« Guest Post: Why Should U.S. Taxpayers Subsidize the Sale of the F-35? | Main | Details on the March DCAA Meeting With House Defense Staffers »

Apr 11, 2011



I've never heard the GAO have anything negative to say about the "consolidation" of military contractors, nor have they ever had anything bad to say about "cost plus award fee" contracting. Both have served to eliminate any significant competiton from military contracting. The only place they seem to like competition is in proposals, which are nothing but a bundled stack of lies. So, yes, they are for competition when it comes to proving who is the best liar. Yeah, they've got your back.


DFENS, what evidence do you have that the GAO has long been known to hate competition?
FORMULA, Schwellenbach cites the GAO as claiming that competition could, if certain assumptions are met, generate some savings, but that GAO is only confident that 10-14 percent savings are achievable. That's if certain assumptions are met. Who are you putting your faith in?


It sounds to me like POGO is against the alternate engine. You could have stated even with the 10-14% and the 75B in adjusted 2010 dollars the alternate engine can still produce a savings to the taxpayer of 7.5 to 10.5B over 20years.....and thats the "conservative" savings, it would probably be more than that. It would be nice for you to run your article again and include the positive spin even though it may be lower than GE advertised.


In retrospect, it is unfortunate for the US taxpayer that the USAF did not fund both Boeing and Lockheed to develop their entire aircraft all the way to production competitively. There would have been at least some incentive for both companies to reduce costs and schedule slides. The GAO has long been known to hate competition between contractors for fear that it might reduce our perceived need for thier bloated, leaching bureacracy.

The comments to this entry are closed.