[비즈한국] Controversy has emerged regarding the “Brigade-level and below Mobile Ad-hoc Network (MANET) communication system” contract recently awarded to LIG Nex1079550, as critics argue that a small-to-medium defense firm with proprietary technology was pushed out by a major conglomerate due to flaws in the proposal evaluation criteria. Experts point out that current weapon system proposal evaluation standards must be revised to ensure fairness in the defense ecosystem.
According to industry sources, LIG Nex1 signed a rapid demonstration project agreement with the Defense Rapid Acquisition Technology Research Institute (DRATRI) on the 3rd to develop the “Brigade-level and below MANET communication system.” The project is valued at 15.3 billion won and is scheduled to run until 2027.
MANET is a next-generation communication system that effectively establishes a network through direct communication between terminals in environments where communication infrastructure like base stations is unavailable, or where external communication networks are severed due to war, disasters, or emergencies. Through this project, LIG Nex1 plans to develop three types of communication equipment: "drone communication devices" mounted on surveillance and reconnaissance drones, "portable communication devices" for soldiers, and "vehicle-mounted communication devices."
The "Brigade-level and below MANET communication system," managed by DRATRI as a rapid demonstration project, issued its bid announcement for contractor selection last June. BizHankook’s investigation revealed that LIG Nex1, Hanwha000880, and Huneed005870 participated in the bidding. An industry official explained, "The evaluation scores between LIG Nex1 and Hanwha were less than a point apart, but there was a gap of 10 points compared to Huneed. In a situation where major corporations and small-to-medium enterprises (SMEs) start with a disparity of about 6 points, the competition is effectively meaningless, especially when contracts are often decided by decimal points."
The issue lies in the fact that Huneed is the first domestic firm to secure proprietary MANET technology and has a history of supplying it to the military, yet it lost the contract by a margin of over 10 points. Huneed has pursued international joint technology development with the UK's Domo Tactical Communications (DTC), which possesses MANET technology, and developed a "Korean-style" MANET software equipped with an encryption system approved by the Korean government. Based on these achievements, it became the first in the country to supply MANET radios to the Army last July and successfully localized modules for mobile platforms. In fact, Huneed is currently the only domestic company that has practically commercialized MANET technology. Huneed filed an objection with the Defense Acquisition Program Administration (DAPA) audit office, but no action was taken.
Industry insiders explain that under the current weapon system proposal evaluation standards, SMEs cannot compete with large corporations even if they possess superior technology. The current evaluation method consists of three parts: technical capability (80 points), cost (20 points), and bonus/penalty points. In technical evaluations, many items are determined by company size rather than the actual development and production capacity of the final product, favoring large corporations. A company with a larger development workforce receives more bonus points than a company with specialized technical expertise. Furthermore, corporate research records are reflected not based on relevant technology development or ownership, but on a system that grants bonus points for simply having participated in many government-funded projects.
There are also opinions that the evaluation results are unfair due to a lack of expertise among the evaluation committee members. The proposal evaluation committee consists of staff and experts from relevant fields. However, gaps can occur during the evaluation process when committee members with different areas of expertise assess proposals outside their scope. With non-experts evaluating based on documents where distinguishing characteristics are hard to identify, and given the large volume of proposals and insufficient evaluation time, "forced differential evaluation" is taking place. An industry official explained, "It is also a problem that committee members, who may not be familiar with the specifics of a particular technology, are summoned only a day before the evaluation. The basic proposal documents are 600 pages long, and summary reports are about 100 pages, all to be reviewed in just three days and two nights. This means accurate assessment in the given time is difficult. I don't know how a fair evaluation can be conducted when the company is given only 30 minutes for a presentation."
Experts emphasize that current weapon system proposal evaluation criteria should be shifted toward a "technology-first" assessment. A professor of defense science stated, "Among the evaluation items, higher points should be given to companies possessing core technologies required for the product. Furthermore, the selection of evaluation committee members should prioritize those with an understanding of SMEs and technical expertise, rather than those with ties to major corporations."