Since most source selection details are still sealed, we have little insight to the merits of Boeing's protest to the General Accounting Office over an Air Force aerial refueling tanker contract to competitor Nothrop/EADs. Boeing's PR offensive, including a full-page Wall Street Journal ad, indicates however, the merits are pretty slim. As the lawyers say, if the facts are on your side pound the facts; if not pound the table.
The fact that Boeing's ad and talking points primarily takes issue with Air Force requirements suggests they have a weak case; afterall those requirements were known over a year ago and the time for dispute was then. That's what the Northrop/EADs team did when the deck was stacked in Boeing's favor. All the GAO can do now is pretty much rule whether the source selection was conducted fairly.
Boeing's complaint that requirements were changed to "unfairly [skew] the results against Boeing" can easily be restated: the Air Force modified requirements to inject competition into the process. When Boeing acquired McDonnell Douglas, they became the only domestic company that had boom capable tankers (booms allow high speed fuel transfers). Six years ago Boeing almost pulled off a sole-source tanker deal that Senator John McCain disrupted. Revelations that Boeing offered a job to the top AF acquisition official during those negotiations resulted in a black eye for the Air Force. New Air Force leadership probably realized replacing a 500 plane tanker fleet with only one source wasn't going to bode well for the pocket book. Northrop/EADs, however, wasn't content to be a patsy to offer a pretense of competition. If they were going to play the Air Force needed to have requirements that gave them a viable chance of winning.
Boeing is now posturing for Congress, who can always pull funds for the tanker deal. Indeed the Illinois based company already has Obama (Illinois Senator) and Clinton onboard; ostensibly for the American jobs being exported to Europe (though Northrop/EADs will assemble planes in Mobile Alabama). No doubt the democrat presidential contenders see this as an opportunity to attack John McCain as anti-U.S. worker.
While the next step will be the GAO decision, it won't be the final act.
UPDATE: Boeing ad here.
The fact that Boeing's ad and talking points primarily takes issue with Air Force requirements suggests they have a weak case; afterall those requirements were known over a year ago and the time for dispute was then. That's what the Northrop/EADs team did when the deck was stacked in Boeing's favor. All the GAO can do now is pretty much rule whether the source selection was conducted fairly.
Boeing's complaint that requirements were changed to "unfairly [skew] the results against Boeing" can easily be restated: the Air Force modified requirements to inject competition into the process. When Boeing acquired McDonnell Douglas, they became the only domestic company that had boom capable tankers (booms allow high speed fuel transfers). Six years ago Boeing almost pulled off a sole-source tanker deal that Senator John McCain disrupted. Revelations that Boeing offered a job to the top AF acquisition official during those negotiations resulted in a black eye for the Air Force. New Air Force leadership probably realized replacing a 500 plane tanker fleet with only one source wasn't going to bode well for the pocket book. Northrop/EADs, however, wasn't content to be a patsy to offer a pretense of competition. If they were going to play the Air Force needed to have requirements that gave them a viable chance of winning.
Boeing is now posturing for Congress, who can always pull funds for the tanker deal. Indeed the Illinois based company already has Obama (Illinois Senator) and Clinton onboard; ostensibly for the American jobs being exported to Europe (though Northrop/EADs will assemble planes in Mobile Alabama). No doubt the democrat presidential contenders see this as an opportunity to attack John McCain as anti-U.S. worker.
While the next step will be the GAO decision, it won't be the final act.
UPDATE: Boeing ad here.
Originally posted in UNCoRRELATED Mar 27, 2008
No comments:
Post a Comment