The Army is scheduled, in January, to release a solicitation to
industry for the second phase of the Future Combat System, the service’s
next-generation vehicle.
A large number of companies are anxious to participate in this
project, which is expected to generate billions of dollars in contracts
during the next two decades. As they await the solicitation, some
company executives are hoping that it will help clarify numerous
questions surrounding FCS. So far, many contractors have been confused
and frustrated by the Army’s lack of a clear acquisition strategy,
sources said.
During a recent meeting of potential FCS contractors, hosted by
the Army’s program executive officer for ground combat systems,
several company representatives who spoke with National Defense
said that they are discouraged by the lack of information about
FCS technical issues and by the difficulties in figuring out how
to get their proposals heard by the right people, without having
to give away proprietary data about their technologies.
To be sure, the Army is attempting to create, with FCS, a whole
new acquisition playbook. It is unlike any previous ground-vehicle
procurement program, in the sense that it’s a “system
of systems” of manned, unmanned vehicles, tied in a complex
command-and-control network. Further, the Army is not managing the
program alone. It selected a “lead systems integrator,”
the Boeing Co., to help put the program together and manage the
various pieces.
Small companies, particularly, fear that the LSI will shut them
out of the competition. They also complain that the current process
does not allow them to convey their potential contributions to the
program. One executive, for example, said that the only way to get
a question answered was to post it on the LSI web site, but he could
not find a live person to talk to. “There is tension between
the companies that see themselves as primes and those that see themselves
as subcontractors,” said one source.
The PEO for ground combat systems, Maj. Gen. Joseph L. Yakovac,
said he is sympathetic to industry concerns and wants to ensure
that those companies that have the most viable technologies get
a share of the FCS work. But he also told contractors that they
should not oversell technologies that may be promising, but not
mature enough for the first batch of FCS, scheduled to be fielded
in 2008. The question for those companies, Yakovac said, is “If
you don’t win in Block I, how do we keep you, so you can contribute
to Block II?”
In response to comments by contractors that the Army’s schedule
is too ambitious, Yakovac reminded them that “we are all in
this together,” so companies should make an effort to tame
their skepticism and prevent it from becoming a self-fulfilling
prophecy.