Northrop-Oshkosh Team Protests JLTV Award
(NSI News Source Info) November 10, 2008: Northrop Grumman and Osh-kosh Defense filed Nov. 7 a formal protest of the U.S. Army's selection of three contractors to develop designs for the Joint Light Tactical Vehicle (JLTV), claiming the joint bid was unduly handicapped by inconsistencies in the selection process, team officials said.
For example, in their filing to the Government Accountability Office, team officials said they were not told they needed to have a fully assembled demonstrator vehicle.
"We weren't informed that a demonstrator was a significant factor in the determination of the maturity of the design," said Northrop spokesman Jay McCaffrey.
On Oct. 29, the Army-Marine Corps team selected BAE Systems-Lockheed Martin, BAE-Navistar and General Tactical Vehicles to receive 27-month, $60 million technology development contracts.
Northrop-Oshkosh officials filed the protest after a Nov. 5 meeting with Army JLTV officials, who explained why they did not win.
"After careful examination of the data presented at the debriefing, it is apparent that inconsistencies in the bid and evaluation process unfairly placed the Northrop Grumman team at a competitive disadvantage. Northrop Grumman requests that the GAO examine the process, which it believes is marred by unstated requirements and arbitrary maturity ratings," McCaffrey said.
Northrop officials said their vehicle is less expensive than the others.
"We don't believe the SSA [source selection authority] performed an appropriate cost analysis. Our design came in significantly lower in cost than the others that were selected," a Northrop statement said.
The protest also said that the selection process was focused on getting the vehicles ready faster as opposed to the stated "technology development" purpose of the contracts.
"The evaluation also reflected an unannounced agency decision to transform the solicitation from a TD [technology development] phase to a de facto System Design & Development effort," the Northrop statement said. "The immediate need for this new vehicle is undisputed, but American warfighters deserve more than last year's model, hastily retrofitted for rapid deployment."
The Northrop-Oshkosh offering was the only bid among the large contenders with an alternative propulsion system.
"Diesel electric is a proven technology that has been around for decades. We believe our offering offered the highest horsepower. We want to be evaluated in a level playing field," McCaffrey said.
The Army did not respond to requests for comment by press time.
Monday, November 10, 2008
Northrop-Oshkosh Team Protests JLTV Award
Northrop-Oshkosh Team Protests JLTV Award
(NSI News Source Info) November 10, 2008: Northrop Grumman and Osh-kosh Defense filed Nov. 7 a formal protest of the U.S. Army's selection of three contractors to develop designs for the Joint Light Tactical Vehicle (JLTV), claiming the joint bid was unduly handicapped by inconsistencies in the selection process, team officials said.
For example, in their filing to the Government Accountability Office, team officials said they were not told they needed to have a fully assembled demonstrator vehicle.
"We weren't informed that a demonstrator was a significant factor in the determination of the maturity of the design," said Northrop spokesman Jay McCaffrey.
On Oct. 29, the Army-Marine Corps team selected BAE Systems-Lockheed Martin, BAE-Navistar and General Tactical Vehicles to receive 27-month, $60 million technology development contracts.
Northrop-Oshkosh officials filed the protest after a Nov. 5 meeting with Army JLTV officials, who explained why they did not win.
"After careful examination of the data presented at the debriefing, it is apparent that inconsistencies in the bid and evaluation process unfairly placed the Northrop Grumman team at a competitive disadvantage. Northrop Grumman requests that the GAO examine the process, which it believes is marred by unstated requirements and arbitrary maturity ratings," McCaffrey said.
Northrop officials said their vehicle is less expensive than the others.
"We don't believe the SSA [source selection authority] performed an appropriate cost analysis. Our design came in significantly lower in cost than the others that were selected," a Northrop statement said.
The protest also said that the selection process was focused on getting the vehicles ready faster as opposed to the stated "technology development" purpose of the contracts.
"The evaluation also reflected an unannounced agency decision to transform the solicitation from a TD [technology development] phase to a de facto System Design & Development effort," the Northrop statement said. "The immediate need for this new vehicle is undisputed, but American warfighters deserve more than last year's model, hastily retrofitted for rapid deployment."
The Northrop-Oshkosh offering was the only bid among the large contenders with an alternative propulsion system.
"Diesel electric is a proven technology that has been around for decades. We believe our offering offered the highest horsepower. We want to be evaluated in a level playing field," McCaffrey said.
The Army did not respond to requests for comment by press time.
No comments:
Post a Comment