Force Protection disappointed by not landing Pentagon contract

Company says its growth not dependent on landing deal

Staff and wire reports
Wednesday, July 1, 2009



Armored-vehicle maker Force Protection Inc. said Wednesday it was disappointed about not being picked for a Pentagon contract valued at more than $1 billion but stressed its growth prospects are not dependent on that deal.

A joint venture between Ladson-based manufacturer and General Dynamics Corp. was among three bidders that lost out on a $1.06 billion contract to build blast-resistant off-road trucks for ground forces in Afghanistan, the Pentagon announced Tuesday.

The job went to Oshkosh Corp., which beat out three teams for the deal to build 2,244 vehicles, including Force Dynamics LLC, the Force Protection-General Dynamics venture.

The military has said it needs a lightweight armored vehicle to provide the same type of protection as the hulking mine-resistant, ambush-protected vehicles that have been widely used in Iraq. Many of those so-called MRAPs were built by Force Protection.

But the Pentagon has said the new fleet of trucks needed for Afghanistan must be far more agile, lighter and provide increased maneuverability to handle that country's rocky terrain.

In recent months, Force Dynamics had manufactured several models of its proposed vehicle as part of the Defense Department bidding process

Michael Moody, chief executive officer of Force Protection, said in statement Wednesday "we are disappointed to have not been selected," but that "our business planning and ability to continue to generate growth and value for our shareholders was not dependent upon winning" the contact.

"We remain very optimistic about the near and longer-term opportunities to grow our business and to serve our customers with a diverse array of urgently needed survivability solutions and total life cycle support for our deployed fleet of vehicles," he said. "We are well-positioned to capture a variety of opportunities for service, support, spares, and training that exist with regard to our fleet of deployed vehicles."

Share this story:
E-mail this story E-mail this story  Printer-friendly version Printer-friendly version  

Copy and paste the link:

Add this

Comments

kerwandstarks (anonymous) says...

Good job, Lynn Tilton!

July 1, 2009 at 5:29 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

Notice about comments:

Postandcourier.com is pleased to offer readers the enhanced ability to comment on stories. We expect our readers to engage in lively, yet civil discourse. Postandcourier.com does not edit user submitted statements and we cannot promise that readers will not occasionally find offensive or inaccurate comments posted in the comments area. Responsibility for the statements posted lies with the person submitting the comment, not postandcourier.com. If you find a comment that is objectionable, please click "report abuse" and we will review it for possible removal. Please be reminded, however, that in accordance with our Terms of Use and federal law, we are under no obligation to remove any third party comments posted on our website. Read our full Terms and Conditions.

Users can now build user-to-user connections, follow friends' recent posts, add an avatar that fits their personality, and more. If you have posted here before you'll need to sign up again, or if you've never posted before, start now by signing up!


 

Most Popular

 

Sponsored Links