Menu
Home
Forums
New posts
Search forums
What's new
New posts
Latest activity
Members
Registered members
Current visitors
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
New posts
Search forums
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
Hi Guest! Forum rules have been updated. All users please read
here.
Home
Forums
General
The Bar
Boeing Wins Protest of Northrop Aerial-Tanker Award
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="F-14D" data-source="post: 36962" data-attributes="member: 851"><blockquote data-quote="doggedman"><p>This was a major setback and is indicative of how much the Government procurement system is in disarray. Given the number of contract awards that have been successfully overturned on protest, you can bet that protesting will be standard operating procedure for defense procurement awards going forward. Using the CSAR-X competition as a model, this could take 12+ months to decide unless all parties agree to a split buy.</p></blockquote><p></p><p></p><p>It's important to note that GAO did not take any position regarding the two aircraft. What GAO basically said was that AF did not follow its own rules or specifications in making its selection, improperly evaluated the two aircraft's life cycle costs to determine that NG had the lowest life cycle costs (Life cycle costs, though, was not the only factor in the decision to go with Airbus) when in fact Boeing did. AF has admitted this, BTW. Didn't keep Boeing informed during the analysis, ignored the fact that one of the bidders could not meet an essential requirement necessary for the award, etc. </p><p></p><p>What GAO told USAF to do was to go back and decide if their original solicitation meets their need. If so, USAF should go back and follow their own rules and evaluate proposals in the manner and how they said they would in the solicitation. If the original solicitation does not meet USAF needs, then issue a new solicitation that states what they <u>really</u> want. I suspect that if the latter course is taken, Boeing would bid a KC-777. </p><p></p><p></p><p>It's unlikely either party would agree to a split buy without a new competition (for one thing their costs would change), nor should they have to. This would also be a disastrous and expensive course for USAF that would take longer. In addition, a split buy without a new solicitation would not address the reasons why GAO overturned the award.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="F-14D, post: 36962, member: 851"] [quote="doggedman"] This was a major setback and is indicative of how much the Government procurement system is in disarray. Given the number of contract awards that have been successfully overturned on protest, you can bet that protesting will be standard operating procedure for defense procurement awards going forward. Using the CSAR-X competition as a model, this could take 12+ months to decide unless all parties agree to a split buy. [/quote] It's important to note that GAO did not take any position regarding the two aircraft. What GAO basically said was that AF did not follow its own rules or specifications in making its selection, improperly evaluated the two aircraft's life cycle costs to determine that NG had the lowest life cycle costs (Life cycle costs, though, was not the only factor in the decision to go with Airbus) when in fact Boeing did. AF has admitted this, BTW. Didn't keep Boeing informed during the analysis, ignored the fact that one of the bidders could not meet an essential requirement necessary for the award, etc. What GAO told USAF to do was to go back and decide if their original solicitation meets their need. If so, USAF should go back and follow their own rules and evaluate proposals in the manner and how they said they would in the solicitation. If the original solicitation does not meet USAF needs, then issue a new solicitation that states what they [u]really[/u] want. I suspect that if the latter course is taken, Boeing would bid a KC-777. It's unlikely either party would agree to a split buy without a new competition (for one thing their costs would change), nor should they have to. This would also be a disastrous and expensive course for USAF that would take longer. In addition, a split buy without a new solicitation would not address the reasons why GAO overturned the award. [/QUOTE]
Verification
What year did the first man go to space? (answer has 4 numbers)
Post reply
Home
Forums
General
The Bar
Boeing Wins Protest of Northrop Aerial-Tanker Award
This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
Accept
Learn more…
Top