WT Business Beat

By Nick Wakeman

Blog archive
Nick Wakeman

Air Force and NetCents: Gutless or incompetent?

UPDATED: This blog has been updated to include the correct number of bid protests filed. Thanks to a reader who pointed out the mistake. The correct number is 11.

I wore my reporter's hat yesterday as I worked on the Air Force NetCents II story.

First, it was about protests being filed and then it quickly morphed into the Air Force deciding to rethink its award decisions.

I wrote those stories as objectively as I could. Pretty much just the facts. Unfortunately, the Air Force isn’t very forthcoming with me on why it pulled back just weeks after making the awards. The story at this stage doesn’t offer as much insight as I’d like.

But today as I mull the story over in my head, I’m putting on my other hat: my judgmental, soapbox hat. My wife loves that hat. It always makes me a little cranky.

In my mind there are two possible scenarios that led to the Air Force’s decision, both of which make the service look bad.

Scenario 1: The Air Force is gutless and caved to the pressure of having to defend its award decision when 11 companies filed bid protests.

Scenario 2: The Air Force is incompetent because its award decision couldn’t survive the scrutiny of 11 bid protests.

So now the Air Force is reopening discussions with the bidders and allowing them to submit another round of final proposal revisions.

Now, I’m not a contract or acquisition specialist, but my understanding is that the 11 losing bidders went through a debriefing where the Air Force explained why they lost and why the nine winners won. Based on that debrief, the losing bidders filed their protests and now get a second chance. The original winners are also thrown back into the competitive mix.

But doesn’t that give the protestors an advantage over the winners because they know why they lost and why the winners won?

And here is the cranky side of my soapbox hat:

This is a $6.9 billion contract that has had some delays already and is part of a $22 billion program for goods and services. It’s the Air Force’s biggest and most important IT contract and is a follow-on to the very successful NetCents I.

You’d think that the Air Force would have made sure the reasoning behind its award decisions was bullet proof. Or at least bullet proof enough to go through the GAO review process. Shouldn’t you make awards on a contract this big and this important with the confidence that you can withstand a protest?

Protests have become so commonplace that they seem to be part of company growth strategies. A case like this makes me think that a smart company should protest any losing bid because you’ll automatically get an extra shot.

I don’t agree with some commenters who called the protesters cry babies. No, sir, they aren’t. They are doing what’s necessary to hang onto business.

So if that’s not cranky enough for you, I’ll lay something else out there.

Should the Air Force fire whoever was in charge of making the bid decisions or ran the evaluation team? Shouldn’t someone be held accountable for fouling up a $6.9 billion contract?

What does this mean for the rest of the NetCents II program? More protests and more delays, I guess.

Maybe I’m being too judgmental without knowing all the facts. But the facts that I do know sure don’t look good for the Air Force.

Posted by Nick Wakeman on May 02, 2012 at 9:52 AM

Reader Comments

Mon, Aug 5, 2013

Nick: Please don't give up on calling out the USAF for the terrible strategy and mis-management of the behemoth contract. The NETOPS contract has been in SOurce Selection for FOUR YEARS now and there is no certain award schedule. Gross incompetence, yet the AQ General Officer gets a second star. The previous BES General Officer got his second star -- despite having a billion dollar+ program terminated for cause. No program manager or executive has been held accountable for these delays and cost to industry and the safety of our war-fighters. It's disgraceful - call this as you see it!

Thu, Jul 12, 2012 A 2-Time Bidder

I was a consultant for two businesses bidding Netcents II: one large contractor and one small business. I can certify that a previous comment regarding "loose technical requirements with no accountability" is 100% accurate. This bid was the biggest guessing game I've played in over 20 years of B&P. It has made me rethink my career--I probably will stick with tech solutions and stay the hell away from B&P.

Sun, May 13, 2012 Bob G.

Mr. Wakeman, Why launch such an attack without knowing all the facts? You claim the AF could only be "gutless" or "incompetent" in the scenarios put forward. However, you conclude by saying "maybe I am being too judgmental without knowing all the facts." You may or may not know that protests have been rising during these tight budgetary times. Even with Contracting Officers following all the rules/due diligence, companies will still protest to fight for a piece of the DoD pie. Did you ever consider this fact? President Obama wants the Federal Govt to be more transparent, open and accountable. Perhaps, the AF considered the number of protests and wanted to ensure nothing was missed. By re-opening the discussions, the AF may be more open and transparent with the bidders. Shouldn't they do this on their largest IT contract? Again, I doubt you considered this perspective in your hastily crafted blog. I challenge you to gather the facts and re-visit this topic. It's easy to fire insults from the bleachers and run away.

Mon, May 7, 2012 mcd

Open spec request created an issue from the get-go. It is true some winning primes bid below manufacturer cost, which opens another big issue in fairness.

Sun, May 6, 2012 Gonzo Uber Alles

The Air Force has the world's greatest war fighters, but also many of the world's most incompetent and negligent acquisition people. Its large programs are a trail of tears that will kill people and compromise national security. The saddest is the F22, which the AF will defend to the death, which seems to be gassing its pilots with poisons. Yet Lockmart still gets paid and garners future awards. All procurement authority should be removed from the AF

Show All Comments

Please post your comments here. Comments are moderated, so they may not appear immediately after submitting. We will not post comments that we consider abusive or off-topic.

Please type the letters/numbers you see above.

WT Daily

Sign up for our newsletter.

Terms and Privacy Policy consent

I agree to this site's Privacy Policy.