Navistar withdraws JLTV protest

Navistar withdraws JLTV protest

Navistar has chosen to withdraw its protest of the Joint Light Tactical Vehicle competition after issuing a protest with the Government Accountability Office Aug. 31.

The JLTV competition is the race to build the Humvee replacement. The Army plans to buy at least 50,000 new trucks while the Marine Corps hopes to buy another 5,500.

In August, the Army awarded Oshkosh, AM General and Lockheed Martin with engineering, manufacturing and development contracts, each worth about $60 million for the 27-month phase of the competition. Navistar, BAE Systems and General Dynamics were left out.


Army leaders held the source selection evaluation results debrief on Aug. 30. Navistar leaders left the meeting with “initial concerns,” said Navistar spokeswoman, Elissa Koc.

Neither BAE Systems nor General Dynamics have issued protests thus far. BAE spokeswoman Stephanie Bissell Serkhoshian said the company has not made a final decision and “are currently considering how to proceed.”

The companies had to issue their protests the next day, Koc said. Because of the tight deadline, Navistar chose to issue the protest in order to give themselves time over the Labor Day weekend to review the problems they had, she said.

“If we didn’t file anything Friday, we wouldn’t have been able to review it,” Koc said.

Navistar offered their Saratoga truck for the JLTV competition. The vehicle looks like a smaller version of the Mine Resistant Ambush Protected All-Terrain Vehicle (M-ATV) and was not originally built to compete for the JLTV contract.

Navistar officials would not provide details on the specific problems they had with the results of the EMD selection process. However, on Tuesday, the company has started the process of withdrawing their protest, Koc said.

Navistar is still considering competing for the production phase of the JLTV competition, but at this time the company is “going to look at other opportunities,” Koc said. Company officials have said the Saratoga truck has received interest from international buyers. It was recently displayed at the Eurosatory international defense conference this summer in Paris.

Army and Marine Corps officials have long emphasized their interest in speeding up the JLTV competition. Acquisition leaders cut the EMD phase of the contract from 48 months down to 27 after industry execs boasted to military leaders that it wouldn’t take long to build test vehicles for the competition.

Tighter deadlines mean the companies have to make faster decisions regarding protests in order to protect the opportunity to issue one. Considering the number of companies who offered bids, many analysts expected a protest to occur.

However, the Army and Marine Corps’ decision to offer the opportunity to bid on the production phase of the contract means the three companies denied EMD contracts might want to stay in the JLTV program manager’s good graces. Many will watch if the tighter timeline for the EMD phase will cause more challenges going forward.

Join the Conversation

Doesn’t matter itll take years to finish the competition and red tape from the protest (withdrawn or not) will delay the final desion. Overall who care the vehicles they want are way too BIG they need smaller tactical vehicles.

Has the Army posted the report yet on how they made their decisions?

And then the people dancing to the cries of OPSEC! OPSEC! will appear…

In general, more info about the vehicles submitted by each of the competitors would be interesting.

I posted the Army Times article on the selection criteria on the previous JLTV article pretty much word for word. It was an interesting read as far as the requirements go. Some capabilities could be argued to be OPSEC, but we’re mostly talking about the performance specs of a truck.

My monies on Lockheed Martin.

Faith in LM?

I’ll pass.

Ther two premier combat aircraft (F-22, F-35) were/are late, over budget, and problem prone. Their LCS contender isn’t anywhere near a shining example of how to run a program, either. And now the USG will let them compete in a ground vehicle program as well?

I guess then the DoD isn’t really serious about getting these into service on-budget within a reasonable timeframe.

If LM does manage to pull this rabbit out of a hat, it’ll most likely be at the efforts of their partners in this, obviously not of their own accord.

I just don’t see them doing it (FTR, their FCS efforts weren’t the greatest, either…yet we’ll trust them to build the next HMMWV replacement?).

What I do not understand in this whole process is WHY there is a contract at all. Let the contractors design and build a model on their own and then have a run off to select he best. Why should the government shell out 60 million a piece to each company for a total of 180 million. Divide that by 27 months and you get about 6.6 million and change a month. Stop the government dole to defense contractors. F35, LCS, etc. etc. where will it end???

I thought one of the reasons the JLTV was so big was because it wasn’t necessarily replacing the old Humvee’s role as much as it was filling a role the old Hummers were forced into: Being a tactical scout vehicle. Or in short, it’s bigger because it’s actually filling a different job than the old HMMWV was designed for, and that added armor and capacity is there because of the role change.

I thought the spin was that the JLTV is still lighter than a Humvee retrofitted with the armor kit?

That said, the military probably should bifurcate and go with a lighter vehicle (more Jeepish?) and the JLTV. The Humvee was too in-the-middle to please anyone.

Now would be a good time to figure out which MRAP models are worth keeping, and which ones are going to Sierra Army Depot…

As Ive said more than once — do away with the contracting requirement, allow sole sourcing and the military to purchase what ever they want within thier annual budget with no concressional oversight period. Then the DoD could go ahead and buy the ghurkas and J8’s that they want which have already been purchased by various groups within the US Military and already been battle proven in the sand box. The Navy could had bought the stretch hulled corvetts they wanted from europe and all this purchasing would had been at a substantial savings to the military. So what if the DoD buys all of its gear off the shelf from one source as long as it is good quality gear. The competition is only for allowing congressmen to force the military to buy from thier districts and no other purpose.

Meant to say do away with the competition requirement and allow sole sourcing.

Contract law requires the DoD to be insanely detailed about what it wants to buy. If each company built whatever they wanted and the DoD picked one, then each company would have cause to sue for the DoD making their decisions based on opinions rather than requirements.

It isn’t a L-M thing — Boeing (FCS, JTRS) and Northrup Grumman (Global Hawk) aren’t doing any better.

It’s a JROC thing. As long as the military keeps asking for requirements that can’t actually be met with current affordable tech, the contractors will keep saying “Yes, we will let you pay us cost-plus for years while we show you that it isn’t possible”.

There are two possible fixes — require fixed price (and stick to it), or write reasonable requirements. In fact, if you do the former, you’ll end up doing the latter too, because nobody will bid on your invisible antigravity tank.

The last RFP for the GCV went from 1000 to 500 requirements and the Army was very proud of itself for accomplishing that.

If they said that about the JLTV, it was probably when the program was only powerpoint deep and they still expected the vehicle to do everything under the sun. The current requirements say 7 tons.

As far as models, they’ve been working on that for the last few months. There was an article here and a few other places showing the raw numbers of MRAPs they wanted to keep in MTOEs, PTDE, APS, or at the depots. They didn’t mention specific variants though. I imagine MATVs and Buffalos will be at the top of the list.

http://​www​.defenseindustrydaily​.com/​J​L​T​V​-​H​u​m​m​e​r-v

Do away with contracting?!?! How is Uncle Sugar going to justify paying for the student loans for all of the 1102s that are being loaded up in the Army Contracting Command? Anybody ever look at the B.S that source selection boards are asking the offerors to submit on firm fixed price efforts? Gotta justify our big Government.

There has got to be a better way to get new vehicles/aircraft/ships produced and to the warfighters than the system we have now. By the time these new craft are available, they are practically obsolete and the enemy already has the countermeasure for it. When this vehicle is finally produced, flying saucers will be invented.

I’d say the Humvee was too in the middle because of the evolution of its use as well as the threats that developed, but yes, I see your point and am basically agreeing with it. The H ended up seeing the battlefield change, and suddenly what was an honestly stud vehicle found itself in an environment where it was just the wrong thing.

I do agree with the idea of splitting. Get something lighter — along the lines of a Brit Rover or German G-wag — and use that for urban duties as well as low threat environments. And then something like the JLTV for others. But, despite agreeing, I do see one potentially problematic issue: That would force a unit who’s got responsibilities covering both areas to deploy two vehicles for the same troops who’d be doing one job one day and another the next. Splitting sounds like a great idea, but it might ultimately be untenable because of that specific scenario.

The present prepositioning logistics system deploys vehicles independently of the troops, so conceivably a set of light vehicles could meet up with a manning force at Bagram airport after being trundled through Pakistan (or by air…). Or if the anticipated mission was road duty, then the equipment set picked up on deployment would be the heavier vehicle.

You’re right in that changing vehicles in the field is not something planned for. I’ve got no response to that, except to assume that in the future we will preposition stocks of vehicles in-country, and not just outside it. However, prepositioning equipment stocks in range of enemy rockets, mortars and the like is just more stuff to lose…

If you look at stuff like the M8 AGS, they were dropped in a base “light” configuration and could be armored up in accordance with the threat. However, with mines you need to design in a level of protection, and can’t count on modules. There’s a point where vehicles are no longer Legos…and we realized this with teh up-armored Humvees.

the problem is that whatever we need will be stretched and loaded down with protection and equipment to where the vehicle is expensive, heavy, large and will just require more explosives to take it out. what ever we buy should have landing gear on it as the enemy will put so many explosives under it the vehicle will be airborne. whomever gets the job of designing and purchasing a new vehicle will be blamed for everything as you cannot put a vehicle in the field that will do everything and protect from all evil. i wish the people well that have the job of providing the right vehicle.

I hear what you’re saying, but the truth about GCV is that they could get down to three requirements and still be screwed, as long as those requirements are still
1. Better-than-MRAP protection
2. Better-than-Bradley fighting
3. Carry 9 dismounts and 3 crew

At that point, you’re looking at 70+ tons and $15M+ each, guaranteed. Inappropriate and unaffordable.

could it be the winners are tied in with GM (Government Motors which is about to go bankrupt)?

Just got back from working at MSF, Kuwait where I heard M-ATV has a unique reputation: The troops in Afghanistan refused to travel in it because it was a death trap when it was first deployed. Again could the M-ATV won its contract because of it being a subsidiary of GM? Just throwing this stuff out there.….

*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 | Become a fan on and follow us on
© 2013 Military Advantage
A Monster Company.