Industry: Carbine competition lacks flexibility - Military News | News From Afghanistan, Iraq And Around The World - Military Times

Industry: Carbine competition lacks flexibility

Some industry leaders are suggesting soldiers may not get the best possible weapon because the Army’s $30 million carbine competition is too restrictive in scope and offers more risk than return.

Army Times spoke with more than a half-dozen senior industry leaders on the matter. Some spoke on the condition of anonymity so as not to jeopardize their chances in the competition. Army leaders are at a disadvantage, as they cannot comment since the competition is now accepting official proposals. But they have in the past been swift to answer questions and give assurance that this competition will be honest and equitable.

The concerns and complaints are various, but largely fall into one of three categories: rights to technical data, quality control during production, and perceived limits on capabilities and calibers.

The rights to technical data are an especially hot issue. The Army’s solicitation requires the winner to turn over said data and rights. The Army will then distribute the blueprints to two other companies that will each produce one-third of the weapons purchased.

One senior industry official said that rule may keep the best weapons out of the competition. If a company entered its best weapon and won, all of the trade secrets that gave that carbine the advantage would be revealed. And while building a few hundred thousand weapons may seem worth the risk, most companies stand to make more in law enforcement and commercial sales if they remain a step ahead of the competition.

Another official saw a different problem. The Army solicitation allows each company to either request a flat fee for technical data rights, or royalties off of each carbine produced. This is to compensate for the proprietary data that is surrendered. But the official felt this approach could have unexpected consequences.

“All of the weapons are relatively close in capability,” the official said. “A laser gun is not going to show up. It is far more likely that the top three contenders will be very close in the various tests. Then, the deciding factor will likely be the cost.”

A scenario could play out like this, he said.

If ‘Weapon A’ was best, with ‘Weapon B’ close behind, and ‘Weapon C’ on its heels, the Army could choose Weapon A. But if that manufacturer imposes a hefty tech data fee, the price goes up. If Weapon B looks to recoup potential losses with royalties on each one sold, his price also escalates. But if the maker of Weapon C risks little or nothing for his tech data rights, the government will go with option three, which wasn’t the best weapon of the three.

Others see little reason for concern. “The Army’s decision to retain the General Purpose License Rights for the individual carbine they select for production is well within their purview in accordance with Federal Acquisition Regulations and Defense Acquisition Regulations,” said Mark Cherpes, executive vice president for FNH USA. “FN has worked with the Army for more than 40 years in this manner and is comfortable with their chosen acquisition strategy.”

Perceived limits on capabilities and calibers have also drawn ire. Specifically, the lack of recognition for modular weaponry has left some surprised, and others frustrated.

The Army shot down an April 18 request by an industry official who asked that the allowance of only a single design be removed so multiple designs could be submitted.

“The Army kept pushing modularity. They even reinforced this at the carbine competition’s Industry Day,” one industry official said. “So companies spent millions and millions developing weapons that can change barrel lengths and calibers, and for what? The variations are not allowed in the tests, and you get no added credit for the added capability.

“If you had to choose between a weapon with one barrel length and one caliber that just barely outperforms a weapon that comes with three barrel lengths and two calibers, which would you chose?” the official asked. “Under these guidelines, the soldier will get the first.”

And speaking of calibers, one official said, “Don’t let the ‘open caliber’ clause fool you.”

The Army has said submissions can come in any caliber. But gun makers have to bring 234,000 rounds if the carbine is not 5.56mm or 7.62mm.

“Do you know how much it would cost to make that kind of switch?” the official asked. “Billions. So don’t count on it.”

Production provides the third area of discontent. The winning weapon will be built by three different companies. The Army would first award a contract of 178,890 carbines to the winning contractor. Additional quantities needed would be shared among the companies. This is to ensure production continues even if one company becomes unable to meet goals. While this is a common approach with most Army procurements, it is a new approach for individual carbines.

“If my company wins the competition, our name is on the side of that weapon,” said one industry official. “If two other companies are going to build that carbine, I want to know what kind of quality control is going to be in place. If the weapon has a lot of problems, the soldier isn’t going to look to see where it was made. He is going to look at the name on the side.”

Industry has until Sept. 27 to submit its proposals.

Weapons will be scored in five areas, in order of priority:

• Development tests. These are anchored by a detailed evaluation of accuracy and dispersion at distances of 100, 300 and 600 meters using 90 rounds at each range. Another 21,600 rounds will be used to test reliability, durability and barrel life. Weapons will be tested to their destruction point and to determine whether they maintain accuracy throughout their life cycle — something the military has not tested before. A weapon typically loses accuracy as it ages.

Other events will test recoil mitigation, signature reduction and firing compatibility with the M320 grenade launcher, M26 Modular Accessory Shotgun System and suppressor.

• Secondary development tests. Incapacitation is key here as the weapons must score kills in as few shots as possible. Sustained rates of fire and cook-off will be tested, as will the weapon’s ability to operate in extreme temperatures and environments.

Weapons will be beat up, dropped, submerged in water and fired while lacking lubrication and covered by ice and mud.

• Cost. The Army isn’t willing to get hoodwinked into high prices. But the request for proposals also states that “when all evaluation factors other than price are combined, they are significantly more important than price.”

• Government purpose rights. The Army will contract three vendors to produce a maximum of 178,890 carbines each. While this aspect of the contract is not a favorite among manufacturers, Army officials say it will keep costs down and ensure weapons keep coming even if one manufacturer can’t meet production goals.

• Limited user evaluation. These tests will use co-ed teams of 16 soldiers to determine each weapon’s probability and quality of hit, time of first trigger pull and mobility/portability in an operational environment.

Only the top three contenders will emerge from phase two. Then, the competition becomes an exercise in analytics as officials weigh the good against the bad to determine which weapon has the best bang for its buck.

The winning carbine will then face off against the improved M4A1 in a battle to become your next weapon.