The T-6 Texan II is a tandem-seat, turboprop trainer whose mission is to train Navy and Marine Corps pilots and Naval Flight Officers.
When the Government Accountability Office announced Tuesday, here, that the Navy erred when it awarded an aircraft-maintenance contract, Battleland wondered why.
The service had struck a deal with L-3 Communications Vertex Aerospace, LLC, of Madison, Miss., for $452,021,399, instead of to competitor BAE Systems Technology Solutions and Services, Inc., of Rockville, Md., for $397,385,618,
Planely, the Navy concluded something about L-3’s initial winning bid was worth paying $55 million – 14% — more than BAE’s competing offer to keep the Navy’s T-34, T-44, and T-6 trainer aircraft flying. BAE, like any losing bidder, chose to appeal the Navy’s decision to the GAO.
So we burrowed into the GAO decision to see just what it was the Navy’s Source Selection Authority (SSA) thought was worth the extra money. We were dumbfounded when we came to the key paragraph:
In fact, [DELETED] occurs 114 times in the GAO’s 10-page decision. Taxpayers are left without the key information that led the Navy to conclude that L-3’s was the better deal. Usually, such redactions are designed to keep secrets away from competitors, but with teams of highly-paid lawyers on each side of this case, you know darn well both sides know what the debate was all about. A source close to the case said it boiled down to L-3 promising to do something for the Navy under the contract that the GAO felt wasn’t worth close to $55 million (note to GAO: this happens not infrequently).
The only ones left in the dark, apparently, are those footing the bill.
Even more strangely, the GAO made its decision to recommend the Navy re-open the contract on Dec. 12, 2011, but only released it Tuesday.
The GAO says that’s because after it reached its original 2011 decision that the Navy was wrong…the Navy protested the GAO’s ruling. Bottom line: you had the Navy protesting a protest. Last May, the GAO politely declared it would stand by its decision, in language that sounds like a parental scolding:
Agency’s request to reconsider our decision sustaining a protest is denied where agency’s request either reiterates arguments made previously and merely expresses disagreement with the prior decision, or advances new arguments that could have been, but were not, advanced during the initial protest.
Then, the Navy, L-3 and BAE asked the GAO not to release its 2011 ruling until the Navy awarded the contract. Last Nov. 30, the Navy awarded BAE the contract, here. If you want to see what a contracting process from Hell looks like, click check out that full contract solicitation. Maybe someone can read through it and let us know what all those [DELETED]s are all about.
One thing’s for sure: lawyers have gotten a heck of a lot more training under this deal so far than Navy pilots.