FYI:
Boeing Co. and Northrop Grumman Corp. will submit new offers for a disputed $35 billion Air Force tanker contract, and the Pentagon will pick a winner by the end of the year.
Defense Secretary Robert Gates said Wednesday that his office — not the Air Force — will oversee the competition between Boeing and the team of Northrop and Airbus parent European Aeronautic Defence and Space Co.
The plan, which hands control to the Pentagon acquisition chief John Young and sets up a dedicated source-selection committee, shows that senior civilians at the Defense Department have lost confidence in the Air Force’s ability to manage the contract.
“I think it’s better,” said Rep. Norm Dicks, a Washington Democrat. “No one has any faith in the Air Force.”
We’re going to have more analysis from Colin over at DoD Buzz in a few. He’s truckin’ it back from the Pentagon even as we speak.
Stay tuned…
– Christian
{ 22 comments… read them below or add one }
Well well well, It looks like Boeing got it’s cronies on the Hill to bail them out. I can’t see congress LETTING boeing lose this time around. What is the use of competing against Boeing now, if they lose any contract they are going to cry to congress and get it overturned. This is a bad day for the defense industry, and an even worst day for the Air Force crews that have to fly the decades old KC-135s. Boeing is clearly a desperate company right now, they screwed up the original tanker bid and 2 senior members are in prison, they lost the CEV program, they lost the JSF, Their F-18 program is not selling over seas like they thought it would. Not to mention that the Dreamliner is rife with delays right now. I hope Northrop wins next time around so Norm dicks, and that fat A-$-$ John Murtha will shut the hell up.
Norm Dicks “No one has any faith in the Air Force”
Hey Norm, I think even fewer people have any faith in Congress. You are a disgrace to your country and make me sick. How dare you make a public statement like this. Enjoy your paycheck from Boeing.
I’m halfway to canceling my RSS subscription to DefenseTech. I have never seen a more Anti-Air Force blog in my life.
“No one has any faith in the Air Force.”
I do, as to many other people. Let the people doing the fighting pick their tools. You don’t see a dealership owner telling his mechanics they don’t need a auto lift do you?
Anyone else tired of congress messing things up, we could have already had a new fleet of tankers, but nope were still wasting money on tests that are meaningless. The USAF picked Boeing, got so much flak they switched to Northrop, and now there getting flak to switch back to Boeing. If I was in command of the USAF I would look at suing congress to make a decision (you can sue anything these days, im sick of this merry go round).
Terrific! I’m sure we’re all looking forward to the inevitable GAO protest in December, assuming a decision is even reached by then.
IIRC, congress has a 9% approval rating right now. They’re in no position to criticize the Air Force.
Takeo,
The Blog isn’t the one that has no faith in the USAF. It’s Congressman Norm Dicks.
He should know what that is like. Congress has a 9% approval rating right now.
“I’m halfway to canceling my RSS subscription to DefenseTech.”
That’s one of the most pathetic things I’ve read in my life. You are threatening to cancel a free subscription to a blog? Worse, you don’t really know if you have the balls to do it. Worst, you are threatening doing it because you are wrongly attributing words to the blog owner that should be attributed to a disgraceful member of Congress.
Geez… I’m not the blog owner, but as a reader, I would think the quality of the readership would go up orders of magnitude if you cancelled your subscription today. Go on, just modify that bit of xml/css that references this site, and be off to a life of bliss. I think it a magnificent thing for you to do.
As for the Air Force, Boeing’s an albatross around their neck. I don’t think USAF/DOD had much choice in going with the recompete, but the warfighter is who will suffer. I expect NG to beat them again, if Congress doesn’t come in and redefine the warfighters requirements to fit in with constituent’s pork.
With Young overseeing it now I wouldn’t be suprised if there’s a fly-off, since I recall reading an article in which he advocated one.
How absurd! Robert Gates & John Young already had oversite over the previous KC-X competition yet did not see the OBVIOUS flaws & errors in it & now they will be RUNNING the rebid.
It was the USAF, DOD & Congress trying to rush the process earlier which lead to errors which prevented us from getting the right tankers in the 1st place & lead us to the KC-X mess.
With that said, if it is done RIGHT then it COULD be done by December as Gates has indicated. But I, like so many others, have lost confidence in the senior civilians at the Defense Department’s ability to manage this (or any other) contract. ONE of the biggest problems with the defense acquisition system today is TOO MUCH involvement by senior civilians at the Defense Department.
Don’t get me wrong, I am all for civilian oversight over the military (ultimately represented by the poweres of the Executive & Legislature over the military) BUT sometimes, whether the civilians agree with it or not, the military DOES know what it is doing & DOES have the nation’s best interests in mind (I say sometimes because sometimes it doesn’t but that is a whole other topic) and should get out of the way [MRAP vehicles anyone]. The military KNEW what it was doing when it chose the KC-767 & it KNEW what it was doing when it went the route of a lease in order to jump-start the recapitalization process [it wasn't perfect & certain individuals tried to take advantage of the situation for their own personal gain BUT, assuming the delivery schedule did not slip, we would have 20-30 NEW tankers that were significantly better than the KC-135s they replace RIGHT NOW - & would have cost us LESS than what we will be paying as it is].
Chris,
Nobody bailed Boeing out. The GAO did its job to ensure the validity/legality of the process.
Boing is not going to protest any contract they lose & are not going to cry to congress and get it overturned. The GAO has confirmed that Boeing was RIGHT to protect the KC-X selection process.
Boeing is clearly NOT a desperate company right now. Boeing did not screw up the tanker lease deal, outside influences had it overturned because they simply did not like it (not saying that there was no merit in overturning the lease contract). Yes Boeing lost the CEV program & the JSF program (but did not protest) but has won its share of prorams as well. Yes the F/A-18 is not selling overseas like many thought it would but the F/A-18 & the F-15 ARE selling overseas. Virtually EVERY major aircraft program over the past decade has had delays & considering how revolutionary the 787 is, delays SHOULD be expected (note that ALL of EADS’ current aircraft programs have & are experiencing delays & cost overruns). Boeing’s 1Q09 (thats 1st quarter of 2009) economic numbers were UP & higher then expected!
OMG the us army uses Beretta pistols designed in italy we are outsourcing defense!!
OMG the us army uses m240 GPMG designed in belgium we are outsourcing defense!!
OMG the us army uses M256 120mm cannon designed in germany we are outsourcing defense!!
how about the best tools for the war fighter not handing out welfare jobs to congressional districts. again the men on the line get screwed.
Now that Boeing has made AF brass look bad, look for the AF to write some very sharp requirements that preclude Boeing from even coming close. Some requirement, say for fuel offload amount per foot of runway required. Or, just moving up the importance of cargo capacity. Or requiring a flyoff with new booms in a timeframe so short that Boeing couldn’t meet it.
Rix,
Boeing hasn’t made AF brass look bad. The KC-X source selection team has made the USAF acquisition system look bad.
The USAF is no longer in charge of writing the requirements (Pentagon acquisition chief John Young now is) but reguardless there is no requirements short of some insanely low maximum bid cost NG/EADS could meet that Boeing could not (EADS is notorious for deliberately underbiding Boeing & making up the difference on the back end).
I would not be surprised if the USAF filed a protest of its own indicating it was bad enough for it to be FORCED by outside influences to change its critera to accommodate the non-competative Airbus/EADS A330-200 platform JUST SO THERE WOULD BE A COMPETITON but to take the extra step of giving its authority to write its own RFP to Pentagon acquisition chief John Young goes TOO far.
***
The remainder is purely theoretical. Having followed the USAF’s attempt(s) to recapitilize its tanker fleet since BEFORE 9/11/01, I have seen/heard/read plenty to lead me to believe that something LIKE this is possible. I do not claim to have (&/or if I did, the authority to present) the evidence which would ‘prove’ it to anyone who does not already see it themselves.
***
In its protest the USAF could expose all the dirty behind-the-scenes crap which put it into the “impossible” position of running a “fair & transparent competition” between Boeing & Airbus/EADS due to the disparity between what it KNOWS it wants & needs (a 767-200 sized tanker) and the Airbus/EADS A330-200 platform. After all it was mandated that there HAD to be a competition (appearantly for no other reason then to have a competition even though it was OBVIOUS what the right platform for the USAF was) so the USAF had to try to convince BOTH Boeing and the NG/EADS team that their proposal could (& likely would) win in order to keep BOTH in the competition. The USAF could explain how it bowed to the anti-Boeing/pro-Airbus crowd – altering its criteria to accomodate & selecting the NG/EADS proposal since the anti-Boeing/pro-Airbus crowd made it perfectly clear during the previous attempt by the USAF to begin recapitalization of its already aged tanker fleet that they would do anything/everything in their power to ensure that Boeing would not be accepted. Hoping that the A330-200′s shortcomings would not be too detrimental &/or that it could continue to rely on its KC-135s until the later KC-Y program where it could HOPEFULLY get the right sized tankers for its needs. Or perhaps better in the long run (but unfortnately at great expense to the warfighter & the taxpayer) that the A330-200 platforms’s shortcomings would become evident enough that the contract would be cancelled & the USAF could then get the right sized tankers for its needs.
> Boeing did not screw up the tanker lease deal,
i misread this the first time because even i didn’t think you could be so brazen
they didn’t screw up the tanker lease deal?
how in the world can you say such a thing?
Boeing execs in jail, Boeing CEO resigns, to say they didn’t screw up destroys any hope you ever had of regaining credibility
The Pentagon should just come clean with their policy. Deals over $1bn will only be awarded to American companies.
There are really only 3 options the Pentagon can pick from.
1. Buy the best, no matter the cost or where its made.
2. Mostly buy American, wheather its the best or not, cheapest or most expensive.
3. Always go for the lowest bid, where ever its from.
God,where does one even start with this? Our whole procurement System is broke. Name a system,any system,& there are major problems with it. Whether it’s the Air Force,Army,Marine Corps,or Navy(even the Coast Guard is having problems with their cutter,among other things),none of our armed services are coming up with new weapons that work(excluding the F-22 & Osprey of course,but even those weapons systems are finding it hard to be used properly or to find a mission to justify them).Iran is shooting missiles & all the “false prophets” are talking about how our weapon systems(including the ones not even built or fielded yet) will make mince meat of them(these are the same “false prophets” who claim that putting aircraft carriers into that shooting barrel known as the Persian Gulf & Strait of Hormuz is “no big deal.” I’m sorry,& very blunt,but NOBODY can be that stupid to actually believe that,NOBODY.Public school education strikes again).The more I watch the procurement fiasco,along with the mistreatment of our troops & the natural disasters hitting our nation,the more I believe our nation is cursed.
Leland,
Your reply to Takeo is one of the most pathetic replies ever written, coward! Be a man instead of a dunce!
pfcem must have some stock in Boeing
irtusk,
It was the USAF that screwed up the tanker lease deal. It was the USAF which establish to most everyone’s satisfaction the urgent need for the tankers (not most everyone agreed the need for new tanker but not enough that needed them starting in 2006). It was the USAF which failed to establish that the proposed deal met the criteria for a commercial lease. It was the USAF which failed to follow the rules in its attempt to rush the process. The USAF & Boeing negotiated a fair market value price “not to exceed $131 million” per tanker (of course fair market value price wasn’t good enough for some who demanded best possible price).
Sorry, but when the USAF screws up, it is the GAO’s job to tell the USAF it screwed up & recommend that it fix it’s screw ups. The GOA is not telling the USAF how it has to do its job other than to due it under the rules & regulations of the system & the critera of the RFP.
Nobody told the USAF to select the 767. The USAF had been looking at what to eventually replace its KC-135s with since 1996 (as it was recommended to do by the GAO) & had been talking/working WITH Boeing on a KC-767 as a likely choice. In March 2000, Boeing created a business unit to market the 767 tanker worldwide. In April 2000, Boeing signed a contract to build four new 767 military tankers for Italy. By the way, the RFP rewrite you complain about BASICALLY so Boeing could build essetially the same tanker for the USF as it was building for Italy rather than invest the time & money to develope a separate varient (right away, it did intend to do so during the time of the lease so as to have a “full US spec” tanker that met all US requirements ready for an expected follow-on contract for purchased tankers) to specifically meet all US requirements.
Sorry, but “The Air Force was ordered by Congress to work with Boeing on the new tanker program” AFTER the USAF had already all but selected the KC-767 (an AoA had yet to be done but the USAF was confident once one was complete that it would show the KC-767 to be a good choice) & was ALREADY working WITH Boeing on a projected 1st delivery scheduled for 2012. But then 9/11/01 happened & suddenly the USAF decided it wanted it in 2006. As to why the timeframe was cut, MOST LIKELY the USAF decided that it no longer wanted to pay the increasing maintenance cost (both in time & money) for its KC-135E & that it wanted to get rid of them ASAP but in order to do thet it had to get a replacement for them…
Unless EADS developed a VASTLY improved A310 MRTT, time wasn’t going to help because the A330 MRTT was non-competative.
As I have asked before, what were the original 26 requirements? Which were those that were included in the tanker lease RFP (which were left out simply for cost & expediency) & how is it with more than just 3 years from contract signing to 1st delivery (remember this was before ANY 767 or A330 tanker was even close to being developed) a KC-767 could not meet all 26 requirements. AND how do those 26 requirements in any way indicate that the USAF EVER wanted anything like the KC-30?
An AoA was avoided to save the 1.5-2 year projected delay waiting for one that the USAF was confent would show the KC-767 to be a good choice anyway.
It really, I mean REALLY, is amazing how you complete ignor &/or flip history around. :)
> Sorry, but “The Air Force was ordered by Congress to work with Boeing on the new tanker program” AFTER the USAF had already all but selected the KC-767
link up or shut up
http://armedservices.house.gov/
http://digital.library.unt.edu/
http://www.gao.gov/
http://www.govexec.com/
http://www.leeham.net/
http://opencrs.com/
http://stinet.dtic.mil/
or you could try
http://www.fas.org/
http://www.globalsecurity.org/
Educate yourself. :)