Continuing on the tanker contract the Air Force awarded to Northrop Grumman/EADS, Boeing continues to assert that they should be awarded the tanker contract. There is no explicit reason given other that Boeing claims it has a better aircraft and that the company could create more jobs for workers. Boeing has convinced the GAO (Government Accountability Office) to talk suggest to the Air Force that they reopen the tanker contract.
Boeing claims that the process for choosing the tanker was unfair and riddled with errors. The Air Force claimed that it had reviewed both choices carefully and chose NG/EADS's design because it had fit the criteria or exceeded it. The GAO says that the rulings for the tanker contract did not fit the required criteria (I assume that is the Air Force's criteria).
Northrop Grumman and EADS both claim that they are ready to begin the manufacture of the new tanker which won approval for a contract from the Air Force. Those that support the Air Force's decision say that the ageing fleet of KC-135 tankers must be replaced soon for both the Air Force and the pilots who fly and operate them. NG/EADS claim that any delays punishes air force personell who operate the current fleet of aircraft.
Personally, this is a big problem. I am a firm believer that our military technology should be developed at home. EADS, the parent company of Airbus (I think? I know both are related) is french based and is in the business for large commercial aircraft. Some say that Boeing is becoming selfish for the tanker contract because EADS is a direct competitor (and so is Northrop Grumman), but I feel that Boeing actually has a good excuse for complaining.
Another problem is that the public does not know exactly what is being shared with whom and exactly what is going where; that is classified information. I am sure that military technology will not be shared with the french company Airbus/EADS and I remember reading somewhere that explicitly said that Airbus was building the fuselage and components necessary to make the aircraft fly, and that Northrop Grumman back at home would finalize military technology and utilities. What each company does, where they do it and how they do it is classified information- in short I would tell you- I don't know.
With that, I would throw the "I want military technology developed here at home!" arguement out the window, and would say that such accusations are based purely on suspiscion, and those accusations have rightful grounds. French technology in the past has provided technical support, engineering and supplies to Iraq in the 80's for Saddam Hussein's Nuclear Reactor. They have also had no qualms about exporting their products and technology to the highest bidder, regardless of affiliation or standing. That, I have a problem with. One should recognize, however that EADS is a seperate company, and although French they are not controlled by the government. Building frames in Europe, however does help their economy and not ours, but makes overall costs cheaper. Thus, we have something known as outsourcing.
What are your thoughts on this? I can't come up with a decision. I would stand behind the Air Force if they thought the NG/EADS build was right for them, but I think Boeing has a good excuse for interrupting the deal by having the GAO step in. The main question boils down to this:
Is legitimate discussion of the benefits of an all American company, Boeing brings to the table worth further delaying the tankers? Also, is it right for us to outsource products for our armed services, even if military secrets are not shared?
Boeing claims that the process for choosing the tanker was unfair and riddled with errors. The Air Force claimed that it had reviewed both choices carefully and chose NG/EADS's design because it had fit the criteria or exceeded it. The GAO says that the rulings for the tanker contract did not fit the required criteria (I assume that is the Air Force's criteria).
Northrop Grumman and EADS both claim that they are ready to begin the manufacture of the new tanker which won approval for a contract from the Air Force. Those that support the Air Force's decision say that the ageing fleet of KC-135 tankers must be replaced soon for both the Air Force and the pilots who fly and operate them. NG/EADS claim that any delays punishes air force personell who operate the current fleet of aircraft.
Personally, this is a big problem. I am a firm believer that our military technology should be developed at home. EADS, the parent company of Airbus (I think? I know both are related) is french based and is in the business for large commercial aircraft. Some say that Boeing is becoming selfish for the tanker contract because EADS is a direct competitor (and so is Northrop Grumman), but I feel that Boeing actually has a good excuse for complaining.
Another problem is that the public does not know exactly what is being shared with whom and exactly what is going where; that is classified information. I am sure that military technology will not be shared with the french company Airbus/EADS and I remember reading somewhere that explicitly said that Airbus was building the fuselage and components necessary to make the aircraft fly, and that Northrop Grumman back at home would finalize military technology and utilities. What each company does, where they do it and how they do it is classified information- in short I would tell you- I don't know.
With that, I would throw the "I want military technology developed here at home!" arguement out the window, and would say that such accusations are based purely on suspiscion, and those accusations have rightful grounds. French technology in the past has provided technical support, engineering and supplies to Iraq in the 80's for Saddam Hussein's Nuclear Reactor. They have also had no qualms about exporting their products and technology to the highest bidder, regardless of affiliation or standing. That, I have a problem with. One should recognize, however that EADS is a seperate company, and although French they are not controlled by the government. Building frames in Europe, however does help their economy and not ours, but makes overall costs cheaper. Thus, we have something known as outsourcing.
What are your thoughts on this? I can't come up with a decision. I would stand behind the Air Force if they thought the NG/EADS build was right for them, but I think Boeing has a good excuse for interrupting the deal by having the GAO step in. The main question boils down to this:
Is legitimate discussion of the benefits of an all American company, Boeing brings to the table worth further delaying the tankers? Also, is it right for us to outsource products for our armed services, even if military secrets are not shared?
2 comments:
A more serious problem is this:
Do we want companies to keep competing for DOD contracts?
Competing for these contracts is expensive and time-consuming. Most companies don't even bother. I found that out when I was a USAF procurement officer.
The GAO report is absolutely SCATHING. If I had managed one of my contracts that poorly, I'd have never gotten a second chance.
The problem lies in the Request for Proposal (RFP). All branches of the military have mechanisms for establishing needs, and those needs flow into the preparation of the RFP. This particular RFP was for a MEDIUM tanker to replace the KC-135, not a LARGE tanker to replace the KC-10A.
If you look at the original RFP which incorporated the selection criteria, you saw instantly that the A330 was not even going to be competitive, and there lies the problem. The USAF was under tremendous political heat to have a COMPETITION, and if they had abided by the terms of their own RFP, there simply wouldn't have been one. So they ultimately wound up using criteria for source selection that were plainly contradicted by their own RFP.
OK, you can do that, if you change your mind before you get in to source selection, but when you do make those changes you are obligated morally AND LEGALLY to notify all contracters who had responded to those solicitations and give them an opportunity to modify their own proposals. Had the Air Force done that, Boeing would have almost certainly come back with multiple requests for clarification (their right under the RFP process) and ultimately shifted to the KC-777 proposal, once they understood that LARGE (or even HUGE) was the order of the day.
But the Air Force didn't do that, they just changed the criteria, and didn't even tell Boeing about a number of the changes they'd made, even after contract award, until the GAO forced it out of them.
The Air Force also made arithmetic errors in program costs, which the GAO ultimately got them to admit they did, erroneously determining the A330 program was cheaper (which it wasn't).
The real issues seem to be, was the original RFP valid or not? If it was, Boeing ought to get this contract. If it WASN'T valid, why not? How did the needs identification program screw up, and how does the Air Force go about getting a valid RFP if their needs program isn't working. These are NOT issues decided by procurement people. They are decided by DOD plans people and the Air Staff.
Were the DOD planning people and the Air Staff even consulted on this? My guess would be no...those people are pretty smart, and they'd have run like crazy away from anything as stupid as the underhanded way the RFP was changed here, because it's going to be a career-killer for everyone involved with it.
So, what is the REAL mission...and what RFP does that translate into? Once you have the correct RFP you put it out to all competitors, but if the RFP is changed, there is no way in the world you will be able to shortcut a full procurement cycle. If you are going to make this a LARGE tanker program, then you are going to be looking at a 777 versus A330 program. Make it HUGE (not wise, no one has the ramp space for it), and it becomes a KC-A380 versus KC-747-800 program.
But you need to look at what the MISSION is, and you need to look just as much at the LIMITATIONS of a large aircraft as you do at the capability of the large aircraft when you do that.
And whatever you do, you can't violate the process like was done here...not if you want to have contractors actually bidding on your RFPs.
I believe that Boeing became complacent and thought that 'patriotism' would get them over the line. The A330 is a newer platform with a greater range and fuel efficiency. It is a platform that is still in production and on top of that EADS has committed to building the civil version in the US creating more jobs in Alabama. All this is Boeing crying foul when they clearly got outplayed by a team that was desperate to win. And the argument about subsidies....How much money do you think Boeing gets from the Military for R&D projects that the technology ends up on their commercial planes. Boeing has been using patriotism to make billions of dollars for their board and shareholders. Its just that people have been blinded by the propaganda and marketing to see what is really going on, big fat paychecks, absolutely nothing to do with Patriotism.
Post a Comment