TGC 47-8-Feature Comment.pmd

This material reprinted from THE GOVERNMENT CONTRACTOR appears here with the permission of the publisher,Thomson/West. Further use without the permission of West is prohibited.THE GOVERNMENT®CONTRACTORInformation and Analysis on Legal Aspects of ProcurementVol. 47, No. 8 February 23, 2005 tition—giving rise to this defective pricing case; (2)the ASBCA’s initial decision sustaining the contractor’sappeal; and (3) the reconsideration decision rejectingFocusthe Air Force’s conclusory, “unpersuasive” assertionsof reliance upon the cost data at issue.The Great Engine War—In the 1980s, the Air¶ 86Force decided to hold a competition between Pratt &Whitney (Pratt) and General Electric (GE) for the $10FEATURE COMMENT: Competitionbillion market for F15 and F16 fighter jet enginesTrumps Defective Pricing Claim In Theneeded for the six-year period spanning 1985-90. AirGreat Engine WarForce Secretary Verne Orr told Congress in 1983 that“we are going to have competition” with “two fineUnited Technologies Corp., ASBCA Nos. 51410,manufacturers who are going to be at each other’s53089, 53349, 04-1 BCA ¶ 32,556, modified onthroats.” Department of Defense Appropriations forrecon., 2005 WL 147601 (Jan. 21, 2005)1984: Hearings Before the House Subcomm. on De-In a $299 million claim characterized by a Gov- fense Appropriations, 98th Cong., 1st Sess. (1999). Al-ernment pleading as “Garden Variety” defective though officially called the Fighter Engine Competi-pricing, ...