|
Thursday, March 11, 2010
Attack on DoD Earmarks.... Again Are earmarks -- most notably defense earmarks -- for private companies a thing of the past? Depends
on who you ask. Today, Speaker Pelosi, Majority Whip Hoyer, and House Appropriations Chairman Obey (D-WI) mounted their
high horses and again unilaterally ceded a measure of the Congress' responsibility to fund the military. In a major release today, the Democratic leaders announced that all earmark requests will be run under the nose of the White House for approval,
that all earmarks provided for for-profit entities must be competed, and that earmarks will not exceed 1% of the discretionary
budget.
Quickly speaking out on behalf of the Constution, however, was Senate Appropriations Chairman Dan
Inouye (D-HI) who, in his own release, slammed his House collagues, noting: "I don't believe this policy or
ceding authority to the Executive Branch on any spending decision is in the best interests of the Congress or the American
people." Chairman Inouye characterized as non-sensical the differential treatment of for-profit companies
under the new House policy and noted that all for-profit earmarks are openly disclosed, transparent, and subject to competition.
link
Monday, March 8, 2010
NGC bows out of KC-X competition that "clearly favors Boeing" -- will not protestWASHINGTON,
March 8 -- The following is a statement from Wes Bush, Chief Executive Officer and President of Northrop Grumman Corporation
(NYSE: NOC), concerning the U.S. Air Force aerial refueling tanker program. "After a comprehensive analysis of the final RFP, Northrop Grumman has determined that it will not submit
a bid to the Department of Defense for the KC-X program. We reached this conclusion based on the structure of the source selection
methodology defined in the RFP, which clearly favors Boeing's smaller refueling tanker and does not provide adequate value
recognition of the added capability of a larger tanker, precluding us from any competitive opportunity. "Northrop Grumman fully respects the Department's responsibility to determine the military requirements for
the new tanker. In the previous competition, Northrop Grumman was selected by the Air Force as offering the most capable
tanker for the warfighter at the best value for the taxpayer. However, the Northrop Grumman and EADS team is very disappointed
that the revised source selection methodology now dramatically favors Boeing's smaller refueling tanker. We agree that
the fundamental military requirements for the new tanker have not changed since the last competition, but the Department's
new evaluation methodology now clearly favors the smaller tanker. "We
continue to believe that Northrop Grumman's tanker represents the best value for the military and taxpayer – a belief
supported by the selection of the A330 tanker design over the Boeing design in the last five consecutive tanker competitions
around the globe. Regrettably, this means that the U.S. Air Force will be operating a less capable tanker than many of our
Allies in this vital mission area. "Our prior selection by the Air Force,
our firm belief that we provide the best value offering, and the hard work and commitment of the many individuals and communities
on our team over many years made this a difficult decision for our company. But we have a fiduciary responsibility to
our shareholders to prudently invest our corporate resources, as do our more than 200 tanker team suppliers across the United
States. Investing further resources to submit a bid would not be acting responsibly. "We have decided that Northrop Grumman will not protest. While we feel we have substantial grounds
to support a GAO or court ruling to overturn this revised source selection process, America's service men and women have been
forced to wait too long for new tankers. We feel a deep responsibility to their safety and to their ability to fulfill
the missions our nation calls upon them to perform. Taking actions that would further delay the introduction of this
urgent capability would also not be acting responsibly. "We recognize
that our decision likely creates a sole-source outcome for Boeing. We call on the Department to keep in mind the economic
conclusions of the prior round of bidding as it takes actions to protect the taxpayer when defining the sole-source procurement
contract. In the previous round, the Air Force, through a rigorous assessment of our proposal, determined that it would pay
a unit flyaway cost of approximately $184 million per tanker for the first 68 tankers, including the non-recurring development
costs. With the Department's decision to procure a much smaller, less capable design, the taxpayer should certainly
expect the bill to be much less."
link
Friday, March 5, 2010
Way ahead for A400MThere is a new German MoD press release today on A400M. Following are the salient points:
-- "Customer
nations (CN) and industry have agreed on the new baseline of funding the A400M program.
-- EADS has accepted the
offer of the CN, which still has to be approved by the nations due to national legal regulations. This includes a price increase
of €2 billion and an export credit of €1.5 billion.
-- Both parties agreed on a revised delivery schedule
and airplane system performance. Delivery of the first aircraft for the Luftwaffe is planned for 2014. Payload performance
will allow transport of all planned main equipment, e.g., the PUMA IFV.
-- Detailed contract modifications will
be negotiated within the coming weeks."
-- EADS had entered the program modification asking the CN of covering
€6 bn of a estimated €11 bn cost overrun. They already had made provisions of €2.4 bn in the past and an additional
€1.8 bn in 2009.
-- Luftwaffe deliveries had been planned starting early 2011, so this means a three-year
delay. In the order of delivery, France will be the first customer in early 2013 then.
Due to the € 1.5 bn
credit line, CN will be participating on future export sales.
link
Friday, February 26, 2010
Looking like a Northrop Grumman "no bid" on KC-X ?AvWeek's Amy Butler notes in her blog that Northrop Grumman officials have informed lawmakers that they predict a 96-98% chance of not bidding
for the U.S. Air Force's KC-X taker program. The Lexington Institute's Loren Thompson agrees, noting: "I think that Northrop Grumman has made the decision to not bid because it can't win. From
its point of view, this solicitation is a gift to Boeing by the Obama Administration." The company had hedged on
when it will take a decision, but it has ten days (now 7) to protest the RFP itself.
link
Wednesday, February 24, 2010
U.S. Air Force releases KC-X Tanker RFP... to one hand clappingThe Air Force has released the latest iteration of the KC-X Request for Proposals (RFP) and the general take is that it
changes little from the draft RFP rejected by Northrop Grumman as favoring Boeing. While the company will take some time for a measured
response, the best guess around town is that it will be difficult for the company to find what it requested in the details
of the newest solicitation.
-- Aviation Week has a copy of the DoD's PowerPoint Briefing Charts here.
-- The Seattle PI's blog has a summary of industry and political reaction here.
-- The KC-X RFP itself is to soon be available here.
link
|