From Aviation Week. post with the diclaimers.
Raytheon Lost JCA Over Aircraft Performance Concerns
Oct 10, 2007
Jefferson Morris/Aerospace Daily & Defense Report
The U.S. Army picked the C-27J for the Joint Cargo Aircraft (JCA) program, despite its higher cost, because of concerns about the C-295's ability to meet certain performance requirements, according to the Government Accountability Office's (GAO) decision rejecting Raytheon's bid protest.
Raytheon had the cheaper proposal, at $1.77 billion, versus L-3's $2.04 billion bid. But despite the 15 percent cost difference, "based on the high performance risk of the C-295's air vehicle, the cost trade-off is justified," the Army source selection authority (SSA) told GAO.
Raytheon teamed with EADS North America to offer the C-295 for JCA. The C-27J team consists of L-3 Communications, Alenia North America and Boeing. GAO rejected Raytheon's protest of the award last month (DAILY, Sept. 28).
The Army selection authority was worried about the C-295's ability to meet the "threshold" minimum service ceiling requirement to fly at 25,000 feet pressure altitude while carrying a crew of four, a 12,000-pound payload and enough fuel for a 1,200-nautical mile mission plus 45 minutes reserve.
The C-295, which is powered by a Pratt & Whitney engine, could only meet that and certain other JCA requirements through the use of a "new operational mode," which made the Army nervous. Details of the new operational mode were withheld by GAO.
The service "sought responses to a variety of questions regarding Raytheon's 'new operational mode,' including a query as to whether it was certified by FAA. Raytheon replied that it wasn't, although a certification program was under way.
The C-295 was able to demonstrate the required performance during the program's Early User Survey (EUS), but only with caveats, the details of which were withheld by GAO.
The JCA teams submitted final proposals in January, and both bids received the same overall adjectival ratings on technical, logistics, management/production, and past performance. But Raytheon's proposal was rated "marginal" in terms of the aircraft, and "high risk" in terms of aircraft performance.
The SSA decided that the C-27J had a "superior military operational envelope," and "provides superior military utility," GAO said. Although both proposals were evaluated as being capable of meeting the same basic performance requirements, L-3's proposed aircraft demonstrated an ability to exceed many of them by significant margins, the SSA told GAO.
Further, the SSA noted that Raytheon's "predicted performance margin may be easily eroded for cruise airspeed, self deployment and service ceiling."
In its bid protest, Raytheon challenged its "marginal" air vehicle rating, as well as the "high risk" performance rating, arguing that the assessments were unreasonable or based on unstated evaluation criteria.
The company argued that the service ceiling threshold requirement shouldn't have been considered, because none of the mission profiles included in the request for proposals specified all three of the service ceiling requirements - altitude, payload and endurance. GAO disagreed.