American Housing Rescue and Foreclosure Prevention Act of 2008--Continued

Floor Speech

AMERICAN HOUSING RESCUE AND FORECLOSURE PREVENTION ACT OF 2008--CONTINUED -- (Senate - July 10, 2008)

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

AIR FORCE TANKER DECISION

Mrs. MURRAY. Madam President, 3 weeks ago, the Government Accountability Office issued a blistering decision about the Air Force's handling of one of the most important defense contracts in our history. The GAO found that in the competition between Boeing and the European company Airbus to replace our military's aerial refueling tankers, the contest was unfairly skewed toward Airbus from the very beginning. It said that but for the Air Force's prejudice, Boeing would have had a substantial chance of winning.

The GAO was clear and emphatic that the Pentagon should reopen the contract, get new proposals, and correct those errors. I rise today, because yesterday Defense Secretary Gates announced that he would follow the GAO recommendations and rebid that contract. I am very pleased that he says he is committed to a swift decision. But I have also been a close observer of the Pentagon's decisionmaking process for many years now, and I know the devil is always in the detail.

We do not know yet many of the details of this latest decision, and unfortunately I am already skeptical about whether the Pentagon is on track to get this right. The Defense Department has a high hurdle to clear in order to ensure this competition is fair and is transparent.

As I said earlier, the GAO raised serious questions about the Air Force's previous decision, and it described the competition as unreasonable, improper, and misleading. The GAO found that the Air Force changed direction midstream about what criteria were more important. It didn't give Boeing credit for providing a more capable plane, according to the Air Force's description of what it wanted, yet it gave Airbus extra credit for offering amenities it didn't ask for. It said the Air Force deliberately and unreasonably increased Boeing's estimated costs. And when that mistake was corrected, it was discovered that the Airbus tanker actually costs tens of millions of dollars more than Boeing's.

The GAO said the Air Force accepted Airbus's proposal even though Airbus couldn't meet two key contract requirements. First, Airbus refused to commit to providing long-term maintenance, as specified in the RFP, even after the Air Force asked for it repeatedly. Second, the Air Force could not prove that Airbus could refuel all of the military's aircraft according to procedure.

Those are very serious findings. It is still unclear whether the errors were due to incompetence or impropriety, but the result was that the military chose a plane that didn't meet the fundamental requirements that were set out in their own RFP. That cannot happen again. The Defense Department must do everything it can do to ensure that this competition is fair and transparent.

That means the Pentagon must go back to the original request for proposals. It must ensure that both of the companies get the same information throughout the entire competition. It must prove the tanker it selects can actually perform all of the missions that are required by the military. It must do a full accounting of all of the life cycle costs of flying and operating both planes. And it has to ensure that the companies can only earn credit as it was spelled out in the original RFP.

That last point is extremely important. In its decision last month, the GAO said the request for proposals was crystal clear about what kind of tanker the Air Force needed. Yet I have already heard that the Defense Department plans to reevaluate the life cycle costs of both tankers using a 25-year lifespan instead of a more accurate 40 years. It wants to revise the RFP to give greater benefit to a larger plane, even if that means the tanker it buys is not capable of meeting its own mission. That fundamentally changes the rules of the procurement and is not what is in the original RFP.

I am very concerned about both of these proposals. Changing the rules of the game when we are in overtime is simply going to result in a repeat of the last contest--an unfair result, more protests, and more delays. I look forward to hearing a thorough explanation from the Defense Department about how it is going to carry out this new competition and how it is going to ensure that this contract is finally fair.

Finally, I agree with Secretary Gates that it is vitally important that we move quickly to finish this contract. Air men and women who fly out of Fairchild Air Force Base, in my home State of Washington, fly these tankers.
I know they need these planes. They need them now. But we also have to do this the right way. We have to have a competition that is not overshadowed by questions of ethics or competence. If we don't, we risk another challenge that is going to draw out this procurement process even further.

Even more importantly, we have got to get the right plane. Our aerial refueling tankers--the ones we are talking about with this contract--are the backbone of our global military strength. They are stationed today across the world, and they refuel aircraft from every branch of our Armed Forces. Before our taxpayers spend $35 billion, they deserve to know the planes we are buying can actually refuel our military's aircraft. Our service members deserve to know they are getting a plane that will enable them to do their jobs and return home swiftly.

I welcome Secretary Gates' announcement yesterday that this contract is going to be rebid, but I remind all of my colleagues--those of us who have watched this procurement process for many years now--to follow the bouncing ball and see where it leads. We are going to follow this carefully. It needs to be rebid with the original RFP, not changed in overtime, to make sure this is a fair contract that results quickly in making sure our air men and women get the right aircraft as quickly as we can possibly bring it to them.

Madam President, I yield the floor, and I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Source