FMTV Contract Stays With Oshkosh

FMTV Contract Stays With Oshkosh

The Army has decided that Oshkosh will keep the $3 billion contract to build the Family of Medium Tactical Vehicles (FMTV). The company won the contract last summer in a surprise win, beating out competitors BAE Systems, which had previously built the trucks, and Navistar. Both losing companies promptly filed a protest, which was upheld by the Government Accountability Office, leading the Army to issue a stop work order on the contract.

Following GAO’s recommendations, the Army again reviewed the three competing bids and determined the contract to build up to 23,000 vehicles and trailers would remain with Oshkosh. The Army has lifted the stop work order, according to an Oshkosh press release issued today.

“We are very pleased the Army affirmed its original decision that Oshkosh Corporation’s FMTV bid clearly represents the best overall value for the Army, the taxpayers and the Warfighter,” said Robert G. Bohn, Oshkosh Corporation chairman and CEO in the press release. “We are delighted that the Army has yet again concluded that Oshkosh was the right choice. Our focus has always been on the Warfighter and making sure we deliver high-quality, high-performing vehicles on time.”


The FMTV series of trucks consist of some 23 variants and 17 different models and range from 2.5-ton to 5-ton payloads. Oshkosh also builds the Army’s Family of Heavy Tactical Vehicles (FHTV).

Join the Conversation

Obama gave all the Money to the big bankers not enough money left to ( keep our solidier safe! )

Go cheap and you will see the results ( sad results )

Good Night could not see that coming ;)

Prayers sent ( i better open another sandollar for our troops )

Weird comment.

BAE cut it’s cost by 20% in it’s bid. It is agreed that the Oshkosh bid is “unrealistic”. Usually, you get what you pay for. Unfortunaltely, this time it will result in inferior vehicles supplied to our troops. The first one that fails to do it’s job, and it costs a life.…good luck sleeping. But think of all the money saved… Shame on the Army.

Now obviously these trucks are more advanced than the old 2.5 and 5 ton trucks, but this contract mess over what it still a truck (as opposed to a multi-million dollar aircraft for example) seems plain wrong.

Greg,
Admin question. Why is the article posted under “Naval”? Shouldn’t it be under “Land”?

FormerDirtDart,

You are correct. My bad.

Greg

Greg,

Is there a more detalied account out there of why the Army decided to go with Oshkosh (other than the original decision)?

Thanks.

detailed account Democrat.

DLM it is what it is!

You lose jobs and create jobs up north Great Job!

you created no jobs ( boy i tell ya )

But you got BAE and Texas :)

just forget about the jobs lost ( it will be ok )

Great way to create jobs. Wow Obama is awesome.….….….….….….….….…

Wow we are headed in the right direction!

Guys,

Oshkosh developed the MRAP. This successfull project probably gave them a “Jump Start” for this one.

Oshkosh builds all the heavy trucks for the Army and the USMC, the USMCs medium trucks, the M-ATV, and their suspension systems are being retrofitted on MRAPs of various types to give them some off-road capability. It is not like they are some fly by night company with no capability that just decided to make trucks yesterday. They made a better bid than BAE, and since the government paid for the development of the trucks in the first place and held the rights to produce it wherever they wanted, the award went to Oshkosh for the next 5 years. BAE also still holds the export rights for the truck and will still have the contract for some of the variants used in various other systems. Better luck in 2014 for the next 5 year buy BAE.

DLM, you may want to google GAO FMTV PROTEST to see the GAOs summary of their decision and link to the discussion of the full protest. Basically, Oshkosh bid 30% below the previous unit price, BAE bid 22% below the previous unit price. Both contractors, and Navistar, were rated equally on capability and past performance so price won out and Oshkosh had the lowest price of the three.

Oshkosh won because they are the manufacturer, BAE as a system integrater has to buy the trucks for a price similar to what Oshkosh charges and then add a profit margin. Beyond just price advantage I think Oshkosh would be easier as they would have a more direct line of responsibility.

5-Star,
If you don’t work for BAE it is far from “…agreed that the Oshkosh bid is “unrealistic””. The GAO found that Oshkosh’s pricing was not unrealistic. They did except a lower margin for profit than BAE but they also would manufacture more of the vehicle in-house and they do have extensive experience making military trucks.

My son says they have these in Afghanistan already. They like them, says Oshkosh out did themselves with new design. So far, so good.

5Star:

The government apparently paid for and owns the FMTV “design” or technical data package (TDP). Oshkosh is obligated to build its FMTV production, to government print, on a firm fixed-price (FFP) basis. In other words, to build the same thing. Oshkosh may have to develop its own extensive assembly drawings and, of course, production processes and fixtures.

The cost majority of the FMTV is made of third-party components such as the engine, transmission/transfer-case, drive-line, axles, wheels, tires, CTIS, ABS, armored glass, etc. In most cases, Oshkosh already has relationships with those suppliers — with no obvious difference in quality because of a different ship-to address.

Stewart & Stevenson, now BAE Systems, had their own quality and delivery challenges such as the past fleet-wide drive-line failure / transmission case issue and a current large and ongoing delivery backlog.

There is no substantiated evidence that Oshkosh will build an “inferior” medium tactical vehicle, anymore than any of the half-dozen heavy tactical vehicle programs that Oshkosh have successfully been building for the Army and USMC for at least thirty years.

There are reasonable concerns as to how quickly Oshkosh can ramp-up chassis production and final assembly. The current absence of an E-coat facility for body components is a major issue. Still, Oshkosh has done remarkably well ramping their new M-ATV. In the meantime, BAE will continue to build FMTV.

robert February 14th, 2010 at 6:31 am

“Oshkosh is building the trucks not subbing out the work like BAE…”

Curt February 15th, 2010 at 1:33 pm

“… but they also would manufacture more of the vehicle in-​​house

Gentlemen:

Please explain your statements. How much production, as opposed to major components, did/does BAE sub-contract, how much do you expect Oshkosh to sub, and what is the actual difference in approaches?

Pete February 15th, 2010 at 9:44 pm

Yes, Family Medium Tactical Vehicle (FMTV)s may already be in Afghanistan. But since Oshkosh has not yet begun their production of the FMTV, those deployed FMTVs must be BAE production.

Perhaps you are thinking of the new Oshkosh MRAP All Terrain Vehicle (M-ATV)?

http://www.oshkoshdefense.com/defense/products~matv~home.cfm

People, you have to understand business.
In point, consider that where Oshkosh will be building these, the cost-of-living for the area may easily not be as high as where BAE was going to build them, so Oshkosh could just as well pay its people a decent enough wage for the same quality labor that BAE could be paying considerably more for.
Also consider: just how much mark-up (not necessarily profit margin) was BAE going to take on this project? Keep in mind that BAE does a lot of other programs and internal research: don’t discount that a portion of their FMTV bid’s pricetag wasn’t a result of some unlisted “overhead” costs that really would’ve just helped further fund in-house developments of other programs:
monies received from one contract win, spread out into other areas to cover costs on projects that haven’t been profitable yet (understand how busniess works: it’s more noticeable in a bigger worldwide corporation like BAE than the underdog Oshkosh).

Plus, keeping Oshkosh alive helps maintain competition in the defense market.
BAE wants a win, let their Stewart & Stevenson division come up with the winning design (and at a proper price) for the eventual follow-on to the FMTVs, let alone other rebuild/reset programs that will come about for the current and coming fleets.
BAE needs to suck it up and drive on; you can’t be the winner all the time. Learn from your mistakes and drive on, striving to do better next time.
They have no room to gripe, really: that’s the whole reason why the US Govt wanted the rights to the vehicle designs: so they could re-release the requirements to industry as they see fit.
If all you’re gonna do is cry when you lose, then don’t play the game at all when the US Govt announces it wants the design rights.

Correct me if I’m wrong, but didn’t Stewart & Stevenson win the Army truck bid from Oshkosk years ago? At the time, the concern was that Stewart & Stevenson lacked the experience to build an Army vehicle.

Fair is fair. Or is all this chatter a replaying of the War Between the States?

Yes, there are a good many LM/FMTVs in US service with the Stewart & Stevenson nameplate on the front end,…but S&S was bought up by BAE at one point (technically, by Armor Holdings, Inc)…
Could’ve been they were too eagerly anticipating a cash cow that LM/FMTV upgrades were going to bring, thinking that if they owned S&S, they’d automatically win somehow?

As to Oshkosh not being able: they’ve been building those 8-wheel HEMTT types for quite some time, and large, wheeled, offroad vehicles was their specialty, so.…
Could it have been they just didn’t have production facilities/floor space at the time…?

The Army made a GREAT decision to go with Oshkosh. On the government side, I’ve had to work with these jokers down in Sealy. They have become far too comfortable with “no bid” contracts. They run the show. Good to know that they ran the audience out of the theater!

BAE’s Stewart and Stevenson (now called BAE Tactical Vehicle Systems TVS) may have cut their price by 20% but when they subcontract their parts to their sister divisions, well, duh, no wonder BAE TVS can’t really compete on the price. But the victim mentality is rife at that division.

Five Star — Are you, by any chance, the former Commanding General of the Army Tank-Automotive Command (i.e. TACOM) that is now employed by BAE Tactical Vehicle Systems?

The Army made a GREAT decision to go with Oshkosh. On the government side, I’ve had to work with these jokers down in Sealy. They have become far too comfortable with “no bid” contracts. They run the show. Good to know that they ran the audience out of the theater!

The OSHKOSH truck are far better than the BAE (S&S) trucks which are constanly in for repairs. The OSh trucks dont break axles and suspension parts every time they go off road either. BAE subs out and subs the subs to make it harder for the govt to observe thier ops. I’m glad OSh got the final word because it is easier to make sure our guys are getting good gear if we only have to go to one facility to see it being assembled by the original contractor. Plus when you identify an issue with an OSh vehicle they send a team down to fix it — BAE send a recommended parts list.

BOOMER February 17th, 2010 at 8:31 am

The FMTV appears to be a government-owned materiel design. Hence the government could take FMTV production from BAE facilities and transfer it to Oshkosh facilities.

For comparison, the HEMTT is apparently an Oshkosh proprietary design. The government may not take that design and put it out to bid so that BAE, International, Daimler NA (Feigtliner), Volvo, etc. could build it. Hence, the government recently sole-sourced new HTV (HEMTT and PLS) production to Oshkosh.

The FMTV design specifies common major components like Arvin Merritor (Rockwell) axles, a Caterpillar C7 engine, and an MD3070PT Allison World Series transmissions/transfer-case.

Leaving aside the durability of the plastic name-plate on the bonnet, just how are any of these major components more or less durable depending on who has assembled them? Are the bolts tightened differently?

Alternatively, if the majority of the FMTV’s major components are (and must be) sourced from common subcontractors, how is Oshkosh’s assembly process alone going to keep Arvin Merritor axles from breaking?

Or are you saying Oshkosh is going to build a fundamentally different medium truck than the defined FMTV? In which case, will it still be an FMTV, or rather, perhaps, the Future Tactical Truck System (FTTS)?

Finally, what do you mean by: “BAE subs out and subs the subs to make it harder for the govt to observe their ops.”

Watch:

WorldNow and WBAY
Contract’s Job Impact Reaches Far Beyond Oshkosh Corporation
By Chris Hrapsky

http://​www​.wbay​.com/​G​l​o​b​a​l​/​s​t​o​r​y​.​a​s​p​?​S​=​1​1​9​8​8​969

Oshkosh Corporation’s $3 billion contract to build Army cargo trucks could also provide a major boost for local companies looking to make parts for the FMTV. Once production starts, hundreds of new jobs would become available. …

New Englander — BAE has a habbit of bidding on items they themselves cannot produce, so they subcontract various portions utilizing a performance in place contract mod (meaning it will be done someplace else). They tend to hold these locations very private to themselves and we (the Govt) have to give them advance notice to go to thier subcontractors, and many times find that the subcontractors have actualy subbed out themselves, sometimes to a different country. OSHKOSH on the other hand (even though they do order components from other vendors and Oshkosh locations) have a good quality inspection program in thier recieving area and through out production. While I have seen more than one BAE vehicle that forgot to install bolts or tighten up the nuts on major components, wire things up backwards or forget to hook up the wiring harness at all and we usualy find these issues when we go to pick them up or on the way home if we are driving them. BAe has a lot of issues with other govt programs as well, Ive gone to the table with them more than once as with other big name contractors that feel they are unapproachable.

BOOMER, you are aboslutely right! I’ve had a few go arounds with BAE, myself, exactly as you say, and I’m not impressed wth BAE’s “commitment to quality”-it’s all about the bucks, for BAE, and they’ve been on the carpet in the U.K. for over charging and “corruption”. BAE is just a typical MBA, “management” outfit that has more Excel spread sheet s and pie-charts than than they have in-house manufacturing. There’s a limit to the assembly the process and BAE has its assembly line spread all over the world.

When you do not vote for who won the white house..Your state will suffer for it.Look what as happen to NASA and BAE.

I am a contractor and have worked on the now canceled FCS program. I can attest to the layers of contractors adding up to unreasonable costs. We manufactured our product, sold it to a system integrator with no experience in our product, who sold the system to GDLS, who then supplied it to BAE. I would hate to see how many times our price was stepped on.

Jeff, so the factory that BAE owns in Sealy TX that has built the FMTV for the last 15 years should not be considered as “building a vehicle”? The fact that BAE builds the truck cabs and armor packages at a BAE factory in Cincy should not qualify as building a vehicle? BAE is not a systems integrator, the fact that they built from the ground up armored vehicles such as the Bradley, AAV, M113, M88, and trucks should point to them being a manufacturer. If you go to the Osh factory, there isn’t a steel mill on the back lot that spits out steel plate, that eventually gets cut and bent into a truck frame. Then again, neither does BAE. So, no one is a true manufacturer in the sense that Ford used to be with iron ore going in one door and a Ford comes out the other end.

Boomer, you and Gordon need to get out and see the manufacturing facilities that BAE has in Sealy, Tx, Cincy, Anniston, Al and York, Pa. On the point of access to manufacturing facilities, there might be a little embelishment there. With the Build America Act, all major defense contractors to required to buy USA products and raw materials, it’s written in the contracts. Osh, BAE, and GD buy their steel and aluminum plate from US mills, and their vendors do to. As a gov employee buying major systems from BAE and GD, I visited the vendors and source the materials the whole way back to the mills. There is just not alot of stuff being manufactured at a third tier supplier. Plus to delivery products on DoD contracts, DCMA is in those 2nd and 3rd tier supplies inspecting the parts before they even get to major contractor facilities where BAE and Osh inspect it again. A well run program is a combo of efforts by both the gov and the contractor. If a bad product comes out, it is the fault of the contractor and the gov.

Eng RG, you make a good point, but at the end of the day, the Army (and I will refer to them as the Big Army here) paid someone to manage their keystone program for them. Boeing and SAIC had no business ever being selected to act as the systems integrator for FCS. At the most basic level, the acquisition strategy the Army selected was flawed, and it ultimately caused its cancellation. So many of the most basic of systems engineering tenets were violated during program execution that the Army is truly lucky that they were able to spin out any technology from that program. Though the program is cancelled the first tech package is being spun out, procured and fielded to the Army’s BCT’s. I seriously hope that it’s the best stuff ever, because the BCT’s are going into the fight with this technology.

Oshkosh will do a heck of a lot better than BAE!

I hope that oskosh does better they were at the brink of bankruptcy last year.

Underbidding a contract 1% over the cost to build it to get it does not make your company sucessfull

Remember that when we need those truck if they can not deliver.

I help pay for these trucks with my tax dollar they 4sure better be there when our soldiers need them and keep them safe.

Every body in life learns that half hearted attempts and any thing that is cheap is not going work for you when you need it you get out of something only what you put in it.

bae trucks suck way to go oshkosh

we could still have george bush

Pat, I have been to all those plants and quite a few others, I know what the initial contracts say — how they get modified — and how the contractors get around them. There are not that many steel mills and such left in the US, even ALCOA buys its materials from overseas a lot of the time and the just cut and stamp it here. And a lot of DCMA personnel are spread too thinly to really cover thier areas. And I blame all of this on the Govt for not writing better contracts and employing enough personnel to manage them.

That looks exactly like a German Unimog. Hot damn! I am so happy both Oshkosh won the contract and so am I happy for the Army to be supplied with these mud chugging dirt dogs. I have friends and family working for Oshkosh and I know they will do the best they can for our troops. I also know I have driven Oshkosh M900 in the USAF and these are amazingly remarkable and capable vehicles. My best congrats to the boys back home in Oshkosh, WI home of the best overalls in the entire world Oshkosh B’Gosh.

Osh Kosh will be subbing and using vendor parts. If anybody believes that Osh Kosh can build this entire truck from top to bottom while at the same time meeting the contract deadline and quality standards, they are a moron and know absolutely nothing about these trucks.

Your son is in BAE Systems’ FMTV. BAE has the contract till the end of the year, Oshkosh hasn’t even begun building yet.

This won’t happen. Oshkosh, no matter what promises have been made, will not be able to deliver quality trucks on time if they do not contract out work. When it comes to assembly they will be fine, its fabrication that is going to trip them up. Their biggest difficulty will be finding enough qualified machinists and welders to kick out the parts fast enough. I am almost certain that they WILL contract out work.

amazing how much mis-information there is in the posts here.
1) the new trucks in country are all built by BAE. Oshkosh trucks haven’t begun to ship.
2) BAE purchased S&S from Armor holdings and produces them in the same plate. not system integrators on this one. They are the OEM.
3) The BAE trucks are “always out for repair” — interesting considering the BEA FMTV trucks are considered the most reliable Army trucks in history.

No, I don’t work for BAE. but I work a program that uses FMTV trucks.

There are many good points. However, Politics is always behind the decisions. The appropriations in congress are important to the army and the Wisconsin delegation was out in full force (democrats). The democrats hold the purse strings. The Texans are mainly republican and even the Texan democrats have no pull with the democratic controlled congress or white House. The Army had to switch the alliance to the democrats to get their mission accomplished. BAE manufacturing in Sealy have many advantages due to lower assembly costs in labor and other G&A expenses this is absolute fact. BAE has some higher costs in drive and chasis manufacturing sub-out that Osh Kosh does in house. However these mostly wash each other out. It wouldnt suprise many of us if OSHKOSK bought the BAE facility and continued making the trucks in Sealy Texas. Who knows overall but the facts are politics was key.

Oshkosh doesn;t have an e-coat system. They don’t even have an assembly line like BAE. Oshkosh stall builds every truck they make for the military. Oh yeah and BAE is now Oshkosh’s new supplier for the frame rails and trailers.

You must talking about the M-ATV, because there aren’t any OshKosh FMTV’s in Afghanistan yet.

*required

NOTE: Comments are limited to 2500 characters and spaces.

By commenting on this topic you agree to the terms and conditions of our User Agreement

AdChoices | Like us on , follow us on and join us on Google+
© 2014 Military Advantage
A Monster Company.