In Paris, a US Court of Federal Claims decision found that the US Navy unfairly evaluated Saildrone’s proposal for its medium unmanned surface vessel (MUSV) program.
Consequently, the Navy must re‑evaluate Saildrone’s proposal within two months and cannot allocate a substantial portion of its MUSV budget until the review is finished.
In June, Saildrone and the maritime technology startup Blue Water Autonomy sued the Navy over its exclusion of their respective proposals — Saildrone’s Spectre and Blue Water Autonomy’s Liberty — from the MUSV competition, asserting that both platforms complied with the Navy’s specifications and that the service failed to follow its own evaluation guidance in the RFP.
The Court concluded that the Navy engaged in disparate treatment and acted arbitrarily and capriciously in reviewing Saildrone’s proposal, Judge Philip Hadji wrote in his opinion, originally issued on Oct. 30 and made public Wednesday.
The Navy initially barred Saildrone from proceeding to on‑water testing because of discrepancies between its proposal and a J‑8 Placemat summarizing the vessel’s maximum displacement. The court noted that the placement indicated loaded displacements surpassing the stated maximum.
Nevertheless, the court found that Saildrone was treated disparately because the Navy also advanced a Sea Machines proposal that exhibited comparable displacement concerns. The document did not specify whether the Sea Machines vessel in question was the Steamracer or the Steamrunner, but concluded that this distinction did not alter its determination.
Since the Navy accepted a Sea Machines placemat that either listed both payload‑condition displacements above the stated maximum or left the fields blank, the Court determined that the Navy’s later actions favored Sea Machines and imposed a stricter standard on Saildrone.
The court ordered the Navy to re‑evaluate Saildrone’s proposal within 60 days, employing the same evaluation methodology used for other participants that advanced, and barred the agency from reinstating its earlier withdrawn findings from two additional evaluation criteria to justify eliminating Saildrone.
Additionally, the court prohibited the Navy from spending more than $1.5 billion of the $2.1 billion earmarked for production until the reevaluation is completed.
A US Navy spokesperson told Breaking Defense that the agency will comply with the court’s order and re‑evaluate Saildrone’s proposal to assess its eligibility for on‑water testing.
Richard Jenkins, Saildrone’s founder and CEO, said on Monday, “The future of naval warfare will be fought on the water, not in a courtroom. We are eager to move beyond this litigation and concentrate on delivering world‑leading maritime autonomy for the US Navy, enhancing America’s future maritime dominance. This decision affirms fair competition, protects taxpayer interests, and strengthens national security.”
Blue Water Ruling
Conversely, Judge Hadji concluded that the Navy reasonably considered Blue Water unacceptable.
The Navy removed the company from the competition, citing that its test vessel—a twin‑hull catamaran—did not represent its production axe‑bow monohull vessel.
Blue Water Autonomy contended that the Navy deviated from its evaluation criteria, noting that hull and machinery specifications were not designated as assets to be assessed during testing.
The court rejected this claim, stating that “representative” unequivocally requires a direct comparison between the test vessel and its production counterpart, and that the solicitation did not exclude hull form or propulsion architecture from such comparison.
Nevertheless, Austin Gray, co‑founder and chief strategy officer of Blue Water Autonomy, remarked in a statement to Breaking Defense, “The test vessel was never central to our technology, our ship, or our product.”
Gray added that the Navy has implemented beneficial revisions to Phase II of its MUSV program, which was announced in September.
For instance, Phase I demanded that proposals travel 2,500 nautical miles at 25 knots in sea state 4 with a payload of two 40‑foot containers, whereas Phase II mandates a payload capacity of at least two standard 20‑foot containers and removes the high‑speed requirement.
Gray observed that the Navy’s new leadership has already addressed the issues raised by the protest, noting that the Medium USV Phase II program moves away from the prescriptive, compliance‑focused testing rules of the prior competition, a shift devised by seasoned Navy acquisition professionals months earlier.
Christopher Miller, Direct Reporting Portfolio Manager for Robotic and Autonomous Systems (DRPM RAS), recently acknowledged that Phase I requirements posed challenges for industry. He explained that the Navy seeks to “broaden the aperture” for new entrants and expand options for other services interested in the capability.
Miller told reporters in September, “My goal is to provide additional industry opportunities for companies that are ready to proceed. Phase I imposed demanding requirements, and by easing those constraints we can foster a robust, competitive industrial base and better identify near‑term opportunities to satisfy operational needs.”
