CT’s Sikorsky and Parent Lockheed Say They Will No Longer Protest Loss of Army Helicopter Contract

Apr. 19—Sikorsky and parent Lockheed Martin do not plan to file a lawsuit protesting a massive contract award to rival Bell after the Government Accountability Office released details of what the Army called "an unacceptable risk" for costs and delays in integrating new systems on the aircraft based on the Sikorsky proposal in partnership with Boeing.

Bell and parent Textron beat out the Defiant X helicopter proposed by Sikorsky and Boeing with the Bell V-280 Valor tilt-rotor aircraft, which takes off like a helicopter then swivels its rotors vertically to fly forward like an airplane. Sikorsky and Boeing had appealed the decision to GAO, one of two options to get a second chance at the contract in addition to a lawsuit in the U.S. Court of Federal Claims.

In a corporate statement, Lockheed Martin and Sikorsky indicated they will not pursue a lawsuit to challenge Bell's win of the Future Long-Range Assault Aircraft program.

"We are disappointed with the Government Accountability Office decision and remain convinced that our (Defiant X) offering represented both the best value for the taxpayer and the transformational technology that our warfighters need to execute their complex missions," the statement read. "We value our long-standing partnership with the U.S. Army, and serving their missions remains our top priority."

During a hearing of the U.S. Senate Committee on Armed Services, Sen. Richard Blumenthal, D- Conn., told Secretary of the Army Christine Wormuth that he questioned the decision to go with the Bell tilt-rotor over the "less expensive, more maneuverable" Defiant X, in his words.

Sikorsky is vying with Bell to supply the Army an armed scout helicopter, with a smaller version of its helicopter called Raider X. The company has its headquarters manufacturing plant in Stratford, where it is one of the largest employers in Connecticut.

The Army found the Sikorsky- Boeing Defiant X submission "unacceptable" in an insufficient level of detail in how it would integrate emerging systems over time, an element of a larger engineering design and development category that contributed to the decision. GAO indicated Army evaluators determined the Sikorsky- Boeing proposal did not address all elements of the Army's requirement for a "modular open system" architecture, designed to lower the cost of installing upgraded parts.

In its protest, Sikorsky had argued that any shortcoming in its formal proposal could be overcome with "relatively minor contractor emphasis and government monitoring," as worded in the GAO report.

Sikorsky and Boeing scored "acceptable" grades on six other categories, while Bell won three "good" scores, two "acceptable" grades and one "marginal."

GAO did not base its decision on any strategic military considerations the Army may have weighed, with the V-280 Valor able to fly faster over longer distances without refueling but lacking the combat maneuverability of Defiant X.

Sikorsky and Lockheed Martin had initially challenged the Bell aircraft's "inherent limitations for the standard air assault, mountain air assault, and external load mission profiles," according to the GAO report. GAO cited Army evaluators having stated the V-280 Valor provides "appreciable and meaningful advantages" without elaborating further.

Sikorsky "did not demonstrate an adequate approach to meet the requirements of the solicitation and deferred the work scope to the Weapon System Development Program where the functional architecture would be more fully defined," Army evaluators stated according to GAO.

While Sikorsky's price estimate was nearly half that of Bell's for the V-280 Valor, Army evaluators indicated Sikorsky's "cost realism could not be fully assessed" and that the Bell price "is reasonable and provides the best value".

___

Visit the Connecticut Post (Bridgeport, Conn.) at www.ctpost.com

Distributed by Tribune Content Agency, LLC.