Westlands on the Brink of Blowing It... Again.
Thread Starter
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Nigit
Posts: 435
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Westlands on the Brink of Losing Presidential Contract
The Times Online
So it seems that the MoD aren't the only ones who keep moving the goalposts.
... but then the Dod DID re-run the tanker competition so Boeing could win it this time round.
Maybe the doubling in prices gave the DoD a convenient excuse.
So it seems that the MoD aren't the only ones who keep moving the goalposts.
... but then the Dod DID re-run the tanker competition so Boeing could win it this time round.
Maybe the doubling in prices gave the DoD a convenient excuse.
Last edited by ProfessionalStudent; 17th Feb 2009 at 20:31. Reason: trying to be nicer to Westlands...
Sorry, but I can’t reconcile any of your post with what the Times article says.
Westland say the spec has changed, the US say it hasn’t. Given the moving feast that passes for our own “requirements”, causing the same problems on UK contracts over many years, I’m with Westland until proven otherwise.
Westland say the spec has changed, the US say it hasn’t. Given the moving feast that passes for our own “requirements”, causing the same problems on UK contracts over many years, I’m with Westland until proven otherwise.
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: UK
Posts: 785
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I too would tend to be on Westlands side (God, did I actually say that??).
Having had a bit of visibility into the project, the yanks aint exactly clear on what they want or what they choose to tell AW. DoD specify they want a 'box' in such and such a place, AW ask 'whats the box for and can we have the spec so we can integrate it'. DoD refuse and tell AW 'its secret'. AW have problems trying to build an aircraft where they haven't got a clue what half the bits are for.
Serves 'em right.
Having had a bit of visibility into the project, the yanks aint exactly clear on what they want or what they choose to tell AW. DoD specify they want a 'box' in such and such a place, AW ask 'whats the box for and can we have the spec so we can integrate it'. DoD refuse and tell AW 'its secret'. AW have problems trying to build an aircraft where they haven't got a clue what half the bits are for.
Serves 'em right.
Well, now.
This analysis identifies the cause of much of the cost over-runs to the Customer's changing requirements, rather than being down to the Contractor (LM / A-W).
So does this one (in effect).
But hey, Westland-bashing is a PPRuNe staple, so what do the New York Times or the US Navy know?
This analysis identifies the cause of much of the cost over-runs to the Customer's changing requirements, rather than being down to the Contractor (LM / A-W).
Originally Posted by NYT
“What you had here was a collision between the urgency of the White House and the rules of the Navy’s acquisition,” said Loren B. Thompson, the head of the Lexington Institute, a research organization that provides advice to Lockheed and other defense contractors. “The White House wanted to field a helicopter much faster, and the Navy wanted to make sure it met all of the rules for a safe helicopter.“It doesn’t sound irreconcilable,” he continued, “but in the end, it caused a lot of cost growth.”
Originally Posted by Reuters
The key factors driving the program's spiraling cost and schedule are "required technical upgrades to system components and the design, test, and qualification time it will take to field this aircraft," [Navy spokesman Lt.] Doss said in a statement.
Thread Starter
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Nigit
Posts: 435
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Okay, so the 1st bit is a little harsh and I retract my comment sbout AW , but it does seem convenient for the US to analyse the costs and see if they can "re-broke" the deal.
I suppose I was more frustrated to see a British company being seen off by the US. I was more than a little surprised when AW won the contract (and a bit proud too) - it's just a shame that the project seems destined to fail. I don't think it matters what the reason for failure is, it's still a failure.
I suppose I was more frustrated to see a British company being seen off by the US. I was more than a little surprised when AW won the contract (and a bit proud too) - it's just a shame that the project seems destined to fail. I don't think it matters what the reason for failure is, it's still a failure.
WG-13,
I shouldn't worry about AW. If the VHX contract is anything as tight as the original Canadian Merlin purchase they'll do very well out of liquidated damages clauses, plus the US have paid the NRE for the improved Xmsns, blades and engines that the Merlin has always needed. AW will lose a bit of prestige, however they will benefit from an improved product for future export competitions and the MoD will benefit from a de-risked future growth path.
So, a little bit of short term pain (spun to shift most of the blame to Credit crunch protectionism / DoD Requirements creep / LockMart Project Management) then, hey presto, a new marketing campaign extolling the virtues of the "new" Merlin.
I shouldn't worry about AW. If the VHX contract is anything as tight as the original Canadian Merlin purchase they'll do very well out of liquidated damages clauses, plus the US have paid the NRE for the improved Xmsns, blades and engines that the Merlin has always needed. AW will lose a bit of prestige, however they will benefit from an improved product for future export competitions and the MoD will benefit from a de-risked future growth path.
So, a little bit of short term pain (spun to shift most of the blame to Credit crunch protectionism / DoD Requirements creep / LockMart Project Management) then, hey presto, a new marketing campaign extolling the virtues of the "new" Merlin.
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: UK
Posts: 74
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Is this just a level of beaurocracy that is implemented in such cases and if so will it sail through given the time and money already spent?
I for one would like to see the project continue and hope one day to see the aircraft in use.
I for one would like to see the project continue and hope one day to see the aircraft in use.
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Somerset
Posts: 282
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
it's an automatic review
Move along, nothing to see here.
The Nunn-McCurdy law in the US mandates a review of any procurement project and a freeze on investment, if the original budget is predicted to be exceeded by over 50% (regardless of reason). The review then has to justify if the need still is worth the money, this has happened to several programmes for example
C5M projct was reviewed and not cancelled
ARH70 was (I Think twice) reviewed and then cancelled
VH71 is just another.
The reason for the increase in costs is dealt with in posts 3 and 4, remember the contract is with LM not AWH.
DM
The Nunn-McCurdy law in the US mandates a review of any procurement project and a freeze on investment, if the original budget is predicted to be exceeded by over 50% (regardless of reason). The review then has to justify if the need still is worth the money, this has happened to several programmes for example
C5M projct was reviewed and not cancelled
ARH70 was (I Think twice) reviewed and then cancelled
VH71 is just another.
The reason for the increase in costs is dealt with in posts 3 and 4, remember the contract is with LM not AWH.
DM
AFAIK, this is entirely the result of the original program manager not being able to resist the White House staff and the NSA, the consequence being runaway requirements creep.
