- Thread starter
- #41
Now I will add this as a futher testament to my position, on what IMHO needs to be done at DoD. The US Air Force and Military in general is in desperate need of a replacement for the KC-135 and for those of you who don't know what that is, it refuels aircraft while inflight. These Kc-135's have been flying since 1955 and are getting very old. The following is an example of the complete stupidity involved in the process of purchasing it's repalcement.
Round 1, Lease Contract
The initial plan was to lease Boeing KC-767 tankers on a sole-source basis (Boeing being the only American company with the requisite industrial capability to manufacture large-body aircraft). As such, the KC-767 was initially selected in 2002[1] and in 2003 was awarded a US$20 billion contract to lease KC-767 tankers to replace the KC-135.
Led by Senator John McCain, several US government leaders protested the lease contract as wasteful and problematic. In response to the protests, the Air Force struck a compromise in November 2003, whereby it would purchase 80 KC-767 aircraft and lease 20 more.[2]
Yet only one month later in December 2003, the Pentagon announced the project was to be frozen while an investigation of allegations of corruption by one if its former procurement staffers, Darleen Druyun (who had moved to Boeing in January) was begun. Druyun pled guilty of criminal wrongdoing and was sentenced to nine months in jail for "negotiating a job with Boeing at the same time she was involved in contracts with the company".[3] Additional fallout included the termination of CFO Michael M. Sears (who was later sentenced to four months in prison in 2005)[4], the resignation of Boeing CEO Philip M. Condit, and Boeing paid a $615 million fine in recompense for their actions related to the contract.
In January 2006, the lease contract was formally cancelled.
[edit] Round 2, KC-X program
Main article: KC-X
The USAF then reopened the contract for competition under the title KC-X. Boeing bid on the contract, again proposing a variant of its KC-767 aircraft. The only other bidder was Northrop Grumman, another large American defense contractor. However, NG had never manufactured a tanker aircraft and its last venture into the large plane business was the billion-dollar B-2 Spirit. Thus, it announced a teaming arrangement with European aircraft manufacturer EADS, offering a variant of the Airbus A330 MRTT, used in several European countries. NG and EADS also announced plans to build two new aircraft manufacturing facilities, both at Brookley Field in Mobile, Alabama, whereby EADS would assemble the final unmodified tankers, then deliver them to NG for military customization. EADS also announced plans to move its A330 freighter assembly line to the Mobile plant as well.
On February 29, 2008, in a surprise move, the USAF awarded the new tanker contract to Northrop Grumman.
Boeing immediately protested the contract award to the Government Accountability Office (GAO). Meanwhile, several key supporters in Congress decried the decision, claiming numerous American jobs would be "outsourced", and announced plans to introduce legislation which would force the USAF to purchase the Boeing plane.
On June 18, 2008 the GAO decided the protest in favor of Boeing.[5] The GAO decision criticized the contract award, stating that that the USAF failed repeatedly to follow procedures designed to ensure a fair and open competition and good value for taxpayers. The GAO recommended that the Air Force should renew discussions with both teams and obtain revised proposals, and effectively stage a new competition.
Round 3, Reopened Bid
On July 9, 2008 Gates announced that the Pentagon would hold a new, "fast-tracked" competition for the tanker contract, limited to Boeing and Northrop Grumman/EADS and concentrating on the eight (out of nearly 110) areas where Boeing's protest was sustained. Gates said that he expected a new winner of the contract would be announced by the end of the year. Furthermore, given the USAF's poor track record in managing the competition, Gates announced that John Young (the DoD's Undersecretary for Acquisition, Technology and Logistics) would oversee the contract competition.[9]
United States Air Force KC-135 replacement effort - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The amount of time and energy wasted and the outright fraud involved in this process gives you some idea of why the DoD is basically short changing the warfighter. These vital systems need to be deployed but because of favoritisim, and infighting, and outright waste. These programs langisuh and cost billions in taxpayer money, *there's your highways RedDawn* My position is very clear, hold the DoD accountable and put in checks and balances in the purchasing process to avoid this mismanagement so not only are the taxpayers not shortchanged but the warfighter is not left without a critical part to the mission.
Round 1, Lease Contract
The initial plan was to lease Boeing KC-767 tankers on a sole-source basis (Boeing being the only American company with the requisite industrial capability to manufacture large-body aircraft). As such, the KC-767 was initially selected in 2002[1] and in 2003 was awarded a US$20 billion contract to lease KC-767 tankers to replace the KC-135.
Led by Senator John McCain, several US government leaders protested the lease contract as wasteful and problematic. In response to the protests, the Air Force struck a compromise in November 2003, whereby it would purchase 80 KC-767 aircraft and lease 20 more.[2]
Yet only one month later in December 2003, the Pentagon announced the project was to be frozen while an investigation of allegations of corruption by one if its former procurement staffers, Darleen Druyun (who had moved to Boeing in January) was begun. Druyun pled guilty of criminal wrongdoing and was sentenced to nine months in jail for "negotiating a job with Boeing at the same time she was involved in contracts with the company".[3] Additional fallout included the termination of CFO Michael M. Sears (who was later sentenced to four months in prison in 2005)[4], the resignation of Boeing CEO Philip M. Condit, and Boeing paid a $615 million fine in recompense for their actions related to the contract.
In January 2006, the lease contract was formally cancelled.
[edit] Round 2, KC-X program
Main article: KC-X
The USAF then reopened the contract for competition under the title KC-X. Boeing bid on the contract, again proposing a variant of its KC-767 aircraft. The only other bidder was Northrop Grumman, another large American defense contractor. However, NG had never manufactured a tanker aircraft and its last venture into the large plane business was the billion-dollar B-2 Spirit. Thus, it announced a teaming arrangement with European aircraft manufacturer EADS, offering a variant of the Airbus A330 MRTT, used in several European countries. NG and EADS also announced plans to build two new aircraft manufacturing facilities, both at Brookley Field in Mobile, Alabama, whereby EADS would assemble the final unmodified tankers, then deliver them to NG for military customization. EADS also announced plans to move its A330 freighter assembly line to the Mobile plant as well.
On February 29, 2008, in a surprise move, the USAF awarded the new tanker contract to Northrop Grumman.
Boeing immediately protested the contract award to the Government Accountability Office (GAO). Meanwhile, several key supporters in Congress decried the decision, claiming numerous American jobs would be "outsourced", and announced plans to introduce legislation which would force the USAF to purchase the Boeing plane.
On June 18, 2008 the GAO decided the protest in favor of Boeing.[5] The GAO decision criticized the contract award, stating that that the USAF failed repeatedly to follow procedures designed to ensure a fair and open competition and good value for taxpayers. The GAO recommended that the Air Force should renew discussions with both teams and obtain revised proposals, and effectively stage a new competition.
Round 3, Reopened Bid
On July 9, 2008 Gates announced that the Pentagon would hold a new, "fast-tracked" competition for the tanker contract, limited to Boeing and Northrop Grumman/EADS and concentrating on the eight (out of nearly 110) areas where Boeing's protest was sustained. Gates said that he expected a new winner of the contract would be announced by the end of the year. Furthermore, given the USAF's poor track record in managing the competition, Gates announced that John Young (the DoD's Undersecretary for Acquisition, Technology and Logistics) would oversee the contract competition.[9]
United States Air Force KC-135 replacement effort - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The amount of time and energy wasted and the outright fraud involved in this process gives you some idea of why the DoD is basically short changing the warfighter. These vital systems need to be deployed but because of favoritisim, and infighting, and outright waste. These programs langisuh and cost billions in taxpayer money, *there's your highways RedDawn* My position is very clear, hold the DoD accountable and put in checks and balances in the purchasing process to avoid this mismanagement so not only are the taxpayers not shortchanged but the warfighter is not left without a critical part to the mission.