WE Blog

McBush is McToast for this election.

That was a funny cartoon by Crowson this morning. But of course, some of the liberal persuasion bloggers here will note that it was possibly a call for universal health care which could put us on equal competitive footing with our European counter parts.

Our health care costs are killing us and are an elephant on our backs.

But hey, ideological purity always prevails over things that work – especially in the Bush junta.

swallow
Come on, lets at least agree on the facts.
The Boeing deal will create far more American jobs than the EADs deal.

Health Care costs? This is a dumb argument.

All we need to do, to show that the Boeing plan is actually better for the taxpayers, is calculate the amount of money that the ADDITIONAL American jobs, in the Boeing plan, would pay in taxes, Federal Income Tax, Federal Social Security Tax, Medicare Tax, Unemployment Tax, State Income Tax, etc.

Just like getting a “factory rebate” when you buy a car or a computer, only the “net cost” should be used, in any comparison with Airbus.

Beyond that, we are in the WTC right now, complaining about unfair government subsidies to Airbus.

How can we ask for sanctions, against Airbus, through one branch of government, while awarding a contract, through the Airforce, to the same company?

I think this deal is dead. I can not see any money for this deal passing this year.

Every government contract contains a clause that reads, to the effect of, “Pending appropriation by Congress” — so we have violated nothing, as a country, if Congress says, “Hell NO!”

JR
Since when does a labor union have much of anything to do with a military contract?

Are you saying that the only “American Jobs” you care about are Union jobs?

What “Union” are you paying dues to, these days?

Deal or no deal, Boing will do what it’s always done for at least the last 30 years or so: Start laying off beginning the end of Sept with drastic “downsizing” right before Christmas, then start hiring immediately before Easter and working the labor force like crazy until Sept. when the cycle repeats.

I agree ghoti about “the cycle.” But, do you remember late 60s / early 70s Boeing layoffs? I think we could be looking at that scenario again. And, I think they deserved to NOT be awarded this contract.

“And, I think they deserved to NOT be awarded this contract.”

Based on?

“Based on?”

Based on the fact that Northrop Grumman-EADS made the best proposal. And now Boeing is asking for a “do over,” in order to do what they didn’t the first go round. Boeing submitted a proposal for a product that cost more, wouldn’t deliver as much fuel and couldn’t be produced as soon. Do you suppose if they are given the “do over” they can manage to be competitive?

Loren Thompson, a leading defense analyst at the Virginia-based Lexington Institute think tank, told Reuters on Monday. “Northrop won decisively and completely, and Boeing simply was not competitive in the major measures.”

Were there any parts of the bidding process handled unfairly? Depends on who says what, far as I can tell. Will we ever know the truth? Your guess is as good as mine. Do we have enough information to make a good judgment? I don’t think so.

The article belongs on the front page, not just on Weblog!

And Linda,
I can tell you that contract awards are not always about the best contract offer. The politics of awarding contracts is just that….politics. I have been involved in then aerospace industry for 30 years or more. It’s always about the politics, nearly as much as about the product

McCain sucks. Period.

Doesn’t sound like this competition was fair, from the article “In December 2006, just weeks before the Air Force was set to release its formal request for proposals, McCain wrote a letter to the incoming defense secretary, Robert Gates, warning that he was “troubled” by the Air Force’s draft request for bids.

The United States had filed a complaint with the World Trade Organization alleging that Airbus unfairly benefits from European subsidies. Airbus in turn argued that Boeing also receives government support, mostly as tax breaks.

Under the Air Force proposal, bidders would have been required to explain how financial penalties or other sanctions stemming from the subsidy dispute might affect their ability to execute the contract. Airbus objected to the provision and asked the Pentagon to drop it in June 2006.

McCain, in his letter to Gates on Dec. 1, 2006, said the proposed bid request “may risk eliminating competition before bids are submitted.” The Air Force changed the criteria four days later.

Dicks, a senior member of the House Appropriations defense subcommittee, said the removal of the subsidy language was a “game-changer” that favored EADS over Boeing.

EADS also wanted the Pentagon to factor into the bidding process the ability of the new tanker to carry cargo and passengers. The Airbus proposal called for a much bigger plane than the 767 offered by Boeing.

In his letter to Gates, McCain urged the Pentagon to write bid requests that would take into account the various capabilities of the tanker plane.

Nearly two months later, Gates replied that the Air Force had made changes “responsive to the concerns identified in your letter.”

Last week, Air Force Secretary Michael Wynne told the Senate Armed Services Committee that the EADS-Northrop Grumman plane was “clearly a better performer” than the one proposed by Boeing.

But Rep. Adam Smith, D-Wash., a member of the House Armed Services Committee, said Tuesday that the Air Force altered its requirements at the last minute. Smith said he didn’t know whether McCain had influenced the Air Force decision. “What is clear is there was a change,” he said.”
You don’t do last minute criteria changes in a bid that takes months if not yrs. to put together.NG isn’t a partner, airbus just used their letterhead to get the deal!

EADS has huge delivery problems already

Didn’t the Eagle report yesterday that Boing had the same problem?

http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/boeingaerospace/2004276088_boeing12.html

Didn’t have the paper, so I googled.

I must be doing a worse job of communicating than usual. I meant no animosity and I’m sorry if any of my words expressed hostility or ill will. I felt none. I wanted to say without any emotion expressed that there are enough opinions from everywhere to support any and all “takes.” Until more than opinions is known by me, I accept the contract was awarded as a result of the best proposal, without further judgments on the decision.

Linda-

My apologies.

i took this part “I wasn’t charged with the decision. I was unaware that you were. Since you get to decide to “give the margin of error to a US based company,” why don’t you” as hostile.

I apoligize for miscontruing your intentions.
May the diaologue go on!

what’s up with the double post? Not intentional. Must have screwed up somewhere!

Why is the carnard about hangars moot? In fact, the KC 767 does fit in existing hangers built for current tankers, the airbus 330 does not. Why would that NOT be considered in the cost. The sopwith camel’s hangers has nothing to do with a 737. THe airbus airframe will NOT be built, even final assembled in the US. THe Mod work may be, but none of the airframe assembly work. On the other hand, the Boeing aircraft, while subassemblies are made all over the world (a practice that I detest, incidentally) would be assembled in the US. Plus, the mod work would be done in the US Northrups initial projections (modified no doubt to bolster their position) was waaaay shjort of the number of jobs created by the Boeing proposal.

In fact, the KC 767 does fit in existing hangers built for current tankers, the airbus 330 does not.

The point of the camel/737 was: were the hangers built for the tankers, or were the tankers built for the hangers?

lj, Northrop’s job estimates were changed, per an article I linked to another thread a few days ago, to those under a definition provided by the Dept. of Commerce rather than a definition provided by the Dept. of Labor, IIRC. As I asked then, was the number of jobs estimated by Boeing computed under the definition that Northrop adopted or the one Northrop used originally. If the first, Northrop’s estimate is 4,000 greater than Boeing’s; if the latter, Boeing’s estimate is 20,000 greater than Northrop’s. Thus, the question remains as to job estimates: are or were both using the same definition in the initial numbers provided?

“The Boeing deal will create far more American jobs than the EADs deal”

Last I heard was that the Boeing deal would have been 40,000 jobs; the Northrup deal 48,000.

The C5 wouldn’t fit in a hanger the Herky birds fit, so we should just settle for the cargo space of the 135? the Ford tri-motor was the cat’s meow in the 30s for air travel, so all airliners should be that size?
I agree, that price probably wasn’t taken into consideration. it’s my understanding the EADS tanker will transport/deliver more fuel. has the cost of less flights for re-fuelers, less turn-around, and more mission mileage for the additional planes fueled en-route been taken into?

It depends on how you define “jobs”
*ducks*

lj, thanks for your response. I’ve not been able to ascertain the standard being used, either. My speculation is that Boeing used the standard that Northrop/EADS has subsequently adopted, but it is merely my speculation.

So, how many shares do you have in Boing?

The more people talk, the more questions pop up.

One of items talked about was that Boeing had to figure medical insurance into their bid while EADS did not have to because the Government pays for insurance for the French workers.

Now that EADS has increased the number of projected jobs in the U.S. does this change their bid?

Yes, Hud, the medical insurance difference has been talked about. It seems to me that where the government supplies health care, through medical insurance or otherwise, and the company does not directly bear (through payment of premiums therefor) the expense thereof, such should not be considered, while a company that does make such payment of the premium should have to include that expense.

If the party issuing the RFP didnt ask for the size of the plane to fit existing hangers, then size wasnt part of the bid requirements. That tells me they didnt CARE about the size or the hangers.

In evaluating proposals, you cant apply new criteria that were not in the RFP or any subsequent amendments.

You cant change the rules after the game is OVER! Should they care about the size? I dont know. But THIS total cost of usage is how you get $700 hammers.

kfg, agreed on size of hanger comment. I speculate that this was not an issue in the RFP, as there are plans to build new hangers regardless. My two cents, as always.

I don;t own ANY shares of Boeing

LOL, it was rhetorical. I didn’t really think you did; didn’t think ya didn’t either. It didn’t matter to me one way or the other.

While I feel your questions about what was asked for, when changed are valid, I can’t help but think boing, Eads, and anyone else who may have tossed a bid in, if any, would’ve been smart had they placed several proposals on the table at the same time: one by specs; lowered specs/decreased price; and at least a couple over-spec. Like when the contractor comes over and says, “yeah, i can plumb a $100 home depot special tub in your bathroom, but for X amount of dollars, you can have this HOME SPA!”
It’s a matter of just getting by or really trying to sell yourself.

Hee hee hee gster.

WHen I spent time hacking around the procurement world, I explained how the $700 toilet seats came about. If standard seats are made with the bolt holes in the back 6″ center to center, well, you can buy those at the harware store for a few bucks.

But if you shift the holes to 6 1/2 inches center to center, they have to be specially manufactured, usually with a short run, so the costs of retooling, etc. must ALL be recaptured in that one short run bid, ’cause you dont know if you will get the next bid, or if the holes in the next one will be 7 inches center to center.

Most procurement problems begin as engineering problems or from buyers who write rfp’s for everything from ink pens to 737s…

The tech folks dont know how to communicate to the buyers, and the buyers just write rfps from what the tech people give them.

And NO ONE is looking out for the taxpayers. Except for every 20 years when a procurement scandal or procurement stupidity hits the news.

Thanks Linda. Wash, rinse, repeat.

Golden Fleece anyone?

You cant change the rules after the game is OVER

Isn’t that what Mulvane is doing over the casino? Sorry, KFC, outta your district LOL

“Most procurement problems begin as engineering problems or from buyers who write rfp’s for everything from ink pens to 737s…
”

On that,I agree.

“I can’t help but think boing, Eads, and anyone else who may have tossed a bid in, if any, would’ve been smart had they placed several proposals on the table at the same time: one by specs; lowered specs/decreased price; and at least a couple over-spec.”

There is a two step proposal process that allows one step for IDEAS. I cant remember the damn name of the step though. Anyway, folks are asked to submit ideas, then the “best” ideas (function, form, transportation, time and cost may, but do not HAVE to be considered) are chosen, and from that information from supplier and input from end users, the RFP is written. It is the RFP that must be responded to, and you CANT deviate from what the RFP asks, otherwise, you will be considered non responsive and your bid, no matter how fabulous, will be rejected.

The time to intervene was BEFORE the RFP was issued. Sounds like that happened multiple times, which is normal.

If a better mousetrap comes along, the RFP can be modified with amendments. THAT can result in really high “out of spec” costs. And cobbled together products. But it always happens, because the process of writing RFPs is so flawed and unwieldy.

Bidders must acknowledge in writing that they received amendments. Otherwise? Their bid is rejected.

NOW the average person can see how phucked up our procurement processes are. AND they are almost totally controlled by the vendors, not the buyers. And compliant buyers and engineers are often rewarded with private sector jobs.

Didnt Boeing experiece THAT on this contract?

You should SEE the revolving door between procurement engineers, buyers, and the private sector.

CHA CHING!

But hey, it’s so much easier to bitch about $700 hammers. When tankerless todd jumps on the procurement reform bandwagon, we’ll know he’s serious about fairness in buying.

Until then? Heheheheh. Todd got played like a cheap fiddle by the REAL procurement pros.

Like mccain.

LJ, you soundl like you spent some time in the procurement world, but maybe not government procurement? Because if you did, you would know that COST evaluations come in the engineering proposals, not the RFP.

Once the RFP is issued, the COST is evaluated by the criteria set out. IF they wanted total cost of usage evaluated, they would ask for it. But for products, it is cost per unit, or however they determine it.

Should they consider cost of usage? Of course, but that happens BEFORE the rfp is issued. And as for this:

” the way they got the 700 dollars hammers were that contractos were allowed to spred their overhead costs over multiple contract awards across the items, not evenly distributed as to actual cost.”

Sorry, LJ, but that is just bassackwards. They are NOT allowed to spread their overhead costs over mutiple contracts. Unless mulitpurchase contracts are being issued. And that usually doesnt happen. They MUST recoup their costs in one run, or however many runs the RFP specifies.

And this? “True, but the question as to when all the parties got all the information has not been answered.”

Sorry, not buying it. ALL amendments and modifications to the RFP are SENT to anyone on the bidders lists, and they MUST respond, in writing, that they received the amendments and mods.

They must reaffirm that in any proposal sent in response to an rfp. If they do not acknowledge the receipt of amendments and then REAFFIRM their receipt in the proposal, their bid will be rejected.

No kidding.

Private sector procurement and public sector procurement are NOT the same.

Hehehehe. And that brings me full circle to the point that Boeing obviously KNOWS how hte procurement process works. They DID intervene inappropriately in the process before RFP.

I think that was what all the wrist slapping was about, no?

And, face it. Toddly got outplayed in the pre RFP process, as did Boeing. IT makes great community relations to say “your town lost and we lost because of unfair procurement policies”.

Saying “We lost because we were dumbasses who got caught cheating and their our congressman fell down on the job and got outplayed by mccain and EADS” just doesnt have the same ring to it, no?

“THAT is why I say if they wanted the hanger size considered, they would have spec’d it. Vendors and respondors can ONLY respond to the rfp or amendments there to.”

I agree. However, I still believe it should have been considered. If it was not, it was a flaw on the AF part, in my opinion. Not the vendors.

Remember the thread we had a couple of days ago about the results of “economic development?”

Part of the problem is that counting jobs is more art than science. I know real scientists and economist will say that cant be so… but it is.

There is no “standard” used to count jobs projected before the fact, or jobs actually created after the fact. Then the companies and communities affected will muddy the waters by counting “spin off” jobs. Or I think now the trendy phrase is “first tier jobs, and second tier jobs”.

Whatever.

The point is, that until there is a STANDARD methodology used to count jobs, it will continue to be done with “fuzzy” math. I.e. Political math.

Most companies who get public sector economic help LIKE the fuzzy math. Because they RARELY create or retain (even harder to measure) the jobs they promise.

And communities rarely hold their feet to the fire because, well, then they’d have to admit that either their local economic development folks were blowings smoke, elected officials and their staff didnt pay attention to due dilligence, or all of the above.

And we couldnt have THAT kind of scruitiny on ecnomic development, now could we? Think Park City and Wild West World. Think Boeing. Think Water Walk.

In fact, check the fine print on ANY incentives. There are RARELY penalties for not creating jobs as promised. They are just called “projections”.

Which translates into, “we hope, but we dont know. We also hope you swallow this without question. Just give us the check”.

heheheh. I’ve been in this business too long….

ksfarmgrrl

i think we agree more than we disagree. But, you might disagree :)

“Too damn many layers, mostof which could care less.”

I agree.

And dont even get me STARTED on packaging and testing. Testing by whom? Destructive or non destructive? To what standard or mil spec? ALl in the RFP, but all add up to cost.

And a fifty cent o-ring shipped individually packaged in $2.00 shrink wrap?

Well, if it is stored on a flight deck in adverse conditions, maybe the packaging is needed.

Or maybe the packaging companies who get the subcontracts had a contact in procurement who was writing the RFP…

your tax dollars at work.

Years ago, I worked for a company that manufactured air chambers for heavy duty braking systems. We had a contract with AM General for same.

The chambers (ya’ gotta know air brake systems to understand) had to have a special diaphragm, special springs and pushrods, and had to be painted a very specific OD.

They cost five times as much as a normal painted air chamber.

The standard air chamber was used by virtually every HD truck/tractor manufacturer in the county, but the mil specs precluded them from using a standard unit.

We had a batch of chambers rejected because the OD wasn’t the right SHADE.

Now, if you know where an air chamber is mounted, you would know just how stupid that was.

Let’s put it this way – if an enemy soldier could SEE that the shade of OD was off, he was probably dead already.

Just a quick in ‘n’ out (I’m such a MAN!) (can’t do italics).

When I was in the service one of the shops had what looked like a common rawhide hammer. Turns out this hammer had a calibrated weight suspended on a spring and adjusted by a screw. You used the hammer one time and it had to go in for calibration again.

Then again, in my department we had these electrical component pullers that gov’t bought from Plessy corp. for over $50 each. When they were all lost/worn out we bent a coat hanger through 6″ of 1/2″ pvc. It was just a tad sloppier, but itworked fine.

Can anybody find a side-by-side comparison of the two tankers on the Air Force website? Here’s a link to the advanced search page:

http://dodsearch.afis.osd.mil/search?entqr=0&access=p&as_dt=i&sort=date%3AD%3AL%3Ad1&output=xml_no_dtd&ie=UTF-8&lr=&as_sitesearch=&btnG=AFLINK+Search&as_lq=&client=AFLINK&as_epq=&as_eq=&as_oq=&num=10&ud=1&site=AFLINK&oe=UTF-8&as_q=&proxystylesheet=AFLINK&as_occt=any&ip=70.209.204.37&proxycustom=

Sorry, the link didn’t work as I thought it would. Click on the Advanced Search link on the page that loads to get the Advanced Search form.

This is the most that I have found yet:

The RFP stipulates nine primary key performance parameters:

1) Air refueling capability
2) Fuel offload and range at least as great as the KC-135
3) Compliant Communication, Navigation, Surveillance/Air Traffic Management (CNS/ATM) equipment
4) Airlift capability
5) Ability to take on fuel while airborne
6) Sufficient force protection measures
7) Ability to network into the information available in the battle space
8) Survivability measures (defensive systems, Electro-Magnetic Pulse (EMP) hardening, chemical/biological protection, etc)
9) Provisioning for a multi-point refueling system to support Navy and Allied aircraft

http://www.af.mil/pressreleases/release.asp?id=123039273

Also, on a similar web page (link below), at the bottom there is a link to Comment of this story. Perhaps US citizens could request that the Air Force publish the completed evaluation form.

http://www.af.mil/news/story_print.asp?id=123039360