Oshkosh challenges US Army’s JLTV contract decision with GAO protest
It is unclear what effect the protest will have on the timeline for AM General to produce JLTVs. (Photo: US DoD)
According to an analysis by Shephard Defence Insight, AM General’s bid could have reduced the JLTV unit cost by as much as $30,000.
Oshkosh Defense has filed a formal protest with the Government Accountability Office (GAO) over the US Army’s decision to award a follow-on Joint Light Tactical Vehicle (JLTV) contract to competitor AM General.
Oshkosh set off an independent GAO review of the award on 6 March.
In February, the US Army awarded AM General an $8.66 billion contract for production of up to 20,682 JLTVs) and up to 9,883 trailers.
According to calculations by Shephard Defence Insight analyst Sam Hart, AM General may have undercut the current unit cost of the JLTV by around $30,000 based on the award value.
Our news & analysis is now part of Defence Insight®
A Basic-level or higher Defence Insight subscription is now required to view this content.
More from Land Warfare
-
![Europe’s eastern flank moves on air defence radars with wider efforts also underway]()
Europe’s eastern flank moves on air defence radars with wider efforts also underway
Air defence radars have become more important assets in the past year with incursions in NATO countries on Europe’s eastern flank highlighting the need.
-
![Australia’s SM-2 land trial could reshape ADF medium-range air defence plans]()
Australia’s SM-2 land trial could reshape ADF medium-range air defence plans
The first ground launch of the SM-2 could offer Canberra a path to expand its missile defence capability by adapting systems already fielded across the ADF.
-
![UK hits pause on deployable mortar system procurement as US begins search]()
UK hits pause on deployable mortar system procurement as US begins search
The US Army's market survey into available 81mm and 120mm mobile mortar systems was launched only a few days after the UK suspended Project Stokes, an almost identical plan, “pending future decisions on prioritisation, resourcing and funding”.
