Latest News
In a decision that shocked analysts and even the competitors, the U.S. Army awarded ViaSat the Blue Force Tracking 2 (BFT-2) contract to upgrade 100,000 Army vehicles with a next-generation tracking system intended to prevent friendly fire incidents.
In winning the contract, which was unveiled July 22, ViaSat accomplished a difficult and unusual feat — unseating a military program incumbent by offering new technology at a lower cost. ViaSat Vice President of Global Satcom Systems Phil Berry spoke with Via Satellite about the company’s reaction and how ViaSat plans to implement its ArcLight-based BFT-2 offering while meeting deadlines.
Via Satellite: Why did the Army choose ViaSat’s ArcLight technology for the BFT-2 program?
Berry: We believe that the Army has developed a confidence and understanding of our technology and working relationship, which led them to choose us. We had been working with them for the past five years on this solution. We started exploring options back in 2005 to upgrade the satellite network, and we were put under contract by Northrop Grumann to develop a prototype solution in 2007. We delivered the prototypes, and they were tested quite thoroughly for performance and latency. Shortly after, in 2008, we were awarded a contract from the Army’s program office for initial production of that same unit.
Beyond that, we haven’t had a detailed dialog with the Army yet. We requested a debriefing with the Army immediately after we were notified about the award. We have not had that meeting yet. We will know more details about the Army’s decision when we have our kick off meeting, which is scheduled for 30-days after the contract award on August 22.
Beyond that, we haven’t had a detailed dialog with the Army yet. We requested a debriefing with the Army immediately after we were notified about the award. We have not had that meeting yet. We will know more details about the Army’s decision when we have our kick off meeting, which is scheduled for 30-days after the contract award on August 22.
Via Satellite: After playing down its chances of winning — even COO Rick Baldridge said, “If I were a betting man, I would bet on the incumbent” — was ViaSat surprised that it was chosen?
Berry: We were a little surprised. Rick was correct in saying that, because it is very rare to unseat an incumbent in an existing military program. While it is a difficult task, the Army strongly supports open competition. We offered the best price for BFT-2 that we could, which we believe is both fair and legal. The technology stands on its own merit. The Army has had experience with this technology and the capabilities over the past several years. We gave it our best shot and we were fortunate that we were chosen.
Via Satellite: Comtech said ViaSat’s bid of $250 million was 50 percent less than Comtech, but when ViaSat announced the contract win, the value was listed at $477 million. Why are these numbers different? If they are accurate, how were you able to underbid them so drastically?
Berry: Comtech’s contract bid figure is valid. The $250 million is just an evaluated price. When we were bidding on this program, we set discrete prices at certain quantities and components over a five- to six-year period. The Army then took our price and put together an evaluated quantity under a pyramid approach. By adding that all up, you get a total value of cost. The $477 million figure wasn’t necessarily the bid. It was the way the Army evaluated it. They try to take two offerings and compare them in a fair way by defining quantities — for example, 15,000 units the first year, 20,000 units the next, etc. The Army just adds up the price for each unit and totals it together. The Army stated a year ago when they first put out the RFI, that their intent was to award a $477 million dollar contract ceiling. There’s no guarantee or commitment under the ID/IQ.
As far as underbidding Comtech’s offer goes, I don’t know the details of the Comtech bid, other than what we have seen in the press release. I can’t speculate on why they were so much higher. I can say that I was surprised by the discrepancy.
As far as underbidding Comtech’s offer goes, I don’t know the details of the Comtech bid, other than what we have seen in the press release. I can’t speculate on why they were so much higher. I can say that I was surprised by the discrepancy.
Via Satellite: Comtech said it plans to file a protest. How long would a protest delay the BFT-2 program?
Berry: It depends on what the Army’s BFT-2 program office wants to do. There are some cases where they may choose to stop work if the protest raises a real concern. However, if there isn’t a real concern, they will continue on with the program while they work through the protest.
Via Satellite: What are the first steps in deploying your BFT-2 system and what is the roll-out schedule?
Berry: We’re authorized to proceed and under contract to execute now. Under the ID/IQ, the first delivery order was for $37.7 million. These initial quantities that were ordered are for testing. Our first objective is to get these units into final acceptance testing and deliver the initial units within a year. Overall, the contract has five base years with one option — 14,000 in the first year, ramping up to 20,000 and leveling off, with a total 100,000 units outfitted. That’s how the rough scheduling was outlined in the RP package.
Via Satellite: Describe the technology that you are providing to the Army with your BFT-2 solution.
Berry: Our BFT-2 solution is still an L-band satellite terminal derived from our ArcLight mobile satellite communication technology, which provides broadband communications-on-the-move service to multiple customer classes. The terminal provides forward link rates of 3 kilobits per second. With upgrades, the return rates can reach up to 6.2 kilobits per second. It is a very flexible design, and the approach allows for fairly easy evolution to allow other capabilities, such as sparse mode, which is a concept where it can be used in a more global nature. Along with this system, we’re implementing the ground system, equipment and networking center around it.
Via Satellite: Is ViaSat’s BFT-2 offering compatible with the Army’s legacy systems?
Berry: It is not compatible over the air, but our BFT-2 is an IP-based system, so we can, in essence, coexist with the existing system. The system in operation has to be maintained in this transition from a proprietary network to an open IP-standard communication network.
Via Satellite: Will you need to obtain additional resources or infrastructure to support the system?
Berry: We have the internal resources to execute the Army’s program order. Obviously, there are certain things that we have to procure through third parties — such as satellite bandwidth. We have been in discussions with several bandwidth sources on forming partnerships to support the BFT-2 program, which will be announced as the project moves forward. We also have several manufacturing, assembly and testing partnerships that have already been established with us and are working with us to meet the Army’s BFT-2 requirement.
Get the latest Via Satellite news!
Subscribe Now