FISA Amendments Act of 2008--Motion to Proceed

Floor Speech

FISA AMENDMENTS ACT OF 2008--MOTION TO PROCEED -- (Senate - June 26, 2008)

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

REFUELING TANKERS

Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, 4 months ago when the Air Force announced that Airbus, not Boeing, would supply the next generation of aerial refueling tankers, Air Force acquisition officials declared that the contest had been fair, open, and transparent. They said they made no mistakes, and they boasted that the decision could withstand any level of scrutiny.

The Government Accountability Office called all of that into question in a 67-page decision that shows the Air Force competition was unfairly skewed toward Airbus from the very beginning.

The decision, responding to Boeing's protest of the Air Force competition, was damning. The GAO described the contest as ``unreasonable,'' ``improper,'' and ``misleading.'' It found that the Air Force significantly overestimated the cost of the Boeing tanker, that it misled Boeing while helping Airbus, and that the Air Force selected Airbus even though the company failed to meet key requirements of the contract. It concluded that:

But for these errors, we believe that Boeing would have had a substantial chance of being selected for the award.

It is unclear at this point whether those errors were due to incompetence or to impropriety. But one thing is definite: This contest was anything but fair or transparent.

I want to know how the Air Force got this so wrong. I have already asked for a meeting with Defense Secretary Gates so he can tell me how the Pentagon plans to respond. I will make it clear that the Air Force cannot go forward with this contract and that I expect it to follow the GAO's recommendations. The Air Force must return to the original request for the proposal, rebid the contract, and get this right.

The difference between what the Air Force said about the acquisition process and the GAO's findings are startling.

On February 29, Sue Payton, who is the Air Force's Assistant Secretary for Acquisition, said at a DOD news briefing:

We have been extremely open and transparent. We have had a very thorough review of what we're doing. We've got it nailed.

A week later, she told the House Appropriations Subcommittee on Defense:

The Air Force followed a carefully structured source selection process, designed to provide transparency, maintain integrity, and ensure a fair competition.

And throughout the last 4 months, Air Force officials have insisted that they selected the cheapest plane that best met their criteria and that they made no mistakes.

The GAO's decision paints a very different picture of the contest and, as I said, it raises serious questions about how the Air Force conducted this competition. The GAO found the Air Force made a number of errors that unfairly helped Airbus and hurt Boeing. The GAO found that the Air Force changed direction midstream about which criteria were more important. It did not give Boeing credit for providing a more capable plane according to the Air Force description of what it wanted. Yet it gave Airbus extra credit for offering amenities for which it did not even ask.

The GAO found that the Air Force ``treated the firms unequally'' by helping Airbus at Boeing's expense. The GAO found that the Air Force misled Boeing about whether it had fully met the requirements in the RFP, all the while keeping up conversations with Airbus and giving it the correct information.

The GAO said the Air Force deliberately and unreasonably increased Boeing's estimated costs. When the mistake was corrected, it was discovered that the Airbus A330 actually cost tens of millions of dollars more than the Boeing 767. The GAO said the Air Force accepted Airbus's proposals, even though Airbus could not meet two key contract requirements. First, Airbus refused to provide long-term maintenance, as was specified in the RFP, even after the Air Force asked for it repeatedly. Second, the Air Force could not provide that Airbus could refuel all of the military's aircraft according to procedure.

Let me say that again. The Air Force selected the Airbus A330 even though Airbus refused to agree to a key term in the contract and even though the Air Force failed to show that the A330 was even capable of refueling our military's aircraft by the books.

These are serious findings. No matter how one looks at it, this competition was anything but transparent. Even though the Air Force declared its contest was fair, it appears it had its thumb on the scales for Airbus all along.

But the last findings could be the most damaging of all of them. If Airbus cannot actually prove its tanker can do the job or that it will fulfill its obligations, how can it possibly be awarded that contract?

Today the Air Force is contemplating what to do next. As I said, I think the answer is clear. This contract should be rebid. I agree with those who have said we need to get these planes into the hands of our air men and women as fast as possible. I represent Fairchild Air Force Base in Washington State. Those air men and women fly those refueling tankers. I know how important this decision is to them.

This was not an acceptable acquisition process, and it would be unconscionable to go forward with this selection without first addressing the questions that were raised by the GAO's decision. In order to do that, we must have a competition that is not overshadowed by questions of ethics or competence, and we have to get the right plane.

These tankers we are talking about refuel planes and aircraft from every single branch of our military. They are the backbone of our global military strength. We need a competition where the criteria are clear, where the participants can earn credit that is spelled out in the contract and there is no extra credit that is awarded unfairly, and we need a fair evaluation of all the costs.

We need to go back and start with a clean slate, hold a truly transparent competition that does our air men and women justice. That is what our American taxpayers expect, and our American servicemembers deserve nothing less.

I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Source