Jump to content
The Wifcon Forums and Blogs

Recommended Posts

I think this particular "received truth" (i.e. evaluating all offers received - and thank you Vern for that concept I read earlier today in a speech you gave (whether contracting is an intellectual pursuit)) has been so ingrained in me over the years, that I haven't stopped to question what it actually accomplishes and whether it's actually necessary.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 131
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

1 hour ago, MileHighAcq said:

For some reason, I was hung up on "what if none of the other offers are acceptable". But I think I see now that it wouldn't matter for the purposes of source selection.

It might matter if the govt doesn’t otherwise have a clue about the value and if it relies upon comparisons of prices that aren’t reflective of the requirements.

 To clarify - that doesn’t necessarily mean formal full blown technical evaluation of any or all higher priced offers. 

Otherwise it may not matter.  

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 3 weeks later...

Came across this while reading about the KC-X Tanker deal:

"Rather than weighing the performance features of Boeing and Airbus offerings, the Air Force developed a list of 372 mandatory performance requirements that each team must meet before they could submit a final bid. What this meant in practical terms was that unless one of the teams was disqualified, the key discriminator in the competition would be price."

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 10/16/2018 at 11:48 AM, Jamaal Valentine said:

Came across this while reading about the KC-X Tanker deal:

"Rather than weighing the performance features of Boeing and Airbus offerings, the Air Force developed a list of 372 mandatory performance requirements that each team must meet before they could submit a final bid. What this meant in practical terms was that unless one of the teams was disqualified, the key discriminator in the competition would be price."

 

The news reported that the Air Force said it would award a fixed price contract to the lowest priced technicality acceptable competitor.

What they didn’t report was that it would be a fixed price incentive contract. Within a few months after the Feb 2011 announcement of award of the first (four?) planes, Boeing announced a huge expected cost overrun, of which the taxpayers were entitled to share with Boeing.

I think that the first plane will be delivered this month, only about 7 years and 8 months later. That’s about twice the length of America’s combat involvement in WWII.

oh yes. The KC-46 is a variant of the B-767, which has been flying since 1981...

The AF has been complaining that Boeing is placing their priorities on their commercial business rather than the AF Tanker. One wouldn’t have thought that when Boeing and its political backers were fighting along with their allies in Congress and in the media, the possibility of an American manufacturing presence of EADS. 

Airbus/Eads is here and they are doing well. They are already expanding their plant in Mobile, AL and are partnering with Bombardier to build a plant and production line in Mobile for the new A-220 series (rebranding of the CRJ C-Series).  

 

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

The program cost overruns are in the billions, I believe... 

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 2 weeks later...
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...