Comments on: JLTV Protest Out; NG, Textron Bids Riskiest http://www.dodbuzz.com/2009/03/04/jltv-protest-out-ng-textron-bids-riskiest/ Online Defense and Acquisition Journal Thu, 09 Feb 2012 17:48:35 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1 By: Militorhttp://www.dodbuzz.com/2009/03/04/jltv-protest-out-ng-textron-bids-riskiest/#comment-6064 Militor Thu, 12 Mar 2009 18:31:30 +0000 http://www.dodbuzz.com/?p=4796#comment-6064 It really has little to do with design or capability. If the JLTV program gets the green light. Which it may not. It is about where the money will flow. Lockheed had their contractor employees all through out the procurement system. They knew allot was at stake here. They have to line up certain Generals. Senators, Congressmen. This takes a while. Also all the component manufacturers. So if you have a design that is politically correct? Built in the right States. And the Army doing all it can. You'll see certain people leave the Army/Navy and transition into a high paying Defense Job. You give me millions, and I give you billions. By the way. Lockheed got to see everyone's designs before anything was decided. Their people did the reviews. A memo was sent out: "Please sign this paper. Stating that you will not use this information for anything other than evaluation". I am sure Lockheed followed that request. I submitted a few test designs myself. They were returned with Lockheed, Boeing, and BAE E-mail addresses. Then they went through the Army system later. By some coincidence A few of my ideas ended up on the Lockheed vehicles. Bottom line. Lockheed and BAE have the most bribe money, the most influence, the most employees that will reelect the politicians from their Communities. Look at Textron's stock. Not so good. Look how many voters, I mean employees they have. " You give me the votes, I'll give you the contract!". If allot of the work goes to your State. You'll get the support. But at $400,000.00 plus per unit. The project will most likely be shut down or shrunken. A vehicle that has 4 to 6 solders inside. Full of radios and equipment. Weapons and ammo. 1 million per solder to train them. Plus benefits to their survivors. Your looking at a juicy target. About a 6 to 10 million dollar hit. How many enemy combatants would target that? And a vehicle that can't survive a .50BMG hit. The whole JLTV approach is wrong. It started well. But got Chang hied by the contractors. Better designs exist. TARDEC do your job. Let all designs have a chance. MORE TRANSPARENCY in your competition. You have turned into a political and economic branch of the contractors. Who looks out for the solders? Not you guys. Your job hunting, to leapfrog into a higher paying job. You have a JOB of Honor. Act like it! It really has little to do with design or capability. If the JLTV program gets the green light. Which it may not. It is about where the money will flow. Lockheed had their contractor
employees all through out the procurement system.
They knew allot was at stake here. They have to line up certain Generals. Senators, Congressmen.
This takes a while. Also all the component manufacturers. So if you have a design that is politically correct? Built in the right States.
And the Army doing all it can. You’ll see certain people leave the Army/Navy and transition into a high paying Defense Job. You give me millions, and I give you billions. By the way. Lockheed got to see everyone’s designs before anything was decided. Their people did the reviews. A memo was sent out: “Please sign this paper. Stating that you will not use this information for anything other than evaluation”.
I am sure Lockheed followed that request.
I submitted a few test designs myself. They were returned with Lockheed, Boeing, and BAE E-mail addresses. Then they went through the Army system later. By some coincidence A few of my ideas ended up on the Lockheed vehicles. Bottom line. Lockheed and BAE have the most bribe money, the most influence, the most employees that will reelect the politicians from their Communities. Look at Textron’s stock.
Not so good. Look how many voters, I mean employees they have. ” You give me the votes, I’ll give you the contract!”. If allot of the work goes to your State. You’ll get the support.
But at $400,000.00 plus per unit. The project will most likely be shut down or shrunken. A vehicle that has 4 to 6 solders inside. Full of radios and equipment. Weapons and ammo. 1 million per solder to train them. Plus benefits
to their survivors. Your looking at a juicy target. About a 6 to 10 million dollar hit. How many enemy combatants would target that? And a vehicle that can’t survive a .50BMG hit. The whole JLTV approach is wrong. It started well.
But got Chang hied by the contractors. Better designs exist. TARDEC do your job. Let all designs have a chance. MORE TRANSPARENCY in your competition. You have turned into a political and economic branch of the contractors. Who looks out for the solders?
Not you guys. Your job hunting, to leapfrog into a higher paying job. You have a JOB of Honor. Act like it!

]]> By: Gary Hopehttp://www.dodbuzz.com/2009/03/04/jltv-protest-out-ng-textron-bids-riskiest/#comment-6027 Gary Hope Thu, 12 Mar 2009 04:47:14 +0000 http://www.dodbuzz.com/?p=4796#comment-6027 Damn, sure are lots of risks involved in this process ???? I'm sure the Soldiers and Marines here in Afghanistan appreciate all the mon-fri, 9-5 fighting over their safety.....get this done and quit the whinning, people are litterally dying waiting for this platform....kind of hard to feel that from your Washington office though....makes me and others here with me wonder, KBR can kill people and get more $$$$$, but we can't get vehicle.s in theater because someone protested about being fair ??????yeah right !!!!!!! Damn, sure are lots of risks involved in this process ???? I’m sure the Soldiers and Marines here in Afghanistan appreciate all the mon-fri, 9–5 fighting over their safety.….get this done and quit the whinning, people are litterally dying waiting for this platform.…kind of hard to feel that from your Washington office though.…makes me and others here with me wonder, KBR can kill people and get more $$$$$, but we can’t get vehicle.s in theater because someone protested about being fair ??????yeah right !!!!!!!

]]> By: Nick (atacms)http://www.dodbuzz.com/2009/03/04/jltv-protest-out-ng-textron-bids-riskiest/#comment-5943 Nick (atacms) Fri, 06 Mar 2009 15:01:59 +0000 http://www.dodbuzz.com/?p=4796#comment-5943 Colin, could you please shed some light as I'm confused regarding the GAO's findings on Textron and NG's entries.At one point, you state that the GAO found “nothing in the solicitation required a showing that an offeror’s demonstrator was identical to its ultimate proposed design in order to receive some credit in the maturity evaluation for the demonstrator.”If this was the case, and Textron did have a demonstator yet they weren't perhaps identical to the ultimate design, why then was LM and BAE given high marks for the most mature technology, YET one of the key criterias was that the vehicles have exportable energy and a different engine such as hybrid engines?Shouldn't LM and BAE get lesser marks for not even achieving this goal, while Textron's looked to achieve that?I get the impression someone tipped off LM and BAE and said, guys just focus on something that can be produced as quickly as possible and forget about the hybrid engine tech. Look guys at what happened with the ramp up with MRAP and this is what will be the case with the JLTV. So with this advice, LM and BAE didn't even focus on achieving one of the earlier stated program parameters because the truth is it wasn't really a requirement. Something that Textron didn't unfortunately know.That's my conspiracy theory for the day. Sounds perhaps farfetched, but I think LM just has more political clout so they are able to get the inside reading on where things are really going to matter to the disadvantage of the competition and to the soldier. Colin, could you please shed some light as I’m confused regarding the GAO’s findings on Textron and NG’s entries.

At one point, you state that the GAO found “nothing in the solicitation required a showing that an offeror’s demonstrator was identical to its ultimate proposed design in order to receive some credit in the maturity evaluation for the demonstrator.”

If this was the case, and Textron did have a demonstator yet they weren’t perhaps identical to the ultimate design, why then was LM and BAE given high marks for the most mature technology, YET one of the key criterias was that the vehicles have exportable energy and a different engine such as hybrid engines?

Shouldn’t LM and BAE get lesser marks for not even achieving this goal, while Textron’s looked to achieve that?

I get the impression someone tipped off LM and BAE and said, guys just focus on something that can be produced as quickly as possible and forget about the hybrid engine tech. Look guys at what happened with the ramp up with MRAP and this is what will be the case with the JLTV. So with this advice, LM and BAE didn’t even focus on achieving one of the earlier stated program parameters because the truth is it wasn’t really a requirement. Something that Textron didn’t unfortunately know.

That’s my conspiracy theory for the day. Sounds perhaps farfetched, but I think LM just has more political clout so they are able to get the inside reading on where things are really going to matter to the disadvantage of the competition and to the soldier.

]]> By: markhttp://www.dodbuzz.com/2009/03/04/jltv-protest-out-ng-textron-bids-riskiest/#comment-5919 mark Thu, 05 Mar 2009 21:19:32 +0000 http://www.dodbuzz.com/?p=4796#comment-5919 i really like the bae entry ,i hope they win i really like the bae entry ‚i hope they win

]]> By: DensityDuckhttp://www.dodbuzz.com/2009/03/04/jltv-protest-out-ng-textron-bids-riskiest/#comment-5863 DensityDuck Thu, 05 Mar 2009 00:05:39 +0000 http://www.dodbuzz.com/?p=4796#comment-5863 "If you build something that meets the RFP — even if it isn’t exactly what you will build for production, you would seem to have demonstrated you can do the job."Indeed, Lockheed-Martin's production THAAD has maybe 5% commonality in design with the original 1990s-era demonstrator. About the only thing that's the same is the overall system architecture. “If you build something that meets the RFP — even if it isn’t exactly what you will build for production, you would seem to have demonstrated you can do the job.”

Indeed, Lockheed-Martin’s production THAAD has maybe 5% commonality in design with the original 1990s-era demonstrator. About the only thing that’s the same is the overall system architecture.

]]>