Nothing “supposedly” about it. GAO found this to be the case.
Now, as far as modifying proposals, let’s go to the tape:
“MR. YOUNG: What we are seeking to do is expedite the decision to purchase a tanker. We will not expedite steps in the process. We have to do this methodically, fairly, and without bias in any way. So we will follow a normal acquisition process, we will issue a draft request for proposals, it will be amended to reflect the GAO findings, we will ask the company — THE BIDDERS TO PROVIDE MODIFIED PROPOSALS in response to that amended RFP, and then we will allot evaluation time for those — conduct a new source selection process for those proposals.”
And later in the press conference:
“MR. YOUNG: That’s correct. As the secretary indicated, there is a substantial foundation and a great deal of review and scrutiny that’s been applied to the requirements, the final RFP as well as the proposals, both within the government, by the industry and by the GAO.
That foundation, I think, is beneficial to build upon, making the corrections that are necessary to move forward. And we can leverage that. We’re still going to allot time for industry to modify their proposals as they see fit, once we give them the amended request for proposals. “
“Q Just two questions. One, you’re only focusing, then, on the seven or eight concerns raised by GAO, exclusively, in the three competitions?
MR. YOUNG: Yeah. As I understand it, our eight specific findings — we’ve analyzed those pretty thoroughly and we believe that we can ask both bidders to modify their proposals to address those concerns based on how we will implement those findings in that amended request for proposals and move forward. I don’t — I think we would like to err on the side of changing the minimum amount. We have a valid requirements document that has not been called into question.
And, you know, as the secretary said, a great deal of scrutiny and a lot of attention’s been paid to all of the pieces of this process. We have to fix certain detailed areas, but I think we would like to err on the side of changing fewer things rather than more things, so that everyone feels they have a fair chance. They understand the process. And the things we would change would be things we can explain. We can explain we changed some because the GAO found a factual issue that we needed to address. We made an adjustment which grounded in the requirements document, or we made any adjustment necessary to the benefit of the taxpayer. I mean, we obviously want to pay careful attention to what this program will cost the taxpayer.
One arm, I see — I’m sorry. I’m not order here. “
Boeing, and I am sure EADS/NG, will carefully review the RFP and make necessary adjustments, or no adjustments at all.
From the Boeing press release:
“We look forward to working with the new acquisition team as it reopens the competition, but we will also take time to understand the updated solicitation to determine the right path forward for the company. “
Thanks, Hulka. I know that was what was alledged but didn’t know if that was precisely what GAO had ruled on.
“We look forward to working with the new acquisition team as it reopens the competition, but we will also take time to understand the updated solicitation to determine the right path forward for the company. “ Let's see now, "to determine the right path forward for the company" means that they'll offer some nice cushy jobs with big bonuses to the little GS whatever paper pushers in procurement, just like the first time.
If, on the other hand, the DoD "amends" the draft request to match the grading process as followed by the AF, Boeing is hosed. The 767 was offered because it met the requirements as outlined in the original proposal. As has been said many times...if the AF had said they wanted a bigger plane, Boeing would have offered the 777.
There's not enough time to put together a serious proposal for a 777 tanker by the end of the year.