WASHINGTON — A Texas university will be home to a $130 million combat development complex used by Army Futures Command.

Texas A&M University System’s RELLIS campus in Bryan will be the new home to accelerator space, laboratories and offices for the four-star command. The announcement was made in a news release Thursday after the board of regents authorized the contract.

The building will cost Texas A&M System $50 million, according to the release. It will also invest $30 million in infrastructure improvements for the new facility. The remaining $50 million was appropriated by the Texas legislature and will go toward an outdoor testing area at RELLIS.

The complex will include a kilometer-long tunnel that will make Texas A&M Engineering “the hypersonics research capital of the country,” said M. Katherine Banks, vice chancellor and dean of engineering.

The campus held a robotic combat vehicle prototyping competition in May involving six industry teams with a total of eight vehicles. The event came in anticipation of Army whitepapers and request for prototype proposals for ground vehicle robots.

Gen. John “Mike” Murray, the head of Army Futures Command, said in the release that the command would develop, test and evaluate technology from industry and universities around the country at the facility.

“We are humbled and grateful to the people of Texas, Texas elected leaders, and the Texas A&M University System for the opportunity to further develop our strategic partnership through the establishment of the combat development complex on the RELLIS Campus,” he said. “This effort will certainly prove vital as we work together to discover, develop, and test ideas and concepts that will help our Soldiers, and our future Soldiers, to protect America’s tomorrows — beginning today.”

Army Futures Command is based in Austin, Texas.

Such a technology would double the number of available radio channels and require less power, the company said. It would also be being lighter and smaller than current technology, the company said in a press release.

The radio is known as the TruNet AR-2000 and the demonstration involved connecting Collins Aerospace and Defense Department radios with the AR-2000 to showcase the simultaneous operation of the two networks, according to the press release. The company is one of many companies already under contract with the Army to develop waveforms and produce ManPack radios as a way to tap into next-generation communications capabilities and modernize the battlefield network.

Collins envisions the AR-2000 operating on tactical helicopters, command and control (C2) aircraft, and large unmanned aircraft.

The redacted report, titled “Audit of the DoD’s Management of the Cybersecurity Risks for Government Purchase Card Purchases of Commercial Off-the-Shelf Items,” was released July 26 and focuses on commercial off-the-shelf technology acquired by the Army and Air Force.

“As a result, adversaries could exploit known cybersecurity vulnerabilities that exist in COTS items purchased by the DoD,” the report read. “If the DoD continues to purchase and use COTS information technology items without identifying, assessing, and mitigating the known vulnerabilities associated with COTS information technology items, missions critical to national security could be compromised.”

The tech in question had been documented as having vulnerabilities, sometimes as long as a decade ago. However, the report states the Defense Department is increasingly dependent on these types of technology for laptops, security cameras, software and networking equipment.

The technology purchased by the Army and Air Force included:

• More than 8,000 Lexmark printers totaling $30 million. Lexmark printers contain supply chain vulnerabilities from China that were identified in a Congressional report. Lexmark has connections to the Chinese military, nuclear, and cyber espionage programs, according to the report. Lexmark has 20 listed cybersecurity vulnerabilities on the National Vulnerabilities Database. These include storing and transmitting sensitive network access credentials in plain text and allowing malicious code on a printer.
• 117 GoPro cameras costing $98,000. These cameras share video through wireless networks or Bluetooth connection, which could allow hackers to access stored network credentials and live video streams. A hacker could view a video stream, start recording, or take pictures without the user knowing.
• 1,573 Lenovo products totaling over $2 million. Congress and the Department of Homeland Security issued multiple warnings against using Lenovo computers, according to the report, following bans by the State Department (2006), DHS (2015), and the Joint Chiefs of Staff Intelligence Directorate (2016). Lenovo is the largest computer company in China. The State Department ordered a risk assessment of Lenovo products on DoD networks in 2018. However, that year the Army purchased 195 Lenovo products for just under $268,000 and the Air Force purchased 1,378 products for $1.9 million.

The report finds the Defense Department continues to use these products within its networks because it does not have an organization to deal with cybersecurity risks to commercial off-the-shelf technology or controls to prevent purchase of such technology with known cybersecurity risks. The Pentagon also hasn’t adjusted acquisition policies or established an approved products list to prevent vulnerable products from being purchased.

The report, titled “Cybersecurity of NATO’s Spaced-based Strategic Assets,” was produced by Chatham House, which is part of the Royal Institute of International Affairs, a policy institute in London. The paper, by Beyza Unal, was released July 1.

“There is an urgent need to study and address cyber-related challenges to strategic assets within NATO and its key member countries, particularly the cyberthreat to space-based command and control systems,” the report read. “The increasing vulnerability of space-based assets, ground stations, associated command and control systems, and the personnel who manage the systems, has not yet received the attention it deserves.”

The report highlights cybersecurity vulnerabilities to space systems used by countries in the NATO alliance, notably singling out commercial products used in military operations as a particular risk. These vulnerabilities can come from back-door encryption, supply chain security, and personnel and procedural practices, according to the report. NATO uses space assets to defend territory, peacekeeping missions, humanitarian assistance and disaster relief, counterterrorism, and conflict prevention.

“There is an increasing need to apply higher-grade military hardening and cyber protection specifications to civilian capabilities that have the potential to be used in support of military applications,” the report read. “If military standards are not met, items procured from commercial industry with design flaws may expose NATO’s systems to additional vulnerabilities.”

The report also points to the importance of securing satellite terminals.

“Terminals located in ground stations constitute a critical vulnerability, as a terminal is an access point to a satellite and is usually not protected by authentication in order not to hinder operational actions,” the report said. “Terminals house software systems that can be compromised and require patching and upgrading.”

Data flowing between satellites, especially ground stations, can become vulnerable, according to the report.

“Adversaries infiltrating ground- or space-based systems could exploit weak software implementation, or the incompatibility of network or data transfer protocols in the chain,” the report read. “While the absence of data is easy to detect, the manipulation of data or erosion of confidentiality at such an interface is potentially more difficult to discern.”

Among the report’s recommendations is that NATO strengthen its cyber defense through increased collaboration between the public and private sector. This would allow for more timely information sharing of cyberthreats.

The report also urges NATO to emphasize that commercial manufacturers meet basic cybersecurity standards and possibly more stringent military protection standards.

“In the future, military systems will be increasingly connected to non-military systems,” the report stated. “This has important implications for the laws of armed conflict, as the combination of civilian, commercial and military capabilities in the cyber domain and space raises the risk that civilian capabilities used for military purposes qualify as legitimate military targets.”

The Galileo is the EU’s global positioning system that was purchased in 2016 in an attempt to receive GPS data outside of the United States and Russia’s systems.

The outage started July 14 and affected the navigation and timing systems, but did not have an effect on the Search and Rescue service (SAR). The problem was fixed July 18, according to news releases on the European Global Navigation Satellite Systems Agency website.

In a July 18 update, the European Global Navigation Satellite Systems Agency said the malfunction initiated with ground equipment.

“The technical incident originated by an equipment malfunction in the Galileo ground infrastructure, affecting the calculation of time and orbit predictions, and which are used to compute the navigation message. The malfunction affected different elements on the ground facilities,” according to the press release.

The EGSA also said it would set put an independent inquiry board together to analyze the incident.

While it is not clear what caused the disruption, experts presume it was not malicious.

“These systems are very hard to build and operate with lots of opportunities for failure and only one path to success,” said Dana A. Goward, president of Resilient Navigation and Timing Foundation, in an email.

“GPS has had two or three significant hiccups, and the Russian’s GLONASS has had multiple problems. So no surprise that the EU’s effort has some bumps in the road also.”

In a formal solicitation posted on the Federal Business Opportunities web site July 18, leaders from Army Contracting Command said they are looking looking for an indefinite delivery, indefinite quantity (IDIQ) contract for the second capability drop in the Distributed Common Ground System – Army.

While DCGS-A previously was developed and fielded in increments, the Army is delivering capability drops that are smaller, discrete and more agile, focused on specific needs and uses, This request is centered on upgrading and replacing parts in the DCGS-A “Brain.” Potential solutions would allow intelligence information to be transmitted to the battlefield and help distribute geospatial information and services.

DCGS-A is described as a family of systems that gives Army leaders advanced analytics and provides targeting and situation understanding. The systems are used to process, exploit and spread information and intelligence about the threat, weather, and terrain. They also provide tactical and operational ground stations that downlink data from national, joint partners and Army sensors.

“As technology evolves and new warfighting requirements emerge, the DCGS-A capability set needs to be updated to meet the user needs,” the solicitation reads. “DCGS-A will continue to contribute to visualization and situational awareness, maximizing combat power and enhancing the ability to operate in an unpredictable and changing environment throughout the operational spectrum.”

The Army plans to award multiple contracts with varying lengths of either three or four years. The minimum contract award will be $3,500.

Responses are due Aug. 19.

The system faced criticism last year for how much time and money was spent by the DoD on it instead of outsourcing to a commercial option. Complaints came after the system was not able to disperse intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance data quickly.

The system had been in development for over a decade when Army leaders looked to turn the corner after focusing on coordinating more with industry.

In advanced policy questions Esper submitted to the Senate Armed Services Committee for a July 16 confirmation hearing, the White House nominee said one way he would achieve the Defense Department’s goal to save $46 billion would be to review Fourth Estate management. He referred to a review of Fourth Estate organizations at least three times in written questions and again in his opening statement.

“We will reform the Department, beginning with the Fourth Estate,” he told Senators during the hearing.

The Fourth Estate encompasses organizations in the Pentagon which are not formal part of military departments. The list includes the Defense Intelligence Agency, the Defense Information Systems Agency, the Missile Defense Agency, the National Geospatial-Intelligence Agency, and the National Reconnaissance Office. A September 2018 report from the Government Accountability Office estimated that 27 agencies included in the Fourth Estate have an annual budget of at least $106 billion.

“If confirmed, I will work with the Deputy Secretary and the Chief Management Officer to review charters, budgets, infrastructures, resource needs and utilization, and key performance outputs of the Fourth Estate,” Esper said in a response to a written question on how he would improve governance and performance accountability for those organizations.

Esper was confirmed by voice vote July 19 by the Senate Armed Services Committee. The full Senate is expected to hold a confirmation vote this week.

Fourth Estate agencies came under attack in 2018 during the drafting of the defense authorization bill and were under fire again in September when a Government Accountability Office report identified inefficiencies in 19 agencies and eight field activities within the Fourth Estate.

In May, DISA announced that it would head efforts to consolidate IT for Fourth Estate agencies through the Fourth Estate Network Optimization (4NEO) effort. That effort wraps in 14 agencies, including the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency, DISA, and the Missile Defense Agency.

“The objective is to move the Fourth Estate’s common use IT systems, personnel, functions, and program elements associated with the support of those systems and technologies into a single service provider architecture,” Drew Jaehnig, who is leading the 4NEO effort for DISA, said in a news release.

The report, titled “The 2019 Federal Scorecard,” was released in July.

“What we’re seeing is an overall reduction in science and technology investments on the federal side, but within the budget that does exist you’re seeing an increase in the kinds of technologies that are critically important for what those departments do and how they fit into DoD,” said Kathryn Harris, senior vice president strategy and growth at Govini.

These cuts are seen most dramatically in agencies such as the Department of Energy and the National Institute of Standards and Technology, according to Govini’s findings. NIST’s budget would shrink about $300 million in the fiscal 2020 budget request.

However, while federal agencies are facing overall cuts for technology, some specific programs within these agencies are slated to receive funding increases, such as the Energy Department’s Office of Science, which has requested a $5.5 billion request for funding to advance artificial intelligence, machine learning and quantum information science. These increases will add $10 million to quantum, bringing the total to $169 million, $8 million for artificial intelligence, bringing their total to $71 million, and $10 million for microelectronics, bringing their total to $25 million, according to Govini and the fiscal year 2020 budget request.

“It’s sort of a mixed bag. You see the overall top line reduction for technology, but nonetheless small good trend that there is a slight increase in the kinds of technology that are most highly relevant for great power competition,” Harris said.

Funding for cybersecurity in the president’s budget request for fiscal 2020 also falls under the characterization of “a mixed bag,” Harris said.

The Energy Department’s Office of Cybersecurity, Energy Security, and Emergency Response is slated to receive at 30.4 percent increase from fiscal 2019 levels. In addition, the FBI requested an increase of $70.5 million to target cyber actors, according to Govini’s findings.

“It seems to me that the FBI is trying to make a shift from a counterterrorism mission that they have had for the last almost two decades to more of a sort of modern global competitor mission,” Harris said. “This increase in cybersecurity and targeting cyber actors that threaten U.S. interests in the homeland is critically important.”

However, funding for DHS’s Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency, one of the biggest civilian federal investments, has decreased by 5.6 percent, a fact Harris calls concerning.

“They list cybersecurity as one of their top priorities, yet it is still cut by 5 percent,” Harris said. “Across the interagency, DHS has the overall lead for cybersecurity as well. So there is a little bit of inconsistency, I think, with what they say is their priority, what their role is, and the importance of their role in the interagency.”

The Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency awarded funding to BAE Systems, a British defense company, for its Controllable Hardware Integration for Machine-learning Enabled Real-time Adaptivity (CHIMERA) solution.

The CHIMERA solution uses machine learning to interpret radio frequency signals in crowded electromagnetic spectrum environments.

“CHIMERA brings the flexibility of a software solution to hardware,” said Dave Logan, vice president and general manager of Command, Control, Communications, Computers, Intelligence, Surveillance, and Reconnaissance Systems at BAE Systems in a news release. “Machine-learning is on the verge of revolutionizing signals intelligence technology, just as it has in other industries.”

This contract is contingent on the completion of preset milestones and works alongside the Radio Frequency Machine Learning Systems (RFMLS) program, which was previously awarded to integrate data-driven machine learning algorithms.

The contracts for Systems Engineering, Technology and Innovation (SETI) — a multiple-award order contract to solve IT engineering and developmental requirements — were awarded through the Defense Information Systems Agency (DISA), a combat support agency of the Defense Department.

The contracts were awarded on an indefinite-deliver/indefinite-quantity basis, meaning they are not guaranteed this money, but instead have the opportunity to receive it if requirements are met.

Some of these small businesses proposed solutions related to current or emerging gaps in technological capabilities. An example of these emerging gaps in communications links caused by new capabilities related to satellite communications or data transmission technologies.

The small businesses also offered solutions to mapping relationships between DISA’s technology areas, business functions, processes and capabilities in order to assist in leadership decision-making.

There were two pools of candidates for these contracts: unrestricted and restricted. The unrestricted pool — which went to large businesses and was announced June 14, 2018 — caused a delay in the restricted pool for small businesses when multiple protests arose over the acquisition requirements.

The full list of contract awardees includes:

• Affinity Innovations LLC,* Hanover, Maryland (HC1047-19-D-2020)
• Applied Systems Engineering Joint Venture LLC,* Annapolis Junction, Maryland (HC1047-19-D-2021)
• A Square Group LLC,* Rockville, Maryland (HC1047-19-D-2022)
• Business Computers Management Consulting Group LLC,* Falls Church, Virginia (HC1047-19-D-2023)
• Bluestone Logic LLC,* Washington, District of Columbia (HC1047-19-D-2024)
• Credence Management Solutions LLC,* Vienna, Virginia (HC1047-19-D-2025)
• DHPC Technologies Inc.,* Woodbridge, New Jersey (HC1047-19-D-2026)
• InCadence Strategic Solutions Corp.,* Manassas, Virginia (HC1047-19-D-2027)
• INNOPLEX LLC,* Columbia, Maryland (HC1047-19-D-2028)
• Innovation Evolution Technologies JV LLC,* Reston, Virginia (HC1047-19-D-2029)
• Innovative Government Solutions JV LLC,* Virginia Beach, Virginia (HC1047-19-D-2030)
• Integrated Systems Inc.,* Tysons Corner, Virginia (HC1047-19-D-2031)
• Interactive Process Technology LLC,* Billerica, Massachusetts (HC1047-19-D-2032)
• Mission Support LP,* McLean, Virginia (HC1047-19-D-2033)
• NetCentric Technologies Inc.,* Wall, New Jersey (HC1047-19-D-2034)
• Riverside Engineering LLC,* Vienna, Virginia (HC1047-19-D-2035)
• Semper AASKI Alliance Inc.,* Canyon Lake, Texas (HC1047-19-D-2036)
• Superlative Technologies Inc.,* Ashburn, Virginia (HC1047-19-D-2037)
• Synergy Business Innovation & Solutions Inc.,* Arlington, Virginia (HC1047-19-D-2038)
• TekSynap Corp.,* Reston, Virginia (HC1047-19-D-2039)
• Tiber Creek Consulting Inc.,* Fairfax, Virginia (HC1047-19-D-2040)
• ValidaTek Inc.,* Arlington, Virginia (HC1047-19-D-2041)
• VOLANT Associates LLC,* Chantilly, Virginia (HC1047-19-D-2042)