Darlene Druyun

From Citizendium
Jump to: navigation, search
This article is developing and not approved.
Main Article
Discussion
Related Articles  [?]
Bibliography  [?]
External Links  [?]
Citable Version  [?]
 
This editable Main Article is under development and subject to a disclaimer.

Darlene Druyun served, from 1993 to 2002, principal deputy assistant secretary of the U.S. Air Force for acquisition and management. She was subsequently convicted and imprisoned, along with former Boeing Cief Financial Officer Michael Sears, for improperly influencing contract awards to Boeing, after she and Sears had secretly agreed to make her a Boeing executive. She worked for Boeing as vice president and deputy general manager of Boeing's missile defense systems, from January to November 2003.[1]

The largest contract in question was the recompetition for aerial tanker aircraft. She also affected the contract for the GBU-39 Small Diameter Bomb [2] and the C-130 avionics modernization upgrade (AMP) program a As a result, the losing competitors protested the awards to the General Accountability Office (GAO).[3]

Based on the Air Force’s acknowledgment that recompetition of the

installation phase of the contract was feasible, we recommended that the agency recompete those requirements. In light of the broader concerns raised by the Air Force, we were reluctant to recommend recompetition of the entire contract effort. Nonetheless, we had some concern that the Air Force’s position regarding recompetition of the entire effort was forged in the heat of litigation, and may not reflect a completely objective review. Accordingly, we recommended that the agency conduct and document a thorough analysis of the competing concerns and provide that analysis to our Office. In the event the agency ultimately determines that the broader concerns preclude recompetition of the entire contract effort, we recommended that each of the protesters be reimbursed the costs incurred in preparing and submitting their proposals. We also recommended that the protesters be reimbursed for their costs of filing and pursuing the

protests.[4]

C-130

The protesting contractors were Lockheed Martin Aeronautics Company, L-3 Communications Integrated Systems, (the successor-in-interest to Raytheon Company Aircraft Integration Systems), and BaE Systems Integrated Defense Solutions, Inc.

"In addition to her employment negotiations, documents submitted by Druyun in connection with the criminal proceedings establish that, in 2000, Druyun contacted Boeing personnel to request that Boeing provide employment for both Druyun’s daughter and the daughter’s boyfriend (who subsequently became Druyun’s son-in-law). In response to these requests, Boeing created a position for Druyun’s daughter and hired both her daughter and future son-in-law in the fall of 2000. In the documents filed in the criminal proceedings, Druyun further states that her decisions in matters affecting Boeing were “influenced by her perceived indebtedness to Boeing for employing her future son-in-law and daughter,” and that with regard to the contract awarded in the C-130 AMP procurement, “an objective selection authority may not have selected Boeing.”[5]

GBU-39 Small Diameter Bomb

"Lockheed Martin Corporation was the only competitor for this effort, and following the October 2004 disclosure of Druyun’s bias, filed a protest alleging that Druyun improperly manipulated certain program requirements and the related evaluation factors in a manner that favored Boeing.

"In addition to Druyun’s feeling of “indebtedness” to Boeing due to Boeing’s employment of her daughter and future son-in-law, the record we developed, which included a hearing at GAO during which five government witnesses and one Lockheed Martin witness testified, established the following key points. The small diameter bomb program initially contemplated an evaluation of offerors’ capabilities against both fixed and moving targets; early in the procurement process (during the first few months of 2002), Lockheed Martin was perceived as having a “strength” with regard to the moving target requirements and Boeing was considered “weak” in this area; in May 2002, most of the requirements associated with moving targets and the associated evaluation factors were deleted; thereafter, Boeing was selected for award without consideration of its capabilities regarding the deleted moving target requirements. At the time our decision was issued, the Air Force was in the process of adding the previously deleted requirements to Boeing’s contract on a sole-source basis."[6]

These requirements have been recompeted under the GBU-53 Small Diameter Bomb contract, which emphasizes moving target capabilities.

References

  1. Kimberly Palmer, "Former Air Force acquisition official released from jail", 3 October 2005
  2. "Moving Target: Raytheon’s GBU-53 Small Diameter Bomb II", Defense Industry Daily, 21 November 2010
  3. Daniel I. Gordon, Managing Associate General Counsel for Procurement Law (14 April 2005), AIR FORCE PROCUREMENT: Protests Challenging Role of Biased Official Sustained, U.S. General Accountability Office
  4. GAO, p. 5
  5. GAO, p. 2
  6. GAO, p. 6