Search Results
7/12/2025, 5:28:06 PM
>>63973732
It was going on for 10 plus years, all due to Beechcraft being retarded. The A-29 won back in like 2011 after it won the Afghan contract
>In 2011 the House Armed Services Committee moved to block funding for the program until the requirements and acquisition were validated.[12]
>In November 2011 it was revealed that the Beechcraft AT-6B had been excluded from the competition by the USAF, leaving the Embraer A-29 the probable winner, with a contract expected to be awarded in December 2011.[13] According to GAO: “the Air Force concluded that HBDC [Hawker Beechcraft Defense Company] had not adequately corrected deficiencies in its proposal. In this regard, the agency concluded that multiple deficiencies and significant weaknesses found in HBDC’s proposal make it technically unacceptable and results in unacceptable mission capability risk”. Hawker Beechcraft's protest against its exclusion was dismissed.[14]
>On December 30, 2011, the USAF announced that the A-29 had been awarded the contract.[15] But the contract award was disputed and a stop-work was issued the following January.[16] All motions will be due to U.S. Court of Federal Claim by March 6, 2012.[17]
>A re-awarding of the contract was expected in January 2013,[18] but was delayed a few months.[19] The A-29 was reawarded the contract on February 27, 2013.[20][21] And Beechcraft again challenged the contract.[22] But the USAF ordered that the construction start anyway.[23] Beechcraft's allies in the Kansas Republican congressional delegation then called for the work to be stopped,[24] while Embraer's Floridan congressional allies praised the USAF's move.[25] The USAF has instructed for work to continue unless a federal court orders otherwise.[26] The United States Court of Federal Claims upheld the USAF's decision to proceed with the contract work.[27]
It was going on for 10 plus years, all due to Beechcraft being retarded. The A-29 won back in like 2011 after it won the Afghan contract
>In 2011 the House Armed Services Committee moved to block funding for the program until the requirements and acquisition were validated.[12]
>In November 2011 it was revealed that the Beechcraft AT-6B had been excluded from the competition by the USAF, leaving the Embraer A-29 the probable winner, with a contract expected to be awarded in December 2011.[13] According to GAO: “the Air Force concluded that HBDC [Hawker Beechcraft Defense Company] had not adequately corrected deficiencies in its proposal. In this regard, the agency concluded that multiple deficiencies and significant weaknesses found in HBDC’s proposal make it technically unacceptable and results in unacceptable mission capability risk”. Hawker Beechcraft's protest against its exclusion was dismissed.[14]
>On December 30, 2011, the USAF announced that the A-29 had been awarded the contract.[15] But the contract award was disputed and a stop-work was issued the following January.[16] All motions will be due to U.S. Court of Federal Claim by March 6, 2012.[17]
>A re-awarding of the contract was expected in January 2013,[18] but was delayed a few months.[19] The A-29 was reawarded the contract on February 27, 2013.[20][21] And Beechcraft again challenged the contract.[22] But the USAF ordered that the construction start anyway.[23] Beechcraft's allies in the Kansas Republican congressional delegation then called for the work to be stopped,[24] while Embraer's Floridan congressional allies praised the USAF's move.[25] The USAF has instructed for work to continue unless a federal court orders otherwise.[26] The United States Court of Federal Claims upheld the USAF's decision to proceed with the contract work.[27]
Page 1