champu 1 #1 August 6, 2008 So... a little while back some folks from Boeing and the Air Force went to jail over a no-bid tanker contract resulting in the Air Force reopening the contract for competitive bidding. A Northrop Grumman/EADS team won the contract earlier this year, but the award was protested by Boeing on the grounds of about 100 issues. 8 of the issues were confirmed by the GAO, and were related to preference/credit given to the NG/EADS team in ways that were not made clear in the initial RFP. The Air Force (and Robert Gates' office who has taken over the acquisition process) announced they had plans to clarify how these areas would be treated in a revised RFP they planned to release some time in August. But before they could, Norm Dicks (a congressman from Washington) has used his seat on the Defense Subcommitee to add language to a bill originally intended to provide supplies to troops in Iraq and Afghanistan requiring the Air Force to obtain a plane that matches Boeing's offering and attempts to disqualify the NG/EADS offering. Am I the only one who thinks this might not be the most honest way to award a $100B contract? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
AdamLanes 1 #2 August 6, 2008 When was the last time the US Government did anything honest? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Gawain 0 #3 August 6, 2008 Quote It also would require a new tanker be capable of refueling all planes currently flown by the Air Force, a requirement the Northrop-EADS tanker was unable to meet and that the Air Force dismissed in the earlier competition. Also, language in the bill would require the Pentagon to consider the cost of operating and maintaining the new tankers over a 40-year life cycle, rather than a 25-year cycle. That could favor the Boeing plane, which according to one analysis would use $35 billion less in fuel over 40 years. Taking this into account too, I don't see as much of an issue with it. Especially the language about "length-of-service" considerations. The current fleet of KC-135s have been flying since the mid-1960s. The USAF hosed the RFP in the wake of the bad lease deal a few years ago. Having said that, I'm also a share holder of Boeing, so I hope they get it regardless. So I try and I scream and I beg and I sigh Just to prove I'm alive, and it's alright 'Cause tonight there's a way I'll make light of my treacherous life Make light! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
councilman24 37 #4 August 6, 2008 Unfortunately at this level this has nothing to do with mission capability, cost, or any other consideration we'd use in our lives. It all about politics. Including on how the companies interact with those who can influence the decision. Sometimes, in my role as a City Councilman, I get to help direct some trickle down fed money for roads. But then a local congressman will get an earmark for something a small minority believes is valuable (and arguably is) even though two economic studies failed to justify it. Politics is all about gettiing what you want and what will keep you in office. Not about serving the best needs of the Country, State, County, City, etc. With a few notable exceptions. I HATE politics, especially partisan politics. That's why I call myself an elected civil servant. I don't much care who I piss off. Hmm, and on my third term. I'm old for my age. Terry Urban D-8631 FAA DPRE Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
idrankwhat 0 #5 August 6, 2008 Quote Am I the only one who thinks this might not be the most honest way to award a $100B contract? It's lousy politics, but no more so that those that McCain employed to steer the contract to EADS. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
bodypilot90 0 #6 August 6, 2008 QuoteIt also would require a new tanker be capable of refueling all planes currently flown by the Air Force, a requirement the Northrop-EADS tanker was unable to meet and that the Air Force dismissed in the earlier competition. Also, language in the bill would require the Pentagon to consider the cost of operating and maintaining the new tankers over a 40-year life cycle, rather than a 25-year cycle. That could favor the Boeing plane, which according to one analysis would use $35 billion less in fuel over 40 years. seems like a tanker should be able to refuel all the fleet. also from what I heard from someone in the Air force the grumman tanker was slow and unsafe to use under a "break away" Also was limited to what airfield it could use. Seems to me this all good stuff..... Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
champu 1 #7 August 6, 2008 Those are actually two of the points I see pretty much eye to eye with the GAO on. The crux is that you have a politician from Washington dictating to the Air Force what type of plane they want, and doing it in a most underhanded way (and no doubt with Boeing money in his campaign fund). I honestly have nothing to gain/lose from either company winning this contract, but I'm concerned that it won't be long before a self-serving congressman a dozen states away takes a crap on something I do care about. I don't think politicians from Washington, California, Illinois, Alabama, or Kansas should be able to get anywhere near this decision. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
livendive 8 #8 August 6, 2008 QuoteAm I the only one who thinks this might not be the most honest way to award a $100B contract? QuoteThe defense-spending bill essentially would require the Pentagon to abide by the provisions of the earlier bid proposal, something the Government Accountability Office said it didn't do in the first contest. While the whole thing seems a bit out of sorts, I don't think it's unreasonable to tell the Pentagon to do what it said it would do or risk some funding. Blues, Dave"I AM A PROFESSIONAL EXTREME ATHLETE!" (drink Mountain Dew) Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kelpdiver 2 #9 August 6, 2008 Quote The crux is that you have a politician from Washington dictating to the Air Force what type of plane they want, and doing it in a most underhanded way (and no doubt with Boeing money in his campaign fund). His job is his constituites - that's a lot of employed people. I'm sure Boeing directs some money to his office, but the benefits to the state serve him much better as a politician. Is it best for the country...probably not. But I would blame the DoD or the leadership in Congress for this. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,150 #10 August 6, 2008 QuoteQuote The crux is that you have a politician from Washington dictating to the Air Force what type of plane they want, and doing it in a most underhanded way (and no doubt with Boeing money in his campaign fund). His job is his constituites - that's a lot of employed people. I'm sure Boeing directs some money to his office, but the benefits to the state serve him much better as a politician. Is it best for the country...probably not. But I would blame the DoD or the leadership in Congress for this. It's not as if it never happened previously. Entire weapons systems have been forced on the military by Congress.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
