Moderators: richierich, ua900, PanAm_DC10, hOMSaR

  • 1
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • 6
  • 7
  • 10
 
norcal
Posts: 1507
Joined: Sun Mar 20, 2005 1:44 am

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

Fri Jun 20, 2008 4:19 pm



Quoting Keesje (Reply 196):
Who were the members of this GAO?

The GAO is a bunch on accountants that basically review government contracts. They are not politicians and they are not subject to the problems associated with political appointment.

The head of the GAO, the Comptroller, is appointed by the president and serves for a 15 year non-renewable term. However the president must choose from a list of three people selected by a bi-partisan congressional committee, and any choice must be approved by the senate. The Comptroller of the GAO can't be removed by the president, he/she can only be removed by congress through an impeachment trial or a joint resolution. FYI no Comptroller of the GAO has ever been removed or attempted to be removed in the 87 year history of the GAO.

The whole organization is set up to avoid partisan politics. Their opinion of the KC-X contract is the only unbiased one you will find.

You can read up on them more here: http://www.gao.gov/
 
User avatar
N328KF
Posts: 5956
Joined: Tue May 25, 2004 3:50 am

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

Fri Jun 20, 2008 4:34 pm



Quoting NorCal (Reply 200):
The whole organization is set up to avoid partisan politics. Their opinion of the KC-X contract is the only unbiased one you will find.

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.
“In the age of information, ignorance is a choice.”
-Donny Miller
 
TropicBird
Posts: 432
Joined: Sat May 28, 2005 9:13 am

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

Fri Jun 20, 2008 4:36 pm



Quoting NorCal (Reply 200):
The GAO is a bunch on accountants that basically review government contracts

One respectful correction to this statement is needed - the group that reviews the "protests" are all attorneys - not accountants. The current head of the GAO is "Acting" since his predecessor left around the time Boeing filed their protest. A permanent replacement is still open.
 
Ken777
Posts: 10048
Joined: Thu Mar 11, 2004 5:39 am

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

Fri Jun 20, 2008 4:36 pm



Quoting BlackKnight (Reply 184):
In short if the RFP is for a KC-135 replacement aircraft, a proposal for an aircraft that was larger than the KC-135 box area would have to take in account the 100 billion facility upgrade cost which was listed as part of the RFP.

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 as changes for potential deployment locations when the tanker is used for a typical mission.

I think that the USAF might end up with an RFP for a *limited* number of direct KC-135 replacements and then re-evaluate their needs for the long term. Both of A & B's proposals were based on older planes, with new designs, like the 787 and 350, heading our way. I don't think that it makes that much sense buying a lot of planes that are close to end of production life (in terms of how long the military will use them) when far better options are available in the near future.

An new review of potential fleets of tankers, based on current knowledge of planes under development, might well leave the USAF with a far more intelligent balance of sizes in the tanker fleet. One that would allow for a more effective and efficient response to situations that may arise 10 to 50 years from now.

Considering the potential benefits of shifting to newer technologies I'm starting to believe that the only ones who have a sense of urgency for a major replacement ASAP will be the plane makers and the generals that want to buy as much as possible as soon as possible.
 
smeg
Posts: 51
Joined: Thu Feb 21, 2008 10:43 am

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

Fri Jun 20, 2008 6:36 pm

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 tanker is right for the job, then that is the one that should be picked.

However, to all our European stalwarts who are raising merry hell over this, please understand, there is a world of difference between a government RFP/contract and a civilian one.

To a certain degree cost is irrelevent (despite what all the goverment agencies say) They work to very different standards and requirements. I have worked on Govmt contracts before, and if they want a certain machine, then that is the one that they will have. I could offer them an overspecced machine, but the overspec was as big a problem as if it had been underspecced. If that sounds assinine and old fashioned, it is. There has to be some way of justifying the obscene number of government depts, and red tape is one of those things. Lets be honest, there have been more people working on the admin for this RFP than will ever fly/work on them!!

However, that is the way that both US and European governments work. Therefore I say to my European chums - Accept it and get over it.

The blame lies squarely at the door of the USAF. If they wanted the NG/EADS bird, then that is what they should have specced in the RFP. In black and white. It was the black and white that the GAO investigated, and it is in the black and white that the USAF have been found wanting.

The GAO is not a quango, but a respected team of attys and accts who look at figures, processes and procedures, NOT MTOW and MZFW etc.

Again it is in the processes and the procedures that the flaws have occured. Solely the fault of the USAF, not the manufacturers.

The GAO have not said that the wrong plane was picked, but that the way it was picked was wrong. They have not said that the USAF have to pick the KC-767, but that the bid needs to be repeated within the legal guidelines. Therefore the KC-30 may still be picked, but it will be done so fairly.

They are quite right in that respect, and should be applauded for it. The USAF should be dragged through the mire and have a complete re-shuffle in certain departments.

To my American chums, this is certainly not the time to be gloating. The only losers in this tawdry affair are American citizens, both civilian and military. While this drags through the "courts", huge amounts of money are being spent on worthless arguments, that could be far better spent elsewhere, whether it is on military or civilian requirements, there are far more important places to spend that money.

There is also the time factor. Sure, whack a few new engines on the KC-135 until this is sorted out. Again, it is the waste of money that is the problem.

Also, time is an issue. Many people have posted that there is nothing wrong with the KC-135. Well if there was nothing wrong with it, then why are they looking for replacements. The US (and indeed all military forces) deserve the best equipment that money can buy. Whether that equipment is American, or European is irrelevent. If it saves lives, then that is the one to go for.

Both the NG and Boeing proposals would have created jobs - In America. Those jobs will now be delayed, thus affecting even more people.

The political wrangling that will now occur, could actually mean that the USAF are effectively forced to indeed award the contract to Boeing. Whilst that will no doubt be met with howls of delight from certain posters, it also means that your military MAY not get the plane that is right for them. To me, that is a bigger negative than the Boeing award is a positive. Same would apply if they were forced to award it to NG/EADS

I could not care if UK military personnel have US or UK arms/planes/vehicles. So long as they have the equipment that is right for them, and they come home safely because of it. I am a little surprised at some of our American posters for wanting only their beloved Boeing to have the contract awarded to them. (I expect it on the Civ Av forum (and indeed the reverse from the Airbus boys) but not on this forum)

If Boeing win it fair and square, based EXACTLY and ONLY on the RFP then great. If NG/EADS win it fair and square, based EXACTLY and ONLY on the RFP then great.

If Military personnel get inferior equipment because of Political blunderings, then no one should be at all happy about it.

Sorry, rant over!!!
 
redflyer
Posts: 3905
Joined: Thu Feb 24, 2005 3:30 am

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

Fri Jun 20, 2008 7:05 pm



Quoting Smeg (Reply 204):
Sorry, rant over!!!

It was the best, most intelligently written rant in this entire thread. No apologies were necessary.
A government big enough to take away a constitutionally guaranteed right is a government big enough to take away any guaranteed right. A government big enough to give you everything you need is a government big enough to take away everything you have.
 
RaginMav
Posts: 335
Joined: Tue May 25, 2004 5:22 am

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

Fri Jun 20, 2008 8:13 pm



Quoting Smeg (Reply 204):
Sorry, rant over!!!

RedFlyer is exactly right, no apologies necessary. Your analysis was spot on!
 
Flighty
Posts: 9963
Joined: Thu Apr 05, 2007 3:07 am

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

Fri Jun 20, 2008 8:59 pm

Well, there is one good thing about this. The KC-X(NG) will be even more excellent and capable than before.

Quoting Smeg (Reply 204):
If Boeing win it fair and square, based EXACTLY and ONLY on the RFP then great. If NG/EADS win it fair and square, based EXACTLY and ONLY on the RFP then great.

But fairness is not what's important. Boeing and EADS' rights are not the most important. The American people, and their warfighting priorities, are most important.

So I respectfully disagree with your (otherwise reasonable) opinions.

When you are hiring a person, do you:
* Hire the person who most accurately fits the precise things you wrote in your ad.... which you might have written drunk, or in a hurry;
* Hire the person who will provide the biggest benefit to your company?

It is honorable to choose either one IMO. It is not wrong to prefer the overall better candidate. Even if the other person fit "the ad" or RFP with greater exactitude. Sometimes, people do occasionally revise Job advertisements during the recruitment process, before they select a final candidate. Should you file a lawsuit against the employer if they do not pick you?

It is well and good if you believe the employer discriminated against you based on skin color. Boeing can argue no such prejudice. It is not that I disagree with Boeing's argument; it is that I find Boeing's argument __irrelevant__ and __offensive__ and __insubordinate__. The GAO's opinion is simply an echoing of these irrelevant facts, which on balance should not impact the Air Force's decision. The USAF should fully admit they revised the specs. And continue with the EADS order.
 
smeg
Posts: 51
Joined: Thu Feb 21, 2008 10:43 am

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

Fri Jun 20, 2008 9:28 pm



Quoting Flighty (Reply 207):
But fairness is not what's important. Boeing and EADS' rights are not the most important. The American people, and their warfighting priorities, are most important.

So I respectfully disagree with your (otherwise reasonable) opinions.

When you are hiring a person, do you:
* Hire the person who most accurately fits the precise things you wrote in your ad.... which you might have written drunk, or in a hurry;
* Hire the person who will provide the biggest benefit to your company?

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 with you on one point.

This is not a company hiring an employee. This is a multi, multi, million pound military aerospace contract. The RFP is not something that should be written in a hurry. The decision must be made based solely on that RFP. Otherwise in theory, any joe bloggs could win the contract just because they know the guys involved, and then you are into a whole new set of problems

Indeed, the USAF have picked NG/EADS proposal. They have in theory decided that that is the aircraft that they want. But, they did not do it according to the rules of Government Defence contracts. If the KC-30 provides more than they originally specified, fantastic. However, they must amend the RFP to reflect those new requirements. The simple fact that they did not is what has caused this entire fiasco, and that is what is so maddening. A simple crossing of the i's and a dotting of the t's would have meant that Boeing could have complained as much as they wanted. - There would not have been a damn thing that they could have done about it.

The fact that they did not amend the proposal also denied Boeing the the right to meet the new criteria. I am not saying that Boeing could even have met the criteria, but at least they would have had the chance.

As I said in my previous post, the sad thing is that it is the American people and frontline Military personnel who will suffer in the end. They deserve the best equipment available, regardless of country of manufacture. They will hopefully get the best equipment in the end, but it will be in a greatly increased timeframe, and at a greatly increased cost. That is not acceptable, and that is where I agree with your sentiments 100%
 
dk1967
Posts: 59
Joined: Tue Aug 21, 2007 7:56 am

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

Fri Jun 20, 2008 9:54 pm

^
SMEG for President!
 
sprout5199
Posts: 1681
Joined: Sat Feb 26, 2005 8:26 am

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

Fri Jun 20, 2008 11:11 pm



Quoting Dk1967 (Reply 209):
SMEG for President!

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 both factions in this debate, but alas, I doubt it.


Dan in Jupiter
 
rwessel
Posts: 2448
Joined: Tue Jan 16, 2007 3:47 pm

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

Fri Jun 20, 2008 11:20 pm



Quoting Flighty (Reply 207):
But fairness is not what's important. Boeing and EADS' rights are not the most important. The American people, and their warfighting priorities, are most important.

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 project if they thought the process would be unfair?

Quoting Flighty (Reply 207):
Boeing can argue no such prejudice. It is not that I disagree with Boeing's argument; it is that I find Boeing's argument __irrelevant__ and __offensive__ and __insubordinate__. The GAO's opinion is simply an echoing of these irrelevant facts, which on balance should not impact the Air Force's decision. The USAF should fully admit they revised the specs. And continue with the EADS order.

The problem is that unless the process is fair (or at least run with understandable rules), I'm loathe to participate. And how do you know that Boeing would not have made a different offer had they known what the Air Force *really* wanted? In a number of cases the RFP said "we don't care if you exceed parameter X." And then said "option A exceeds X by a lot more than option B, let's pick that!"

The RFP *is* the statement of what the AF wants. It's not acceptable for there to be a different set of real criteria, especially if only communicated to a subset of the bidders.

If the original RFP is inadequate or wrong, it can be amended, withdrawn or reissued.
 
redflyer
Posts: 3905
Joined: Thu Feb 24, 2005 3:30 am

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

Fri Jun 20, 2008 11:23 pm



Quoting Flighty (Reply 207):
The USAF should fully admit they revised the specs. And continue with the EADS order.

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 credibility and conduct all competitions in complete fairness. To do otherwise would result in a loss of public confidence and an inability to even get the suppliers to want to bid on the RFP. These RFPs are not cheap - NG/EADS and Boeing have spent tens of millions each in order to participate. If the USAF picks up a reputation for ignoring the rules of the RFP, how many suppliers do you think will want to spend millions in order to bid on their next RFP?

Your argument kind of reminds me of an old joke...

An executive with a large company needs a new assistant. He tells everyone that his #1 priority for hiring will be integrity and he states so in the help wanted ad. So three women apply for the position. He decides during their interviews to give each one a test of their integrity. To the first applicant he poses the question: "Let's say you're riding on a city bus one day and you look down at the floor and find a brown paper bag. You look inside and find $5,000 in cash. What would you do?"

The first applicant says, "I'd turn it in to the bus driver and tell him what seat I found it in."

The second applicant says, "I'd get off at the next stop with the bag and would go to the nearest police station because the bus driver might be tempted to keep the cash for himself."

The third applicant says, "I have to be completely honest with you. I have three children to support, plus my handicapped mother. I'd just keep the money."

So who do you think got the job??? (Scroll down for the answer.)





























The one with the biggest tits.
A government big enough to take away a constitutionally guaranteed right is a government big enough to take away any guaranteed right. A government big enough to give you everything you need is a government big enough to take away everything you have.
 
AirRyan
Posts: 2399
Joined: Wed Mar 30, 2005 9:57 am

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

Fri Jun 20, 2008 11:32 pm



Quoting Keesje (Reply 52):
BTW I expect NG/EADS to come up with a A330F tanker version with improved high BPR GE GENX engines.. GE was talking about a GENX A330F earlier. New round new chances..

And the only plane that would beat that offer would be a KC-787 as sho have been the case all along.

Quoting FlyUSCG (Reply 72):
The 321 is a dog in every sense of the word. For those of you that have taken off in one out of PHX or LAS while full in the summer heat, you know what I mean.

I've heard that ATC will route A321's out of PHX and SOCAL nearly into Mexico before they give them clearance to proceed back into the system because of their horribly slow climb rate.

Quoting Smeg (Reply 204):
The political wrangling that will now occur, could actually mean that the USAF are effectively forced to indeed award the contract to Boeing. Whilst that will no doubt be met with howls of delight from certain posters, it also means that your military MAY not get the plane that is right for them. To me, that is a bigger negative than the Boeing award is a positive. Same would apply if they were forced to award it to NG/EADS

As a taxpayer I'm irked that Boeing tried to screw over the taxpayer twice now in the KC-X bid - the USAF needs the best that they can offer, not rehashed junk from their spare closet. All I can say is that regards as to how the KC-X bid turns out, the USAF evidently is not terribly thrilled with the state of Boeing right now.

Hey let's face it - the USAF may very well at one point just have to tell the GAO to shove it and award anyways because going for like 3+ years now everytime they try and award KC-X or CSAR-X and it gets protested by the loser the GAO rules against the USAF.

And speaking of CSAR-X, if I were a gambling man the odds for Boeing winning CSAR-X again went from slim (based on their inferior offer to the LM US-101) to none based on the fact that the USAF has to be all the more so dissasatisfied with Boeing right now and would appear hard pressed to want to throw Boeing a bone right now.
 
User avatar
kc135topboom
Posts: 11182
Joined: Sun Jan 30, 2005 2:26 am

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

Sat Jun 21, 2008 12:27 am



Quoting Scbriml (Reply 132):
Quoting Sxf24 (Reply 128):
The USAF also said in the RFP there would be no benefit to the bidders for exceeding the technical criteria.

Can you show me where it says that?

The GAO confirmed it in their findings.

Quoting Scbriml (Reply 132):
Quoting Sxf24 (Reply 128):
If the USAF wanted a larger tanker, they were legally and ethically obligated to ask for a larger tanker. They did not.

The AF dispute that.
http://www.iht.com/articles/2008/04/...r.php

That artical is useless now. it was written 2 April, the GAO sustained Boeing's protest on 18 Jun.

Quoting Keesje (Reply 113):
So Boeing can now offer the hot KC767 again

Keesji, will you stop using that spider chart? Everyone here knows it is wrong, and written by NG.

Quoting Keesje (Reply 113):
.. or a non existent KC777 that will weigh 3x as much as a KC135, costs a lot and needs lots of runway.

The B-777-200LRF at MTOW uses less runway than the A-330-200 at MTOW.

Quoting RedFlyer (Reply 212):
So who do you think got the job??? (Scroll down for the answer.)



Quoting RedFlyer (Reply 212):
The one with the biggest tits.

That is exactly what the USAF did.

Remember, in this decision by the GAO, they did not reward, or penilize Boeing or NG/EADS. They went after the USAF for gross incompetence. I suspect, we will not see the end of this with a simple rebid of the KC-X project. I see Congress asking for blood here, and the FBI will investigate. The heads at USAF HQ have just begun to roll.
 
XT6Wagon
Posts: 2728
Joined: Tue Feb 13, 2007 4:06 pm

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

Sat Jun 21, 2008 12:31 am



Quoting Flighty (Reply 207):
The GAO's opinion is simply an echoing of these irrelevant facts

yes small irrelevant facts like ignoring manditory critera for one bidder and not the other Altering one bidders fixed price offer without any merit to the alterations. Communicating different standards to each bidder. Changing a fundamental aspect of the bid without notifying the bidders.

yes small things that have nothing to do with why the plane that FAILED a manditory requirement, and had higher costs both initial and long term won over the plane that met every minimum with ease and actual exceeded more requirements than the other....

Quoting AirRyan (Reply 213):
As a taxpayer I'm irked that Boeing tried to screw over the taxpayer twice now in the KC-X bid

Say what? you will have to explain how its Boeing's fault the procurment officers cooked the contest in NG/EADS favor.

Whats next? Damning boeing for the price of tea in china?
 
trex8
Posts: 5558
Joined: Sat Nov 02, 2002 9:04 am

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

Sat Jun 21, 2008 12:39 am



Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 214):
and the FBI will investigate.

why???
 
User avatar
kc135topboom
Posts: 11182
Joined: Sun Jan 30, 2005 2:26 am

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

Sat Jun 21, 2008 12:42 am



Quoting AirRyan (Reply 213):
Quoting Keesje (Reply 52):
BTW I expect NG/EADS to come up with a A330F tanker version with improved high BPR GE GENX engines.. GE was talking about a GENX A330F earlier. New round new chances..

And the only plane that would beat that offer would be a KC-787 as sho have been the case all along.

Why wouldn't the current B-777-200LRF, as a tanker "beat" the unbeatable (but not even tested) KC-30?

Quoting AirRyan (Reply 213):
As a taxpayer I'm irked that Boeing tried to screw over the taxpayer twice now in the KC-X bid - the USAF needs the best that they can offer, not rehashed junk from their spare closet.

Boeing did offer the best value for the KC-X. Why aren't you irked the USAF broke the law, and showed favortisim towards NG and EADS-NA? Is the a quid-pro-quo here between the USAF senior staff and NG or EADS-NA?

Boeing did not screw the tax payer here, the USAF did, twice (with tankers), and once with CSAR-X.

Quoting AirRyan (Reply 213):
All I can say is that regards as to how the KC-X bid turns out, the USAF evidently is not terribly thrilled with the state of Boeing right now.

Why? USAF broke the law, not Boeing.

Quoting AirRyan (Reply 213):
Hey let's face it - the USAF may very well at one point just have to tell the GAO to shove it and award anyways because going for like 3+ years now everytime they try and award KC-X or CSAR-X and it gets protested by the loser the GAO rules against the USAF.

Your joking, right?  Yeah sure
 
User avatar
kc135topboom
Posts: 11182
Joined: Sun Jan 30, 2005 2:26 am

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

Sat Jun 21, 2008 12:45 am

Quoting Trex8 (Reply 216):
why???

Apparently, no one learned anything from 2002.

BTW, has anyone heard froim Zeke on this?

[Edited 2008-06-20 17:46:36]
 
Curt22
Posts: 334
Joined: Sat Jul 14, 2007 11:43 am

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

Sat Jun 21, 2008 12:50 am



Quoting AirRyan (Reply 213):
And speaking of CSAR-X, if I were a gambling man the odds for Boeing winning CSAR-X again went from slim (based on their inferior offer to the LM US-101) to none based on the fact that the USAF has to be all the more so dissasatisfied with Boeing right now and would appear hard pressed to want to throw Boeing a bone right now.

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 logic...AF should be so upset with Boeing that they would forgo any professionalism (which is why they are in trouble with in the KC-X decision now) and "punish" Boeing because they are upset with them...but this logical conclusion requires that we suspend said logic and pretend the same unprofessional USAF would NOT be upset with LM for protesting CSAR-X and therefore award the CSAR contract to them.

Thanks for the laugh Ryan!
 
User avatar
N328KF
Posts: 5956
Joined: Tue May 25, 2004 3:50 am

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

Sat Jun 21, 2008 1:20 am

Quoting AirRyan (Reply 213):
And speaking of CSAR-X, if I were a gambling man the odds for Boeing winning CSAR-X again went from slim (based on their inferior offer to the LM US-101) to none based on the fact that the USAF has to be all the more so dissasatisfied with Boeing right now and would appear hard pressed to want to throw Boeing a bone right now.

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 (ex-EH101) and S-92 are simply the wrong platforms.

[Edited 2008-06-20 18:41:51]
“In the age of information, ignorance is a choice.”
-Donny Miller
 
XT6Wagon
Posts: 2728
Joined: Tue Feb 13, 2007 4:06 pm

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

Sat Jun 21, 2008 1:36 am



Quoting N328KF (Reply 220):
I will say that I'm extremely surprised that the H-53K did not get that contract

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 likely why it wasn't offered. Boeing pulled a "fast one" because no one else believed there was a chance in hell that the CH47 could meet the requirement. Boeing pulled it off, thus making them able to offer all the USAF wanted today and in the near future... right then and there in an existing varient.

The US101 carried more risk and less payload, thus making it not win.
 
osiris30
Posts: 2681
Joined: Sat Sep 30, 2006 10:16 am

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

Sat Jun 21, 2008 3:05 am



Quoting AirRyan (Reply 213):
As a taxpayer I'm irked that Boeing tried to screw over the taxpayer twice now in the KC-X bid - the

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 after seconds.

Quoting AirRyan (Reply 213):
And speaking of CSAR-X, if I were a gambling man the odds for Boeing winning CSAR-X again went from slim (based on their inferior offer to the LM US-101) to none based on the fact that the USAF has to be all the more so dissasatisfied with Boeing right now and would appear hard pressed to want to throw Boeing a bone right now.

Two questions: Why on earth would the USAF want to write off a supplier.. do you (the taxpayer) like paying more than you have to? That's the entire point of the RFP process, to LOWER the cost to the government. Just because the USAF can't their shit together and do it properly is not the fault of: Boeing, LM, NG, EADS, all the kings horses and any of the kings men. Secondly, what's the axe you have to grind.. you anger seems to be very misplaced.. it should be directed at USAF procurement.
I don't care what you think of my opinion. It's my opinion, so have a nice day :)
 
Ken777
Posts: 10048
Joined: Thu Mar 11, 2004 5:39 am

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

Sat Jun 21, 2008 3:27 am



Quoting Flighty (Reply 207):
The American people, and their warfighting priorities, are most important.

Actually there are other priorities that also have to be considered. Like being able to continuing paying out something like $11 - $12 Billion per MONTH for the Iraq War (but, hey, we just go into debt for that), Medicare expenses that continually get cut while the cost of medicine is going up, taking care of Katrina and the current flood victims, keeping various infrastructures up, like collapsing bridges, etc. Might even think about the money needed to take care of Vets who have served and now need help. Is a more expensive tanker more important than that?

When I look at war fighting capital expenditures my first thought is of the actual fighters: say warships in the Navy and fighters in the AF & Navy. Tier two expenditures, like tankers can be set at a level that is adequate to do the job - not the most expensive. There are some politicians, however, that just believe it is simply a matter of printing more money in order to 'but the best".

Quoting Flighty (Reply 207):
it is that I find Boeing's argument __irrelevant__ and __offensive__ and __insubordinate__.

The GAO was set up as the American public's watchdog with the agreement of both political parties many years ago. It is to ensure actions like the USAF's tanker decision are caught and corrected. The simple fact that the GAO agreed with Boeing's protest is sufficient that the protest was appropriate, accurate and in the interests of the American public.

Quoting Smeg (Reply 208):
I am not saying that Boeing could even have met the criteria, but at least they would have had the chance.

I believe that there would be a degree of change in the RFP that would require that the AF go back to Congress. What degree of change is required? Don't have a clue, but I would be surprised if Congress didn't take a hard look at what the AF changed and if those changes were outside of the scope that was presented to them for funding.
 
User avatar
Stitch
Posts: 27095
Joined: Wed Jul 06, 2005 4:26 am

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

Sat Jun 21, 2008 4:37 am



Quoting AirRyan (Reply 213):
As a taxpayer I'm irked that Boeing tried to screw over the taxpayer twice now in the KC-X bid...

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 highest - NG/EADS - was accepted.



Quoting AirRyan (Reply 213):
Hey let's face it - the USAF may very well at one point just have to tell the GAO to shove it and award anyways because going for like 3+ years now everytime they try and award KC-X or CSAR-X and it gets protested by the loser the GAO rules against the USAF.

And then Congress just replies with "no funding for you" and the program is killed. It's a victory, yes, but a Pyrrhic one.
 
olle
Posts: 2086
Joined: Tue Feb 06, 2007 3:38 am

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

Sat Jun 21, 2008 7:41 am

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 written only to Bs product and the cost for AF got very high. With NG / EADS in the game they got a better competition. GAOs action might actually mean that the RFP comes back to the scenario 1 where only one frame can meet criteria. This will be bad for the AF.
 
User avatar
zeke
Posts: 14989
Joined: Thu Dec 14, 2006 1:42 pm

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

Sat Jun 21, 2008 10:30 am



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.

Doubt it, cost twice as much.

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.

Please list where in the RFP it allows more than one airframe to be submitted.

Quoting Venus6971 (Reply 32):
We welcome and support today's ruling by the GAO fully supporting the grounds of our protest

The GAO said they actually dismissed some of Boeings protest, it was not fully upheld.

Quoting SLUAviator (Reply 40):

Boeing DID offer the 777 as a tanker and the AF said no.

Incorrect, no response to the RFP was made based upon the 777.

Quoting RedFlyer (Reply 59):
If that's not "trying to get Airbus (or EADS) into the Air Force" then what is?

Selecting the best aircraft for the job ?

Quoting Rwessel (Reply 82):
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 evaluation of the bids. That does not mean that if the USAF reran the process properly, that the NG/EADS bid would, or would not, win.

Correct, and the GAO did not fully agree with Boeing either.

Quoting Ikramerica (Reply 84):
an A333 version of it, at least

The 333 has not got the center fuel tank, I do not understand why they would offer that frame.

Quoting NAV20 (Reply 97):

It struck me as odd from the very beginning that the Air Force appeared pretty 'relaxed' about the fact that the Northrop/EADS aircraft could only operate from a minority (from memory, I think only 35%?) of the airfields that it is currently using world-wide.

The 330-200 has very good runway performance, much better than the KC-135.

Quoting SLUAviator (Reply 106):
Displays in the cockpit are one thing. The 767 and 777 are 100% different birds.

Correct, the reason why a 777 pilot cannot also fly a 747-800, two different ratings.

Quoting Stitch (Reply 124):
The GAO is a pretty impartial group, so that they ruled so strongly does indeed pretty much force the USAF to rebid.

GAO

"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."

Revised proposals may not mean a new RFP.

Quoting Sxf24 (Reply 145):
Since the RFP gave no preference to greater fuel capacity or physical size, it was illegal, unethical and improper for the USAF to give preference to the KC-30 on those factors.

3.2.1.1.1.2 The aircraft should be capable of exceeding the fuel offload versus unrefueled radius range as depicted in Figure 3-1 using the above ground rules (OBJECTIVE, KPP #2).
3.2.1.1.1.3 Aircraft should operate with maximum fuel efficiency using current aviation technology, without any degradation to mission/aircraft performance or alteration of normal aircraft operation.

Clearly says they want more fuel ("should be capable of exceeding the fuel offload versus unrefueled radius range"), both the KC-767 and KC-30 exceeded this requirement.

The KC-30 exceeded this by more than the KC-767.

Quoting Stitch (Reply 161):
I just checked spot rental rates for the 767-300ER and they range from a high of $750,000 a month for a unit delivered in 1992 to a low of $361,000 for a unit delivered in 1988. That was 777-200ER money just twelve months ago (and yes, values for most current Boeing and Airbus families have risen sharply). I'm pretty sure lessors aren't going to be sending those birds to the desert when they're pulling in that kind of cashflow.

And what does the A330-200 go for, that is if you can get one ?

Quoting Stitch (Reply 176):
If they're smart, they'll spend some time and refine the KC-767 Advanced proposal to make it a more well-rounded and effective platform. Boeing already offered a lower overall price and I expect a 767-300F/767-400ER hybrid will be even more cost-effective then the "Frankenplane" they offered last time.

I agree, but I would also expect NG to sharpen the pencil as well.

Quoting SEPilot (Reply 191):
No, it doesn't. Boeing owns the rights to the designs; if they subcontract they always have the right to change suppliers.

Seem to remember something about needing to transfer the design to the USAF

Quoting Smeg (Reply 204):
The GAO have not said that the wrong plane was picked, but that the way it was picked was wrong. They have not said that the USAF have to pick the KC-767, but that the bid needs to be repeated within the legal guidelines.

Correct, well expressed.

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 214):
The B-777-200LRF at MTOW uses less runway than the A-330-200 at MTOW.

Since when ?
Human rights lawyers are "ambulance chasers of the very worst kind.'" - Sky News
 
NAV20
Posts: 8453
Joined: Thu Nov 27, 2003 3:25 pm

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

Sat Jun 21, 2008 10:50 am



Quoting Zeke (Reply 226):
The 330-200 has very good runway performance, much better than the KC-135.

Zeke, all the GAO said was, "The Air Force...... made unreasonable estimates of the cost of constructing runways, ramps and hangars needed for the larger Airbus jet, which led to the conclusion that Northrop offered lower total program costs - when in fact Boeing's overall cost was lower."

That could be runway length, bearing capacity, radius of taxiways, width of hangar doors - probably a mixture of all of them.

But the net result is that the USAF, through not doing their sums, said that the 330 variant would be cheaper; when in fact it would be more expensive. To an 'unreasonable' degree.

Hard to think of a way of making a BIGGER mistake than that, when evaluating competitive proposals.....
"Once you have flown, you will walk the earth with your eyes turned skywards.." - Leonardo da Vinci
 
astuteman
Posts: 7133
Joined: Mon Jan 24, 2005 7:50 pm

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

Sat Jun 21, 2008 11:29 am



Quoting KennyK (Reply 185):
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 same size as the A330

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 scenario, though.

Rgds
 
User avatar
N328KF
Posts: 5956
Joined: Tue May 25, 2004 3:50 am

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

Sat Jun 21, 2008 12:36 pm

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 be a new process.
“In the age of information, ignorance is a choice.”
-Donny Miller
 
NAV20
Posts: 8453
Joined: Thu Nov 27, 2003 3:25 pm

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

Sat Jun 21, 2008 12:55 pm



Quoting N328KF (Reply 229):
This is definitely going to be a new RFP.

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 approve their bid. McCain wouldn't DARE, too much baggage.......
"Once you have flown, you will walk the earth with your eyes turned skywards.." - Leonardo da Vinci
 
Curt22
Posts: 334
Joined: Sat Jul 14, 2007 11:43 am

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

Sat Jun 21, 2008 1:01 pm



Quoting N328KF (Reply 220):
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 (ex-EH101) and S-92 are simply the wrong platforms.

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 wanted CSAR-X operational by 2011/2012, don't think the CH-53K was planned to be ready by this time. Another is the Kilo will have a 175 nm unrefueled combat radius (established by USMC), USAF is asking for 275 nm radius (plus). Third, this acft will be so crazy huge perhaps there is no way it could meet the 3 hr tear down/build up requirement.

Quoting N328KF (Reply 229):
This is definitely going to be a new RFP.

Will be interesting to see what changes there will be in the proposal, or changes to the existing proposal.
 
User avatar
Stitch
Posts: 27095
Joined: Wed Jul 06, 2005 4:26 am

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

Sat Jun 21, 2008 2:45 pm



Quoting Zeke (Reply 226):
And what does the A330-200 go for, that is if you can get one?

$557,000 to $923,000 per month. However, none are currently available for lease.
 
norcal
Posts: 1507
Joined: Sun Mar 20, 2005 1:44 am

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

Sat Jun 21, 2008 3:25 pm



Quoting Zeke (Reply 226):
3.2.1.1.1.2 The aircraft should be capable of exceeding the fuel offload versus unrefueled radius range as depicted in Figure 3-1 using the above ground rules (OBJECTIVE, KPP #2).



Quoting Zeke (Reply 226):
Clearly says they want more fuel ("should be capable of exceeding the fuel offload versus unrefueled radius range"), both the KC-767 and KC-30 exceeded this requirement.

Both met the requirement of exceeding the KC-135

Quoting Zeke (Reply 226):
The KC-30 exceeded this by more than the KC-767.

Yes, but the RFP didn't say (and the GAO agreed) that bonus points would be awarded to the platform that exceeded the minimum requirements. The RFP only asked both OEMs to provide a frame that met or exceeded the current KC-135. They never said that the KC-45 should exceed it by x 1,000lbs or that by offering more was better.

The AF never really specified exactly what they wanted and that was the problem the GAO found. The RFP should be rewritten to say, "We need an aircraft that can haul _____ pounds of fuel _____ distance. Our typical mission will require ____ lbs of fuel _____ distance. They also need to decide how important secondary roles like hauling cargo is. What is the cost benefit analysis of having a tanker removed from the lineup to haul boxes or people? Is it better for operations if we charter a commercial aircraft? Basically do we want this to be a tanker first and occasionally a cargo hauler, or do we want a multi-role platform.

The AF needs to come up with some set amount of missions or percentage of time that the aircraft will be flying as a tanker or as a cargo plane. Simply putting we need this plane to exceed the KC-135 isn't clear enough.

Quoting NAV20 (Reply 227):
Zeke, all the GAO said was, "The Air Force...... made unreasonable estimates of the cost of constructing runways, ramps and hangars needed for the larger Airbus jet, which led to the conclusion that Northrop offered lower total program costs - when in fact Boeing's overall cost was lower."



Quoting NAV20 (Reply 227):
Hard to think of a way of making a BIGGER mistake than that, when evaluating competitive proposals.....

 checkmark 
 
User avatar
zeke
Posts: 14989
Joined: Thu Dec 14, 2006 1:42 pm

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

Sat Jun 21, 2008 5:36 pm



Quoting N328KF (Reply 229):
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 be a new process.

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 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."

Quoting NAV20 (Reply 227):

That could be runway length, bearing capacity, radius of taxiways, width of hangar doors - probably a mixture of all of them.

But the net result is that the USAF, through not doing their sums, said that the 330 variant would be cheaper; when in fact it would be more expensive. To an 'unreasonable' degree.

No infrastructure costs were part of the RFP, the RFP was for the supply of aircraft and related tooling, spares, and training, I am not aware of either Boeing or NG offering to do civil construction work for the USAF as part of this proposal.

The USAF does not even know which bases they will open/close in the next 40 years, how is NG or Boeing supposed to know ?

The GAO and the USAF cannot rule against NG/Boeing for items not included in the RFP, which includes the items you highlighted. If the USAF have incorrectly used those numbers as part of the process, it is flawed in doing so. Under the RFP the suppliers were not responsible in any way for civil works. Taking civil works out of the picture will help the KC-30, not hinder it.

Quoting NorCal (Reply 233):
They never said that the KC-45 should exceed it by x 1,000lbs or that by offering more was better.

Well they did actually, just not in simple terms like that.

They asked for the aircraft to exceed the range/fuel offload they specified (para 3.2.1.1.1.2), and then used that to capability in the Integrated Fleet Aerial Refueling Assessment. Both Boeing and NG were assessed using the excess capability beyond the minimum laid out in the RFP.

The GAO did not say the Integrated Fleet Aerial Refueling Assessment method was flawed.

Quoting NorCal (Reply 233):
The AF never really specified exactly what they wanted and that was the problem the GAO found. The RFP should be rewritten to say, "We need an aircraft that can haul _____ pounds of fuel _____ distance. Our typical mission will require ____ lbs of fuel _____ distance.

That is exactly what para 3.2.1.1.1.2 and the associated graph states, the RFP did not directly say what weighting what each factor will have (eg fuel, cargo, aeromed), if that is all that is required it is relatively easy to come up with a weighting matrix for this, I have seen one before.

Quoting NorCal (Reply 233):
They also need to decide how important secondary roles like hauling cargo is. What is the cost benefit analysis of having a tanker removed from the lineup to haul boxes or people? Is it better for operations if we charter a commercial aircraft? Basically do we want this to be a tanker first and occasionally a cargo hauler, or do we want a multi-role platform.

The AF needs to come up with some set amount of missions or percentage of time that the aircraft will be flying as a tanker or as a cargo plane. Simply putting we need this plane to exceed the KC-135 isn't clear enough.

I disagree with that.

What they would know is the minimum role they want aircraft can do, they would want to know what the excess capability is, and then use the capabilities are/when required. Similar was used for the Advanced Tactical Fighter (ATF) competition, which Boeing seems to have no problem at all with being part of the winning F-22 team, when it exceeded the minimum USAF requirements.

How they KC-45 capabilities are used is up to the USAF, not the contractor, likewise how the F-22 is used is up to the USAF, not Lockheed, Boeing, and General Dynamics .
Human rights lawyers are "ambulance chasers of the very worst kind.'" - Sky News
 
blackknight
Posts: 222
Joined: Sat Dec 11, 2004 4:40 am

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

Sat Jun 21, 2008 6:22 pm



Quoting Zeke (Reply 234):
If they go for a new RFP, it is against the GAO recommendations, the GAO did not call for that.

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. The GAO in no way discouraged a new RFP. In fact without a new RFP the winner will not be funded by congress. Also with McCain being seen as the one whom made the KC-45 possible the Obama camp will take the Boeing side to show how he wanted to send many jobs overseas. If Obama does win many have suggest he would help the KC-45. With the opportunity to hit McCain whom is seen as backing the KC-45 and the state of Washington being a strong hold for Obama, Obama will be pushing for a fair and new competition.

Just because you have a point of view based upon the commerical aviation world does not mean it has any value or validity in a military competition.
BK
 
trex8
Posts: 5558
Joined: Sat Nov 02, 2002 9:04 am

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

Sat Jun 21, 2008 6:35 pm



Quoting BlackKnight (Reply 235):
If Obama does win many have suggest he would help the KC-45.

exactly, he already has the WA state vote and congressional delegation in his pocket but needs the AL one more.

Quoting BlackKnight (Reply 235):
Obama will be pushing for a fair and new competition.

no one will be asking for an unfair one (publicly anyway)!
 
redflyer
Posts: 3905
Joined: Thu Feb 24, 2005 3:30 am

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

Sat Jun 21, 2008 7:45 pm



Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 218):
BTW, has anyone heard froim Zeke on this?



Quoting Zeke (Reply 226):
Quoting RedFlyer (Reply 59):
If that's not "trying to get Airbus (or EADS) into the Air Force" then what is?

Selecting the best aircraft for the job ?

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 of the KC-30, they should simply specify it.
A government big enough to take away a constitutionally guaranteed right is a government big enough to take away any guaranteed right. A government big enough to give you everything you need is a government big enough to take away everything you have.
 
User avatar
zeke
Posts: 14989
Joined: Thu Dec 14, 2006 1:42 pm

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

Sat Jun 21, 2008 9:16 pm



Quoting BlackKnight (Reply 235):
The GAO in no way discouraged a new RFP.

I pasted this excerpt above, this is what the GAO actually said....

"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."

It does not even come close to saying what you have claimed, "reopen discussions" and "amend the solicitation" in my book reads as change/work with what you had, and not throw it away and start from scratch as you suggest.

Quoting BlackKnight (Reply 235):
Just because you have a point of view based upon the commerical aviation world does not mean it has any value or validity in a military competition.

You have no idea of my background to make any such comment.
Human rights lawyers are "ambulance chasers of the very worst kind.'" - Sky News
 
User avatar
zeke
Posts: 14989
Joined: Thu Dec 14, 2006 1:42 pm

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

Sat Jun 21, 2008 9:26 pm

Quoting RedFlyer (Reply 237):
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 of the KC-30, they should simply specify it.

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 USAF failed to document the method they would assign credit, the simplest would be via the Integrated Fleet Aerial Refueling Assessment, a virtual fly of between types.

I note Boeing has not complained that the USAF also assigned extra credit to the KC-767 above the minimum specification, it would have been unfair if they used the extra capability of the KC-30 and not the KC-767, from what I understand they treated both the same, just KC-767 did not have the same capability.

[Edited 2008-06-21 14:28:03]
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

Sat Jun 21, 2008 11:58 pm



Quoting Zeke (Reply 239):
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

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 made was that the AF did not properly allocate the construction costs to the KC30. Those costs would include hangar, ramp and taxiway upgrades to handle the extra size and weight of the KC30. Size does affect the cost of the proposal above and beyond the airplane and fuel.

Quote:
With respect to the cost factor, the
solicitation provided that the Air Force would calculate a "most probable life cycle
cost" estimate for each offeror, including military construction costs.

.....

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

Yep, but excess extra capability was not allowed to get extra extra credit. or in other words... you get a point for exceeding requirements but only one. Both the 767 and the A330 exceeded... both get an extra point.. but only one extra point.

Quote:
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."



Actually, I think the most damning part of the report was where the GAO said that the AF could not show that the KC30 met the requirement for refueling of multiple types of aircraft which was a baseline "key performance requirement"

Quote:
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.

 
XT6Wagon
Posts: 2728
Joined: Tue Feb 13, 2007 4:06 pm

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

Sun Jun 22, 2008 12:35 am



Quoting Astuteman (Reply 228):
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 scenario, though.

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 787-9 with the 8 fuselage length.

However yes, the current 788 wouldn't do so hot given its low MTOW kneecapping max payload. it *might* make for a good long range deployment aircraft, but its short haul max offload wouldn't be all that impressive. I haven't run the numbers but I'm fairly sure it would take at minimum the 789's MTOW to have a fighting chance.
 
User avatar
N328KF
Posts: 5956
Joined: Tue May 25, 2004 3:50 am

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

Sun Jun 22, 2008 1:29 am



Quoting Zeke (Reply 238):
You have no idea of my background to make any such comment.

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.
“In the age of information, ignorance is a choice.”
-Donny Miller
 
redflyer
Posts: 3905
Joined: Thu Feb 24, 2005 3:30 am

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

Sun Jun 22, 2008 2:33 am



Quoting Zeke (Reply 239):
Quoting RedFlyer (Reply 237):
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 of the KC-30, they should simply specify it.

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

You didn't answer my question, which was responsive to your question. Why treat the two suppliers so differently from one another?
A government big enough to take away a constitutionally guaranteed right is a government big enough to take away any guaranteed right. A government big enough to give you everything you need is a government big enough to take away everything you have.
 
User avatar
zeke
Posts: 14989
Joined: Thu Dec 14, 2006 1:42 pm

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

Sun Jun 22, 2008 10:07 am



Quoting N328KF (Reply 242):
There are people here who are both who have called you out.

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 to go around trying to discredit people, it takes very little intellectual capability.

It takes a lot more effort to be able to step up and engage in a discussion takes thought, research, and understanding, and the ability to the communicate that position, and naturally some knowledge of the topic at hand.

Quoting RedFlyer (Reply 243):
Why treat the two suppliers so differently from one another?

I cannot see how one could treat the two bids exactly the same, the content of the bids are different as they based upon different frames which are at different stages in their development cycle, they contractors had to respond to the 37 files that made up the RFP package, that will lead to different strengths and weaknesses.

The RFP also encouraged each of the bidders to show their product in the best light, e.g. "provide their own analysis of the number of their proposed KC-X aircraft needed to meet the refueling demand from the evaluation scenario", in this case Boeing could have used their tanker software to work out the refueling demand, whilst NG would not have access to that.

The physical tank locations are very different, that would lead to different questions being asked, e.g. the existing fuel tanks on the KC-30 are a known quantity, they have already been FAA certified, the body tanks on the KC-767 requires modification of the 767-200LRF, that would lead to different discussions.

The KC-30 airframe has flown, the KC-767AT has not, the KC-30 boom has flown, the KC-767 has not, the initial KC-45 SDD aircraft are built awaiting mod, the KC-767AT are not.

If they were both putting forward the same product I could see how discussions could be more the same, that is not the case with this contract, the two products as everyone agrees had different capabilities, and the products are at different stages in their development.

Looking at the USAF submission to the GAO, Boeing dismissed some of the USAF requirements in the RFP saying they would provide no real benefit to the USAF, these were area where the KC-30 provided better capability. That again would in my view lead to different discussions.
Human rights lawyers are "ambulance chasers of the very worst kind.'" - Sky News
 
Curt22
Posts: 334
Joined: Sat Jul 14, 2007 11:43 am

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

Sun Jun 22, 2008 12:56 pm



Quoting Zeke (Reply 234):
No infrastructure costs were part of the RFP, the RFP was for the supply of aircraft and related tooling, spares, and training, I am not aware of either Boeing or NG offering to do civil construction work for the USAF as part of this proposal.

The USAF does not even know which bases they will open/close in the next 40 years, how is NG or Boeing supposed to know ?

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 correctly. MILCON is part of the total cost of ownership and the services must account for in all acquisition programs and must do so properly.

Cost of MILCON may not be a factor of aircraft performance, but it can be a program killer if makes the the total cost of ownership too just too expensive to the taxpayer.

As for basing...the USAF has both short and long range plans for force structure, and it rarely relocates flying missions to different home bases, the main reason being staggering MILCON costs. That said, the USAF also know the capabilities and shortfalls of ALL airfields around the world so they know exactly where they can operate their aircraft, yesterday, today and tomorrow.

Quoting Zeke (Reply 244):
I cannot see how one could treat the two bids exactly the same, the content of the bids are different as they based upon different frames which are at different stages in their development cycle, they contractors had to respond to the 37 files that made up the RFP package, that will lead to different strengths and weaknesses.

I agree that those who haven't served on source selection might not understand how to treat bids "the same"...but the answer is simple. All "bids" are treated equally by evaluating them only against the approved requirements established in the Request For Proposal (RFP). The RFP is the sole document the vendors will bid to, but it seems in this case the GAO has found the USAF took liberties in how they assessed proposals and dismissed some of their own RFP criteria, adding costs to BA, reducing (or ignoring) costs to NG such as MILCON needed to support a larger aircraft.

The process isn't all that hard to follow, but as Ricky used to say to Lucy...I think Congress will be telling the USAF they have some "splaning to do" as to how and why they moved the goal posts in several areas.
 
redflyer
Posts: 3905
Joined: Thu Feb 24, 2005 3:30 am

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

Sun Jun 22, 2008 2:02 pm



Quoting Zeke (Reply 244):
Quoting RedFlyer (Reply 243):
Why treat the two suppliers so differently from one another?

I cannot see how one could treat the two bids exactly the same

The GAO did not say the bids were treated differently, which they would be naturally, they said the suppliers were treated differently. Big difference.

Why are you having such a hard time differentiating between the two? (Unless, of course, you're deliberately trying to avoid answering my question.)
A government big enough to take away a constitutionally guaranteed right is a government big enough to take away any guaranteed right. A government big enough to give you everything you need is a government big enough to take away everything you have.
 
User avatar
zeke
Posts: 14989
Joined: Thu Dec 14, 2006 1:42 pm

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

Sun Jun 22, 2008 5:44 pm



Quoting Curt22 (Reply 245):

Thanks for that well said.

Quoting RedFlyer (Reply 246):

The GAO said it was only over one point of the RFP to do with "operational utility", not the entire process, significant difference.
Human rights lawyers are "ambulance chasers of the very worst kind.'" - Sky News
 
User avatar
kc135topboom
Posts: 11182
Joined: Sun Jan 30, 2005 2:26 am

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

Sun Jun 22, 2008 9:09 pm



Quoting Zeke (Reply 244):
The physical tank locations are very different, that would lead to different questions being asked, e.g. the existing fuel tanks on the KC-30 are a known quantity, they have already been FAA certified, the body tanks on the KC-767 requires modification of the 767-200LRF, that would lead to different discussions.

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) is certified. BTW, the USAF KC-45A version is not certified by the FAA, yet, nor is the final USAF configueration of the KC-767AT.

But, there are differences between the RAAF KC-30B and the USAF KC-45A, to include the defensive suit.
 
redflyer
Posts: 3905
Joined: Thu Feb 24, 2005 3:30 am

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

Sun Jun 22, 2008 9:55 pm



Quoting Zeke (Reply 247):
Quoting RedFlyer (Reply 246):


The GAO said it was only over one point of the RFP to do with "operational utility", not the entire process, significant difference.

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 report:

Quote:
4. The Air Force conducted misleading and unequal discussions with Boeing



There is nothing in that conclusion that discusses the different bids or anything related to "one point of the RFP". It deals specifically with the highly unusual manner in which bidding suppliers were treated differently, not their competing bids. Why is that so difficult for you to comprehend? (Don't answer: I know you comprehend it; you're just trying to cloud the issue so that you don't come across as wrong in a public forum.)
A government big enough to take away a constitutionally guaranteed right is a government big enough to take away any guaranteed right. A government big enough to give you everything you need is a government big enough to take away everything you have.
  • 1
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • 6
  • 7
  • 10

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: JayinKitsap, texl1649 and 22 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