With the case of CSAR-X there were a handful of tangible examples where the GAO found reason to uphold the losing bidders (in this case - two sperate companies) protests but in KC
-X I have yet to hear a single reason as to why Boeing feels the GAO will even give them the light od day?! So now not only did Boeing let the USAF
down in submitting an inferior platform now they are directly going against the USAF
's specific wishes and going to protest the bid just because they can (more so than because they honestly believe the GAO will overturn the award and reopen it - but maybe their just looking for payback for their CSAR-X bid protest?
Well, once the GAO comes back and says they find no reason to side with Boeing's protest, than the USAF
can award CSAR-X to LM
soon thereafter and Boeing can be left out on the cold on both competitions - smooth move Boeing.
This is like sueing for your high school diploma when the reason you were never otherwise awarded it was because you didn't meet the criteria!
Sue Payton and her team took 6-9 months specifically trying to make sure that their decision would yield no space for sustainment of a protest and do you think Boeing will have a legitimate case? I don't think so, but we'll hear what it is that they are protesting by the end of tuesday.
Nobody knows the shortcomings of Boeing's KC
-X bid better than the USAF
and they were doing everything they possible could do to select Boeing in CSAR-X but I suspect that will now cease. Boeing couldn't offer a superior bid in either competition and now the USAF
can finally tell Boeing how they really feel.
Boeing only loses with this protest: not only points for submitting an inferior bid (both CSAR-X and KC
-X in my opinion) but also for whining about losing just for the sake of whining.
I eagerly look forward to reading the GAO's ruling on this protest as it will only further discredit Boeing's credibility and expose the short comings of thier KX-767AT bid. Maybe Boeing can sue all of those airlines that choose the A-330 over their B-767, too?
[Edited 2008-03-10 16:24:10]