search.noResults

search.searching

dataCollection.invalidEmail
note.createNoteMessage

search.noResults

search.searching

orderForm.title

orderForm.productCode
orderForm.description
orderForm.quantity
orderForm.itemPrice
orderForm.price
orderForm.totalPrice
orderForm.deliveryDetails.billingAddress
orderForm.deliveryDetails.deliveryAddress
orderForm.noItems
I OPENING by Mr. John Irizarry and Mr. Peter Burke T


here is little doubt that sales of U.S. military equipment and ammunition through foreign military sales


cial sales (DCS) is big business. According


to the Defense Security Cooperation Agency, FMS in FY15 topped $35 billion, a $4 billion increase over FY14. Some available data suggest that DCS are on the order of two to three times these annual amounts. Tese sales represent a boon to defense contractors, a critical stabi- lizer for the U.S. defense industrial base and a strategic benefit to U.S. partner nations.


However, there are several barriers to increasing these sales beyond current levels. Tis article examines two of these barriers and discusses a prototype program to improve U.S. defense competitiveness implemented by a cadre of defense organizations, including the U.S. Army Research, Development and Engineering Command’s Armament Research, Development and Engineering Center (RDECOM-ARDEC) and the project manager for combat ammunition systems (PM CAS) within the Program Executive Office (PEO) for Ammunition.


(FMS) or direct commer-


POLICIES LOCK U.S. CONTRACTORS OUT OF FOREIGN COMPETITIONS As in the United States, many countries have implemented statutes and regulations regarding the competitive acquisition of defense-related products. Tese competi- tive rules may be set aside in cases where technologically advanced weapons and munitions can be purchased from only one source. However, in many areas, such as conventional ammunition and weapons, countries routinely use these competitive practices to ensure the lowest price for products. In these cases, nations will use a request for tender (RFT), request for proposal (RFP), request for quote (RFQ) or other contractual processes designed to promote competition.


Responses to these requests through a proposal are typi- cally required within one to three months. Te FMS system requires reviews from many government stake- holders to assure a complete and correct response, and depending on the complexity, it can take many months to complete.


nternational markets


It’s usually a good thing when the U.S. government retains the intellectual property rights for weapon systems and technologies. That can, however, prevent U.S. companies from competing to sell to foreign governments. With a cooperative research and development agreement and a let ter of the government’s intent to provide technical data, international markets open to U.S. industry and allies’ equipment is more interoperable with U.S. equipment.


ASC.ARMY.MIL


27


ACQUISITION


Page 1  |  Page 2  |  Page 3  |  Page 4  |  Page 5  |  Page 6  |  Page 7  |  Page 8  |  Page 9  |  Page 10  |  Page 11  |  Page 12  |  Page 13  |  Page 14  |  Page 15  |  Page 16  |  Page 17  |  Page 18  |  Page 19  |  Page 20  |  Page 21  |  Page 22  |  Page 23  |  Page 24  |  Page 25  |  Page 26  |  Page 27  |  Page 28  |  Page 29  |  Page 30  |  Page 31  |  Page 32  |  Page 33  |  Page 34  |  Page 35  |  Page 36  |  Page 37  |  Page 38  |  Page 39  |  Page 40  |  Page 41  |  Page 42  |  Page 43  |  Page 44  |  Page 45  |  Page 46  |  Page 47  |  Page 48  |  Page 49  |  Page 50  |  Page 51  |  Page 52  |  Page 53  |  Page 54  |  Page 55  |  Page 56  |  Page 57  |  Page 58  |  Page 59  |  Page 60  |  Page 61  |  Page 62  |  Page 63  |  Page 64  |  Page 65  |  Page 66  |  Page 67  |  Page 68  |  Page 69  |  Page 70  |  Page 71  |  Page 72  |  Page 73  |  Page 74  |  Page 75  |  Page 76  |  Page 77  |  Page 78  |  Page 79  |  Page 80  |  Page 81  |  Page 82  |  Page 83  |  Page 84  |  Page 85  |  Page 86  |  Page 87  |  Page 88  |  Page 89  |  Page 90  |  Page 91  |  Page 92  |  Page 93  |  Page 94  |  Page 95  |  Page 96  |  Page 97  |  Page 98  |  Page 99  |  Page 100  |  Page 101  |  Page 102  |  Page 103  |  Page 104  |  Page 105  |  Page 106  |  Page 107  |  Page 108  |  Page 109  |  Page 110  |  Page 111  |  Page 112  |  Page 113  |  Page 114  |  Page 115  |  Page 116  |  Page 117  |  Page 118  |  Page 119  |  Page 120  |  Page 121  |  Page 122  |  Page 123  |  Page 124  |  Page 125  |  Page 126  |  Page 127  |  Page 128  |  Page 129  |  Page 130  |  Page 131  |  Page 132  |  Page 133  |  Page 134  |  Page 135  |  Page 136  |  Page 137  |  Page 138  |  Page 139  |  Page 140  |  Page 141  |  Page 142  |  Page 143  |  Page 144  |  Page 145  |  Page 146  |  Page 147  |  Page 148  |  Page 149  |  Page 150  |  Page 151  |  Page 152  |  Page 153  |  Page 154  |  Page 155  |  Page 156  |  Page 157  |  Page 158  |  Page 159  |  Page 160  |  Page 161  |  Page 162  |  Page 163  |  Page 164  |  Page 165  |  Page 166  |  Page 167  |  Page 168  |  Page 169  |  Page 170  |  Page 171  |  Page 172  |  Page 173  |  Page 174  |  Page 175  |  Page 176  |  Page 177  |  Page 178  |  Page 179  |  Page 180  |  Page 181  |  Page 182  |  Page 183  |  Page 184