WASHINGTON–U.S. Senators Chris Murphy (D-Conn.) and Richard Blumenthal (D-Conn.) and U.S. Representatives Rosa DeLauro (D-Conn.-3), John Larson (D-Conn.-1), Joe Courtney (D-Conn.-2), Jim Himes (D-Conn.-4), and Jahana Hayes (D-Conn.-5) on Friday requested U.S. Secretary of Defense Lloyd Austin III to direct the Department of the Army to provide a detailed briefing on the Future Long Range Assault Aircraft (FLRAA) competition to members of Congress no later than February 17th. In a letter to Secretary Austin, the delegation detailed their four previous requests for a briefing and the Army leadership’s repeated refusals, as well as the factual inaccuracies of their shifting justifications.

“As Members of Congress, we have a responsibility to conduct oversight of the Department of Defense to ensure proper stewardship of taxpayer dollars. For the last two months, we have unsuccessfully attempted to engage senior leadership in the Department of the Army to seek information on the Future Long Range Assault Aircraft (FLRAA) competition. The Department of the Army has declined to provide us with a briefing, offering incomplete, misleading, and factually incorrect justifications as to why Members of Congress are not entitled to receive this information while the Government Accountability Office (GAO) evaluates a competitor’s protest,” the delegation wrote.

The delegation concluded: “We ask only that the Department of the Army be held to this same standard and promptly provide this information to Members of Congress.”

A full copy of the letter is available here and below:

Dear Secretary Austin:

As Members of Congress, we have a responsibility to conduct oversight of the Department of Defense to ensure proper stewardship of taxpayer dollars. For the last two months, we have unsuccessfully attempted to engage senior leadership in the Department of the Army to seek information on the Future Long Range Assault Aircraft (FLRAA) competition. The Department of the Army has declined to provide us with a briefing, offering incomplete, misleading, and factually incorrect justifications as to why Members of Congress are not entitled to receive this information while the Government Accountability Office (GAO) evaluates a competitor’s protest. Thus, pursuant to the United States Congress’ responsibility to provide oversight of federal agencies, programs, and policies, and as authorized by 48 CFR § 3.104-4 and § 5.403, we request that you direct the Secretary of the Army to provide a briefing to Members of Congress on the bids, proposals, source selection, and contract for the FLRAA competition no later than February 17th.

After the December 5th announcement that Bell Textron’s V-280 ‘Valor’ was selected over the Sikorsky ‘Defiant-X’ as the winner of the FLRAA competition, we contacted the Army to request an informational briefing on the source selection and contract award. The Army initially and erroneously responded that it would require a “formal request from a committee of jurisdiction (via a Chairman-signed letter).” After providing a “formal request,” the Army stated that a briefing could occur “no sooner than the close of the debriefing period of December 28, 2022.” After this debriefing period closed, the Army responded that an informational briefing would be possible only “once there has been a final resolution of the protest.” This shifting justification from Army leadership belies an obvious truth: there is no regulation, statute or precedent that prevents briefing Members of Congress during a GAO protest.

This failure to brief Members of Congress stands in stark contrast to the precedent set during previous GAO protests. On March 11th, 2008, Boeing filed a GAO protest alleging errors in the U.S. Air Force KC-X Aerial Refueling Tanker Program that had been awarded to Northrop Grumman. On March 14, 2008, Members of Congress, including several signatories of this letter, requested and received a briefing from the Air Force and Department of Defense. The briefing was provided and included details of both competitors’ bids that made clear that the evaluation process was fundamentally flawed. The GAO ultimately concluded that the Air Force had made “a number of significant errors that could have affected the outcome of what was a close competition between Boeing and Northrop Grumman.” We ask only that the Department of the Army be held to this standard and promptly provide this information to Members of Congress.

We appreciate your timely attention to this important matter and look forward to your response.

###