Quote:
Originally Posted by KDAngel
Well I'm sure this will excite some people -- the GAO just told the airforce they have to consider Boeing again. So for now, EADS has lost the deal. But they won it for a reason, and deserve to get it back. Period.
|
More like a question mark.
The GAO says they won it for bogus reasons. It is very rare for the GAO to honor an appeal, so that should be a huge red flag to everyone that this was a very shady review process.
Here's the full story:
Boeing wins a key round in tanker protest
Company complaint over $35 billion Air Force contract is upheld
WASHINGTON - Congressional investigators have upheld Boeing’s protest of a $35 billion Air Force tanker contract awarded to Northrop Grumman Corp. and Airbus parent European Aeronautic Defence and Space Co., and recommended that the service hold a new competition.
The
Government Accountability Office said Wednesday that it found “a number of significant errors that could have affected the outcome of what was a close competition between Boeing and Northrop Grumman.”
...
Although the GAO denied some parts of the Boeing protest, it also offered a lengthy rationale for why the contract should be re-competed. Among its conclusions was that the Air Force awarded the Northrop team improper extra credit for offering a larger plane that could carry more fuel, cargo and troops. It also found that the Boeing tanker would be cheaper to operate over its lifespan even though the Air Force initially said the Northrop tanker offered cost advantages.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/25246267/
The Seattle Times, as expected, has the story and they list SEVEN "major mistakes in the Air Force procurement process that detracted from 'full and open competition and fairness'" that were cited in the GAO's ruling. Those seven mistakes, which actually look flat-out inethical in most cases, are:
"The GAO said the Air Force
• didn't assess the relative merits of the two contending airplanes in accordance with its stated criteria.
• gave Northrop extra credit for exceeding certain performance parameters, when this was expressly not allowed.
• failed to show that the A330 could refuel all of the Air Force aircraft it needs to service.
• misled Boeing about its failure to meet certain performance parameters, while giving fuller information to Northrop.
• dismissed a Northrop failure to agree to an aircraft maintenance plan as only "an adminstrative oversight" when it was a material requirement.
• made unreasonable estimates of the cost of constructing runways, ramps and hangars needed for the larger Airbus jet, which led to the conclusion that Northrop offered lower total program costs — when in fact Boeing's overall cost was lower.
• inappropriately rejected Boeing's estimate of its non-recurring cost to develop the program, using an "unreasonable" model to increase that cost estimate.
Here's the full statement from the GAO:
http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/ABP...2008004142.pdf