Wednesday, Jun. 18, 2008

GAO decision affirms Murray’s view of Airbus-Boeing dogfight

By Ken Robertson, Herald Executive Editor

Sen. Patty Murray’s campaign against the U.S. Air Force decision to choose the Airbus A-330 over Boeing’s 767 for the next generation of its tanker aircraft ended its latest round Wednesday with Air Force bureaucrats sporting a bloody nose to go with their blue uniforms.

The Government Accountability Office concluded the Air Force made “significant errors” in awarding the $35 billion contract, reported Les Blumenthal of the Herald’s Washington, D.C., bureau.

Once again, the Pentagon’s armed might was humbled, with the GAO’s report in many ways almost mirroring Murray’s frequent Senate floor speeches that railed against the Air Force’s ineptitude.

The GAO was restrained in its rhetoric compared with Murray’s regular accusations of “stonewalling,” “large-scale errors” and trying to buy “an 18-wheeler” when “all they needed was a station wagon.”

“Our review of the record led us to conclude that the Air Force had made a number of significant errors that could have affected the outcome of what was a close competition between Boeing and Northrop Grumman,” the GAO said. “We therefore sustain the Boeing protest.”

The Seattle Times dug out a GAO litany of the Air Force’s "errors," noting it:

— “Didn’t assess the relative merits of the two contending airplanes in accordance with its stated criteria.

— “Gave Northrop extra credit for exceeding certain performance parameters, when this was expressly not allowed.

— “Failed to show that the A-330 could refuel all of the Air Force aircraft it needs to service.

— “Misled Boeing about its failure to meet certain performance parameters, while giving fuller information to Northrop.

— “Dismissed a Northrop failure to agree to an aircraft maintenance plan as only ‘an administrative oversight’ when it was a material requirement.

— “Made unreasonable estimates of the cost of constructing runways, ramps and hangars needed for the larger Airbus jet, which led to the conclusion that Northrop offered lower total program costs — when in fact Boeing’s overall cost was lower.

— “Inappropriately rejected Boeing’s estimate of its non-recurring cost to develop the program, using an ‘unreasonable’ model to increase that cost estimate.”

Any final decision no doubt is months away, since now the contract will have to be rebid. Either Boeing or Airbus still could come out ahead.

But there’s one clear winner at this point. Murray has taught another piece of the bureaucracy to do its homework properly before it makes a decision she’s likely to question.

It will be interesting to see if the Air Force bureaucracy can grasp that lesson any quicker than its counterparts at the federal Departments of Veterans Affairs and Energy, which Murray has sparred with in the past.

Ken Robertson: 582-1520; krobertson@tricityherald.com