WASHINGTON, DC – U.S. Senator Pat Roberts (R-KS), U.S. Senator Sam Brownback (R-KS) and U.S. Representative Todd Tiahrt (R-KS) today sent a letter to Department of Defense Secretary Robert Gates urging him to quickly address the aerial refueling tanker contract.

The following is the text of the letter:

"On June 18th, the Government Accountability Office (GAO) sustained The Boeing Company’s protest of the United States Air Force’s decision to award the $35 billion KC-X Next Generational Aerial Refueling Tanker contract to the EADS Team. This overwhelming decision vindicates the arguments and efforts made by us and our colleagues over the past three months. The GAO agreed that the Air Force made "significant errors" in the KC-X competition. Contrary to Air Force arguments at the time of the contract award, this process was anything but fair and transparent. We urge you to quickly take steps to rectify the Air Force’s clearly flawed KC-X decision and bring fairness, integrity, and credibility back to the acquisition process.

"First and foremost, the existing contract with the EADS Team should be cancelled. As the GAO report states, the EADS Team refused "to agree to a specific solicitation requirement." This should have led to the EADS Teams’ immediate elimination from the competition. Given this and other "significant errors" in the original contract award, it would be unacceptable for the current contract to remain in force. The overwhelming evidence cited by the GAO report makes a clear and compelling argument that the original competition was not fair and that the wrong competitor was awarded the contract.

"After the original KC-X contract is cancelled, we ask that the Department of Defense reexamine the results of the competition in light of the GAO findings and consider awarding the contract directly to Boeing. Boeing’s proposal was compliant with Air Force requirements and represents a lower cost to the taxpayer. Contrarily, in at least two instances, the GAO found that the EADS Team was non-compliant with the requirements found in the Request for Proposal (RFP). This non-compliance should have eliminated the EADS Team from the competition.

"We believe the Department has the authority to award the contract to Boeing based on their competitive proposal to provide the KC-767. According to the GAO, only one competitor, Boeing, fulfilled all the requirements of the RFP; therefore, Boeing is the only qualified offeror. Not only would this decision be based on the competition, it would quickly provide our warfighters with the new tankers they need and deserve, while meeting the operational requirements of our military.

"Alternatively, if the Department chooses not to assert its authority to make a direct award to Boeing, we request that you expeditiously recompete this contract based on the original KC-X Tanker criteria as outlined in the original RFP. There is no need to rewrite the requirements or the RFP, or to conduct a split-buy or a fly-off. These inappropriate proposals would only slow down the process and lead to an artificially structured contract that favors one competitor. The GAO found that the Air Force failed to adequately evaluate the two proposals. It would be wrong to start back at "square one" due to the failings of the acquisition system to fairly evaluate the two proposals. Additionally, this program has experienced significant delays for a variety of reasons; changing the acquisition approach or guidelines will only serve to further slow down this vital program.

"Mr. Secretary, there is clearly a problem with the Department of the Air Force’s acquisition system. The Air Force refused to even consider illegal subsidies, waived regulations, national security or industrial base concerns. Beyond these policy discussions, the source selection authority fundamentally failed to properly evaluate each proposal. The Air Force characterized this source selection as "incredibly open and transparent and rigorous." The GAO, however, found otherwise.

"We believe the KC-X decision is a failure in leadership, in process, and in procedures. As the Department moves forward in its decision, we hope you will evaluate each of these aspects to ensure that the process is fair and open. We look forward to your response and further dialogue on this critical issue."

-30-