Moderators: richierich, ua900, PanAm_DC10, hOMSaR

  • 1
  • 6
  • 7
  • 8
  • 9
  • 10
 
XT6Wagon
Posts: 2728
Joined: Tue Feb 13, 2007 4:06 pm

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

Tue Jul 08, 2008 10:08 am



Quoting Rheinwaldner (Reply 449):
You mean the A345 would be even more acceptable than the A330 as base platform?

No, We won't ever see what I am thinking of unless a 707/KC135 or DC8 is used since the days of a 4 engine narrowbody with high MTOW is long since over. It makes no sense for an AIRLINE to fly what I am talking about since none of the attributes is a positive for them. They don't NEED faster response to throttle inputs. They don't NEED overpowered airplanes. They don't NEED high performance in the transsonic regions of flight. In fact every attribute is a negative to the airlines, which is why modern passenger jets are not that much better than what we got 50 years ago despite all the advances in that time.

Personaly I think they should take the best of the KC135E frames and do a KC135R "NG", but it doesn't sound sexy that you are spending money on planes older than the parents of the people crewing them. Course thats the problem with the USAF for a long while, spending money on whats sexy, instead of whats needed.
 
Alien
Posts: 416
Joined: Mon Oct 12, 2009 8:00 am

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

Tue Jul 08, 2008 12:56 pm

I would challenge anyone to point out in the GAO report where any of the statements made in the Boeing Comments of the Industry report are false. Perhaps you could quote the Air Force's comments on the report. Oh no, I forgot, you cannot because the Air Force chose not to rebut the GAO as was it's right.

The findings in the GAO report and Boeing's comments point out that the KC-30 does not meet the minimum requirements of the RFP and that logically (something some EADS cheerleaders have a problem with) if they did not meet the RFP requirements they should be disqualified from being awarded the contract. No amount of whining is going to change that.

Since some of our European "friends" have a problem reading reports and discriminating whether the information they read is valid or not I copy WORD for WORD the GAO report.

Number 3 and 5 are pretty interesting. They are Key performance parameter minimums that the KC-30 did not meet. Congress is going to have a field day. I can't wait for Thursday.

Quote:
Specifically, we sustain the protest, because we find that (1) the Air Force did not evaluate the offerors’ technical proposals under the key system requirements subfactor of the mission capability factor in accordance with the weighting established in the RFP’s evaluation criteria; (2) a key technical discriminator relied upon in the selection decision in favor of Northrop Grumman relating to the aerial refueling area of the key system requirements subfactor, was contrary to the RFP; (3) the Air Force did not reasonably evaluate the capability of Northrop Grumman’s proposed aircraft to refuel all current Air Force fixed-wing, tanker-compatible aircraft using current Air Force procedures, as required by the RFP; (4) the Air Force conducted misleading and unequal discussions with Boeing with respect to whether it had satisfied an RFP objective under the operational utility area of the key system requirements subfactor; (5) Northrop Grumman’s proposal took exception to a material solicitation requirement related to the product support subfactor; (6) the Air Force did not reasonably evaluate military construction (MILCON) costs associated with the offerors’ proposed aircraft consistent with the RFP; and (7) the Air Force unreasonably evaluated Boeing’s estimated non-recurring engineering costs associated with its proposed system development and demonstration (SDD).



http://leeham.net/filelib/B-311344__BOEING__REDACTED_DECISION.pdf

Page 3 and 4.

Quoting EPA001 (Reply 447):
Read carefully: the document is drawn up by Boeing attorneys or lawyers!

You just don;t get it. It does not matter it is written by Boeing lawyers. They are merely pointing out what the GAO wrote and commenting on it. show where anything they wrote contradicts the GAO which happens to be run by government lawyers.

Quoting EPA001 (Reply 447):
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.

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.
 
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 1:34 pm

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.

Remember, NG 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]
 
User avatar
scbriml
Posts: 19042
Joined: Wed Jul 02, 2003 10:37 pm

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

Tue Jul 08, 2008 2:53 pm



Quoting Alien (Reply 451):
Number 3 and 5 are pretty interesting. They are Key performance parameter minimums that the KC-30 did not meet.

You really are desperate aren't you? Neither point says the KC-30 fails to meet any KPPs.

3) Does not say the KC-30 cannot refuel all aircraft in the USAF inventory. It says the USAF did not reasonably evaluate that capability. Which is a whole lot different to what you're claiming it says.

5) Absolutely nothing to do with the capabilities of the KC-30, but an issue about support between the USAF and NG.

Quoting Alien (Reply 451):
Since some of our European "friends" have a problem reading reports and discriminating whether the information they read is valid or not

It seems some of our American "friends" have the same problem. smile 

Quoting Alien (Reply 451):
Congress is going to have a field day. I can't wait for Thursday.

Are all the members of the Air and Land Forces Subcommittee in Boeing's pocket then?
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.
 
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 3:32 pm



Quoting EPA001 (Reply 452):
EADS did not loose anything.

I guess they tightened things.  Smile  duck  Just messing with ya.

Quoting EPA001 (Reply 452):
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.

Very well said.

Quoting EPA001 (Reply 452):
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.

The problem with this, is that it will seem that the USAF would be making the changes to suite one or the other. Congress will not stand for this, no matter who wins. Its a catch 22. right now they should just re-engine the KC-135s, and make a whole new rfp for the next generation of aircraft I.E. 787 or A350 or a totally new design BWB.

Dan in Jupiter
 
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 4:07 pm



Quoting Sprout5199 (Reply 454):
The problem with this, is that it will seem that the USAF would be making the changes to suite one or the other. Congress will not stand for this, no matter who wins. Its a catch 22. right now they should just re-engine the KC-135s, and make a whole new rfp for the next generation of aircraft I.E. 787 or A350 or a totally new design BWB

I can not argue on this with you. You are completely right. The previous RFP was still more B767 based which caused NG to demand the famous extra paragraph for the extra points if a bid exceeded the RFP requirements. This has lead to many discussions and various interpretations of the capabilities of both bidding platforms.

Basically the problem to come to a solution still exists, it is hardly solvable. The B767-AT can pretty much almost do anything the USAF requires it to do, except maybe for the 7,000 ft balanced field performance. How important that is, is not for me to judge. But I am sure that the B767-AT will beat the KC-135 in just about every aspect someone can think of.

The KC-30 can do anything the USAF wants it to do, but the USAF did not documented this properly according to the rules specified in the bid, hence the correction from GAO, which was just. If the bid is rewritten or modified, the new minimal requirements could steer the outcome to the KC-30 easily, the aircraft platform the USAF wants right now.

Because it is much newer and as an aircraft type, the aircraft family is alive and still being developed upon, and because it outperforms the B767-AT on many, many points. There is no discussion about that.

Now, if Congress will not allow this to happen, (and basically would rule out the possibility of a competition(!), think about that) it might be better to go for the next generation of planes and choose either an A350 based or B787 based Tanker platform. They could replace the KC-10 in the same instance as well. The B767 is an old plane right now which is almost out of production. It sure is not securing new orders against the A330 or the B787.

The A330 is still very much alive and well and still receiving upgrades, but it is also not the latest technology which is purchase-able now. And when the B787 and A350 hit the market for real, it will not be the latest technology available as well. That argument is also valid for the B777, although I am convinced this plane for sure is too heavy and expensive to qualify to win the bidding.

Upgrading the KC-135 is then a must to bridge the time before both the new platforms could be available as a tanker aircraft. That for sure will not happen before 2015, 2020 is more realistic. I assume that the re-eniging and additional servicing/minor upgrading of the KC-135 fleet could be done relatively quick. These updates should be good for another 10 years or so, under the condition that the airframes itself will still have 10 years or so of operational life in them! That could also create the space in processing the back-ogs for the B787 and the A350. That will take Airbus and Boeing some years as well! Replacements could then start as of 2020 including also the KC-10! Just some options to get out of the mess which this wole process is right now!

Kind regards.
 
pygmalion
Posts: 836
Joined: Thu Jun 29, 2006 12:47 am

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

Tue Jul 08, 2008 4:56 pm



Quoting EPA001 (Reply 452):
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.

Show me where Boeing submitted 111 items.?!?!? They submitted one protest. In follow on discussions with the GAO and the AF, they also sumitted follow up materials for that protest. Boeing's submittal was in 5 major sections. The GAO ruled in Boeing's favor and upheld the protest. Since the GAO will not, and did not do any technical evaluation, they did not rule on Boeing's protest of the technical details of the evaluation..

The GAO said that the AF had not followed its own evaluation requirements, did not fairly evaluate the submittals and had to re-evaluate the RFP under the rules that the RFP laid out or change them. Simple really.

The GAO in no place rejected 103 of anything. The AF did not protest the GAO ruling even though they could have. So the AF in the most part agrees with the GAO and now must figure a way out of the hole they dug themselves into.
 
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 5:33 pm

@ Pygmalion: it was "here" (see the quotes below) that the rumours of more than 70 protested points, later more than 100 protested points were confirmed. Though, at this time the link is not working. The site states that the problem is known to them and is going to be fixed! How long that will take I can not tell.

But please note carefully the reaction Zeke gave after reading it. He is one of the most creditable writers on this forum in my opinion, so that reaction says a lot!

On the other hand, and which is not helpful in this, Boeing still has not published its full detailed reports etc. Not even to the GAO. To them they specifically named the 111 points on which they thought they could have a case, they were ruled right in 8 of the 111 cases by the GAO, so in about 7.2 % of the cases. What are they hiding there?

Kind regards.

Quoting Zeke (Reply 416):
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.

 
Lumberton
Posts: 4176
Joined: Fri Jul 29, 2005 7:34 am

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

Tue Jul 08, 2008 5:41 pm

Quoting EPA001 (Reply 457):
To them they specifically named the 111 points on which they thought they could have a case, they were ruled right in 8 of the 111 cases by the GAO, so in about 7.2 % of the cases. What are they hiding there?

I would be cautious in emphasizing the "quantitative" approach. Frankly, it could be just as damaging to the award if the GAO found one or one hundred. If the one finding is material, then this is serious business and could have extremely severe consequences for the selection of the KC-30. To find as many issues as they did, in a program which touted "transparency" and "oversight" is simply astonishing.

Tanker War Blog has posted the following announcement:

Quote:
We received word that DoD will hold a public press conference tomorrow at 1:30 PM EST to announce the way forward on the tanker contract.

http://tankerblog.blogspot.com/2008/...nounce-tanker-contract-future.html

[Edited 2008-07-08 10:55:49]
"When all is said and done, more will be said than done".
 
User avatar
scbriml
Posts: 19042
Joined: Wed Jul 02, 2003 10:37 pm

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

Tue Jul 08, 2008 6:10 pm



Quoting Pygmalion (Reply 456):
Show me where Boeing submitted 111 items.?!?!?

From the Tanker War Blog, and their "Dueling Talking Points" article. Now these guys are seriously anti-EADS, so if it was wrong, they'd have been all over it like a rash!
http://www.scribd.com/doc/3763385/Du...ng-Talking-Points-The-GAO-Decision

Quote:
Boeing filed scores of complaints in its protest. Did the GAO agree with most of them?

Absolutely not. In fact Boeing filed 111 separate complaints and the GAO only accepted 8. The GAO rejected the vast majority of Boeing's complaints.



Quoting Pygmalion (Reply 456):
The GAO in no place rejected 103 of anything.

From the GAO's full decision document (page 3 of the .PDF)
http://www.gao.gov/decisions/bidpro/311344.htm

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

Sustaining 8 of 111 protests would kind of suggest the GAO rejected the other 103.
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
scbriml
Posts: 19042
Joined: Wed Jul 02, 2003 10:37 pm

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

Tue Jul 08, 2008 6:49 pm



Quoting Lumberton (Reply 458):
I would be cautious in emphasizing the "quantitative" approach. Frankly, it could be just as damaging to the award if the GAO found one or one hundred.

From the USAF's perspective, this is sadly correct. The 8 protests the GAO sustained were sufficiently serious for them to say

Quote:
The GAO 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 the GAO’s decision.

It looks as though the DoD has a press conference tomorrow, so we might find out what the path forward is.
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.
 
pygmalion
Posts: 836
Joined: Thu Jun 29, 2006 12:47 am

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

Tue Jul 08, 2008 7:47 pm

let me be clear:

Boeing filled ONE protest. That protest may have been multi-layered and complex with many details and points.

The GAO made ONE decision... I quote.. "The protest is sustained."

The GAO then said "We also recommend that Boeing be reimbursed the reasonable costs of filing and pursuing the protest, including reasonable attorneys’ fees. 4 C.F.R. sect. 21.8(d)(1). Boeing should submit its claim for costs, detailing and certifying the time expended and costs incurred, with the contracting agency within 60 days after receipt of this decision. 4 C.F.R. sect. 21.8(f)(1)."

All the BS and back and forth about how many details and number of points etc... is completely besides the point.

let me quote, the GAO again..

"Here, we find, as described above, a number of errors in the Air Force’s conduct of this procurement, including the failure to evaluate proposals in accordance with the RFP criteria and requirements and to conduct discussions in a fair and equal manner. "

"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. "


Seems clear to me. The number 8 or 103 or 111... have nothing to do with anything..

Boeing protested, the GAO sustained that protest, the AF did not argue with the GAO finding...

The AF must re run the evaluation.
 
User avatar
scbriml
Posts: 19042
Joined: Wed Jul 02, 2003 10:37 pm

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

Tue Jul 08, 2008 8:38 pm



Quoting Pygmalion (Reply 461):
The AF must re run the evaluation.

Not strictly true, but the most likely outcome.

The GAO's ruling is not binding on the AF, hence the precise wording of (my emphasis)

Quote:
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.

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

Tue Jul 08, 2008 11:04 pm



Quoting Scbriml (Reply 462):
Not strictly true, but the most likely outcome.

The GAO's ruling is not binding on the AF, hence the precise wording of (my emphasis)

You are correct, the decision is non-binding...However, GAO works for the Congress, and it is Congress who pays the bills, so if the USAF were to ignore Congress's own watchdog, Congress would rake the DoD and USAF over the coals in asking them to explain why they have ignored GAO's findings...Congress can (and does) hold up funding, promotions etc when they are not amused when DoD doesn't do as they like, and after all...DoD does work for the elected civilian leadership who's power of the pocket book is their leverage in our systems of checks and balances.

What does my editorial mean? It means the DoD (USAF) will not now and never has ignored the "advice" of GAO findings.
 
Ken777
Posts: 10048
Joined: Thu Mar 11, 2004 5:39 am

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

Wed Jul 09, 2008 12:08 am

The AF doesn't have to pay attention to the findings of the GAO. They can basically tell the GAO to shove it and continue with their plans to go with NG/Airbus.

In doing so, however, they pay a political price that only a fool would want to pay. From their recent history, though, they might just decide to ignore the GAO.

While there have been arguments on this board for each side the interesting (and rather important) aspect of this FUBAR will start when the AF gets in front of Congressional hearings. I wouldn't be surprised to see far more come from the hearings than was presented in the GAO reports. There will be a lot of Congressmen & women, as well as Senators, that will be sicking their staff attorneys onto this entire situation, with the "8 points" just being the start.
 
User avatar
Moose135
Posts: 3148
Joined: Mon Oct 04, 2004 11:27 pm

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

Wed Jul 09, 2008 4:11 am



Quoting Ken777 (Reply 464):
The AF doesn't have to pay attention to the findings of the GAO. They can basically tell the GAO to shove it and continue with their plans to go with NG/Airbus.

In doing so, however, they pay a political price that only a fool would want to pay. From their recent history, though, they might just decide to ignore the GAO.

If so, they are going to have to have one hell of a big bake sale to raise money for the tankers they want to buy.
KC-135 - Passing gas and taking names!
 
Alien
Posts: 416
Joined: Mon Oct 12, 2009 8:00 am

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

Wed Jul 09, 2008 5:31 am



Quoting EPA001 (Reply 457):
But please note carefully the reaction Zeke gave after reading it.

ROFLMAO

Quoting Scbriml (Reply 459):
Sustaining 8 of 111 protests would kind of suggest the GAO rejected the other 103.

So what is your point? They sustained 8 serious errors. Two of the errors disqualify the KC-30 being awarded the contract and the other six are serious enough that the RFP would have to be re-run. This is not about quantity (like some of the EADS fan boy posts on this subject) and all about quality.

Quoting Scbriml (Reply 462):
The GAO's ruling is not binding on the AF,

Exactly so don;t be surprised if tomorrow Gates announces that the GAO is correct in finding fault that the KC-30 does not meet the minimum requirements of the RFP and declare the KC-767 the winner. Unless they feel that the KC-767 missed one or more KPPs they will award the contract to Boeing. We shall see.

Quoting Ken777 (Reply 464):
I wouldn't be surprised to see far more come from the hearings than was presented in the GAO reports. There will be a lot of Congressmen & women, as well as Senators, that will be sicking their staff attorneys onto this entire situation, with the "8 points" just being the start.

Exactly so, hence my previous statement:

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.

For all the whining and claims from the EADS contingent on this board that the KC-30 is superior to the KC-767 I offer this:

You are all missing the point.
Of course the A330 is a more capable airframe it is almost 50 percent larger and several years younger. But then again a new minivan is more capable for hauling around me and my stuff but I keep the sedan instead. Why? I only need that extra capability once or twice a year and when I need it there are alternatives. For the other 99.9 percent of the time my old sedan does just fine and does so at much lower cost. In fact on a day to day basis it is better than the minivan since it is much more easy to maneuver, has a better sound system, has a better A/C and costs far less to operate. For me, even though the minivan offers the superior product when it comes to cargo hauling, the sedan is still the better choice for me. My neighbors though feel otherwise, but they are in a different situation than me.

That is exactly what the KC-X is all about and it is exactly why the Air Force will wind up with the KC-767. It works better for them.
 
Ken777
Posts: 10048
Joined: Thu Mar 11, 2004 5:39 am

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

Wed Jul 09, 2008 5:33 am



Quoting Moose135 (Reply 465):
If so, they are going to have to have one hell of a big bake sale to raise money for the tankers they want to buy.

I know that, and you know that. Unfortunately I would bet that there are some top brass who are trying to figure out how to get away with it.

I'm at the point where I think it will be difficult to do anything with the personal that were involved in the decision.

If they go with their original decision it will be a political disaster.

If they change the specs so NG/Airbus can win it will an equal political disaster.

In both of these situations the House & Senate (controlled by Democrats) will make it a huge election issue. Especially with McCain running for President and having placed the NG/Airbus lobbyists on his executive committee. That would not be a pretty sight between now and November.

If they follow the GAO recommendations to the letter and bring in some fresh people to carry out the review - and end up giving the contract to Boeing then those responsible for the initial decision will need to find jobs.

Right now I believe that the AF's first priority is to re-establish confidence in Congress that they can carry out a fair and honest procurement program. There will be too many other important projects in the future to have this FUBAR hanging over their head.
 
Alien
Posts: 416
Joined: Mon Oct 12, 2009 8:00 am

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

Wed Jul 09, 2008 5:43 am

Quoting Ken777 (Reply 467):
those responsible for the initial decision will need to find jobs.

That should go without saying regardless of the outcome.

[Edited 2008-07-08 22:44:01]
 
User avatar
EPA001
Posts: 3893
Joined: Tue Sep 12, 2006 8:13 pm

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

Wed Jul 09, 2008 8:15 am

Quoting Alien (Reply 466):
You are all missing the point.
Of course the A330 is a more capable airframe it is almost 50 percent larger and several years younger. But then again a new minivan is more capable for hauling around me and my stuff but I keep the sedan instead. Why? I only need that extra capability once or twice a year and when I need it there are alternatives. For the other 99.9 percent of the time my old sedan does just fine and does so at much lower cost. In fact on a day to day basis it is better than the minivan since it is much more easy to maneuver, has a better sound system, has a better A/C and costs far less to operate. For me, even though the minivan offers the superior product when it comes to cargo hauling, the sedan is still the better choice for me. My neighbors though feel otherwise, but they are in a different situation than me.

That is exactly what the KC-X is all about and it is exactly why the Air Force will wind up with the KC-767. It works better for them.

That is a very simplistic comparison and takes many things not into account.

You are easily forgetting in your comparison that mission profiles can and will change. The infrastructure and even the locations of US airbases worldwide will change. You are reasoning according to the current situation.

But the world is a vary dynamic place. What is now can easily be different or non-existing tomorrow. The USAF knows this a lot better than you show here, perhaps a lack of vision on your part? Therefore the USAF wants extra capabilities of which you might think them not to be necessary, the USAF is planning for if they are!

Because if they did not do this, and these extra capabilities are required at some time but not available (due to choosing the wrong-full B767-AT compared to the KC-30!), characters like yourself are the first to point out the organisational and planning errors the USAF has made!

If the circumstances change (and they change all the time, sometimes faster, sometimes slower, but they will change) the extra capabilities will be usefull to the USAF much and much more than the 99.9% you are estimating in your simplified comparison. The USAF knows why they need it, and knows what they might need, you just do not want to see it. And remember, these tankers-transporters are to stay in the USAF fleet for a very, very long time!

That you are not seeing this is of course your right, but it will not earn you points in arguments. Not that you have scored that many over time, but even so!

Regards.

[Edited 2008-07-09 01:18:57]

[Edited 2008-07-09 01:23:38]
 
User avatar
scbriml
Posts: 19042
Joined: Wed Jul 02, 2003 10:37 pm

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

Wed Jul 09, 2008 10:29 am



Quoting Alien (Reply 466):
So what is your point?

My point was simply a response to Pygmalion's direct question. Not sure why you need to ask, it was quite clear.
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: 14988
Joined: Thu Dec 14, 2006 1:42 pm

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

Wed Jul 09, 2008 12:03 pm



Quoting Pygmalion (Reply 461):
Boeing filled ONE protest. That protest may have been multi-layered and complex with many details and points.

The GAO made ONE decision... I quote.. "The protest is sustained."

P,

I fully agree with you, the protest was sustained. I am glad Being protested, I am happy the procurement process is working.

What I disagree with is your solution. The USAF got most of it right.

We are presented with a very different case than 2002 where the USAF and Boeing acted illegally, and people went to goal. In this case, the vendors had no problem with the RFP in most areas. The RFP is not a small document, it is spread amongst 37 files, in the thousands of pages, I am surprised that more was not found wrong with it.

The areas where Boeing had issues, they submitted 111 complaints to the GAO. The GAO subsequently upheld 8 of those complaints, which means all the areas Boeing did not have problem with, and the 103 areas which th GAO did not uphold are not problematic.

That leaves us with the 8 points that were upheld, which could be adequately resolved by the method suggested by the GAO.

Hopefully later today we will hear some more about this publicly from the USAF.
Human rights lawyers are "ambulance chasers of the very worst kind.'" - Sky News
 
User avatar
par13del
Posts: 10263
Joined: Sun Dec 18, 2005 9:14 pm

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

Wed Jul 09, 2008 12:32 pm

To me the main problem that exist for both OEM's are:

1. The US Air Force is seeking to replace the KC-135
2. Only Boeing has submitted an a/c closer in size. Airbus either has to go lower - A300/310 - or larger as in the A-330. Remember that the reason why the A-330 is so successful commercially is due to its increased size over the B-767

How exactly is the Air Force going to word a RFP that would allow two disimiliar a/c to compete? I do not think they can.
 
norcal
Posts: 1507
Joined: Sun Mar 20, 2005 1:44 am

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

Wed Jul 09, 2008 2:35 pm



Quoting Par13del (Reply 472):
How exactly is the Air Force going to word a RFP that would allow two disimiliar a/c to compete? I do not think they can.

The original RFP was for something closer in size to a KC-135. NG/EADS cried foul and said they wouldn't submit a bid when they realized they couldn't beat Boeing with the larger KC-30. Following NG/EADS (and possibly McCain) lobbying the Air Force added modified the bid and added in the extra credit portion so NG/EADS would compete. They probably did this because they wanted to make the tanker competition seem open and fair and to avoid complaints of another 2002 situation.

The real question is if the USAF originally wanted a KC-767 sized aircraft and where lobbied into making a competition that only the KC-30 could win. Or if they decided they really needed the extra capabilities of the KC-30. From the GAO and how the USAF treated Boeing it would appear that the former would be the case.

In either case I think the USAF owes the taxpayer a full cost analysis of what it costs to procure either tanker. This would include things like base improvements needed to house the larger KC-30. There are plenty of non US members on here who will probably say, "it doesn't matter, it is Boeing propaganda etc." but they aren't the ones who will be paying for base extensions. If both tankers met the requirements of the RFP, then we should buy the one that has the lowest total costs to purchase.

If the USAF really wanted something the size of the KC-30, they should have written the RFP to reflect it and then told Boeing to compete with the 777. The whole extra credit thing seems very dubious and smacks of back room dealing at worst or just a plain stupid procurement process at best.

Quoting EPA001 (Reply 469):
If the circumstances change (and they change all the time, sometimes faster, sometimes slower, but they will change) the extra capabilities will be usefull to the USAF much and much more than the 99.9% you are estimating in your simplified comparison. The USAF knows why they need it, and knows what they might need, you just do not want to see it. And remember, these tankers-transporters are to stay in the USAF fleet for a very, very long time!

Yes they do and with continued development of smart weapons and UAVs (all happening) we might find that we don't need as large of tankers. It is possible in 50 years that the USAF will have space based weapon systems. Who knows, but we shouldn't assume we need a larger tanker. I think if the USAF needed a large tanker they would have bought more KC-10s when they had the chance (it was the Cold War, money wasn't short).
 
User avatar
scbriml
Posts: 19042
Joined: Wed Jul 02, 2003 10:37 pm

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

Wed Jul 09, 2008 2:49 pm



Quoting NorCal (Reply 473):
If the USAF really wanted something the size of the KC-30, they should have written the RFP to reflect it and then told Boeing to compete with the 777. The whole extra credit thing seems very dubious and smacks of back room dealing at worst or just a plain stupid procurement process at best.

The problem being, both bidders are basing their tanker on existing civil frames which are not the same size. The AF shouldn't be telling NG or Boeing which plane to bid, that should be their decision based on their interpretation of the RFP.

It looks as though the AF is announcing their way forward today, so lets just wait and see what they say. It is rumoured that congress will be notified at 10.00am EST (in about 10 minutes). If that happens, I'd expect news to leak soon afterwards, ahead of the possible DoD press conference at 1.30pm EST.
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.
 
blackknight
Posts: 222
Joined: Sat Dec 11, 2004 4:40 am

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

Wed Jul 09, 2008 2:56 pm



Quoting Zeke (Reply 471):
The USAF got most of it right.

If you keep saying this, it still won't be true and more and more members here will begin to question your other wise valuable input. Zeke you are very knowlegeable on the commerical side. Do not invalidate your value due to a love affair with EADS. The Air force got it wrong. The RFP was written for a KC-135 replacement, not a KC-10 replacement.

Quoting Zeke (Reply 471):
The areas where Boeing had issues, they submitted 111 complaints to the GAO. The GAO subsequently upheld 8 of those complaints, which means all the areas Boeing did not have problem with, and the 103 areas which th GAO did not uphold are not problematic.

Boeing submitted one complaint with many line items. The full complaint was substained with the top 8 points being explained. This has been brought to your attention many times. The article I linked in a previous post explained the idea of 8 out of 100 plus issues was created by EADS as miss-information in a smear campaign. The world know knows this and your refusal to accept that you bought into a fictious story puts in question your objectiveness.
BK
 
User avatar
scbriml
Posts: 19042
Joined: Wed Jul 02, 2003 10:37 pm

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

Wed Jul 09, 2008 2:57 pm

Tanker War Blog is reporting that the decision is "an expedited recompete".
http://tankerblog.blogspot.com/

No details yet.

Press conference now scheduled for 1.00pm EDT.
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.
 
TristarAtLCA
Posts: 636
Joined: Fri Jul 27, 2007 3:16 pm

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

Wed Jul 09, 2008 5:04 pm



Quoting BlackKnight (Reply 475):
The article I linked in a previous post explained the idea of 8 out of 100 plus issues was created by EADS as miss-information in a smear campaign.

If you are referring to the link in reply 430, it says nothing about the number of issues the GAO ruled on. But maybe you can answer what the GAO meant by this:

'we also deny many of Boeing’s challenges to the award.' From page 3 of the GAO pdf.

They sustained on eight points but dismissed how many? I don't know and I would bet neither do you.

Not exactly EADS spin is it ?
If you was right..................I'd agree with you
 
Alien
Posts: 416
Joined: Mon Oct 12, 2009 8:00 am

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

Wed Jul 09, 2008 5:13 pm



Quoting TristarAtLCA (Reply 477):
They sustained on eight points but dismissed how many?

Obviously someone in the Pentagon thinks they sustained enough so that they have to re-bid the RFP.
 
NYC777
Topic Author
Posts: 5103
Joined: Wed Jun 09, 2004 3:00 am

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

Wed Jul 09, 2008 5:30 pm

Ok so the tanker decision would be run by the DoD and not the Air Force...that's a huge change!
The recompetition decision would be based only on those points that the GAO had cited in their decision to uphold Boeing's protest.

Expedited decision by December and the DoD will ask each OEM to resubmit their plans. With this the question is will Boeing go with the 767 or 777?
That which does not kill me makes me stronger.
 
User avatar
scbriml
Posts: 19042
Joined: Wed Jul 02, 2003 10:37 pm

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

Wed Jul 09, 2008 5:48 pm



Quoting Alien (Reply 478):
Obviously someone in the Pentagon thinks they sustained enough so that they have to re-bid the RFP.

Which was the GAO's recommendation, as opposed to your preferred solution.  wink 
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.
 
Beta
Posts: 279
Joined: Sun Nov 26, 2006 5:56 am

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

Wed Jul 09, 2008 5:59 pm



Quoting TristarAtLCA (Reply 477):
'we also deny many of Boeing’s challenges to the award.' From page 3 of the GAO pdf.

They sustained on eight points but dismissed how many? I don't know and I would bet neither do you.

It does not matter how many points or items they sustained. That's beside the point, and making an issue out of it is only a distraction tactic in a debate/argument. Bottom line is Boeing's protest has merits to such an extent that the source selection and contract are being voided as we speak.
I listened to the Sec. Gates and DOD briefing conference, it appeared that much of the requirements in original RFP will remain the same. However, the evaluation against those requirements will be tailored specific to the deficiencies raised by the GAO report. It also seems to me cost analysis is being more emphasized this time round. Personally I believe EADS/NG may still have a very good chance of winning it again.
There will be no split buy, or competitive fly-off. However, it seems the losing team this round might have a greater chance at KC-Y and KC-Z because the DOD does not believe in a monopoly for tanker fleet.
 
Curt22
Posts: 334
Joined: Sat Jul 14, 2007 11:43 am

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

Wed Jul 09, 2008 6:26 pm



Quoting NYC777 (Reply 479):
With this the question is will Boeing go with the 767 or 777?

Or would they offer BOTH platforms and put the monkey on the back of the USAF again, forcing them to say why neither the 767 nor 777 would be a good candidate.
 
User avatar
Revelation
Posts: 23954
Joined: Wed Feb 09, 2005 9:37 pm

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

Wed Jul 09, 2008 7:03 pm



Quoting Curt22 (Reply 482):
Or would they offer BOTH platforms and put the monkey on the back of the USAF again, forcing them to say why neither the 767 nor 777 would be a good candidate.

The press conference says the RFP will be for a "medium" tanker, and I do believe that will preclude the 777. One can argue (and we have!) that it should also proclude A330, but it does not.
Wake up to find out that you are the eyes of the world
The heart has its beaches, its homeland and thoughts of its own
Wake now, discover that you are the song that the morning brings
The heart has its seasons, its evenings and songs of its own
 
User avatar
scbriml
Posts: 19042
Joined: Wed Jul 02, 2003 10:37 pm

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

Wed Jul 09, 2008 7:26 pm



Quoting Revelation (Reply 483):
The press conference says the RFP will be for a "medium" tanker, and I do believe that will preclude the 777. One can argue (and we have!) that it should also proclude A330, but it does not.

Indeed, at the press conference it was emphasised that both the KC-30 and KC-767 were categorised as "medium tankers".

This Leeham article completely debunked all the Boeing arguments about size:
http://leehamnews.wordpress.com/2008...r-tanker-protest-may-muddy-waters/

Quote:
In the Rand Corp. Analysis of Alternatives (AOA) conducted specifically for the eventual KC-X competition, Rand concluded "after about two years of extensive analysis that the USAF should procure a derivative of a medium (300-550K lbs) to large (550-1,000K lbs) commercial airliner," notes a person close to the procurement process. Boeing's KC-767 and Northrop's KC-30 fall into the medium category; the KC-30, although about a third larger than the KC-767, nonetheless classifies as a medium airliner at 512,000 lbs.



Quote:
The RFP didn't specify weight categories but sought proposals for medium- to large tankers. Given the Rand AOA, the definitions of the airplane categories seem obvious, as do which airplanes fall into which categories.

The evidence, therefore, seems conclusive that all the rhetoric about the KC-30 being a "large" tanker is simply hyperbole without foundation; it's simply "larger" than the KC-767.

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.
  • 1
  • 6
  • 7
  • 8
  • 9
  • 10

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: bar1 and 23 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