Moderators: richierich, ua900, hOMSaR

  • 1
  • 6
  • 7
  • 8
  • 9
  • 10
 
rheinwaldner
Posts: 1856
Joined: Wed Jan 02, 2008 4:58 pm

RE: Breaking: GAO Sustains Boeing's Protest Of KC-X

Thu Jul 03, 2008 7:28 am



Quoting Alien (Reply 399):
The KC-30 DID NOT MEET THE MINIMUM REQUIREMENTS set forth in the RFP.

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 gathered that it has to do with airspeed.

Thanks.
Many things are difficult, all things are possible!
 
XT6Wagon
Posts: 2727
Joined: Tue Feb 13, 2007 4:06 pm

RE: Breaking: GAO Sustains Boeing's Protest Of KC-X

Thu Jul 03, 2008 8:10 am



Quoting Rheinwaldner (Reply 400):
I gathered that it has to do with airspeed.

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 from the reciever. The climb can NOT involve a loss of airspeed. The KC30 fails to meet the USAF's procedures for this case, and while the GAO isn't saying exactly how it fails, it appears to lack acclereration AND max speed for some of the aircraft the USAF needs to refuel in mid air. The GAO has said specificly that NG failed to prove its capiblity TO refuel all aircraft in the USAF inventory which as far as the bid goes is the same thing as not doing it period. They were even invited to provide new evidence in the GAO protest by the GAO and they declined. The person from the USAF couldn't explain the basic issues with this topic much less the detailed issues. More troubling is that the USAF KNEW that it couldn't from the NG/EADS request to alter the procedure for overruns to allow compliance by the KC30.

Much more shrouded in mystery is the VF22 refueling issue, which the GAO didn't shed any light on. Boeing, NG, EADS, USAF, and the GAO have said little to nothing on it. Boeing claims that the KC30 can't... PERIOD. I've seen other quotes on the other side ranging from "yes it can you you lier", to "well ok, it doesn't right this instant, but it will tomorrow", to "we are working on a solution". The STRANGE thing is what makes the VF22 unique that it can't be refuled by the KC30 but can by the KC767? I have to assume that right this instant the evidence points to it NOT being able to on the KC30 side. We know it can't be the outright speed of the plane since other planes and helicopters are slower, yet nearly everything else is faster. Can't be just the exhaust from the engines since.. well the KC767 is narrower between the engines and the wing hoses don't help either I would think on that issue.


The second issue is that NG failed to agree to supporting the USAF taking on MX internal to the USAF instead of having NG/EADS providing it within 2 years. This case it was found to be a clear and intentional violation of the minimum standards set in the request.
 
rheinwaldner
Posts: 1856
Joined: Wed Jan 02, 2008 4:58 pm

RE: Breaking: GAO Sustains Boeing's Protest Of KC-X

Thu Jul 03, 2008 10:54 am



Quoting XT6Wagon (Reply 401):

Thanks a lot!

Quoting XT6Wagon (Reply 401):
The GAO has said specificly that NG failed to prove its capiblity TO refuel all aircraft in the USAF inventory which as far as the bid goes is the same thing as not doing it period.

What kind of prove would be acceptable? Surely life tests are not possible (because the planed KC767 configuration can not be life tested at all).
Many things are difficult, all things are possible!
 
pygmalion
Posts: 836
Joined: Thu Jun 29, 2006 12:47 am

RE: Breaking: GAO Sustains Boeing's Protest Of KC-X

Thu Jul 03, 2008 3:44 pm



Quoting Astuteman (Reply 396):
Quoting Pygmalion (Reply 390):
Quoting a newspaper blog to refute the GAO seems a bit over-reaching

As overreaching as quoting a blog to support the GAO, I suggest.

The veracity of the information will obviously depend upon the readers point of view, if this thread is anything to go by.....

yep, i agree fully. thats why i didn't quote either one.
 
User avatar
scbriml
Posts: 18952
Joined: Wed Jul 02, 2003 10:37 pm

RE: Breaking: GAO Sustains Boeing's Protest Of KC-X

Thu Jul 03, 2008 9:51 pm



Quoting Alien (Reply 394):
Do try to be a bit less misleading next time Scrimble.

If you think I was "misleading", then you're reading too much in to my posts, Aliene.  smile 
Time flies like an arrow. Fruit flies like a banana!
There are 10 types of people in the World - those that understand binary and those that don't.
 
Curt22
Posts: 334
Joined: Sat Jul 14, 2007 11:43 am

RE: Breaking: GAO Sustains Boeing's Protest Of KC-X

Fri Jul 04, 2008 2:42 am



Quoting Rheinwaldner (Reply 402):
What kind of prove would be acceptable? Surely life tests are not possible (because the planed KC767 configuration can not be life tested at all).

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 weigh unreasonable claims as having greater risk.

If my requirement is "The tanker must refuel all aircraft in my inventory" and I provide a list of receivers, altitudes and refueling air speeds. The vendor must clearly indicate in their proposal how they will meet this requirement. If not, then the vendor would (should) be judged as "non-responsive" and should be dismissed from consideration.

While there seems to be some discussion concerning the A-330 on this subject, I make no judgement since I have no data to support either a pass or fail on this claim.
 
Alien
Posts: 416
Joined: Mon Oct 12, 2009 8:00 am

RE: Breaking: GAO Sustains Boeing's Protest Of KC-X

Fri Jul 04, 2008 5:24 am



Quoting Curt22 (Reply 405):
The proof would be provided in the vendor's own proposals. Source Selection teams pretty much have to BELIEVE anything a vendor says,

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 acceleration issue.
 
rheinwaldner
Posts: 1856
Joined: Wed Jan 02, 2008 4:58 pm

RE: Breaking: GAO Sustains Boeing's Protest Of KC-X

Fri Jul 04, 2008 8:13 am



Quoting Alien (Reply 406):
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 acceleration issue.

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 documented as well as for the 767. And don't tell me that the A330 lacks performance in this area.
Many things are difficult, all things are possible!
 
XT6Wagon
Posts: 2727
Joined: Tue Feb 13, 2007 4:06 pm

RE: Breaking: GAO Sustains Boeing's Protest Of KC-X

Fri Jul 04, 2008 12:40 pm



Quoting Rheinwaldner (Reply 407):
And don't tell me that the A330 lacks performance in this area.

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 also operating very near its max operating speed as evidenced by apparently not meeting the required max velocity. Added in the A330 has a good bit more frontal area and wing area causing more drag.

It also could be the engines simply take too long to spool at some speeds/offload conditions.

In many respects for refueling very high performance aircraft a narrowbody 4 engine plane that is overpowered is the way to go. However high payload narrowbodies are dead, and 4 engine planes are now economicly restricted to VLA. In some respects I can't help but wonder how good the 707/KC135 could get with yet another refresh to even newer engines and systems.
 
Alien
Posts: 416
Joined: Mon Oct 12, 2009 8:00 am

RE: Breaking: GAO Sustains Boeing's Protest Of KC-X

Fri Jul 04, 2008 12:56 pm



Quoting Rheinwaldner (Reply 407):
Don't tell me that acceleration or top speed of an A330 can not be documented as well as for the 767. And don't tell me that the A330 lacks performance in this area.

According to the full redacted text of the GAO report the flight performance was documented and at certain speeds and altitudes (the ones where aerial refuling takes place) the KC-30 did not have the required acceleration. EADS explanation as to why the numbers could be overidden apparently came up short.
 
rheinwaldner
Posts: 1856
Joined: Wed Jan 02, 2008 4:58 pm

RE: Breaking: GAO Sustains Boeing's Protest Of KC-X

Fri Jul 04, 2008 1:41 pm



Quoting XT6Wagon (Reply 408):
a narrowbody 4 engine plane that is overpowered

I thought twins are more overpowered (because after one engine inop basic performance still must be delivered).

Quoting Alien (Reply 409):
at certain speeds and altitudes (the ones where aerial refuling takes place) the KC-30 did not have the required acceleration.

How intends Australia and the UK to tank their planes with the A330? Don't tell me that they overlooked something. It smells like the USAF procedures are not capable to achieve what Australians and UK's can. It would be sad to miss the opportunity to select the more capable platform because of some non-issues (as they seem to me).

To come out from of the blind alley I could imagine that:
- There could be workarounds to present procedures that undo such limits.
- Present procedures can be adopted to make both tankers platform suitable.
Many things are difficult, all things are possible!
 
astuteman
Posts: 7123
Joined: Mon Jan 24, 2005 7:50 pm

RE: Breaking: GAO Sustains Boeing's Protest Of KC-X

Fri Jul 04, 2008 3:28 pm



Quoting XT6Wagon (Reply 408):
Added in the A330 has a good bit more frontal area and wing area causing more drag.

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 existence of that lower drag (per weight) has resulted in a lower installed thrust per weight, which might reduce overall acceleration at high weights...

Rgds
 
JayinKitsap
Posts: 2114
Joined: Sat Nov 26, 2005 9:55 am

RE: Breaking: GAO Sustains Boeing's Protest Of KC-X

Fri Jul 04, 2008 5:34 pm



Quoting Alien (Reply 409):
According to the full redacted text of the GAO report the flight performance was documented and at certain speeds and altitudes (the ones where aerial refuling takes place) the KC-30 did not have the required acceleration. EADS explanation as to why the numbers could be overidden apparently came up short.

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 have different procedures. The RFP indicated that the new tanker needed refuel capabilities at least as good as identified in the KC-135 and KC-10. It is likely that wing sweep angle may have an effect.

It is also likely that Boeing knew this group of planes was a critical "nut" in the RFP and had previously done testing / engine selection to be able to accelerate and fly for a short time at the required speeds. From the GAO report it appeared that the 330 was limited by its max dive speed and hence max cruise at 80% of that. Does the 767 have a higher dive speed?
 
XT6Wagon
Posts: 2727
Joined: Tue Feb 13, 2007 4:06 pm

RE: Breaking: GAO Sustains Boeing's Protest Of KC-X

Fri Jul 04, 2008 7:19 pm



Quoting Astuteman (Reply 411):
er - hang on.
A bigger wingspan will usually result in a DECREASE in drag, and a quite considerable one, too.....

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 altitude than optimum for that wing size? Its alot of extra skin friction and you are not using the extra area to lift it to higher altitudes due to being constrained by the mission.

To add to the issue, I didn't adress wing design in terms of profile. Airbus designs for efficent climb, Boeing optimizes for cruise. Which will have lower drag at high speeds

Quoting Rheinwaldner (Reply 410):
I thought twins are more overpowered (because after one engine inop basic performance still must be delivered).

4 engines while not REQUIRED to have as much power, does give you 2 times the engines to carry "oversizing" across. Also smaller fans/cores should create a quicker spooling engine. The MX and fuel burn penalty of the 4 engines isn't as important if you are looking at a military operator. Many would be willing to pay the costs for 4 engines just to see the extra redundancy. Sadly the KC135/707 is dead and I doubt you could convince anyone to put money into them even if its cheaper/better for the missions at hand than any of the modern airliners.
 
MOBflyer
Posts: 150
Joined: Sun Sep 30, 2007 9:42 am

RE: Breaking: GAO Sustains Boeing's Protest Of KC-X

Fri Jul 04, 2008 11:23 pm



Quoting Alien (Reply 392):
What I said was that they printed verbatim Boeing and NGs publicly stated reaction to the GAOs report.

No they didn't. Read the footnote on the first page:

Quote:
[**Note: TankerWarBlog has edited these comments so they should not taken as official Boeing statements.]



Quoting Alien (Reply 392):
Where is the bias there?
Has EADS or NG come out and said what they printed was wrong?

You can be selective in your quoting of sources to steer a piece of "journalism" in one direction or another.

Quoting Pygmalion (Reply 390):
And the Alabama Press Register newspaper is an unbiased source????

Firstly, its the Press Register, formerly the Mobile Register. Secondly, the local writers generally are pro-NG, but the paper just about always has a "special to the Press-Register" opposing view for editorial pieces.
 
osiris30
Posts: 2681
Joined: Sat Sep 30, 2006 10:16 am

RE: Breaking: GAO Sustains Boeing's Protest Of KC-X

Sat Jul 05, 2008 6:10 am



Quoting Astuteman (Reply 411):
It's plausible that the very existence of that lower drag (per weight) has resulted in a lower installed thrust per weight, which might reduce overall acceleration at high weights...

Finally someone gets it  Smile 2 points. Everyone is always so quick to point out who efficient the 330 can be (and comercially it is more efficient than a 767), but are forgetting that planes suffer the same way cars do from efficiency.. i.e. if you need top notch performance, you invariable have to trade off efficiency in normal conditions. (I'm guessing the same is true for your subs... in order to have a higher sprint capacity you would need a larger reactor, which would be less efficient at normal cruise settings?)
I don't care what you think of my opinion. It's my opinion, so have a nice day :)
 
User avatar
zeke
Posts: 14896
Joined: Thu Dec 14, 2006 1:42 pm

RE: Breaking: GAO Sustains Boeing's Protest Of KC-

Sat Jul 05, 2008 7:04 am



Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 375):
That is correct, the GAO said it did not meet the requirements.

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 them, and more often than not, exceeded them.

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 375):
Apparently the KC-30 cannot comply with USAF overrun procedures and breakaway procedures (breakaways are an emergency procedure), because it cannot accelerate fast enough.

FYI, the KC-30 has a better thrust to weight ratio than the KC-135R, the thrust off 4 CFM56 engines on the KC-135 is not much more than the output of a single KC-30 engine.

The issue is the current FAA TCDS for the A330 says max indicated airspeed (Vmo) is 330 KIAS, whilst the KC-767 is 360 KIAS, meaning if the KC-767AT ever gets built it should also be able to make 350KIAS which is the maximum speed required for any of the USAF aircraft for the overrun procedure as I outlined above.

This is not a show stopper, for example in Brazil the A330 is currently certified for 360 KIAS, and the A30 has previously been certified by the FAA to 360 KIAS. If you were to search "A330 FAA TCDS 360 KIAS" in google, the first hit should show an old FAA TCDS that states the Vmo of 360 KIAS.

Quoting Sprout5199 (Reply 377):

To me (and the GAO) that is a deal breaker. If I was going to buy a car and the dealer said" we will provide a "bumper to bumper" warranty, including routine services, but we won't tell you how long or how it will be done untill you sign the papers, I am walking out, esp. if I told them up front that is one thing I need in the contract. If its not in the original contract that is awarded, they don't have to provide it.

The USAF was looking for support to get their own maintenance system setup for this new type within 2 years, it was not looking for the vendor to conduct maintenance on behalf of the USAF in the long term.

All the maintenance under the RFP in the long term was to be done by the USAF 2LM structure, i.e. done by the USAF (but they have to lean how to do it, that is where the support side of things comes in, so does having worldwide parts logistics stores and parts delivery etc). I have outlined the actual RFP paragraph in reply 354.

Quoting Lumberton (Reply 378):
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/3763385/Du...ision

Thats for that, I had heard that Boeing had submitted 100+ separate complaints, to see the actual number listed as 111, with only 8 upheld is significant.
Human rights lawyers are "ambulance chasers of the very worst kind.'" - Sky News
 
TristarAtLCA
Posts: 636
Joined: Fri Jul 27, 2007 3:16 pm

RE: Breaking: GAO Sustains Boeing's Protest Of KC-X

Sat Jul 05, 2008 10:01 am



Quoting XT6Wagon (Reply 413):
. Airbus designs for efficent climb, Boeing optimizes for cruise.

Unless I've missed a point here (and that isn't beyond the realm of possibilty  Smile ) that statement seems odd to me. I can't think of a single medium/long haul wing which is not optimised for cruise. Whilst wing profile is a consideration, the lift devices deployed are directly related to climb efficiency far more than a wing in clean cruise configuration.
If you was right..................I'd agree with you
 
Lumberton
Posts: 4176
Joined: Fri Jul 29, 2005 7:34 am

RE: Breaking: GAO Sustains Boeing's Protest Of KC-X

Sat Jul 05, 2008 2:38 pm



Quoting Zeke (Reply 416):
Thats for that, I had heard that Boeing had submitted 100+ separate complaints, to see the actual number listed as 111, with only 8 upheld is significant.

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 thing back to square one. Setting aside the debate on the relative merits of the two contenders for a moment, there are the findings that the USAF "misled" Boeing, and the fact that the GAO stated that NG's proposal should not have formed the basis of an award since [it] "fails to conform to a material solicitation requirement. . . ." (page 54 of the GAO's report)

I work with acquisition folks all the time and the ones I've spoken with are still shaking their heads at these findings. I've heard all kinds of explanations ranging from ineptitude & incompetence to grassy knoll theories of geopolitical quid-pro-quos. Frankly, I'm at an utter loss to explain this. The explanation of "it's obvious, they selected the better plane" doesn't even come close to justifying why the USAF thought they could get away with this procurement given the "misleading" behavior and blatant disregard of regulation. Perhaps they thought they could "bluff" their way forward by discouraging a protest? That would explain the "leaks" that Loren Thompson pounced upon immediately after the announcement. The USAF political appointees could not have been naive enough to expect Boeing's congressional supporters to "roll over" on this, could they?

Hopefully, we'll find out more at next Thrusday's congressional hearing.
"When all is said and done, more will be said than done".
 
User avatar
zeke
Posts: 14896
Joined: Thu Dec 14, 2006 1:42 pm

RE: Breaking: GAO Sustains Boeing's Protest Of KC-X

Sat Jul 05, 2008 7:22 pm



Quoting Lumberton (Reply 418):
Eight findings are very, very damaging to the selection of the KC-30; after all, it only takes one material finding to throw this thing back to square one. Setting aside the debate on the relative merits of the two contenders for a moment, there are the findings that the USAF "misled" Boeing, and the fact that the GAO stated that NG's proposal should not have formed the basis of an award since [it] "fails to conform to a material solicitation requirement. . . ." (page 54 of the GAO's report)

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 organizational wide issue with Boeing, not just part of the KC-X issue.

Press reports recently have indicated that the Wedgetail will be delayed even more to the RAAF, and when delivered it will be missing the "net ready" aspects of the aircraft as Boeing has been unable to deliver this. This was also a problem found on the previous KC-767A bid Boeing submitted to the USAF, see the audit report released in Jan 2007 http://www.dodig.osd.mil/Audit/reports/FY07/07-047.txt

It was improper for the USAF to say they met the requirement if they didn't, the GAO report is not specific enough in this area, let me explain.

I believe Boeing had the full "net ready" spec themselves, and Boeing would have submitted what they thought was a conforming proposal in good faith (no suggestion otherwise), it is very possible at the time the USAF also agreed in good faith with the methodology Boeing presented at the time.

It is also possible that NG decided to use slightly different hardware, and when explaining why they chose that hardware, the USAF only later became aware of a deficiency in the Boeing proposal, the GAO were vague in the type of discussion that the USAF were conducting with NG over this.

As to "is not a material solicitation provision", that is correct, it is not a KPP threshold, it was not even a KPP objective, it was not listed in the main RFP or SRD documents.

The document also said

"The long-term support concept for the KC-X is organic two-level maintenance (2LM)—Organization level (O-level) and Depot level (D-level) using the FAA approved manufacturer’s maintenance program. For the purposes of this program, all maintenance other than O-level shall be referred to as D-level. The Government plans to separately compete the development, deployment, and sustainment of both the aircrew and maintenance training systems. The KC-X contractor will be responsible for Type I training only and will not deliver any training hardware to the Government."

That means :
1) all maintenance was to be organic (i.e. in house)
2) the USAF planed to separately compete the development, deployment, and sustainment of both the aircrew and maintenance training systems
3)the vendors were only responsible for Type I training only

Trying to debate the contents of the GAO report is a futile task if you do not know what the RFP was asking for in the first place. May I suggest your friends (like many on this thread) are unaware of the actual RFP details, and cannot then make a determination of what the impact of the actual GAO findings were.
Human rights lawyers are "ambulance chasers of the very worst kind.'" - Sky News
 
astuteman
Posts: 7123
Joined: Mon Jan 24, 2005 7:50 pm

RE: Breaking: GAO Sustains Boeing's Protest Of KC-X

Sat Jul 05, 2008 8:30 pm



Quoting XT6Wagon (Reply 413):
Does it reduce drag near/at its max allowed speed, flying heavy and lower altitude than optimum for that wing size?

The heavier the plane, the more significant the drag reduction of a larger span will be, as far as I am aware....

Quoting XT6Wagon (Reply 413):
Airbus designs for efficent climb, Boeing optimizes for cruise. Which will have lower drag at high speeds

??????
Way, way too simplistic.

Quoting XT6Wagon (Reply 413):
4 engines while not REQUIRED to have as much power

Again, as far as I'm aware, a 4-engined plane of commercial origin will ALWAYS have a lower thrust-weight ratio than a twin....

Quoting Osiris30 (Reply 415):
Finally someone gets it

Had to get one right someday....  Wink

Quoting Osiris30 (Reply 415):
I'm guessing the same is true for your subs... in order to have a higher sprint capacity you would need a larger reactor, which would be less efficient at normal cruise settings?)

Bad analogy. The reactor is more like a fuel tank cum kettle, than a prime mover. The prime movers are steam turbines...  Wink
(Reactor doesn't really care how fast you go, or how efficient the turbines are - it has more energy than you'll ever need....  Smile )

Rgds
 
User avatar
zeke
Posts: 14896
Joined: Thu Dec 14, 2006 1:42 pm

RE: Breaking: GAO Sustains Boeing's Protest Of KC-X

Sat Jul 05, 2008 9:09 pm



Quoting Astuteman (Reply 420):
Way, way too simplistic

Agreed, especially when you compare the the 767 and A330, the A330 has 10 more years of aerodynamic research going into its supercritical airfoil than the 767 had. The 767 has one on the early basic supercritical designs, the A330 section is a fairly mature supercritical section that seems to be able to cruise for 18 hrs plus on the A340.
Human rights lawyers are "ambulance chasers of the very worst kind.'" - Sky News
 
Lumberton
Posts: 4176
Joined: Fri Jul 29, 2005 7:34 am

RE: Breaking: GAO Sustains Boeing's Protest Of KC-X

Sat Jul 05, 2008 9:15 pm



Quoting Zeke (Reply 419):
May I suggest your friends (like many on this thread) are unaware of the actual RFP details, and cannot then make a determination of what the impact of the actual GAO findings were.

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 characterization, not anyone on this thread. Hardly ambiguous and considering the stakes involved in this affair, I would venture that the author of the report choose this word with some care. The GAO also said that Northrop Grumman's proposal should not have been the basis for an award. IMO, this is the most devasting finding in a very damning report.

I hope there are reasonable explanations for the USAF doing what it did, but I haven't seen any in the press yet. Can there be any doubt that this report has given Boeing's supporters in Congress very potent ammunition with which to contest this award? The Bush Administration's days are numbered--six months. Secretary Gates has some tough choices.
-Proceed with the USAF's decision? I don't think so.
-Reverse the decision on the basis of the errors highlighted in the GAO report? Maybe. NG will surely seek remedies of their own.
-Split the award? How? The funding is not there. If NG/EADS were to get less than the full deal, would it even be worth building that assembly plant in Mobile? Maybe, if EADS' long range plans involve outsourcing to the U.S. However, no plant and no assembly in Mobile would obviate most of Northrop Grumman's claim of a U.S. pedigree.
-A fly off? Perhaps, but that would delay the IOC even further.
-Rescore the proposals based on the GAO findings and declare another winner? IMO, this would be the fastest way to get this back on track. I just hope that whichever plane is selected this time can get a majority of votes in the House and 60 votes in the Senate!
-Punt this to the next Administration, like he did with the F-22? Possible. SECDEF does have other things on his plate right now.
-Declare that this deal is irrepairably tainted and draft a new solicitation. Possible, but that, like a flyoff would delay the award for years.

The issues highlighted by the GAO would make a wonderful case in Federal Claims Court. However, I doubt that this will get that far.
"When all is said and done, more will be said than done".
 
User avatar
zeke
Posts: 14896
Joined: Thu Dec 14, 2006 1:42 pm

RE: Breaking: GAO Sustains Boeing's Protest Of KC-X

Sat Jul 05, 2008 11:51 pm



Quoting Lumberton (Reply 422):

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 made those comments to Boeing in good faith, as I think it is reasonable to assume Boeing would have submitted what it thought was a fully conforming specification (i.e. at the time, I think Boeing and the USAF thought that the spec was conforming).

To suggest otherwise, is to say that Boeing knowingly submitted a non conforming spec, and are now complaining that the USAF did not pick them up on it at the time. The responsibility for meeting the spec rests with the vendor, not the USAF.

Since the RFP decision, Boeing has announced yet another delay with the Wedgetail, mainly due to the lack of net ready capability and integrating the radar, and the aircraft will be delivered to the RAAF without that capability.

http://news.theage.com.au/national/m...getail-aircraft-20080616-2rc1.html

As I said to via PM when you asked me about this, NG is very strong in this area, with its own equipment already being used by the US military, Boeing is not as strong, as far as I am aware, they normally team up with Rockwell to supply their gear.

Quoting Lumberton (Reply 422):
The GAO also said that Northrop Grumman's proposal should not have been the basis for an award.

They did not say that.

Quoting Lumberton (Reply 422):
Can there be any doubt that this report has given Boeing's supporters in Congress very potent ammunition with which to contest this award?

The original decision by the USAF, plus the 103 points dismissed by the GAO would be further ammo for the USAF.

Quoting Lumberton (Reply 422):
-Proceed with the USAF's decision? I don't think so.

I think they will. I think the will do as the GAO asked, get more information from the vendors, maybe use a slight change in wording, and fix the 8 points the GAO identified.

Not a single point the GAO identified suggested the KC-767 was more capable or better value to the USAF, they were all basically procedural errors. Fix the procedural errors, and move on.

To me the GAO reads like, the competition was close, we found errors, becuase of this, we think either side could have won the way the document was written. They also went onto say they did not make the technical assessment on the aircraft, that is up to the USAF only.

I would welcome a fly off, it would cost the USAF about an extra 750 million for Boeing to make one or two SDD airframes, but I think that they would not be able to deliver in time, just like they have done with all of the other recent military conversions of civil airliners. NG have the advantage here, two airframes are ready now for conversion, and the other two SDD frames almost finished. NG will have 4 airframes ready to go before the USAF has to respond to the GAO.
Human rights lawyers are "ambulance chasers of the very worst kind.'" - Sky News
 
sprout5199
Posts: 1681
Joined: Sat Feb 26, 2005 8:26 am

RE: Breaking: GAO Sustains Boeing's Protest Of KC-X

Sun Jul 06, 2008 3:11 am



Quoting Zeke (Reply 423):
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 made those comments to Boeing in good faith, as I think it is reasonable to assume Boeing would have submitted what it thought was a fully conforming specification (i.e. at the time, I think Boeing and the USAF thought that the spec was conforming).

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 is misleading, and should negate the whole process, due to the fact Boeing can claim that everything was like this in the bid, even if we all think thats not the truth, can you prove it? If the USAF did it once, they MAY have done it many times but not caught( I'm not implying that, however there is precedent).

Dan in Jupiter
 
XT6Wagon
Posts: 2727
Joined: Tue Feb 13, 2007 4:06 pm

RE: Breaking: GAO Sustains Boeing's Protest Of KC-X

Sun Jul 06, 2008 5:17 am

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 5 clearly state two KPP that NG/EDAS failed.

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.

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.


The full doccument goes into more detail, but AGAIN NG failed two key requirements, and as such should have never been even in the final selection, much less the winner.
 
Lumberton
Posts: 4176
Joined: Fri Jul 29, 2005 7:34 am

RE: Breaking: GAO Sustains Boeing's Protest Of KC-X

Sun Jul 06, 2008 10:39 am



Quoting Zeke (Reply 423):
Quoting Lumberton (Reply 422):
The GAO also said that Northrop Grumman's proposal should not have been the basis for an award.
They did not say that.

Yes, they did. Page 54 of the GAO report:

Quote:
Whether or not Northrop Grumman’s proposed schedule accommodates providing these product-support services within the 2-year timeframe misses the point, however. By explicitly refusing to contractually commit to the 2-year timeframe for providing these services in the SOW as it was repeatedly requested to do, we think that Northrop Grumman has taken exception to this solicitation requirement. See C-Cubed Corp., B-272525, Oct. 21, 1996, 96-2 CPD ¶ 150 at 3. It is a fundamental principle in a negotiated procurement that a proposal that fails to conform to a material solicitation requirement is technically unacceptable and cannot form the basis for award.

(emphasis added)
"When all is said and done, more will be said than done".
 
Curt22
Posts: 334
Joined: Sat Jul 14, 2007 11:43 am

RE: Breaking: GAO Sustains Boeing's Protest Of KC-X

Sun Jul 06, 2008 12:19 pm



Quoting Lumberton (Reply 418):
would explain the "leaks" that Loren Thompson pounced upon immediately after the announcement.

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 say anything for those who line the pockets of those on the payroll of the the all knowing Lexington Institute.

[quote=Zeke,reply=419]Trying to debate the contents of the GAO report is a futile task if you do not know what the RFP was asking for in the first place. May I suggest your friends (like many on this thread) are unaware of the actual RFP details, and cannot then make a determination of what the impact of the actual GAO findings were.[/quote

True, few know what was in the RFP aside from what has been revealed by GAO, but the "Impact" of GAO's findings are very clear...GAO pulled no punches in stating the USAF screwed up in several ways. I can't recall any branch of the service's credibility being so badly damaged by GAO findings in the past.
 
baroque
Posts: 12302
Joined: Thu Apr 27, 2006 2:15 pm

RE: Breaking: GAO Sustains Boeing's Protest Of KC-

Mon Jul 07, 2008 4:04 pm



Quoting XT6Wagon (Reply 425):
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.

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-Kinkaid grade level is 32.2. A value of 8 is a bit dangerous for the F-K level - you should aim for 7-8 as a max. And a value of 32 is essentially off scale. I think it means that you would have to attend 24 years of school instruction in English beyond 8th grade to have a snowball's chance in hell of understanding it.

The GAO needs some help from a number of writers on a.net. Perhaps Toast's translation skills might be needed?!

So in short, good luck to anyone trying to understand what the GAO had to say. I think you guys are getting short changed in the writing department.  Wow!
 
Lumberton
Posts: 4176
Joined: Fri Jul 29, 2005 7:34 am

RE: Breaking: GAO Sustains Boeing's Protest Of KC-X

Mon Jul 07, 2008 4:58 pm

Quoting Baroque (Reply 429):
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-Kinkaid grade level is 32.2.

That's OK. I ran this portion of the GAO's findings through MS Word.

Quoting Lumberton (Reply 426):
It is a fundamental principle in a negotiated procurement that a proposal that fails to conform to a material solicitation requirement is technically unacceptable and cannot form the basis for award.

I got an F-K grade level of 21.2, which I believe is PhD territory, and the Secretary of Defense, the Honorable Robert Gates, happens to have one of those things. Hopefully, he won't have as much trouble figuring out what the GAO meant on this one. I suspect a lot of U.S. Federal Claims Court judges would no't either.  Smile

[Edited 2008-07-07 10:00:10]
"When all is said and done, more will be said than done".
 
blackknight
Posts: 222
Joined: Sat Dec 11, 2004 4:40 am

RE: Breaking: GAO Sustains Boeing's Protest Of KC-X

Mon Jul 07, 2008 5:22 pm

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 information EADS sent out. Most of the world has understood what many here fail to.

fair use:

Here, the GAO report describes why:


We find that the agency's selection… as reflecting the best value to the government was undermined by a number of prejudicial errors that call into question the Air Force's decision that Northrop Grumman's proposal was technically acceptable…. In addition, we find a number of errors in the agency's cost evaluation that result in Boeing… as the offeror with the lowest evaluated most probable life cycle costs to the government.

The report could read as a primer on the tanker row thus far (admittedly, though, a dry one), from the initial request for proposals to unlocking the criteria on which the decision should've been based.

In detail, it refutes most conservatives' assumptions about the tanker process in two ways. First, it makes clear -- embarrassingly so, to the Air Force -- that the process was corrupt. Whether by accident or design, procurement officials misled Boeing regarding the basic criteria on which the award would be given.

The report shows that the tanker decision was rife with irregularities and questionable decisions.


SECONDLY, THE REPORT should go a long way toward correcting the rumors and propaganda disseminated by EADS in the days following the announcement of the award.

In an effort to hurriedly establish talking points to leverage the debate, whisper-campaigns from unnamed sources leaked misleading information to the press about a so-called lopsided victory on the part of the EADS tanker, including that, in the eyes of the Air Force, Boeing was beaten "by a mile."

The GAO contradicts these talking points, and then some. While most of the proprietary information is blacked-out, the report contends that the Air Force assessed the Boeing and Airbus tankers very differently.

Not only were the two proposals "very similar" in quality, but there's reason to believe the Air Force overlooked several of the primary requirements in the case of the EADS tanker -- which possibly would make it ineligible for the award -- including the fact that the proposal failed to prove the tanker could actually refuel all currently compatible planes using Air Force procedures.
BK
 
User avatar
scbriml
Posts: 18952
Joined: Wed Jul 02, 2003 10:37 pm

RE: Breaking: GAO Sustains Boeing's Protest Of KC-X

Mon Jul 07, 2008 5:23 pm



Quoting XT6Wagon (Reply 425):
Point 3 and Point 5 clearly state two KPP that NG/EDAS failed.

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.

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 reasonableness of their determination that it could. So, AFAICS, the AF says the KC-30 can do it, but can't reasonably show the GAO how they arrived at that determination. That's very different from saying the KC-30 failed the KPP (the GAO is in no position to be able to make that technical determination anyway).
Time flies like an arrow. Fruit flies like a banana!
There are 10 types of people in the World - those that understand binary and those that don't.
 
User avatar
zeke
Posts: 14896
Joined: Thu Dec 14, 2006 1:42 pm

RE: Breaking: GAO Sustains Boeing's Protest Of KC-

Mon Jul 07, 2008 7:02 pm



Quoting Sprout5199 (Reply 424):
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?

The spec or evaluation method did not change, read around pages 47-49 of the full report to see what happened.

Quoting XT6Wagon (Reply 425):
http://www.gao.gov/press/boeingstmt.pdf

Reading a summary will never get the detail you are looking for, why bother publishing a full detailed report and just go by the summary. The old saying, "never judge a book by its cover" comes to mind.

From the full decision http://www.gao.gov/decisions/bidpro/311344.pdf :

"Both Offerors proposed to meet all KPP Thresholds. Both Offerors proposed capability beyond KPP Thresholds and offered significant trade space KSA capability. Additionally, both offered numerous non-KPP/KSA trade space capabilities deemed beneficial to the Government."

"This decision should not be read to reflect a view as to the merits of the firms respective aircraft. Judgments about which offeror will most successfully meet governmental needs are largely reserved for the procuring agencies, subject only to such statutory and regulatory requirements as full and open competition and fairness to potential offerors."

Quoting Baroque (Reply 429):
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-Kinkaid grade level is 32.2.

It is written for its intended audience, which is the legal teams to the vendors and the USAF, it is not written for public consumption.

Quoting Scbriml (Reply 432):
You're going to have to help me here, where does this state that the KC-30 failed to meet the KPP?

It does not say that at all, if it did, Boeing would be making press statements infinitum stating that very point.
Human rights lawyers are "ambulance chasers of the very worst kind.'" - Sky News
 
astuteman
Posts: 7123
Joined: Mon Jan 24, 2005 7:50 pm

RE: Breaking: GAO Sustains Boeing's Protest Of KC-X

Mon Jul 07, 2008 8:28 pm



Quoting BlackKnight (Reply 430):
It seem that most all the news reports have zoned in on the truth after the intial false information EADS sent out

Who?

Quoting BlackKnight (Reply 430):
SECONDLY, THE REPORT should go a long way toward correcting the rumors and propaganda disseminated by EADS

Who?

Quoting BlackKnight (Reply 430):
In an effort to hurriedly establish talking points to leverage the debate, whisper-campaigns from unnamed sources leaked misleading information to the press about a so-called lopsided victory on the part of the EADS tanker

Whose tanker?

Quoting BlackKnight (Reply 430):
While most of the proprietary information is blacked-out, the report contends that the Air Force assessed the Boeing and Airbus tankers very differently

Whose tanker?

Quoting BlackKnight (Reply 430):
Not only were the two proposals "very similar" in quality, but there's reason to believe the Air Force overlooked several of the primary requirements in the case of the EADS tanker

Whose tanker?

It's no wonder Northrop Grumman are being accused of missing key requirements...  Smile

Rgds
 
User avatar
zeke
Posts: 14896
Joined: Thu Dec 14, 2006 1:42 pm

RE: Breaking: GAO Sustains Boeing's Protest Of KC-X

Mon Jul 07, 2008 9:05 pm



Quoting BlackKnight (Reply 430):

It is interesting to note that the very paragraph that article used omitted the last sentence.

"Although we sustain Boeing’s protest on grounds related to these errors, we also deny many of Boeing’s challenges to the award."

Boeing has not released their initial submission to the GAO (the USAF and NG have), not even a redacted version that has been approved for public release, they only released a summary.

As we can see from the GAO 3 page summary, and their full report, the real detail is in the full report, not in the summary.

We now know Boeing made 111 complaints to the GAO, and the GAO only upheld 8 of those.

Boeing has a lot of public face to loose if we were to find out the 103 "Boeing’s challenges to the award" that the GAO did not uphold.

This report is a two edge sword for Boeing, it identified 8 areas where errors were made, but also found the vast majority of what they were complaining about was baseless. It does not surprise me at all that the pro Boeing press does not even try and investigate that, or even mention it.
Human rights lawyers are "ambulance chasers of the very worst kind.'" - Sky News
 
pygmalion
Posts: 836
Joined: Thu Jun 29, 2006 12:47 am

RE: Breaking: GAO Sustains Boeing's Protest Of KC-X

Mon Jul 07, 2008 9:17 pm

the April 25th Boeing Submittal is availble on Leeham.net

First Half

second half
 
User avatar
zeke
Posts: 14896
Joined: Thu Dec 14, 2006 1:42 pm

RE: Breaking: GAO Sustains Boeing's Protest Of KC-

Mon Jul 07, 2008 9:28 pm



Quoting Pygmalion (Reply 435):

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. For example it does not include the refueling KPP/overrun, or the 2 year support discussion.

Thanks anyway.
Human rights lawyers are "ambulance chasers of the very worst kind.'" - Sky News
 
pygmalion
Posts: 836
Joined: Thu Jun 29, 2006 12:47 am

RE: Breaking: GAO Sustains Boeing's Protest Of KC-X

Mon Jul 07, 2008 9:39 pm



Quoting Zeke (Reply 434):
We now know Boeing made 111 complaints to the GAO, and the GAO only upheld 8 of those.

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 tweak and not seeing the forest for the trees or the shrubs for that matter.

Boeing protested on 4 major grounds...

Mission capability and risk evaluations were improper and unreasonable

Cost price evaluation was improper and unreasonable

IFARA evaluation was improper and unreasonable

Past performance evaluation was improper and unreasonable

Which of these were not upheld? You can quibble about details but the GAO did uphold Boeing's protest on all of these even if they did not agree on all the sub-points.

Any reasonable reading of the GAO findings says that the AF did not hold a fair process.

its pretty simple...

And for all the comments on the KC767 is not "net ready"... thats the area where the AF allowed NG/EADS to refine their proposal during discussions and told Boeing that their proposal met the criteria... and then found that Boeing and NG/EADS only partially met. This is exactly the area where the GAO found that the AF held unequal conversations with the parties.
 
User avatar
zeke
Posts: 14896
Joined: Thu Dec 14, 2006 1:42 pm

RE: Breaking: GAO Sustains Boeing's Protest Of KC-

Mon Jul 07, 2008 10:01 pm



Quoting Pygmalion (Reply 437):
Which of these were not upheld?

Only 2 partially, the GAO did not have problems with IFARA, past performance, or the fuel calculations.

Boeing was pushing the cost of fuel significantly before the GAO published their report, the GAO did not find the USAF assessment unreasonable.

Quoting Pygmalion (Reply 437):
And for all the comments on the KC767 is not "net ready"...

It is harder to get an analogue aircraft to speak digital, than a digital aircraft, ask anyone that has been involved with say putting an FMS into a 747 classic.

I could give you the list of all the parameters required for "net-ready" if you like (200+ requirements), a lot of the capabilities are standard on any A330 now. For example, our maintenance people can log onto one of our aircraft in flight and run diagnostics, it can send reports on errors/faults ahead of the aircraft, these are things you cannot do with a standard 767, it just does not have the data buses setup.

As for other net-ready capabilities, NG is very strong in this area, and the US DoD use NG "net-ready" gear in a lot of applications, land, sea, air, missiles already. For example the Navy recently placed an order with NG for the net-ready gear on the Prowlers to become key nodes in the Navys Sea Power 21 FORCEnet architecture ( http://www.globalsecurity.org/milita.../systems/ship/systems/forcenet.htm ). The USAF also purchased the NG net-ready gear when they upgraded the B2.
Human rights lawyers are "ambulance chasers of the very worst kind.'" - Sky News
 
TropicBird
Posts: 432
Joined: Sat May 28, 2005 9:13 am

RE: Breaking: GAO Sustains Boeing's Protest Of KC-X

Mon Jul 07, 2008 10:06 pm



Quoting Alien (Reply 339):
It seems that even some in the Air Force realize that they screwed up conducting the RFP. This has nothing at all to do with what the Air Force really wanted and everything to do with a bunch of incompetents screwing up an evaluation

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 aircraft? Is it former Sec. Wynne or soon to be former Chief of Staff Gen. Moseley?

Quoting Zeke (Reply 434):
Boeing has a lot of public face to loose if we were to find out the 103 "Boeing's challenges to the award" that the GAO did not uphold.

This report is a two edge sword for Boeing, it identified 8 areas where errors were made, but also found the vast majority of what they were complaining about was baseless. It does not surprise me at all that the pro Boeing press does not even try and investigate that, or even mention it.

What the media has not discussed is that their is still another GAO protest pending on the KC-X. The NAKOA protest appears to question Boeing's interactions with the USAF on tanker size and could prove very embarrassing for the USAF or Boeing (or both). According to the GAO's web page, they have until July 23rd to decide. I wonder if this will get discussed at Thursday's congressional hearing which will be web-casted? Probably not as Congress does not want to embarrass Boeing nor themselves since many support Boeing.
 
pygmalion
Posts: 836
Joined: Thu Jun 29, 2006 12:47 am

RE: Breaking: GAO Sustains Boeing's Protest Of KC-X

Mon Jul 07, 2008 10:07 pm



Quoting Zeke (Reply 436):
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. For example it does not include the refueling KPP/overrun, or the 2 year support discussion.

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, where Boeing protested that AF failed to validate mission capability of the KC30 to refuel all aircraft ie "The Air Force Ignored Restrictions on the the KC-30's Ability to Perform (redacted) Maneuvers that Prevent it From Meeting KPP Threshold Minimum Requirements"
 
pygmalion
Posts: 836
Joined: Thu Jun 29, 2006 12:47 am

RE: Breaking: GAO Sustains Boeing's Protest Of KC-X

Mon Jul 07, 2008 10:30 pm

then why did the AF rate the KC30 the same as the KC767 for NetReady... Partially Met?
 
User avatar
zeke
Posts: 14896
Joined: Thu Dec 14, 2006 1:42 pm

RE: Breaking: GAO Sustains Boeing's Protest Of KC-X

Mon Jul 07, 2008 10:48 pm



Quoting Pygmalion (Reply 439):

Still is not the initial complaint, it is the rebuttal to the USAF motion to dismiss.

Quoting Pygmalion (Reply 441):
then why did the AF rate the KC30 the same as the KC767 for NetReady... Partially Met?

That is a $22 million dollar question, and something we just do not know about becuase we do not have access to all the Boeing an NG submissions, discussions etc prior to the award, and during the GAO process. COuld be another case where NG did not document their capabilities as well as they should have.

A lot of guessing is being made becuase we do not know what either the Boeing of NG proposals included, and what the initial Boeing included.
Human rights lawyers are "ambulance chasers of the very worst kind.'" - Sky News
 
sprout5199
Posts: 1681
Joined: Sat Feb 26, 2005 8:26 am

RE: Breaking: GAO Sustains Boeing's Protest Of KC-X

Tue Jul 08, 2008 2:10 am

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 error in the Air Force's conduct of discussion here is clear, and the record requires no further development to sustain Boeing protest on this ground."

It doesn't matter if Boeing had 10,000 complaints, as long as the GAO sustains one. Deal with it Zeke. Boeing had a legitimate protest, NG/EADS had someone in the USAF pulling for them, and the whole RFP process was flawed. As much as I want to see the USAF with a new tanker, I think the best thing right now is to re-engine the KC-135's.

Dan in Jupiter
 
Curt22
Posts: 334
Joined: Sat Jul 14, 2007 11:43 am

RE: Breaking: GAO Sustains Boeing's Protest Of KC-X

Tue Jul 08, 2008 4:03 am



Quoting Sprout5199 (Reply 443):

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 Tower of Babel is no place to build a tanker"

That's rich! LOL
 
User avatar
zeke
Posts: 14896
Joined: Thu Dec 14, 2006 1:42 pm

RE: Breaking: GAO Sustains Boeing's Protest Of KC-X

Tue Jul 08, 2008 5:13 am



Quoting Sprout5199 (Reply 443):
Well Zeke, Here is the proof:

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 ?

Quoting Sprout5199 (Reply 443):
Boeing had a legitimate protest, NG/EADS had someone in the USAF pulling for them, and the whole RFP process was flawed.

I agree that Boeing had a legitimate protest for the 8 points the GAO upheld. At the same time, Boeing did not have a legitimate protest for the 103 points the GAO did not uphold.

I am all for a open/transparent competition. I was very surprised when NG got selected, as those who talked to me or sent me a PM on the day would know, I thought the USAF would go with nationalistic sentiments, much along the lines of what I see above.

A competition is not a competition if there is only one acceptable result.

The GAO did not say the whole process was flawed, it did not say redo the whole RFP. The recommendation was clear, fix up any documentation issues, and reopen discussion with the vendors.

The actual GAO words ....

"We recommend 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 this decision. If the Air Force believes that the RFP, as reasonably interpreted, does not adequately state its needs, the agency should amend the solicitation prior to conducting further discussions with the offerors."
Human rights lawyers are "ambulance chasers of the very worst kind.'" - Sky News
 
Alien
Posts: 416
Joined: Mon Oct 12, 2009 8:00 am

RE: Breaking: GAO Sustains Boeing's Protest Of KC-

Tue Jul 08, 2008 5:18 am

I especially like these three:

Quote:
“And as a consequence, the KC-30 cannot satisfy KPP Threshold minimum requirements. Given these failures, the Air Force should have deemed NG/EADS ineligible for award or revised the Solicitation to meet its requirements”

“the KC-30 does not satisfy the KPP#1 Threshold minimum requirements that it refuel all aircraft “using current USAF procedures.”

“But for these and other violations of the Solicitation and insupportable, disparate evaluations, THERE CAN BE LITTLE DOUBT THAT THE AIR FORCE WOULD HAVE SELECTED THE BOEING OFFERING. It is undisputed that Boeing’s KC-767 proposal satisfied far more of the Air Forces stated systems requirements than NG/EADS.”

http://www.leeham.net/filelib/First_..._Comments_on_the_Agency_Report.pdf

Congress is going to have a field day and I would not be surprised if they directed the contract to Boeing.
 
User avatar
EPA001
Posts: 3893
Joined: Tue Sep 12, 2006 8:13 pm

RE: Breaking: GAO Sustains Boeing's Protest Of KC-X

Tue Jul 08, 2008 6:56 am

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:

First:

Quoting Sprout5199 (Reply 443):
Well Zeke, Here is the proof:
http://www.leeham.net/filelib/First_...t.pdf

Second:

Quoting Zeke (Reply 445):
Quoting Sprout5199 (Reply 443):
Well Zeke, Here is the proof:

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 ?

Read carefully: the document is drawn up by Boeing attorneys or lawyers!

Quoting Zeke (Reply 445):
A competition is not a competition if there is only one acceptable result.

That is what most biased peoples reactions here show on the forum. Especially if Boeing is the losing party in the contest.

Quoting Zeke (Reply 445):
The GAO did not say the whole process was flawed, it did not say redo the whole RFP. The recommendation was clear, fix up any documentation issues, and reopen discussion with the vendors.

The actual GAO words ....

"We recommend 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 this decision. If the Air Force believes that the RFP, as reasonably interpreted, does not adequately state its needs, the agency should amend the solicitation prior to conducting further discussions with the offerors."

Well Zeke, that should be clear to anyone. However, many B-fanboys are only using secific points of the GAO ruling, and not taking into account the full document.

Now that boeing did not release its full documents, not even to the GAO, is more then meaningfull. They must have many things to hide, otherwise they would have gone public with it or at least submitted it to the GAO. In this area I am especially thinking about the 103 (!) points which were ruled against Boeing by the GAO and thus in favor of the USAF decision to select the KC-45 from NG-EADS.


Your words speak for themselves here:

Quoting Zeke (Reply 434):
Boeing has not released their initial submission to the GAO (the USAF and NG have), not even a redacted version that has been approved for public release, they only released a summary.

Why the press is not hunting this is an open question, or a closed one for that matter. Talk about prejudice and an independent journalism and free and truthseeking press! Or are they being bought off not to investigate? I surely hope this not to be the case, but anything can happen nowadays.

Quoting TropicBird (Reply 440):
What the media has not discussed is that their is still another GAO protest pending on the KC-X. The NAKOA protest appears to question Boeing's interactions with the USAF on tanker size and could prove very embarrassing for the USAF or Boeing (or both). According to the GAO's web page, they have until July 23rd to decide. I wonder if this will get discussed at Thursday's congressional hearing which will be web-casted? Probably not as Congress does not want to embarrass Boeing nor themselves since many support Boeing.

I have read about it but I am not sure how to qualify this. That many support Boeing (my guess is much more are supportive of Boeing than supportive of NG, why is mistery to me) is clear. I think we have to wait July 23rd to qualify this protest. Since the initial report is already a two-bladed sword, it is far from the victory by Boeing as it is presented in the media and by Boeing themsleves of course, this report could hurt Boeing even more!

This tanker race is far from over, as the GAO already says: reopen the discussions. Any direct awarding the tanker deal to Boeing is not on the cards, it is not even realistic. And is also not advised or ruled upon by the GAO. Those outhere who are so anxious to use the GAO ruling on the 8 points that favor them, should also be so mature to accept the full ruling of the GAO, including their suggestions to reopen the discussions. But I guess for some that will proove to be wishfull thinking on my part!
 
User avatar
scbriml
Posts: 18952
Joined: Wed Jul 02, 2003 10:37 pm

RE: Breaking: GAO Sustains Boeing's Protest Of KC-X

Tue Jul 08, 2008 7:14 am



Quoting Alien (Reply 446):
Congress is going to have a field day and I would not be surprised if they directed the contract to Boeing.

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 down.  laughing 

What else do you expect them to say?  banghead 

Quoting Alien (Reply 446):
Congress is going to have a field day and I would not be surprised if they directed the contract to Boeing.

The only thing that should be discussed in front of congress is the full GAO report and the USAF's response to it. Certainly not Boeing's view of events. The GAO certainly doesn't say the award should go the Boeing, just that the AF should seek new proposals and re-evaluate.
Time flies like an arrow. Fruit flies like a banana!
There are 10 types of people in the World - those that understand binary and those that don't.
 
rheinwaldner
Posts: 1856
Joined: Wed Jan 02, 2008 4:58 pm

RE: Breaking: GAO Sustains Boeing's Protest Of KC-X

Tue Jul 08, 2008 8:26 am



Quoting XT6Wagon (Reply 413):
4 engines while not REQUIRED to have as much power, does give you 2 times the engines to carry "oversizing" across. Also smaller fans/cores should create a quicker spooling engine. The MX and fuel burn penalty of the 4 engines isn't as important if you are looking at a military operator. Many would be willing to pay the costs for 4 engines just to see the extra redundancy. Sadly the KC135/707 is dead and I doubt you could convince anyone to put money into them even if its cheaper/better for the missions at hand than any of the modern airliners.

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 history!!

IMO the A310/A330/A340 could be an extreme versatile platform that could cover tanker needs for all sizes and offer much communality (cockpit, booms, ...). A range starting from smaller than the KC767 up and beyond the KC10 covered with one tanker family.
Many things are difficult, all things are possible!
  • 1
  • 6
  • 7
  • 8
  • 9
  • 10

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Melbourne and 17 guests

Popular Searches On Airliners.net

Top Photos of Last:   24 Hours  •  48 Hours  •  7 Days  •  30 Days  •  180 Days  •  365 Days  •  All Time

Military Aircraft Every type from fighters to helicopters from air forces around the globe

Classic Airliners Props and jets from the good old days

Flight Decks Views from inside the cockpit

Aircraft Cabins Passenger cabin shots showing seat arrangements as well as cargo aircraft interior

Cargo Aircraft Pictures of great freighter aircraft

Government Aircraft Aircraft flying government officials

Helicopters Our large helicopter section. Both military and civil versions

Blimps / Airships Everything from the Goodyear blimp to the Zeppelin

Night Photos Beautiful shots taken while the sun is below the horizon

Accidents Accident, incident and crash related photos

Air to Air Photos taken by airborne photographers of airborne aircraft

Special Paint Schemes Aircraft painted in beautiful and original liveries

Airport Overviews Airport overviews from the air or ground

Tails and Winglets Tail and Winglet closeups with beautiful airline logos