Team Infidel
Forum Spin Doctor
Washington Post
March 21, 2008
Pg. 16
Steven Pearlstein's March 7 Business column, "Outrage Is Wasted on Boeing's Snub by the Air Force," dwelt on the politics surrounding the Air Force's decision to award a $35 billion tanker contract to Northrop-EADS but failed to address the reasons for Boeing's protest, which concern the fairness of the evaluation process.
The Air Force's debriefing demonstrated that Boeing clearly met the requirements of the original request for proposals, receiving the highest rating possible for capabilities, with significantly more strengths than the competition.
However, Air Force officials changed the evaluation criteria in the midst of the process to give more value to a bigger tanker and never communicated these puzzling changes to us. Moreover, we were astonished that the Air Force chose not to "trust" the cost information provided in unprecedented detail by Boeing but did trust the cost information of Northrop-EADS, giving this less experienced team comparable risk ratings.
We at Boeing, unlike many of our competitors, have not protested a contract award in the past decade. Nor is our decision to protest based on politics, subsidies or jobs. Boeing is concerned that the fundamental fairness of the evaluation process was compromised and that our proposal was not given the same consideration as our competitor's.
Mark McGraw, Vice President, Tanker Programs, Boeing, St. Louis
Editor's Note: The column referred to appeared in the Current News Early Bird, March 7, 2008.
March 21, 2008
Pg. 16
Steven Pearlstein's March 7 Business column, "Outrage Is Wasted on Boeing's Snub by the Air Force," dwelt on the politics surrounding the Air Force's decision to award a $35 billion tanker contract to Northrop-EADS but failed to address the reasons for Boeing's protest, which concern the fairness of the evaluation process.
The Air Force's debriefing demonstrated that Boeing clearly met the requirements of the original request for proposals, receiving the highest rating possible for capabilities, with significantly more strengths than the competition.
However, Air Force officials changed the evaluation criteria in the midst of the process to give more value to a bigger tanker and never communicated these puzzling changes to us. Moreover, we were astonished that the Air Force chose not to "trust" the cost information provided in unprecedented detail by Boeing but did trust the cost information of Northrop-EADS, giving this less experienced team comparable risk ratings.
We at Boeing, unlike many of our competitors, have not protested a contract award in the past decade. Nor is our decision to protest based on politics, subsidies or jobs. Boeing is concerned that the fundamental fairness of the evaluation process was compromised and that our proposal was not given the same consideration as our competitor's.
Mark McGraw, Vice President, Tanker Programs, Boeing, St. Louis
Editor's Note: The column referred to appeared in the Current News Early Bird, March 7, 2008.