Raytheon says it is protesting losing the Joint Cargo Aircraft contract for three reasons:
a) the joint program office rated performance equally between the two competitors
b) Raytheon's C-295 procurement price tag beat L-3's C-27J acquisition cost by 15%
c) and lifecycle costs were not factored into the joint program office's evaluation
B and C are interesting points but may not be very meaningful in a "best value" competition.
But, if Raytheon's claims are accurate, A would be a stunner. How could the joint programme office devise an evaluation system that created an equal rating for these two aircraft. I've never heard Raytheon make the claim that the C-295 is the equal of the C-27J as a military aircraft. That's because, by all reasonable measures, it's not. That doesn't mean it isn't more cost effective and more appropriate for the army's mission (if not the air force's), but the question remains.
Recent Comments