Posted on 06/18/2008 2:49:38 PM PDT by NormsRevenge
Pressured?
Yes. . . .McCain.
Not employees, not anyone on the line or in the command.
SAF/AQ (Payton) had much pressure by McCain to keep EADS in the game, and Gen Hoffman responded to that pressure as well.
It was in the directions to the source selection committee where the waters got muddied and the members of the committee, while “blind” to who they were evaluating, they received guidance that clearly favored EADS, and this guidance did not adhere to the RFP.
Thing is, they errored big time in their effort to ensure a competitive bidding process——all because of McCain pushing EADS because he didn’t want a default to Boeing.
Nothing more sinister than that.
Straight forward McCain interference.
Surprised?
Not really.
Some interesting redactions, for sure, as those redactions would make the case even stronger on the part of Boeing’s protest.
Yup.
The "Break" and Pull-Away spec failure of the EADs plane sounds pretty dramatic, that the unauthorized "fix" that the USAF was going to accept in lieu of the break and seperation requirements was also redacted.
Very interesting.
Because of the redaction we are forced to speculate as to that "fix" ...that only the EADs plane needed.
What do you think...they were going to propose some sort of emergency dive instead of simply requiring that the plane be able, as all current tankers, and the KC-767 can, of SPEEDING UP!?
So where are the defenders of the "superiority" of the EADs plane now? Suppose they have stopped subsidizing the spin-control machine? ;-)
By the way, interesting point you made ref the EADS supporters and their ranting about GAO being bought off. Today is a GAO press release that attests to their impartiality. Interesting thing, it was an international audit, with government and companies from Australia, Canada, Australia, Mexico, the Netherlands, Norway, South Africa, Sweden and the UK. Were all these government and industry auditors bought off to hide the nefarious under-handed actions of the GAO. LOL.
PRESS RELEASE
For Immediate Release
Contact: GAO Public Affairs
(202) 512-4800
Independent Peer Review Teams Give
GAO a “Clean Opinion,” Cite Best Practices
WASHINGTON, DC (June 30, 2008) – Two separate independent peer reviews, one conducted by a team of international auditors, the other by one of the nation’s leading accounting firms, today gave the U.S. Government Accountability Office (GAO) “clean opinions” on the quality assurance systems the agency uses to produce its reports and testimony to Congress.
“I am pleased by this vote of confidence in GAO’s quality assurance practices. GAO is known for providing lawmakers and agency heads with timely, reliable information on government operations. The two peer reviews confirm that this reputation is well deserved,” said Gene L. Dodaro, acting Comptroller General.
An international peer review team, lead by the office of the Auditor General of Canada, examined GAO’s performance audit work. In addition to Canada, other nations represented on the international peer review team included Australia, the Netherlands, and the United Kingdom. The accounting firm KPMG LLP focused on GAO’s financial audit work and attestation engagements.
Reports from both teams concluded that policymakers and the public can be confident of the facts and analyses presented in GAO studies. In addition, the international peer review team cited several exemplary practices at GAO that national audit offices in other countries may wish to emulate.
The international peer review and the KPMG LLP reviews, which respectively took about seven and four months to complete, examined all aspects of GAO’s quality assurance framework—from the initial acceptance of new work to the issuance of the final product. The teams made frequent visits to GAO to interview staff and study a sample of GAO audit products.
GAO is required to undergo an independent external assessment of its quality assurance systems every three years. The 2004 assessments of GAO’s quality
[MORE]
Page 2
assurance system also provided a “clean opinion.”
Those reviews were also led by KPMG and the Office of the Auditor General of Canada—with assistance from
counterpart audit institutions in Australia, Mexico, the Netherlands, Norway, South Africa, and Sweden.
Known as the investigative arm of Congress, GAO seeks to improve the performance of the federal government and hold it accountable to Congress and, ultimately, the
American people. GAO examines the use of public funds; evaluates how well programs and policies are meeting their objectives; and provides analyses, recommendations, and other assistance to help Congress make sound oversight, policy, and funding decisions.
The reports from the international peer review and KPMG LLP are posted on the internet at http://www.gao.gov/about/review.html.
#####
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.