Sikorsky, Lockheed drop protest over loss of Army contract
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 weapons 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 longstanding partnership with the U.S. Army, and serving their missions remains our top priority.”
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 weapons systems, an element of a larger engineering design and development category that contributed to the decision. 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 but lacking the 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”.