Inside Defense
January 17, 2012
GAO: Force Protection Features Cost SAIC-Boeing In GCV Competition
Science Applications International Corp. and Boeing were excluded from the Army's Ground Combat Vehicle program last year because of concerns over their design's force-protection features, a Government Accountability Office decision reveals.
At issue is the industry team's proposal for an active protection system, aimed at destroying incoming rockets and grenades, and the design of its underbody armor, aimed at protecting a GCV's crew against improvised explosive devices. Force protection was a major factor on which offerors were judged when the Army awarded development contracts for the multibillion-dollar program last summer.
Contract awards went to BAE Systems and General Dynamics Land Systems. The SAIC-Boeing team came up empty and subsequently protested the Army's award decision. The team's principal argument held that the Army subjected its offering to a more demanding evaluation process than the other two proposals.
In a redacted protest decision issued by GAO last week, auditors explain their determination, reached in early December, that the Army held all three companies to the same standards. The 20-page opinion contains a plethora of details surrounding the case, including an assessment by the Army that officials had "concerns with all three offerors' force-protection solutions."
The sections discussing the characteristics of SAIC's proposal for an APS are heavily redacted. The bottom line in the Army's argument against the offering was that the company was unable to produce "substantiating data to support its performance claims," the GAO opinion states. Specifically, Army officials questioned that the company team would be able to improve the APS' response time so that it can defeat a specific round, the name of which was deleted from the GAO document.
The opinion addresses SAIC's claim that its offer is based on the Puma vehicle, used by the German army, and therefore should have ranked higher in the Army evaluation system. Industry team officials made the argument that a GCV based on an existing design would be less fraught with risk than a completely new vehicle design, as BAE and GDLS proposed.
Government lawyers determined that the Army had taken this argument into account, but noted the significant level of effort involved in modifying the Puma so it can fulfill the U.S. requirement of seating a nine-member squad.
The SAIC-Boeing underbelly protection design was found to constitute a "weakness," according to the GAO opinion. When asked by the Army to provide more information about it, company officials responded that the information was classified and belonged to the German ministry of defense.
"SAIC . . . responded that the information the Army was seeking was set out in a proprietary, classified drawing, which SAIC was not permitted to deliver," according to the GAO opinion.
The company offered to provide details to U.S. government personnel under the condition of non-disclosure agreements, but the Army judged the design as "uncertain." While the German defense ministry offered classified briefings to the Army on the underbody protection test results and simulated models, Army officials declined because it would have required them to travel to Germany. The German stipulation also was that no notes were to be taken and no documents handed over.
Consequently, the Army's characterization of a weakness due to the lack of data was justified, according to GAO attorneys.
Additional Army concerns with the SAIC-Boeing proposal included insufficient head clearance for crew members, "seating system integration problems," a risk of toxic fumes in the crew compartment due to the "battery pack" placement, and "various hazards inhibiting egress to the rear of the GCV," according to the GAO document.
Source-selection officials gave SAIC several warnings that the company's proposal would be rejected if critical weaknesses remained after a round of proposal revisions, GAO said.
Auditors considered only the Army's actions during the evaluation process, not the substance of the service's arguments against the SAIC-Boeing proposal.
###
end
Sources;
http://mcaf.ee/ynu23
http://atkins-philip.blogspot.com/2012/01/gao-force-protection-features-cost-saic.html
Copyright 2012
Atkins & Assoc. All Rights Reserved.
Posts
