Tanker, revised

Center applauds Pentagon decision to reopen bidding on Tanker contract

Yesterday, Secretary of Defense Robert Gates announced the Pentagon’s decision to reopen the bidding on a $35 billion contract for the KC-X Air Force refueling tanker. This step reverses a grievously flawed action previously taken by the Air Force, whereby it awarded that contract to a consortium dominated by European Aeronautic, Defense and Space (EADS). Secretary Gates’ initiative should not only set the stage for a different outcome with respect to the tanker procurement, but a wholesale overhaul of the faulty decision-making and acquisition processes that previously produced such a dismal result.

The flaws in those processes were recently enumerated in excruciating detail by the Government Accountability Office. So egregious were the errors that the GAO directed the Pentagon to scotch the EADS award.

The Center for Security Policy has from the first called that award as a mistake on strategic, military and financial grounds. (see EADS is Welcome to Compete for U.S. Defense Contracts—But First It Must Clean Up Its Act). The Center regarded the harshly critical GAO response to a protest by the Boeing Company as a vindication of its assessment that, whether by accident or design, procurement officials misled Boeing throughout the bidding process and otherwise conducted themselves in a manner that was as improper as it was inconsistent with the national interest.

Upon learning of Secretary Gates’ decision, Center President Frank Gaffney for Security Policy president, observed:

Every American who appreciates the importance of this nation’s power-projection capability is relieved that the Pentagon has reopened the decision whereby it was entrusting the backbone of that capability – our aerial refueling fleet – to the tender mercies of foreign nations, contractors and labor unions that have a record of hostility towards U.S. policies and interests.  

The last KC-X tanker procurement process placed a greater importance on competition than on the requirements outlined in the original Request for Proposal. As a result, the Air Force gave short shrift to the needs of the warfighter, and placed undue emphasis on avoiding what would have been criticized by some as a sole-source acquisition.   It is imperative that such misplaced priorities not afflict the next phase of this acquisition process and that it be brought to a conclusion that is strategically sound and cost-effective at the earliest possible time.

The Center for Security Policy’s Chief Operating Officer Michael Reilly and Research Associate Dave Reaboi deserve particular credit for their efforts in print and on TankerBlog.com to document the serious problems with the last decision.   They and the rest of the Center team will be making a redoubled effort to ensure that the process going forward is both fairly conducted and consistent with our national security interests.