Cantankerous over tankers

• Article
• Comments ()
• Click-2-Listen
• Videos

By

Being uncompetitive hurts: Just ask aircraft maker Boeing, and the wide swath of the Pacific Northwest workforce it employs. Last week, the world's second-largest aerospace and defense contractor lost its bid for a much-anticipated $40 billion Pentagon contract to supply 179 air tankers, bested by a consortium of Northrop Grumman and European firm Airbus. The loss has tripped off a congressional firestorm: Rep. John Murtha, chairman of the Defense Appropriations Subcommittee, and a growing number in the House and Senate are asking why the Air Force would give such a massive contract to any aircraft maker but a U.S. firm in this deteriorating economic climate. "I can't think of a worse time for a worse decision," said Sen. Patty Murray, Washington Democrat, whose state is home to 74,000 Boeing jobs. "We've got to start over."

Mr. Murtha and colleagues have a duty as a matter of proper congressional oversight to ensure that the Pentagon awards such large contracts fairly and properly. In this economic climate, we'd go so far as to argue that lawmakers have a patriotic duty — especially during wartime — to ensure that U.S. contracts are awarded domestically to the extent possible. The trouble is that the watchdogs are unlikely to find any reason to oppose the deal on the contracting merits — as opposed to the very unfavorable political economy — once they examine the criteria and the data on how each proposal stacks up. The Pentagon has every incentive in this election year and softening economy to side with the domestic firm if at all possible. But the decision was not even very close, according to industry analysts.

As Lexington Institute defense analyst Loren Thompson put it this week in an issue brief: "Boeing didn't manage to beat Northrop in a single measure of merit." Most tellingly, Mr. Thompson reports that Pentagon reviewers concluded that "if they funded the Northrop Grumman proposal they could have 49 superior tankers operating by 2013, whereas if they funded the Boeing proposal, they would have only 19 considerably less capable planes in that year. The Northrop-EADS offering was deemed much better in virtually all regards."

For now, lawmakers are directing their ire to the Pentagon, which should pry loose any remaining information not already public. But they might also undertake the less popular task of asking Boeing some hard questions. Congressional anger over the export of taxpayer-funded jobs will get us only so far if domestic competitors are not up to the challenge.