Ledyard King

USATODAY

WASHINGTON — Sen. John McCain is threatening to block funding for the next-generation bomber program, saying it could join an infamous list of Pentagon weapons systems plagued by massive cost overruns.

The Arizona Republican, chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee, has made clear in recent weeks he won’t back authorization of the Air Force’s Long Range Strike-Bomber. or B-21, as long as it’s procured using a “cost-plus” contract for design work that analysts says could put the Pentagon at undue financial risk.

“A long range, penetrating strike capability is vital to deterring our enemies and reassuring our allies in increasingly contested environments in Europe and the Asia-Pacific,” McCain said at a hearing earlier this month. "(But) I am still not convinced that this program will not repeat the failures of past acquisition programs such as the F-35.”

F-35 helmet costs $400,000 — 4 times that of predecessor

The F-35 Joint Strike Fighter, made by Lockheed Martin using a similar contracting structure, has been beset by delays and cost issues. It’s now costing taxpayers 51% above the original contract estimate.

In October, the Air Force awarded a $21.4 billion contract to Northrop Grumman, maker of the stealth B-2 bomber, to design and build the first 21 of a planned 100 next-generation bombers.

The company’s bid projected a cost per plane of $511 million in 2010 dollars, well below the Pentagon's cost cap of $550 million. In fiscal 2016 dollars, those figures translate into $563 million and $606 million, respectively.

Deborah Lee James, secretary of the Air Force, has defended the contract structure and the decision to award the contract to Northrop Grumman. The Government Accountability Office upheld that decision after a protest by competitor Boeing.

“We put a very thoughtful process together, looking to both successes as well as to programs that were not successful in the past, and we have crafted a good strategy, we believe, going forward,” James told reporters during a Pentagon briefing earlier this month.

The contract for the first 21 bombers calls for Northrop Grumman to design and engineer them using a cost-plus structure and to manufacture them using a fixed-price model. Delivery of the first aircraft would be around the mid-2020s.

Cost-plus contracts pay companies for all allowable expenses up to a specific limit, plus an incentive payment if they meet certain delivery targets. Under a fixed-price contract, the contractor is paid a pre-negotiated amount and must absorb any expenses above that.

Cost-plus is much riskier for the Pentagon, said Todd Harrison, director of Defense Budget Analysis at the Center for Strategic and International Studies.

That’s because the bomber program's final price might rise significantly depending on the cost of state-of-the-art technology still being developed and other allowable costs, all paid by taxpayers, Harrison said.

“The ‘plus’ is the incentive fee (so) if you perform really poorly and go way over your cost estimate, you won’t make any profit but you will always have your costs reimbursed,” he said. “So if there’s no way you can lose money on a cost-plus contract, you might as well bid as low as you can get away with it.”

Even if Northrop Grumman doesn't earn a bonus on the first contract — to design the first 21 bombers — it can make up for that during negotiations over the fixed-price contract to produce the remaining 79 aircraft, he said.

One problem with a fixed-price contract is that competitors sometimes shy away from bidding because they're fearful of unexpected costs, and development of the B-21 is surrounded by uncertainty.

Lack of competition also could also drive up costs, Harrison said.

A spokesman for Northrop Grumman declined comment.

McCain’s insistence that the Pentagon rework the contract could pose serious problems for the immediate future of the bomber program, including production delays, analysts said

“Given his personality, John McCain could stop the bomber program in its tracks,” said Loren Thompson, a defense industry consultant and Lexington Institute analyst with strong ties to Boeing and Lockheed. “It only takes one person who’s committed in a senior position like McCain’s to prevent a program from happening.”

Several years ago, McCain forced the Pentagon to rework a contract on aerial refueling tankers after raising a stink about costs. More recently, he’s been less successful in efforts to stop the Air Force from using Russian-made engines to power rockets launching military satellites into orbit.

Sen. Bill Nelson, a Florida Democrat and senior member of the Armed Services Committee, thinks the Air Force “dotted all their i’s and crossed all their t’s” on the contract. He’s confident the $550 million cap “is absolutely locked in” for the first contract.

Nelson said he doesn't know if McCain can be convinced the contract is a good one. “But I am confident that a substantial majority of the committee and of the Senate will support it,” he said.

House Armed Services Chairman Mac Thornberry, R-Texas, has so far signaled he’s not on board with McCain’s approach.

In addition, 27 House members from both parties wrote to key Appropriations Committee lawmakers last week asking them to fully fund the Obama administration’s request for funding in the fiscal 2017 budget.

“Given the importance of this program, the Air Force took unprecedented steps to ensure it will remain affordable,” the letter says.

Thompson said he thinks McCain ultimately can persuade colleagues to demand at least modest changes in the contract.

“McCain’s point is that a low-ball bid doesn’t mean much if the contractor is going to get as much as money as they need to actually execute the program,” he said. “He wants some discipline, which means forcing the contractor to sign up for a specific price tag. I think that’s an easy argument to sell on Capitol Hill.”

Contributing: Andrew Clevenger and Lara Seligman, Defense News