PDA

View Full Version : Article In Air Force Times Causes A Doubletake



Slyoldawg
11-26-2013, 11:32 PM
I got whiplash while reading this article from next week's AF Times. Seems the AF put out a request for bids on engine work on the C-17 and no one responded. The dude in charge is patting himself on the back for saving the Air Force money by pulling the request. I got a whiplash from the double take I did while reading this.

"ENGINE WORK CANCELED

The Air Force has can*celed an open solicitation for sustainment work on the F117 engines that pow*er the service’s C-17 trans*port fleet. “As a good steward of taxpayer dollars, the Air Force cannot justify con*tinuing the acquisition and is canceling the existing F117 engine sustainment solicitations,” Air Force spokesman Ed Gulick wrote in a release announc*ing the decision.

“The Air Force antici*pated significant savings and preferred terms and conditions to be derived from the competition. Un*fortunately, no viable offers "

imnohero
11-26-2013, 11:45 PM
hmmph. I would guess what happened is that the existing sustainment contract was coming to an end and the AF wanted to see if they could get a competitive bid from someone other than Boeing, or whoever does it now. There is a difference between "no offers" and "no viable offers", which is why the article says they are cancelling the "existing sustainment solicitatitions". I swear, "acquisition" is like a different langugage. They use the same words we do, but they mean different things.

Slyoldawg
11-27-2013, 12:49 AM
hmmph. I would guess what happened is that the existing sustainment contract was coming to an end and the AF wanted to see if they could get a competitive bid from someone other than Boeing, or whoever does it now. There is a difference between "no offers" and "no viable offers", which is why the article says they are cancelling the "existing sustainment solicitatitions". I swear, "acquisition" is like a different langugage. They use the same words we do, but they mean different things.

Now you make sense with that explanation, but I still can't see how cancelling the request saves the Air Force money. Especially when they say they are going to reword, or rework the solicitation and resubmit it.

imnohero
11-27-2013, 01:03 AM
OK, so lets say we are the AF...just pretend, right?

Our C17 engine sustainment contract is coming to an end. As a made up number let's say the existing contract costs us $100 Million a year.
So, maybe we can save money...we'll put a solicitation for contract bids and see what companies will bid.
All the bids come in at more than $200 million per year....no good for us, so we cancel the solicitation.

Now, this is where the "saving money" part comes in.

Because of the way money is accounted and budgeted, we can extend the existing contract at the current price OR we can hire one of the new guys at $100M more per year. So by NOT hiring the new guy, we "saved" $100 million per year. See?

Slyoldawg
11-27-2013, 01:44 AM
OK, so lets say we are the AF...just pretend, right?

Our C17 engine sustainment contract is coming to an end. As a made up number let's say the existing contract costs us $100 Million a year.
So, maybe we can save money...we'll put a solicitation for contract bids and see what companies will bid.
All the bids come in at more than $200 million per year....no good for us, so we cancel the solicitation.

Now, this is where the "saving money" part comes in.

Because of the way money is accounted and budgeted, we can extend the existing contract at the current price OR we can hire one of the new guys at $100M more per year. So by NOT hiring the new guy, we "saved" $100 million per year. See?

OK, now I get it after being slammed upside the head!:doh I guess that s why I ended up a Flight Engineer and not in procurement! Thanks for clearing that up for me.

retiredAFcivvy
11-27-2013, 04:39 PM
I read the original article and it appears to me that what the AF was trying to do was combine two different requirements, engine sustainment and supply chain management, which maybe now are separate. Probably no one company could provide both at a reasonable price. Cancellation of a solicitation at this level is a big deal and I don't see where any of the players have complained, at least at this point.

Slyoldawg
11-27-2013, 06:16 PM
I could be wrong, but I don't see how a different company than the one that built the engines, in this case Boeing I think, could supply cheaper service for those engines. Seems they would have to purchase parts from Boeing then jacking up the price to make a profit. While Boeing can simply retrieve parts from their parts bin. Am I wrong thinking this way?

Juggs
11-27-2013, 06:41 PM
OK, so lets say we are the AF...just pretend, right?

Our C17 engine sustainment contract is coming to an end. As a made up number let's say the existing contract costs us $100 Million a year.
So, maybe we can save money...we'll put a solicitation for contract bids and see what companies will bid.
All the bids come in at more than $200 million per year....no good for us, so we cancel the solicitation.

Now, this is where the "saving money" part comes in.

Because of the way money is accounted and budgeted, we can extend the existing contract at the current price OR we can hire one of the new guys at $100M more per year. So by NOT hiring the new guy, we "saved" $100 million per year. See?


Ah yes AF logic. I don't know why they wouldn't take me self referring to ADAPT as self improvement.

retiredAFcivvy
11-27-2013, 07:51 PM
I could be wrong, but I don't see how a different company than the one that built the engines, in this case Boeing I think, could supply cheaper service for those engines. Seems they would have to purchase parts from Boeing then jacking up the price to make a profit. While Boeing can simply retrieve parts from their parts bin. Am I wrong thinking this way?
No, that makes sense. I'm speculating that the problem here was the statement of work included services that the manufacturer does not regularly do.

Slyoldawg
11-27-2013, 08:07 PM
Thanks to all of you teaching an old dawg new tricks. The Air Force was wise to make an FE out of me instead of putting me in procurement it seems.