MRAPS vs. EFPs

Have Mine Resistant Ambush Protected vehicles been trumped by the Explosively-Formed Projective type of improvised explosive device?

David DeCamp, writing for the St. Petersburg Times, suggested as much, and defended his position when challenged

A new story by David Hambling seems to treat the issue more comprehensively and responsibly.

Are Mine Resistant Ambush Protected (MRAP) vehicles the answer to Explosively Formed Penetrators, the armor-piercing bombs that are becoming increasingly common in Iraq?

The vast majority of IEDs cause damage by blast and shrapnel. Vehicles can be hardened to withstand these by a combination of measures such as a curved, strengthened hull which deflects blast rather than absorbing it, and increased ground clearance. But EFPs are different, as they spit out a high-velocity kinetic projectile more like a bullet that can go through steel.

(Danger Room)

Hambling notes that the first generation of "basic" MRAPs (MRAP I) is not designed to deal with EFPs, thus the call for a better MRAP with the MRAP II competition. Hambling's story focuses on the latter competition, and unfortunately doesn't delve into the add-on kits that may give existing MRAPs substantial protection against EFPs.
*****

The same story by Hambling has a footer that notes a story I spotted just a few minutes before reading Hambling's.

Force Protection is suing PVI for filching company secrets.

Force Protection makes the Cougar (Britain's Mastiff) and Buffalo MRAPs. Protected Vehicles manufacturs the Golan and Alpha. The Alpha, a cooperative effort with Oshkosh, received an initial order for 100 vehicles but that order was later canceled. The U.S. has ordered 60 of the Golan under MRAP I, and has reportedly welcomed the Golan to the MRAP II competition.