Tanker troubles

NY Times Editorial:

Defense Secretary Robert Gates must take over the troubled contracting process for the Air Force’s new midair refueling tankers. The current tankers are decades old and the Air Force needs the new planes. But its repeated bungling of the procurement process shows that it is incapable of doing the task on its own.

Healthy competition among defense contractors — on both sides of the Atlantic — is the best way to ensure that the Pentagon buys the best possible gear for the lowest possible price. But according to a scathing report by the Government Accountability Office, there was nothing healthy about how the Air Force awarded the $35 billion tanker contract to the team of Northrop Grumman and the European company EADS over rival Boeing.

The government watchdog agency did not say which was the best plane. But it accused the Air Force of breaking its own contracting rules. It told Boeing it wouldn’t give extra credit for a big jet and then gave extra credit to Northrop’s bigger jet. It changed its rating of Boeing’s communications and computer system without telling Boeing. But it discussed Northrop’s system with Northrop. It also appeared to give Northrop a pass on at least two important stipulations, including whether its tanker could refuel all the planes in the fleet.

The Air Force also miscalculated the full cost of operating the two rivals’ jets. If not for the errors, the report said, “we believe that Boeing would have had a substantial chance of being selected for award.”

The Air Force’s previous attempt to get new tankers — a no-bid deal to lease planes from Boeing — was derailed after it was revealed that Boeing offered a job to the Air Force official negotiating the contract.

The Air Force must follow the agency’s recommendation to reopen the bidding process. But Mr. Gates will have to work especially hard to ensure that the process isn’t further tainted by election-year politics.

...

This should not be that hard. Set objective criteria and chose the plane that best meets that criteria. I think much of the criticism of this latest deal is still political. The Washington state senators from Boeing, who are basically anti military on most things have turned into chicken hawks on this deal. Boeing has brought other of its senators into the fray. In the next go round they need to offer the best plane at the best price and leave out the jingoism.

While the Times correctly notes one of the problems with the first deal, there were others. One of the players in the first deal was Tom Daschle's wife who was a lobbyist for Boeing. They hope to profit off the increased defense spending after 9-11 and came up with a lease deal which was actually more expensive than an outright purchase. McCain was one of the few willing to stand up to these shenanigans.

The planes are appropriately described as fuel tankers. Not so the ground war "tanks." The ones on the ground got their name from Winston Churchill when he was trying to fool the Germans as to their purpose on the battlefield. He thought they looked like water tanks on tracks for supplying troops in the front and tried to convince the enemy of that. The Germans soon found out the real purpose and the weapon system broke the stalemate and turned the tide of the war.