Tugger From United States of America, joined Apr 2006, 4657 posts, RR: 7 Posted (4 years 10 months 3 days 21 hours ago) and read 2872 times:
So it looks like the Air Force is planning to announce the winner of the CSARS contract this fall. Finally.
Quote: The Air Force is on track to select a winner this fall on a disputed $15 billion helicopter deal originally won by Boeing, despite an ongoing review by Pentagon investigators, a senior service official said Tuesday.
....
The Air Force has yet to see an interim report, but Gray said no concerns have been raised during its ongoing discussions with the IG's office. If there are any questions that could delay the contract, they will be directed to acting Air Force Secretary Michael Donley and Sue Payton, the service's acquisition chief.
AirRyan From United States of America, joined Mar 2005, 2530 posts, RR: 6 Reply 1, posted (4 years 10 months 3 days 20 hours ago) and read 2833 times:
I read an article that said now CSAR operators are being talked to this time around and their opinions will be used to assess points for each aircraft - take that into account with the fact that the LM bid has erased any previous doubts about it's program and the LM bid is hands down the winner. Hell, the Boeing bid should have not even been allowed to compete!
CX747 From United States of America, joined May 1999, 4385 posts, RR: 5 Reply 2, posted (4 years 10 months 2 days 19 hours ago) and read 2578 times:
Why should Boeing's bid not have been able to compete? Let's not forget that the Army operates the Chinook in many different ways and it excels in each of them. If LM wins, then it is just another chink in the US manufacturing armor. Hope you boys love doing 20 years and then working for the Europeans.
"History does not long entrust the care of freedom to the weak or timid." D. Eisenhower
TropicBird From United States of America, joined May 2005, 502 posts, RR: 0 Reply 3, posted (4 years 10 months 2 days 18 hours ago) and read 2550 times:
According to this article and others - there is still a pending IG investigation that needs to be reviewed before they pick a winner. After all - they could end up awarding the contract to a company which was later found to be guilty of violating procurement rules in the same contract.
Curt22 From United States of America, joined Jul 2007, 335 posts, RR: 0 Reply 4, posted (4 years 10 months 2 days 7 hours ago) and read 2470 times:
Quoting TropicBird (Reply 3): According to this article and others - there is still a pending IG investigation that needs to be reviewed before they pick a winner.
Apparently the USAF does NOT need to WAIT for the DoD IG or they would not be making a public statement about the next CSAR-X decision being made before the IG publishes it's report.
Given MGen Grey's statement...it appears the USAF has no concerns about the outcome of the IG investigation they feel would have an impact on the requirements or source selection process. In other words...despite the misinformation deliberately spread by the losing contenders...the IG will confirm there was no wrong doing by the USAF.
Quoting AirRyan (Reply 1): I read an article that said now CSAR operators are being talked to this time around and their opinions will be used to assess points for each aircraft - take that into account with the fact that the LM bid has erased any previous doubts about it's program and the LM bid is hands down the winner. Hell, the Boeing bid should have not even been allowed to compete!
You "Read and article that said now CSAR operators are being talked to this time around and their opinions will be used to assess points for each aircraft " huh? You may wish to reconsider your sources of journalism for fact based reporting.
1 - Did the story you read actually say there were NO CSAR operators in the previous rounds of source selection? Fact is...there have ALWAYS been CSAR operators as part of the source selection team.
2 - The story you refer to says the operators "opinions" will be used to award points?...This is another indication that your source is incompetent... a - "Points" are not used in source selection. b - It is illegal to use "opinions" in source selection. All members of any source selection team are bound by law to evaluate proposals against the validated requirements and nothing more. To add one's opinion would not only be unprofessional but would be unproductive as well since everyone would have different opinions...how could we assign "points" to different opinions?
3 - Yes the 2 year delay caused by the protests have afforded LM and SAC to improve their bids and their products...and I think it's a safe bet that this risk reduction will be considered by the source selection team.
4 - You know you do nothing to improve your credibility by continuing to make the statement BA should not have been allowed to bid. Congress has mandated by law that large acquisition programs such as this have open competitions. The Medium Lift/Heavy Lift argument falls flat on it's face since the ONLY Govt definition (CRS report I've previously quoted) tells us the H-47 is in the "Medium lift" category.
It seems the only reason you have remaining to ban the H-47 is personal bias...perhaps based in the reality that the EH-101 cannot do anything better than the H-47.
TropicBird From United States of America, joined May 2005, 502 posts, RR: 0 Reply 5, posted (4 years 10 months 2 days 4 hours ago) and read 2403 times:
Quoting Curt22 (Reply 4): Apparently the USAF does NOT need to WAIT for the DoD IG or they would not be making a public statement about the next CSAR-X decision being made before the IG publishes it's report.
The comment denoted in bold seems to indicate the USAF is still uncertain of what the IG's outcome will be. If the IG does not issue a "draft version" what will the USAF do -- go ahead anyway?
Daily Report August 20, 2008
Still On for the Fall: The Air Force remains on track to announce the winner of its combat search and rescue helicopter contest this fall, Maj. Gen. David "Scott" Gray, director of Global Reach Programs in the Air Force's acquisition shop, said yesterday. "We have got warfighters out there that need this capability and they need it soon, and so we are working hard on the acquisition side to make that happen," he said during a meeting with reporters in the Pentagon. Gray said it is "unknown" whether the contract award will come prior to the US Presidential election in November. Although the Air Force doesn't expect to see the Pentagon Inspector General's report on a probe for irregularities in the formulation of CSAR-X requirements until around February 2009, he said the IG might provide a draft version in September. Unless this draft points to a serious issue, the Air Force does not intend to wait on the final report before awarding the CSAR-X contract, Gray said. "To date, we have heard absolutely nothing from the DOD IG that causes us concern," he said. The Air Force still plans to procure 141 new rescue helicopters to replace its aging fleet of 101 HH-60G Pave Hawks. Boeing, Lockheed Martin, and Sikorsky are competing; the program has an estimated total value of $15 billion. The Air Force wants the first squadron in the field no later than September 2014. Gray said that CSAR-X program officials have applied lessons from the Government Accountability Office's ruling in the KC-X tanker protest. While program officials "feel pretty comfortable that there is nothing externally that needed to be fixed," they want to improve the way the service documents [program] decisions, "so there are no disconnects," he said.
Curt22 From United States of America, joined Jul 2007, 335 posts, RR: 0 Reply 6, posted (4 years 10 months 2 days 2 hours ago) and read 2355 times:
Quoting TropicBird (Reply 5): The comment denoted in bold seems to indicate the USAF is still uncertain of what the IG's outcome will be. If the IG does not issue a "draft version" what will the USAF do -- go ahead anyway?
I don't know if they will go ahead without IG feedback, but it sure sounds like that's what they are planning to do, and of course...the source selection activity is independent of the IG investigation so there is nothing that legally binds both efforts together.
That said...with all the recent beatings the USAF has been taking for questionable acquisition decisions (CSAR-X, KC-X, Thunderbirds contract)...I don't think they would move forward unless they had some sense from DoD IG that said there is nothing wrong with the way they are proceeding with this source selection...and since we hear this round is using the same set of requirements as in the past...it may be logical to conclude that means DoD IG will find there was nothing wrong with the previous set of requirements developed, or how they were used...but this is just guessing on my part.
AirRyan From United States of America, joined Mar 2005, 2530 posts, RR: 6 Reply 8, posted (4 years 10 months 1 day 18 hours ago) and read 2255 times:
Quoting CX747 (Reply 2): Why should Boeing's bid not have been able to compete?
Because the USAF had to amend their award criteria so as to allow the larger than necessary H-47 airframe the time needed to be "mission" ready after being transported via C-5/C-17.
Quoting CX747 (Reply 2): Let's not forget that the Army operates the Chinook in many different ways and it excels in each of them.
And the US Army is where the Chinook needs to stay - if the USAF wants to buy 100+ H-47's they'd be better served to let US Army maintainers and warrant officers operate them.
Quoting Curt22 (Reply 4): 1 - Did the story you read actually say there were NO CSAR operators in the previous rounds of source selection? Fact is...there have ALWAYS been CSAR operators as part of the source selection team.
Okay - "more" emphasis on operations by actual CSAR-X operators - and if they listen to the British who use both the Merlin and Chinook they'd tell the USAF that the Merlin based HH-71 is the hands down wiser choice for CSAR-X.
Quote:
Contractors say they are paying particular attention to those costs this time around. But the Air Force appears to be paying closer attention to operational concerns too. “There’s definitely more focus on the operational side,” said Mike Farage, Sikorsky director of Air Force programs, a retired Air Force general and former CSAR pilot.
“When we went there four years ago, there were no operators there,” he said. “Now they have maintainers, pararescuemen, pilots – guys who actually fly the mission and know where it stands from an operator’s perspective.”
Curt22 From United States of America, joined Jul 2007, 335 posts, RR: 0 Reply 9, posted (4 years 10 months 1 day 8 hours ago) and read 2187 times:
Quoting TropicBird (Reply 7): It just seems that every time a USAF General Officer says everything is ok with a procurement program....it's not.
Sure does seem that way...but then that's there job...to put a happy face on everything!
Quoting AirRyan (Reply 8): Because the USAF had to amend their award criteria so as to allow the larger than necessary H-47 airframe the time needed to be "mission" ready after being transported via C-5/C-17.
No...the USAF did not "amend" anything...there was a DRAFT Request For Proposal (RFP) given to the vendors approx a year before the official RFP was issued that said the candidate must be able to be transported in BOTH C-5 AND C-17. However the "Official" RFP issued to the vendors reworded these criteria to transport with either a C-5 OR C-17 and reassembled to be flight ready in 3 hrs. Far as we hear...the USAF has not changed this requirement in any supplemental RFPs.
The type of transport acft (C-5/C17) was moot to the H-47 since preparation for air shipment is the same for either cargo acft...however, the change from BOTH cargo aircraft to just one or the other helped the EH-101 since the tear down required for C-5 shipment is far more extensive that that required for the C-17 (C-17 has a higher ceiling).
Quoting AirRyan (Reply 8): Okay - "more" emphasis on operations by actual CSAR-X operators - and if they listen to the British who use both the Merlin and Chinook they'd tell the USAF that the Merlin based HH-71 is the hands down wiser choice for CSAR-X.
I read Aviation Week's story with Mike Farage's quotes too...Nice to see AW at least pretending they aren't on the LM pay-role since they have removed the links to the EH-101 from the CSAR-X stories that they used to carry all the time. I wonder if poor old Mike Farage is getting a bit forgetful...or is he just lying when he said there were NO "Operators" in previous rounds?
"Listening to the Brits"...I love the Brits, and think they built a fine acft, however, listening to ANYONE'S opinion for source selection is both irrelevant and illegal...the only criteria that matters is what the vendors actually bid in their proposals measured against the governments requirements found in the RFP.
Sponsor Message: 
From United States of America, joined Apr 2006, 4657 posts, 
Sponsor Message: 
Printer friendly format
