AirRyan From United States of America, joined Mar 2005, 2501 posts, RR: 7 Posted (4 years 2 months 3 weeks 6 days 5 hours ago) and read 5718 times:
Wow, and the USAF says they don't want a bid protest, eh?! And what's that say of the Boeing bid that they would have to alter the bid criteria so as to lower the NG score - didn't they do the same thing with CSAR-X to the favor of Boeing as well?
Quote: RPT-US Air Force made late change to tanker criteria
WASHINGTON, Feb 28 (Reuters) - Weeks before making a final decision, the U.S. Air Force changed criteria used to assess rival bids from Boeing Co (BA.N: Quote, Profile, Research) and Northrop Grumman Corp (NOC.N: Quote, Profile, Research) for new refueling tankers, resulting in a lower score for Northrop, people familiar with the changes said on Thursday.
NorCal From United States of America, joined Mar 2005, 2307 posts, RR: 4 Reply 1, posted (4 years 2 months 3 weeks 6 days 5 hours ago) and read 5706 times:
Quoting AirRyan (Thread starter): Wow, and the USAF says they don't want a bid protest,
There was going to be a bid protest no matter what. It was always wishful thinking for there not be a protest with any contract this large
Halls120 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 2, posted (4 years 2 months 3 weeks 6 days 5 hours ago) and read 5707 times:
Quoting AirRyan (Thread starter): Wow, and the USAF says they don't want a bid protest, eh?! And what's that say of the Boeing bid that they would have to alter the bid criteria so as to lower the NG score - didn't they do the same thing with CSAR-X to the favor of Boeing as well?
Quote:
RPT-US Air Force made late change to tanker criteria
WASHINGTON, Feb 28 (Reuters) - Weeks before making a final decision, the U.S. Air Force changed criteria used to assess rival bids from Boeing Co (BA.N: Quote, Profile, Research) and Northrop Grumman Corp (NOC.N: Quote, Profile, Research) for new refueling tankers, resulting in a lower score for Northrop, people familiar with the changes said on Thursday.
XT6Wagon From United States of America, joined Feb 2007, 2846 posts, RR: 4 Reply 3, posted (4 years 2 months 3 weeks 6 days 4 hours ago) and read 5635 times:
Quoting Halls120 (Reply 2): Can we say "leaking the allegations now to prepare for a bid protest if we lose" strategy?
Yup, even if its due to REAL concerns either overlooked in the first proposal or for removing un-needed capiblity. What I've read was that many were concerned that the people who run the cargo operations in the USAF had far too much infulence at the time of the writing.
MOBflyer From United States of America, joined Sep 2007, 1209 posts, RR: 5 Reply 4, posted (4 years 2 months 3 weeks 6 days 3 hours ago) and read 5574 times:
This is a huge shame! You spend months preparing a proposal to perform well for X calculation methodology, and are tested against Y standards. It's like studying biology for physics test!
RedFlyer From United States of America, joined Feb 2005, 4078 posts, RR: 32 Reply 5, posted (4 years 2 months 3 weeks 6 days 3 hours ago) and read 5571 times:
Quoting AirRyan (Thread starter): And what's that say of the Boeing bid that they would have to alter the bid criteria so as to lower the NG score - didn't they do the same thing with CSAR-X to the favor of Boeing as well?
Well, I figure if the Air Force was willing to change the RFP criteria on the front-end in order to appease EADS sufficiently so that they would participate in the process then we can't complain too much if the Air Force changes the RFP criteria on the back-end as well.
TropicBird From United States of America, joined May 2005, 502 posts, RR: 0 Reply 6, posted (4 years 2 months 3 weeks 6 days 3 hours ago) and read 5555 times:
This sounds similar to what happened with the CSAR-X program. A late change which led to two successful protests and now an IG audit.
Moo From Falkland Islands, joined May 2007, 2988 posts, RR: 4 Reply 7, posted (4 years 2 months 3 weeks 5 days 18 hours ago) and read 5309 times:
Quoting XT6Wagon (Reply 3): Yup, even if its due to REAL concerns either overlooked in the first proposal or for removing un-needed capiblity.
In which case a decision should have been postponed in order to allow both bidders to ensure that their bids are not unduly affected and a chance to amend their proposals if they have been. If there is any basis to this story that is.
XT6Wagon From United States of America, joined Feb 2007, 2846 posts, RR: 4 Reply 8, posted (4 years 2 months 3 weeks 5 days 18 hours ago) and read 5281 times:
Quoting Moo (Reply 7): In which case a decision should have been postponed in order to allow both bidders to ensure that their bids are not unduly affected and a chance to amend their proposals if they have been. If there is any basis to this story that is.
Moo, There was a fairly big delay, but the real answer to that is that both Boeing and Airbus tossed what they had on the pile. I guess both could have switched back to an older version of each plane (767-200ER/A332P based planes), but I doubt either would.
There just insn't the money in this program to get cute with huge customizations. The KC767ADV is effectively a 767-400ER in 200 length, and the KC30 Airbus tossed in the ring is a A332F based plane instead of the passenger based frames of the various KC30/A330MRTT proposals given to other nations.
Anyway I have no idea what was changed, only the rumor that it was cleanup to remove some vocal idiots input who wanted cargo planes instead of tankers. Which might be false, or just one side of it. I think its clear that regardless Boeing and Airbus did get word of the change and niether of them got mad enough to take thier ball and go home.
Moo From Falkland Islands, joined May 2007, 2988 posts, RR: 4 Reply 9, posted (4 years 2 months 3 weeks 5 days 18 hours ago) and read 5255 times:
Quoting XT6Wagon (Reply 8): KC30 Airbus tossed in the ring is a A332F based plane instead of the passenger based frames of the various KC30/A330MRTT proposals given to other nations.
Actually, the NG proposal given is A330-200 based, with the possibility of going to -200F based if NG wins the contract - that is what NG have said recently so I have no reason to believe their current offering was changed.
Quoting XT6Wagon (Reply 8): I think its clear that regardless Boeing and Airbus did get word of the change and niether of them got mad enough to take thier ball and go home.
That entirely depends on when the change was made, I suppose.
Astuteman From United Kingdom, joined Jan 2005, 8612 posts, RR: 96 Reply 10, posted (4 years 2 months 3 weeks 5 days 18 hours ago) and read 5256 times:
Quoting RedFlyer (Reply 5): Well, I figure if the Air Force was willing to change the RFP criteria on the front-end in order to appease EADS sufficiently so that they would participate in the process then we can't complain too much if the Air Force changes the RFP criteria on the back-end as well.
I've kept well clear of this debate up to now. But...
You're joking aren't you?
They change the criteria just to get a counter-bid from NG/EADS
NG/EADS spend MILLIONS complying with the bid.
Boeing then have to be sharper on price.
DOD slaps itself on the back
Then they change the criteria back again so that it was pointless NG/EADS bidding, and WASTING millions in the first place?
Never mind appeal. If that's what's actually happened I'd bloody well suel!!!!
A complete bastards trick IMO.
(If that IS what happened. Now I'm VERY interested to see the outcome  )
I am sorry, when were you surprised if that was the case ?
The US DoD were always going to select Boeing. The whole RPF/SRD was just embarrassing, the KC-767 was behind in every operational metric, that does not surprise me, airlines have voted with their feet for years.
Astuteman From United Kingdom, joined Jan 2005, 8612 posts, RR: 96 Reply 12, posted (4 years 2 months 3 weeks 5 days 16 hours ago) and read 5125 times:
Quoting Zeke (Reply 11): The US DoD were always going to select Boeing. The whole RPF/SRD was just embarrassing, the KC-767 was behind in every operational metric, that does not surprise me, airlines have voted with their feet for years.
Of course, the converse conspiracy theory is that NG/EADS lobby to get the criteria changed (assuming all along that Boeing are going to be selected anyway), but make it real enough to force a competition.
Competition is had.
Boeing have to drop their tender price several $Bn as a consequence of the competition.
But (quietly) NG/EADS's lobbying has only ever been for the criteria change to be temporary anyway.
For a few $mil, they've denied Boeing several $Bn in revenues they were always going to get anyway, and can now sue DOD for malpractice, recovering not only their bid fees, but making a claim for damages as well, thus coming out ahead on the day........... A win - win bid strategy?
RJ777 From United States of America, joined Dec 2000, 1304 posts, RR: 3 Reply 13, posted (4 years 2 months 3 weeks 5 days 16 hours ago) and read 5072 times:
Quoting Zeke (Reply 11): The US DoD were always going to select Boeing. The whole RPF/SRD was just embarrassing, the KC-767 was behind in every operational metric, that does not surprise me, airlines have voted with their feet for years.
What about the AF1 Competition between the 747 and the DC-10? Did something like that happen there?
F27Friendship From Netherlands, joined Jul 2007, 1107 posts, RR: 6 Reply 14, posted (4 years 2 months 3 weeks 5 days 16 hours ago) and read 5045 times:
Quoting XT6Wagon (Reply 8): the KC30 Airbus tossed in the ring is a A332F based plane
no
Quoting Moo (Reply 9): Actually, the NG proposal given is A330-200 based, with the possibility of going to -200F based if NG wins the contract - that is what NG have said recently so I have no reason to believe their current offering was changed.
Wingman From France, joined May 1999, 1704 posts, RR: 6 Reply 15, posted (4 years 2 months 3 weeks 5 days 15 hours ago) and read 4949 times:
I'm glad we learned something from Europe and the engine selection for the A400. I'll say it again, Americans buy $100B more in goods and services from Europe than Europeans buy from the US every year ad infinitum. Why should we add another $100B to this ludicrous imbalance when we have a perfectly suitable and competitive solution right here? And to Zeke I'd say that over 1000 767's sold represents a solid voting block.
Zeke From Hong Kong, joined Dec 2006, 6800 posts, RR: 74 Reply 16, posted (4 years 2 months 3 weeks 5 days 13 hours ago) and read 4829 times:
Quoting Wingman (Reply 15): And to Zeke I'd say that over 1000 767's sold represents a solid voting block.
Go back and have a look at what 767s where ordered and when, and if the A330 was available.
The 767 sold for over 17 years before the A330 was in service (yes it old and steam driven). Since the A330 has been available, it has been outsold the 767. Take away the 17 years of orders makes the 767 not look so fantastic, and recent orders show the A330 is not only outselling the 767 series, but also the 767 and 777-200 series combined.
Stitch From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 23615 posts, RR: 80 Reply 17, posted (4 years 2 months 3 weeks 5 days 13 hours ago) and read 4788 times:
Quoting Zeke (Reply 16): Since the A330(-200) has been available, it has been outsold the 767.
Yes it has, by a margin of 3:2 (as of late 2007).
But to listen to some on this site, you'd think it was a margin of 300:2.
Clearly the A330-200 has been more popular then the 767 family (mostly 767-300ER) since it's ATO. However, the 767 has not been "chased from the skies" by any measure and has maintained a respectable sales rate of it's own.
Areopagus From United States of America, joined Sep 2001, 1317 posts, RR: 1 Reply 18, posted (4 years 2 months 3 weeks 5 days 13 hours ago) and read 4747 times:
Quoting Wingman (Reply 15): Why should we add another $100B to this ludicrous imbalance when we have a perfectly suitable and competitive solution right here?
Umm, maybe because the DoD promised an honest and level procurement? It is unethical to use false pretenses to induce a contractor to spend serious money bidding on a contract that they cannot win. If offsets and net jobs are to be considered, they should be in the terms of the RFP.
Zeke From Hong Kong, joined Dec 2006, 6800 posts, RR: 74 Reply 19, posted (4 years 2 months 3 weeks 5 days 12 hours ago) and read 4734 times:
Quoting Stitch (Reply 17):
Clearly the A330-200 has been more popular then the 767 family (mostly 767-300ER) since it's ATO. However, the 767 has not been "chased from the skies" by any measure and has maintained a respectable sales rate of it's own.
If the 767 had a "respectable sales rate", why is the production rate back at 1-2 per month or less ? why has the 777 taken over about half of the 767 production line space ? (what is sitting in there now a SQ, KLM, EVA 777 ?)
Wingman From France, joined May 1999, 1704 posts, RR: 6 Reply 20, posted (4 years 2 months 3 weeks 5 days 12 hours ago) and read 4718 times:
If we can't expect free an fair military procurement campaigns from France and Germany they shouldn't expect anything different from us.
Zeke, you keep asking for proof from members that the 767 is capably of getting airborne as required by the RFP and above you claim it fell short in every single performance category. The very fact that you know this is a criminal act punishable by imprisonment and heavy fines. Who at the DoD or Boeing or EADS/NG provided this information to you? Your visceral hatred of Boeing, its products and Americans in general is very tiresome indeed.
Zeke From Hong Kong, joined Dec 2006, 6800 posts, RR: 74 Reply 21, posted (4 years 2 months 3 weeks 5 days 12 hours ago) and read 4691 times:
Quoting Wingman (Reply 20): Zeke, you keep asking for proof from members that the 767 is capably of getting airborne as required by the RFP and above you claim it fell short in every single performance category. The very fact that you know this is a criminal act punishable by imprisonment and heavy fines. Who at the DoD or Boeing or EADS/NG provided this information to you? Your visceral hatred of Boeing, its products and Americans in general is very tiresome indeed.
Sorry, I never thought looking at the Boeing web site for the KC-767AT capabilities where is says MTOW off 8000' runway was a criminal offense (7000' is the RFP requirement). In the civil world, the 762ER/763ER/764ER uses more runway than a A330, an that is no secret.
I NEVER claimed the KC-767 fell short of "every single performance category" against the RFP, I think it fell short against against the KC-30, and all I have asked for is what metrics the KC-767 exceeds the KC-30 (to justify its selection), not the magnitude of that metric.
No one has been able to come up with the metrics that a KC-767 would outperform KC-30 as a tanker, and the 4 recent competitions for tankers, nor could 4 other air forces.
Stitch From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 23615 posts, RR: 80 Reply 22, posted (4 years 2 months 3 weeks 5 days 12 hours ago) and read 4639 times:
Quoting Zeke (Reply 19): If the 767 had a "respectable sales rate", why is the production rate back at 1-2 per month or less?
Production dropped to 2 a month or less in 2003 (24).
From 1994 to 2002 production averaged 37.3 per year for the 767 family to 25 per year for the A330 family.
Zeke From Hong Kong, joined Dec 2006, 6800 posts, RR: 74 Reply 23, posted (4 years 2 months 3 weeks 5 days 11 hours ago) and read 4605 times:
Quoting Stitch (Reply 22):
From 1994 to 2002 production averaged 37.3 per year for the 767 family to 25 per year for the A330 family.
Orders from 1994 to 2007 justify a production rate of 2 per month (362 gross), anything more was backlog from previous years, eg 1989 saw over 80 orders, 1991 over 50. The best year Boeing has had of late was was when DL ordered 31 and CO 16 767 aircraft in 1997.
Halls120 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 24, posted (4 years 2 months 3 weeks 5 days 11 hours ago) and read 4602 times:
Quoting Zeke (Reply 21): No one has been able to come up with the metrics that a KC-767 would outperform KC-30 as a tanker, and the 4 recent competitions for tankers, nor could 4 other air forces.
That isn't the issue, Zeke. Even if it is indeed correct. And the "4 other air forces" comparison is irrelevant. None of those other air forces are the same size, or have the same mission requirements, as the USAF.
Life isn't fair. Why people keep trying to make it fair is laughable. Governments can favor one manufacturer over another if they think it is in the national interest.
Now if Boeing do win, I fully expect NG to appeal, which will accomplish nothing but to delay the fielding of needed new airframes, and line the pockets of lawyers on both sides.
How is THAT in the public interest?
25 Columba: Many 767s that had been sold have been freighters a field in which Boeing is nearly without competition by Airbus.
26 Zeke: May as well throw away democracy and install a dictatorship. If you are not happy with due process, why not just throw away the open competition and
27 Scbriml: Boeing has sold 83 new-build 767Fs in 15 years. Airbus has sold 77 new-build A330Fs in just over one year. I'd say that was competition!
28 NorCal: Yeah sure Your Airbus bias is very clear on this site Plenty have people have provided you with evidence that the KC-767 better fits the mission prof
29 Zeke: I dont care, and I am not "bias", I am more comfortable in an Airbus because I have been flying them for more than a decade. Alll I am doing is prese
30 Zone1: And some of the best engineers are found in America, so what's your point? Not to mention many of those engineers you speak of were educated in the U
31 NorCal: Congrats to NG/EADS, hopefully Boeing moves on and the USAF can get new tankers[Edited 2008-02-29 13:37:31]
32 Stitch: Well reports are coming in that NG/EADS won, so this seems to be a non-issue.
33 FriendlySkies: Apparently you don't understand that MANY of those non-American engineers were trained in American institutions, especially from Asia/Middle East.
34 Astuteman: So much for the criteria change at NG/EADS expense. Hypothesis withdrawn...... Regards
35 Scbriml: I wonder if Boeing will be so gracious in defeat.
36 Bennett123: Perhaps we need to move onto KC-Y and KC-Z, everything is still to play for.
37 Venus6971: Congrat to NG/EADS lobbyists and team, the Boeing lobbyists have been sitting on there laurels and Boeing design team thinking they could keep this al
38 PC12Fan: Unnecessary comment. Please source a link where you are pro Boeing. There may be a few, but the ratio is more than one sided. EADS won this contract
39 Par13del: I do not think that most persons get the bigger picture, at least my opinion 1. GM, Ford etc are loosing market share because American cannot built qu
40 NYC777: EADS and Airbus has no more right to claim that Boeing is being unfairly subsidized by the US military or by state tax breaks. They're getting them th
42 Flighty: ?? The way I see it, we just gained a new widebody factory in Alabama. So actually, we're becoming a nation that makes more widebodies. We gained a w
43 Astuteman: And will inevitably, over the years, become even more so. Regards
44 KC135TopBoom: Is that why I failed French? There was no compitition between the B-747 and the DC-10 for the AF-1 contract. There was no fly off, either. The B-747-
45 Zeke: I think Boeing should exercise every avenue available to them in the interests of their shareholders if it feels it warrants it.
46 KC135TopBoom: Another 20 and 35 years of new tanker threads. Actually, the KC-45 will be aninternational product, with final assembly in the US, just like the Ford
47 Halls120: You can put as many NG logos on these aircraft as you want, but they are still going to be perceived as Airbus aircraft. IF EADS actually builds a re
48 Par13del: I know a lot of persons are saying that Boeing should not protest too much, but if they as a company are interested in surviving in the long haul, the
49 Par13del: Been doing some research on aviation in general and Lockheed is my present read, apologies to NG on this one.
50 Vfw614: Very well said. I find it interesting that already now most media reports, while making a reference to Airbus, describe it as a Northrop product (som
51 NorCal: They shouldn't, if the USAF chose the "tougher to sell" (to congress) product then they must feel that they really do need the extra capabilities. Th
52 Halls120: That will happen only if EADS builds a real assembly line in the US. Otherwise, it will always be known as that french tanker. It's like this. Twenty
53 Vfw614: So how is the AV8 perceived, or for that matter the T-45? They are both "British" planes. Was there a similar outcry when those were selected? Quite h
54 Zone1: In hindsight, I think an entire 764ER would have been the best option. It probably would have been able to carry as much cargo as the KC-30 (if that
55 AirRyan: I agree - the big question now is whether Boeing will or will not dump the 767 line and look at a KC-787 for the future - if the USAF continues on wi
56 NorCal: They will probably be locked out till the KC-10 replacement, but that could be in quite a long time. We'll end up with 500 KC-30s to replace the KC-1
57 Revelation: I'm trying not to see it that way, but one really has to wonder. Boeing has a bad loosing streak going (original KC-767, JSF, Wedgetail, KC-45A, FIA
58 Halls120: When we bought the Harrier, there was no outcry because 1) it was a relatively small purchase and 2) I don't believe any US company was offering a co
59 Bennett123: I see no reason to assume that KC-Y, let alone KC-Z will go to the A350, let alone the A330. If Airbus think otherwise, they are in for a shock.
60 Par13del: Talking about the media here, so not sure how much emphasis you want to put on this, the patriotic ones would certainely not want to be saying that t
61 Venus6971: They are, the F-16's are called Fokkers
62 Par13del: Really don't think this is realistic, the gap between the KC-10 and the KC-135 is larger than the gap between the new tanker, so with smaller budgets
63 Stitch: I don't think the USAF will need a KC-777, but a C-777 could be something the USAF could find beneficial for cargo and personnel transfers between im
64 Flyingclrs727: Considering the bases from which they would fly were built for the KC-135A and have longer runways, why is a 7,000' runway requirement so important?
65 Par13del: Any conspiracy theorist around? The US Air Force wants more F-22's inspite of the outright robbery of the public treasury to pay for it. What steps ha
66 TropicBird: I have wondered about this. From previous reading, I suspect this was something added in by General Moseley (the current AF Chief of Staff) who happe
67 Curt22: No...the USAF did not water down the CSAR-X requirements for the benefit of Boeing. LM made this claim to GAO and GAO found the claim to be without m
68 Curt22: Agreed...runway length is ONE point to consider but not all important...there is no need to stage tankers in places with short fields (Afghanistan) s
69 XT6Wagon: yah I find it strange that somehow having a larger footprint than a B52 still left the KC30 with 100% win rate in the metrics used. To me its like sa
70 Ikramerica: The media regurgitate what they are given in press releases until they learn otherwise. NG and the USAF gave them press releases that downplayed the
71 Zeke: The RFP only asked for the tenders to list all the dimensions of their aircraft. At no stage did it ask for a specific wing span or size, the term "r
72 Brons2: They've gotta be thinking that at this point in time, to get production out of the Euro zone and into the dollar zone.
73 Khobar: What do you think "parking footprint" is Zeke? "Tanker features such as pavement loading, parking footprint, tanker fuel capacity, takeoff performanc
74 Slz396: Khobar- The intellectual error with that argument is that you shouldn't be comparing the individual KC-767 to the individual KC-30, but rather the tot
75 NorCal: We are going to order 179 of both anyways because we need a lot of booms in the air.
76 Khobar: That only works IF you are buying fewer planes (and that is a real possibility - there are several hints that this may, in fact, be the case). That i
77 JayinKitsap: As there will still be a lot of KC-135's around (over 1/2 of the tankers at the end of KC-X) there will be allocation of KC-45's to the high demand l
78 Venus6971: The KC 45 will be used like a KC-10 hauling cargo and doing air bridges to the forward deployed location, since they are so big the remaing kc-135's
79 Ikramerica: You may be right, but I think Boeing's beef is that they could easily have offered a joint 767/777 program, to do just that. Offer two platforms (wit
80 Scbriml: They were. The AF said the new tanker had to be at least as capable as the KC-135. Why spend $billions on replacing a KC-135 with brand-new, exact eq
81 Zeke: The RFP asked for a lot of general dimensions and drawing for the proposed aircraft, these were NOT a key selection criteria, nore were they "desirab
Sponsor Message: 
From United States of America, joined Mar 2005, 2501 posts, 
From Falkland Islands, joined May 2007, 2988 posts, 
From United Kingdom, joined Jan 2005, 8612 posts, 
)
From Hong Kong, joined Dec 2006, 6800 posts, 
From Netherlands, joined Jul 2007, 1107 posts, 
From France, joined May 1999, 1704 posts, 
Sponsor Message: 
Printer friendly format
