It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

GAO denies Boeing Protest of LRS-B Contract Award

page: 2
2
<< 1    3  4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 16 2016 @ 03:08 PM
link   
a reply to: SonOfThor

No matter what the Air Force says about industry base not playing a role, it has to. With Boeing losing the Hornet and Eagle in the next couple of years, that will only leave Lockheed with any kind of fighter experience, meaning that they almost get both the F-XX and F/A-XX by default. Any other bids would have to partner with a foreign country, and we've all seen how the DoD is about foreign companies getting critical programs like this one will be, even with a US partner.




posted on Feb, 16 2016 @ 03:24 PM
link   
a reply to: Zaphod58

Fair enough and I would agree- I just wonder how a justification (which would have to be publicly posted) would beat a protest for something like that. Unless of course there are more back channel deals and political handshaking that would quell such inclinations to protest. I'm sure at some level all the players understand that the taxpayer dollars need to keep being spread around for the whole thing to keep functioning...

I would be curious to see if LM/B does file to CoFC - namely because they didn't amend their protest to include the revelation of Mr. Lombardi in their award protest to GAO (which I think they totally could have)...



posted on Feb, 16 2016 @ 03:29 PM
link   
a reply to: SonOfThor

There's a reason he waited as long as he did to reveal that. It gave Boeing the least amount of time to amend their appeal, and notice that it never really dropped on the bigger news sites. I only saw it on smaller sites, that Boeing are less likely to pay attention to in the grand scheme of things.



posted on Feb, 16 2016 @ 03:43 PM
link   
a reply to: Zaphod58

Could they run an open combined competition like this:

a) Submit your bids for BOTH USAF and Navy craft.
b) You will be awarded contracts for no more than one of them.
c) You must cooperate on engines & avionics with the other one.

Meets the open competition requirement, and yet gets what they really want.



posted on Feb, 16 2016 @ 03:45 PM
link   
a reply to: mbkennel

They could do what they're supposedly doing with future large UAV contracts where certain systems are coming from specific companies, regardless of who builds the actual UAV itself. But yes, that's a real possibility too.



posted on Feb, 16 2016 @ 04:35 PM
link   
a reply to: Zaphod58

A couple of weird things happened on this procurement - the RCO Director of Contracting position coming open mid protest of the LRS-B award, and now Lombardi's late disclosure of what at least has the appearance of an ethics violation.

It must be nice to be a GS-15 or SES, (or running for president for that matter) and to have a whole different set of rules to play by. I once had to recuse myself on a procurement that was only worth a few thousand dollars (including 4 option years) for translation services because I was still a member of a foreign language journal / organization that was connected to a prospective bidder. This included documentation etc.

There is literally ZERO excuse for not having disclosed something like this, especially for someone in the acquisition profession. Everyone takes annual training on ethics and the public trust, and is well aware of how much even the appearance of wrong doing can affect procurement and cost taxpayers money.

Maybe I'm just mad because our OGE 450s were due today...



posted on Feb, 16 2016 @ 04:44 PM
link   
a reply to: SonOfThor

So far this procurement has smelled like month old fish, but has somehow sailed smoothly through any hold ups.



posted on Feb, 16 2016 @ 05:06 PM
link   
a reply to: Bfirez

Three words. Industrial. Base. Protection.



posted on Feb, 16 2016 @ 05:36 PM
link   
a reply to: Zaphod58

Yeah. Ironic that they claim that had no bearing whatsoever. These are not the droids your looking for.



posted on Feb, 16 2016 @ 05:47 PM
link   
a reply to: Zaphod58

Which is why I'll bet hard money that the F-XX will be a Lockheed-led design built by Boeing at Wichita.



posted on Feb, 16 2016 @ 06:36 PM
link   
a reply to: Barnalby

St Louis. They have two lines ending there as well as Phantom Works.



posted on Feb, 16 2016 @ 07:24 PM
link   
a reply to: Zaphod58

One will be Boeing. The other will either be Lockheed or Northrop.



posted on Feb, 16 2016 @ 10:03 PM
link   
a reply to: Zaphod58

Durr, that's what I meant, the F-15/F-18 line...



posted on Feb, 16 2016 @ 10:06 PM
link   
What are the chances the losing platform will go to the dark side?



posted on Feb, 16 2016 @ 10:06 PM
link   
a reply to: anzha

The Navy likes Northrop Grumman and Northrop Grumman likes the Navy.

The Navy doesn't like Lockheed after the F-35, and Lockheed never liked the Navy.

That should give you an idea of how the F/A-XX will shake out...



posted on Feb, 17 2016 @ 02:28 AM
link   
a reply to: Barnalby
In the same time there is a lot of reason , the Lockheed F-35 for now is very far to be a promise, may be a sort of echec for Lockheed after that I would prefer to give a chance to Northrop for building the F/X , FA/xx.



posted on Feb, 17 2016 @ 11:57 AM
link   

originally posted by: SonOfThor
a reply to: Zaphod58

A couple of weird things happened on this procurement - the RCO Director of Contracting position coming open mid protest of the LRS-B award, and now Lombardi's late disclosure of what at least has the appearance of an ethics violation.

It must be nice to be a GS-15 or SES, (or running for president for that matter) and to have a whole different set of rules to play by. I once had to recuse myself on a procurement that was only worth a few thousand dollars (including 4 option years) for translation services because I was still a member of a foreign language journal / organization that was connected to a prospective bidder. This included documentation etc.

There is literally ZERO excuse for not having disclosed something like this, especially for someone in the acquisition profession. Everyone takes annual training on ethics and the public trust, and is well aware of how much even the appearance of wrong doing can affect procurement and cost taxpayers money.

Maybe I'm just mad because our OGE 450s were due today...



Every time you post about govt. procurement, I thank my lucky stars I am a purchasing manager for a commercial business with no government contracts. Whenever a colleague or subordinate complains about my purchasing guidelines, I tell them: "Do you want me to change these to match Federal standards? 'Cause I'll do it!" That typically shuts them up.



posted on Feb, 17 2016 @ 03:41 PM
link   
a reply to: Barnalby

NG will call it Tomcat II, CGI Tom Cruise will be on the video ... and they've found that loving feeling.
edit on 17-2-2016 by mbkennel because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 17 2016 @ 09:50 PM
link   
a reply to: mbkennel

Remember, nowadays, younger brass at the USN probably got into the service after watching Top Gun as kids.

There's surely a big part of them that still feels that certain tingle every time they watch those almost pornographically over-built old Grumman sleds rocketing off into the sunset while "highway to the danger zone" blares. Those birds made the USAF's F-15s look boring and lame.

All N-G needs to do is show them a worthy successor with a sexy cat name that continues to upstage the F-XX, and the contracts will sign themselves.



posted on Feb, 18 2016 @ 12:57 AM
link   

originally posted by: Zaphod58
a reply to: grey580

No, if they choose Boeing can file in court now since it was revealed that officials in the acquisition office had an account with Northrop. Whether they do is the question.

Would not surprise me if it becomes leverage for Boeing to get another deal so everyone is a winner.



new topics

top topics



 
2
<< 1    3  4 >>

log in

join