k5083 wrote:
2. At a former job I chased a promotion for about three years. I came close a few times, but the requirements kept changing. Should I have started a blog whining about moving targets and unfairness, or was I right to do what I did -- accept that in the real world, targets do move, requirements change, and it is "fair" to expect people to cope with that?
The rules and expectations are quite different between a private company and a private company doing government contracting. The government imposes numerous requirements upon a contractor in the name of "fairness," including race and gender based quotas and ethical standards and oversight quite different from those used in commercial industries. It is illegal for instance for me to take my customer to lunch, or for them to buy me lunch because of the appearance of impropriety that may result. In the commercial world that is a normal way of doing business and is in fact expected.
I agree that if this was Boeing vs. American Airlines, a moving goalpost is acceptable as the stockholders of American expect decisions to be made in the best interest of the company, based upon the market forces of the moment. The government on the other hand has the authority to fine their suppliers tens of millions of dollars for not following government contracting rules which are quite different from commercial codes. On the flipside, this also requires the government to follow very specific processes to ensure fairness on their part. That is what is being contested in this situation.
Quote:
Tanker VP: Protest an ‘uphill battle,’ but winnable
Mark McGraw, vice president, Boeing Tanker Programs, Tuesday shared new details about the ongoing protest of the U.S Air Force’s KC-X aerial refueling contract with business and defense reporters, drawing upon documents released publicly this week.
During the media call, McGraw reviewed Boeing’s protest filing executive summary and discussed in detail the basis for the company’s protest, stating the Air Force "repeatedly made fundamental but often unstated changes to the bid requirements and evaluation process” to ensure Northrop Grumman/EADS remained in the competition.
These moves, he explained, created an uneven playing field for the competitors, changed the intent of the original Request for Proposals and skewed rating criteria away from Boeing’s right-sized KC-767 toward the larger A330 platform. The result, he added, “was a contract award that is fundamentally unfair not only to Boeing, but to the warfighter and the American people.”
Citing nearly identical ratings for the five evaluation criteria – mission capability, risk, past performance, cost/price and integrated fleet aerial refueling assessment – McGraw expressed confidence that Boeing offered the right aircraft with the right capabilities at the right cost.
“Boeing offered a proposal based upon its 75 years of unparalleled success producing tankers for the U.S. government,” the executive summary reads. “But the Air Force bypassed Boeing’s offer, which provided the best value and performance to the mission at the lowest risk, for a plane that offered an illusory cost benefit fueled by EADS’ reliance upon illegal foreign subsidies.”
Despite what likely will be an “uphill battle,” McGraw remains upbeat about Boeing’s chances of getting another shot at the program.
“It's not like we had to search for reasons to protest,” he explained to reporters. “There were lot of flaws in the process, and I think we'll end up winning the day in terms of the protest.”
Login
Register
FAQ
Search
I have you all paranoid and stuff lol! McCain is a nonce, and I am perfectly willing to lt him take a couple of gut punches for doing this kind of thing, if he deserves it. But I also happen to think Boing needs to get its act together.
