{"id":86382,"date":"2010-08-18T17:08:31","date_gmt":"2010-08-18T09:08:31","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/wp-productionenv-bjg9h2g2bgg5b8aa.southeastasia-01.azurewebsites.net\/news\/viasats-berry-on-bft-2-contract-win\/"},"modified":"2010-08-18T17:08:31","modified_gmt":"2010-08-18T09:08:31","slug":"viasats-berry-on-bft-2-contract-win","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/starpath.global\/news\/viasats-berry-on-bft-2-contract-win\/","title":{"rendered":"ViaSat\u2019s Berry On BFT-2 Contract Win"},"content":{"rendered":"<p><img decoding=\"async\" vspace=\"8\" hspace=\"8\" border=\"1\" align=\"right\" src=\"\/Assets\/Image\/SN%20Berry%20ViaSat.jpg\" alt=\"\">In a decision that shocked analysts and even the competitors, the <strong>U.S. Army<\/strong> awarded <strong>ViaSat<\/strong>  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.<br \/>\n&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; In winning the contract, which was unveiled July 22, ViaSat  accomplished a difficult and unusual feat \u2014 unseating a military program  incumbent by offering new technology at a lower cost. ViaSat Vice  President of Global Satcom Systems Phil Berry spoke with<em> Via Satellite<\/em> about the company\u2019s reaction and how ViaSat plans to implement its ArcLight-based BFT-2 offering while meeting deadlines.<\/p>\n<h2>Via Satellite: Why did the Army choose ViaSat\u2019s ArcLight technology for the BFT-2 program?<\/h2>\n<p><strong>Berry: <\/strong>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\u2019s program office for initial production of that same unit. <br \/>\n&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; Beyond that, we haven\u2019t 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\u2019s decision when we have our kick off meeting,  which is scheduled for 30-days after the contract award on August 22.<\/p>\n<h2>Via Satellite: After playing down its chances of winning \u2014 even COO  Rick Baldridge said, \u201cIf I were a betting man, I would bet on the  incumbent\u201d \u2014 was ViaSat surprised that it was chosen?<\/h2>\n<p><strong>Berry:<\/strong> 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.<\/p>\n<h2>Via Satellite: Comtech said ViaSat\u2019s 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?<\/h2>\n<p><strong>Berry: <\/strong>Comtech\u2019s 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\u2019t  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  \u2014 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\u2019s no  guarantee or commitment under the ID\/IQ. <br \/>\n&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; As far as underbidding Comtech\u2019s offer goes, I don\u2019t know the  details of the Comtech bid, other than what we have seen in the press  release. I can\u2019t speculate on why they were so much higher. I can say  that I was surprised by the discrepancy.&nbsp;<\/p>\n<h2>Via Satellite: Comtech said it plans to file a protest. How long would a protest delay the BFT-2 program?<\/h2>\n<p><strong>Berry:<\/strong> It depends on what the Army\u2019s 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\u2019t a  real concern, they will continue on with the program while they work  through the protest.<\/p>\n<h2>Via Satellite: What are the first steps in deploying your BFT-2 system and what is the roll-out schedule?<\/h2>\n<p><strong>Berry:<\/strong> We\u2019re 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 \u2014 14,000 in the first year, ramping up to  20,000 and leveling off, with a total 100,000 units outfitted. That\u2019s  how the rough scheduling was outlined in the RP package.<\/p>\n<h2>Via Satellite: Describe the technology that you are providing to the Army with your BFT-2 solution.<\/h2>\n<p><strong>Berry<\/strong>: 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\u2019re implementing the ground  system, equipment and networking center around it.<\/p>\n<h2>Via Satellite: Is ViaSat\u2019s BFT-2 offering compatible with the Army\u2019s legacy systems?<\/h2>\n<p><strong>Berry:<\/strong> 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.<\/p>\n<h2>Via Satellite: Will you need to obtain additional resources or infrastructure to support the system?<\/h2>\n<p><strong><br \/>\nBerry:<\/strong> We have the internal resources to execute the Army\u2019s  program order. Obviously, there are certain things that we have to  procure through third parties \u2014 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\u2019s BFT-2 requirement.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>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. &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; In winning the contract, which was unveiled July 22, ViaSat accomplished a difficult and unusual feat [&hellip;]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"","ping_status":"","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_acf_changed":false,"inline_featured_image":false,"footnotes":"","_links_to":"","_links_to_target":""},"categories":[2],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-86382","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-news"],"acf":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/starpath.global\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/86382"}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/starpath.global\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/starpath.global\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/starpath.global\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/starpath.global\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=86382"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/starpath.global\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/86382\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/starpath.global\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=86382"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/starpath.global\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=86382"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/starpath.global\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=86382"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}