Washington Post
March 6, 2008
Pg. D1
By Dana Hedgpeth, Washington Post Staff Writer
Congressional leaders threatened yesterday to withhold funding for one of the U.S. military's biggest aircraft programs because the $40 billion contract went to a group that includes a European manufacturer.
Since Friday, when the Air Force awarded the initial part of a contract to replace 179 Air Force refueling tankers to the team of Northrop Grumman and European Aeronautic Defence and Space, congressional leaders have questioned why that bid was chosen over one by Boeing, the largest U.S. aircraft manufacturer. Critics have said that the Air Force is outsourcing its purchasing in a way that could threaten national security and have accused the service of not taking the creation of American jobs into account.
At a two-hour hearing of the House panel that controls defense spending, committee chairman John P. Murtha (D-Pa.), said: "There is the industrial base you have to consider. The political implications are important. . . . This committee funds this program. All this committee has to do is stop the money, and this program is not going forward."
After the hearing Murtha said, "This is not a done deal."
He called on Air Force officials to brief committee members in a closed-door session on the technical merits of their choice of Northrop and EADS -- the parent company of Airbus, Boeing's chief commercial rival -- after they brief the two competitors. Air Force officials are expected to brief Boeing officials Friday and Northrop officials on Monday.
Boeing, based in Chicago, built the fleet of KC-135 tankers in use for nearly 50 years and had been expected to win the deal. Four years ago, it was awarded a contract to lease tanker aircraft but the award was withdrawn after a procurement scandal involving officials from Boeing and the Air Force.
Murtha and other leaders said the choice of Northrop and EADS takes jobs away from Americans, especially in Wichita and Everett, Wash., where Boeing has major plants that produce the tanker line, at a time of economic uncertainty and a growing trade deficit.
"An American tanker should be built by an American company with American workers," said Rep. Todd Tiahrt (R-Kan.), whose congressional district is home to Boeing facilities.
Boeing has said it is likely to shut down its production line for 767 airliners, on which the company's tanker proposal was based, in the next few years because of declining commercial sales.
EADS, on the other hand, gains a major foothold in the U.S. military market and a leg up on winning future orders to replace the entire 500-plane tanker fleet, a deal that could be worth up to $100 billion over the next few decades.
Northrop, the third-biggest U.S. defense contractor, and EADS say their tanker isn't taking away American jobs. They say that while some large parts of the aircraft will be manufactured by in Europe -- much like other weapons systems or planes -- engines will be built in Ohio and North Carolina. Both companies will build new facilities in Mobile, Ala., where EADS will assemble the planes and Northrop will convert them into military tankers. The project will create roughly 1,500 jobs in Mobile; another 300 in Bridgeport, W.Va.; and up to 500 in Melbourne, Fla.
Sue Payton, assistant secretary of the Air Force for acquisition, said job creation was not a factor in the service's decision to pick the Northrop-EADS team, saying it was not part of federal acquisition regulations. She said her team followed a "carefully structured" procurement process designed to "provide transparency, maintain integrity and ensure fair competition."
There was interaction between the Air Force and the bidders, she said, to make sure they understood the needs of the Air Force. "There's no mystery here about where each offerer stood in relation to the request for proposal," Payton said.
Rep. Norm Dicks (D-Wash.), whose congressional district includes a Boeing manufacturing plant, accused the Air Force of making changes to its requirements that favored Northrop's team after the proposal request was issued. But Payton denied the charge.
"The competition was totally unfair," Dicks said. "The Air Force made a big mistake." He said Congress should "stop this program," redo the procurement and "say this has to be built by a U.S. company."
Payton refused to give details on the technical merits and evaluations of the proposals in open session and before the competitors had been briefed.
The proposals were evaluated on five criteria, including past performance, cost and operations in a wartime scenario. Northrop's team met or exceeded the contract's requirements and supplied the "best overall value," Payton said. "Northrop brought their A game."
The Air Force has said the tanker program is its top acquisition priority, and Payton said it is "absolutely critical for the Air Force to move forward now on this program."
At a Senate Armed Services Committee hearing yesterday, Air Force Secretary Michael W. Wynne said Northrop's tanker is "clearly a better performer" than Boeing's.
Boeing has 10 days from the date it is briefed to dispute the Air Force's decision with the Government Accountability Office. Jim Albaugh, head of Boeing's defense unit, said yesterday at a Citigroup conference in New York that the company would protest the decision only if "we think there is an irregularity in the proposal phase."

Don't your politicians realise that the longer it takes to get the new tankers in the service the more lives are being put at risk? The production plant for the commercial A330 will be moved to Alabama, and even if you get some planes built in Europe, the last time I checked the plane is bing built by your allies? I think some people need to realise that the label "Made in the USA" does not neccessarily mean its the best product!

Like I said.
Bribed.

Jon Stewart put it the best.
Since Con is the opposite of Pro, is Congress the opposite of Progress? Or did we just blow your mind?

Originally Posted by Shadowalker

Don't your politicians realise that the longer it takes to get the new tankers in the service the more lives are being put at risk? The production plant for the commercial A330 will be moved to Alabama, and even if you get some planes built in Europe, the last time I checked the plane is bing built by your allies? I think some people need to realise that the label "Made in the USA" does not neccessarily mean its the best product!

They don't care about the soldiers, they care about what is most cost effective and what will put more money in their pockets.

No, they have people they owe a favor or two to in various industries including the arms industry.
Having lost the contract, the guys at Boeing that helped them out during their careers came calling "What the hell was that about Senator??"
Then they come up with some story containing half truths so that the decision can be reversed if only for the reason that there's so much red tape involved with the Northrop/European decision that it's not worth the trouble.

Do you know what will happen next? No other viable competitor will spend billions of dollars on research to enter a competition they know they will lose. Boeing will be to sole supplier and the costs for the DoD will SKYROCKET.

And the senators keep their owners happy.

I fail to see how this could be considered outsourcing since the tankers will be built in Alabama. This is truly an example of congress making a big deal about nothing.

Originally Posted by therise21

This is truly an example of congress making a big deal about nothing.

Isn't that what they normally do anyway?

we will have to see what happens.

If the senators have their way, Boeing will have a monopoly and they will be selling the Air Force toilet tissue for $50 per roll.

Now by banning the purchase of equipment from Europe, could europe stop buying american Equipment. America sells far more stuff than it buys so who would be the long term loser.