๐ Tender Overview
At the conclusion of its investigation into the fixed price of the F-35A, the National Council Management Commission (CdG-N) finds that no fixed lump-sum price was agreed upon with the United States. In this context, it does not understand the DDPSs communication to Parliament and the general public, which was so categorical. Furthermore, the commission concludes that the organizational structure of the negotiations was not appropriate. It criticizes the department for not having sufficiently exercised its leadership role in the negotiations and that the flow of information was inadequate. For future large-scale public contracts, the commission requests that the legal service of armasuisse be more systematically involved and that a clear negotiation mandate be defined.
On June 27, 2025, the CdG-N decided to look into the circumstances surrounding the fixed price of the new F-35A fighter jet, after the Federal Council announced that additional costs amounting to several hundred million francs would need to be accounted for its acquisition. No fixed lump-sum price agreed upon. Based on its investigations, the CdG-N concludes that the DDPS and the Federal Council should not have assumed that a fixed lump-sum price had been agreed upon. Not only is this price not applicable, but it has also not been the subject of a contractual agreement, even though note 55 suggested that it was a fixed lump-sum price. Given that, in the context of FMS transactions, the price is only definitively set at the time of the contract conclusion between the manufacturer and the U.S. government, it could not have already been stipulated in the contract between Switzerland and the U.S. government. The CdG-N also criticizes the fact that only a few of the individuals involved in managing this file read the contract in its entirety, which prevented a sufficiently thorough examination of the negotiation results. To date, the CdG-N cannot understand why the DDPS defended this fixed lump-sum price so firmly before Parliament. The doubts expressed by the CDF regarding the fixed lump-sum price should have, at the very least, led to a critical review and renegotiation of the contract. It would have been appropriate to integrate into risk management at least the risk related to additional costs.
Negotiation organization: inappropriate structure. In its report, the CdG-N also found that the negotiations with the United States had not been organized appropriately. Thus, the General Secretariat of the DDPS (SG-DDPS) called upon a law firm to assist armasuisse, which resulted in the internal legal service of the office not being involved in the contract negotiation. This contradicts the legal mandate of armasuisse, as the central procurement service of the Confederation specialized in armaments. Moreover, the general secretariat and the head of the DDPS at the time did not closely follow the negotiations. The department was also not sufficiently informed of the key stages of the negotiations, nor did it request to be informed. The commission expects improvements for future public armament contracts of such magnitude, including a more systematic involvement of the legal service of armasuisse, the formulation of a clear negotiation mandate, and appropriate follow-up from the departments management. This is why it addresses recommendations in this regard to the Federal Council.
Too late information from the Federal Council. The commission notes that the former head of the DDPS informed the Federal Council too late about the additional costs that were looming in the context of the acquisition of the F-35A. Armasuisse received the first indications of potential additional costs in August 2024. The head of the DDPS had been informed at that time. However, she only informed the Federal Council in March 2025, after the United States first confirmed in writing to Switzerland the amount of these costs. From the perspective of the CdG-N, this approach was not appropriate. The commission acknowledges, however, that armasuisse and the DDPS have made efforts to convince the United States to apply the alleged fixed price. At the beginning of his term, the current director general of armaments commissioned two legal opinions regarding the issue of potential additional costs and, consequently, indirectly on the fixed price. The commission welcomes this approach in principle. However, it believes that, given a potential lack of impartiality, it is not appropriate to have commissioned, for one of the two legal opinions, the same firm that had already advised armasuisse during the negotiations on the fixed price and its guarantee.
Non-compliance with archiving obligations. Furthermore, the commission also found that some documents had not been archived in accordance with the applicable regulations. Therefore, it did not have all the relevant documents. As a result, it has made recommendations to the Federal Council to ensure that the archiving obligation is better respected in the future. The CdG-N has invited the Federal Council to respond to its findings and recommendations by December 11, 2026. The commission met on September 7 and 8 in Sursee, chaired by National Councillor Priska Wismer-Felder (The Center, LU).
