Defense Acquisitions: Analysis of Processes Used to Evaluate	 
Active Protection Systems (08-JUN-07, GAO-07-759).		 
                                                                 
Active Protection Systems (APS) protect vehicles from attack by  
detecting and intercepting missiles or munitions. In 2005, the	 
lead systems integrator for the Army's Future Combat Systems	 
(FCS) program sought proposals for an APS developer and design	 
and to deliver APS prototypes on vehicles by fiscal year 2009.	 
Raytheon was chosen the APS developer. At the same time, the	 
Department of Defense's Office of Force Transformation (OFT)	 
evaluated near-term APS for potential use in Iraq. GAO was asked 
to review the Army's actions on APS/FCS: (1) the process for	 
selecting the subcontractor to develop an APS for FCS and if	 
potential conflicts of interest were avoided; (2) the timing of  
the trade study and if it followed a consistent methodology to	 
evaluate alternatives, and the results; (3) the role the Army and
Boeing played in selecting the developer; and (4) the process	 
followed to provide a near-term APS solution for current forces. 
-------------------------Indexing Terms------------------------- 
REPORTNUM:   GAO-07-759 					        
    ACCNO:   A70570						        
  TITLE:     Defense Acquisitions: Analysis of Processes Used to      
Evaluate Active Protection Systems				 
     DATE:   06/08/2007 
  SUBJECT:   Defense procurement				 
	     Evaluation criteria				 
	     Military aircraft					 
	     Operational testing				 
	     Program evaluation 				 
	     Source selection					 
	     Systems evaluation 				 
	     Technical proposal evaluation			 
	     Subcontractors					 
	     Army Future Combat Systems 			 
	     Iraq						 

******************************************************************
** This file contains an ASCII representation of the text of a  **
** GAO Product.                                                 **
**                                                              **
** No attempt has been made to display graphic images, although **
** figure captions are reproduced.  Tables are included, but    **
** may not resemble those in the printed version.               **
**                                                              **
** Please see the PDF (Portable Document Format) file, when     **
** available, for a complete electronic file of the printed     **
** document's contents.                                         **
**                                                              **
******************************************************************
GAO-07-759

   

     * [1]Results in Brief
     * [2]Background
     * [3]APS Source Selection Avoided Organizational Conflicts of Int
     * [4]Trade Study Used Consistent Method in Reaffirming Vertical L
     * [5]Army and Lead Systems Integrator Had Extensive Roles in APS
     * [6]OFT Process for Evaluating APS Was More Test-Based and Near-
     * [7]Conclusions
     * [8]Recommendations for Executive Action
     * [9]Agency Comments and Our Evaluation
     * [10]GAO Contact
     * [11]Acknowledgments
     * [12]GAO's Mission
     * [13]Obtaining Copies of GAO Reports and Testimony

          * [14]Order by Mail or Phone

     * [15]To Report Fraud, Waste, and Abuse in Federal Programs
     * [16]Congressional Relations
     * [17]Public Affairs

Report to the Chairman, Subcommittee on Air and Land Forces, Committee on
Armed Services, House of Representatives

United States Government Accountability Office

GAO

June 2007

DEFENSE ACQUISITIONS

Analysis of Processes Used to Evaluate Active Protection Systems

GAO-07-759

Contents

Letter 1

Results in Brief 2
Background 5
APS Source Selection Avoided Organizational Conflicts of Interest 9
Trade Study Used Consistent Method in Reaffirming Vertical Launch Concept
12
Army and Lead Systems Integrator Had Extensive Roles in APS Subcontractor
Selection and Trade Study 17
OFT Process for Evaluating APS Was More Test-Based and Near-Term Oriented
18
Conclusions 21
Recommendations for Executive Action 22
Agency Comments and Our Evaluation 22
Appendix I Scope and Methodology 24
Appendix II Comments from the Department of Defense 25
Appendix III GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments 27

Tables

Table 1: Composition of APS Trade Study Technical Team 13
Table 2: Composition of APS Trade Study Stakeholders 14
Table 3: APS Concepts Considered in Trade Study 15
Table 4: Top-Level Criteria and Associated Weights 15
Table 5: Technology Maturity Levels of APS Alternatives as of May 2006 16
Table 6: APS Candidate Systems and Developers 19

Figures

Figure 1: FCS APS Major Players 6
Figure 2: Timelines for OFT and Army Processes for Evaluating Active
Protection Systems 8

Abbreviations

APS Active Protection System
DOD Department of Defense
FAR Federal Acquisition Regulation
FCS Future Combat System
JUON Joint Urgent Operational Need
RFP Request for Proposal
OFT Office of Force Transformation
OSD Office of the Secretary of Defense
SAIC Science Applications International Corporation
TRL Technology Readiness Level

This is a work of the U.S. government and is not subject to copyright
protection in the United States. It may be reproduced and distributed in
its entirety without further permission from GAO. However, because this
work may contain copyrighted images or other material, permission from the
copyright holder may be necessary if you wish to reproduce this material
separately.

United States Government Accountability Office
Washington, DC 20548

June 8, 2007

The Honorable Neil Abercrombie
Chairman
The Honorable Jim Saxton
Ranking Member
Subcommittee on Air and Land Forces
Committee on Armed Services
House of Representatives

An Active Protection System (APS) is intended to protect a vehicle from
attack by detecting and intercepting missiles or munitions before they hit
the vehicle. It has significant possibilities for offering light vehicles
some of the protection that armor gives, without the extra weight. In
April 2005, BAE, a subcontractor for the Army's Future Combat System (FCS)
program, issued a draft request for proposals to choose the developer for
an APS for FCS and current force manned ground vehicles. To avoid an
organizational conflict of interest, the lead systems integrator, the
Boeing Company, ultimately reissued the draft request for proposals, after
BAE decided to submit its own bid on this contract. Raytheon was
eventually chosen as the APS developer and a subsequent trade study
reached the conclusion that Raytheon's vertical launch concept was the
optimal solution to meet the APS requirements. Also, in April 2005, the
U.S. Central Command issued an urgent operational need statement to field
a combination of near-term technologies, including a different APS, on a
modified Stryker vehicle, the Full-Spectrum Effects Platform, for
demonstration and potential use in Iraq. The effort made in response to
this need was managed by the Office of Force Transformation (OFT), which
reported to the Secretary of Defense. After evaluating six candidate APS,
the OFT chose to test the Trophy APS because they considered it to be the
most technically mature. In June 2006, the Joint Rapid Acquisition Cell
decided to defer fielding the APS system. An Active Protection System
(APS) is intended to protect a vehicle from attack by detecting and
intercepting missiles or munitions before they hit the vehicle. It has
significant possibilities for offering light vehicles some of the
protection that armor gives, without the extra weight. In April 2005, BAE,
a subcontractor for the Army's Future Combat System (FCS) program, issued
a draft request for proposals to choose the developer for an APS for FCS
and current force manned ground vehicles. To avoid an organizational
conflict of interest, the lead systems integrator, the Boeing Company,
ultimately reissued the draft request for proposals, after BAE decided to
submit its own bid on this contract. Raytheon was eventually chosen as the
APS developer and a subsequent trade study reached the conclusion that
Raytheon's vertical launch concept was the optimal solution to meet the
APS requirements. Also, in April 2005, the U.S. Central Command issued an
urgent operational need statement to field a combination of near-term
technologies, including a different APS, on a modified Stryker vehicle,
the Full-Spectrum Effects Platform, for demonstration and potential use in
Iraq. The effort made in response to this need was managed by the Office
of Force Transformation (OFT), which reported to the Secretary of Defense.
After evaluating six candidate APS, the OFT chose to test the Trophy APS
because they considered it to be the most technically mature. In June
2006, the Joint Rapid Acquisition Cell decided to defer fielding the APS
system.
*** End of document. ***