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.

 

Big Safari-More proof of our broken procurement system

page: 1
7

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 12 2017 @ 10:55 PM
link   
Representatives Ted Budd and Walter Jones of North Carolina have sent a letter to the Secretary of the Air Force about improprieties at the Big Safari acquisition office. The office, formerly known as the 645th Aeronautical Systems Group is responsible for multimillion dollar aircraft acquisitions.

A revolving door culture exists between Big Safari and L3 Communications. Multiple contracts have been steered to L3, many without bidding. In one of the most blatant, Big Safari was directed to buy IOMAX Archangel aircraft for Yemen. Instead, they awarded the contract to L3 without competition. The aircraft delivered were $15M more expensive, were delivered months late, and were in such poor shape that the aircraft were rejected.

www.airforcetimes.com...




posted on Jul, 12 2017 @ 11:09 PM
link   
a reply to: Zaphod58

You know it's bad when the AF's own newspaper prints the story...

Well now, this is going to be very interesting, isn't it? We all knew it was a rigged game...but we just may find out just how deep the rabbit hole goes.

Time and past for that particular house to be cleaned.



posted on Jul, 12 2017 @ 11:19 PM
link   
a reply to: seagull

Yeah it is. It was obvious with the KC-767 program when they were supposed to lease 767 tankers for something like 20 years with the option to then buy them. Oh and the program manager and her son were conveniently retiring and going to work at Boeing.



posted on Jul, 12 2017 @ 11:56 PM
link   
a reply to: Zaphod58

Just a coincidence, Zap. Nothin' to see there.

I surely do hope those two congress critters have asbestos jammies, and bullet-proof undies, and that they're squeaky f'n clean, 'cause if they're not, they're going to get eaten alive.



posted on Jul, 13 2017 @ 12:34 AM
link   
a reply to: seagull

Oh they don't stand a chance. But they've d done the hard part and let people know it's happening. To say L3 has some major lobby power doesn't even come close.

Back when Tom Daschel was in charge in Congress, his wife was a lobbyist for them. They came out with an explosive detection system that the FAA deemed substandard, and not suitable for use in the airports. She went running to him and suddenly the FAA is informed that if they don't install a certain number of machines in each airport, they can kiss their budget goodbye.



posted on Jul, 13 2017 @ 01:48 AM
link   
a reply to: Zaphod58

I vaguely remember reading about Dashel's wife's conflict of interests in regards to that, not to mention his.

He always was as crooked as a mountain road, nice to know his wife is just as crooked. Match made in Hell...

Yes, you're right, there's probably more laughter at those two congressmen, then trepidation. It'll take someone with a bit more clout to make a dent. Possibly a newspaper could do something, NYT or WSJ, but they're too busy with the latest and greatest attempts at bringing down a President with what ever they can fling at the wall--instead of something that has an effect on the safety of thousands of travelers or military preparedness...



posted on Jul, 13 2017 @ 06:04 AM
link   
Im not going to comment on this particular case as I know nothing about it, but I do work in defence (and civil) procurement.

The idea that the only way to secure value for money is by tendering is very immature.

Tendering drives a cost of its own, add in risk, liquidated damages, cost to prepare a bid...(Many others) drive up the cost.

Every military tender, development and then production project I have been involved in has had so many variations, driven by the customer to maintain "the cutting edge" its almost pointless tendering it!

My dinner is ready so I cant be arsed finishing this :-)



posted on Jul, 13 2017 @ 08:16 AM
link   
a reply to: Zaphod58

There is a problem with modern avionics, incumbency and reliability.

If you want things done right you need a mix of the old and the new and if certain factions who are just in it for the contracts of course the money will talk, hence the Boeing contracts.



posted on Jul, 13 2017 @ 08:25 AM
link   
a reply to: Forensick

There's a huge difference between tendering, and deliberately giving contracts to a company even when directed to buy something else. There have been a number of times a no bid process makes a lot more sense, but when you're directed to buy specific equipment, and buy something more expensive that doesn't meet requirements you have a problem.



new topics

top topics



 
7

log in

join