AW sues US government over trainer deal

[mezzanaccio]

A unit of Italy's Finmeccanica SpA has sued the U.S. government to block the Pentagon's proposed award of an $800 million helicopter deal to an arm of Airbus Group EADSY -0.35% NV, alleging that the defense department violated its own rules for opening contracts to competition.

The U.S. Army stirred controversy from rival manufacturers during the summer with its plan to retire two types of training helicopters and replace them with 155 new Airbus UH-72 Lakota helicopters, without holding a competition.

AgustaWestland North America Inc., the Finmeccanica unit, asked a U.S. judge for a temporary restraining order barring the Army from awarding the helicopter contract to Airbus without a competition, according to the complaint filed on Sept. 19 with the U.S. Court of Federal Claims in Washington, D.C.

Representatives of the U.S. Army and the Justice Department, which represents the government in civil cases, didn't immediately respond to requests for comment on Monday.

While defense contractors regularly contest contract awards through the Government Accountability Office, it is unusual for them to go to court. However, the Pentagon has attracted two such suits this year.

Elon Musk's Space Exploration Technologies Corp. in April sued the U.S. government and a joint venture between Boeing Co. and Lockheed Martin Corp. over the award of a military satellite launch contract. That case continues.

Pentagon officials have conceded in recent months that the overall level of competition awards has dropped. Acquisition chief Frank Kendall last month issued new guidance aimed at boosting competition, including guidelines for proposed deals agreed without a contest.

The Army wants to retire its fleet of Bell TH-67 Creek and OH-58 Kiowa training helicopters made by the Bell Helicopters unit of Textron Inc., and replace them with Lakotas transferred from other uses and others bought new from Airbus.

The Army now uses the Lakota—a version of the EC-145 helicopter commonly used to transfer workers and supplies to offshore oil and gas platforms—for noncombat missions such as transport and reconnaissance.

AgustaWestland and Bell have both claimed the twin-engine Lakota will cost more to buy and operate than their own helicopters.

The Army has said it is cheaper to retire whole fleet types. It aims to save money by using the same helicopter for training and operating.

"We are dismayed that the Army is moving toward a sole-source procurement, involving more than $800 million in initial acquisition costs, with no publicly available cost analysis or open consideration of alternative platforms potentially better suited for this important mission," an AgustaWestland spokesman wrote in an emailed response.

The federal judge assigned to the case hasn't ruled on the request for a restraining order. On Monday she granted a request from AgustaWestland to refile part of its motion to correct non-substantive errors, according to a court filing.

AgustaWestland Sues U.S. Government Over Army Helicopter Plan - WSJ (http://online.wsj.com/articles/agustawestland-sues-u-s-government-over-army-helicopter-plan-1411421715)

[Lonewolf_50]

This is a case of "damned if you do and damned if you don't."

Which rule is more important:
The direction to be more cost effective, to retire expensive to operate, aging systems, or the rule to compete contracts? Two different sets of directions, more or less mandates from Congress via different Acts of Congress.

Since the Army had already purchased a substantial number of these aircraft, it is within the Army's remit, subject to DoD (Executive Branch) approval and Congressional (Legislative Branch) oversight, to repurpose the aircraft. THis has been done before.

Example: The F-8 (Fighter/interceptor) was repurposed as a recce aircraft. So was the A-5 (bomber/attack) repurpoased as a recon aircraft. Likewise the F-111 ... a mod turned at bomber/attack aircraft into the EF - 111. Also Phantoms became Wild Weasels.

Navy repurpoed the CH-60S (logistics/cargo replacement for CH-46, Navy bersion) into Combat SAR and Minesweeping. (The latter still being a work in progress). It is now the MH-60S. No, they didn't have to ask AW permission.

I predict the Army will win ... but I've been wrong before.

[chopper2004]

Hmmmm

AgustaWestland sues to block Army purchase of EC145 helicopters | Vertical Magazine - The Pulse of the Helicopter Industry (http://www.verticalmag.com/news/article/28804)

cheers

[tottigol]

The Army and DoD winning would set a very dangerous precedent.
The Army is not merely repurposing an existing fleet, is the acquisition of additional 155 helicopters over which AgustaWestland is suing.

[fly911]

Back in the 80s I believe, Bell Helicopter appealed the U.S. Coast Guard's purchase of 90 Short Range Recovery Aerospatiale HH-65 Dolphins. The judge ruled that while it was true that the purchase did not meet the "Buy America Act", the Coast Guard could still make the purchase. Go figure.

[Um... lifting...]

The judge ruled that while it was true that the purchase did not meet the "Buy America Act", the Coast Guard could still make the purchase.

Not exactly true, but true up to a point.

The aircraft were equipped with Lycoming LTS101-750B-2 engines (built in PA) and Rockwell Collins avionics (built in KS) and the aircraft were assembled in Grand Prairie, TX. That pushed the cost basis beyond 51% American, and so made the purchase legal. Similar attempts of late with the VXX program and the KC-X program have not met with success.

The LTS101s were a disaster, while the avionics were pretty good. The airframes have since been refit with Turbomeca engines, so now they are much more French and closer to the original design than they started out, but still don't much resemble any civil Dauphin.

Bell's position wasn't much stronger going in, as much of their manufacturing base was in Canada, though they were headquartered in the U.S. The 222 (Bell's offering) would have been a poor alternative, operating from Coast Guard cutters. Very underpowered at the time of the RFP, and that teetering head is not what the doctor ordered operating from tiny ships.

[fly911]

Not exactly true, but true up to a point.

The older I get, the wronger I get, but my recollection is that the engines did not bring the American part to 51%, which is what outraged me at the time. I don't get too outraged any longer. If you have any reading material on the judges decision on that, I would be happy to be shown to be wrong. You seem to be pretty informed on the matter, so I may be barking up the wrong tree.

[Um... lifting...]

Probably not on their own. I gather there were some shenanigans related to breaking down subassemblies in France so they could be reassembled in the U.S. The avionics and 4-axis autopilot (the first ever certified) were rather expensive.

Anyway, that's what we were told. I flew the HH-65A for a number of years, but I never got a look at the ledgers.

The aircraft specification was based upon the constraint of being able to embark aboard a 210' Medium Endurance Cutter, which was really the tail wagging the dog. That made the upper weight limit under about 10,000# and also constrained the aircraft footprint, which eliminated a number of contenders, including anything with a tail wheel. As I recall, the S-76, B-222, and the AS-365 were the only bidders that had a chance. I started flying it a few years after the first deliveries, so I wasn't around during the bids.

At the end of the day, it was probably the best contender of the three, though the 76 might have given it a run for its money.

[fly911]

As I recall, the S-76, B-222, and the AS-365 were the only bidders
I'm just going by my recollection of what I read in R&WI but Bell's 214 comes to mind as a competitor. I tried to look up some old archives of Rotor and Wing, but I think I'll have to leave it in the recesses of my mind and go back to sleep.

[Ian Corrigible]

Somewhat off-topic, but there was a detailed historical article on the SRR competition in the Coast Guard Aviation Association's internal rag this March: Coast Guard Aviation SRR Program (http://www.aoptero.org/downloads/sitrep_1-14.pdf#page=8)

The 222C (rather than the 214) was the Bell offer, while the S-76 was ultimately no-bid, due to a concern on Sikorsky's part as to whether it would be able to meet both the SRR delivery schedule and a predicted GOM demand spike (which ultimately only appeared years later).

The Bell lawsuit was ultimately decided on the grounds that the 'Buy American' aspect of the award related to the entire HH-65 system purchase, rather than just the aircraft (court findings here (http://www.gao.gov/assets/430/423608.pdf) and here (http://law.justia.com/cases/federal/district-courts/FSupp/493/824/1557842/)). For its part, the CG apparently quantified the HH-65's U.S. content at 60% (http://www.aero-news.net/index.cfm?do=main.textpost&id=db0e2aee-6feb-45ea-9a3d-e4e29cecd27d).

Back to the original topic: would AW not have a greater chance of success were it to protest on the grounds of being able to offer an less expensive aircraft that actually met the Army's twin-engine requirement, e.g. the AW109E rather than the AW119Kx?

I/C

[Stinger10]

Since the Army had already purchased a substantial number of these aircraft, it is within the Army's remit, subject to DoD (Executive Branch) approval and Congressional (Legislative Branch) oversight, to repurpose the aircraft.
Seems pretty obvious this whole thing is over the fact that the Army Isn't merely repurposing the UH-72's. Its ACQUIRING an additional 155 aircraft for an additional almost $1B without ever validating a single requirement that the UH-72 can even effectively meet the IERW mission. Completely circumventing any steps in a valid acquisition. Remember, IERW was never a requirement in the LUH program for which the UH-72 was selected. Supporting Centers of Excellence (aka: ground training centers) is not the same as conducting IERW at all.

According to their website, AW's aircraft that they are pushing, AW119Kx are exclusively made in Philadelphia, so "Buy America" would only help AW in this instance, if it was a factor.

Army's twin-engine requirement
IC:
Can anyone show me what the Army's requirements for a new IERW aircraft are?

No, because they NEVER developed them that I have seen, and as of a little more than a year ago the Army said the TH-67s are good and don't need to be replaced.....:ugh:

[fly911]

I/C, thanks for going off-topic and finding that information. I stand corrected. Great research job.

[Stinger10]

So here's a thought:

Since the Army can't do full contact autos in the UH-72 (per the Army UH-72 flight manual), Army pilots will no longer qualify for the FAA Comp to get a Priv./Commercial Rotary Wing license. Full contact autos are required maneuver per the FAA.

This may actually have the unintended consequence of keeping Army pilots in the Army. Bad for future CWO's, but good for the Army.

[Ian Corrigible]

Stinger,

The Army's position on its go-forward RW training needs (i.e. twin engine/glass cockpit) was well covered in the previous (http://www.pprune.org/rotorheads/534271-uh-72-rucker-whats-army-thinking.html) thread that you started.

It's not unusual for Congress to try to dictate the services' requirements (i.e. via budget approvals/reallocation), but it's unusual to see an OEM attempt to do the same thing.

Re: the AW119, the line was for many years destined to be "shifted entirely to India" (http://www.livemint.com/Companies/3CoStaZhmqAYKjKeYkFoRM/Ratan-Tata-to-head-helicopter-joint-venture.html) (Tata), as part of AW's offset obligation on the AW101 VVIP deal. With that program now ended (http://www.pprune.org/rotorheads/530996-india-cancels-deal-12-aw-101s.html), and the LUH/RSH competition having finally been put out of its misery (http://www.thehindubusinessline.com/economy/policy/govt-cancels-rs-6000-cr-helicopter-deal/article6362965.ece), it could be that the Koala transfer plan has now been dropped.

I/C

[Stinger10]

IC:

The Army's position on its go-forward RW training needs (i.e. twin engine/glass cockpit) was well covered
My point then and remains; not a single requirements document generated by the Army stating their requirements for IERW trainer.


Congress doesn't generate requirements, services do. They can provide oversight when it comes to cost and complexity trade-offs though.....

I agree though, it sounds like AIRBUS is ramming their EC-145 twin engine requirements down the Army's throat a bit. Maybe AB should get some sort of consideration after the Army killed the AAS program they were leading the charge on? $1B worth of consideration maybe :ok:

According to AW's own website, the AW119Kx is ONLY built in Philadelphia and the Kx version was specifically developed for the US market. So your previous statement is at a minimum, no longer accurate.

[Ian Corrigible]

'Course, if anyone feels as though they're 'owed' any consideration it'll be Bell, after losing both the KW (to the Apache) and the Creek (to the Lakota). Added to which they now face the prospect of hundreds of singles being dumped onto the market (http://defensenewsstand.com/index.php?option=com_ppvuser&view=login&return=aHR0cDovL2RlZmVuc2VuZXdzc3RhbmQuY29tL2NvbXBvbmVudC9vc HRpb24sY29tX3Bwdi9pZCwyNDgyMDMwL3ZpZXcsYXJ0aWNsZS8=) just when the 505 is about to appear.

Re: Congress, the HASC and SASC both have a habit of significantly re-writing the DoD's funding request in response to lobbying by OEMs in their local district. Hence the regular inclusion of unrequested funding (http://defensenewsstand.com/index.php?option=com_ppvuser&view=login&return=aHR0cDovL2RlZmVuc2VuZXdzc3RhbmQuY29tL2NvbXBvbmVudC9vc HRpb24sY29tX3Bwdi9JdGVtaWQsMjg4L2lkLDI0NzczNDIv).

Re: the Koala, the AW119Ke was also ONLY built in Philly. The point made being not that there is a second line (there isn't), but that AW has been considering moving AW119 production to India since 2010. According to this article (http://www.janes.com/article/40864/tata-agustawestland-jv-decision-deferred-again-by-india) from July, they are still looking at jointly establishing a line locally with Tata, now focused on the AW119Kx.

I/C

[Stinger10]

Didn't Bell just get selected as a finalist for JMR?.......hmmmmm.

Probably why they are only concerned with dumping TH-67s and not lack of competition.

You are right. Looks like AW was doing the same thing Sikorsky has done with the S-92:
Another Tata group company, Tata Advanced Systems Ltd, has a joint venture with Sikorsky Aircraft Corp., a subsidiary of US-based United Technologies Corp., to assemble helicopter cabins in India. The venture was announced in November.

I guess that means that every cabin of the new Presidential Helicopter (VXX) will be built in India......:ok:

[Ian Corrigible]

Maybe Tata will also get the contract to replace The Beast (http://autoweek.com/article/car-life/inside-presidents-armored-limo) with something more appropriate for the current economic climate...? :E

http://s.hswstatic.com/gif/worlds-cheapest-car-1.jpg (http://www.tatanano.com)

I/C

[Stinger10]

IC: well done! :D

[chopper2004]

Not forgetting AW proposed the AW119Kxx for the Navy as TH-57 replacement

http://i57.photobucket.com/albums/g209/longranger/bilde_zps66680ad2.jpg

Cheers

[Hilife]

Clearly another example of the hypocrisy of the USG buying home grown US helicopters and not allowing foreign competitors any chance of winning. :rolleyes:

Thinking of "The pot calling the kettle black," I don’t recall this very same company issuing a restraining order barring the UK MoD from awarding a £1bn ($1.63bn) sole-sourced procurement contract for Future Lynx (AW159) helicopters to AW without a competition back in 2006, nor when it was awarded a strategic partnering arrangement with the MoD the very same year.

As noted by the US Army, fewer platform types has its advantages, so good luck Airbus Helicopters.

[Stinger10]

HI:

As noted by the US Army, fewer platform types has its advantages

Or disadvantages as a trainer.

Clearly another example of the hypocrisy of the USG buying home grown US helicopters and not allowing foreign competitors any chance of winning.

Thinking of "The pot calling the kettle black,

VXX -Sole source ($5.8B)
CRH - Sole source ($9.8B)
Army Trainer - Sole source ($1.0B)

Oh wait the UK MoD just awarded a huge contract to Boeing for Chinooks so your sarcasm was completely wasted....

[Hilife]

VXX & CRH - As you will no doubt recall, but choose not to acknowledge, both VXX and CRH were open tenders, for which a number of company’s expressed an interest and although the wording of the final RFP may well be open to scrutiny on PPRuNe, neither was a Sole-Source tender.

VXX -Sole source ($5.8B) – Wrong (As I recall RFI offerings were submitted by AW/Boeing, Bell/Boeing, Boeing & SAC/LM, although I believe only SAC/LM responded to the RFP).

CRH - Sole source ($9.8B) – Wrong again (As I recall RFI offerings were submitted by Bell, Bell/Boeing, Boeing, Eurocopter, NG/AW & SAC/LM, although again only SAC/LM responded to the RFP).

Army Trainer - Sole source ($1.0B) – Possibly, but under current DoD funding restrictions, just maybe it is the best of the options on the table for the US Army.

Oh wait the UK MoD just awarded a huge contract to Boeing for Chinooks so your sarcasm was completely wasted....

Quite the contrary, you just haven’t done your homework before posting.

The UK MoD/JHC needed to improve battlefield ‘Heavy Lift’ and as the RAF already had 46 Chinooks in inventory, and noting the requirements of FF2020 to reduce helicopter types in service, just what other ‘Heavy Lift’ platform did you expect the UK to buy?

In the 50,000lb category, Boeing is laughing all the way to the bank as there is currently nothing else out there to compete, and do you really think the MoD is going to opt for a mix and procure a batch of 53K’s or Mi-26’s, with 30 plus years of sterling service with the CH47, and with it being the #1 helicopter of choice in the MoD’s inventory?

Future Force 2020 was the brainchild of the 2010 SDSR and with regards to rotary wing capability and noting the need to reduce defence spending (much like the DoD), the MoD decided upon a more affordable structure and as such it was decided to reduce the number of rotary wing platforms in service to essentially a mix of Apache, Chinook, Merlin, Wildcat and in part the Puma helicopters, which roughly figure in type and role as follows:

Apache = Attack
Chinook = Heavy lift
Merlin = CHF Medium lift (Littoral/Maritime) & RN ASW
Puma = Medium Lift (Battlefield)
Wildcat = Maritime (SCMR/LAH) & Land (BRH).

So guess again on the Chinook procurement reasoning.

And yes you are quite right in that having fewer platform types can have its disadvantages.

[Stinger10]

HI:

What you described, and was described by each US service, was a "competitive" solicitation.

What they are is a Sole Source Award. In other words the solicitation was written so narrowly that amazingly only ONE bidder responded. Hence Sole source award which is precisely what they are. $16.6 B worth .........

Possibly, but under current DoD funding restrictions, just maybe it is the best of the options on the table for the US Army.
If the Army doesn't follow any of the required acquisition steps, the Army will never know what options it has. Precisely what an AoA is designed to do, which again, the Army reportedly has not done.

I would whole heartedly agree with you that if the CH-47 meets the requirements it was righteously selected. I wish the US DoD would practice what they preach and allow a competitive process to decide the outcome rather than game the system. The taxpayers deserve the same consideration the UK taxpayers got with the award to the Boeing and the Chinook.

Just as an FYI, AW (ANGLO-Italian company) builds CH-47s too but didn't get these included, even though they are currently building the ICH-47 :8

[Stinger10]

Defense News Mobile - AgustaWestland Lawsuit a Sign Of 'Frustration' With the US (http://mobile.defensenews.com/article/309270028)