Army overhauls wish list for $40B combat vehicle program

The Army has overhauled its wish list for one of the few major spending programs in the pipeline at the Pentagon. 

The service on Tuesday released a new request for industry bids for the Ground Combat Vehicle — a program that has been hampered by problems during the past year. 

The new vehicle is meant to replace the Bradley Infantry carrier. The Army is trying to strike a balance between limiting the costs of the replacement vehicle and buying the technology that would be necessary for future war scenarios. 

The Army was already in the process of selecting winners for the program when it abruptly canceled its request for bid proposals in August and decided to rethink its requirements for the vehicle. 

The new request for industry bids emphasizes cost, already-developed technology and the need for flexibility to add on to the standard hardware and software.

The service plans to select up to three winners for the technology and development phase early next summer — the first step in the estimated $40 billion program. The service wants to see the delivery of the first production vehicle within seven years of the initial contract award.

Three industry teams that feature many of the nation’s top defense contractors are expected to join the bidding competition.

Science Applications International Corp. (SAIC) leads a team that includes Boeing, Krauss-Maffei Wegmann and Rheinmetall; BAE Systems is partnered with Northrop Grumman; and General Dynamics leads a team that features Lockheed Martin and Raytheon.

The Army’s main concerns for the new vehicle are force protection and the ability to deliver a combat-equipped infantry squad of nine “everywhere the commander needs it,” according to Michael Smith, the director of the Army’s mounted concepts and requirements development at the Maneuver Center of Excellence. 

The Army also set cost parameters in the new request. The Army will pay the contractors for the technology phase fixed-price contracts of $450 million per winner, according to Col. Andrew DiMarco, the Ground Combat Vehicle project manager. The contract allows for incentive fees if the contractors are able to perform at a cost under the one negotiated. Alternatively, the companies would have to absorb all the risks associated with cost overruns, DiMarco said.

The ceiling price per contractor is tied “directly” to the Army’s goal to use “as much mature technology as possible” to drive down the costs and the development time, DiMarco said Tuesday. 

After the 24-month technology phase is completed, the Army is slated to select two contracting teams for the engineering and development phase and ultimately scale down to one final winner to begin production. 

The manufacturing cost per vehicle, including software and hardware, should fall on average between $9 million and $10.5 million, DiMarco said.

The Ground Combat Vehicle is crucial for the Army after Defense Secretary Robert Gates last year scrapped the Army’s plans for combat vehicles under the defunct $160 billion Future Combat Systems (FCS) program — its flagship modernization effort.

Gates scrapped the manned ground vehicle portion of FCS because the vehicles, as designed, would not have adequately protected soldiers from roadside bombs. The Defense secretary supports the Army’s new effort, but has pressed the service to get the vehicle ready for combat as soon as possible.