NYC777 From United States of America, joined Jun 2004, 5155 posts, RR: 49 Reply 1, posted (4 years 11 months 1 week 3 days 5 hours ago) and read 20111 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.
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.
Stratofortress From United States of America, joined Dec 2005, 178 posts, RR: 1 Reply 12, posted (4 years 11 months 1 week 3 days 4 hours ago) and read 19873 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.
MOBflyer From United States of America, joined Sep 2007, 1209 posts, RR: 5 Reply 13, posted (4 years 11 months 1 week 3 days 4 hours ago) and read 19862 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."
Ikramerica From United States of America, joined exactly 8 years ago today! , 21029 posts, RR: 60 Reply 15, posted (4 years 11 months 1 week 3 days 4 hours ago) and read 19839 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.
NYC777 From United States of America, joined Jun 2004, 5155 posts, RR: 49 Reply 18, posted (4 years 11 months 1 week 3 days 4 hours ago) and read 19819 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.
Ikramerica From United States of America, joined exactly 8 years ago today! , 21029 posts, RR: 60 Reply 19, posted (4 years 11 months 1 week 3 days 4 hours ago) and read 19806 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.
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.
Stratofortress From United States of America, joined Dec 2005, 178 posts, RR: 1 Reply 22, posted (4 years 11 months 1 week 3 days 4 hours ago) and read 19645 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.
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.
N328KF From United States of America, joined May 2004, 6222 posts, RR: 3 Reply 23, posted (4 years 11 months 1 week 3 days 4 hours ago) and read 19577 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
NYC777 From United States of America, joined Jun 2004, 5155 posts, RR: 49 Reply 24, posted (4 years 11 months 1 week 3 days 4 hours ago) and read 19548 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 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 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 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 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