Jura The idiot
General
Wednesday at 6:00 AM
and Air Force Defends Decision to Award B-21 Contract Based on Lowest Cost
source:The Air Force’s top uniformed acquisition leader on Wednesday stood by the service’s B-21 bomber acquisition approach, which a recently-released Government Accountability Office protest decision revealed to be based on cost considerations.
According to the GAO document, which was made public Tuesday, both Northrop Grumman and the Boeing-Lockheed Martin team submitted bids that met the Air Force’s technical requirements, but Northrop’s offering came in at a lower total weighted cost and total estimated cost.
When asked about the source selection during the Association of Unmanned Vehicle Systems International’s annual defense conference, Lt. Gen. Arnold Bunch, the military deputy of the assistant Air Force secretary for acquisition, did not dispute the GAO’s account.
"We set it up to make sure that they could meet the technical requirements, and if they could all meet the technical requirements, then we would look at the cost,” he said. Both systems adequately met the Air Force’s technical requirements, so the service gave the contract to the competitor offering the lowest bid — leading to an October 2015 award to Northrop’s B-21 Raider.
The classified B-21 program remains closely guarded by the Air Force, which has continuously repeated that it is not ready to release details about the bomber contract value or describe the key technologies of the aircraft. The heavily-redacted GAO report also removed all references to costs or specific technological capabilities.
Asked whether the service might have over-prioritized cost rather than capability, Bunch said he was comfortable with the structure of the request for proposals.
“You have to take that [cost] into account to make sure we're wisely using the taxpayer dollars,” said Bunch, who declined to discuss the differences between the Northrop and Boeing-Lockheed proposals. "If we weren't comfortable that technically it could be done, than we would have done something different.”
Bunch also addressed the GAO’s assertion that both competitors believed that their offerings would cost less than the government’s estimates. Like the GAO decision stated, the Air Force in some cases relied on its own cost estimates after finding that the Northrop and Boeing-Lockheed projections were unrealistic, he said.
“What I would say to everybody is, we budgeted to the service cost position. We budgeted to an independent cost estimate. We did not budget to a contract value,” he said.
The source-selection criteria used to choose the winner of the B-21 contract allowed the companies to submit proposals containing “moderate risk,” which the Air Force defined as a technical approach that could “potentially cause disruption of schedule, increased cost or degradation of performance,” the GAO document stated.
The service believes it can manage Northrop’s performance through the bomber contract itself, which includes incentives for controlling cost and performance, especially schedule-driven milestones toward the end of the development program, Bunch said.
“The thing we've informed the company is, you've got the contract, now we need you to execute, and your incentive is tied to your execution,” he said. “That's where we believe we drive the behavior."