GovernmentExecutive.com

Return to Article: GAO: Boeing had 'substantial' shot at tanker deal but for Air Force errors

• 53575
  

  This whole thing has become pure politics and news spinning. As pointed out elsewhere, "might have won" is standard language. The procurement team staked their honor and careers on the tanker buy and were no doubt shocked to hear the GAO opinion. While worrying about the state of the nation, worry about the power GAO is weilding. Whatever they think they know they are as subject to politics, bias, pressure, and personal gain/opinion as anyone else that has been accused of slanting the source selection. There may have been an honest difference of opinion on what the source selection team did, but the process states that it has subjective elements and the source selection authority makes the final decision, not the congress nor the team that did the work. NO major platform is all made in America--folks are being spun up to achieve monetary and political ends. I want out too.

  Ralph Posted July 3, 2008 12:44 PM
• 53554
  

  We would not have this problem if the contract went to Boeing. But since pretty much everyone in congress has a hand in Boeing and they themselves will lose money because of NG/Eads getting the contract. We have this problem. But since the government wants to screw the gulfcoast again after they screwed us during and after Katrina. I say go for it. Even though Boeing can not keep up with the contracts they already have. Let's waste more time and give Boeing the contract so in 30 years we might see the tankers built finally.

  jsncul Posted July 3, 2008 9:46 AM
• 53549
  

  Frank: These "40 year old" tankers are actually closer to 50+ years old and have likely overflown their designed operating lifespan. Perhaps you're unaware, but the military services, all of which maintain some form of aircraft in their arms inventories, can't exactly buy shiny new parts every time one deteriorates. In fact, they're much more likely to cannibalize spare parts from nonoperational "hangar queens". And the Air Force doesn't exactly have every problem nailed down with operational aircraft, hence the reason for grounding their entire F-15 fleet for a few months due to one of them disintegrating in midair and finding major structural defects from their constant use; if I remember correctly, the F-15 fleet was "born" roughly around 1970, which makes THEM about 40 years old.

  In the end, this whole delay, which has come down to a political prizefight, is likely going to put more tankers, their crews and the aircraft that depend on them at risk.

  Tigerhawk Posted July 3, 2008 9:35 AM
• 53547
  

  Sure, give the contract to Boeing. Let them screw it up like they did FCS. Boeing should have lost just on past performance. When was the last time Boeing was able to meet schedule and cost on any contract?

  RR Posted July 3, 2008 9:10 AM
• 53453
  

  Interesting, when Boeing was awarded the tanker maintenance contract over an Alabama company, despite a GAO ruling against them, they defended the award because the men and women of the armed services needed the contract to move forward asap. Now they play the opposite side and are attempting to stall the tanker contract awarded to Northrop. Boeing will have blood on their hands as the tanker fleet ages. Boeing cant even deliver tankers to Italy and Japan on time and which function correctly. Time to mover forward and get Northrop building these planes needed yesterday by our war fighters.

  Peter Posted July 1, 2008 8:17 PM
• 53445
  

  Frank, I agree the army still has M1 rifles that are kept in great condition no need to buy new weapons. The Navy has lots of ships in the Ghost fleet why do they need new ships. The army still has horses why do they need internal combustion engines on their equipment... waste waste waste

  dan m ketter Posted July 1, 2008 4:46 PM
• 53436
  

  Everybody's a contracting officer these days. That why I can't wait to get out. All this uninformed monday morning quarterbacking. The GP has no idea of the acquisition process complexity governing a procurement such as this, with very little choice on the part of the CO to comply with the myriad rules and regulations.

  Being an 1102 CO sucks.

  I Want Out Posted July 1, 2008 3:48 PM
• 53333
  

  If this is how the Air Force conducts competitions in the spotlight, how does it treat bidders in less high profile acquisitions? Can any bidder without an inside track expect fair treatment by an Air Force source selection board?

  JU Posted June 30, 2008 12:29 PM
• 53302
  

  The Air Force keeps their existing fleet in top operational status at all times. Their 40 year "old" planes are in better operational condition, and much safer, then the commercial airlines that carries Americans everyday all over the world. The Air Force does not need the new tankers. This is another DOD farce using taxpayer dollars. This request should be cancelled to save our taxdollars.

  frank Posted June 30, 2008 8:34 AM
• 53244
  

  This is just the tip of the iceberg on the level of incompetence that exists in the AF today. The unfortunate fact is that none of the leadership, civilian or military, actually cares about the mission anymore. They only care about their own careers and misguided sense of self-importance. It's systemically corrupt -- Darleen Druyan is the standard, not the exception. There should be an investigation about who is getting a high paying job at NG.

  MICHELLE Posted June 27, 2008 6:21 PM
• 53243
  

  This is just the tip of the iceberg on the level of incompetence that exists in the AF today. The unfortunate fact is that none of the leadership, civilian or military, actually cares about the mission anymore. They only care about their own careers and misguided sense of self-importance. It's systemically corrupt -- Darleen Druyan is the standard, not the exception. There should be an investigation about who is getting a high paying job at NG.

  MICHELLE Posted June 27, 2008 6:21 PM
• 53241
  

  They should start building the KC-135 again. It will save the cost of new Maint equipment and training for ops and maint. Hangers that the new plane won't fit into. Build spares for the current fleet to keep it going. Which means in the end you have more airframes available. Will any of the new tankers last 50 years? We built over 750 KC-135's. I think we are flying about 350 now and there is never enough when it hits the fan.

  tjb Posted June 27, 2008 6:07 PM
• 53219
  

  Let's us not forget the untidy fact that led to all of this. If it were not for the insular organizational culture that allowed it to happen and the self-financial driven personal corruption of a Dept of Air Force high ranking offical who traded in her personal integrity and betrayed both the airmen she was purported to serve as well as the US taxpayers who funded her high ranking salary solely and simply so she could gain a highly paid and cushy job within this industry post retirement from her Dept of Air Force one agency 'good old girl' career, the airmen would already have access to these planes.

  M. Smith Posted June 27, 2008 11:12 AM
• 53173
  

  I'm with you, JTF. And now that Gates is involved in the process, I hate it for NG/EADS. The writing is on the wall.

  AD Posted June 26, 2008 1:20 PM
• 53167
  

  If the GAO and Congress want to dictate the answer to acquisition actions, they need to put it in writing BEFORE the effort begins. The military can save millions in source selection actions by getting the "politically correct" answer up front.

  JTF Posted June 26, 2008 12:01 PM