Tanker blogs, ‘Merci, McCain’ and more
Published 2:15 pm Friday, March 21, 2008
Neither side of the tanker dispute appears to be backing down.
Both the Boeing Co. and its opponents, Northrop Grumman and EADS, have taken their cases to the blogosphere.
After losing the $35 billion Air Force tanker deal, the Boeing Co. launched both a formal protest with the Government Accountability Office and an informal one through its new Tanker Facts blog.
Boeing is getting help in its effort to overturn the Air Force’s decision with blogs like Tanker War Blog and Campaign for America’s Future, which produced a 30-second spot that mock presidential candidate Sen. John McCain’s recent trip to France.
Merci, McCain
For its part, Northrop responds to daily news stories and editorials, sending out e-mails like these:
Setting The Record Straight On Northrop Grumman’s Winning Bid
In today’s issue of the Washington Post, Boeing Vice President for tanker programs Mark McGraw submits a letter to the editor, once again misstating the facts about the tanker program award selection. He writes that all Boeing wanted was a “fair shot,” implying that the company only lost to Northrop Grumman because the process was flawed.
The trouble is that Mr. McGraw was for the fairness of the process before he was against it.
“On this particular competition, we continue to have confidence that the Air Force is going to continue running a fair and open competition,”
McGraw said in an article about the competition for the new tanker fleet.
(“Senior Official: Air Force Anticipates ‘Immediate’ KC-X Industry Protest,” April 13, 2007, ‘Inside the Air Force.’)
In his letter, McGraw alleges that Boeing “clearly met the requirements of the original request for proposals, receiving the highest rating possible for capabilities, with significantly more strengths than the competition.”
The fact is, in the past four days alone, The Wall Street Journal, Reuters and Bloomberg all have examined Air Force selection criteria records and documented the Air Force’s conclusion: That Northrop Grumman was rated superior to Boeing on 4 of 5 evaluation standards the Air Force used, and tied with Boeing on the fifth.
Mr. McGraw also continues to erroneously allege that “Air Force officials changed the evaluation criteria in the midst of the process” in ways that favored Northrop Grumman. But Air Force assistant secretary for acquisition Sue Payton recently stated that the bidding process was “incredibly open and transparent and rigorous … They’ve had a lot of opportunity to communicate with us to make sure were were not talking past each other.”
In other words, Boeing and the Air Force were in full agreement that process was fair and open – up until the day that Boeing lost.
WHAT OTHERS ARE SAYING…
Meanwhile, today’s issue of Inside the Air Force puts to rest another red herring issue raised by Boeing and its allies. Boeing supporters have claimed that the Air Force selection of the Northrop Grumman proposal will require significant and costly infrastructure upgrades at U.S. air bases.
“Aviation experts are doubtful the Air Force will need to spend billions on infrastructure upgrades,” reports Inside the Air Force. The report goes on to say, “Analysts, however, are quick to point out that most Air Force infrastructure can already handle planes larger than the Northrop jet …and that the slow nature of the buy means that any construction needed will take place gradually.”
Another false talking point contradicted by facts.
