Back to the Drawing Board

Back to the Drawing Board: Th

e Government Accountability Office yesterday (June 18) recommended that the Air Force throw out its selection of the KC-45 aerial tanker contract to Northrop Grumman and seek revised proposals from that company and Boeing, which protested the choice in early March. The GAO cited seven “significant errors” in the Air Force’s handling of the $40 billion contract award and determined it would be unfair to let the award stand. “We recommend that the Air Force reopen discussions with the offerors, obtain revised proposals, re-evaluate the revised proposals, and make a new source-selection decision,” the GAO said in a three-page release articulating its ruling. Furthermore, it said the Air Force should pay Boeing’s legal and administrative costs in bringing the protest—potentially tens of millions of dollars. The GAO suggested that if the Air Force doesn’t think the original solicitation “adequately” states the service’s needs, it should re-write the document prior to beginning new talks with the two competitors. A similar ruling in the Air Force’s combat search and rescue helicopter competition has led to a two-year litigation delay in getting that program under contract, suggesting that the launch of the tanker program could be delayed at least that long, as well. A GAO official told the Daily Report that the recommendations do not suggest that the Air Force “start over,” that is open the competition to other bidders, but rather refine the way that it asks for information and evaluates the answers it gets. The GAO said that it also denied some of Boeing’s complaints—without saying which ones—because records failed to show that the Air Force had done anything wrong “with respect to those challenges.” Further, the agency pointed out that its ruling shouldn’t be construed as a comment on the relative merits either of Boeing’s KC-767 or Northrop Grumman’s KC-30 tanker models. The GAO’s decisions focused only on the process.

—John A. Tirpak

6/19/2008

Verbatim

No Dog, Just Concern
"You know it concerns me that we keep hearing, 'Well this is something that the military doesn't want. They didn't ask for,' and all that. Then I go over there [Southwest Asia theater], and that's not their attitude at all. They have needs over there. Our lift capacity is in dire straights. … Now on the F-22—just yesterday we read about the T-50 … a fifth generation [fighter] that the Russians have. … I'm concerned about this. And I guess, you know, if we're down to 187 F-22s, and I think out of that only—what 120 are actually combat ready and used for combat. … I look at our committee—the Senate Armed Services Committee—and on these two vehicles I mentioned—the F-22 and the C-17—in Oklahoma. I don't have a dog in that fight. We don't have any parochial interest there. But it's the capability that we're going to need."
—Sen. James Inhofe (R-Okla.), speaking during the Senate Armed Services Committee hearing on the Fiscal 2011 defense budget, Feb. 2, 2010.

Verbatim

Taming Expectations
"Every QDR disappoints those who look for radical reallocation of resources. The current fiscal environment is compounding that trend."
—Jim Thomas, vice president for studies at the Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessments, briefing reporters in Washington, D.C., Jan. 26, 2010.