# Whirlybird news-



## Bograt (2 Sep 2004)

This story reminds me of the the fable of the guy who bellylanded and the tower asked if he needed assistance. The pilots response "I haven't finished crashing yet..."

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/ArticleNews/TPStory/LAC/20040902/SEAKING02/TPNational/Canada

Rival in copter deal takes Ottawa to court


By DANIEL LEBLANC
Thursday, September 2, 2004 - Page A5 

OTTAWA -- Ottawa's $5-billion helicopter contract landed in court yesterday when the losing company launched legal action that raised new allegations over the government's handling of the drawn-out process.

Team Cormorant took the matter before the Federal Court of Canada in a bid to stop the government from awarding the contract to Sikorsky, which was announced as the winner on July 23. In addition, Team Cormorant argued that it should either be given the contract to replace the 40-year-old Sea Kings, or that the whole process should be retendered.

By launching a court proceeding, Team Cormorant delivered on months of threats of legal action against the government if it lost the coveted helicopter contract. In its 18-page submission, Team Cormorant alleged that the government "committed serious errors" in the evaluation of the two bids, "favouring Sikorsky and discriminating against" Team Cormorant.

Team Cormorant said that the federal government's "fairness monitor," who was hired earlier this year to vet the process, worked from 1999 to 2001 as a lobbyist for Sikorsky's main partner in the helicopter contract, Ottawa-based General Dynamics Canada. 

Team Cormorant said that with the hiring of retired bureaucrat André Dumas, the government chose a "fairness monitor so closely associated with the Sikorsky bid . . . that his selection could not help but raise a reasonable apprehension of bias."

Mr. Dumas could not be reached, and federal officials had no immediate response to Team Cormorant's legal action.

In its submission, Team Cormorant alleged the government ignored clear breaches of mandatory requirements in Sikorsky's bid. In particular, Team Cormorant said, 100 pages of documents were missing from Sikorsky's official bid, which normally would have called for its immediate disqualification.

"Instead, [government] officials instructed the evaluators to rescue the Sikorsky bid by having reference to Sikorsky's electronic data," the court document alleged.

Team Cormorant said it did not benefit from the same consideration, which led to its own disqualification in the late stages of the competition.

"At the same time, [government] officials took the diametrically opposite position and refused to allow the evaluators to have reference to their examination of [Team Cormorant's] electronic data," the company said.

Team Cormorant is also alleging that the government and Sikorsky are both aware that the winning helicopter, the H-92, cannot be delivered within the mandatory four-year period. Instead, Team Cormorant said, a delay in the production of a key piece of electronic equipment will add at least two more years to the delivery of the first Sikorsky helicopter.

"Sikorsky knows that it cannot deliver the first H-92 for at least six years and possibly much longer. Sikorsky deliberately misrepresented its ability and intention to meet the delivery deadline in the certification filed with its bid," Team Cormorant alleged.

Sikorsky has always rejected claims that it cannot deliver its aircraft, which has never been produced for a military client, on time. 

"We have built probably more aircraft than all the other helicopter manufacturers put together, so this is business as usual for us," Sikorsky's Lloyd Noseworthy said last month.

After years of delay, Ottawa said last month that the massive contract to replace the Canadian Forces' fleet of Sea Kings had been awarded to Sikorsky. 

The replacement of the Sea Kings had been on hold since 1993, when then-prime minister Jean Chrétien tore up a deal that would have awarded the contract to Team Cormorant. Team Cormorant is accusing the government of acting in a manner that is "biased, unfair and contrary to the rules" ever since the cancellation of the first deal.


----------

