Sponsor Message:
Military Aviation & Space Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Breaking: GAO Sustains Boeing's Protest Of KC-X  
User currently offlineNYC777 From United States of America, joined Jun 2004, 5732 posts, RR: 48
Posted (6 years 1 month 1 week 3 days 13 hours ago) and read 22355 times:

Just out on Bloomberg:

Don't have a link but the GAO sides with Boeing...oh boy!


That which does not kill me makes me stronger.
484 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlineNYC777 From United States of America, joined Jun 2004, 5732 posts, RR: 48
Reply 1, posted (6 years 1 month 1 week 3 days 13 hours ago) and read 22337 times:

Here is more information:

GAO says review of record led to conclude Air Force made errors
These errors could have effected the outcome.
GAO recommends that the USAF re-open the talks with the competitors. They also recommend that the Air Force reimburse Boeign forthe cost of the protest!

GAO says the Air Force improperly boosted the Boeign cost estimate and they didn't asess the relative merits of the proposals and the the Air Force held misleading and unequal talks with Boeing. The Air Force violated the evaluation provisions.



That which does not kill me makes me stronger.
User currently offlineJacobin777 From United States of America, joined Sep 2004, 14968 posts, RR: 60
Reply 2, posted (6 years 1 month 1 week 3 days 13 hours ago) and read 22310 times:

The wording from the GAO was a bit scathing.


"Up the Irons!"
User currently offlineTropicBird From United States of America, joined May 2005, 502 posts, RR: 0
Reply 3, posted (6 years 1 month 1 week 3 days 13 hours ago) and read 22306 times:

can you please provide a link to your source?

User currently offlineMOBflyer From United States of America, joined Sep 2007, 1209 posts, RR: 4
Reply 4, posted (6 years 1 month 1 week 3 days 13 hours ago) and read 22274 times:

WHERE IS A REPORT? If its on the wires, it should be on the web!

User currently offlineDfwRevolution From United States of America, joined Jan 2010, 961 posts, RR: 51
Reply 5, posted (6 years 1 month 1 week 3 days 13 hours ago) and read 22274 times:

Here's a link:
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?p...601103&sid=akhO08rz6VUU&refer=news


User currently offlineN328KF From United States of America, joined May 2004, 6483 posts, RR: 3
Reply 6, posted (6 years 1 month 1 week 3 days 13 hours ago) and read 22227 times:

Ouch. Poor Keesje.

Of course, this is all going to make the whole deal seem tainted, no matter who wins in the end.



When they call the roll in the Senate, the Senators do not know whether to answer 'Present' or 'Not guilty.' T.Roosevelt
User currently offlineStratofortress From United States of America, joined Dec 2005, 178 posts, RR: 1
Reply 7, posted (6 years 1 month 1 week 3 days 13 hours ago) and read 22194 times:

Before this goes any further, shall we agree that GAO is a fair organization?!

[Edited 2008-06-18 10:51:56]


Forever New Frontiers
User currently offlineIkramerica From United States of America, joined May 2005, 21474 posts, RR: 60
Reply 8, posted (6 years 1 month 1 week 3 days 13 hours ago) and read 22194 times:



Quoting Stratofortress (Reply 7):
Before this goes any further, shall we agree that GAO is a fair?!

No. But they are a Legislative check and balance on the Executive Branch.



Of all the things to worry about... the Wookie has no pants.
User currently offlineNYC777 From United States of America, joined Jun 2004, 5732 posts, RR: 48
Reply 9, posted (6 years 1 month 1 week 3 days 13 hours ago) and read 22176 times:



Quoting Stratofortress (Reply 7):
shall we agree that GAO is a fair

Hah, depends on who you ask. I agree the report by the GAO was very scathing on the USAF. The Air Force, with the elections coming up will redo this. It's going to get very, VERY political and I expect that a new decision probably won't be made for another year or so. Bad for the pilots who have to conyinue to fly the KC-135s though.



That which does not kill me makes me stronger.
User currently offlineAgill From Sweden, joined Feb 2004, 1007 posts, RR: 0
Reply 10, posted (6 years 1 month 1 week 3 days 13 hours ago) and read 22171 times:



Quoting Stratofortress (Reply 7):
Before this goes any further, shall we agree that GAO is a fair?!

A fair? The whole thing seems more like a circus  Wink, but very entertaining.


User currently offlineNYC777 From United States of America, joined Jun 2004, 5732 posts, RR: 48
Reply 11, posted (6 years 1 month 1 week 3 days 13 hours ago) and read 22120 times:

Now I have to wonder if Boeing will offer a KC-777 in competition to the KC-30? I bet they will.


That which does not kill me makes me stronger.
User currently offlineStratofortress From United States of America, joined Dec 2005, 178 posts, RR: 1
Reply 12, posted (6 years 1 month 1 week 3 days 13 hours ago) and read 22099 times:

The AF is likely to be more explicit in its requirements when it comes to size. The popular mentality during the competition was that AF didn't want a transport plan that also carries fuel, but a true tanker.... They will have to clarify this in the second round (or is it third now?).

This is definitely getting circus(y), but very entertaining.



Forever New Frontiers
User currently offlineMOBflyer From United States of America, joined Sep 2007, 1209 posts, RR: 4
Reply 13, posted (6 years 1 month 1 week 3 days 13 hours ago) and read 22088 times:

IIRC, Congress has already fully funded the tanker program, whether it be for Boeing or Northrop Grumman. And the Air Force has been advised by the GAO to redo the competition. If they go against their recommendations, they have to answer to congress.

Wouldn't it be possible for the Air Force to say: "Thank you, but we disagree, and we will buy the KC-30, for the sake of time."


User currently offlineN328KF From United States of America, joined May 2004, 6483 posts, RR: 3
Reply 14, posted (6 years 1 month 1 week 3 days 13 hours ago) and read 22086 times:



Quoting NYC777 (Reply 11):
Now I have to wonder if Boeing will offer a KC-777 in competition to the KC-30? I bet they will.

What I think Boeing should do is offer a two-part solution to the problem:


  • Offer a limited number of KC-767s (say 50% of the tender) to get production running.
  • Offer as the remaining portion of the tender a future aircraft such as a BWB-based tanker/cargolifter.



When they call the roll in the Senate, the Senators do not know whether to answer 'Present' or 'Not guilty.' T.Roosevelt
User currently offlineIkramerica From United States of America, joined May 2005, 21474 posts, RR: 60
Reply 15, posted (6 years 1 month 1 week 3 days 13 hours ago) and read 22065 times:



Quoting NYC777 (Reply 11):
Now I have to wonder if Boeing will offer a KC-777 in competition to the KC-30? I bet they will.

Because the Air Force chose an over-sized replacement for the 135, Boeing would be smart to propose a dual aircraft package of 767 and 777 based tankers to replace them for greater flexibility. A common cockpit would be a key component.



Of all the things to worry about... the Wookie has no pants.
User currently offlineEDDB From Germany, joined Aug 2006, 244 posts, RR: 0
Reply 16, posted (6 years 1 month 1 week 3 days 12 hours ago) and read 22063 times:



Quoting NYC777 (Reply 11):
Now I have to wonder if Boeing will offer a KC-777 in competition to the KC-30? I bet they will.

I bet they would, I doubt they will.... Why? Manpower and time....


User currently offlineMOBflyer From United States of America, joined Sep 2007, 1209 posts, RR: 4
Reply 17, posted (6 years 1 month 1 week 3 days 12 hours ago) and read 22061 times:

The Air Force does not have to pay Boeing for the protest, unless they WIN!

User currently offlineNYC777 From United States of America, joined Jun 2004, 5732 posts, RR: 48
Reply 18, posted (6 years 1 month 1 week 3 days 12 hours ago) and read 22045 times:



Quoting Ikramerica (Reply 15):
Because the Air Force chose an over-sized replacement for the 135, Boeing would be smart to propose a dual aircraft package of 767 and 777 based tankers to replace them for greater flexibility. A common cockpit would be a key component.

Dude that was my thought exactly! If the Air Force does re-start the competition. They could offer a mix sale of KC-767 and KC-777 for different missions.

Now I be twho ever wins next time there will be another protest! This thing could drag on for some time.



That which does not kill me makes me stronger.
User currently offlineIkramerica From United States of America, joined May 2005, 21474 posts, RR: 60
Reply 19, posted (6 years 1 month 1 week 3 days 12 hours ago) and read 22032 times:



Quoting MOBflyer (Reply 13):
Wouldn't it be possible for the Air Force to say: "Thank you, but we disagree, and we will buy the KC-30, for the sake of time."

No. If Congress said to redo it, and the AF said no, Congress would then unfund the program, and simply fund a new program that must start from scratch. The AF would then have a few KC-45s to play with from the initial order of a handful.



Of all the things to worry about... the Wookie has no pants.
User currently offlineNYC777 From United States of America, joined Jun 2004, 5732 posts, RR: 48
Reply 20, posted (6 years 1 month 1 week 3 days 12 hours ago) and read 21985 times:



Quoting MOBflyer (Reply 17):
The Air Force does not have to pay Boeing for the protest, unless they WIN!

From the GAO decision:
We also recommended that the Air Force reimburse Boeing the costs of filing and pursuing the protest, including reasonable attorneys’ fees.



That which does not kill me makes me stronger.
User currently offlineWINGS From Portugal, joined May 2005, 2831 posts, RR: 68
Reply 21, posted (6 years 1 month 1 week 3 days 12 hours ago) and read 21940 times:



Quoting NYC777 (Thread starter):
Just out on Bloomberg:

Don't have a link but the GAO sides with Boeing...oh boy!

Well here we go again. Yet another few years that will surely keep the Military forum active and interesting.

I can imagine that despite the GOA pointing out some errors in the contest, I still think that EADS/NG will come out in front in the end. Airbus is well advanced in flight trials with the A332MRTT for the RAAF, and I would imagine that the USAF is watching closely

If I was NG I would go forward and risk assembling the 4 frames destined for the USAF. This would give them even more arguments in terms of capabilities, while the KC-767 remains on the drawing board.

Regards,
Wings



Aviation Is A Passion.
User currently offlineStratofortress From United States of America, joined Dec 2005, 178 posts, RR: 1
Reply 22, posted (6 years 1 month 1 week 3 days 12 hours ago) and read 21871 times:

From GAO public release... The actual reasons for their decision and recommendations:

Specifically, we sustained the protest for the following reasons:

1. The Air Force, in making the award decision, did not assess the relative merits of the proposals in accordance with the evaluation criteria identified in the solicitation, which provided for a relative order of importance for the various technical requirements. The agency also did not take into account the fact that Boeing offered to satisfy more non-mandatory technical “requirements” than Northrop Grumman, even though the solicitation expressly requested offerors to satisfy as many of these technical “requirements” as possible.

2. The Air Force’s use as a key discriminator that Northrop Grumman proposed to exceed a key performance parameter objective relating to aerial refueling to a greater degree than Boeing violated the solicitation’s evaluation provision that “no consideration will be provided for exceeding [key performance parameter] objectives.”

3. The protest record did not demonstrate the reasonableness of the Air Force’s determination that Northrop Grumman’s proposed aerial refueling tanker could refuel all current Air Force fixed-wing tanker-compatible receiver aircraft in accordance with current Air Force procedures, as required by the solicitation.

4. The Air Force conducted misleading and unequal discussions with Boeing, by informing Boeing that it had fully satisfied a key performance parameter objective relating to operational utility, but later determined that Boeing had only partially met this objective, without advising Boeing of this change in the agency’s assessment and while continuing to conduct discussions with Northrop Grumman relating to its satisfaction of the same key performance parameter objective.

5. The Air Force unreasonably determined that Northrop Grumman’s refusal to agree to a specific solicitation requirement that it plan and support the agency to achieve initial organic depot-level maintenance within 2 years after delivery of the first full-rate production aircraft was an “administrative oversight,” and improperly made award, despite this clear exception to a material solicitation requirement.

6. The Air Force’s evaluation of military construction costs in calculating the offerors’ most probable life cycle costs for their proposed aircraft was unreasonable, where the agency during the protest conceded that it made a number of errors in evaluation that, when corrected, result in Boeing displacing Northrop Grumman as the offeror with the lowest most probable life cycle cost; where the evaluation did not account for the offerors’ specific proposals; and where the calculation of military construction costs based on a notional (hypothetical) plan was not reasonably supported.

7. The Air Force improperly increased Boeing’s estimated non-recurring engineering costs in calculating that firm’s most probable life cycle costs to account for risk associated with Boeing’s failure to satisfactorily explain the basis for how it priced this cost element, where the agency had not found that the proposed costs for that element were unrealistically low. In addition, the Air Force’s use of a simulation model to determine Boeing’s probable non-recurring engineering costs was unreasonable, because the Air Force used as data inputs in the model the percentage of cost growth associated with weapons systems at an overall program level and there was no indication that these inputs would be a reliable predictor of anticipated growth in Boeing’s non-recurring engineering costs.

RECOMMENDATIONS:
We recommended that the Air Force reopen discussions with the offerors, obtain revised proposals, re-evaluate the revised proposals, and make a new source selection decision, consistent with our decision. We further recommended that, if the Air Force believed that the solicitation, as reasonably interpreted, does not adequately state its needs, the agency should amend the solicitation prior to conducting further discussions with the offerors. We also recommended that if Boeing’s proposal is ultimately selected for award, the Air Force should terminate the contract awarded to Northrop Grumman. We also recommended that the Air Force reimburse Boeing the costs of filing and pursuing the protest, including reasonable attorneys’ fees. By statute, the Air Force is given 60 days to inform our Office of the Air Force’s actions in response to our recommendations.



Forever New Frontiers
User currently offlineN328KF From United States of America, joined May 2004, 6483 posts, RR: 3
Reply 23, posted (6 years 1 month 1 week 3 days 12 hours ago) and read 21803 times:



Quoting WINGS (Reply 21):
If I was NG I would go forward and risk assembling the 4 frames destined for the USAF. This would give them even more arguments in terms of capabilities, while the KC-767 remains on the drawing board.

The KC-767 isn't exactly on the drawing board. It's not exactly that much of an advancement from KC-767s that are being produced for other air services. In the case of both the KC-330 and KC-767, they both are derived from currently-flying aircraft.



When they call the roll in the Senate, the Senators do not know whether to answer 'Present' or 'Not guilty.' T.Roosevelt
User currently offlineNYC777 From United States of America, joined Jun 2004, 5732 posts, RR: 48
Reply 24, posted (6 years 1 month 1 week 3 days 12 hours ago) and read 21774 times:



Quoting WINGS (Reply 21):
I still think that EADS/NG will come out in front in the end.

No one can say who will come out in the end. When the Air Force re-bids this they are going to have make sure that preogram requirements are strict and measurable, that communications is open and honest, and that there is complete trasparency. A lot of these things were missing when the Air Force made it's decision. In other word the Air Force has to make the next bid "protest-proof." If they had done that this last time around Boeing would have won he contract.



That which does not kill me makes me stronger.
25 Post contains links Scbriml : Yes they can, the GAO's ruling is advisory. Yes they can. It's the AF's call as to whether to rebid and evaluate, not that of congress. If they want
26 Tancrede : It is what we call a free market country! Oh boy! And what will happen if Boeing loose again. There will be another competition until at last Boeing w
27 NYC777 : Ok you don't get it. This was a result of the Air Force's ineptness in conducting the bid process. The fact that the GAO was so scathing of the way t
28 Venus6971 : I think the USAF hiechary just got another slap to the face, it is no secert that flag officers who retire usally find gainful employment with NG or B
29 RedFlyer : It will depend on whether the next competition is geared towards a smaller airframe or a larger one. It appears from the GAO ruling that the Air Forc
30 Venus6971 : The KC-30 is a great replacement for the KC-10 it is just too much plane for the KC-135 replacement, infrastructure cost for the KC-30 at Travis and M
31 Post contains links RedFlyer : Northrop has already come out with a public statement: http://www.northropgrumman.com/
32 Venus6971 : Boeing Statement on Tanker Protest Ruling ST. LOUIS, June 18, 2008 -- Boeing [NYSE: BA] was informed today that the Government Accountability Office (
33 Nomadd22 : The competition is bogus. You have two different planes. The AF knows the capabilities of each, so the plane that wins will be the one they write the
34 Daedaeg : Here we are 7 years from the original RFP and still without a Tanker. Hopefully the Air Force ultimately gets what's best for them. First the GAO sust
35 Tancrede : Will you have talk like this if it would have been Boeing chosen by the USAF, and GAO criticizing it?
36 Scbriml : Correct, they say exactly that in their PR. They also say the AF is the best arbitrator of which bid best meets their requirements, provided (this is
37 NYC777 : Yes if they said one thing and then did another. That's what this has all come down to. This is not a Boeing thing it's an Air Force incompitence iss
38 N328KF : Well, USAF ineptly evaluated the first bid during the Druyan days, so yes...
39 Tugger : I agree, and it is the crux of the whole problem. If the AF bid requirements call for a plane with the capabilities of the KC-30 then that is the onl
40 Post contains links SLUAviator : Boeing DID offer the 777 as a tanker and the AF said no. That happened over a year ago. I think there was even a press release on the Boeing website
41 RedFlyer : I'm not criticizing you, but for all the talk on here by people that this is just going to delay getting to the war fighter what he/she needs, the US
42 DL021 : This has turned into a real circus, as previously stated. The USAF is doing itself and us a disservice by screwing around. The GAO report seemingly ve
43 Dougbr2006 : Well thats probably a foregone conclusion as they are already being built, well at least three are allocated I believe. The option to pass them on to
44 Ikramerica : Well, I was talking in a practical sense, not an absolute. Sure, they can say NO, but then try to get funding for the project with this congress and
45 KC135TopBoom : Why? The KC-135 is still a very safe and effective, combat proven airplane. Even if the KC-45A had been bought, the KC-135R would still be in the USA
46 RedFlyer : If it were me, I'd start looking for a money trail or personal favors. There's just no other plausible explanation. (Note: my comment is directed at
47 Ikramerica : The 767 and 777 already share a common cockpit structure and the 764 and 777s delivered to CO have very similar cockpits in terms of displays. The id
48 N328KF : This is exactly what I think will happen. I think both BIDS and NG/EADS will offer multiple bids to give USAF a variety of options to choose. In Boei
49 KennyK : Thank heavens you Americans weren't responsible for developing the wheel or we would still be waiting for it. You seem so tied up in the legality of e
50 KC135TopBoom : The bottom line is, its all about the money. In that respect, Americans are no different than the Europeans, British, or Asians.
51 Flighty : I want to take this moment to congratulate Bin Laden on this excellent blow to the USA's military capability. Without the KC-45, the USA will find it
52 Keesje : Point for Boeing and it backers. The USAF made administrative errors according to GOA. The tone / wording of the GOA surprizes me. What are the GOA? I
53 CFMitch56 : I can't see how an A321 would be effective on any of the missions the Air Force is looking to accomplish. Carrying passengers is a lower priority tha
54 Tugger : Direct competition is the only and best way to actually get the best product for the right price. This wasn't anything about "trying to get Airbus in
55 N328KF : The GAO is the investigative arm of the Legislative Branch (Congress.)
56 CX747 : How on earth is the GAO's ruling in favor of Boeing and win for Bin Laden? In all actuality, Boeing is on of Bin Laden's biggest haters. Their F-15E,
57 Scbriml : There's absolutely no reason why they should. The GAO clearly states the AF have to pay Boeing's appeal costs IF they win a rebid. Again, the current
58 Moose135 : Thanks, I was beginning to think I was the only one who remembered this. To hear some people tell it, you would think that all the -135s were being r
59 RedFlyer : We're tied up in the concept of fairness, albeit it takes a lot of lawyers sometimes to ensure the fairness is present. Have you read the GAO's findi
60 SEPilot : It has been tainted ever since the first scandal broke. I believe that the AF was burned by the first deal, and leaned over backwards to be fair to A
61 Moose135 : From the release Stratofortress posted: We also recommended that the Air Force reimburse Boeing the costs of filing and pursuing the protest, includi
62 Scbriml : Then, unless you're prepared to have a competition and accept the possibility that Boeing might not win, you might as well bend over and brace yourse
63 Keesje : For my information; can the GOA be considered a political institution or are they independent of congress?
64 TropicBird : Don't forget there is another protest still pending on this contract with the GAO. I wonder what impact that may have when the GAO decides?
65 Rwessel : The Government Accountability Office (GAO, not GOA), works for Congress, but is non-partisan, and is generally well thought of as impartial and thoro
66 N328KF : Can you please get it right? G.A.O. Government Accountability Office. GAO is ostensibly there to ensure that the Executive Branch is acting according
67 Scbriml : Indeed, I misread the clause, they are not interrelated. We were both quoting from the same document though.
68 Bongodog1964 : Why can't NG continue with the factory construction ? Is it illegal to build a factory in the US in advance of having a use for it. In the past many
69 N328KF : Because EADS was holding out the carrot of building all A330-200Fs and all future A330MRTTs (for other nations) in Mobile if they won the KC-45 deal.
70 Moose135 : It's OK, reading some of those government documents can be enough to give you a headache
71 NYC777 : Congratulation on trying to downplay this. It was a lot more than "administrative errors." Read the GAO press release and you'll see that it was a lo
72 FlyUSCG : Well glad to know you don't have any bias in this Well according to this official government report (made by people who know A LOT more than you), th
73 NYC777 : Funny, if the Air Force had adhered to it's own rules then the 767 would have been selected over the A330.
74 Scbriml : I can't see the AF being interested in anything smaller than a KC-135, which any A32x or 737 based tanker would be. KC-30 or KC-767 will be the small
75 Post contains links Curt22 : That's the most scathing review I've ever heard of...they did everything but call the AF team either utterly incompetent, or utterly corrupt in their
76 SEPilot : That, indeed, is the dilemma.
77 Curt22 : That's pretty funny and more than a bit true...also more than a bit true is that every single post by someone who's screen name carries a flag from a
78 Dougbr2006 : So you are telling me that the USAF opted for the KC45 even though the KC767 was the better machine. I think the people who made the decisions were n
79 Curt22 : Sure they can build the plant at their own risk, there will be no taxpayer dollars awarded for this or any other KC-X purpose. I wish we saw more of
80 WarRI1 : Never say never, what could not be, has come to be. the GAO has finally spoken.
81 Dragon6172 : Now thats funny right there, I don't care who ya are! How about a 767/787 proposal. Starting with the 767 and moving to the 787 when it becomes opera
82 Rwessel : Mind you that the GAO report said no such thing - they agreed with Boeing that there were flaws in some parts of the Air Force's handling and evaluat
83 FlyUSCG : I think thats exactly what this report says. As I already mentioned, why the need to tilt the tables in favor of Airbus if they already had the bette
84 Ikramerica : I think that's the crux. The KC-45 is a damn fine aircraft. The thing is, the KC-767 is pretty much exactly what the AF asked for (at least a lot clo
85 Columbia107 : John McCain only wanted to see a fair competition. Regrettably it has not been, due to the USAF hierachy who were prepared to change the rules to fav
86 Post contains links KC135TopBoom : No, it did not make "administration errors". The USAF stacked the deck against Boeing, in favor of EADS. In the US, that is against the law, in the E
87 Ikramerica : I would assume that Airbus can continue to build the KC-30s, but that they would not be turned over to NG. They don't become KC-45s until they go to
88 Tugger : I disagree, just because they screwed up and handled the bid process poorly does not mean that they were tilting it in favor of Airbus. Can you pleas
89 Post contains links and images CX747 : The utter incompetence of certain people in the USAF is amazing. The entire competition seems to have been run like a dog and pony show. It seems that
90 FlyUSCG : It might work well on short-range european sectors (which I believe was the original intention), but it's not designed for long range, heavy loads. T
91 Ikramerica : I can't, but the GAO, as part of this review, determined that "fuzzy math" was used to make it seem like the KC-45 was cost competitive over program
92 Tugger : Thanks. I really want to see a number, I really suspect that Northrop gave as low a number as possible for price while Boeing did not (expecting that
93 KC135TopBoom : In the redacted report (69 pages) that comes out in a few weeks, the pricing and other propriority information will be blacked out. But, clearly, the
94 MOBflyer : Mobile, Alabama is an American city. Northrop Grumman is an American Corporation. Even EADS North America is headquartered in Virginia! There isn't a
95 Flighty : Really? Can you tell me how we will ever get tankers in the sky if our contractors keep preventing our warriors from fighting wars? Don't you know a
96 N328KF : Don't get so high and mighty about EADS, considering that this GAO ruling only one of two bits of bad news regarding that firm today. Remember what t
97 Post contains links and images NAV20 : The Seattle Times has a pretty good summary of the basis of the decision (probably they have quite good local contacts  ). The part that caught my ey
98 N328KF : How dare you bring facts into the case! Don't you know that Keesje's pride has been sullied?
99 FlyUSCG : Maybe ask the actual KC-135 crew members on this very thread who have said here (and hundreds of times before) that the KC-135 is still going VERY ST
100 Checksixx : I really could care less who builds the thing, I do think though that we should push for the most usable aircraft for the buck. This decision simply m
101 Magyar : Any idea why would the US Air Force favour a half-foreign product over a home-grown one?
102 Checksixx : Contrary to what a lot of people think, the US military uses LOTS of foreign products. Ever hear of the M-16A2? Almost exclusively made for the milit
103 Nycbjr : well this was unexpected... glad to see the GAO saw the inconsistencies. its clear the EADS A-330 based airplane is the better "airplane" but is it th
104 Magyar : I think you misunderstood my question. I was referring to the GAO's statement about 'mistakes' made that favour the KC330 over KC767. I don't believe
105 AirRyan : Wow, what a low point in USAF history with everything that has gone on over the past few years in the USAF - there are some major problems facing the
106 SLUAviator : Displays in the cockpit are one thing. The 767 and 777 are 100% different birds. I don't buy the whole cockpit display thing makes training similar--
107 B777fan : That's easy. Yes. My problem with the whole thing is not Boeing or NG, but what is it that the Air Force needs and how could they have made such a bo
108 B777fan : Your statement could easily be correct, but you miss the point. The Air Force could have put all that you said in the RFP and stressed future capabil
109 Rwessel : Perhaps because all the points raised by Boeing would be errors in NG/EADS favor? Boeing would certainly be somewhat selective about which points the
110 Ken777 : Thanks for incluiding the list! I was a bit numb reading just how bad the USAF handled the whole affair. And the general who made that decision would
111 Scbriml : How exactly do you arrive at that conclusion? The GAO said the AF's evaluation was flawed and that COULD have changed the outcome. The GAO's ruling m
112 Rheinwaldner : Can someone explain to me why the USAF had this unfair preference? Error or intention? - If error it could be that they tried so strong not to prefer
113 Post contains links and images Keesje : So Boeing can now offer the hot KC767 again .. or a non existent KC777 that will weigh 3x as much as a KC135, costs a lot and needs lots of runway. So
114 Voodoo : Just looking at Keesje's chart and 'airfield availability'... I am not sure exactly what that means but re: airfield effects..... what is the weight f
115 EPA001 : Well, personally I admit I am disappointed with the outcome of the GAO ruling. I always have favoured the better plane and I still do. That they might
116 SEPilot : Nobody who has any knowledge of the facts has denied the fact that the Boeing plane would result in more American jobs than the NG plane. The fact is
117 Par13del : Well my two cents. 1. The US Airforce is looking to replace its tactical tanker a/c - KC-135. 2. Only Boeing has an a/c in this class size. Fact of hi
118 Post contains links Keesje : Then you must firmly close your eyes the for the enormous amounts of weapons that have been and are exported from the US to Europe for decades. This
119 Scbriml : That doesn't mean they have to replace it with something identical in size. Why restrict yourself to 1950's thinking to fight a 21st century war? The
120 Bongodog1964 : In both cases you have totally failed to answer my questions; I suspect this is because you have no answers. With regard to the factory surely the bu
121 Trex8 : not sure about EADS as they are not the prime but NG would not be allowed to spend "its own money" to build things in a government program as there h
122 Bongodog1964 : If you have a contract with a supplier, your terms and conditions may give you a right to dictate how they go about their business; but with no contr
123 Post contains links N328KF : I realize what point you're trying to make, but you're asserting it as if EADS never does this, when it has become cliche in the past to assume that
124 Stitch : The GAO is a pretty impartial group, so that they ruled so strongly does indeed pretty much force the USAF to rebid. The USAF has continually stated t
125 MOBflyer : What about Boeing's foreign suppliers? Doesn't the same risk apply?
126 Post contains links Keesje : Indeed, stock have gone crazy .. http://finance.yahoo.com/echarts?s=B...ues=0;logscale=on;source=undefined
127 Trex8 : this is a total red herring, if its that much of a concern we should be grounding all the CFM56 powered planes in the US military as those nasty Fren
128 Sxf24 : Correct. Boeing met the minimal criteria. The USAF also said in the RFP there would be no benefit to the bidders for exceeding the technical criteria
129 Wingman : I have to laugh at the arguments made by our European members. In every statement you make regarding the 330 vs. the 767, the very same can be said ab
130 Post contains links RedFlyer : A couple of interesting news items I just read in the Wall Street Journal... Senator Carl Levin is calling for a I smell a scandal brewing; this is ex
131 Keesje : I have the feeling people are blowing up the A330 (focussing on span) and downsizing the B777 (don't look at weight!). Thing is the A330 (& 787) size
132 Post contains links Scbriml : Can you show me where it says that? The AF dispute that. http://www.iht.com/articles/2008/04/02/business/02tanker.php
133 Keesje : I imagine Boeing put their fingers in their ears, was shouting and keeping their eyes firmly closed when the USAF told them, making sure no minutes w
134 Trex8 : hmmm, all those F104s and F4s providing the mainstay of the Luftwaffe for decades obviously don't count. where would the Aeronavale be without their
135 Stitch : From where I am sitting, the KC-30A looks to be the superior platform, which is why I can understand the USAF wanted it and was willing to "cook the b
136 PolymerPlane : The Air Force’s use as a key discriminator that Northrop Grumman proposed to exceed a key performance parameter objective relating to aerial refuel
137 Ken777 : Any change in the RFP needs to be in writing. A verbal briefing doesn't cut it in terms of ensuring the vendors are kept on a level playing field, no
138 N328KF : This won't happen because we could just deny them GE's portion of the CFM56. They know this and will not act upon this one. Some portions of the Swed
139 Sxf24 : If the A330 is the perfect compromise, the USAF should have issued an RFP with minimum size parameters.
140 RedFlyer : Did you ever look at it from the other side? Maybe Airbus has no competitor for the KC-767? Why else would the NG/EADS team threaten to withdraw from
141 PolymerPlane : Because it's Keesje Cheers, PP
142 Post contains images Keesje : They did. e.g. it should at least carry as much fuel as the KC135, the KC767 just met that. If you are talking physical size : Boeing came up with th
143 Post contains links Baroque : The GAO seems to have been a bit more kind overall in this report than they were in: http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d071220t.pdf where they reported mee
144 Alien : Absolutely correct. The same could be said of the UK as well. hmmmmm, just about every one of those F-104s bought 40 years ago where built in Europe
145 Sxf24 : The KC-767 more than "just met" that. Since the RFP gave no preference to greater fuel capacity or physical size, it was illegal, unethical and impro
146 Seefivein : Well Now What??
147 Revelation : The frost that had been descending on Hell seems to be lifting! Indeed. Congress controls the purse strings. On top of the recent sacking of the SecA
148 Revelation : " target=_blank>http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/htm....html Yes, their bullet list summarizing the GAO finding is excellent. I think the biggest gam
149 Keesje : The RFP was build around at least KC135 capabilities. That's a fact known and agreed upon by all for years. Boeing agredd but didn't like it (for goo
150 Sxf24 : You obviously aren't familiar with the government RFP process. It is not usually a "here's our minimum requirements and use your discretion to provid
151 EBJ1248650 : I agree. A wrong kind of precedent has been set here and we're going to pay for it for years to come.
152 NA : I expected this from a "patriotic" court. No surprise at all. Here in Europe it would likely be the other way around. The decision about what to decid
153 N328KF : This was not a court. Think of it as a government-owned auditing firm beholden only to Congress.
154 Astuteman : And seeing this mess today, would any sane citizen invest any of their private money into a defence procurement activity??? Don't even go there... Th
155 N328KF : This is why I believe USAF needs to engage in a short-term interim solution (perhaps re-engining KC-135s?) and then give all parties the chance to bi
156 Post contains links NYC777 : Well how about a KC-787 option. I wrote an article on my blog discussing the pros and cons of doing a KC-787. There would be a huge benefit of Boeing
157 Post contains links Seefivein : Government Upholds Boeing's Protest Over Air Force Contract http://www.wsfa.com/global/story.asp?s=8522405
158 Post contains links RedFlyer : Are the airframes being scrapped because the design is old or because certain airframes have reached the end of their service life? So is the A330. I
159 Osiris30 : Keesje: You are missing the point here. You're saying the competition isn't even close, yet you are failing to define the terms of the competition. U
160 FlyUSCG : You Europeans seem to be really hung up on this illusion of an old plane. IT DOESN'T EXIST! The Air Force is not going out to Marana and Victorville
161 Stitch : The trick is, the KC-767 Advanced is not a 767-200, especially not a 767-200 built in 1980. It uses structures from the 767-300 and 767-400 families
162 Scbriml : Please, some Europeans.
163 Flighty : Why? What's important here? A puppet show, or the best jet to fight a war? Why spell everything out in writing? It's false precision. Just because so
164 Curt22 : Excellent questions, not so easy to answer...perhaps the USAF was still suffering from being "snake bit" in the first tanker fiasco and was blinded b
165 MOBflyer : I don't know why you don't think I have any knowledge of the facts. NG says its proposal would create or support 48,000 US jobs in 49 states, while B
166 Sxf24 : Why spell everything out in writing? Because that is the best way to ensure a fair and equatable procurement process. If the USAF wanted a larger air
167 FlyUSCG : That is true, I'll give you that much
168 Agill : I just can't imagine how it'll be possible to set up criteria that doesn't give one or the other plane an unfair advantage since the planes are quite
169 Atmx2000 : This is a nonsensical argument. The lifetime of the aircraft is going to be determined by how much it is used and how many cycles it can tolerate, no
170 Keesje : ouch.. I agree. The best won and folks that useally promote free market, no nonsense and "bang for the bucks" are suddenly hanging on bureaucratic de
171 N328KF : You sound like someone who just got dumped by their (girl|boy)friend. Why don't you wait to see what comes of it? You know, multiple people have expl
172 Bongodog1964 : The way this procurement exercise is going, Airbus will be offering the A350XWB, unless its obsolete by the time the whole mess is sorted out
173 XT6Wagon : Boeing in this case appears to own everything airframe wise and just subcontracts the production. The 787 would be different since many of the detail
174 Revelation : By what measure? The Flighty Scale? In this case, we're arguing about the size and shape of the ramp, taxiways, runways and hangars. You did read the
175 PC12Fan : Am I the only one thinking Boeing is dusting off the folding wing design just in case?
176 Stitch : I just cannot see Boeing offer the 777 Freighter for the KC-45A RFP. If they're smart, they'll spend some time and refine the KC-767 Advanced proposal
177 Sxf24 : It is not about making the criteria equal for each bidder, but rather clearly laying out the desired requirements. If a KC-30 sized tanker is what th
178 NYC777 : I agree that if Boeing were to offer a KC-787 it would need a ton of resources but they can have a winner on its hands. It might be a great candidate
179 B777fan : You hit the nail on the head. That's why NG threatened to pull out of the bidding last November. As specified then, they couldn't win. The Air Force
180 Stitch : The KC-30A appears to meet all the requirements of the RFP and exceeded many of them. However, that extra performance and capability costs more, both
181 N328KF : I highly doubt this is the case for airframe components. Avionics, yes, engines, yes...but are you seriously going to tell me that if Boeing has a (m
182 Post contains links TropicBird : Review this well thought out piece on where this contract may go. The general consensus is that this an entire re-compete - but as the article points
183 XT6Wagon : I think I covered it later that while Boeing currently does NOT own the detailed designs for parts of the 787, I am sure that they have it covered in
184 BlackKnight : Initial feedback that I am getting: 1-tRFP was for: a.tA replacement for the KC-135 i.tA new plane that would fit into all current facilities includin
185 KennyK : Boeing developed the KC-135 in parallel with the 707 so why not develop a KC787 now. Based on the 787-8 it would be bigger than the 767 but about the
186 Keesje : Interesting way of looking at it. While I agree there would be obvious advantages a renewed KC767 would also have disadvantages, additional investeme
187 PolymerPlane : The risk has been taken into account by air force's calculation. That's mainly why the purchase price of the KC-767 is higher than the KC-30. Boeing
188 Post contains links Keesje : I think there are fall back scenarios. The other KC30 been ordered will be build to, as well as A330F's. Airbus' own conversion center in germany is
189 BlackKnight : Keesje please do not play the stupid card. You are well respected as being informed. While you are an Airbus salesman you still have enough informati
190 Post contains links and images NAV20 : They must be pretty quick-thinking, then  :- "But several minutes after I received notification Wednesday morning of the GAO’s ruling, I got an e-
191 SEPilot : That's Europe's problem. I am a US citizen and concerned primarily about US security. If they want to buy our weapons I am happy to sell them to them
192 Post contains images Keesje : You see europe loyalty as an issue. Would you consider yourself as a loyal ally or more the isolationist type? Business wise: If Boeing didn't export
193 Curt22 : Item #5 is worded dangerous close to saying NG was unresponsive (fancy Acq word meaning didn't meet requirement)...when a contender is deemed unrespo
194 Sxf24 : OEMs rarely own detailed designs for all aircraft parts, especially for systems or some complex assemblies.
195 WarRI1 : Hopefully that says something about the GAO keeping in mind its mission, to take care of the US pocketbook, not special interests. One can hope anywa
196 Keesje : Who were the members of this GAO?
197 N328KF : It's thousands of nameless, faceless auditors. You understand that the GAO is a standing organization and was not set up just to diss your pet projec
198 Post contains links DrExotica : With 15 seconds of browsing, you could have found the answer at the GAO site. http://www.gao.gov/about/index.html[Edited 2008-06-20 09:12:17]
199 Post contains links Pygmalion : Keesje, GAO, also called the Government Accountability Office See http://www.gao.gov/about/index.html The U.S. Government Accountability Office (GAO)
200 Post contains links NorCal : The GAO is a bunch on accountants that basically review government contracts. They are not politicians and they are not subject to the problems assoc
201 N328KF : But, don't you see, because they did not favor Kessje's blessed airframe, they are biased. Never mind that they didn't bless the competition, either.
202 Ken777 : That's a pretty sloppy definition. Both A & B should have been required to identify all facility upgrades required for existing KC-135 bases as well
203 TropicBird : One respectful correction to this statement is needed - the group that reviews the "protests" are all attorneys - not accountants. The current head o
204 Smeg : I feel that I need to add my 2cents to this most lively "debate" To be honest, I could not really care less who makes the tanker. In theory, if the ta
205 RedFlyer : It was the best, most intelligently written rant in this entire thread. No apologies were necessary.
206 RaginMav : RedFlyer is exactly right, no apologies necessary. Your analysis was spot on!
207 Flighty : Well, there is one good thing about this. The KC-X(NG) will be even more excellent and capable than before. But fairness is not what's important. Boei
208 Smeg : Hi, I would never criticise you for disagreeing with me! I actually agree with you 90% on what you have said, But I also must respectfully disagree w
209 Dk1967 : ^ SMEG for President!
210 Sprout5199 : Sorry, he cannot be President---he is not a natural born citizen, but he would make a great Sec. of State. SMEG, what you have said "should" shut up
211 Rwessel : That's at least basically true, but running a fair process is essential for the long term - why would Boeing (or EADS) participate in the next big pr
212 RedFlyer : What would be the point of having an RFP then? Indeed, the USAF or any contracting authority for that matter (government or commercial) must have cre
213 AirRyan : And the only plane that would beat that offer would be a KC-787 as sho have been the case all along. I've heard that ATC will route A321's out of PHX
214 KC135TopBoom : The GAO confirmed it in their findings. " target=_blank>http://www.iht.com/articles/2008/04/...r.php That artical is useless now. it was written 2 Ap
215 XT6Wagon : yes small irrelevant facts like ignoring manditory critera for one bidder and not the other Altering one bidders fixed price offer without any merit
216 Trex8 : why???
217 KC135TopBoom : Why wouldn't the current B-777-200LRF, as a tanker "beat" the unbeatable (but not even tested) KC-30? Boeing did offer the best value for the KC-X. W
218 KC135TopBoom : Apparently, no one learned anything from 2002. BTW, has anyone heard froim Zeke on this?[Edited 2008-06-20 17:46:36]
219 Curt22 : I knew Ryan couldn't go through a whole post without an attack on Boeing or the CSAR-X decision! LOL Following what I'll laughingly refer to as your
220 N328KF : I don't think the H-47 is a horribly bad CSAR platform, but I will say that I'm extremely surprised that the H-53K did not get that contract. AW101 (
221 XT6Wagon : Got to play if you want to win. It wasn't offered, thus it couldn't win The transport requirements are nasty for larger helicopters too, which is lik
222 Osiris30 : Twice?? Really... Seems to be that Boeing may have tried to screw you once, and then the Airforce thought you were pretty good for screwing so went a
223 Ken777 : Actually there are other priorities that also have to be considered. Like being able to continuing paying out something like $11 - $12 Billion per MO
224 Stitch : The USAF apparently jiggered the numbers to ensure that the bid with the lowest cost to the taxpayer - Boeing's - was rejected and the bid with the h
225 Olle : The problem must be something different. The AF wants two actors to compete to get he best product for thebest value. the first time the RFP was writt
226 Zeke : Doubt it, cost twice as much. Please list where in the RFP it allows more than one airframe to be submitted. The GAO said they actually dismissed som
227 NAV20 : Zeke, all the GAO said was, "The Air Force...... made unreasonable estimates of the cost of constructing runways, ramps and hangars needed for the la
228 Astuteman : Ironically, a 787-8 might suffer from having a lower payload capability than the A330. Don't know how that issue migrates from civil to the tanker sc
229 N328KF : Zeke, who are you kidding? This is definitely going to be a new RFP. The document may simply be a clarified version of the old document, but it will b
230 NAV20 : And a lot will depend on who gets to be the next President. The odd thing is, probably EADS should be praying that Obama gets in. He just MIGHT appro
231 Curt22 : I think the Kilo will be a fantastic machine in it's own right, but there are several reasons SAC didn't bid the CH-53K...first being schedule, USAF
232 Stitch : $557,000 to $923,000 per month. However, none are currently available for lease.
233 NorCal : Both met the requirement of exceeding the KC-135 Yes, but the RFP didn't say (and the GAO agreed) that bonus points would be awarded to the platform
234 Zeke : If they go for a new RFP, it is against the GAO recommendations, the GAO did not call for that. "We recommended that the Air Force reopen discussions
235 BlackKnight : Zeke again you are making assumptions. You are very well informed in the commerical world but may need to sit back and research the US military world
236 Trex8 : exactly, he already has the WA state vote and congressional delegation in his pocket but needs the AL one more. no one will be asking for an unfair o
237 RedFlyer : Perhaps. But why do it in such an under-handed way by treating the two suppliers so differently? If they want a tanker with the size and capability o
238 Zeke : I pasted this excerpt above, this is what the GAO actually said.... "We recommended that the Air Force reopen discussions with the offerors, obtain r
239 Zeke : 1) Size was, and still is not part of the specification. 2) The USAF did specify capability they required, and they specified they wanted excess The
240 Pygmalion : Agreed, size is not part of the spec... but military construction cost is part of the overall life cycle cost analysis. One of the points the GAO mad
241 XT6Wagon : If/When the 787 has a tanker version made of it, I'm sure it will be the 8 length with the highest MTOW package elsewhere. So today that would be a 7
242 N328KF : I think it's safe to say that you're not in from US, nor are you in USAF. There are people here who are both who have called you out.
243 RedFlyer : You didn't answer my question, which was responsive to your question. Why treat the two suppliers so differently from one another?
244 Zeke : Like who ? All I see is some people playing the man with frivolous one lines, and not the topic when they do not like what they read. It is very easy
245 Curt22 : The issue isn't if Military Construction (MILCON) was required of the vendors (it was not), GAO's finding says the USAF did not account for MILCON co
246 RedFlyer : The GAO did not say the bids were treated differently, which they would be naturally, they said the suppliers were treated differently. Big differenc
247 Zeke : Thanks for that well said. The GAO said it was only over one point of the RFP to do with "operational utility", not the entire process, significant d
248 KC135TopBoom : The additional fuel tanks the KC-767AT will have are also FAA Certified. The Italian KC-767A (which has the same refueling system, except the Boom) i
249 RedFlyer : What does that have to do with the issue of treating the suppliers differently? You're deliberately trying to change the issue. The GAO said in its r
250 KC135TopBoom : The RAF bought the A-330MRTT. The RAAF bought the KC-30B The RSAF bought a different version of the A-330MRTT The JASDF bought the KC-767J The Italian
251 Post contains links NYC777 : Here's an interesting take n the GAO actions: http://www.fleetbuzzeditorial.com/2008/06/23/tanker-travails-part-two/
252 TristarAtLCA : The first part is well written and balanced. The second part is garbage. A myopic rather than interesting take on the issue.
253 Zeke : The statement by the GAO does not for one moment suggest that the parties were treated all that differently for the majority of the process. The full
254 Post contains links RedFlyer : So is that what the standard is now, they have to be treated differently for the "majority" of the process for the process to be considered unfair an
255 Smeg : Hi Red Flyer. Thanks for your reply, nothing in your reply deserved a "mugging" as far as I am concerned. I read it, learned from it and posted my th
256 TropicBird : Simple answer is YES. That is how the Boeing supporters are spinning the story and it is working.
257 Ktrick45 : If by "Americans," you mean the average nightly news watcher with no particular interest in aviation or military affairs, yes, exactly. The broadcast
258 MOBflyer : Not everywhere. I'm not the only one to call that crybaby "Booing". The USAF knew that all politcal Hell would break loose if they chose the NG/EADS
259 Ken777 : Interesting that people still moan about Boeing filing the protest. If they hadn't they AF would have been a clear signal that they could play the pr
260 WarRI1 : Somehow with billions of dollars involved, I think it is a little simplistic to call Boeing a derogatory name like you did. I would have to think geo
261 TropicBird : Sadly...we all thought the previous scandal would have corrected this. They say the third time is a charm. How many chances should the AF get and don
262 Agill : But would the 777 really have been an option in this round anyway?
263 XT6Wagon : Yes, it could have been. Would have been close on the schedule, but it was certainly possible.
264 EPA001 : No, it was never an option. The costs of the airframe, the weight of her, the way she could have performed her role in the air, and her take-off perf
265 Post contains links Scbriml : I wonder why they haven't? Even Boeing is now back-peddling on that "issue". They've changed their tune from "The AF told us not to bid a KC-777" to
266 Post contains links MOBflyer : Regardless of which side you're on, this is funny: http://www.wkrg.com/mobilesmakeover/article/a_finger_for_boeing/15153/ WKRG.com Video
267 MOBflyer : You are certainly right in identifying my bias. However, somehow, with the mere facts indicating otherwise, does Boeing argue that its competitor is
268 Post contains links TropicBird : Major new development. Pentagon plans to re-award contract to NG - EADS. http://leehamnews.wordpress.com/2008/06/25/usaf-to-gao-drop-dead/
269 MOBflyer : Didn't I predict they would try to do something like that? Anyways... GREAT NEWS!!!
270 Sprout5199 : Can you say NO FUNDING?The USAF needs to walk softly right now. If they tell the GAO "drop dead", Congress will eat them alive. I could see Congress
271 Agill : " target=_blank>http://leehamnews.wordpress.com/2008...dead/ Man, this circus just gets better. How big is the risk that something like the structura
272 Post contains links RedFlyer : The GAO's full report is now out: http://www.gao.gov/decisions/bidpro/311344.htm
273 XT6Wagon : Wow, it appears from the full report that the USAF selected a tanker THAT CAN'T REFUEL SOME OF ITS PLANES with proper procedures being followed. Wow..
274 RedFlyer : The short answer: Yes.
275 Alien : Absolutely wow! Add to that the fact that the GAO said that Boeing had "a substantial chance" of winning the RFP had the Air Force conducted it's eva
276 Keesje : According to Leeham USAF/DOD people apparently have said: “Their finding is that the full document is quite different from the summary,” issued la
277 PolymerPlane : B.S. Did you even read the full report? NG's refusal to provide 2-year supports for the tankers, in itself violates the minimum requirement of the pr
278 RedFlyer : Why don't you read the full report for yourself rather than pass judgment on those that have?
279 Ken777 : If the AF tells the GAO to stuff it they will clearly be putting their egos above their integrity, which is very difficult for me to understand. If th
280 Sprout5199 : I think Leeham was fed a line of BS on this. A few of the points could not be construed as "procedural". That was real damning. Could not refute the
281 Post contains links Alien : Here is what is in the report: http://www.gao.gov/decisions/bidpro/311344.htm Have fun spinning that. The air force would be out of their mind to try
282 Osiris30 : As others (including yourself) have stated, that would result in congress stepping in, and that would get very ugly very quickly. Everyone knows that
283 XT6Wagon : I was shocked when the USAF "expert" after being briefed by NG on the topic couldn't explain the issue at all. Just kept saying that the dive speed w
284 Smeg : Time out guys. I think that people on both side of the pond are getting a bit carried away here. The GAO have not said that the wrong aircraft was se
285 Post contains links and images Keesje : "We are comfortable and confident that the KC-45 is the best solution to the U.S. tanker requirement," Chief Executive Louis Gallois told reporters.
286 Sprout5199 : But they also said that had the "process" not been flawed, Boeing would have a much better chance of winning it. To me, this sounds like the "process
287 Alien : Louis Gallois can try to spin this any way he wants but at the end of the day it's the GAO that evaluated the process and they sais that the process w
288 Post contains links Keesje : I don't think so. In the GOA report you can read explicitly all criteria used by the USAF were minimum criteria, putting to big requirements to bed.
289 Smeg : Hi Dan. I think that you have mis-understood my post. I was making no comment as to whether I thought that NG/EADS or Boeing should have won, or whet
290 PolymerPlane : You can also read in the GAO report that NG did not meet the minimum requirement Cheers, PP
291 Keesje : I think it is possible everytime when you do an rfp of thousands of pages and then get proposals of thousands of pages, to find some bureaucratic inco
292 PolymerPlane : B.S. NG was asked repeatedly specifically about the service by AF. It's not even bureaucratic at all. Even NG admitted that the refusal was intention
293 Keesje : It's not like a RFP dictates what to offer. Boeing likely also choose to not fulfill every requirement strictly. As far as I have experiences thats a
294 PolymerPlane : Yeah so now RFP do not set the minimum standard? And the negotiation means charging the taxpayers billions of dollars more for the service that shoul
295 Dk1967 : Hmmm. That's an interesting understanding of government procurement procedures. Is that the way they do it Keesjelandia; request a 'thingy that flies
296 Alien : Sorry Keesje, this is not "normal business" the air force is obligated by law to follow the selection criteria in the RFP. You don't get a choice to
297 Keesje : When I go for a new car, it has to be fast, cheap, powerfull & efficient, good looking and functional and most of all safe & reliable. Thats where it
298 Flipdewaf : eh hem, please don't change "Boeing would have had a substantial chance" to "Boeing probably would have won." I believe you have a substantial chance
299 Moo : Well, firstly the tankering system on the KC-30 as chosen by the USAF would be fitted and maintained by NG, not EADS, and the last time I looked, NG
300 Ken777 : Keesje, while I know you prefer the 330 over the 767 and it appears that some in the AF do also. Unfortunately it comes down to money. While AF gener
301 WithaK : I have been apprehensive to put my opinions forward on this issue but I think I will give it a go. To start with I would like to say that I think both
302 Alien : Thank you for the well reasoned response WithaK. Please let me point out what you yourself observed. I happen to agree with that statement and if that
303 WithaK : As far as I can tell "officially" the KC-30 won this RFP. Whether it rightfully won or not is the issue and is an issue that has to be solved by the
304 Alien : Congress controls the purse strings. Congress can compel the Air Force to buy whatever Congress wants merely by using that power. There is plenty of p
305 Smeg : Not wanting to put the cat amongst the pigeons, and I understand what you are saying, but...... If the KC30 is unable to satisfy the requirements of
306 Moo : You keep repeating that, even though it has been pointed out multiple times that that was not what the report said. Getting dizzy, Alien?
307 MOBflyer : There is nothing in the GAO report that says the KC-767 would hav I don't think you're wrong. I've been saying this for a while. The USAF knew the pol
308 WithaK : I totally agree with this. I find it hard to believe that any military branch (or business organization for that matter) would select a product that
309 Dk1967 : Although it did say, "3. Protest is sustained, where the record does not demonstrate the reasonableness of the agency’s determination that the awar
310 Arluna : What the report said was that the KC30 couldn't refuel every aircraft in the inventory using current Air Force proceedures. It further stated that th
311 WithaK : How else would you interpret this finding? The aircraft may itself may be superior but what is important is which bid better fits the requirements se
312 Calags : I'm sorry to say it but there is a more malicious way to interpret this. The US Air Force acquisition team was demonstrated to be corruptible during
313 WithaK : Although yes it is possible that the acquisition team was corruptible I think for now it is best to assume that in this case they weren't. Until ther
314 Post contains links Ken777 : SecDef has his first say: "I haven't made any decisions yet, but I would say that I take the GAO report very seriously," Gates told reporters. "They c
315 Post contains links Alien : Not only did EADS not meet two of the nine KPP thresholds, the GAO found the following about the discriminators. The more the GAO report is read the
316 TropicBird : After reading the GAO decision. It appears this is truly a major mess and that trying to avoid this from happening again will be difficult at best. Ba
317 TropicBird : I forgot to mention - check out page 9 of the decision - it explains how the "Trade Space" concept works.
318 Beta : After reading the entire GAO report, it seems to me the KC 30 is a technically superior performer, but evaluating against the RFP solicitation criteri
319 Banjo76 : There is a US law, voted by your congressmen and signed by your president that says that some coutries (including the countries that develop the A330
320 Alien : I suspect we will. Why should I pay for European jobs?
321 Banjo76 : My thought is: how can an accountability office decide if a plane can do or can't do something, what do accountants and attorneys know about flight a
322 WithaK : The GAO didn't actually determine for themselves whether the KC-30 fulfilled the mission requirements. What the GAO found was that there was no evide
323 Post contains images Smeg : Finally, this I suspect is the reason for the majority of the anger from some of our US Airnetters. Many will spin it up with regards to the "leverag
324 Post contains links Ken777 : So now I'm reading that three will be hearings in the House of Representatives: "The House Oversight and Government Reform Committee will hold a July
325 Osiris30 : As I said earlier in this thread.. the fastest way for the AF to get a tanker right now is to start all over on the whole process. Any attempt by the
326 EPA001 : I have already stated here that the USAF "screwed up the procedures" when conducting their evaluations of the two bids. That remains a shame but they
327 Rheinwaldner : Important point: If the procurement was tweaked intentionally it is clear that the USAF really, really wanted the KC30. Even in Europe people seldom
328 Stitch : To be fair, why did Europe create EADS, Airbus, Eurocopter, and other companies? Because, in part, they likely didn't like their airlines and governm
329 Curt22 : Airbus isn't likely to "switch off" the spare parts pipeline to corporate clients because of political decisions nations make. However, some EU natio
330 MOBflyer : Exactly. And they knew exactly what would happen, politically. But they wanted the KC30 so much they went ahead with the choice.
331 RedFlyer : With all due respect, using that logic then it could just as well be said that since the procurement was tweaked intentionally on the 2002 tanker RFP
332 Alien : Exactly. If it where in any way a reciprocal situation or if Europe did not do exactly the same in that they always prefer to buy "European" in milit
333 Post contains images Keesje : ? I think EADS was not created, it was formed as a combination of various (old) European aerospace manufacturers who could do design, development and
334 Ken777 : Well said. It may be that over time (and it had better be a short time) the AF may determine what they need is not only a KC-135 tanker (the plane cl
335 Moo : With that statement, you have just destroyed the trillion dollar US defence export market. Why should other countries pay for US jobs?
336 Stitch : Created. Formed. You say "toh-may-toh" and I saY toh-mah-toh". Those companies, as separate entities, could no longer compete with their US counterpa
337 MOBflyer : And what else did they have to choose from?
338 Stitch : The A310 tanker might still have been an option. The USAF also could have just said "no, we'll stick with the KC-135 for now".
339 Post contains links Alien : EADS was a construct of the governments of UK, France, Spain and Germany and until very recently was still controlled by those governments those facts
340 Atmx2000 : There is no trillion dollar defense export market to Europe for the US. There is no trillion dollar defense export market worldwide for the US. Total
341 BlackKnight : People we have missed the real reason the KC-45X won. EADS is far better at winning contracts than Boeing. If EADS was seeking the olymipics they woul
342 EPA001 : I certainly will not stop stating the facts if that is what you are asking of me! Remember, the airplane is not responsible for not accounting for in
343 Post contains links Venus6971 : It sounds or reads like that SOD Gates has no confidence in Sue Payton USAF aquistion chief http://www.defensetech.org/archives/004273.html?wh=wh Gate
344 MOBflyer : I was under the impression that this contest was the first in which a team could be comprised of a foriegn based member. Correct me if I'm wrong, but
345 Ken777 : Airlines generally agree with you, but this is a military RFP where the lowest option that meets the requirements should win. In determining lowest c
346 Stitch : I imagine NG is the prime contractor for the KC-45A, even though the majority of the airframe is being sourced from Airbus (through EADS). The origin
347 WarRI1 : I wonder if the McCain advisors who were tied to EADS had anything to do with this feeling that the deal sucked. We have all heard this argument over
348 Post contains links Alien : You are absolutely correct. In fact it seems that not all in the Air Force think that the EADS tanker is better for them than the KC-767. In regard t
349 Astuteman : How so? If "not all the airforce think so", then by definition, some "do think so" - in which case the arguments will continue.... Rgds
350 EPA001 : Yup Astuteman, that is a smart remark . There were always going to be die-hard Boeing supporters (especially in the USAF) who would cry out loud if t
351 Post contains links Keesje : The online trade publication DefenseTech.org, citing unnamed sources, said John Young, the Pentagon's chief weapons buyer, was drafting a letter to Co
352 Curt22 : You are correct, the vendor is not responsible for infrastructure costs, known as Military Construction (MILCON), but this is an area that the USAF m
353 EPA001 : Well this really shows how much pull Boeing really has when it comes to government processes. Especially this paragraph out of the article that Keesje
354 Post contains links Zeke : I think you will find all of the refueling system is not FAA certified, no FAR exists for that. The KC-767AT as far as I am aware will have different
355 Stitch : This is absolutely nothing new. Politics plays a huge roll in DoD selections. The trick is, until recently, the politics have been "local" - state vs
356 XT6Wagon : Zeke, yes, in fact it is the same thing. They failed to prove it could do the required job under current USAF procedures. This is the same thing as f
357 Zeke : This seems to be typical of the low quality posts I have read above. I refer to page 92 of the NG submission to the GAO : As far as I am aware it can
358 RedFlyer : No, what I'm merely pointing out, as did the GAO, is that the few areas where the USAF made errors had a MATERIAL affect on the entire process. In le
359 Post contains images EPA001 : I fail to see the relevance of the A400 developments in light of this tanker deal for the USAF. And by no means are Canadians labelled in Europe as d
360 Ken777 : The time honored phrase is "lowest bidder in a government contract" indicating the lowest cost option that met the requirements. Some AF generals may
361 NorCal : The question that needs to be answered definitively is what is the total cost of procuring both tankers. It is easy for people to brush over things li
362 Alien : How about the one where John McCain's campaign aids sent letters to the Air Force demanding that the RFP be changed in favor of EADS? What about that
363 PolymerPlane : It does not meet the statement of objective. Cheers, PP
364 Atmx2000 : One of the most significant attractions of the A330 airframe over the 767 for commercial airlines was that the wider fuselage gave the ability to car
365 Zeke : I think he had done himself a significant disservice by writing for Boeing, he has ruled himself out in many peoples minds are being independent, and
366 PolymerPlane : And yet NG intentionally refused to provide the service. Cheers, PP
367 Zeke : In the GAO report, NG did commit to provide the service, they just failed to explicitly provide a date. "The Air Force recognized in its evaluation t
368 Beta : This is just twisted logic. If he is considered an expert in the field, with the proper credentials, then there is nothing wrong with Boeing or any o
369 Alien : what makes you think there will be another RFP. NG lost. They did not provide the required 2 year commitment, they did adequately explain how they co
370 Zeke : What you say is partially right, but when he makes public comment that is designed to influence the public and people selecting the aircraft, he is n
371 Post contains images RedFlyer : Having one's words appear on Boeing's blog is not proof that they are on Boeing's payroll. A few years ago there was an A.Netter that posted on that
372 Post contains links Alien : The GAO has oversight over the Air Force procurement process and it is a matter of public record that they said that EADS failed to meet two mandator
373 EPA001 : Well, out of the many answers Zeke has given here on this topic (and on other topics), it is clear that he read all the reports, including the RFP mu
374 Beta : I agree it is a very significant "leap of faith" to declare Boeing the winner. As of now NG/EADS is still the winner pending changes. However, a clos
375 KC135TopBoom : That is correct, the GAO said it did not meet the requirements. Apparently, so did EADS/NG. Apparently the KC-30 cannot comply with USAF overrun proc
376 Post contains images Keesje : It seems NG/EADS has now also choosen to use a more agressive tone.. "Unlike our competitor's offering that has yet to leave the drawing board,” say
377 Sprout5199 : Zeke, read the first sentence. And they also said this: To me (and the GAO) that is a deal breaker. If I was going to buy a car and the dealer said"
378 Post contains links Lumberton : Here is a side by side comparison of NG's comments WRT the GAO findings and Boeing's retorts. Not for the faint of heart. http://www.scribd.com/doc/37
379 RedFlyer : Interesting. So now they no longer claim their tanker is better, only that it is ready sooner.
380 Ken777 : An odd twist. As I recall the lease deal was set up to minimize the annual budget requirements and to get the tankers in faster. u Made the AF happy
381 Alien : How so? GAO specifically stated KC-30 did not demonstrate that they met two KPPs. GAO specifically stated the Air Force overestimated Boeing cost and
382 Ken777 : Well the AF has 60 days to respond to the GAO and it would be very wise of them to provide a detailed response to the major issues raised. On the mone
383 Post contains links Keesje : Where? I thought it looked interesting until I saw it comes from the well TankerWarBlog.com. Now there is a lot mighty god can do, except making Tank
384 Alien : All Tankerwarblog did was take both companies responses to specific points in the RFP and print them side by side. Whats the problem where it comes f
385 Flipdewaf : Well lets see what comes out in the new RFP shall we. Funny how you point all these things out but the airforce still wanted the NG offering? I think
386 RedFlyer : Show me where in the paragraph you provided in your post 376 where, unlike in previous media events, they claim their tanker is better. I noticed it
387 Post contains links Keesje : It must be imagination. The last sentnce in the link I provided in post 376. if the goal is to buy the best tanker for the job, the Air Force has alr
388 RedFlyer : It must be magic...the invisible link. I don't see a link in your post 376.
389 Scbriml : Not quite. It clearly says on the home page Other gems from the home page and Yes, they're clearly an unbiased source.
390 Pygmalion : And the Alabama Press Register newspaper is an unbiased source???? Quoting a newspaper blog to refute the GAO seems a bit over-reaching.
391 Post contains links BlackKnight : Is a news article biased from the point of view of the KC-45 and Alabama. Try this link: http://www.aero-news.net/index.cfm?C...d273d7-b526-4b1e-9b65
392 Alien : You obviously did not read what I wrote. I never said they did not have an anti EADS point of view. What I said was that they printed verbatim Boeing
393 Post contains links Scbriml : I've never claimed it was. The local press is obviously going to support the "home team". However, for someone to suggest tankerwarblog is merely pre
394 Alien : Not at all a major stretch here. They said they added In other words in no way did they misrepresent what NG/EADS or GAO had to say. They where refer
395 Curt22 : Quoting an Alabama newspaper that is preaching to it's citizens who stand to lose BILLIONS should EADS lose the deal as a credible source that claims
396 Astuteman : Either source bias is a problem, or it isn't..... As overreaching as quoting a blog to support the GAO, I suggest. The veracity of the information wi
397 Rheinwaldner : If that is true please explain why did the highly respected United States Air Force want this tanker? Just find one explanation. It so weird that I h
398 Alien : You are missing the point. Tankerwarblog printed verbatim NG/EADS, and GAO comments. They edited Boeing's comments. Lets remember they are pro Boeing
399 Alien : What makes you think they do? If they had wanted the KC-30 then they would have written the RFP for the KC-30. It was John McCain and his EADS lobbyi
400 Rheinwaldner : Ok I am willing to discuss this point. It surely has been discussed but could you summarize that requirements again (the ones not met by KC45)? I gat
401 XT6Wagon : one is that in the event that a reciever overruns or flys past the boom you (the tanker) must accelerate away from the reciever and/or climb away fro
402 Rheinwaldner : Thanks a lot! What kind of prove would be acceptable? Surely life tests are not possible (because the planed KC767 configuration can not be life test
403 Pygmalion : yep, i agree fully. thats why i didn't quote either one.
404 Scbriml : If you think I was "misleading", then you're reading too much in to my posts, Aliene.
405 Curt22 : The proof would be provided in the vendor's own proposals. Source Selection teams pretty much have to BELIEVE anything a vendor says, but they can we
406 Alien : The vendor does have to prove the capability by either demonstrating it or documenting it. This is what got the Air Force in trouble with the acceler
407 Rheinwaldner : Why did NG not document these things? That would be stupid from their part. Don't tell me that acceleration or top speed of an A330 can not be docume
408 XT6Wagon : Its very possible it does lack in this area. Don't forget it has alot higher MTOW which means a much higher total wieght when starting offload. Its a
409 Alien : According to the full redacted text of the GAO report the flight performance was documented and at certain speeds and altitudes (the ones where aeria
410 Rheinwaldner : I thought twins are more overpowered (because after one engine inop basic performance still must be delivered). How intends Australia and the UK to t
411 Astuteman : er - hang on. A bigger wingspan will usually result in a DECREASE in drag, and a quite considerable one, too..... It's plausible that the very existe
412 JayinKitsap : It appears that one or more of the US planes fueled via the boom have higher speeds than planes in other countries inventory - or other countries hav
413 XT6Wagon : It does decrease drag at normal operating conditions in civilian use, Does it reduce drag near/at its max allowed speed, flying heavy and lower altit
414 MOBflyer : No they didn't. Read the footnote on the first page: You can be selective in your quoting of sources to steer a piece of "journalism" in one directio
415 Osiris30 : Finally someone gets it 2 points. Everyone is always so quick to point out who efficient the 330 can be (and comercially it is more efficient than a
416 Zeke : Incorrect, the GAO has not said that at all. I have listed all the KPP thresholds (i.e. mandatory requirements) in reply 354, the KC-30 met all of th
417 TristarAtLCA : Unless I've missed a point here (and that isn't beyond the realm of possibilty ) that statement seems odd to me. I can't think of a single medium/lon
418 Lumberton : You're welcome. Eight findings are very, very damaging to the selection of the KC-30; after all, it only takes one material finding to throw this thi
419 Post contains links Zeke : I dont know what aspect of being "net ready" (it is a classified part of the RFP) that Boeing did not conform to, but I think this is an organization
420 Astuteman : The heavier the plane, the more significant the drag reduction of a larger span will be, as far as I am aware.... ?????? Way, way too simplistic. Aga
421 Zeke : Agreed, especially when you compare the the 767 and A330, the A330 has 10 more years of aerodynamic research going into its supercritical airfoil tha
422 Lumberton : One must assume for the sake of argument that the GAO read the RFP, can we agree on that? Yet, the GAO used the word "mislead". That is their charact
423 Post contains links Zeke : The GAO only used that word in reference to one point in the whole RFP process, not the entire process, and as I mentioned before, they could have ma
424 Sprout5199 : But Zeke, to then change the spec, not talk to Boeing about, and continue to talk to NG/EADS about it and then say Boeing doesn't meet the spec? That
425 Post contains links XT6Wagon : For the record, to correct someone who can't seem to post factual information about this... http://www.gao.gov/press/boeingstmt.pdf Point 3 and Point
426 Lumberton : Yes, they did. Page 54 of the GAO report: (emphasis added)
427 Curt22 : Loren Thompson has one again validated he and his "Non-profit" Lexington Institute are nothing but hired guns for hire (to put it kindly) who will sa
428 Baroque : The best I can contribute is that running the above para through MS Word, Word is unable to find a Flesch reading ease (Uh oh!!!) and the Flesch-Kink
429 Post contains images Lumberton : That's OK. I ran this portion of the GAO's findings through MS Word. I got an F-K grade level of 21.2, which I believe is PhD territory, and the Secr
430 Post contains links BlackKnight : http://www.spectator.org/dsp_article.asp?art_id=13475 It seem that most all the news reports have zoned in on the truth after the intial false informa
431 Scbriml : You're going to have to help me here, where does this state that the KC-30 failed to meet the KPP? It says that the AF couldn't demonstrate the reaso
432 Post contains links Zeke : The spec or evaluation method did not change, read around pages 47-49 of the full report to see what happened. Reading a summary will never get the d
433 Astuteman : Who? Who? Whose tanker? Whose tanker? Whose tanker? It's no wonder Northrop Grumman are being accused of missing key requirements... Rgds
434 Zeke : It is interesting to note that the very paragraph that article used omitted the last sentence. "Although we sustain Boeing’s protest on grounds rel
435 Post contains links Pygmalion : the April 25th Boeing Submittal is availble on Leeham.net First Half second half
436 Zeke : As far as I am aware that is the rebuttal to the USAF motion to dismiss ("Comments on the Agency Report"), not their initial submission to the GAO. F
437 Pygmalion : Similar to your statements that NG/EADS fulfilled many more criteria than Boeing.... the devil is in the details... and you are counting every minor
438 Post contains links Zeke : Only 2 partially, the GAO did not have problems with IFARA, past performance, or the fuel calculations. Boeing was pushing the cost of fuel significa
439 Pygmalion : fairly well redacted but ... the protest of the the KPP for refueling all aircraft is discussed in section under mission capability II C2; page 63, w
440 TropicBird : What did the USAF really want? That has not been made clear as yet because who is really the decision maker for the Air Force on the KPP's for this a
441 Pygmalion : then why did the AF rate the KC30 the same as the KC767 for NetReady... Partially Met?
442 Zeke : Still is not the initial complaint, it is the rebuttal to the USAF motion to dismiss. That is a $22 million dollar question, and something we just do
443 Post contains links Sprout5199 : Well Zeke, Here is the proof: http://www.leeham.net/filelib/First_..._Comments_on_the_Agency_Report.pdf On page 32(page 40 on my PDF), it says"the err
444 Curt22 : Thanks for the link...Page 8 paragraph 3 has a greeat quote relating to the risk of the "nomadic multi-lingual production plan" where is says: " The
445 Zeke : That is a document written by Boeing attorneys to the GAO, what do you expect them to write, that they thought the process was without error ? I agre
446 Post contains links Alien : I especially like these three: http://www.leeham.net/filelib/First_..._Comments_on_the_Agency_Report.pdf Congress is going to have a field day and I w
447 EPA001 : Alien, I am not sure what you are talking about. If you would have read carefully through the previous posts, it would have become all clear to you: F
448 Scbriml : Shock, horror, hold the front page! Boeing, in a document written by Boeing's lawyers, says the AF should have selected the KC-767. I need to sit dow
449 Rheinwaldner : You mean the A345 would be even more acceptable than the A330 as base platform? The A340-500, the last overpowered, high performing quad in aviation
450 XT6Wagon : No, We won't ever see what I am thinking of unless a 707/KC135 or DC8 is used since the days of a 4 engine narrowbody with high MTOW is long since ov
451 Post contains links Alien : I would challenge anyone to point out in the GAO report where any of the statements made in the Boeing Comments of the Industry report are false. Perh
452 EPA001 : EADS did not loose anything. The USAF chose the NG-EADS proposal as their winner. Boeing protested on 111 items at the GAO, the GAO ruled in favor of
453 Scbriml : You really are desperate aren't you? Neither point says the KC-30 fails to meet any KPPs. 3) Does not say the KC-30 cannot refuel all aircraft in the
454 Sprout5199 : I guess they tightened things. Just messing with ya. Very well said. The problem with this, is that it will seem that the USAF would be making the ch
455 EPA001 : I can not argue on this with you. You are completely right. The previous RFP was still more B767 based which caused NG to demand the famous extra par
456 Pygmalion : Show me where Boeing submitted 111 items.?!?!? They submitted one protest. In follow on discussions with the GAO and the AF, they also sumitted follo
457 EPA001 : @ Pygmalion: it was "here" (see the quotes below) that the rumours of more than 70 protested points, later more than 100 protested points were confirm
458 Post contains links Lumberton : I would be cautious in emphasizing the "quantitative" approach. Frankly, it could be just as damaging to the award if the GAO found one or one hundre
459 Post contains links Scbriml : From the Tanker War Blog, and their "Dueling Talking Points" article. Now these guys are seriously anti-EADS, so if it was wrong, they'd have been al
460 Scbriml : From the USAF's perspective, this is sadly correct. The 8 protests the GAO sustained were sufficiently serious for them to say It looks as though the
461 Pygmalion : let me be clear: Boeing filled ONE protest. That protest may have been multi-layered and complex with many details and points. The GAO made ONE decisi
462 Scbriml : Not strictly true, but the most likely outcome. The GAO's ruling is not binding on the AF, hence the precise wording of (my emphasis)
463 Curt22 : You are correct, the decision is non-binding...However, GAO works for the Congress, and it is Congress who pays the bills, so if the USAF were to ign
464 Ken777 : The AF doesn't have to pay attention to the findings of the GAO. They can basically tell the GAO to shove it and continue with their plans to go with
465 Moose135 : If so, they are going to have to have one hell of a big bake sale to raise money for the tankers they want to buy.
466 Alien : ROFLMAO So what is your point? They sustained 8 serious errors. Two of the errors disqualify the KC-30 being awarded the contract and the other six a
467 Ken777 : I know that, and you know that. Unfortunately I would bet that there are some top brass who are trying to figure out how to get away with it. I'm at
468 Alien : That should go without saying regardless of the outcome.[Edited 2008-07-08 22:44:01]
469 EPA001 : That is a very simplistic comparison and takes many things not into account. You are easily forgetting in your comparison that mission profiles can a
470 Scbriml : My point was simply a response to Pygmalion's direct question. Not sure why you need to ask, it was quite clear.
471 Zeke : P, I fully agree with you, the protest was sustained. I am glad Being protested, I am happy the procurement process is working. What I disagree with
472 Par13del : To me the main problem that exist for both OEM's are: 1. The US Air Force is seeking to replace the KC-135 2. Only Boeing has submitted an a/c closer
473 NorCal : The original RFP was for something closer in size to a KC-135. NG/EADS cried foul and said they wouldn't submit a bid when they realized they couldn'
474 Scbriml : The problem being, both bidders are basing their tanker on existing civil frames which are not the same size. The AF shouldn't be telling NG or Boein
475 BlackKnight : If you keep saying this, it still won't be true and more and more members here will begin to question your other wise valuable input. Zeke you are ve
476 Post contains links Scbriml : Tanker War Blog is reporting that the decision is "an expedited recompete". http://tankerblog.blogspot.com/ No details yet. Press conference now sched
477 TristarAtLCA : If you are referring to the link in reply 430, it says nothing about the number of issues the GAO ruled on. But maybe you can answer what the GAO mea
478 Alien : Obviously someone in the Pentagon thinks they sustained enough so that they have to re-bid the RFP.
479 NYC777 : Ok so the tanker decision would be run by the DoD and not the Air Force...that's a huge change! The recompetition decision would be based only on thos
480 Scbriml : Which was the GAO's recommendation, as opposed to your preferred solution.
481 Beta : It does not matter how many points or items they sustained. That's beside the point, and making an issue out of it is only a distraction tactic in a
482 Curt22 : Or would they offer BOTH platforms and put the monkey on the back of the USAF again, forcing them to say why neither the 767 nor 777 would be a good
483 Revelation : The press conference says the RFP will be for a "medium" tanker, and I do believe that will preclude the 777. One can argue (and we have!) that it sh
484 Post contains links Scbriml : Indeed, at the press conference it was emphasised that both the KC-30 and KC-767 were categorised as "medium tankers". This Leeham article completely
Top Of Page
Forum Index

This topic is archived and can not be replied to any more.

Printer friendly format

Similar topics:More similar topics...
Boeing Appeal Of KC-45A Award posted Fri Mar 14 2008 16:13:12 by RedFlyer
NG And Usaf Ask GAO To Dismiss Boeing Protest... posted Thu Mar 27 2008 18:16:12 by AirRyan
Why A Bunch Of KC-135s At Pease In NH? posted Tue Feb 26 2008 10:33:40 by ChrisNH
Boeing VP Of Tanker Programs Csan Interview posted Wed May 30 2007 19:39:48 by 102IAHexpress
Boeing Has A Usaf KC-767 Stored? posted Sat Apr 21 2007 01:11:18 by KC135TopBoom
It's Official. Boeing Offers Advanced KC-767 posted Mon Feb 12 2007 19:42:52 by USAF336TFS
Boeing Bird Of Prey posted Fri Oct 18 2002 22:36:21 by Aerobalance
Wall Street Journal: Boeing To Protest KC-X Bid... posted Mon Mar 10 2008 15:36:37 by AirRyan
Boeing KC X Will Create More US Jobs. posted Tue Jun 17 2008 17:25:31 by Columbia107
Second Tanker Protest With GAO posted Tue Jun 3 2008 09:17:57 by Observer
NG And Usaf Ask GAO To Dismiss Boeing Protest... posted Thu Mar 27 2008 18:16:12 by AirRyan
Why A Bunch Of KC-135s At Pease In NH? posted Tue Feb 26 2008 10:33:40 by ChrisNH
Boeing VP Of Tanker Programs Csan Interview posted Wed May 30 2007 19:39:48 by 102IAHexpress
Boeing Has A Usaf KC-767 Stored? posted Sat Apr 21 2007 01:11:18 by KC135TopBoom
It's Official. Boeing Offers Advanced KC-767 posted Mon Feb 12 2007 19:42:52 by USAF336TFS
Boeing Bird Of Prey posted Fri Oct 18 2002 22:36:21 by Aerobalance
Wall Street Journal: Boeing To Protest KC-X Bid... posted Mon Mar 10 2008 15:36:37 by AirRyan
Boeing KC X Will Create More US Jobs. posted Tue Jun 17 2008 17:25:31 by Columbia107