link to page 1 link to page 2 
Updated December 14, 2021
The Army’s Mobile Protected Firepower (MPF) System
What Is the Mobile Protected Firepower On December 17, 2018, the Army awarded two Section 804
(MPF) System?
Middle Tier Acquisition (MTA) Rapid Prototyping
The Army’s MPF system is intended to address an
contracts for MPF. The two companies awarded contracts
operational shortfall:
were General Dynamic Land Systems (GDLS), Inc.
(Sterling Heights, MI) and BAE Systems Land and
Currently the Army’s Infantry Brigade Combat
Armaments, LP (Sterling Heights, MI). Each MTA Rapid
Teams (IBCT) do not have a combat vehicle
Prototyping contract was not to exceed $376 million. The
assigned that is capable of providing mobile,
MTA Rapid Prototyping contracts required delivery of 12
protected, direct, offensive fire capability.... The
pre-production vehicles (from each vendor) for
MPF solution is an integration of existing mature
developmental and operational testing, and a Soldier
technologies
and
components
that
avoids
Vehicle Assessment (SVA).
development which would lengthen the program
schedule.
Reportedly, BAE delivered its prototypes (Figure 1) to the
Army in March 2021 after production difficulties and
Operationally, the Army wants the MPF to be able to
supplier issues related to COVID-19. Reportedly, GDLS
was able to deliver all of its prototypes (Figure 2) in
Neutralize enemy prepared positions and bunkers
December 2020. The SVA reportedly began in January
and defeat heavy machine guns and armored
2021 at Fort Bragg, NC—without the BAE prototypes—
vehicle threats during offensive operations or when
with testing scheduled to run through June 2021. During the
conducting defensive operations against attacking
assessment, soldiers were to assess MPF prototypes in a
enemies.
variety of operational scenarios. If subsequent operational
testing proved successful, the Army plans to select a single
In terms of the Army’s overall procurement plans for MPF,
vendor and transition into production near the end of
FY2022.
The Army Acquisition Objective (AAO) for MPF
is 504 vehicles, with 14 MPFs per IBCT. The
Figure 1. BAE MPF Prototype
targeted fielding for the First Unit Equipped (FUE)
is Fiscal Year (FY) 2025.
MPF Acquisition Strategy
In November 2017, the Army issued a Request for Proposal
(RFP) for the Engineering and Manufacturing Development
(EMD) phase and, in order to maximize competition,
planned to award up to two Middle Tier Acquisition (MTA)
contracts for the EMD phase in early FY2019.
Middle Tier Acquisition (MTA) according to the Defense
Acquisition University, is a rapid acquisition approach that
Source: https://www.baesystems.com/en-us/article/bae-systems-
focuses on delivering capability in a period of 2 to 5 years. The
awarded-development-contract-for-mobile-protected-firepower,
authority to use MTA was granted by Congress in Section 804
accessed June 14, 2021.
of the FY2016 National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA)
(P.L. 114-92). Programs using MTA are not subject to the Joint
Capabilities Integration Development System (JCIDS) and
provisions of DOD Directive 5000.01 “Defense Acquisition
System.” MTA consists of utilizing two acquisition pathways:
(1) Rapid Prototyping, which is to streamline the testing and
development of prototypes, and (2) Rapid Fielding, which is to
upgrade existing systems with already proven technologies.
https://crsreports.congress.gov
The Army’s Mobile Protected Firepower (MPF) System
Figure 2. GDLS MPF Prototype
Budgetary Information
Table 1. FY2022 MPF Budget Request
Total
Total Request
Request
Funding Category
($M)
(Qty.)
Procurement
$286.9
23
Source: Department of Defense Fiscal Year 2022 Budget Estimates,
Army Justification Book of Procurement of W&TCV, May 2021, p. A-
3.
Notes: $M = U.S. Dollars in Mil ions; Qty. = FY2022 Procurement
Quantities.
Source: https://www.gdls.com/news/news-interior.html, accessed
June 14, 2021.
Table 2. FY2022 MPF Defense Authorizations
and Appropriations
Government Accountability Office
(GAO) Concerns
Authorized
Appropriated
Funding Category
($M)
($M)
In its June 2021 report to congressional committees titled
“Weapon Systems Annual Assessment,” GAO expressed
Procurement
$286.9
$286.9
the following MPF programmatic concerns:
(S. 1605)
(H.R. 4432/S. 3023)
Sources: Rules Committee Print 117-21, Text of House Amendment
MPF compressed its testing schedule due to delays
to the start of testing of the contractors’ prototype
to S. 1605, p. 1807; H.Rept. 117-88 to accompany H.R. 4432, p. 148;
Explanatory Statement to accompany Senate Appropriations
designs. According to program officials, COVID-
Committee-released Department of Defense Appropriations Act,
19 and integration challenges delayed the
2022, p. 76.
contractors’ prototype deliveries. While the
program has a plan in place to mitigate these
Potential Issue for Congress
delivery delays, further delays to testing will
increase the risk that the program’s planned
Status of Ongoing and Future MPF Testing
completion date will not be achieved. Program
According to the Army’s FY2022 MPF Budget Request,
officials stated that the program had planned for
plans call for the completion of MPF testing in early 2nd
each of the two contractors to begin delivering 12
quarter FY2022. Furthermore, the Army notes that the
prototypes by the second quarter of FY2020, with
ongoing SVA at Ft. Bragg, NC is an operational assessment
warfighters assessing each contractor’s vehicles
rather than a formal test event designed to inform the
separately over the course of 3 months. However,
development of MPF tactics, techniques and procedures
contractor prototype deliveries did not start until the
(TTPs). As previously noted, MPF testing was delayed until
third quarter of FY2020, which delayed the start of
August 2020 and, as GAO reported,
testing to August 2020. The MPF contractors plan
to deliver the remaining prototypes for testing as
To accommodate the delays, the program plans to
they are built and the Army expects these deliveries
test the prototypes from each contractor as they are
will continue throughout FY2021. (p. 155)
received, leveraging remaining time to complete as
much testing as possible [emphasis added by CRS]
To accommodate the delays, the program plans to
to support the contractor down-select and planned
test the prototypes from each contractor as they are
low-rate production decisions. Program officials
received, leveraging remaining time to complete as
told us the program plans to complete all tests
much testing as possible to support the contractor
within the original schedule. (p. 155)
down-select and planned low-rate production
decisions. Program officials told us the program
As reported by GAO, this could suggest MPF operational
plans to complete all tests within the original
testing is being compressed or modified to meet the Army’s
schedule. (p. 155)
schedule or perhaps to meet the MTA requirement of two to
five years for capability delivery. Congress might decide to
review MPF operational testing with the Army to clarify
whether adequate operational testing—independent of
Army-imposed production deadlines or MTA stipulations—
is being conducted.
Andrew Feickert, Specialist in Military Ground Forces
IF11859
https://crsreports.congress.gov
The Army’s Mobile Protected Firepower (MPF) System
Disclaimer
This document was prepared by the Congressional Research Service (CRS). CRS serves as nonpartisan shared staff to
congressional committees and Members of Congress. It operates solely at the behest of and under the direction of Congress.
Information in a CRS Report should not be relied upon for purposes other than public understanding of information that has
been provided by CRS to Members of Congress in connection with CRS’s institutional role. CRS Reports, as a work of the
United States Government, are not subject to copyright protection in the United States. Any CRS Report may be
reproduced and distributed in its entirety without permission from CRS. However, as a CRS Report may include
copyrighted images or material from a third party, you may need to obtain the permission of the copyright holder if you
wish to copy or otherwise use copyrighted material.
https://crsreports.congress.gov | IF11859 · VERSION 2 · UPDATED