Press "Enter" to skip to content

Boeing rebound

The General Accounting Office decision today recommending a revistation of the Air Force decision not to buy its fleet of air tankers from Boeing (but from Northrop Grumman instead) doesn’t end the battle; the tenor of initial coverage suggests that it does, but it doesn’t.

But it is enough, and more than enough, to change the political tenor of the situation. And not in a direction that will help Arizona Senator John McCain – a backer of the Northrop decision – nor those candidates running under his banner.

From the GAO:

The GAO decision should not be read to reflect a view as to the merits of the firms’ respective aircraft. Judgments about which offeror will most successfully meet governmental needs are largely reserved for the procuring agencies, subject only to such statutory and regulatory requirements as full and open competition and fairness to potential offerors. The GAO bid protest process examines whether procuring agencies have complied with those requirements.

Specifically, GAO sustained the protest for the following reasons:

1. The Air Force, in making the award decision, did not assess the relative merits of the proposals in accordance with the evaluation criteria identified in the solicitation, which provided for a relative order of importance for the various technical requirements. The agency also did not take into account the fact that Boeing offered to satisfy more non-mandatory technical “requirements” than Northrop Grumman, even though the solicitation expressly requested offerors to satisfy as many of these technical “requirements” as possible.

2. The Air Force’s use as a key discriminator that Northrop Grumman proposed to exceed a key performance parameter objective relating to aerial refueling to a greater degree than Boeing violated the solicitation’s evaluation provision that “no consideration will be provided for exceeding [key performance parameter]

3. The protest record did not demonstrate the reasonableness of the Air Force’s determination that Northrop Grumman’s proposed aerial refueling tanker could
refuel all current Air Force fixed-wing tanker-compatible receiver aircraft in
accordance with current Air Force procedures, as required by the solicitation.

4. The Air Force conducted misleading and unequal discussions with Boeing, by
informing Boeing that it had fully satisfied a key performance parameter objective relating to operational utility, but later determined that Boeing had only partially met this objective, without advising Boeing of this change in the agency’s assessment and while continuing to conduct discussions with Northrop Grumman relating to its satisfaction of the same key performance parameter objective.

5. The Air Force unreasonably determined that Northrop Grumman’s refusal to
agree to a specific solicitation requirement that it plan and support the agency to
achieve initial organic depot-level maintenance within two years after delivery of the first full-rate production aircraft was an “administrative oversight,” and improperly made award, despite this clear exception to a material solicitation requirement.

6. The Air Force’s evaluation of military construction costs in calculating the
offerors’ most probable life cycle costs for their proposed aircraft was unreasonable, where the agency during the protest conceded that it made a number of errors in evaluation that, when corrected, result in Boeing displacing Northrop Grumman as the offeror with the lowest most probable life cycle cost; where the evaluation did not account for the offerors’ specific proposals; and where the calculation of military construction costs based on a notional (hypothetical) plan was not reasonably supported.

As noted, the GAO isn’t specifically recommending that Boeing get the award, and it can’t even force the Air Force to rerun the process. But it stands as an important statement that something went seriously wrong in the original Air Force selection process.

You can get the sense of where some of this is headed by checking out Washington Senator Patty Murray‘s statement today. In part: “It is Congress’ job to determine whether major defense purchases meet the needs of our warfighter and deserve taxpayer funding. The Pentagon must both justify its decision and address the flawed process that led to today’s ruling. We need answers before handing billions of American defense dollars to a subsidized, foreign company focused on dismantling the American aerospace industry.”

Expect revisitation of the statements by Boeing partisans about how McCain was directly involved in the decision, aftermath from his efforts against a 2004 Boeing contract and change in defense rules on bidding that were also opposed by Northrop.

McCain had helped block a contract with Boeing in 2004 and pressed the Pentagon in 2006 to change bidding rules opposed by Northrop Grumman and Airbus.

Of course, McCain was almost sure to lose Washington state (and Oregon) anyway. But this could have larger effects. Could it cause him serious trouble as well even in Kansas, where Boeing has mass operations at Wichita?

Share on Facebook


  1. rules of order rules of order June 19, 2008

    […] of order Posted on June 20, 2008, 6:35 amby admin best video: rules of order foruser(); sname=sitestname; keyword=document.title; sekey=getsekey(); if(sekey==false)2004. ISBN: 0-7879-6423-9. US 26.95. Canada 38.99. United Kingdom 18.50. The mission of Roberta??s rules of order is to make it …http://ROBERTASRULESOFORDER.ORGThe Official Robert’s Rules Of Order Webto Adopt Robert&aposs Rules of OrderAn organization reaps many benefits by taking Robert&aposs rules of order Newly Revised , as its parliamentary authority. RONR is the guide preferred by most professional… of Order, Cumberland Presbyterian ChurchThe rules of order of the Cumberland Presbyterian Church … c. a copy of the current edition of Robert’s rules ofHenry M. 1915. Robert&8217s Rules of Order Revised for …Robert, Henry M. 1915. Robert&8217s rules of order Revised for Deliberative Assemblies… adopts directive onRules of OrderFile Format: PDF/Adobe Acrobat – View as HTMLRobert&39s rules of order is the standard for facilitating discussions and group decision-making. Copies. of the rules areRobert&39s Rules of Order Newly Revised, 10th Edition … Robert&39s rules of order Newly Revised, 10th Edition: Henry M. Robert III, William J. Evans, Daniel H. Honemann, Thomas J.Rules – Lovely County CitizenHenry Martyn Roberts, an engineer in the US Army, wrote his first rules of order in 1876 when he was asked to preside over a church meeting.State Senate &gt Documents &gt Louisiana Constitution of 1974Senate rules of order Compiled from the Louisiana Senate Statutory Database March 31, 2008 … Rule 6.3. Call to orderTop Ten Rules of OrderTrout=s Top Ten rules of order Stran L. Trout, PRP couple breached expenses rules – The Pressbooks with &quotRobert&39s Rules&quot in the title, be aware that only what it sells as Robert&39s rules of order …'s Rules of OrderManual of parliamentaryNewly Revised In Brief … Robert&39s rules Of order Newly Revised In Brief Roberts rules of order in Brief: Henry M. III Robert, William J. Evans, Daniel H. Honemann,of Order for Association BoardsThe rules of order for Association Boards are based upon a few simple themes:1 … Adoption of these rules of orderMESSAGE SCANDAL City to attack vote on mayor&39s ouster – Detroit Free PressSedler cited Robert&39s rules of order — the guide to parliamentary procedure that many governmental bodies use to establish protocols –all wearyingly familiar.Faces twisted in rage, insulters shouting down those with a Roberts rules of order right to speak, angry threats and snotty comments to reporters…and for those of us on theOF ORDERIt is up to the Presiding Officer of a meeting to see to it that the rules of order are applied … that the “Rules of Order”, standing rules or Bylaws are… Tips on Robert’s RulesParlimentary Procedure Survival Tips based on Robert’s rules of Order will be illustrated every month in an easy and practical fashion. Each new and every archived portion of this Parliamentary … […]

Comments are closed.