U.S. Army Ground Combat Vehicle May Face Delay

Pentagon officials say acquisition chief Ashton Carter, above, approved the Army’s Ground Combat Vehicle acquisition strategy, but the Army still awaits Carter’s signed acquisition decision memorandum. (Rob Curtis / Staff file photo)

12 Aug 2011 By KATE BRANNEN DefenseNews

The U.S. Army's Ground Combat Vehicle (GCV) program appeared to face yet another delay Aug. 11, when the Army contacted the three industry teams bidding on the program and asked them to extend their proposals until Sept. 30.

This is the second time the Army has requested an extension and it may further delay a program that has already seen a handful of setbacks since it was first conceived.

The Army previously asked the bidders to extend their proposals from May 1 until Aug. 19, according to an industry official.

The three teams bidding on the program are an SAIC-led team that includes Boeing, Krauss-Maffei Wegmann and Rheinmetall; a BAE Systems-Northrop Grumman-led effort; and a General Dynamics Land Systems-led group that includes Lockheed Martin and Raytheon.

The teams submitted their most recent bids in January, expecting the Army to award up to three contracts in April or early May.

April then got pushed to June, which then became July or early August. And, with the latest extension, it appears contract awards could be pushed until September or beyond.

The extension could mean a delayed contract award or someone is just being very, very careful, one source said.

Because the proposals were submitted in January, the Army is required to ask the industry teams each time it extends the bids whether the pricing data still holds.

The latest extension follows a July 21 Defense Acquisition Board review, where Army leaders met with Pentagon acquisition chief Ashton Carter to decide if the program should move forward.

Following the review, Pentagon officials said that Carter approved the Army's acquisition strategy. However, three weeks later, the Army is still awaiting a signed acquisition decision memorandum from him that would allow the service to award contracts for the 24-month technology development phase of the program.

Meanwhile, the Army is also expected to launch a second analysis of alternatives, after the U.S. House Armed Services Committee noted the Army has not conducted a thorough enough alternatives review after updating the vehicle's requirements.

The proposal extension, while short, is just the latest event to hold up the program.

Last summer, with contract awards around the corner, the Army abruptly canceled its Request for Proposals (RfP) for the vehicle and announced it would issue a new one with revised requirements.

At the time, the Army cited an internal review of the program that had found flaws with the acquisition strategy.

The Army issued a revised RfP on Nov. 30, requiring industry teams to go back to the drawing board and rethink their bids.

With the new request, the Army listed its requirements from optional to mandatory and capped the technology development contracts at $450 million for each team.

The Army also announced a $9 million to $10.5 million cost target for the new vehicle.

The Army plans to buy more than 1,800 of the vehicles to replace its fleet of Bradley infantry fighting vehicles.

There have been questions from inside and outside of the service about the need for the new vehicle and criticism of its seven-year development timeline. Some critics describe it as too fast, others as too slow.

As budget pressures mount, scrutiny of big-ticket weapons programs also grows.

According to DoD budget documents, GCV research and development is expected to cost $7.6 billion between 2012 and 2017. At about $10 million a copy, the program could cost an additional $18 billion in procurement costs.