DOD News Briefing on the Air Force KC-46A Tanker contract award

DOD News Brief­ing with Deputy Sec­re­tary Lynn and DOD senior lead­ers to announce the Air Force KC-46A Tanker con­tract award
MR. LYNN: At the start of the process, we made sev­er­al com­mit­ments. We com­mit­ted that the source selec­tion for the KC‑X would be fair, open and trans­par­ent; we com­mit­ted that the process would be dri­ven by clear­ly stat­ed require­ments defined by the warfight­er; and we com­mit­ted to a fixed-price con­tract struc­ture that would deliv­er the Air Force a capa­ble air­craft at the most com­pet­i­tive price. Under the over­sight of Dr. Ash Carter, the Under Sec­re­tary of Defense for Acqui­si­tion Tech­nol­o­gy and Logis­tics, the Air Force has made good on each of these com­mit­ments. As a result, this com­pe­ti­tion favored no one except the tax­pay­er and the warfight­er.

Let me now get to what you real­ly want to hear, and have Sec­re­tary Don­ley make today’s announce­ment.

SEC. DONLEY: Thank you, sir. It’s a plea­sure to be here to for­mal­ly announce the results of the source selec­tion process for the Air Force’s num­ber-one acqui­si­tion pri­or­i­ty and oper­a­tional need. KC‑X rep­re­sents the first in a series of pro­cure­ments to recap­i­tal­ize our aging aer­i­al refu­el­ing fleet.

Last year, we came here to announce a well-con­ceived strat­e­gy that empha­sized our aim to pro­vide a much-need­ed aer­i­al refu­el­ing plat­form that would enable the warfight­er to go to war on day one. This meant a clear and dis­ci­plined approach to require­ments, rec­og­niz­ing the impor­tance of pro­vid­ing this capa­bil­i­ty at a price the tax­pay­ers could afford, and a clear descrip­tion of how the eval­u­a­tion would be con­duct­ed. We have now com­plet­ed the source selec­tion process as described in the request for pro­pos­als.

The source selec­tion eval­u­a­tion phase spanned sev­en months, and result­ed in an exten­sive offi­cial record. All offer­ers were aware from the very begin­ning of exact­ly how the eval­u­a­tion would be con­duct­ed. The source selec­tion eval­u­a­tion team was com­posed of a 230-plus-per­son joint mul­ti-agency group of sea­soned acqui­si­tion, main­te­nance and oper­a­tional experts. They con­duct­ed mul­ti­ple inter­nal reviews through­out the source selec­tion process to ensure a con­sis­tent, thor­ough­ly doc­u­ment­ed and well-sup­port­ed eval­u­a­tion record. To all of them, we say thank you.

Source selec­tion teams work — under­stand­ably so — immune from spec­u­la­tion and opin­ion in a company’s acqui­si­tion pro­grams, and espe­cial­ly ones of this mag­ni­tude. They do so because they real­ize that this isn’t about opin­ions; it’s about the integri­ty of the source selec­tion process as embod­ied in statutes, reg­u­la­tion and case law. That’s also why we have worked through­out this process to care­ful­ly devel­op a com­pre­hen­sive record of our work.

I would also com­mend the com­pa­nies and those they rep­re­sent for the qual­i­ty of the effort they put into these pro­pos­als. This was a spir­it­ed com­pe­ti­tion, with both offer­ers acquit­ting them­selves well. These are two world-class com­pa­nies, with long-stand­ing rela­tion­ships with the depart­ment that we expect will con­tin­ue.

As promised, we have had ongo­ing and trans­par­ent dia­logue with the offer­ers, to ensure we had a clear under­stand­ing of their pro­pos­als, and that they would have a clear under­stand­ing of our analy­sis of them. Through­out, we’ve also respond­ed to requests for infor­ma­tion from mem­bers of Con­gress, and we appre­ci­ate the man­ner in which our over­sight com­mit­tees have respect­ed the acqui­si­tion process and its legal under­pin­ning.

When it came to require­ments, we want­ed to make absolute­ly cer­tain that the warfight­er was still in charge of stat­ing their require­ments and that, if those require­ments were met, we could go to war on day one.

Gen­er­al Schwartz and I are con­fi­dent that when our young pilots, boom oper­a­tors and main­tain­ers receive this air­craft, they will have the tools they need to be suc­cess­ful at what we ask them to do.

We’ve promised a fair, open and trans­par­ent process, and we con­tin­ue to deliv­er on that today by shar­ing pub­licly those ele­ments of our analy­sis per­mit­ted by statute, fed­er­al acqui­si­tion reg­u­la­tions and pri­or case law.

Infor­ma­tion that is con­sid­ered pro­pri­etary or source selec­tion-sen­si­tive will not be dis­cussed unless specif­i­cal­ly exempt­ed in reg­u­la­tion or case law, out of def­er­ence to the offer­ers and the process as it con­tin­ues for­ward. In short, today’s state­ment will be the extent of our pub­lic release of infor­ma­tion.

This source selec­tion process deter­mined whether or not the pro­pos­als demon­strat­ed the abil­i­ty of an offer­er to deliv­er all 372 manda­to­ry require­ments, and whether non­manda­to­ry capa­bil­i­ties would be addressed. It also took into account fleet mis­sion effec­tive­ness and life cycle costs, as embod­ied in fuel effi­cien­cy and mil­i­tary con­struc­tion costs. We then request­ed and received final pro­pos­al revi­sions from each offer­er.

Here is the infor­ma­tion that we are able to release. Both offi­cer — offer­ers were deemed to have met the manda­to­ry require­ments and were con­sid­ered award­able.

Because the dif­fer­ence between the total eval­u­at­ed prices in present val­ue terms was greater than 1 per­cent, yield­ing sub­stan­tial sav­ings to the tax­pay­er, the non­manda­to­ry capa­bil­i­ties, while eval­u­at­ed, were not used in deter­min­ing the out­come.

The con­tract award­ed today is for the engi­neer­ing and man­u­fac­tur­ing devel­op­ment, the EMD phase, which is val­ued at over $3.5 bil­lion. The over­all pro­gram is val­ued at over 30 bil­lion (dol­lars), with a final amount depend­ing on the options exer­cised.

The pro­gram will deliv­er the first 18 air­craft by 2017. The air­craft will be des­ig­nat­ed the KC-46A.

Fol­low­ing today’s announce­ment, the Air Force will be avail­able to debrief offer­ers at their request. We’ve also indi­cat­ed to Con­gress our will­ing­ness to respond to ques­tions, sub­ject to the lim­i­ta­tions I’ve out­lined ear­li­er. We will have no oth­er pub­lic com­ments fol­low­ing today’s announce­ment, to allow for that process to play out, as it should, between the gov­ern­ment and the com­pa­nies involved.

We hope that all par­ties, rec­og­niz­ing the thor­ough process and intense mul­ti­ple lev­els of review that have gone into this source selec­tion, will respect the deci­sion and allow this impor­tant pro­cure­ment to pro­ceed unim­ped­ed. The warfight­er deserves noth­ing less.

I will say that as far as the tim­ing of today’s announce­ment is con­cerned, it was sim­ply event-dri­ven. We took the time nec­es­sary to ensure that the offers made were deemed accept­able, that there was a clear under­stand­ing between the gov­ern­ment and the offer­ers, and that a fair and objec­tive analy­sis was com­plet­ed and pro­vid­ed mul­ti­ple teams the oppor­tu­ni­ty to review our work for accu­ra­cy and doc­u­men­ta­tion. We have done exact­ly what we’ve said we were going to do, and we took the time to do it right.

A final fre­quent ques­tion regards bas­ing. As we’ve con­sis­tent­ly said, bas­ing deci­sions are made in a sep­a­rate process that involves oth­er orga­ni­za­tions in the Air Force. That process will take place over the course of the next cou­ple of years.

To the men and women of our Air Force, today’s announce­ment rep­re­sents a long-over­due start to a much-need­ed pro­gram. Your Air Force lead­er­ship, sup­port­ed by Dr. Carter and oth­ers through­out the Depart­ment of Defense, is deter­mined to see this through, and we will stand behind this work.

Today, based on all eval­u­at­ed cri­te­ria, price and the results of a well-doc­u­ment­ed process, we announce that the Air Force has select­ed the KC‑X pro­pos­al pro­vid­ed by the Boe­ing Com­pa­ny.

Thank you very much.

Q: No ques­tions at all?

MR. LYNN: No, Tony. We’ll take a few ques­tions. But as Sec­re­tary Don­ley indi­cat­ed, there’s a lot of pro­pri­etary source-selec­tion sen­si­tive data, so there’s going to be some things we can’t answer. But go ahead.

Q: (Off mic) — was this a rel­a­tive­ly close com­pe­ti­tion? Did Boe­ing basi­cal­ly edge out EADS, or was there a wide dis­crim­i­na­tor. It did not go into the 93 — your ver­sion of an over­time phase basi­cal­ly, the 93 manda­to­ry. But how close was this? Or was Boe­ing far supe­ri­or in meet­ing the 370 manda­to­ry require­ments? MR. LYNN: I think what we can tell you is Boe­ing was a clear win­ner.

Q: How will you respond to peo­ple who thought the EADS was a — was a bet­ter bang for your buck in this com­pe­ti­tion? Is this — is Boe­ing a bet­ter deal cost-wise to the tax­pay­er?

MR. LYNN: We went through a process that eval­u­at­ed warfight­ing require­ments, eval­u­at­ed price, eval­u­at­ed life-cycle costs. And the process yield­ed the result it did with Boe­ing win­ning.

And I’d just ask Mike if he wants to expand on that.

SEC. DONLEY: No, we out­lined the request for pro­pos­al and the acqui­si­tion strat­e­gy very clear­ly a year ago, and we fol­lowed that process to con­clu­sion.

MR. LYNN: (Inaudi­ble.)

Q: Sec­re­tary, if I’m cor­rect, I think the EMD con­tract from 2008, real­iz­ing that was under a dif­fer­ent RFP [request for pro­pos­al], that was actu­al­ly a low­er price.

So what are you get­ting for the $3.5 bil­lion? Do you get air­planes? Do you get test arti­cles? How much flight test do you get? And why is it a dif­fer­ent price than last time?

MR. LYNN: Mike.

SEC. DONLEY: This is a com­plete­ly dif­fer­ent com­pe­ti­tion. We indi­cat­ed that from the begin­ning. I think if you go back and check the record from a year ago, the EMD phase includes four air­craft I believe.

MR. LYNN: Mm-hmm. That’s right.

SEC. DONLEY: But we have noth­ing more to say about com­par­ing prices or costs from one com­pe­ti­tion to anoth­er. We indi­cat­ed from the very begin­ning that this was a new com­pe­ti­tion.

Q: But did the work scope change then to now — for either win­ner or los­er? (No audi­ble response.)

MR. LYNN: (Inaudi­ble.)

Q: Any con­cerns about the protest that could poten­tial­ly derail this?

MR. LYNN: I mean, the unsuc­cess­ful offer­er has a right to a protest as part of the process. But as we’ve said from a year ago when we first came before you, we think we’ve estab­lished a clear, a trans­par­ent and an open process. We think we’ve exe­cut­ed on that, and that will not yield grounds for protest.

Q: Do you believe that over the decade that it’s tak­en to get to this point in find­ing a new tanker has taught the Depart­ment of Defense a les­son that will help in the future in major pro­cure­ment process­es so that it does­n’t take a decade and three dif­fer­ent selec­tion process­es to buy some­thing so impor­tant to our nation­al defense?

MR. LYNN: I do think we’ve learned impor­tant lessons from this process, and we’ve tried to reflect them in this com­pe­ti­tion, the way we’ve struc­tured it.

And maybe let Ash expand on that.

MR. CARTER: Learned a num­ber of lessons. We’ve cer­tain­ly had the require­ments this time absolute­ly clear from the warfight­er. We said that 366 days ago when we released the RFP.

And also, the con­tracts are fixed-price con­tracts, which is reflec­tive of our belief that this is a tanker that can be well-spec­i­fied and well-defined so that it’s appro­pri­ate con­tract struc­ture. So in many ways, this reflects our efforts to deliv­er bet­ter val­ue to the tax­pay­er and the capa­bil­i­ty of the warfight­er in a bud­get cir­cum­stance which we all real­ize is not going to give us more and more mon­ey every year. So we’re try­ing to man­age to a bud­get, and this is reflec­tive of the kind of dis­ci­pline in acqui­si­tion that’s required.

Q: Ali­son Burns with KIRO in Seat­tle.

Is it your under­stand­ing that this tanker will be built in Everett, Wash­ing­ton? And what are — what is your mes­sage today for those Boe­ing work­ers?
And of course, Gen­er­al Schwartz, we’d love to hear from you.

MR. LYNN: I think we think both com­pa­nies did a ter­rif­ic job. Boe­ing was the suc­cess­ful offer­er. But as Sec­re­tary Don­ley indi­cat­ed, they both were strong offer­ings.

And let me let Gen­er­al Schwartz chime in.

GEN. SCHWARTZ: I would just say that I’m pleased with how this has pro­duced an out­come after an exhaus­tive effort by hun­dreds of the department’s very best peo­ple, that we will get about deliv­er­ing the capa­bil­i­ty that’s long over­due and will stop talk­ing about it.

MR. LYNN: (Inaudi­ble.)

Q: Is the air­port still going to pur­sue its KCY and KCZ strat­e­gy to replace their remain­ing tankers?

MR. LYNN: Yes, there will be fol­low-on.

Q: When do you plan to sign the con­tract, if you haven’t signed it already? And will you allow for work to begin before the protest peri­od runs out, or are you going to wait to find out if there’s a protest to begin work?

MR. CARTER: Let me answer a part of that. Yes, the con­tract is signed, or will be very short­ly. And the — we gave autho­riza­tion for that this after­noon. And work will be able to begin. Obvi­ous­ly, we’re mind­ful of the process of debrief­ing the offer­ors and hav­ing them absorb the infor­ma­tion and so forth, but we’ll get start­ed — (inaudi­ble).

Q: When is that debrief­ing sched­uled?

MR. LYNN: It has­n’t been — they have to request it.

Q: Oh.

MR. LYNN: But it’s avail­able as soon as they request it.

Q: Okay.

Q: Quick ques­tion, Mr. Carter. For the sec­ond and third phas­es, if you can be clear, Boe­ing is not guar­an­teed those phas­es, are they?

MR. CARTER: That’s cor­rect. This is for the first 187 air­craft. There will be in the —

MR. LYNN: One hun­dred sev­en­ty-nine.

MR. CARTER: I’m sor­ry, 179. I apol­o­gize. One hun­dred sev­en­ty-nine air­craft.

Q: So that’s not (win­ner take all ?) for all three phas­es.

MR. CARTER: No.

SEC. DONLEY: No.

Q: Thank you.

Q: EADS was very con­fi­dent that they had the bet­ter plane at the bet­ter price. Do you antic­i­pate that they will protest? And if they do, what would that mean for the pro­duc­tion time­lines?

MR. LYNN: As I indi­cat­ed, the unsuc­cess­ful offer­or has the oppor­tu­ni­ty to pur­sue a protest if they think they have the grounds. We think we’ve put togeth­er a process that was fair, open and trans­par­ent and that does not pro­vide grounds for a protest.

Q: Can you say how past per­for­mance fig­ured in to the eval­u­a­tion cri­te­ria for this com­pe­ti­tion?

MR. CARTER: Past per­for­mance was part of the manda­to­ry require­ments, so it was a require­ment to become a qual­i­fied offer­or. Both of the offer­ors passed that test and were qual­i­fied, along with all the oth­er cri­te­ria that Sec­re­tary Don­ley men­tioned, that qual­i­fied ful­ly both of these offer­ors to par­tic­i­pate in the com­pe­ti­tion.

STAFF: I think we’ll take one, maybe two more here.

Q: Do you have any more infor­ma­tion on how the over­sight process was han­dled with­in OSD, as far as — (off mic)?

MR. LYNN: Ash?

MR. CARTER: The source selec­tion, as we indi­cat­ed, was in the Air Force, and it was an indi­vid­ual in the Air Force who was the source selec­tion author­i­ty, as we indi­cat­ed when we issued the RFP. There were mem­bers of my staff from OSD and else­where in the depart­ment, both experts and over­seers, that par­tic­i­pat­ed in the tech­ni­cal eval­u­a­tions and also who ensured that the process was free and fair in the way that — and fol­lowed the rules of the RFP issued a year ago.

Q: Have you got­ten any indi­ca­tion from EADS whether they will protest? Do you expect one?

MR. LYNN: Just before com­ing on, we informed both offer­ors of the results. That’s all that’s been done.

Q: Can you give us more of a sense of how many of those manda­to­ry require­ments EADS was unable to meet? And you said it was more than 1 per­cent? How many —

MR. LYNN: Both com­pa­nies met all the manda­to­ry require­ments.

STAFF: All right, I can’t count very well, but we’ll do one more. Mr. Sec­re­tary, you pick the last one.

MR. LYNN: (Name inaudi­ble.)

Q: Three years ago you select­ed EADS. And back then, you said this was the best val­ue for the gov­ern­ment. Now you’re select­ing Boe­ing. Our under­stand­ing is their design has­n’t rad­i­cal­ly changed. How can you account for that turn­around?

MR. LYNN: We — I can’t account for how the pri­or com­pe­ti­tion went. I think we struc­tured a com­pe­ti­tion that was fair, that was based on a vari­ety of fac­tors, includ­ing price, includ­ing warfight­ing capa­bil­i­ties, includ­ing life-cycle costs. And Boe­ing was the clear win­ner of that process.

STAFF: All right, folks. Thank you very much.

Source:
U.S. Depart­ment of Defense
Office of the Assis­tant Sec­re­tary of Defense (Pub­lic Affairs)

More news and arti­cles can be found on Face­book and Twit­ter.

Fol­low GlobalDefence.net on Face­book and/or on Twit­ter

Team GlobDef

Team GlobDef

Seit 2001 ist GlobalDefence.net im Internet unterwegs, um mit eigenen Analysen, interessanten Kooperationen und umfassenden Informationen für einen spannenden Überblick der Weltlage zu sorgen. GlobalDefenc.net war dabei die erste deutschsprachige Internetseite, die mit dem Schwerpunkt Sicherheitspolitik außerhalb von Hochschulen oder Instituten aufgetreten ist.

Alle Beiträge ansehen von Team GlobDef →