By Jen DiMascio and Emelie Rutherford
Regardless of whether the Air Force acted legally and responsibly in its decision to choose Northrop Grumman [NOC] to build the service’s next aerial refueling tankers, lawmakers may still move to overturn the decision.
“I think the decision was based on the law. I think [the Air Force] followed the law, but there’s a lot more to this. There’s industrial base. There’s allies that have not stepped up,” Rep. John Murtha (D-Pa.), the chairman of the House Appropriations defense subcommittee, told reporters yesterday after a hearing with service officials.
During the hearing, he stressed that the political implications of the decision are important both at home and abroad. He pledged to make sure that everyone in the competition was treated fairly but followed that up with the reminder of the clout wielded by his subcommittee.
“This committee funds this program. All this committee has to do is stop the money, and the program doesn’t move forward,” Murtha said.
Rep. Norm Dicks (D-Wash.), whose district includes the facility where Boeing’s [BA] tanker operations would have been located if the company won the contract, is keeping that option on the table.
“We have killed programs in the appropriations process,” Dicks said after the hearing, “But we’re going to wait and hear what the hearings show, we’re going to try to be fair and evenhanded, but I’ve got to tell you, the Air Force has got a lot of explaining to do.”
Dicks indicated he was warming to the possibility of the service buying some planes from each company–a suggestion he mocked during the competition.
“I didn’t like that idea a couple of weeks ago, but I might rethink that,” Dicks said.
Dicks and a number of members blasted the decision for damaging the industrial base and sought answers to questions about the contracting process.
Dicks suggested that the Air Force, under pressure from a senator, changed its criteria during the competition because Northrop Grumman was threatening to withdraw.
His office this week released a letter from Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.), appealing to Defense Secretary Robert Gates before his confirmation and before the release of the request for proposals to remove language referencing World Trade Organization disputes.
Sue Payton, the Air Force’s top acquisition official, denied that changes were made to the final request for proposals. She said it was her job to choose a new tanker based on criteria that did not include the industrial base.
Current legal exemptions under the Buy America Act instruct the department to treat allied countries as part of the U.S. industrial base, and that was the law she complied with, Payton said.
Although she declined to provide a number of details regarding the service’s rationale, she ultimately reiterated the position that Northrop Grumman presented the better offer.
“I will tell you that when Congressman [Todd] Tiahrt [R-Kan.] and I go out to the golf course to tee it up we either bring our A-game, or we don’t bring our A-game. Northrop Grumman brought its A-game based on the law that I must abide by.”
Murtha acknowledged to reporters that Boeing might not have done a “very good job” in its presentation. “They didn’t sharpen the pencil is what I understand,” Murtha said.
Senators struck a more cautious tone during a Senate Armed Services Committee hearing with Air Force Secretary Michael Wynne and Chief of Staff Gen. Michael Moseley.
SASC Chairman Carl Levin (D-Mich.) said he believes the service is “following appropriate procedures in waiting to provide details of the decision to Congress until the Air Force has briefed the participating contractors.” Levin said he is scheduling a briefing for the committee.
Sen. John Warner (R-Va.), often an advocate for competition in the defense acquisition world, reiterated his support for the contract.
“I join the chairman in saying that we will work in reviewing with you how you formed the steps under the law to reach you conclusion. I want you to know I feel very strongly that Congress should not get into the business of trying to rewrite a contract, particularly one of this magnitude and complexity, as it might suit other members,” Warner said.
On March 4, Boeing denounced the timing of the originally scheduled debriefing date; yesterday the Air Force bumped up its appointment with the company from March 12 to March 7.
Boeing leaders “hope to understand how the company and the service reached vastly different conclusions,” according to a statement based on comments made yesterday by Boeing President and CEO Jim Albaugh at a conference in New York.
Rep. Jo Bonner (R-Ala.), who represents the district where the Northrop Grumman-European Aeronautic Defence and Space Co. plane will be assembled, said the debriefing should clear up rampant speculation.
As the process moves ahead, Bonner said he and other supporters of the Northrop Grumman system will “gently remind people” who were disappointed by Boeing’s loss that they need to let the process play out.
He stressed that unless it can be proven that the process was not open and transparent, zeroing out funding for the tanker would set a dangerous precedent. So, too would trying to un-do the award because Congress dislikes the outcome.
“I hope everyone will take a deep breath,” Bonner said, adding that the Northrop Grumman plan is likely to create up to 48,000 direct and indirect jobs–in line with what Boeing proposed.