U.S. government sues Boeing over B-1 decoy system.
The AP (9/3) reports, “The federal government claims in a civil lawsuit that Chicago-based Boeing inflated the price it charged the Air Force for a towed decoy system to protect B-1 bombers from missiles.” According to the suit, “the Air Force paid $7.5 million more than it should have” for the system.

Bloomberg (9/3) quotes U.S. Attorney Thomas O’Brien, who said, “During contract negotiations, Boeing failed to disclose that it would outsource the fabrication of most of the components of the parts that were to be used in the program.” O’Brien continued, “Had the Air Force known the truth, it would have negotiated a substantially lower price for the towed decoy system.” Another AP (9/3, Dillon) article also reports the story.

Today’s Non-Ethic Word: Boinginate
Pronunciation: \Bo-ing-i-nate\
Function: Verb
Etymology: North Western US & Boeing/Aeronovali/JADC Consortium
Date: 2008
Transitive verb
: to habitually lie, cheat, bribe or steal if you really, really want to win

What do Aeronovali &/or JADC have to do with the KC-X?

Now watch, the Boeing/Aeronovali/JADC Consortium will quit the competition so they can screw over their own people and the warfighter all in the same year.

Just one more of the risks that need to be considered for the Boeing/Aeronovali/JADC Consortium.

Today’s Non-Ethic Word: Boinginate
Pronunciation: \Bo-ing-i-nate\
Function: Verb
Etymology: North Western US & Boeing/Aeronovali/JADC Consortium
Date: 2008
Transitive verb
: to habitually lie, cheat, bribe or steal if you really, really want to win

If any of you EADS/KC-30 Kool-Aid drinkers were half as informed as to try to make yourselves out to be you would know full well that the claim of 8 out of 100+ is utter nonsense which came from the idiot Gates in a pathetic attempt to lessen the impact of the GAO ruling. But NO, you have no concept of the truth & rely simply on headlines & questionable (at best) news reports. Not to mention the fact that the GAO could only sustain a protest under a rather limited scope/authority & that the 8 sustainment point encompass multiple protest items (the 1st sustainment point for example) & that in addtion to the 8 sustainment pints the GAO made a point of a number of ADDITIONAL issues which were done incorrectly & should be looked at/corrected but that under the GAO’s limited scope/authority were not made a point of sustainment.

I see 8 protest sustainments.

http://www.scribd.com/doc/3894847/MEMO-for-Members-HASC-Tanker-Hearing10-July1

PLUS if you actually read the GAO you will find several more “points” that while the GAO did not chose to list as an item which is sustained that it DID incicate needed to be addressed.

Gates and Donley said 8 of 100

http://www.dodbuzz.com/2008/07/09/gates-strips-af-of-tanker-contract-decision/

Probably reason enough for the sock puppet Cantwell to try to stall the Donley appointment.

http://www.dodbuzz.com/2008/08/01/donley-nomination-stalls-boeing-friends-at-work/

The Air Force reports:

“The Boeing protest filed early this year alleged more than 100 violations of proper contracting practices, eight of which were sustained by the GAO, the investigative arm of Congress.”

http://www.af.mil/news/story.asp?id=123105961

Here it is in your own hometown news (but they got it wrong):

“Gates and others emphasized that while Boeing raised more than 100 issues in its protest, the GAO identified only seven the Air Force had mishandled.”

http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/businesstechnology/2008043091_tankercontract100.html

By the way, the HASC hearing only identified the 8 issues and would not elaborate further on the machinations from Boeing’s protest.

just another example of BS_Buster not having jack & having to make shit up &/or misquote something

–Keep it civil Boeing Ball Washer

Where did I say that the GAO believes that Boeing should have been awarded the contract? I guess if you want to infer that since it said it should NOT have been awarded to NG/EADS that it means it should have been awarded to Boeing, YOU are perfectly welcome to do so. ;) As I said, the GAO has gone out of its way to point out that its ruling SHOULD NOT “be read to reflect a view as to the merits of the firms’
respective aircraft” & that there are limits to what the GAO CAN sustsain.

Where do you get that the GAO has the legal authority to direct the awarding of the contract to Boeing. The GAO went out of its way to say that that IS NOT its purpose.

If the KC-30 is selected again & the GAO feels that its concerns were not adequitely addressed then it could & likely would over-turn contract award. At this time the GAO has recommend that the USAF reopen discussions with the offerors, obtain revised proposals, re-evaluate the revised proposals, and make a new source selection decision, consistent with this decision — which is in essense overturning the award to NG/EADS but NOT directing that it be awarded to Boeing.

Stop spouting that made up lie that the GAO only sustained 8% of Boeing’s protest. The GAO SPECIFICALLY addressed that nonsense in the HASC hearing.

If something changes then it is the agency’s responsibility to ensure that all offerers are FULLY aware of it & if necessary ammend/edit the RFP (or if the changes are significant enough issue a new RFP) PRIOR TO AWARDING THE CONTRACT. And MUST give all offeres ample time to asses the changes & ammend/edit its (or submit a new) offer. That IS NOT what has happened here. The agency made a selection NOT based the relative merits of the proposals in accordance with the evaluation criteria identified in the solicitation & (& perhaps knowing full well that) tried to justify the selection on alternate criteria.

Yes I am fully aware of the SSA’s authority & that is what stinks about the rebid because the same man who was responsible to overseeing the last solicitation & making sure that what did happen didn’t is now the SSA. Under the same kind of scrutiny that the tanker lease was put under such an occurrence WOULD NOT happen & Mr. Young in fact would have all authority relating to the KC-X selection revolked & perhaps would have been shamed into resigning if not ‘asked” to step down.

just another example of BS_Buster not having jack & having to make shit up &/or misquote something.

If you had dealt with the GAO for as long as I have, as a PM in the Service, you would understand: They have the power to over-turn contract awards; to direct a new solicitation; or to direct a revised solicitation to correct procedural errors — the later is all they did. They are just correcting the process, not stating an opinion on who should win.

BTW: Could it be that real-world events, threats, and contingency plans have changed since 2001 which has changed the USAF’s interpretation (qualitatively) of their stated requirements? If you had any experience in acquisition and/or real source selections, you would understand that the regulations allow/encourage qualitative interpretation of stated requirements. Finally, did you realize that the final Source Selection Authority (SSA) is not bound by law or regulation to agree with the Source Selection Evaluation Board’s recommendation? The SSA is allowed to inject other national security, economic, etc. factors in his decision and he DOES NOT have to justify his decision.

So, after all Boeing and NG has done to influence the RFP and evaluation criteria, the SSA is cleared to pick who he wants. The only thing he needs to ensure is that the SSEB followed the process correctly. Then he can do as he pleases.

Silence from pfcem as Boeing/Aeronovali/JADC contemplates their failure and imminent withdrawal:

pfcem August 22nd, 2008 at 3:44 pm — NG/EADS X3
pfcem August 24th, 2008 at 11:42pm — NG/EADS X3
pfcem August 26th, 2008 at 9:37 pm — Both in one post as pfcem covers all his bases just in case.

Today’s Non-Ethic Word: Boinginate
Pronunciation: \Bo-ing-i-nate\
Function: Verb
Etymology: North Western US & Boeing/Aeronovali/JADC Consortium
Date: 2008
Transitive verb
: to habitually lie, cheat, bribe or steal if you really, really want to win

The websters submittal for new words is definitely accurate. Seems like you, pfcem, are boinginating about “zero accuracies.” as would be expected from a Boinginiter.

LOL..

ANOTHER post with ZERO accuracies.

Today’s Non-Ethic Word: Boinginate
Pronunciation: \Bo-ing-i-nate\
Function: Verb
Etymology: North Western US & Boeing/Aeronovali/JADC Consortium
Date: 2008
Transitive verb
: to habitually lie, cheat, bribe or steal if you really, really want to win

Nice try but this is the kind of BS you & your fellow EADS/KC-30 Kool-Aid drinkers come up with to misrepresent the truth. The objective of the review focusing on the accountability of members of the Office of the Secretary of Defense and of the Air Force DOES NOT REQUIRE (or even request) that the IG leave out White House officials, Members of Congress, and officials of the Boeing Company. If during the investigation the IG found reason to interview White House officials, Members of Congress, and officials of the Boeing Company such interviews COULD have ben requested (although I am sure White House officials & possible Members of Congress would have found some way to get out of doing so). You are confusing (or deliberatly mistating) not being required to do something with being required not to do something.

NO, I am not blaiming the USAF for doing what it felt it needed to do to get what it wanted ASAP (while it had the support of the White House & Congress). The IG found that the USAF did not follow acquisition procedures & thus the contract to lease 20 & buy 80 KC-767 (finalized a YEAR after Druyun left the USAF & a month after Boeing fired BOTH Druyun & Sears). What I AM doing is pointing out how absurd it is to blaim Boeing (the company) for what happened during the tanker lease. Boeing was a participant (I never said it wasn’t) but it was the USAF & the DOD which was in CONTROL & it is quite possible that if Druyun & Sears had NOT (or not got caught) unethically & illegally negotiated a job for Druyun at Boeing while negotiating the tanker lease causing greater concern over the whole program that what the USAF did would have been “swept under the table” in the interest of getting the KC-767.

No, I am NOT sitting over there like Boeing’s the most ethical company in America. You & your fellow EADS/KC-30 Kool-Aid drinkers DO however sit over there like EADS/Airbus is/are the most ethical company in the world when it/they easily as, if not more, unethical than Boeing.

BOEING (the company) DID NOT get caught with blatant corruption! Druyun (USAF) & Sears got caught negotiating a job for Druyun at Boeing while negotiating the tanker lease. BUT guess what, the contract to lease 20 & buy 80 KC-767 wasn’t finalized until a YEAR after Druyun left the USAF & a month after Boeing fired BOTH Druyun & Sears.

Sorry, the GAO didn’t graciously dole up anything. It did its job & went out of its way NOT to go so far as to say that the contract SHOULD have gone to Boeing athough it is hard NOT to conclude it DOES feel that way.

That only 8% of Boeings protest was sustained is a deliberate disingenuous attempt to minimize the scathing report by the GAO. First of all, the limited scope & authority of the GAO PREVENTED it from sustaining all protest items. Second the ruling, while sustaining 8 points (which is A LOT), also specifically suggested that a number of other items be looked at more closely (items which the GAO could very well sustain later if not done so to the GAO’s satisfaction). And third the GAO does not “count/figure” it as 8%…

NG/EADS sure as hell didn’t earn the contract (the GAO made that ABUNDANTLY clear) so quit your whining.

http://www.amc.af.mil/news/story.asp?id=123088300

Sounds an aweful lot like a pre-written statement that would apply to the KC-45 REGUARDLESS if the KC-767AT or KC-30 was chosen…In fact just about every statement by the government concerning the KC-45 could have been made if the KC-767AT was selected.

You seem to forget that it up until the actual selection announcement Boeing was lead to believe (& 90+% of the “experts” were convinced) that Boeing was most likely to win. And that it was not until Boeing was debriefed (which was rather questionably delayed) on the selection of the KC-30 that the truth came out that it was NOT a fair competition — and that the GAO agreed. You ALSO seem to forget how “every” completely lost confidence in the USAF’s ability to conduct the solicitation, so much so in fact that the selection authority was taken away from the USAF & given to Defense Secretary Gates who then gave it to the very man who was responsible for overseeing the previous solicitation but somehow did not find fault with it…Appearantly he feels the USAF did not go far enough to alter its requirements to fit the KC-30.