The Army's future force system project for multipurpose unmanned vehicles is on the verge of becoming a "half measure." While Hyundai Rotem is protesting the Defense Acquisition Program Administration's evaluation and procedural methods, Hanwha Aerospace cleared the final evaluation hurdle alone, without a competitor. With fairness concerns raising the possibility the project itself could be nullified, the administration faces criticism that it failed to properly manage the program.
On the 19th, Hanwha Aerospace said the multipurpose unmanned vehicle "Arion-SMet" completed the performance confirmation evaluation for the Army's multipurpose unmanned vehicle procurement program on its own, without rival bidders. The evaluation was designed to comparatively assess six items (Type A evaluation items), including top speed and cruising range, against the performance proposed by defense contractors, and it was conducted as a live hardware test over about three weeks starting on the 3rd.
Multipurpose unmanned vehicles are a core asset of "Army Tiger 4.0," the Army's future force system. They enhance the combat efficiency of infantry units and support surveillance/strike and logistics transport for sustained operations. The budget set is 49.6 billion won, so the project is not large for now, but industry interest has been high because it could expand into second- and third-phase projects. In Apr. 2024, the Defense Acquisition Program Administration issued a bid notice, and Hanwha Aerospace and Hyundai Rotem entered the race.
◇ Fairness controversy from the evaluation method… even the removal of equipment
The Defense Acquisition Program Administration planned to complete testing, evaluation, and price negotiations and even sign a contract by June last year. But confusion arose from the evaluation method itself.
In Apr. last year, the administration notified the two companies that, for the performance confirmation evaluation, it would be sufficient to meet only the figures listed in the proposals each had submitted at the time of the 2024 bid. Although performance could have improved over the one year since proposal submission, there would be no extra points even if a system outperformed the proposal in testing. Hyundai Rotem argued that maximum performance should be remeasured under identical conditions.
An industry official, referring to the change in performance confirmation criteria, noted, "Since it was the administration's first time taking this path, it failed to draft the test questions properly." The administration ultimately decided to change the evaluation method to verify the maximum performance demonstrated in live testing. Hanwha Aerospace also agreed to accept the decision by Hyundai Rotem and the administration, and starting in Mar. last year, the administration and the two companies began discussions on methods to verify performance across six items.
However, another fairness controversy erupted. At the administration's request, Hanwha Aerospace and Hyundai Rotem each submitted two prototypes for testing, but one of Hanwha Aerospace's prototypes was removed. The prototype taken out was displayed at a "Dapago" event the administration held at Hanwha Aerospace's Daejeon R&D Campus in Mar. last year.
Hanwha Aerospace said it followed formal procedures in consultation with the administration to remove the unit, but it was hard to avoid controversy. Hyundai Rotem said, "Hanwha Aerospace removed one of the two units and has not returned it for over a year," adding, "In the current situation, it is difficult to collateral fair performance evaluation of the vehicle."
Hyundai Rotem explained that, since the prototypes are identical, performance can be altered with software adjustments alone, and mock runs tailored to the publicly known test site could also have been possible.
In response, Hanwha Aerospace countered, "Through civilian experts engaged by the administration, precision verification was conducted, and it was confirmed that 'there were no changes at all.'" The administration's position is that the prototype for performance confirmation was not removed and that the unit retrieved by the company was not the performance confirmation prototype, so there is no problem.
◇ Possibility of nullifying the project… "The administration failed to draft the test questions properly"
Although Hanwha Aerospace completed the performance confirmation evaluation, it remains uncertain whether the process can move to the next stage of price bidding. Hyundai Rotem is holding to the position that it "cannot participate in the performance confirmation evaluation without collateral for fairness."
Given that the evaluation was conducted without proper competition, procedures to nullify the bid may be required, followed by a reannouncement in which the two companies participate as is, or a completely new call for bids. A scenario of exclusive negotiations with Hanwha Aerospace is also possible, but is said to be unlikely.
Some in the industry say the administration fell short in managing the project. An industry official said, "As Hyundai Rotem argues, the company that shows the best performance on site should be selected, but if the bidding is repeated, it will also cause confusion and harm to Hanwha Aerospace, which has followed procedures properly so far," adding, "As the evaluation process became muddled, unnecessary conflict between the industry and setbacks to force integration occurred."