|Quoting Alien (Reply 451):
Why should they? EADS LOST. Their submission does not meet the requirements of the RFP and just because the evaluators are incompetent does not mean that the parameters of the RFP should be change.
Face it the KC-30 is an inferior choice for the USAF's KC-135 replacement. If it where not we could easil;y use the argument that a Boeing 777 derivative would be an even better choice.
EADS did not loose anything. The USAF
chose the NG
-EADS proposal as their winner. Boeing protested on 111 items at the GAO, the GAO ruled in favor of Boeing on 8 of those points and rejected 103 of them.
Your statement "EADS lost" makes your position more then clear however. For now the USAF
lost, and only the USAF
! If anyone is going to loose, if the outcome of a renewed competition goes the other way around, then it is NG
of course, also a US based company, and a highly respected one for that matter.
are prime contractor in this bid. EADS North America (a daughter company of EADS), as their partner and sub-contracter, would also loose of course if this would be the outcome. But that has not happened yet, far from it actually. So your statement "EADS lost" is ludicrous.
And your statement about the inferiority of the KC
-30 is even more laughable and qualifies your opinions as not to be taken seriously. The 103 protests the GAO kicked out are an indication for that. It could be read as 103 points which Boeing wanted out of the RFP or evaluated in a different way because that is where they are (clearly?) beaten by the NG
-EADS bid. And Boeing not publishing her full reports suggests clearly such a thing.
It is still highly debatable where the KC
-30 did not meet the KPP since the USAF
claimes that it did. And the USAF
still has rebuttal time on the GAO report. They still might do that, there is a lot of tactics involved in this process which you are easily forgetting since you want Congress to declare Boeing (your favorite) to be the winner right away. Congress is not the correct body to analise two competing tanker platforms. That is the USAF
. Congress is the correct body to award funding for the program once a decision which is undisputed has been made by those parties who should take such decisions, again that is the USAF
Sadly enough they made mistakes, Boeing was in her right to protest and the GAO was right to point these errors out to the USAF
. That is what the GAO is for. The GAO also suggested in their recommendations to reopen talks with the bidders. You are very keen on accepting the GAO ruling as to say "loose EADS's KC
-30 and go with Boeing", but when that same GAO suggests to the USAF
and both parties to restart the talks about the bids, you eagerly jump over that part because the outcome might not suit you, right?
But that is what is going to happen, the USAF
will talk again to NG
and Boeing. The RFP will undergo some changes and those changes are going to define which platform from which manufacturor will be chosen.
That choice is not going to look like Congress awarding the contract to Boeing and Boeing only. This whole process is still very much open. Like I said before, if that had to be the outcome of this competiton, why have a competition at all. As a farce?
[Edited 2008-07-08 06:36:08]
[Edited 2008-07-08 06:37:07]