DefenseTech Military.com
  • Categories
  • Full Archives
  • Monthly Archives
  • About Defense Tech
Subscribe to RSS

About Defense Tech

Defense Tech exam­ines the inter­sec­tion of tech­nol­ogy and defense from every angle and pro­vides analy­sis on what’s ahead.

Tip Us Off

Tip for Defense Tech?

SEND IT!

It’s Confidential!

Categories

  • 'Canes
  • Afghan Update
  • Ammo and Munitions
  • Armor
  • Around the Globe
  • Av Week Extra
  • Axe in Iraq (and Elsewhere)
  • Bizarro
  • Blimps
  • Blog Bidness
  • Body Armor Blues
  • Bomb Squad
  • Brownshoes in Action
  • Bubbleheads, etc.
  • Cammo Green
  • Catch the "Buzz"
  • Chem-Bio
  • Civilian Apps
  • Cloak and Dagger
  • Commandos
  • Comms
  • Contingency Ops
  • Cops and Robbers
  • Cyber-warfare
  • Data Diving
  • Defense Tech Poll
  • Defense Tech Radio
  • Dissent Tech
  • Door Kickers
  • Drones
  • DT Administrivia
  • Eat DT's Dust
  • Extra! Extra!
  • Eye on China
  • Fast Movers
  • FCS Watch
  • Fire for Effect
  • FOS Files
  • Friday Funnies
  • Gadgets and Gear
  • Going Green
  • Grand Ole Osprey
  • Ground Vehicles
  • Guns
  • Homeland Security
  • In the Weeds with Eric
  • Info War
  • Iraq Diary
  • Jarhead Jazz
  • JSF Watch
  • Just War Theories
  • Lasers and Ray Guns
  • Less-lethal
  • Logistics
  • Los Alamos and Labs
  • M4 Monopoly
  • Medic!
  • Mercs
  • Missiles
  • Money Money Money
  • Most Wanted
  • MRAP Edge
  • Net-Centric
  • Nukes
  • Old Skool
  • Our Shrinking Planet
  • Planes, Copters, Blimps
  • Podcast
  • Politricks
  • Polmar's Perspective
  • Popular Mechanics
  • Rapid Fire
  • Raptor Watch
  • Red Team
  • Retro-Futuro
  • Robots
  • Roll Your Own
  • Sabra Tech
  • Ships and Subs
  • Snipertech
  • Soldier Systems
  • Space
  • Special Ops
  • Star Wars
  • Strategery
  • Stray Trons
  • Tactical Development
  • Terror Tech
  • The Deadlies
  • The Defense Biz
  • The Peoples' Site
  • The Sunday Paper
  • The Tanker Tango
  • The View from Av Week
  • Those Nutty Norks
  • Training and Sims
  • Trimble on the Case
  • Uncategorized
  • Video Lounge
  • War Update
  • Ward'z Wonderz
  • You can run…

Archives

  • November 2009
  • October 2009
  • September 2009
  • August 2009
  • July 2009
  • June 2009
  • May 2009
  • April 2009
  • March 2009
  • February 2009
  • January 2009
  • December 2008
  • November 2008
  • October 2008
  • September 2008
  • August 2008
  • July 2008
  • June 2008
  • May 2008
  • April 2008
  • March 2008
  • February 2008
  • January 2008
  • December 2007
  • November 2007
  • October 2007
  • September 2007
  • August 2007
  • July 2007
  • June 2007
  • May 2007
  • April 2007
  • March 2007
  • February 2007
  • January 2007
  • December 2006
  • November 2006
  • October 2006
  • September 2006
  • August 2006
  • July 2006
  • June 2006
  • May 2006
  • April 2006
  • March 2006
  • February 2006
  • January 2006
  • December 2005
  • November 2005
  • October 2005
  • September 2005
  • August 2005
  • July 2005
  • June 2005
  • May 2005
  • April 2005
  • March 2005
  • February 2005
  • January 2005
  • December 2004
  • November 2004
  • October 2004
  • September 2004
  • August 2004
  • July 2004
  • June 2004
  • May 2004
  • April 2004
  • March 2004
  • February 2004
  • January 2004
  • December 2003
  • November 2003
  • October 2003
  • September 2003
  • August 2003
  • July 2003
  • June 2003
  • May 2003
  • April 2003
  • March 2003
  • February 2003
  • January 2003

Home » The Tanker Tango » FLASH: NO Tanker RFP Til Next Admin

FLASH: NO Tanker RFP Til Next Admin

boeing-kc767.jpg

Defense Secretary Robert Gates, clearly wor­ried that the atmos­phere is so poi­soned by the bat­tle between Boeing and Northrop and tainted by the poor per­for­mance of the Air Force, has decided to punt and leave any tanker RFP to the next administration.

Rather than hand the next Administration an incom­plete and pos­si­bly con­tested process, Secretary Gates decided that the best course of action is to pro­vide the next Administration with full flex­i­bil­ity regard­ing the require­ments, eval­u­a­tion cri­te­ria and the appro­pri­ate allo­ca­tion of defense bud­get to this mis­sion, the Pentagon release said this morning..

The release quoted Gates, say­ing that It is my judg­ment that in the time remain­ing to us, we can no longer com­plete a com­pe­ti­tion that would be viewed as fair and objec­tive in this highly charged envi­ron­ment. The result­ing cool­ing off period will allow the next Administration to review objec­tively the mil­i­tary require­ments and craft a new acqui­si­tion strat­egy for the KC-​​X.

The first con­gres­sional reac­tion was pos­i­tive, from one of the Capitols most impor­tant money men. I believe that Secretary Gates made the right deci­sion in pro­vid­ing the next Administration with the oppor­tu­nity to review the require­ments and pro­ceed with a new solic­i­ta­tion. Our com­mit­tee advised the Defense Department to ensure that there was enough time for legit­i­mate com­pe­ti­tion. This deci­sion will allow for that, Rep. John Murtha (D-​​Penn.) said in a state­ment. He sig­nalled pretty clearly that the House Appropriations defense sub­com­mit­tee would come up with what­ever money might be needed to keep the tankers fly­ing. Now our job will be to work with the Department to make cer­tain that our cur­rent tankers, that are over 40 years old, will be reha­bil­i­tated to ensure we have tankers avail­able for world-​​wide Air Force mis­sions, he added.

Read the rest of this story and more updates from DoD Buzz.

– Colin

Share |

September 10th, 2008 | The Tanker Tango | 406414 Comments »http://defensetech.org/2008/09/10/flash-no-tanker-rfp-til-next-admin/FLASH%3A+NO+Tanker+RFP+Til+Next+Admin2008-09-10+18%3A19%3A26Ward You can skip to the end and leave a response. Pinging is currently not allowed.

« « Russian Force to the Caribbean | Thursday — Fire for Effect » »

This website uses IntenseDebate comments, but they are not currently loaded because either your browser doesn't support JavaScript, or they didn't load fast enough.

  1. AirSix says:
    September 10, 2008 at 2:39 pm

    Secretary Gates was for the tanker before he was against it.

    Reply
  2. Tartan69 says:
    September 10, 2008 at 2:57 pm

    Someone at the very high­est lev­els should be fired for allow­ing this whole deba­cle to get to this point.

    Reply
  3. Eduardo says:
    September 10, 2008 at 3:40 pm

    Someone won this round. And it was not Northrop Grumman.

    Reply
  4. John says:
    September 10, 2008 at 3:59 pm

    Same old mil­i­tary pro­cure­ment process, designed to be as expen­sive as humanly pos­si­ble.
    So what’s the cri­te­ria now? We just keep bid­ding until Boeing wins?
    I hope who­ever takes over the next admin­is­tra­tion fires every AF employee con­nected with this. Then bans Boeing from bid­ding on govt work for a decade.

    Reply
  5. Trent Telenko says:
    September 10, 2008 at 4:00 pm

    >Someone at the very high­est lev­els should be
    >fired for allow­ing this whole deba­cle to get to
    >this point.
    IIRC, the USAF CoS and Civilian Secretary were canned for a lot of rea­sons, some stated, most not.
    This seems to have been one of the unstated ones.

    Reply
  6. reshtet says:
    September 10, 2008 at 7:26 pm

    Man,if they can’t get a needed Tanker going what
    lies are they cov­er­ing up in Iraq/​Afghan???? And the tan fill color is back,from a site I order music from???

    Reply
  7. George Hanshaw says:
    September 10, 2008 at 7:56 pm

    The prob­lem here is with DOD pro­cure­ment:
    1. USAF pro­cure­ment offi­cer extorts retire­ment job from Boeing as a con­di­tion of doing busi­ness with them.
    2. USAF pro­cure­ment peo­ple do ‘bait and switch’ by using source selec­tion cri­te­ria that were in direct con­flict with RFP.
    3. DOD pro­cure­ment tries to bluff their way past the real­ity that their changed RFP restarts the whole pro­gram.
    Finally, even Gates saw the writ­ing on the wall. As a for­mer USAF pro­cure­ment off­i­cal I can tell you that DOD PROCUREMENT HAS NEVER PAID ANY ATTENTION TO PROCUREMENT LAW, buy­ing off wronged con­trac­tors with future fat con­tracts so they didn’t protest.
    But when the USAF pro­cure­ment offi­cial who was extort­ing a job from Boeing got caught and both she and Boeing were pun­ished, the rules changed. If the fed­eral gov­ern­ment is going to send peo­ple to jail for using the good old boy sys­tem, the con­trac­tors aren’t going to use it, they are going to use their legal depart­ments.
    If DOD want pro­cure­ment actions to go smoothly it’s actu­ally quite easy. They can fol­low pro­cure­ment law. Only prob­lem is they have very lit­tle expe­ri­ence in work­ing that way.

    Reply
  8. SMSgt Mac says:
    September 10, 2008 at 10:08 pm

    You don’t even have to read between the lines: just read to the end of the lines. The key point in today’s announce­ment con­cern­ing the inabil­ity to pro­ceed is the point that the con­tract is try­ing to go for­ward “in this highly charged envi­ron­ment”.
    So dear fel­lows, we must ask our­selves what made it a ‘highly charged’ envi­ron­ment? You can look at any­thing that tran­spired on the gov­ern­ment side after the issuance of the final RFP and you won’t find any­thing to ‘highly charge’ the sit­u­a­tion. You can go down the litany of mis­steps the aqui­si­tion folks are alleged to have stum­bled through and you won’t find any­thing that caused things to be ‘highly charged’. Similarly the mere fil­ing of a protest by Boeing wouldn’t have nec­ces­sar­ily ‘highly charge’ any­thing.
    No, I sub­mit the only thing that pulled the trig­ger that ‘highly charged’ the sit­u­a­tion was the man­ner in which Boeing pur­sued its protest, and how Boeing brought the full weight of their polit­i­cal machine to bear from day one. (The speed at which Boeing moved in this direc­tion still sug­gests pre­med­i­ta­tion to me: per­haps a plan B alter­na­tive for them as early as when they first antic­i­pated or under­stood the essence of the final RFP.)
    As to whether this is merely more polit­i­cal cow­ardice on the part of the DoD or not, I will await the next RFP before pass­ing judge­ment. If there are cer­tain changes made from the pre­vi­ous one with­out sig­nif­i­cant tech­ni­cal or user need ratio­nale to sup­port them, we will KNOW that Boeing will have cowed the DoD and suc­cess­fully sub­ju­gated the entire acqui­si­tion sys­tem just to ensure the tax­pay­ers will keep sub­si­diz­ing their busi­ness case.
    The pos­si­bil­ity of good com­ing from this is extremely remote.

    Reply
  9. pfcem says:
    September 11, 2008 at 11:00 pm

    SMSgt Mac,
    As usu­all you are FOS. Deliberately mis­rep­re­sent­ing the facts & blaim­ing Boeing for every­thing that went wrong.
    What “caused” the ‘highly charged’ envi­ron­ment was Congress in its infi­nate wis­dome (not) think­ing it could fix the prob­lems that occured dur­ing the tanker lease pro­gram by FORCING the USAF to con­duct a “full & thor­ough com­pe­ti­tion” under INTENSE Congressional & DOD over­sight when the USAF had already rejected the the A330 plat­form for not meet­ing its needs, being too risky, too expen­sive & TOO BIG. Everything which tran­spired was a direct result of that bone­headed act & Boeing not bend­ing over back­wards to take the blaim & be penal­ized more than it already had for the mis­takes of the USAF & the DOD.
    The USAF then had the unevi­able job of con­duct­ing a soli­ci­a­tion (under INTENSE Congressional & DOD over­sight) in which both Boeing & EADS (part­nered with NG) would com­pete. The NG/​EADS team took full advan­tage of the DEMAND for a com­pe­ti­tion & know­ing that it could not win under the cri­te­ria the USAF estab­lished got the cri­te­ria changed to acco­mo­date their oth­er­wise non­com­peta­tive KC-​​30, then threat­ened to pull its bid unless “fur­ther elab­o­ra­tion” was made.
    It wasn’t bad enough that the KC-​​X source selec­tion team (NOT the USAF) did not assess the rel­a­tive mer­its of the pro­pos­als in accor­dance with the eval­u­a­tion cri­te­ria iden­ti­fied in the solic­i­ta­tion in select­ing the KC-​​30, con­ducted mis­lead­ing and unequal dis­cus­sions with Boeing, et cetera but “leaked” that it was not even close. Then it delayed a week before debrief­ing Boeing on “why” the KC-​​30 had been selected & in that breif­ing it became clear. Boeing protested the selec­tion of the KC-​​30 sight­ing prej­u­di­cial errors made by the KC-​​X source selec­tion team. In one of, if not THE harsh­est rul­ings any­one can remem­ber the GAO sus­tained the protest. The result being such a loss of con­fi­dence in the USAF that its selec­tion author­ity was taken away & given directly to the ONE man who was respon­si­ble for ensur­ing that what did hap­pen did not hap­pen…
    What about all the changes made to & from the pre­vi­ous RFPs with­out sig­nif­i­cant tech­ni­cal or user need ratio­nale to sup­port them?

    Reply
  10. pfcem says:
    September 12, 2008 at 9:28 pm

    SMSgt Mac,
    Thanks once again for prov­ing my point correct.

    Reply
  11. angel says:
    October 21, 2008 at 8:28 pm

    That’s OK!But take a closer look fol­low­ing link,It’s great to DVD and PSP con­verter for mac!
    DVD Ripper for Mac,
    Mac DVD Ripper Suite,
    Mac DVD Converter Ultimate Suite,
    Mac DVD Copy,
    Mac DVD Creator,
    Mac DVD to iPod Converter,
    Mac DVD to iPhone Converter,
    Mac DVD to MP4 Converter,
    Mac DVD to Apple TV Converter,
    Mac DVD to PSP Converter,
    Mac DVD to BlackBerry Converter,
    Mac DVD Audio Ripper,
    Edit DVD,
    Vob Converter for Mac,
    VOB to iPod Converter for Mac,
    VOB to Apple TV Converter for Mac,
    VOB to PSP Converter for Mac,
    VOB to MPEG4 Converter for Mac,
    VOB to M4V Converter for Mac,
    VOB to 3GP Converter for Mac,
    VOB to MPG Converter for Mac,
    VOB to AVI Converter for Mac

    Reply

Leave a Reply

Click here to cancel reply.

Spam Protection by WP-SpamFree

    Most Popular Posts
    • What Does this Handle Do?
    • Marines Quiet About Brutal New Weapon
    • Starship Troopers Meets G.I. Joe
    • Dowd's Bogus Grief Deficit
    • Semi-auto Grenade Thrower
    • Adapting Women to Subs
    • Fort Hood Rampage
    • Keep it Simple
    • Mystery Drone Revealed
    • REPLACEMENT ARM, GOOD AS NEW
    Recent Comments
    • Fort Hood Rampage
      "I'd say go read some history on fascist ideology and then compare...
      Sam
    • Semi-auto Grenade Thrower
      No. I am not saying a grenade launcher on a rifle is a hoax. I...
      Zandor
    • Semi-auto Grenade Thrower
      For someone who trashes all the readers of the blog you sure do...
      a1189
    • Market for Acoustic Defense Systems Heats Up
      These devices vibrate tissue and bone not just...
      WJS
    • Semi-auto Grenade Thrower
      So are you saying the grenade launcher is a hoax or the M-16?...
      WJS
    • Fort Hood Rampage
      Dear Cannon Fodder; Only politically correct patriots should be accepted...
      Zandor
    • Dowd’s Bogus Grief Deficit
      LOL Still all this pissing an moaning about the editorial...
      Philo
    • Fort Hood Rampage
      I'd say go read some history on fascist ideology and then compare that...
      Philo
    • Fort Hood Rampage
      Islame isn't a race, genius……
      Philo
    • Semi-auto Grenade Thrower
      I sure as hell don't need to have someone take pictures of me...
      Zandor
    Recent Articles
    • Semi-​​auto Grenade Thrower
    • Market for Acoustic Defense Systems Heats Up
    • Fort Hood Rampage
    • Keep it Simple
    • Airbag Defense
    • Dowd’s Bogus Grief Deficit
    • Did Someone Move the Furniture Around?
    • Lockheed Says Sbirs Still on Track For 2010
    • What Does this Handle Do?
    • Adapting Women to Subs
  • Channels: Military.com | Military Benefits | Military News | Off Duty | Join the Military | Military Education | Veteran Jobs | Military Money | Military Deals | Military Family | Military Community
  • Military.com Network: Military.com | MilBlogging | Defense Tech | DoD Buzz | SpouseBuzz | Fred's Place | GI Bill Express
  • Services: Army | Navy | Air Force | Marine Corps | Coast Guard | National Guard | Military Spouse
  • About Military.com About Us | Advertise With Us | Press | Affiliate Program | Monster Network | Help | Feedback | Privacy Policy | User Agreement | © 2009 Military Advantage