Panel II of a Hearing of the Air and Land Forces Subcommittee of the House Armed Services Committee - The Source Selection and Path Forward Regarding the Air Force KC-(X) Program

Statement

REP. MIKE ROGERS (R-AL): Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I have two questions. The amended RFP -- are you just going to reopen the eight items that GAO addressed when you amend it?

MR. YOUNG: At a minimum, we are going to seek to address the GAO findings. I want to make sure the requirements are reflected in that RFP. We obviously have to -- one of the findings says that we have to indicate any prioritization or weighting the government wants to assign to those requirements. So I need to address the GAO finding by also making sure my requirements are well-reflected and properly reflected in the RFP. And then if there are things in the RFP that are beneficial to the taxpayer, I will address those.

Obviously we've discussed how we evaluate cost. (Inaudible) -- cost as one giant life-cycle bundle, I think, is awkward. I think we should assign some value to the known cost of developing and buying the aircraft. But we also will likely make an adjustment and make sure we properly evaluate the life-cycle cost, but look at those two in terms of our relative confidence in the two numbers.

REP. ROGERS: To use your phrase, GAO went through this with a fine-tooth comb, and they only found these eight areas where there seemed to be at least the hint of a problem. So why would you go outside the four corners of those eight areas? It's like you're inviting more of a problem when you do that.

MR. YOUNG: I don't want to give you the wrong impression. It's my intent to try not to go outside the four corners of those areas. But the GAO -- I don't think there's a specific finding related to cost. And I think it is in the interest of the taxpayer to make sure we -- well, there is a specific finding with regard to the cost model. But the totality of the cost evaluation, I think we want to consider making sure we properly evaluate that for the benefit of the taxpayer. It overlaps with the GAO finding. So we are going to try to stay in that box, sir.

REP. ROGERS: Right. Thank you. The other thing -- it goes back to Chairman Abercrombie's point -- I'm very concerned about this dragging on too long. We should have had this thing being built already. And I may be -- (inaudible) -- my ignorance here; you may have already talked about it. But why would it possibly take more than six months to complete this? You talked about getting it done by the end of the year. That seems awfully bureaucratic and bogged down. Why would it take that long?

MR. YOUNG: I ask myself these questions regularly, Congressman. But I would tell you, I've learned -- I've been involved in the far past with one protested source selection. I've been involved in four other source selections that were not protested. There is a -- I mean, it takes time to receive 11,000 pages, review 11,000 pages, and grade it to a level of scrutiny that the GAO will decide is adequate.

Source selections have become extraordinarily sophisticated endeavors. If we limit the -- I mean, that's what the answer would be and the answer to me is if we limit the change and industry is cooperative and the Congress allows us the opportunity to proceed, we may be able to do it in six months, and in that process create a record that can withstand what may well result in additional GAO scrutiny through another protest, because it's hard to see a situation where either company is going to accept whatever outcome of this competition.

REP. ROGERS: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Source