Air Force Reviewing Bids For Contract

Editor's Note: Don Manuszewski, spokesman for the US Air Force, commented Friday on ANN's story regarding the CSAR-X helicopter bid... which stated internal documents, obtained by Reuters, show the Air Force originally passed on the Boeing HH-47 as a combat search and rescue helicopter in early phases of the bid. The HH-47 ultimately won the CSAR-X contract last year.

Below, we offer Mr. Manuszewski's comments added to ANN's original story.

Why did the US Air Force go with a heavier, louder, more costly aircraft when it awarded a $15 billion contract to Boeing last year? That's what many critics have asked since the Air Force selected the twin-rotor HH-47 for its combat search and rescue helicopter program, known as CSAR-X, last November.

AF COMMENT: The Air Force selected the best value; individual cost, although a factor, is not the lone factor. Additionally, the selected platform met or exceeded all other factors in this capability based acquisition. 

Not surprisingly, the most vocal critics of the Air Force's decision were the losing parties in that contract bid -- Sikorsky, and Lockheed Martin. But others in the aviation community have said the Chinook variant is the wrong choice for CSAR-X, as well. So has Arizona Senator John McCain.

And, as it turns out, so did the US Air Force... several years before it awarded the contract to Boeing. According to internal documents obtained by Reuters, the Air Force initially ruled out the Chinook for the contract.

AF COMMENT: The 2002 USAF Combat Rescue Analysis of Alternatives (AoA) dropped the MH-47E from its analysis because the contractor did not respond to the RFI and provided no data with which the Study Team could work.  The 2005  AoA Update to the USAF Combat Rescue Analysis of Alternatives did not include or exclude any material solutions in its reports. The 2005 AoA update addressed four issues:  1) What Operational Environment changes have occurred; 2) Do PRV and subsequent CSAR-X capability requirements require modification; 3) Is the medium lift helicopter concept selection still valid; 4) Are force structure changes required.

Among those documents is a 2002 analysis of alternatives (AOA), and a 2004 draft outline of military needs. Both state the Boeing helicopter was  "considered, but discarded from complete analysis" for its compatibility with the CSAR-X requirements for a medium-lift helo.

Additionally, sources familiar with the complete AOA document told Reuters it contained a wealth of information on the other CSAR-X entrants -- Sikorsky's H-92, and Lockheed's EH101 -- but little on the twin-rotor HH-47.

So how did Boeing go from "discarded" to winner? Air Force spokesman Don Manuszewski says the Boeing helicopter was dropped from early consideration because Boeing had not shown any interest in the CSAR-X contract at that point.

"It was procedural, more than anything else," he said.

AF COMMENT: What I said was -- The 2002 USAF Combat Rescue Analysis of Alternatives (AoA) dropped the MH-47E from its analysis because the contractor did not respond to the RFI and provided no data with which the Study Team could work.  The 2005  AoA Update to the USAF Combat Rescue Analysis of Alternatives did not include or exclude any material solutions in its reports. The 2005 AoA update addressed four issues:  1) What Operational Environment changes have occurred; 2) Do PRV and subsequent CSAR-X capability requirements require modification; 3) Is the medium lift helicopter concept selection still valid; 4) Are force structure changes required. 

Still, there were enough questions about the Air Force's selection process to attract the attention of the Government Accountability Office, which recommended in February the USAF take another look at the other two CSAR-X entrants.

AF Comment: The GAO involvement came from protests by the companies that weren't selected, this statement indicates the GAO took it upon themselves to look into the contract award.

After initially stating it would hold firm to its decision, the Air Force did an about-face in April, and agreed to reopen the contract for bid.

AF COMMENT: The contract will not be rebid. The original offerors will be allowed to submit additional information concerning the Operations and Support costs for the cost evaluation.

Defense analyst Loren Thompson says the rebid process should open some eyes within the USAF.

"The Air Force seems so intent on defending its acquisition practices, that it isn't really addressing the question of whether it bought the right aircraft," said Thompson.

AF COMMENT: The journalist failed to mention that Loren Thompson is a paid consultant to Lockheed Martin, one of the companies that filed a protest. 

FMI: www.af.mil