It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


AFFTC contract reward notice...with redacted names and data.

page: 1

log in


posted on Aug, 7 2012 @ 02:57 AM

So a $40 million contract is awarded by Edwards AFB AFFTC, and I can't see the name of the contracting officer, the program manager, etc?

I'm slightly suspicious that they are trying to hide something. ;-) And just who or where is this "Major Test and Range Facility Base?" Do you suppose they are trying to keep a secret!

Note as far as I can tell they redacted the data properly. I can't do a "select text" and then read the redacted parts.

posted on Aug, 7 2012 @ 10:11 AM
Looking at the contract, Page 3 lists the items in need. The contract winner was L3 Telemetry East.

Their website lists the products listed on page 3, most of it seems to be Ground-Air Telecom Equipment.

Contracting Officer was Mike Keeling.

And just who or where is this "Major Test and Range Facility Base?"

Do you mean Edwards AFB? Its located in the Mojave Desert, in Southern California.

posted on Aug, 7 2012 @ 11:03 AM
If they meant KEDW, they would just say it, rather than "Major Test and Range Facility Base". (Oh, been to KEDW a few times.)

There was never any question as to what was being purchased. Rather the end user is what is vague, given the huge black redacted sections and all.

Troll much?

posted on Aug, 7 2012 @ 12:53 PM
The Major Range Test Facility Base (MRTFB) is not a single facility, but a vast number of installations spread across the country.

There is a detailed description here:

The Department of Defense established the MRTFB management concept to provide coordination among the major facilities, promote multi-Service use, reduce unnecessary duplication of assets and establish budgetary priorities.

posted on Aug, 7 2012 @ 02:25 PM
reply to post by Shadowhawk

What do you think about the redaction?

posted on Aug, 7 2012 @ 05:53 PM
I don't know. For some reason contract information, particularly with regard to specific cost numbers, is always very sensitive. I have noticed that declassified documents that are more than 40 years old still have the cost numbers redacted. In this case, it looks like they took out the FOUO data so that the document could be released to the public.

posted on Aug, 8 2012 @ 12:55 AM
reply to post by Shadowhawk

I did a google search on redacted contracts on It seems to be the case that contracts where there is only one vendor have the procurement personnel redacted. Perhaps so that nobody leaves a flaming bag of fecal material on their doorstep.

Now redacting data in the request for quote is another story. Some have nothing blocked out. But as you suggested, the redaction of data is to maintain FOUO. Now technically FOUO data is not classified, so a FOIA could get the redacted data.

Most of that telem data is around 1.4GHz. Even though there are scanners that go that high, telem is very wide bandwidth. I would assume this is a SIGINT task beyond the average hacker, so the COMSEC in the specification is most likely to keep nation-states from sniffing the telem.

top topics


log in