The Standing Rules of the Senate are drafted to encourage vigorous public debate on our nation’s most important issues. Indeed, the U.S. Senate is often referred to as “the world’s greatest deliberative body.” The Rules allow any Senator to seek recognition from the Chair at any time and, absent a temporary agreement to the contrary, to speak without interruption so long as he or she wishes. Debating important questions before the Senate is one way a Senator can highlight an issue, advocate for a change in policy, or voice his or her opinion on pending legislation.
Senate debate occurs in public, and is televised on CSPAN and transcribed in the Congressional Record. For your convenience, I post transcripts of my Senate floor speeches on this site for your review. I hope you find them informative and useful. My web site also makes available information on my voting record and legislation that I have sponsored in the Senate.
 print | |
 email |
| |
Tanker Aircraft Competition
Thursday, June 26, 2008
Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak as in morning business for a few minutes.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, we heard a good bit recently and there has been some discussion in the Senate about the competition for the tanker aircraft that was decided by the Air Force in favor of the Northrop Grumman team.
The Government Accountability Office team of lawyers--not technicians--conducted a review of the procedures utilized in that selection process, in light of 111 objections filed by the losing Boeing team. They concluded that eight objections were merited against the procedural conduct of the competition by the Air Force. Now the ball is back in the lap of the Air Force to review those objections and to take appropriate steps to make sure this is a fair and just competition.
I will just say that I was committed in the beginning and throughout this process that it should be a nonpolitical decision, a decision made by the U.S. Air Force based on the criteria set out in law, based on the fact that the Congress, after an attempt had been made to carry out a sole-source lease agreement for the Boeing aircraft--after that was rejected and after great embarrassment to the Air Force and Boeing, we ordered that a bid take place.
I want my colleagues to understand the posture we are in. At the end of the bid process, the Air Force concluded this:
While [the] KC-767 offers significant capabilities, the overall tanker/airlift mission is best supported by the KC-30. The Northrop team.
They go on to say: [The] KC-30 solution is superior in the core capabilities of fuel capacity/offload, airlift efficiency, and cargo/passenger/aeromedical carriage.
On the most important factors, the core capabilities, they found that the Northrop team's aircraft was superior.
GAO did not overrule those findings. In fact, the contrary is the case. What GAO said was in this very long, complex RFP request for proposal--and legal requirements of bidding processes, the Air Force made some errors. Mr. President, 111 complaints were raised against the Air Force, but 8 were found to be worthy of objection.
In the course of GAO's evaluation of the procedural conduct of the bid process, they reached these conclusions that I think have been overlooked as people have discussed this issue. For example, the GAO stated and did not dispute this:
Northrop Grumman's proposed aircraft exceeded to a greater degree than Boeing's aircraft a key performance parameter objective to exceed the RFP's identified fuel offload to the receiver aircraft versus the unrefueled radius range of the tanker.
In other words, GAO concluded and agreed that the KC-45 is more capable at refueling than the Boeing aircraft, which is what the Air Force found. They did not object to that point.
In addition to carrying more fuel, which clearly the Northrop team's aircraft does, the GAO also agreed with the Air Force's professional conclusion that it would be easier--and this is important--it would be easier for pilots to refuel their jet fighters, for example, from the Northrop KC-45. This is an important issue.
The GAO said:
Boeing also protests the Air Force's conclusion in the aerial refueling area that Northrop Grumman's proposed larger boom envelope-- The spread of the refueling booms--
proposed larger boom envelope offered a meaningful benefit to the Air Force. From our review of the record, including hearing testimony on this issue, we do not find a basis to object to the Air Force's judgment that Northrop Grumman had offered a larger boom envelope and that this offer provided measurable benefit.
Further, the GAO also supported the Air Force's conclusion that Northrop's KC-45 was a better airlifter.
GAO said:
Boeing also challenges the Air Force's evaluation judgment in the airlift area that Northrop Grumman's proposed aircraft offered superior cargo, passenger, and aeromedical evacuation capability than did Boeing's aircraft. From our review of the record, including the hearing testimony, we see no basis to conclude that the Air Force's evaluation that Northrop Grumman's aircraft was more advantageous in the airlift area is unreasonable.
That is a big issue. Every combatant commander with whom I have talked and who has had to move troops, cargo, personnel, and equipment to the battlefield knows the critical need for as much airlift capability as they can have. These refueling tankers can also serve as a cargo aircraft and a troop movement aircraft. Clearly, the Northrop Grumman aircraft is more advantageous, according to the Air Force's professional finding. And that was approved by the GAO's analysis.
The GAO also found and upheld the Air Force's holding that Northrop Grumman had a higher ``fleet effectiveness'' rating. Fleet effectiveness--also called IFARA--reflects ``the quantity of an offeror's aircraft that would be required to perform the scenarios in relation to the number of KC-135R aircraft that would have been required.'' Put simply,
to boil that down, the Air Force judged that one Northrop plane could do more refueling more efficiently than one Boeing plane. And the GAO upheld that finding.
GAO found no fault with the Air Force's conclusion that Boeing's proposal was more risky in certain areas and that their past performance on similar contracts was ``marginal.''
The GAO said:
We find from our review of the record no basis to object to the Air Force's past performance evaluation, under which both firms' past performance received a satisfactory confidence rating. We also find no basis to question the SSA's judgment that, despite equal confidence ratings that the firms received under this factor overall, Northrop Grumman's higher ``satisfactory confidence'' rating, as compared to Boeing's ``little confidence'' rating, under the program management area, was a reasonable discriminator. The Air Force evaluated Boeing's past performance as marginal in this area ..... We have no basis, on this record, to find the Air Force's judgment unreasonable.
What that means is they evaluated how well both of the bidders, Northrop Grumman and Boeing, have performed in other contracts in the past and found that Boeing's record was less sound. They were less reliable in performing the contract once they had been awarded it, and they gave extra points for that. That was affirmed by the GAO.
Amidst all the discussion of procedure and KKPs, RFPs, and dotted i's and crossed t's, what did the GAO say in this matter? They said the Air Force picked a plane that could carry and offload more fuel more efficiently and in a more desirable way for the pilots. They also found that the plane's secondary mission, airlift, that can be very critical in a national emergency when we have to move cargo and personnel rapidly around the world would be accomplished more effectively by the Northrop aircraft. Finally, GAO agreed that the Northrop plane was lower risk and that Boeing had marginal past performance.
So as we allow this process to proceed, as it should, as we expect the Air Force to take seriously the matters raised by the GAO, we will adhere to one overriding principle; that is, Congress ordered that the Air Force conduct a bid of which would be the best aircraft. This bid process was conducted by the Air Force as we as Members of Congress directed. I, as a lawyer, am not capable of flying an aircraft. Nor am I capable of analyzing aerodynamics and validating how much weight or wingspan or how much boom coverage is needed to safely refuel multiple aircraft at one time. I cannot fully evaluate how valuable the ability to carry large amounts of fuel is as compared to an aircraft that carries less, but the Air Force is. What we need to do is make sure the Air Force does its job and selects the best aircraft. I strongly object to any attempt to politicize this process.
Finally, I note that this aircraft would be constructed in Alabama, my home State. It is not going to be built around the world in some foreign land. It is a team headed by Northrop Grumman, also the EADS team. It will be an aircraft constructed in our country, with tens of thousands of jobs created in our country.
I thank the Chair for the opportunity to share these remarks. I hope my colleagues will allow this process to proceed in a professional, lawful way and respect and honor the professional decision of the Air Force, which will have to live with this choice of tanker for perhaps another 50 years, like the current tanker.
I yield the floor.
