A House panel wants to block the Army from advancing the development of the Ground Combat Vehicle (GCV) until the service provides detailed justification for choosing just one contractor.
The House Armed Services Tactical Air and Land Forces subcommittee approved legislation Thursday that bans from Army from spending fiscal year 2014 monies on the GCV’s forthcoming Engineering and Manufacturing Development (EMD) phase until 30 days after the service submits a detailed report to Congress. The panel approved that language within its portion of the FY ’14 defense authorization bill, which the full House Armed Services Committee (HASC) will debate and amend starting on June 5.
The Army plans to choose just one contractor in FY ’14 for the EMD phase–tapping either BAE Systems or General Dynamics [GD], both of which are under contract for the GCV’s current Technology Development phase. However, Tactical Air Subcommittee Chairman Michael Turner (R-Ohio) has been questioning if the service has fully defined the vehicle’s requirements and will be ready to select just one contractor.
The GCV report his subcommittee wants would be an “independent assessment” of draft Army requirements and acquisition documents justifying the GCV’s “Milestone B” approval to enter into the EMD phase, according to the legislative language the approved Thursday by the subpanel and obtained by Defense Daily. The study would be conducted by a Pentagon official, such as the director of cost assessment and program evaluation or the assistant secretary of defense for research and engineering. It would analyze “whether there is a sufficient business case” for proceeding to EMD with only one contractor, the legislative text says.
During the Tactical Air subcommittee’s markup of its portion of the FY ’14 defense authorization bill on Thursday, Turner submitted a statement saying members “have some concerns that given the GCV’s current schedule, the Army may not have enough information to effectively downselect to a single contractor.”
The subcommittee-approved legislation says the Army report on the GCV also must include a certification from the service secretary that the GCV program has “feasible and fully-defined requirements,” “fully mature technologies,” “independent and high-confidence cost estimates,” “available funding,” and “a realistic and achievable schedule.”
Rep. Loretta Sanchez (D-Calif.), ranking member of the Tactical Air subcommittee, also raised concerns about the GCV in an opening statement for Thursday’s markup, which she did not read.
“While this program is still in the early stages, I have concerns that its requirements may be too aggressive or ‘gold plated,’ which has been a sadly familiar cause of Army programs failing over the past 10 years,” she said. “The legislation in the mark seeks to ensure that Congress and (the Department of Defense) DoD are fully aware of the challenges the program may face when it moves to the next stage of development in 2014.”
The Army has defended its plans for the GCV and the maturity of its requirements. Secretary John McHugh has dismissed a damning Congressional Budget Office report as based on outdated information.
The Tactical Air subcommittee did not amend its portion of the FY ’14 defense authorization bill on Thursday, thus approving the same legislation it released publicly on Wednesday (Defense Daily, May 23).
The panel oversees Army and Air Force acquisition programs and Navy and Marine Corps aviation programs, as well as ammunition programs and National Guard and Reserve efforts.
The legislation it approved Thursday, notably, calls for the Pentagon to task an independent team with reviewing the development of software for the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter. Turner said this is needed “so that we can take whatever actions are necessary to keep the program on track.” The program is entering some of the most-challenging testing of its mission-systems software, and the review will keep Congress informed as the Pentagon plans to ramp up F-35 production in FY ’15, Sanchez said.
While the Tactical Air panel highlights concerns about the F-35’s overall long-term affordability, it fully funds the Pentagon’s request for the Lockheed Martin [LMT] program. The subcommittee’s measure “continues to support the critical requirement for a 5th generation stealth fighter due to projected increases in the effectiveness, quantities, and proliferation of threat anti-aircraft systems,” Turner said.
“In prior years the committee has expressed concern with the Pentagon’s F-35 production plan being too aggressive, given F-35 lagging technology development, insufficient flight testing, and design instability,” he said. “The Pentagon has now done what the committee advocated several years ago, by reducing the annual procurement until the (research and development) R&D issues are better resolved and understood.”
The subcommittee’s legislation also would ban the Air Force from retiring its fleet of Global Hawk Block 30s and require it support operations of those unmanned aerial vehicles until the end of 2016.
All of the HASC subcommittees marked up their portions of the FY ’14 defense authorization bill on Wednesday and Thursday.
The Readiness subpanel approved legislation on Thursday that directs the Pentagon to issue lifecycle-sustainment plans for the F-35 and Littoral Combat Ship programs.
“Congress needs information to determine what is needed to sustain these programs for the foreseeable future given the already significant upfront investment in these new technologies,” subcommittee Ranking Member Madeleine Bordallo (D-Guam) said in a written opening statement.
The Readiness subcommittee further proposes retaining seven cruisers and two amphibious ships the Navy wants to retire early. It also calls for the Government Accountability Office to examine the implementation of furloughs of civilian Pentagon employees, which are due to start in July as a result of “sequestration” budget cuts.