Could Airbus Build the Air Force One Replacement?

Airbus could build next Air Force One; 747 due to be replaced

 

Link to Original:  http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/cgi-bin/PrintStory.pl?document_id=2008641936&zsection_id=2003750727&slug=airforceone18&date=20090118

 

By Peter Pae

Los Angeles Times

For nearly two decades, Boeing’s 747 jumbo jet has served as the president’s flying White House, projecting America’s might wherever it landed.

But in the next decade, “United States of America” could end up being emblazoned on an even bigger plane that has been a symbol of European unity and pride.

The 747 Air Force One is scheduled to be replaced, and the new plane is likely to be stuffed with top-secret gee-whiz gadgetry, including countermeasures to thwart missile attacks, and aerial-refueling capabilities so it can fly for days without landing.

That’s on top of comforts likely to make even the world’s richest jet setters envious, including a medical facility and lavish staterooms with showers.

What it will not have is a presidential escape pod, analysts said, a feature that became an urban legend, thanks to a 1997 action film that starred Harrison Ford.

Follow the link to the original above to read the full story. 

Boeing 2009….

Boeing in.…

 

Is that plane Boeing’s 787 or the 7-Late_7 Dreamliner?

From Blogging Stocks, Joseph Lazzaro http://www.bloggingstocks.com/2009/02/16/is-that-plane-boeings-787-or-the-7-late-7-dreamliner/

 

Boeing says 787 production, deliveries on schedule from Business Week, link:  http://www.businessweek.com/ap/financialnews/D9690D581.htm

 

UPDATE 2 – Boeing 787 on track for Q1 2010 delivery-executive-link: http://www.reuters.com/article/rbssIndustryMaterialsUtilitiesNews/idUSN1026757820090210

 

 

Statement of DCAA auditor regarding Boeing:

http://hsgac.senate.gov/public/_files/091008Hackler.pdf

 

Boeing Electrical Issues: FAA Relaxes Safety Rules for Boeing

FAA to loosen fuel-tank safety rules, benefiting Boeing’s 787

Link to Original:  http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/cgi-bin/PrintStory.pl?document_id=2008719843&zsection_id=2003750727&slug=lightning08&date=20090208

 

By Dominic Gates

Seattle Times aerospace reporter

The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) has quietly decided to loosen stringent fuel-tank safety regulations written after the 1996 fuel-tank explosion that destroyed flight TWA 800 off the coast of New York state.

The FAA proposes to relax the safeguards for preventing sparks inside the fuel tank during a lightning strike, standards the agency now calls “impractical” and Boeing says its soon-to-fly 787 Dreamliner cannot meet.

Instead of requiring three independent protection measures for any feature that could cause sparking, the revised policy would allow some parts to have just one safeguard.

Boeing has worked closely with the FAA to make the change in time for the 787 Dreamliner, whose airframe built of composite plastic makes lightning protection a special challenge.

But the move has stirred intense opposition inside the local FAA office from the technical specialists — most of them former Boeing engineers — responsible for certifying new airplane designs.

The national union representing about 190 Seattle-based FAA engineers this past Tuesday submitted a formal critique to the agency, calling the new policy “an unjustified step backward in safety.”

In a lightning storm, the critique said, the less stringent rules could leave a commercial airliner “one failure away from catastrophe.”

 

Please follow link above to read entire original story. 

New Administration Appears to Defend Old Administration’s Secrets

Obama administration defending Bush secrets

Justice Department seeks to hold back lawsuits as FOIA rules rewritten

Link to original:  http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/29225492/page/2/

 

updated 1:21 p.m. PT, Mon., Feb. 16, 2009

WASHINGTON – Despite President Barack Obama’s vow to open government more than ever, the Justice Department is defending Bush administration decisions to keep secret many documents about domestic wiretapping, data collection on travelers and U.S. citizens, and interrogation of suspected terrorists.

In half a dozen lawsuits, Justice lawyers have opposed formal motions or spurned out-of-court offers to delay court action until the new administration rewrites Freedom of Information Act guidelines and decides whether the new rules might allow the public to see more. 

 

Follow link above to see the rest of the story.

DCAA Auditor’s Testimony to Congress involving Boeing

 

 Statement of Paul Hackler

Supervisory Auditor

Defense Contract Audit Agency

September 10, 2008

Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member Collins, and members of the Committee:

Thank you for the opportunity to speak to you today about DCAA’s ELC Buy III proposal audit. I am currently a GS-13 Supervisory Auditor in the Defense Contract Audit Agency’s Western Region – Huntington Beach Resident Office responsible for Department of Defense contractor audits. I am a certified public accountant with 25 years of contract audit experience. The 2005 and 2006 ELC proposal audits I supervised were based on a 15-year lot costing scenario designed to allow Boeing to recover approximately $270 million in losses Boeing incurred as a result of its poor business decision to gear up for a robust commercial cell phone satellite market that failed to materialize. In using a 15-year lot costing approach, Boeing was able to average those losses over 15 years, thereby reflecting higher costs for future missions. In restructuring the program to avoid further losses, the government agreed to reimburse Boeing prospectively for launch capability efforts and Boeing was forced to abandon lot costing for that portion of the program. Boeing seized this opportunity to recover past losses by

1

developing proposals that violated numerous procurement regulations. In its proposals, Boeing claimed that the cost per launch would decrease in the future and the government needed to compensate Boeing for higher up-front costs. In actuality, the devastatingly high up-front costs were a direct result of Boeing’s unprofitable decision to gear up for a prolific commercial market that failed to materialize. My office was directed by DCAA upper management to basically play along with this outrageous government bailout!

 

Link to rest of testimony: http://hsgac.senate.gov/public/_files/091008Hackler.pdf

 

Justice Dept. says they’re up to fighting corporate crime

Please, if any of you have any ability to help apply pressure to Justice to clean up their act and start doing their job(s), (which WILL support whistleblowers), of investigating and following through with prosecuting those who are committing fraud and other crimes against the American taxpayers and federal and corporate whistleblowers, please do make use of that ability now.  Thank you!  -GFS

*****************************************************************

Justice Department Putting New Focus on Combating Corporate Fraud

By Carrie Johnson
Washington Post Staff Writer
Thursday, February 12, 2009; A06

Ten years ago, a Justice Department official drafted a set of guidelines for prosecuting corporate crime. Little noticed at the time, the strategy ultimately transformed the way prosecutors pursue corrupt businesses — by exhorting them to hire their own investigators and share the results with the government in exchange for leniency in plea deals.

The memo’s author was Eric H. Holder Jr., who has become the nation’s attorney general at the same time that a financial crisis is putting pressure on prosecutors to hold businesses accountable for fraud.

“I want to see people prosecuted,” Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Patrick J. Leahy (D-Vt.) said yesterday at a hearing that examined the Justice Department’s handling of corporate corruption.

Senators from both parties are advocating that more federal resources be devoted to investigating business fraud, pointing out that such prosecutions plunged after the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks, when more than 2,000 FBI agents were diverted to protect national security.

Justice Department and FBI officials committed anew to weeding out fraud in the marketplace, telling lawmakers that they are looking into more than 530 cases of alleged corporate malfeasance. Among them are 38 investigations of name-brand businesses and financial institutions involved in the financial crisis, including American International Group, Countrywide Financial, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.

FBI Deputy Director John S. Pistole said the bureau is “doing a complete scrub of all resources” to ensure that enough agents are assigned to corporate investigations.

Prompted by the government’s bank bailouts and mounting taxpayer anger, Democrats have introduced two bills in recent weeks to fund the hiring of more agents and prosecutors to combat mortgage fraud and financial wrongdoing.

Any government crackdown on financial malfeasance is likely to tap into corporate resources, given the drain of years-long investigations on tight federal budgets. Many of the Justice Department’s largest ongoing fraud inquiries appear to be months if not years from reaching their targets, lawyers said yesterday. It is far easier for department officials to deputize companies to hire law firms and bear the cost of investigations of themselves. The companies are encouraged to turn over the results to the government, along with evidence against employees complicit in accounting fraud or other schemes.

That strategy has alienated some judges who argue that employers have sacrificed individuals to secure better deals for their companies. It also could rile lawmakers who already have put the Justice Department on notice about protecting employee rights.

While President Obama has decried corporate greed and fraud in recent weeks and during the presidential campaign, it is too early to know how his administration will approach such cases, and Holder has been difficult to read.

“We’re not going to go out on any witch hunts, and yet we’ll drill down and see” what evidence exists of fraud and other crimes, the attorney general told reporters after being sworn in last week.

Holder’s experience on both sides of the courtroom adds to interest in the legal community about how he will tackle the issue.

A decade ago, after Holder, who was deputy attorney general at the time, heard persistent complaints from corporate defense lawyers, he enlisted a group of government lawyers to draft guidelines for prosecutors handling business cases. The Holder memo instructed lawyers to take into account a company’s cooperation with authorities in deciding whether to bring an indictment. The government wields substantial leverage in negotiations, because even the threat of criminal charges can put some companies out of business, as happened to accounting firm Arthur Andersen more than six years ago.

In 2001, Holder left government and moved into a lucrative career in private law practice, conducting investigations for companies and then sharing the results with prosecutors in exchange for leniency.

Holder is not the only senior Justice Department official with experience defending corporate America. David W. Ogden, who is nominated to serve as the department’s second in command, represented media companies, government contractors and technology firms while in private practice. And Lanny A. Breuer, the nominee to lead the department’s criminal division, defended a host of businesses and individuals.

New Justice Department officials are still considering their options for policing corporate fraud. Among the questions is whether to create a national task force to standardize decisions about what criminal charges and prison sentences to pursue in cases against employees at mortgage companies and financial institutions, said Rita M. Glavin, acting chief of the department’s criminal division.

But authorities appear to sense that interest in the issue is peaking as the economy suffers. Ogden told senators at his confirmation hearing last week that on his watch, the department would undertake a “strong, law enforcement response” to crime on Wall Street.

“Serving jail time may well be an appropriate result, and it could be a deterrent in the future,” he said.

Link to original:  http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/02/11/AR2009021103674.html?wpisrc=newsletter&wpisrc=newsletter&wpisrc=newsletter

 

 

 

Key Witnesses to Be Interviewed in Prosecutor Firings

Thursday, February 12, 2009; A06

A federal prosecutor investigating the dismissal of nine U.S. attorneys during the Bush administration has issued a subpoena to former senator Pete V. Domenici (R-N.M.) and is preparing to interview key witnesses, lawyers following the case say.

Nora R. Dannehy, a public corruption prosecutor who helped convict Connecticut’s GOP governor four years ago, was named last year to go to Capitol Hill and the Bush White House, where government officials declined to provide voluntary testimony to the Justice Department inspector general probing the firings.

At the time, Inspector General Glenn A. Fine urged prosecutors to use their subpoena power to compel documents and testimony about the dismissal of New Mexico U.S. Attorney David C. Iglesias, whose pace on criminal investigations involving Democrats in the state drew complaints from Domenici and then-Rep. Heather A. Wilson (R-N.M.).

The Dannehy investigation appears to be intensifying with the disclosure that she will interview former White House political affairs deputy J. Scott Jennings as early as today, lawyers involved in the case said. Jennings worked alongside Karl Rove, a top aide to President George W. Bush.

Jennings will “cooperate to the best of his ability” and is not a target in the case, lawyer Mark R. Paoletta said yesterday.

Through lawyer Robert D. Luskin, Rove also has said he will cooperate with Dannehy’s investigation. K. Lee Blalack, an attorney for Domenici, declined to comment.

In recent weeks, Dannehy has requested documents through a grand jury operating out of the federal courthouse in Washington. When she was selected by then-Attorney General Michael B. Mukasey last year, she also was asked to examine public statements by former Justice Department officials about their knowledge of the firings.

n      Carrie Johnson

n      Link to original:  http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/02/11/AR2009021103673_pf.html

 

Halliburton, KBR Settle Bribery Allegations

By Zachary A. Goldfarb
Washington Post Staff Writer
Thursday, February 12, 2009; D01

Halliburton and Kellogg Brown & Root have agreed to pay $579 million in fines related to allegations of foreign bribery, the biggest fines ever paid by U.S. companies in a foreign corruption case, federal authorities and the companies said yesterday.

The Securities and Exchange Commission and Department of Justice alleged that Houston-based Halliburton and KBR were part of a joint venture that spent $182 million to bribe Nigerian government officials over a 10-year period to win more than $6 billion in construction contracts.

Halliburton, which owned KBR during the time of the alleged actions and spun it off in April 2007, will be responsible for paying all but $20 million of the penalty.

KBR, one of the top U.S. government contractors, pleaded guilty to violating the federal law banning companies from paying bribes to get business in foreign countries. Halliburton did not admit or deny wrongdoing.

Federal authorities alleged that the companies used agents in Tokyo and Gibraltar to funnel money to Nigerian officials, who gave the companies contracts to build liquefied natural gas facilities on Bonny Island, on the Western African country’s coast.

The companies’ efforts to obtain the contracts, alleged in court documents, sound like scenes from a James Bond movie.

In June 2002, KBR’s then-chairman, Albert “Jack” Stanley, authorized a $23 million payment to a consultant in Gibraltar if a joint venture in which KBR participated won a contract to build natural gas facilities. Stanley intended that the fee would be used in part to pay bribes to Nigerian officials, with whom he had arranged for the bribes, according to the documents. The payment would wired to Swiss and Monaco bank accounts.

Two months later, a subcontractor hired by the consultant allegedly visited an official of the Nigerian National Petroleum Corp. in Abuja, Nigeria’s capital, with a pilot’s suitcase containing $1 million in $100 bills. In April 2003, the subcontractor drove $500,000 in Nigerian currency to an NNCP official. The car, filled with the cash, was left in a hotel parking lot until the NNCP official unloaded it, according to the documents.

The joint venture won the contract — to build a structure to pipe raw natural gas from wellheads, convert it to liquefied natural gas and deliver it to tankers.

Last year, Stanley pleaded guilty to conspiring to violate federal anti-bribery laws. He also settled with the SEC. His lawyer, Larry Veselka, yesterday said Stanley is cooperating with authorities and has no further comment. An official from the Nigerian embassy could not be reached for comment.

Under its agreement with the Justice Department, KBR agreed to retain an independent compliance monitor for three years to ensure the company follows anti-bribery regulations. The investigations began in 2003.

“Today’s guilty plea by KBR ends one chapter in the department’s long-running investigation of corruption in the award of $6 billion in construction contracts in Nigeria. This bribery scheme involved both senior foreign government officials and KBR corporate executives who took actions to insulate themselves from the reach of U.S. law enforcement,” said Rita M. Glavin, acting assistant attorney general.

The SEC’s complaint charged that KBR violated the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act and said that KBR and Halliburton committed violations related to maintaining their books, records and internal compliance systems.

The SEC has been bringing an increasing number of foreign corruption cases. It settled its largest case ever late last year, against the German corporation Siemens, which agreed to pay $800 million in fines in the United States and a similar amount to German authorities.

“Multinational companies should take heed that attempting to conceal bribes by funneling them through intermediaries or offshore entities will not be successful,” said Antonia Chion, associate director of the SEC’s division of enforcement.

KBR chief executive William Utt said yesterday he was pleased “to finally conclude this very difficult but necessary settlement.” He said it closes a “regrettable and unfortunate chapter in KBR’s rich and storied history. KBR has fully cooperated with the U.S. government through the extensive investigations over the last five years.”

Staff writer Dana Hedgpeth contributed to this report.

 

Link to original:  http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/02/11/AR2009021103400.html?wpisrc=newsletter&wpisrc=newsletter&wpisrc=newsletter

Review: Boeing Contract Problems of the Past

February 24, 2004

Pentagon cancels £20bn Boeing contract

By Russell Hotten

 

Link to Original:  http://business.timesonline.co.uk/tol/business/article1028330.ece

 

THE Pentagon dealt another blow to Boeing last night with the cancellation of its plans to buy 600 Comanche helicopters, a contract worth about $38 billion (£20 billion) to the US defence industry.

Boeing, under investigation by the Pentagon over contract violations, had teamed with United Technologies for the contract, originally for 1,200 of the reconnaissance helicopters. Shares in both companies fell on the news.

The Comanche programme was plagued by technical problems and it is thought that Donald Rumsfeld, the US Defence Secretary, believes that unmanned aircraft could perform the same role.

It is thought that about $8 billion had already been spent on developing the helicopter and the cancellation is one of the most costly for the Defence Department.

The US Government may have to pay termination fees of between $2 million and $4 million, it was estimated last night.

Boeing’s defence division has been hit by a series of problems, including allegations of industrial espionage and violations over the appointment of a former Pentagon official.

Last year the Pentagon suspended a $17 billion contract for mid-air refuelling tankers pending an investigation and Boeing has been forced to begin redundancies because of the delays.

Eric Miller, at Project for Government Oversight, a government watchdog group, said that ending the Comanche programme, started under President Clinton, was a good idea. “It’s just been such a disaster, the whole programme,” Mr Miller said.

It has been restructured at least five times since its inception, he added.

Analysts had estimated that Comanche would be worth about $20 billion to Boeing. The company will be hoping that the cancellation will mean further funding for its Apache attack helicopter.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Boeing: Did the Air Force “owe” them the contract?

Posted by Monica Guzman at February 29, 2008 3:00 p.m.
Categories: Corrections, Cultural comment, Just curious …

 

Link to original:  http://blog.seattlepi.nwsource.com/thebigblog/archives/133075.asp

News that the U.S. Air Force has picked a team from Northrop Grumman Corp. and Airbus parent EADS over our very own Boeing Co. for what could be a $40 billion tanker deal has many readers crying foul. They’re crushed that Boeing lost — of course. But some are even more enraged that a team they consider foreign won.

Boeing offered the KC-767 Advanced Tanker in the U.S. Air Force’s KC-X competition — and lost. Artist rendition by Chuck Schroeder. MSF07-1700-1 2/12/2007 (The Boeing Company)

“This is a joke. American security should be solely in the hands of American contractors,” one reader wrote. “Why is France even allowed to bid on major national defense procurement contracts?” asked another.

But the winning team isn’t as “foreign” as some might think. Nor is our beloved Boeing all red, white and blue.

Globalized trade has long been part of the American economic landscape. Many media outlets already are pointing out that China is one of Boeing’s largest foreign parts suppliers. And while the European Aeronautic Defense and Space Co., the parent of Airbus, is based in France, it’s been supplying NATO — our allies — for years. The other half of that team, Northrup Grumman Corp., is based in Los Angeles. As for where the Northrop-EADS tanker will be assembled, it’ll be on this side of the pond, in Mobile, Ala.

The terms “foreign” and “domestic” couldn’t be more blurred.

So the question is this: Is it helpful or productive in such a border-less world to view trade contracts through such a stark dichotomy? Even more critical — can it be considered fair or wise to think the Air Force owes Boeing this contract merely because they share the same national border?

Update, March 3, 2008: This post has been changed since it was first published to clarify China is one of Boeing’s largest supplier, not its largest supplier.

 

 

Business Services Industry

Boeing’s Failure to Track Foreign Workers Hurts Programs, Risks Trade Violations, says SPEEA

Business Wire ,  August 18, 2008

• Email
• Print

SEATTLE — While building its global supplier network, The Boeing Company is putting delivery schedules and programs at risk by failing to track the number and locations of foreign workers at its U.S. facilities, according to the union representing 21,500 engineers and technical workers at the aerospace giant.

The Society of Professional Engineering Employees in Aerospace (SPEEA), IFPTE Local 2001, is uncovering a growing number of mistakes by the inexperienced foreign contractors who work directly for Boeing or a global partner. Union officials said problems with contractors contribute to delays with the 787 and other commercial and defense programs. Union efforts to address the issue with Boeing and track contract labor have been rejected.

Related Results

• Cloud Computing Also Hit by IT-Spending Cutbacks
• Short Term Energy Monitoring: A Road To Long Term Energy Savings?
• NCS-Omnicare: The New Landscape For M&A
• Ohio’s Health House Provides Asthma-Free Indoor Living
• Agistix’s On-Demand Solution Gives Maxim Centralized Logistics Control

“We continue to uncover a pattern of abuse of foreign contract labor at Boeing facilities,” said Ray Goforth, SPEEA executive director. “This is bringing the mistake of outsourcing, which continues to delay the 787, right into Boeing offices and factories.”

In April, SPEEA asked the aerospace and defense giant for information on the process used to renew foreign worker visas and the treatment of the workers while at Boeing.

“Boeing is refusing to tell us how many foreign contractors are being brought here and what programs they are working on,” Goforth said.

Failing to track foreign contractors, particularly at defense contractors like Boeing, puts the company at risk for further violations of International Traffic in Arms (ITAR) rules. In recent years the Department of State assessed Boeing a $15 million fine and Boeing/Hughes a $32 million fine for exporting unauthorized defense articles and services to foreign employees. Each is among the largest ITAR fines in history.

To build and maintain the company’s global supplier network, Boeing brings foreign workers to the U.S. to learn engineering, technical and manufacturing jobs from existing career workers. Russian workers learn skills and take engineering work back to the Moscow Design Center where more than 1,000 engineers work on Boeing products. Similar work transfers bring contract workers from India’s TATA Group and China where Boeing plans to expand production facilities.

Earlier this year SPEEA learned that 300 contractors from Russia were working at Boeing under the B1 (business) visa program. The B1 visa is typically reserved for visitors on business trips. All of the foreign contractors were doing jobs previously performed by U.S. workers.

“Boeing is undermining its own products by arming these workers with high-tech knowledge and skills and then sending them home with work that should be performed by U.S. workers,” Goforth said. “Japan, China and Russia all have large scale efforts to enter the commercial airplane business with skills they learned from Boeing.”

In October, SPEEA begins main table negotiations with Boeing for 21,500 employees in Washington, Kansas, Oregon, Utah and California. A local of the International Federation of Professional and Technical Engineers (IFPTE), SPEEA represents 24,700 aerospace professionals at Boeing, Spirit AeroSystems in Wichita, KS, Triumph Composite Systems, Inc. in Spokane, Wash., and at BAE Systems, Inc. in Irving, Texas.

 

Link to Original:  http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0EIN/is_2008_August_18/ai_n28009887

 

 

 

 

24 July 2003 US military gives $1 bln in Boeing work to Lockheed By Andrea Shalal-Esa

WASHINGTON, July 24 (Reuters) – The U.S. Air Force on Thursday shifted rocket launch contracts worth about $1 billion from No. 2 U.S. defense contractor Boeing Co.  to its rival Lockheed Martin Corp. for acquiring about 25,000 Lockheed documents during a heated 1998 contract competition. The Air Force stopped short of formally debarring Boeing from government contracts, but said three business units of Boeing Integrated Defense Systems and three of its former employees would be suspended indefinitely from future work until corrective action was taken. “Boeing has committed serious and substantial violations of federal law,” Air Force Undersecretary Peter Teets told reporters. He said he had never seen a case involving procurement violations of such magnitude. “As a matter of policy, we do not tolerate breaches of procurement integrity, and we hold industry accountable for the actions of their employees,” Teets told reporters. He said the Air Force inquiry found Boeing possessed an “extraordinary” 25,000 pages of Lockheed proprietary material at the time of the 1998 EELV contract award, in which Boeing won the lion’s share of a deal worth nearly $2 billion. Boeing Chairman Phil Condit said in a statement, “We are extremely disappointed by the circumstances that prompted our customer’s action, but we understand the U.S. Air Force’s position that unethical behavior will not be tolerated.” The documents gave Boeing “great insight” into top U.S. defense contractor Lockheed’s costs and pricing, Teets said. Moreover, Boeing was “not forthcoming” with the Air Force about the amount of Lockheed data it held and took nearly four years to return them all. As a result of the findings, the Air Force decided to revoke seven contracts of 19 contracts awarded to Boeing under the Evolved Expendable Launch Vehicle (EELV) program in 1998. The Air Force also disqualified Boeing from a second set of three launches that would now go to Lockheed and said Boeing had lost its exclusive rights to carry out important West Coast launches of military satellites, Teets said. He said Lockheed Martin would now build its own launch facilities at Vandenberg Air Force Base in California to carry out the next three EELV contracts. That is a critical move, since polar orbiting military satellites that can spy on China and other areas of interest can only be launched from the West Coast, analysts said. Teets said Boeing could be reinstated as an approved contractor within 60 to 90 days, in time for the company to bid for 15 to 20 additional launches to be awarded late this year. “It is my sincere hope that the Boeing Company moves quickly to take meaningful corrective actions so that this suspension can be lifted and they may be allowed to compete in future launch competitions,” he said. He said he spoke with Boeing’s Condit on Wednesday, although the company was formally notified of the Air Force’s specific actions only on Thursday. “I am anxious to see their strong response to this suspension, and it could involve some changing of personnel,” he said, adding that the Air Force had not formally requested any specific personnel changes. Boeing said it would ask all 78,000 workers in the affected division to attend four hours of briefings on the case, which began in 1997 when Boeing hired a former Lockheed engineer, who brought thousands of documents with him to his new job. Boeing fired the man and his supervisor in 1999, and a third official involved has since left the company. A spokesman for Lockheed Martin, which has filed a civil lawsuit against Boeing in the case, said it was ready to take on the new work. “We can handle the additional launches. The increased volume will not pose any problems,” Tom Jurkowsky said. Teets said the Air Force could seek a waiver from the suspension based on “compelling need” if it decided it urgently needed to use Boeing services to get a satellite into space. Teets said he worked at Lockheed until October or November 1999, but was unaware of this case, which first came to light in June 1999. (Additional reporting by Charles Aldinger, Will Dunham and Chelsea Emery)

24 July 2003 Watchdog Calls for More Action After Air Force Suspends Boeing from Government Contracts PRNewswire

Questions still linger about company’s other deals,’ says Schatz WASHINGTON – Citizens Against Government Waste (CAGW) commended, with reservation, the announcement today by the Air Force suspending 3 Boeing rocket units from contracts for violations relating to a bidding competition for the Evolved Expendable Launch Vehicle (EELV) Program. Boeing could be reinstated within 60-90 days or sooner if there is a “compelling national need.”  The Air Force says that it expects the units will be reinstated without any problems. “The suspension will hopefully show that corporate espionage does not pay,” CAGW President Tom Schatz said.  “The government should only award contracts to reputable, law-abiding companies.  Companies, such as Boeing, that have not shown exemplary behavior can not be trusted with taxpayer dollars.” The controversy surrounds a contract for the EELV program, originally won by Boeing, worth $1.38 billion.  It called for Boeing to build 19 of the 28 missiles needed to launch spy satellites and other communications instruments involved in the program, while its competitor, Lockheed Martin, built the other 9.  It is now alleged that Boeing won this contract unfairly.  The company has been accused of possessing secret Lockheed documents concerning the rocket project on which both companies were working.  Engineer Kenneth Branch, the manager of Lockheed’s rocket team, brought the documents with him when he came to McDonnell Douglas in June 1996 for a job interview.  Boeing, who had since purchased McDonnell Douglas, hired Branch in January of 1997. After Boeing won the contract, Branch and his supervisor were fired following an internal investigation that discovered the illegal papers. “While this is a step in the right direction, it is merely a slap on the wrist for a company that has had a reputation for such behavior in the past,” Schatz continued.  “More importantly, today’s suspension shows that Congress needs to scrutinize the current tanker lease deal between the Air Force and Boeing that is nothing more than a boondoggle bailout for Boeing at the expense of taxpayers.” In the fiscal 2002 Defense Appropriations Bill, Boeing was granted the right to lease 100 767 fuel tankers to the Air Force at a cost of $21 billion. The Air Force claims that efficiency will rise by “replacing” the older KC-135 tankers. Critics, including the General Accounting Office, assert that it is much more economical to upgrade these old tankers, at a cost of only $3.2 billion, a would-be savings of $17.8 billion for taxpayers.  The Air Force released new data on Monday indicating that the deal will cost an additional $6.8 billion in training and maintenance costs.  Congress is required to approve the deal and is currently holding hearings. “Congress needs to do what is best for the military and the taxpayers and put an end to this sweetheart deal,” Schatz concluded.  “It is an enormous risk for the government to be dealing with a company with such questionable ethics.” Citizens Against Government Waste is a nonpartisan, nonprofit organization dedicated to eliminating waste, fraud, mismanagement and abuse in government.

 

 

Link to original:  http://cndyorks.gn.apc.org/yspace/articles/boeingsuspended.htm