The Pentagon announced today that it will rebid the controversial Air Force refueling tanker contract, with a decision coming before the end of the year. Notice how I wrote that the “Pentagon” will rebid the contract, not the “Air Force”:
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 Defense 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, D-Wash. “No one has any faith in the Air Force.
So to all those of you who vehemently defended the Airbus contract (you know who you are, Sen. McCain), don’t you feel a little foolish right about now?
It should also be noted that Sec. Gates has ties to our region, owning a vacation home on Orcas Island, and formerly serving on the board of directors of Bellevue based Vote Here Inc., and while I don’t really expect him to show Boeing an favoritism, his local connections couldn’t hurt.
John Young? Is this the same guy who ran HP for a while after Bill Hewlett retired?
A word of warning:
The newspaper articles say that the only parts of the contract which can be “re-bid” are the parts the GAO specifically referenced as errors. I’m not sure what that means, and it could be fertile ground for quite a debate. For example, the Air Force made mistakes in calculating the costs of the Boeing plane, and Northrup/EADS will be sure to argue that it is that kind of thing which should be re-argued. The Alabama Senator’s statements emphasized that is exactly the type of limited issue which should be re-argued.
But the real issue here is the size of the plane the air force wants. In other words, if the air force gives Northrup/EADS credit for supplying a bigger airplane, what happens if Boeing substitutes a bid based on the 777? At that point, it’s a completely new bid.
Also, does Northrup/AEDS get credit for having an additional system for re-fueling Navy & Marine aircraft, which apparantly isn’t the same as the Air Force system? That wasn’t part of the bid, but the Air Force made a big point of it when they awarded the bid to the Airbus plane. Can Boeing now add a similar dual refueling system, which wasn’t in their original bid? Come to think about it, why doesn’t Gates require the Air Force and Navy to have similar re-fueling systems in the future?
Having the Defense Dept. oversee the process will probably help. There was a lot of reasons why the Air Force would be biased against Boeing. For one thing, they got one of their own in trouble, landing her a jail term, when they offered her a job (which she accepted) while she was still working on projects involving Boeing. That might have caused some resentment. Additionally, that whole deal gave the Air Force a black eye.
If someone really wants to give a contract to one bidder, there are lots of ways for them to do so, usually by weighting the qualifications of the bidders differently, or by assigning different weights to the advantages of competing designs. If done correctly, it can usually survive an attack.
After being stung by Boeing now a second time here, with the Air Force procurement people getting quite a bit of public blame, it would be hard to imagine a circumstance in which they would not want to go OUT OF THEIR WAY to make sure that Boeing didn’t get the project the third time – but making sure they did it slightly more carefully this time.
By the way – how close is Gates to McCain?
David, it’s not an “Airbus contract.” Northrop Grumman/EADS bid on the contract.
Second, I don’t think it’s true or fair to say that McCain “vehemently defended the Airbus contract.” McCain blocked the first contract because the process was corrupt. You’ll recall that officials from both the Air Force and Boeing went to jail.
In the second round, what McCain did was make the process more fair and competitive for the benefit of the taxpayer. For that he deserves credit, although he shouldn’t expect to receive any credit from the unprincipled, expedient partisans in this region who care only that Boeing prevails regardless of the fairness of the process.
David, you are a usually defender of government. How can you cynically and hypocritically misrepresent McCain? Does partisanship trump good government and fair, competitive procurement processes? How are you any different from the supporters of Halliburton?
As someone who lives in this region, I would like to see Boeing win the refueling contract, but I want the process to be fair and competitive.
Boeing spends a lot of money lobbying and contributes a lot to a lot of politicians. It also receives a lot of subsidies at all levels.
http://article.nationalreview......YzMGVkNjQ=
Hey Tommy here. Remember me? I the cocksucking Republican who lies, cheats, and steals while being a family man. I don’t know if anyone has missed me – probably not. PudddyFart, maybe you? We’ll I found a new fondness for posting comments on Republican Conservative blogs in lieu of Liberal Blogs. I let them know how much a fucking looser, lier and cheat that I am. Boy, it’s like self therapy, really gets it out of the system and makes me feel real good.
Wow Moonbat!s, I visited The Boston Globe, part of the NY Slimes consortium and they didn’t say what Goldy is implying here. But of course you have to measure the messenger per HAs clueless idiot. The BG was in Kerry’s heiny during the 2004 campaign.
http://www.boston.com/news/nat.....or_airbus/
“Danielle Brian, executive director of the Project On Government Oversight, a watchdog group that has cooperated with McCain in the past on the tanker issue, said she had seen no evidence that lobbyists influenced McCain’s stands on the bidding process. But she said he is judged differently because of his reputation as a self-described “straight-talking” reformer.”
“McCain’s oversight of the tanker contract goes back to 2003 when, as chairman of the Senate Commerce Committee and of an Armed Services subcommittee, he led an investigation that uncovered a procurement scandal that killed an earlier tanker contract with Boeing. A former Air Force official and a top Boeing executive both served time in prison, and the scandal led to the departure of Boeing’s chief executive and several top Air Force officials.”
This is what Puddy wrote earlier in another thread.
What is interesting is Adam Smith, Patty Murray, Norm Dicks had little to say when the scandal was uncovered.
http://www.globalsecurity.org/.....candal.htm
Does anyone know the author of this entry regarding Boeing?
http://eatthestate.org/08-08/TaleTwoSenators.htm
More on the WA delegation here:
http://seattletimes.nwsource.c.....in26m.html
@4
“Second, I don’t think it’s true or fair to say that McCain “vehemently defended the Airbus contract.” McCain blocked the first contract because the process was corrupt. You’ll recall that officials from both the Air Force and Boeing went to jail.”
Yup you got it. That’s called oversight….
“Does partisanship trump good government and fair, competitive procurement processes? How are you any different from the supporters of Halliburton?”
Ouch!!!
That’s gotta hurt..
Well done.
boy i know that whole nuclear fiasco scared the sh*t out of a lot of people, but seriously, “no one has any faith in the airforce,” is a wee exageration.
granted, the air force has been busy strategising for a real war, and is trying to conserve sorties in theater for the eventuality that we’ll actually need planes for something other than policing… and yeah, snowjob gates was a little miffed about that.
but all this commotion for like 0.6% of boeing’s total annual earnings. seems ri-god damned-diculous.
I have a good deal more faith in the GAO that in the USAF.
Mike @ 11: If you know anything about the airplane business, you would know that the initial contract is more of a “cost-leader” for the respective bidders.
First, the current KC-135’s are a fifty-year old design, but I’m sure not all of them are fifty years old. There have been quite a few new planes ordered over that half-century, over and above the initial order. Boeing and Airbus both expect to receive substantial additional orders over the life of the program.
Secondly, military aircraft will undergo significant upgrades over the years, and it will be hard for anyone to beat the initial designer/manufacturer of those airplanes for that type of work.
Third, major “C-schedule” maintenance is often outsourced from the Air Force – the type of work which can be done at Wichita or the former Goodrich facilities in Everett. But the original designer/manufacturer of the airframe would have the best chance of getting that kind of work.
Fourth, spare parts is a big factor. You can’t buy aircraft parts at your local Home Depot, even if it is just a “bolt”. Every part comes with a Certificate of Conformity or an FAA 8130-3 tag, which certifies the part as being “airworthy”. Personally, I call those certifications “sue me” certificates – if a plane ever goes down, whoever supplied those parts are going to be part of the lawsuit, at least until the cause of the crash is sorted out. Also, any manufacturer of aircraft parts has to be FAA approved (PMA) or have the parts tested and approved by someone who is. Finally, the parts themselves are often higher-quality or more specialized than you would get off-the-shelf elswhere. Anyway, the risk involved, and additional QA required, means that all aircraft parts come with a substantial premium cost added – along with a profit. I’ve long believed that Boeing could sell aircraft “at cost”, if it wanted to do so, and make up the money on the back end from spare parts sales. Of course, airlines know this, and they calculate lifetime costs for different aircraft when considering aircraft purchases, which prevents the manufacturer from being completely unreasonable in this area.
Anyway, these contracts mean A LOT more to Boeing than the initial purchase price they would receive from the air force.
Luigi @ 4: I think it’s fair enough to call it an “Airbus” contract.
Officially, they have set it up to call it a Northrup/EADS contract, which the Air Force insists on calling the “Northrup” entry – a clear attempt to avoid discussing the fact that very little of the airplane is made in the U.S. But EADS is the parent company of Airbus, and Airbus is supplying the major componants of the airframe.
Right now Northrup/EADS are saying they will do final assembly of the major componants in Alabama, but I’m betting that after the first few planes have been finished, EADS will announce that final assembly will revert back to Toullouse, France, for efficiency purposes.
My sources in Paris tell me that some of the French unions have told their workers that they have been assured by Airbus management that having final assembly in Mobile is something they have to do temporarily in order to get the contract, but final assembly will revert back to Toullouse very soon. If that doesn’t happen, the unions there will be very upset, and there will be a strike at Airbus over the “outsourcing” issue.
After final assembly reverts back to Toullouse, a completed aircraft will be flown from Toullouse to Mobile where the only work which will be performed will be the installation of the fueling systems, although Northrup will be givin a slightly larger slice of the profit in return for the re-negotiation of the terms of the Northrup/EADS contract. But that still means that there will only be a handful of U.S. jobs on the project, although I’m sure Northrup corporate management would get big bonuses.
@4 Yeah, the GOP’s no-bid contracting procedures look real fair to us taxpayers. Remember the guys shoveling money into duffle bags from the backs of pickups for Bush-buddy contractors in Iraq? I wouldn’t trust any Republican with my wallet or my daughter.*
* Actually, I have lots of daughters — about 7,500 at last count, give or take a couple hundred.
Wouldn’t it make sense for the Air Force to determine what airplane it wanted for the air refueling role? I don’t see Mr. Gates as having a lot of expertise in that role. Was he an Air Force tanker pilot in a previous life?
As far as “It should also be noted that Sec. Gates has ties to our region, owning a vacation home on Orcas Island…” Must be nice to have a house on Orcas. The guy’s definitely not middle class!
I trust the Pentagon as far as I can throw it. Mr Gates’ ties to the region won’t help anymore than Tom Stewart’s.