Former Stewart & Stevenson division to produce Army Marine Corps vehicles by October 2010
A $13 million contract from the Army Aviation & Missile Life Cycle Management Command is coming at a good time for BAE Systems. The defense manufacturing giant which employs 3000 people in Sealy Texas northwest of Houston was delivered a blow in August when it learned the U.S. Army awarded a multibillion-dollar vehicle manufacturing contract to a competitor.
For the new contract BAE will make 64 increased crew protection cab upgrade kits for the High Mobility Artillery Rocket System as well as 65 cab up-armor appliqu kits and spares. The new cabs and appliqu kits will replace unarmored cabs on Army and U.S. Marine Corps HIMARS vehicles and will be produced and completed in Sealy by October 2010.
Nearly 3000 jobs in the Sealy area had recently been thought to be in jeopardy following a recent decision by the U.S. Army to award a multibillion-dollar vehicle manufacturing contract to Oshkosh Corp. a competitor of incumbent manufacturer BAE Systems PLC.
The British defense giant (BAE Systems) purchased the tactical vehicle systems division of the then Houston-based Stewart & Stevenson from Armor Holdings in 2007.
Armor Holdings had acquired the Stewart & Stevenson unit in 2006 for $755 million. The former division of Stewart & Stevenson has been producing the Family of Medium Tactical Vehicles" for the U.S. Army in Sealy since 1992.
The latest contract bid initiated in May represents the first time BAE had directly competed for the project after taking over the Stewart & Stevenson operation according to Dennis Morris BAEs president of global tactical systems who offices in Houston.
On Aug. 26 BAE learned that it had lost the bid to Wisconsin-based Oshkosh.
On Sept. 4 after reviewing a detailed analysis provided by the Army during the formal competition debrief BAE filed a protest of the decision with the U.S. Government Accountability Office.
BAE believes the Army did not properly evaluate the proposals consistent with the governments stated requirements saying the Army failed to accurately assess various risks associated with each separate proposals.
