Le choix de EADS\/Northrop pour le ravitailleur en vol KC-45 de l’USAF fut consid\u00e9r\u00e9, \u00e0 la fin mars, comme un \u00e9v\u00e9nement<\/a> d’une prodigieuse importance parce qu’une soci\u00e9t\u00e9 europ\u00e9enne (non-britannique) se voyait attribuer un programme militaire strat\u00e9gique US fondamental. Cette d\u00e9cision est aujourd’hui plac\u00e9e devant une inconnue de taille, avec l’annonce que le Government Accounting Office se range indirectement du c\u00f4t\u00e9 de Boeing qui avait \tL’AFP rapporte, le 18 juin<\/a>, les conditions de la d\u00e9cision du GAO.<\/p>\n<\/p>\n \t\u00abA congressional audit Wednesday backed Boeing’s protest over a huge aerial refueling tanker contract awarded to Northrop Grumman, and recommended the Air Force review the deal.<\/em><\/p>\n<\/p>\n \t()<\/p>\n<\/p>\n \t\u00bbThe Government Accountability Office said its review led us to conclude that the Air Force had made a number of significant errors that could have affected the outcome of what was a close competition between Boeing and Northrop Grumman.<\/em><\/p>\n<\/p>\n \t\u00bbThe GAO said the Air Force conducted misleading discussions with Boeing about its compliance with requirements and gave too much slack to Northrop Grumman on some points.<\/em><\/p>\n<\/p>\n \t\u00bbIt also said the Air Force made unreasonable cost calculations that, when corrected, made Boeing the lower bidder over the life of the contract.<\/em><\/p>\n<\/p>\n \t\u00bbWe recommended that the Air Force reopen discussions … obtain revised proposals, re-evaluate the revised proposals, and make a new source selection decision, consistent with our decision, the GAO said.<\/em>\u00bb<\/p>\n<\/p>\n \tIl s’agit incontestablement d’une d\u00e9cision d’une grande importance, avec de multiples cons\u00e9quences.<\/p>\n<\/p>\n \t D’abord, l’honorabilit\u00e9 du GAO est un fait unanimement accept\u00e9. Il est difficile d’attaquer sa position d’un point de vue pol\u00e9mique, voire politique. Tout juste peut-on contester ses \u00e9valuations techniques, et encore tr\u00e8s difficilement si l’on consid\u00e8re l’expertise des fonctionnaires du GAO. Il n’emp\u00eache que la d\u00e9cision a un poids politique incontestable, en parant Boeing en bonne partie de la vertu du GAO, et a contrario<\/em> en jetant le doute sur l’autre partie. La conclusion du GAO est une recommandation et n’a pas de force contraignante; mais le climat d\u00e9crit ci-dessus, autant que la pol\u00e9mique initiale qui accueillit la d\u00e9cision de l’USAF lui donnent une autorit\u00e9 d\u00e9vastatrice. Il est hors de question de penser que la d\u00e9cision de l’USAF ne sera pas revue.<\/p>\n<\/p>\n \t Les adversaire de la d\u00e9cision de l’USAF triomphent mod\u00e9r\u00e9ment, assur\u00e9s qu’ils sont d’une assise solide pour mener une offensive dont l’essentiel est d\u00e9j\u00e0 acquis. <\/p>\n<\/p>\n \t\u00abWe welcome and support today’s ruling by the GAO fully sustaining the grounds of our protest, Mark McGraw, vice president of Boeing Tanker Programs, said in a statement. We look forward to working with the Air Force on next steps in this critical procurement for our warfighters.<\/em>\u00bb<\/p>\n<\/p>\n \t En face, \u00e9galement, on mesure ses r\u00e9actions. Gallois, le pr\u00e9sident d’EADS a d\u00e9clar\u00e9 : \u00abM\u00eame si nous sommes d\u00e9sappoint\u00e9s, il est important de reconna\u00eetre que l’appr\u00e9ciation <\/em>[du GAO] concerne l’\u00e9valuation du processus de s\u00e9lection, pas les m\u00e9rites de l’avion.<\/em>\u00bb C’est effectivement le cas, selon un officiel du GAO qui a parl\u00e9 au Daily Report<\/em> de l’Air Force Association, le 19 juin<\/a>:<\/p>\n<\/p>\n \t\u00abA GAO official told the Daily Report that the recommendations do not suggest that the Air Force start over, that is open the competition to other bidders, but rather refine the way that it asks for information and evaluates the answers it gets. The GAO said that it also denied some of Boeing’s complaintswithout saying which onesbecause records failed to show that the Air Force had done anything wrong with respect to those challenges. Further, the agency pointed out that its ruling shouldn’t be construed as a comment on the relative merits either of Boeing’s KC-767 or Northrop Grumman’s KC-30 tanker models. The GAO’s decisions focused only on the proc\u00e8s ?.<\/em>\u00bb<\/p>\n<\/p>\n \t L’USAF est dans une situation singuli\u00e8re, tr\u00e8s d\u00e9favorable du point de vue de sa position politique et bureaucratique. Elle fait figure d’accus\u00e9e pour le processus de s\u00e9lection qu’elle a suivi alors qu’elle clame \u00e0 tous vents que le lancement du processus de production du KC-45 est urgent \u00e0 cause de ses besoins cruciaux dans le domaine, de l\u00e0 \u00e0 ce qu’elle soit accus\u00e9e de mettre en danger la s\u00e9curit\u00e9 nationale en retardant \u00e0 cause de ses erreurs un programme essentiel pour la s\u00e9curit\u00e9 nationale, il n’y a qu’un pas que certains franchiront. D’autre part, sa situation g\u00e9n\u00e9rale est tr\u00e8s d\u00e9favoris\u00e9e au Pentagone, o\u00f9 elle vient de subir une purge sans pr\u00e9c\u00e9dent, et o\u00f9 elle se trouve en opposition<\/a> frontale avec le secr\u00e9taire \u00e0 la d\u00e9fense Gates. Du point de vue technique, les conclusions du GAO devraient aboutir \u00e0 un nouveau processus de s\u00e9lection, selon le Daily Report<\/em>: \u00abA similar ruling in the Air Force’s combat search and rescue helicopter competition has led to a two-year litigation delay in getting that program under contract, suggesting that the launch of the tanker program could be delayed at least that long, as well.<\/em>\u00bb<\/p>\n<\/p>\n \t Il est tr\u00e8s probable que la prise de position du GAO va conduire, d’une fa\u00e7on indirecte, \u00e0 inscrire la question du KC-45 dans le maelstr\u00f6m<\/a> r\u00e9formiste qui attend le Pentagone sans doute avec la nouvelle administration. La position du GAO semble en effet, toujours selon le Daily Report<\/em>, ranimer des intentions interventionnistes du Congr\u00e8s dans le processus de d\u00e9cision de l’USAF, avec un \u00e9tat d’esprit nettement protectionniste \u00e0 la clef.<\/p>\n<\/p>\n \t\u00abSome members of Congress see an opening to get more involved in the tanker acquisition now that the GAO has recommended that the KC-X award to Northrop Grumman be set aside because of Air Force contracting mistakes. And the protectionist spirit appears to be high. Rep. Norman Dicks (D-Wash.), in whose state KC-767 bidder Boeing has a considerable presence, said that it is now up to Congress to review the matter and to make its judgment about how to replace the tanker fleet. Unsurprisingly, he feels that we should proceed expeditiously to build the best aircraftthe Boeing KC-767here at home. Sen. Patty Murray (D-Wash.), another staunch Boeing support, said, It is Congress’ job to determine whether major defense purchases meet the needs of our warfighter and deserve taxpayer funding. The Pentagon must both justify its d\u00e9cision<\/em> [to buy the KC-30] and address the flawed process that led to today’s<\/em> [GAO] ruling. Murray said members of Congress have been stonewalled by the Pentagon in getting details of the tanker pick since Boeing’s protest was lodged in March. She said the GAO’s finding still didn’t address key policy issues this contract raisessuch as illegal subsidies, real-world operating costs, economic impacts, and the importance of maintaining our most critical advantage: innovation through American defense-oriented research and development. Congress, she said, needs answers before handing billions of American defense dollars to a subsidized, foreign company focused on dismantling the American aerospace industry.<\/em><\/p>\n<\/p>\n \t Dans cette logique de l’entr\u00e9e en piste du Congr\u00e8s, l’importance de l’affaire va remettre le choix du KC-45 dans l’ar\u00e8ne politique, au moment o\u00f9 la campagne pr\u00e9sidentielles entre dans sa phase finale. Tous les ingr\u00e9dients sont l\u00e0 pour nourrir cette orientation, dans deux directions: l’argument de la protection de la base industrielle US et de l’emploi aux USA appuy\u00e9 sur la d\u00e9cision du GAO; l’attaque contre John McCain<\/a>, archi-ennemi de Boeing et pour lequel la d\u00e9cision du GAO constitue indirectement un d\u00e9menti. La vertu \u00e9vidente de la d\u00e9cision du GAO va permettre de rendre tr\u00e8s vertueuses toutes les critiques int\u00e9ress\u00e9es (protectionnistes, anti-europ\u00e9anistes) et politiciennes (mise en cause de McCain) d\u00e9j\u00e0 entendues dans cette affaire.<\/p>\n<\/p>\n <\/p>\n \tMis en ligne le 19 juin 2008 \u00e0 10H02<\/p><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" Le choix de EADS\/Northrop pour le ravitailleur en vol KC-45 de l’USAF fut consid\u00e9r\u00e9, \u00e0 la fin mars, comme un \u00e9v\u00e9nement d’une prodigieuse importance parce qu’une soci\u00e9t\u00e9 europ\u00e9enne (non-britannique) se voyait attribuer un programme militaire strat\u00e9gique US fondamental. Cette d\u00e9cision est aujourd’hui plac\u00e9e devant une inconnue de taille, avec l’annonce que le Government Accounting Office… <\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"","ping_status":"","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"neve_meta_sidebar":"","neve_meta_container":"","neve_meta_enable_content_width":"","neve_meta_content_width":0,"neve_meta_title_alignment":"","neve_meta_author_avatar":"","neve_post_elements_order":"","neve_meta_disable_header":"","neve_meta_disable_footer":"","neve_meta_disable_title":"","_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[2],"tags":[3192,3285,4502,4215,4248,4581,41],"class_list":["post-69978","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-bloc-notes","tag-boeing","tag-congres","tag-dicks","tag-eads","tag-gao","tag-kc-45","tag-usaf"],"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/new.dedefensa.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/69978","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/new.dedefensa.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/new.dedefensa.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/new.dedefensa.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/new.dedefensa.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=69978"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/new.dedefensa.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/69978\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/new.dedefensa.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=69978"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/new.dedefensa.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=69978"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/new.dedefensa.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=69978"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}