GovernmentExecutive.com

Return to Article: Lawmakers cry foul over Defense procurement debacle

• 91581
  

  Isn't this exact form of political interference the same reason for why we have a "helium farm" in Texas? As I understand it, this is a government-funded storage facility that ensures our zeppelins have enough helium in wartime. I'm more than a little sick of this process. Congress overrides what the Pentagon says it needs (undeveloped, non-stealth F-35 and better engines for the proven F-22), then enters the fight over which state gets which contract. I propose a new rule: politicians get NO SAY over contracts. I look forward to the day when fed contracts benefit the country instead of politicians and their buddies.

  Chuck the Wise Posted November 9, 2009 12:11 PM
• 91080
  

  It is instances such as this that continues to validate my decision to retire. It got so old being slapped-down by Congress at every turn, dealing with the "political" procurement legislation, and constant "do more with less" attitudes. My best to all of you remaining in the procurement arena---I know what you are working under.

  Retired KO Posted November 3, 2009 11:19 AM
• 90966
  

  I fully agree with the majority of the comments; congress needs to stay out of this. If a company thinks the solicitation is tilted, they can file a protest until buds are due. If they don't, missed opportunity. If they have an issue after award, they can file a protest after a debriefing and the only issue that should be looked at then is the process of rating and award. No way this should have gone back to square one and never should again if a pre-award protest by the proper party, ie..company, fails.

  Aj Posted November 2, 2009 2:25 PM
• 90948
  

  This properly titled "CONGRESSIONAL procurement debacle" well illustrates the folly of Congressional influence on Govenment acquisition. This irrational conduct of Government business should be remembered by those who place the burden of fraud, waste, and abuse on the hapless Job Series 1102 contracting officers and contract specialists. These professionals are not the problem. The political environment in which they try to operate is the problem.

  Contract Specialist Posted November 2, 2009 11:26 AM
• 90913
  

  I wonder how many of those who are critiquing this effort have stock investments in the companies they are defending or supporting. Maybe GAO should check that out. And while they are at it, perhaps they ought to determine why it is that politicians have already inserted themselves into this and the award has not been made or even a BAFO presented. My oh my, what a wonderful chaotic world we have made so we can set ourselves up for another Government bailout! (And I wonder who the heck most Americans think Government is.)

  Phoenix Posted November 2, 2009 8:53 AM
• 90909
  

  What justifies the headline calling the new tanker RFP a debacle? It seems to me that where each side accuses the Air Force of slanting the RFP in favor of the other side the Air Force probably created as neutral an RFP as possible! Besides, who can give any credence to what these particular Congresscritters say? When someone with real knowledge of Government procurement, and at least the appearnce of being impartial because his constituents don't have a financial stake in the outcome, says that the RFP is skewed to favor Boeing or Northrop, then maybe I will pay attention. Right now, these guys have ZERO credibility.

  wallyp Posted November 2, 2009 8:16 AM
• 90907
  

  I was very surprised with DoD indicated that the RFP would be drafted and released by the Air Force. Prior to this decision, the DoD had indicated that they would be responsible for doing the RFP and selecting the winner. Then out of nowhere, I read that the Air Force is doing this project again. The problem as stated in the article began with a civilian offical who wanted to be the selection authority and also work for Boeing when she quit the Air Force. It was a mess from the start. The second go around, the Air Force violated procurement rules by not evaluating the award according to the Section M of the RFP which listed what criteria they would consider for award. Thus the protest and the do over again. I would hope that whom ever is leading the effort this time has learn the lesson...no favoritism, no job seeking, no comprimise on what the evaluation criteria requires, and no favorable treatment for any of the contractors because of the pressure from Congress. Let's get it right this time!

  Bob Posted November 2, 2009 8:10 AM
• 90898
  

  I?ve read other articles quoting Senator Shelby as saying the proposed RFP is biased toward Boeing, but I have yet to read any article that cites his specific issues to back the accusation. Shelby will gain political favor with a Northrop win since they will build the tankers in his state. Without specifics it appears his tactic is just to assert something enough times in hopes people will believe him. Isn?t that also called a sham?

  milret Posted November 2, 2009 7:39 AM