisEngineering LLC,* Dover, New Jersey (W15P7T-19-D-0146); Zantech IT Services Inc.,* Tysons Corner, Virginia (W15P7T-19-D-0147); Zolon Tech Inc.,* Herndon, Virginia (W15P7T-19-D-0148); Abacus Technology Corp., Chevy Chase, Maryland (W15P7T-19-D-0149); Accenture Federal Services LLC, Arlington, Virginia (W15P7T-19-D-0150); AceInfo Solutions Inc., Reston, Virginia (W15P7T-19-D-0151); Alion Science and Technology Corp., Burr Ridge, Illinois (W15P7T-19-D-0152); Artel LLC, Herndon, Virginia (W15P7T-19-D-0153); AT&T Government Solutions Inc., Vienna, Virginia (W15P7T-19-D-0154); Ball Aerospace & Technologies Corp., Beavercreek, Ohio (W15P7T-19-D-0155); Battelle Memorial Institute, Columbus, Ohio (W15P7T-19-D-0156); CACI Technologies Inc., Chantilly, Virginia (W15P7T-19-D-0157); HII Mission Driven Innovative Solutions Inc., Huntsville, Alabama (W15P7T-19-D-0158); Comtech Mobile Datacom Corp., Germantown, Maryland (W15P7T-19-D-0159); Cubic Global Defense Inc., San Diego, California (W15P7T-19-D-0160); DynCorp International LLC, Fort Worth, Texas (W15P7T-19-D-0161); Dynetics Inc., Huntsville, Alabama (W15P7T-19-D-0162); Engility Corp., Andover, Massachusetts (W15P7T-19-D-0163); Gryphon Technologies LC, Washington, District of Columbia (W15P7T-19-D-0164); Kbrwyle Technology Solutions LLC, Columbia, Maryland (W15P7T-19-D-0165); IAI LLC, Chantilly, Virginia (W15P7T-19-D-0166); International Business Machines Corp., Reston, Virginia (W15P7T-19-D-0167); Hexagon US Federal Inc., Huntsville, Alabama (W15P7T-19-D-0168); Information Innovators Inc., Fairfax, Virginia (W15P7T-19-D-0169); Polaris Alpha LLC, Colorado Springs, Colorado (W15P7T-19-D-0170); Jacobs Technology Inc., Tullahoma, Tennessee (W15P7T-19-D-0171); Kforce Government Solutions Inc., Fairfax, Virginia (W15P7T-19-D-0172); L-3 Communications Integrated Systems LP, Greenville, Texas (W15P7T-19-D-0173); Leidos Inc., Reston, Virginia (W15P7T-19-D-0174); Logistics Management Institute, McLean, Virginia (W15P7T-19-D-0175); Macaulay-Brown Inc., Dayton, Ohio (W15P7T-19-D-0176); NetCentric Technology LLC, Wall, New Jersey (W15P7T-19-D-0177); Northrop Grumman Systems Corp., Herndon, Virginia (W15P7T-19-D-0178); Novetta Inc., McLean, Virginia (W15P7T-19-D-0179); Oasis Systems LLC, Lexington, Massachusetts (W15P7T-19-D-0180); Parsons Government Services Inc., Pasadena, California (W15P7T-19-D-0181); Preferred Systems Solutions Inc., McLean, Virginia (W15P7T-19-D-0182); QED Systems Inc., Virginia Beach, Virginia (W15P7T-19-D-0183); Raytheon Co., Dulles, Virginia (W15P7T-19-D-0184); System Studies & Simulation Inc., Huntsville, Alabama (W15P7T-19-D-0185); Science Applications International Corp., Reston, Virginia (W15P7T-19-D-0186); Salient Federal Solutions Inc., Fairfax, Virginia (W15P7T-19-D-0187); Smartronix Inc., Hollywood, Maryland (W15P7T-19-D-0188); The KEYW Corp., Hanover, Maryland (W15P7T-19-D-0189); Scientific Research Corp., Atlanta, Georgia (W15P7T-19-D-0190); SRC Inc., North Syracuse, New York (W15P7T-19-D-0191); SRCTec LLC, Syracuse, New York (W15P7T-19-D-0192); Strategic Resources Inc., McLean, Virginia (W15P7T-19-D-0193); Telecommunication Systems Inc., Annapolis, Maryland (W15P7T-19-D-0194); Vectrus Systems Corp., Colorado Springs, Colorado (W15P7T-19-D-0195); Vencore Inc., Chantilly, Virginia (W15P7T-19-D-0196); VSE Corp., Alexandria, Virginia (W15P7T-19-D-0197); and CAS Inc., Huntsville, Alabama (W15P7T-19-D-0198), will compete for each order of the $37,400,000,000 hybrid (cost, cost-plus-fixed-fee, cost-plus-incentive-fee, and firm-fixed-price) contract for provide knowledge based professional engineering support services for programs with command, control, communications, computers, intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance (C4ISR) related requirements. Bids were solicited via the internet with 388 received. Work locations and funding will be determined with each order, with an estimated completion date of May 14, 2022. U.S. Army Contracting Command, Aberdeen Proving Ground, Maryland, is the contracting activity. Navistar Defense LLC, Lisle, Illinois, was awarded a $19,700,110 modification (P00010) to contract W56HZV-15-D-0037 for sustainment technical support services for the in-production and out-of-production Mine Resistant Ambush Protected MaxxPro family of vehicles. Work locations and funding will be determined with each order, with an estimated completion date of March 31, 2020. U.S. Army Contracting Command, Warren, Michigan, is the contracting activity. NAVY Austal USA, Mobile, Alabama, is awarded a $57,854,366 cost-plus-fixed-fee undefinitized contract action for procurement of long-lead-time material and production engineering for the expeditionary fast transport (EPF) 13. The EPF class provides high-speed, shallow-draft transportation capability to support the intra-theater maneuver of personnel, supplies and equipment for the Navy, Marine Corps, and Army. Work will be performed in Novi, Michigan (30 percent); Mobile, Alabama (15 percent); Houston, Texas (9 percent); Slidell, Louisiana (8 percent); Franklin, Massachusetts (8 percent); Chesapeake, Virginia (7 percent); Rhinelander, Wisconsin (5 percent); Iron Mountain, Michigan (2 percent); and Dallas, Texas (2 percent); with other efforts performed at various locations throughout the U.S. below one percent (2 percent); and at various locations outside the U.S. below one percent (12 percent). Work on EPF 13 is expected to be completed by November 2021. Fiscal 2018 shipbuilding and conversion (Navy) funding in the amount of $43,390,775 will be obligated at time of award and will not expire at the end of the current fiscal year. This contract was competitively solicited via the Federal Business Opportunities website, with one offer received. The Naval Sea Systems Command, Washington, District of Columbia, is the contracting activity (N00024-19-C-2227). *Small Business https://dod.defense.gov/News/Contracts/Contract-View/Article/1666213/source/GovDelivery/