The Army's future force system project for multipurpose unmanned vehicles is at risk of becoming a "half measure." While Hyundai Rotem is protesting the Defense Acquisition Program Administration's evaluation and procedural methods, Hanwha Aerospace passed the final evaluation gate alone without a competitor. With fairness concerns raising the possibility the project itself could be voided, criticism is mounting that the Defense Acquisition Program Administration failed to properly manage the program.
On the 19th, Hanwha Aerospace said its multipurpose unmanned vehicle "Arion-Smet" completed the performance verification evaluation for the Army's multipurpose unmanned vehicle procurement program alone, without a rival. The evaluation was intended to comparatively assess six items (type A evaluation items), including top speed and cruising range, against the performance proposed by each defense company, and it was conducted as a live test over about three weeks starting on the 3rd.
The multipurpose unmanned vehicle is a core asset of the Army's future force system "Army Tiger 4.0." It enhances the combat effectiveness of infantry units and supports surveillance, strike, and logistics transport for sustained operations. The budget set is 49.6 billion won; the program is not large for now, but it could expand into second and third phases, drawing strong industry interest. 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 equipment taken off-site
The Defense Acquisition Program Administration planned to finish testing, evaluation, and price negotiations and sign a contract in June last year. But confusion arose from the evaluation method.
In April last year, the Defense Acquisition Program Administration notified the two companies that, for the performance verification evaluation, it would be sufficient to meet only the figures listed in each proposal submitted at the 2024 bid. Although performance could have improved over the year since proposal submission, there would be no extra points even if a system outperformed its proposal in testing. Hyundai Rotem argued that maximum performance should be remeasured under identical conditions.
An industry official, referring to the change in the performance verification criteria, noted, "Since it was the Defense Acquisition Program Administration's first time, it failed to set the test properly." The Defense Acquisition Program Administration ultimately decided to change the method to confirm the maximum performance demonstrated in live testing. With Hanwha Aerospace also agreeing to accept the decision by Hyundai Rotem and the Defense Acquisition Program Administration, the agency and the two companies began discussions in March last year on the verification methods for six items.
However, another fairness controversy erupted. At the Defense Acquisition Program Administration's request, Hanwha Aerospace and Hyundai Rotem each submitted two prototypes for testing, but one of Hanwha Aerospace's prototypes was taken off-site. The prototype removed from the site was displayed at a "Dafago" event the Defense Acquisition Program Administration held at Hanwha Aerospace's Daejeon R&D Campus in March last year.
Hanwha Aerospace said the removal went through formal procedures in consultation with the Defense Acquisition Program Administration, but it was difficult to avoid dispute. Hyundai Rotem said, "Hanwha Aerospace took one of the two units off-site and did not return it for more than a year," adding, "Under the current circumstances, it is difficult to ensure a fair performance evaluation of the vehicle."
Since the prototypes are identical, performance can be altered with software adjustments alone, and simulated runs could have been conducted to match the publicly known test site, Hyundai Rotem said.
Responding to this claim, Hanwha Aerospace countered, "Through civilian experts commissioned by the Defense Acquisition Program Administration, a precise verification was conducted and it was confirmed that 'there were no changes at all.'" The Defense Acquisition Program Administration is said to have taken the position that only one primary prototype was needed and that demanding the return of equipment once taken off-site could cause bigger problems, so it did not request a return.
◇ Possibility of the project being voided… "The Defense Acquisition Program Administration failed to set the test properly"
Although Hanwha Aerospace completed the performance verification evaluation, it remains uncertain whether the process can move on to the next stage of price bidding. Hyundai Rotem is maintaining that it "cannot participate in the performance verification evaluation without fairness being ensured."
Because the evaluation took place without proper competition, the process may need to be voided, followed by a re-announcement in which the two companies participate as is, or a completely new announcement. A scenario in which Hanwha Aerospace negotiates alone also exists, but it is seen as unlikely.
Some in the industry say the Defense Acquisition Program Administration was lax in program management. An industry official said, "As Hyundai Rotem argues, the company that shows the highest performance on site should be selected, but if the bidding is repeated, it would also create confusion and harm for Hanwha Aerospace, which has followed procedures properly so far," adding, "As the evaluation process became muddled, unnecessary conflict among the industry and delays in force integration occurred."