Should special consideration be given to US companies bidding on government jobs???

[6SpeedTA95]

Guys I wondered what everyone thought about government contracts and the bidding process. Should special consideration be given to US companies that do most of the work within the borders of the US and where most of the monies will stay within the borders of the US? Or should they simply take whoever offers the job at the cheapest cost?

Also should things like long term costs be considered on these projects? Of course the project I'm thinking of is the Boeing tanker fiasco. The project was erroneously awarded to Airbus IMO. The specs were changed specifically so that Boeing could not meet the criteria. They asked for a medium sized tanker and then consequently upped the "preferred" size of the tanker after the initial paperwork and specifications had been submitted. This put Boeing at a substantial disadvantage. Furthermore at today's fuel costs the Boeing would save as much on fuel as the cost of purchasing the entire fleet as their engines are substantially more efficient than those of rival Airbus.

Thoughts?

[thewise1]

I think it should be up to the air force. Boeing strikes me as a serious company of looters given that they are forcing a rebid; I would have rather they won it on their own, as that would help my area a lot, but I don't want them to win it by forcing it.

[C4Casey]

Boeing could not have won the contract because the Air Force changed requirements without telling Boeing. They said that no points would be awarded for a plane that exceeded the optimum values specified by the Air Force, and yet when the contract was awarded the Air Force sighted the Airbus design's greater size and fuel capacity as the reason it was selecteed. Also, the computer model used to determine the costs of the aircrafts as well as how many aircraft each base could support was developed by Northrup Grumman! How is there no conflict of intest there? Sure, I'm all for the Air Force getting the tanker it wants, but it should also follow it's own rules when awarding the contracts. They didn't follow their own rules, ans so now the GAO has forced a rebid. Personally, I am shocked that Sue Payton hasn't been fired over Air Force acquisitions mismanagement yet.

[Rouger2]

Give the contracts to US companies. We need to start thinking of ourselves we are in a competitive world and we need to start winning and quit letting other countries take advantage of us with thier cheap labor and low health, safety, envioumental, and retirement costs.

[6SpeedTA95]

Originally Posted by thewise1

I think it should be up to the air force. Boeing strikes me as a serious company of looters given that they are forcing a rebid; I would have rather they won it on their own, as that would help my area a lot, but I don't want them to win it by forcing it.

You realize the specifications were changed after specifications had been submitted for the bid? This is what tilted things in favor of Airbus. The airforce specifically asked for a medium sized tanker. Once they had submitted specs and it became clear that airbus may be having a difficult time meeting the specs, McCain and a few others put on the pressure to change the specifications in the middle of the contract procedure. The result was a tanker bigger than originally requested by the airforce from the two companies which shifted in a decisive manner the edge to airbus.

[6SpeedTA95]

Originally Posted by Rouger2

Give the contracts to US companies. We need to start thinking of ourselves we are in a competitive world and we need to start winning and quit letting other countries take advantage of us with thier cheap labor and low health, safety, envioumental, and retirement costs.

Good point but holds absolutely NO weight against a company like Airbus.

[Dispatcher]

Originally Posted by Rouger2

Give the contracts to US companies. We need to start thinking of ourselves we are in a competitive world and we need to start winning and quit letting other countries take advantage of us with thier cheap labor and low health, safety, envioumental, and retirement costs.

I agree 100%.

[thewise1]

Originally Posted by 6SpeedTA95

You realize the specifications were changed after specifications had been submitted for the bid? This is what tilted things in favor of Airbus. The airforce specifically asked for a medium sized tanker. Once they had submitted specs and it became clear that airbus may be having a difficult time meeting the specs, McCain and a few others put on the pressure to change the specifications in the middle of the contract procedure. The result was a tanker bigger than originally requested by the airforce from the two companies which shifted in a decisive manner the edge to airbus.

no i didn't realize that

i will stfu now