GovernmentExecutive.com

Return to Article: Do As You Say

• 53183
  

  boeing should have won the bid because boeing already have everything and knowledges of how use airbus never have and also if they win air force have to wait for them to build factory in eastern US and waste time too long i try to enter boeing for job if boeing win the bid as long aas i learn computer stuff like access c.a.d i hope that boeing win and get me back to work for boeing and make me getting my old pride

  stanley jensen Posted June 26, 2008 2:45 PM
• 53178
  

  I bet that there were several AF contracting professionals involved with this process that knew the award decision would get hammered in a protest. These people likely said little to nothing for fear of hurting there career. I personally believe that this sort of event will continue to take place until the Gov't makes a real effort to change the 1102 career field. Stronger qualification standards (I now COs with unlimited warrants that have 10th grade reading comprehension skills) and real consequences substandard work.

  1102DOD Posted June 26, 2008 1:55 PM
• 53160
  

  The Boeing plane is far better for the taxpayers and the Air Force. The 767 will not require that hangars and runways be rebuilt and is more fuel efficient. This is important at a time when fuel prices are sky-rocketing! The Boeing plane is more manueverable. My husband has flown tankers and he would prefer the Boeing plane any day!!

  For America Posted June 26, 2008 11:02 AM
• 53153
  

  If this is how the Air Force makes selections in an obvious high stakes, high visibility instance, what other liberties are they taking with bidders in the more routine solicitations? Is the Air Force's procurement community inherently fair and unbiased in its decisions, or only to those bidders who have the power to force the issue?

  Jeff U Posted June 26, 2008 9:47 AM
• 53098
  

  "Conversely, the Air Force gave Northrop Grumman extra credit for proposing to exceed the Air Force's expectations on one requirement, even though the service explicitly said in the solicitation that officials wouldn't give extra credit for surpassing the stated needs."

  It must be pointed out that the KC-X Systems Requirement Document very clearly laid out the minimum desired amount of fuel to be available for offload at given distances. However, the Document did NOT state a minimum number of pallets, a minimum number of Aeromedical Evacuation patients, or a minimum number of passengers that needed be carried.

  Therefore, no 'extra credit' should be given to the KC-30 proposal for it's ability to deliver more fuel, but the Air Force should be free to give extra credit for the additional cargo/pax capability.

  John S. Posted June 25, 2008 1:24 PM
• 53070
  

  It needs to be pointed out that the Source Selection Committee is not made up of the same acquisition professionals who developed the solicitation. So, it is easy to see where things could have went astray. But, the Contracting Officer should have reviewd their Technical Evaluation, and caught these things. That is why you always compare the offerrors proposal to the solicitation, and reference the clause when noting deficiencies. So, those who should ensure the guidance in the solicitation was followed probably didn't take the time to review the evaluation in detail. Or, didn't want to tell some high ranking requirements folks that they messed up. Many times, politics, and career, get in the way of doing what is right. Now the price must be paid.

  Ex Contractng Officer Posted June 25, 2008 9:20 AM