User avatar
scbriml
Topic Author
Posts: 17851
Joined: Wed Jul 02, 2003 10:37 pm

AF To Rebid Tanker Replacement

Wed Jul 09, 2008 3:16 pm

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

No details yet.

Press conference 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.
 
User avatar
KPDX
Posts: 2434
Joined: Wed Dec 14, 2005 10:04 am

AF To Rebid Tanker Replacement

Wed Jul 09, 2008 3:52 pm

Oh my goodness, here it goes.  boxedin 
 
Observer
Posts: 46
Joined: Wed Jun 27, 2007 6:18 am

AF To Rebid Tanker Replacement

Wed Jul 09, 2008 3:59 pm

More on this news:

recompete will be limited to GAO concerns, decision by January, USAF Sue Payton out as chief evaluation guru, replaced by John Young at DOD.

http://leehamnews.wordpress.com/2008/07/09/tanker-recompete/
 
Lumberton
Posts: 4176
Joined: Fri Jul 29, 2005 7:34 am

RE: AF To Rebid Tanker Replacement

Wed Jul 09, 2008 4:18 pm



Quoting Observer (Reply 2):
recompete will be limited to GAO concerns,

So is this a "recompete" or a "rescore"?
"When all is said and done, more will be said than done".
 
Ken777
Posts: 9965
Joined: Thu Mar 11, 2004 5:39 am

RE: AF To Rebid Tanker Replacement

Wed Jul 09, 2008 4:36 pm

With Sue Payton out of the picture I think you'll find that the playing field will be level - and SecDef will ensure it is level.

It also probably means that the "Big 8 Points" will be fully addressed to the point where no politician can tear SecDef apart in hearings. Other comments supporting the Big 8 will also be addressed.

Good news all around as the previous process was a FUBAR.
 
Lumberton
Posts: 4176
Joined: Fri Jul 29, 2005 7:34 am

RE: AF To Rebid Tanker Replacement

Wed Jul 09, 2008 4:37 pm



Quoting Ken777 (Reply 4):
It also probably means that the "Big 8 Points" will be fully addressed to the point where no politician can tear SecDef apart in hearings

And...let's be honest...Senator McCain. It removes it as an issue for the forthcoming presidential campaign.
"When all is said and done, more will be said than done".
 
YWG747
Posts: 53
Joined: Mon Feb 11, 2008 2:19 am

RE: AF To Rebid Tanker Replacement

Wed Jul 09, 2008 4:43 pm

Here we go again.
 duck 
 
redflyer
Posts: 3905
Joined: Thu Feb 24, 2005 3:30 am

RE: AF To Rebid Tanker Replacement

Wed Jul 09, 2008 4:47 pm



Quote:
The plan, which hands control to the Pentagon's top acquisition chief and sets up a dedicated source-selection committee, indicates that senior civilians at the Defense Department have lost confidence in the Air Force's ability to manage the contract.

http://www.chicagotribune.com/busine...bid-jul9,0,6570077.story?track=rss

Duh, anyone could see that there was no confidence in the Air Forces' ability to manage the contract. Not after they dropped the ball twice in two back-to-back tanker RFPs.
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
scbriml
Topic Author
Posts: 17851
Joined: Wed Jul 02, 2003 10:37 pm

RE: AF To Rebid Tanker Replacement

Wed Jul 09, 2008 5:04 pm

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
kc135topboom
Posts: 11130
Joined: Sun Jan 30, 2005 2:26 am

RE: AF To Rebid Tanker Replacement

Wed Jul 09, 2008 5:08 pm



Quoting RedFlyer (Reply 7):
Duh, anyone could see that there was no confidence in the Air Forces' ability to manage the contract. Not after they dropped the ball twice in two back-to-back tanker RFPs

I think we can add the CSAR-X ball to the dropped list, too.
 
Charles79
Posts: 1119
Joined: Sat Mar 03, 2007 12:35 pm

RE: AF To Rebid Tanker Replacement

Wed Jul 09, 2008 5:24 pm

Oh dear, oh dear, when oh when will we have a tanker replacement? You know those NWA DC-9 jokes? Well, 50 years from now the DC9 pilot pool will still come from officers retiring from KC-135 positions! We need a replacement ASAP, would these folks quit playing politics and wasting my tax dollars?

And please, please award the contract based on merit, not on country of origin. I'm tired of fools crying to buy only US-sourced a/c when our foreign military sales program has given us thousands of $$$ and jobs over the years (and still to come).

Good luck to those involved in the bidding war, I certainly don't envy them in that mess!

Charles
 
User avatar
scbriml
Topic Author
Posts: 17851
Joined: Wed Jul 02, 2003 10:37 pm

RE: AF To Rebid Tanker Replacement

Wed Jul 09, 2008 5:45 pm

Gates:
Contract cannot be awarded at present.
New solicitation will address GAO issues.
Not a return to "step one".
New solicitation, bid, evaluation and contract award to be completed before year end.

Q&A:
Non-US industrial base and WTO issues will not be considered.

Session now totally off-topic as press keep asking questions about Iran's missile test.

Young:
Draft RFP will be amended to address GAO's issues.
Not advocating competitive fly-off for the tanker contract.
Dec time-frame is a goal.
Bidders will be free to completely change their proposals.
Reiterated that industrial base and WTO issues will not be taken in to account.
Both aircraft were categorised as "medium sized tankers".
Notional schedule - issue draft RFP July/August, evaluation and award by end of year.
Fly-off too expensive and not a requirement for a low-tech item like a tanker.
Split-buy too expensive with too few benefits.
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.
 
AustrianZRH
Posts: 853
Joined: Tue Aug 07, 2007 5:55 pm

RE: AF To Rebid Tanker Replacement

Wed Jul 09, 2008 5:53 pm

Let me guess: if the contract goes to B now, Northrop/Grumman and EADS will protest against the decision? This looks to me as if it is becoming a never ending story... Those KC-135 will be still flying in 2025 as it looks to me.
WARNING! The post above should be taken with a grain of salt! Furthermore, it may be slightly biased towards A.
 
redflyer
Posts: 3905
Joined: Thu Feb 24, 2005 3:30 am

RE: AF To Rebid Tanker Replacement

Wed Jul 09, 2008 5:57 pm



Quoting Scbriml (Reply 11):
Gates:
Contract cannot be awarded at present.
New solicitation will address GAO issues.
Not a return to "step one".
New solicitation, bid, evaluation and contract award to be completed before year end.

Thanks for the update, Scbriml, as I wasn't able to watch the news conference.

Sounds like they are trying to keep politics out of this as much as possible, judging from the fact that WTO issues will not be taken into consideration. They appear to be strictly addressing only the GAO's findings. That should keep both sides restrained. (For the time being.)
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.
 
fridgmus
Posts: 1296
Joined: Thu Oct 12, 2006 7:28 am

RE: AF To Rebid Tanker Replacement

Wed Jul 09, 2008 5:59 pm



Quoting AustrianZRH (Reply 12):
Let me guess: if the contract goes to B now, Northrop/Grumman and EADS will protest against the decision? This looks to me as if it is becoming a never ending story... Those KC-135 will be still flying in 2025 as it looks to me.

I'm afraid I must agree with you AustrianZRH. Why can't all concerned just pull their heads out of their asses and give our Warfighters the tanker they need...NOW!
The Lockheed Super Constellation, the REAL Queen of the Skies!
 
redflyer
Posts: 3905
Joined: Thu Feb 24, 2005 3:30 am

RE: AF To Rebid Tanker Replacement

Wed Jul 09, 2008 5:59 pm



Quoting AustrianZRH (Reply 12):
if the contract goes to B now, Northrop/Grumman and EADS will protest against the decision?

Without a doubt. But it will only get dragged out further if the GAO upholds whatever issues NG/EADS might raise in an appeal.
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.
 
FRNT787
Posts: 366
Joined: Sat Sep 29, 2007 10:04 am

RE: AF To Rebid Tanker Replacement

Wed Jul 09, 2008 6:02 pm



Quoting AustrianZRH (Reply 12):
Those KC-135 will be still flying in 2025 as it looks to me.

They would have anyway. This only replaces the first 180 or so out of 500+ tankers. But yes, the older ones will fly slightly longer.

In my opinion, the Air Force can only blame themselves. First the 2002 deal (which was just dumb) and then this mess, we shall see if the Defence Department can do better. It is good to see though that they are not going back to square one though.
 
Beta
Posts: 279
Joined: Sun Nov 26, 2006 5:56 am

RE: AF To Rebid Tanker Replacement

Wed Jul 09, 2008 6:03 pm

I posted this in the other thread.
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.
 
Ken777
Posts: 9965
Joined: Thu Mar 11, 2004 5:39 am

RE: AF To Rebid Tanker Replacement

Wed Jul 09, 2008 6:10 pm



Quoting AustrianZRH (Reply 12):
Let me guess: if the contract goes to B now, Northrop/Grumman and EADS will protest against the decision?

They probably would IF they believed they had valid complaints. Remember that this was the first protest from Boeing in 30 years and it was clear by the GAO report that Boeing was correct in protesting.

There is another important issue to address in the upcoming decision - basically the decision authority has been taken from the AF and will be handled at a higher level. This, in itself, will cause a greater oversight of the process and increased difficulties in a successful protest next year, regardless of who wins or gets passed over.
 
Curt22
Posts: 334
Joined: Sat Jul 14, 2007 11:43 am

RE: AF To Rebid Tanker Replacement

Wed Jul 09, 2008 6:16 pm



Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 9):
I think we can add the CSAR-X ball to the dropped list, too.

True, USAF had problems with CSAR-X as well, but to be fair...GAO upheld just one protest point and I quote from the GAO decision:

"We sustained the protests on the basis that the Air Force's evaluation of operations and support (O&S) costs was inconsistent with the approach set forth in the solicitation. We recommended that the Air Force amend the solicitation to clarify its intent with respect to the evaluation of O&S costs, reopen discussions with offerors consistent with our decision, and then request revised proposals."

This finding says the USAF was unclear to the vendors in the sole point of how it would evaluate O&S costs...

That said, this one relatively minor point sustained in the CSAR-X protest has now caused at least a 2 year program delay...Sorry to say "Boomer" that it appears the multiple GAO's finding in the KC-X decision is far more disturbing and I wonder just how great an impact such a mess could be for your program.
 
PC12Fan
Posts: 2118
Joined: Sat Jan 27, 2007 11:50 pm

RE: AF To Rebid Tanker Replacement

Wed Jul 09, 2008 7:30 pm



Quoting YWG747 (Reply 6):
Here we go again.

You mean, here we go still!

Quoting Scbriml (Reply 11):
New solicitation will address GAO issues.
Not a return to "step one".

So does that mean that Boeing couldn't present a case for a "KC-777" as well?
Just when I think you've said the stupidest thing ever, you keep talkin'!
 
User avatar
Tugger
Posts: 9492
Joined: Tue Apr 18, 2006 8:38 am

RE: AF To Rebid Tanker Replacement

Wed Jul 09, 2008 7:40 pm



Quoting PC12Fan (Reply 20):
So does that mean that Boeing couldn't present a case for a "KC-777" as well?

How many times does it have to be said, Boeing never could present the 777 for the competition if it wanted a chance at winning. its performance, support, and cost characteristics are outside the specs called out in the solicitation.

Tugg
I don’t know that I am unafraid to be myself, but it is hard to be somebody else. - W. Shatner
Productivity isn’t about getting more things done, rather it’s about getting the right things done, while doing less. - M. Oshin
 
Ken777
Posts: 9965
Joined: Thu Mar 11, 2004 5:39 am

RE: AF To Rebid Tanker Replacement

Wed Jul 09, 2008 7:40 pm



Quoting PC12Fan (Reply 20):
So does that mean that Boeing couldn't present a case for a "KC-777" as well?

From the bits I was able to hear there will be a major focus on cost. While the 777 might be an impressive offering it's going to cost more. Maybe there will be 3 proposals if the 777 is added, but the 767 offering is going to be the least expensive of the 767/777 options.

I believe that it will probably be better to wait for KC-Y or KC-Z to propose the 777, assuming that these two RFPs will allow for different operational needs. By that time the 787 and 350 might also be in the picture. One clear statement I did hear was that the eventual winner will "not won the market place" for the KC-Y or KC-Z RFPs.
 
MSYtristar
Posts: 7543
Joined: Sat Aug 27, 2005 12:52 am

RE: AF To Rebid Tanker Replacement

Wed Jul 09, 2008 7:43 pm

Very good news indeed.  bigthumbsup 

I'm especially happy that Sue Payton is OUT as evaluation guru. She got drilled on Capitol hill. No surprises there, really.
 
Ken777
Posts: 9965
Joined: Thu Mar 11, 2004 5:39 am

RE: AF To Rebid Tanker Replacement

Wed Jul 09, 2008 7:47 pm



Quoting MSYtristar (Reply 23):
I'm especially happy that Sue Payton is OUT as evaluation guru.

From the way the GAO tore her decision apart I don't think she is that much of a guru.
 
User avatar
scbriml
Topic Author
Posts: 17851
Joined: Wed Jul 02, 2003 10:37 pm

RE: AF To Rebid Tanker Replacement

Wed Jul 09, 2008 7:52 pm



Quoting PC12Fan (Reply 20):
So does that mean that Boeing couldn't present a case for a "KC-777" as well?

It was clearly stated at the press conference that the bidders could completely change their bids if they so wished.

Depending how the AF changes the RFP and how exceeding the RFP minima is evaluated, Boeing faces a challenge in that the KC-30 sits neatly between the KC-767 and any proposed KC-777.

My personal belief is that a bid from Boeing based only on the KC-777 would prove to be too expensive when compared to the KC-30. I also don't think there's any chance a bid based on a mix of KC-767 and KC-777 would work either - the costs of developing and supporting two types would be too great (its also something the AF clearly doesn't want given their comments regarding a split-buy).

The irony is, given all their bluster about having the "right -sized tanker", Boeing may not actually have a tanker of the right size at all. It really depends on the new RFP and the bid evaluation process. A tanker based on the 787-8 would almost certainly win vs. the KC-30, but the KC-X RFP is probably at least 5 years too early for that.
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
Stitch
Posts: 26523
Joined: Wed Jul 06, 2005 4:26 am

RE: AF To Rebid Tanker Replacement

Wed Jul 09, 2008 8:34 pm

I do not expect Boeing to offer the 777F for the RFP. It's too large and too expensive - two points Boeing has consistently used to criticize the KC-30A.

I would not mind seeing Boeing dusting off the 767-400ERX proposals and pitching it. The 767-400ERX could be just the ticket not only for the USAF, but also all those airlines that suddenly find themselves in need of interim lift while they wait for their 787-8s.

It would need less then 10,000ft of runway, so field performance would be decent. It's MTOW of 210t means if you don't need all that extra range, you can haul an extra 15t of payload over a 764. It would be interesting if GE could scale down the GEnx again to a 93" fan to fit under the wing... Or Rolls and the newly-improved Trent 700...
 
User avatar
scbriml
Topic Author
Posts: 17851
Joined: Wed Jul 02, 2003 10:37 pm

RE: AF To Rebid Tanker Replacement

Wed Jul 09, 2008 8:54 pm



Quoting Stitch (Reply 26):
It would be interesting if GE could scale down the GEnx again to a 93" fan to fit under the wing... Or Rolls and the newly-improved Trent 700...

Unfortunately, I don't think new engines are an option for either Boeing or NG - it will take too long and pushes the risk metric way up the scale. However, the long-term benefit in reduced fuel-burn would be significant.

Maybe they'll save it for a mid-life update?  duck 
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.
 
PolymerPlane
Posts: 832
Joined: Thu May 11, 2006 1:12 am

RE: AF To Rebid Tanker Replacement

Wed Jul 09, 2008 8:56 pm



Quoting Scbriml (Reply 25):
The irony is, given all their bluster about having the "right -sized tanker", Boeing may not actually have a tanker of the right size at all. It really depends on the new RFP and the bid evaluation process.



Quoting Stitch (Reply 26):
I do not expect Boeing to offer the 777F for the RFP. It's too large and too expensive - two points Boeing has consistently used to criticize the KC-30A.

Well the KC-767 was certainly the right size for the previous RFP, since it met the minimum size requirement and cheaper than the KC-30, given the extra capacity should have not been given more weight under the RFP.

The 777F can be a right size for the AF if the new RFP gives a lot of extra credit to capability, so much so that even if it is more expensive, the capability will trump the cost and other considerations such as shown in KC-30 award.

Cheers,
PP
One day there will be 100% polymer plane
 
Beta
Posts: 279
Joined: Sun Nov 26, 2006 5:56 am

RE: AF To Rebid Tanker Replacement

Wed Jul 09, 2008 9:02 pm



Quoting Scbriml (Reply 25):
Boeing faces a challenge in that the KC-30 sits neatly between the KC-767 and any proposed KC-777.



Quoting Scbriml (Reply 25):
The irony is, given all their bluster about having the "right -sized tanker", Boeing may not actually have a tanker of the right size at all.

You do realize that the original RFP was amended so that EADS/NG could make its offer in terms of size, dont you? How ironic! The one who cried foul about the wrong size, now brags about having the perfect size.
One thing going for EADS/NG is that in the briefing both KC767 and KC30 are classified as medium size. That should clearly gives EADS/NG and its Airbus fanboys comfort.
 
TropicBird
Posts: 432
Joined: Sat May 28, 2005 9:13 am

RE: AF To Rebid Tanker Replacement

Wed Jul 09, 2008 9:48 pm

There is another element here that is developing. This Senator is not apparently not entirely happy with the latest plan from the Pentagon. She wants a complete rebid and a closed door hearing to dig into some other unspecified issues.


News
Press Release of Senator Cantwell
Cantwell Seeks a "Real Rebid, Not a Rehash"

Wednesday, July 09,2008


WASHINGTON, DC -- Today, U.S. Senator Maria Cantwell (D-WA) issued the following statement regarding the Secretary of Defense's decision to rebid the Tanker contract.

"There must now be a real bid not a rehash; a rebid that protects our national security, shields the American taxpayer from operating and infrastructure costs, and buys a tanker that can refuel the entire fleet. I welcome this decision to rebid the tanker contract. The GAO report made it impossible for Secretary Gates to make any other decision. The American people and the American warfighter cannot afford the same Defense procurement team to make the same mistakes.

"The Secretary of Defense and Congress must ensure that these significant issues aren't ignored. The American warfighter and taxpayer expect that the Air Force will get this done fast and do it right.

"Congress must play a strong oversight role and I have urged the Senate Armed Services Committee to quickly hold a closed hearing to make sure the Department of Defense and Congress are fully aware of the national security issues involved. If they do not address these concerns, it's a non-starter and I will place a hold on the nominations of the Secretary of the Air Force and ask that this information be declassified for public debate. This issue is too important to have another whitewashed contracting process."

Over the next few weeks, Cantwell will continue pushing the Air Force to follow through with the rebid process, and has asked for a briefing by Secretary Gates both on the decision and on how the Department of Defense will handle related national security concerns.



http://cantwell.senate.gov/news/record.cfm?id=300306
 
User avatar
EPA001
Posts: 3893
Joined: Tue Sep 12, 2006 8:13 pm

RE: AF To Rebid Tanker Replacement

Wed Jul 09, 2008 10:08 pm

Well she is from Washington, and she points out the typical Boeing points! It is clear what she wants, give the order in closed hearings to Boeing right away. That comes as no surprise. So now even in Congress people are happy to use GAO recommendations if they suit them, but like to ignore other GAO recommendations which do not suit them that well. Again, also that comes as no surprise.

It would make this whole thing an even bigger mess then it already is.
 
norcal
Posts: 1507
Joined: Sun Mar 20, 2005 1:44 am

RE: AF To Rebid Tanker Replacement

Wed Jul 09, 2008 10:20 pm



Quoting TropicBird (Reply 30):
There must now be a real bid not a rehash; a rebid that protects our national security, shields the American taxpayer from operating and infrastructure costs, and buys a tanker that can refuel the entire fleet.

Seems reasonable, you wouldn't buy a car without looking at the associated costs like insurance, fuel costs, maintenance costs, or if it fits in your garage. The amount of stuff it can haul shouldn't be the only consideration, which is the only thing the Air Force really looked at. I'm sure very shortly we will hear the usual, "the KC-30 is superior in every aspect" comments, but the Air Force should take all the costs into consideration since it is the responsible thing to do for the tax payer. Both bids met the the requirements (unless it is true the KC-30 can't refuel everything then it should be excluded), so both will work perfectly well for the Air Force. The Air Force might want to get the biggest tanker they can, but if there is a smaller cheaper alternative that meets their requirements then they should buy that. It is the financially responsible thing to do.

If the Air Force wanted something the size of the KC-30, they should have written the bid to exclude the KC-767 and force Boeing to enter the 777. The back room extra credit thing was very dubious and now they are paying the price.
 
User avatar
scbriml
Topic Author
Posts: 17851
Joined: Wed Jul 02, 2003 10:37 pm

RE: AF To Rebid Tanker Replacement

Wed Jul 09, 2008 10:22 pm

Quoting PolymerPlane (Reply 27):
The 777F can be a right size for the AF if the new RFP gives a lot of extra credit to capability, so much so that even if it is more expensive, the capability will trump the cost and other considerations such as shown in KC-30 award.

Using A332 and 777F numbers from the respective websites, a KC-777 would carry 30% more fuel than a KC-30, but costs roughly 40% more (based on avg list price).

In addition, the KC-777 would really struggle to meet the RFP requirements on time-frame - Boeing themselves said a tanker based on the 777 would take 3 years to produce. By the end of this year EADS will have the four test KC-30s flying.

Quoting Beta (Reply 29):
The one who cried foul about the wrong size, now brags about having the perfect size.

I'm the one?    I was simply stating my personal opinion.   

Quoting Beta (Reply 29):
One thing going for EADS/NG is that in the briefing both KC767 and KC30 are classified as medium size. That should clearly gives EADS/NG and its Airbus fanboys comfort.

Boeing and its supporters seemed to be the only ones who didn't know the KC-30 was always designated as a medium-sized tanker, so today's "news" is anything but.

This Leeham article completely debunks the "KC-30 is a large tanker" myth. It also contains some sobering reading for those pushing Boeing to bid a KC-777:
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. The KC-777 would have been based on the 777-200LRF, which has a maximum take-off weight of 766,000 lbs, according to Boeing's website---and wouldn't have classified as a medium tanker. For all the complaints about the KC-30 being a "large" tanker, in fact it isn't by the Rand definition---it's merely "larger" than the KC-767.
...
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.


[Edited 2008-07-09 15:26:49]
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.
 
Lumberton
Posts: 4176
Joined: Fri Jul 29, 2005 7:34 am

RE: AF To Rebid Tanker Replacement

Wed Jul 09, 2008 10:31 pm

Here is Boeing's response. Not exactly an endorsement of Secretary Gates' announcement.

Quote:
“We welcome the decision by Defense Secretary Robert Gates not to proceed with the contract award to Northrop Grumman/EADS and to reopen the KC-X tanker competition. However, we remain concerned that a renewed Request for Proposals (RFP) may include changes that significantly alter the selection criteria as set forth in the original solicitation. As the Government Accountability Office reported in upholding our protest, we submitted the only proposal that fully met the mandatory criteria of the original RFP.

“We look forward to working with the new acquisition team as it reopens the competition, but we will also take time to understand the updated solicitation to determine the right path forward for the company.

“It’s encouraging that the Defense Department intends to take steps to ensure a fair and open competition that, among other things, fully accounts for life-cycle costs, such as fuel, to provide the most capable tanker at the best value for the American taxpayer.”

I added the bold-type for emphasis, but IMO this is a serious consideration that should have been addressed. Frankly, this thing could end up in Federal Claims court yet.
"When all is said and done, more will be said than done".
 
User avatar
scbriml
Topic Author
Posts: 17851
Joined: Wed Jul 02, 2003 10:37 pm

RE: AF To Rebid Tanker Replacement

Wed Jul 09, 2008 10:31 pm



Quoting NorCal (Reply 32):
If the Air Force wanted something the size of the KC-30, they should have written the bid to exclude the KC-767 and force Boeing to enter the 777.

I suspect Boeing would have complained about that.  yes 

Let's wait and see what the new RFP asks for.
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.
 
norcal
Posts: 1507
Joined: Sun Mar 20, 2005 1:44 am

RE: AF To Rebid Tanker Replacement

Wed Jul 09, 2008 10:41 pm



Quoting Scbriml (Reply 35):
I suspect Boeing would have complained about that.

Yes they might, I guess they could complain and then get an "extra credit" clause put into the RFP......
 
User avatar
keesje
Posts: 13317
Joined: Thu Apr 12, 2001 2:08 am

RE: AF To Rebid Tanker Replacement

Wed Jul 09, 2008 10:50 pm

EADS CEO Welcomes Pentagon Decision On Fuel Tanker Contract


The head of European Aeronautic Defence & Space Co NV ( EADSY) on Wednesday welcomed the decision earlier in the day by the U.S. Department of Defense to hold a new competition for a $40 billion contract to supply aerial refueling tankers.

....

In a statement, EADS Chief Executive Louis Gallois said his company "welcomes the announcement by the secretary of defense and is prepared to fully support our partner Northrop Grumman in rapidly addressing our customer's requirements. We are ready and anxious to get back to work and begin delivering the world's most capable tankers to our partner and the U.S. Air Force."


http://money.cnn.com/news/newsfeeds/...OWJONESDJONLINE000819_FORTUNE5.htm
"Never mistake motion for action." Ernest Hemingway
 
User avatar
scbriml
Topic Author
Posts: 17851
Joined: Wed Jul 02, 2003 10:37 pm

RE: AF To Rebid Tanker Replacement

Wed Jul 09, 2008 11:02 pm



Quoting NorCal (Reply 36):
I guess they could complain and then get an "extra credit" clause put into the RFP......

That would be one tactic.  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.
 
PolymerPlane
Posts: 832
Joined: Thu May 11, 2006 1:12 am

RE: AF To Rebid Tanker Replacement

Thu Jul 10, 2008 12:24 am



Quoting Scbriml (Reply 33):
In the Rand Corp. Analysis of Alternatives (AOA) conducted specifically for the eventual KC-X competition, Rand concluded

The RFP did not state that AF wants medium sized tanker. It stated the minimum requirement for the fuel offload, etc. If AF gives much more points to capacity, then 777F will fit the bill just fine. There's no upper limit on the AF's requirements.

as I said before KC-767 fits the minimum requirement, and since no points should have been given to the extra capacity, the

Quoting Scbriml (Reply 33):
Using A332 and 777F numbers from the respective websites, a KC-777 would carry 30% more fuel than a KC-30, but costs roughly 40% more (based on avg list price).

So? 40% of purchase price is not that significant in the MPLCC, especially using AF's arguments that cost is not everything and the extra capability that larger plane (i.e. KC-30 to KC-767) will offset some of the extra costs (less plane needed).

Cheers,
PP
One day there will be 100% polymer plane
 
mham001
Posts: 5639
Joined: Thu Feb 03, 2005 4:52 am

RE: AF To Rebid Tanker Replacement

Thu Jul 10, 2008 12:26 am



Quoting Keesje (Reply 37):

In a statement, EADS Chief Executive Louis Gallois said his company "welcomes the announcement by the secretary of defense and is prepared to fully support our partner Northrop Grumman in rapidly addressing our customer's requirements. We are ready and anxious to get back to work and begin delivering the world's most capable tankers to our partner and the U.S. Air Force."

Given the political climate and criminal charges swirling around EADS, I think it would be prudent for the CEO to let Northrup Grumman handle the PR.
 
User avatar
Asturias
Posts: 1977
Joined: Wed Apr 05, 2006 5:32 am

RE: AF To Rebid Tanker Replacement

Thu Jul 10, 2008 12:35 am



Quoting Mham001 (Reply 40):
Given the political climate and criminal charges swirling around EADS, I think it would be prudent for the CEO to let Northrup Grumman handle the PR.

Very much agreed.. I think Northrop should now carry the PR 100% on their shoulders. The image of KC-45A needs to be 110% made in the USA.

The US flag needs to be grafted into every press release.

Quote:
WASHINGTON, July 9, 2008 (PRIME NEWSWIRE) -- Northrop Grumman Corporation (NYSE:NOC) applauds Defense Secretary Gates and Under Secretary Young for recognizing that the acquisition of replacement refueling tankers for the Air Force should be put on a path toward quick closure. We are reviewing the decision to ensure the re-competition will provide both companies a fair opportunity to present the strengths of their proposals.

The United States Air Force has already picked the best tanker, and we are confident that it will do so again. Our men and women in uniform deserve nothing less.

The Northrop Grumman KC-45 tanker is needed now and is ready now.

http://www.irconnect.com/noc/press/pages/news_releases.html?d=146068

Nice, but needs more flags  Wink

asturias
Tonight we fly
 
Curt22
Posts: 334
Joined: Sat Jul 14, 2007 11:43 am

RE: AF To Rebid Tanker Replacement

Thu Jul 10, 2008 12:53 am



Quoting EPA001 (Reply 31):
Well she is from Washington, and she points out the typical Boeing points! It is clear what she wants, give the order in closed hearings to Boeing right away

And what of Sen Shelby's comments from Alabama? Why do you pretend that only those who represent regions where Boeing operates are the only ones supporting one vendor over the other?

"This contract will change the landscape of south Alabama," said U.S. Sen. Richard Shelby, R-Tuscaloosa. "Our state is on a roll economically and the tanker contract adds to the growing momentum. (Sen Shelby's website, Mar 3, 2008...http://shelby.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=PressRoom.Articles&ContentRecord_id=760c1cc5-802a-23ad-43f8-5549b44c3ead&Region_id=&Issue_id=&County_id=)

In his own words....it is clear that Sen Shelby, like that of Senators from other parts of the country is interested in the economic interests of the people he serves, but you condemn other others who share the same motive.

My local area stands to create somewhere near 2,000 jobs should EADS/NG win the tanker deal, but I don't work directly or indirectly for BA, NG nor EADS so I have no vested interested in seeing the finally assemble work performed in Mobile AL...you on the other hand condemn the Washington Senator's comments, ignore the Alabama Senator's comments, so one is left to wonder what YOUR economic interest is with this contract?
 
User avatar
Asturias
Posts: 1977
Joined: Wed Apr 05, 2006 5:32 am

RE: AF To Rebid Tanker Replacement

Thu Jul 10, 2008 1:06 am



Quoting Curt22 (Reply 42):
so one is left to wonder what YOUR economic interest is with this contract?

EADS is headquartered in Holland and perhaps the Dutch will benefit in some way indirectly. Still, that's very unlikely.

Either way, for my parts I am very fond of Alabama and do hope Northrop Grumman gets the job eventually. It would be very healthy for the US aviation industry to split between Boeing and Northrop now that MDD is no more.

Shame Lockheed Martin didn't have anything to offer for this tanker deal. A revised Tristar? Big grin

asturias
Tonight we fly
 
User avatar
Stitch
Posts: 26523
Joined: Wed Jul 06, 2005 4:26 am

RE: AF To Rebid Tanker Replacement

Thu Jul 10, 2008 1:34 am



Quoting Scbriml (Reply 28):
Unfortunately, I don't think new engines are an option for either Boeing or NG - it will take too long and pushes the risk metric way up the scale. However, the long-term benefit in reduced fuel-burn would be significant.

The GEnx would be a risk, I agree, but the Trent 700 is pretty much "tried and true".

In addition to making a better tanker, a 767-400ERF could also make a nice competitor for the A330-200F and could leverage existing 767-300F and upcoming 767-200SF (with the cockpit conversion kits added during that refit) fleets.
 
TropicBird
Posts: 432
Joined: Sat May 28, 2005 9:13 am

RE: AF To Rebid Tanker Replacement

Thu Jul 10, 2008 2:15 am



Quoting PolymerPlane (Reply 39):
The RFP did not state that AF wants medium sized tanker. It stated the minimum requirement for the fuel offload, etc. If AF gives much more points to capacity, then 777F will fit the bill just fine. There's no upper limit on the AF's requirements.

You are correct - the upper limit is 1 million lbs MTOW with the 747 being that upper limit.

Quoting PolymerPlane (Reply 39):
So? 40% of purchase price is not that significant in the MPLCC, especially using AF's arguments that cost is not everything and the extra capability that larger plane (i.e. KC-30 to KC-767) will offset some of the extra costs (less plane needed).

You are correct. The RAND AOA study considered this and found the cost differences acceptable.

It will be very interesting to see what the USAF says about the size/price issue in the next RFP. They will need to be very clear if they will be giving extra credit for exceeding the fuel offload objective or will they just expand the objective allowing for larger loads? If they don't give the extra credit - will that go against the AOA and can they do that?

For example - did the original RFP violate the spirit if not the intent of the AOA which was to allow for the full range of aircraft listed to be acceptable? The USAF says they were acceptable but Boeing and the GAO say differently. Since extra credit was [not] allowed for exceeding the primary objective [fuel offload] all the aircraft listed in the AOA [other than the 767] were essentially too large and thus at a major disadvantage to compete.

Was this a premeditated effort by someone in the USAF so the "right size" 767 would eventually win? After all - everyone was shocked when Boeing lost. All the analysts said it was Boeing's to lose but NG/EADS thought they had the language clarified and that is why they elected to eventually participate. That understanding was proven wrong by the GAO's decision.
 
wvsuperhornet
Posts: 517
Joined: Sat Aug 18, 2007 4:18 pm

RE: AF To Rebid Tanker Replacement

Thu Jul 10, 2008 2:46 am



Quoting Fridgmus (Reply 14):
I'm afraid I must agree with you AustrianZRH. Why can't all concerned just pull their heads out of their asses and give our Warfighters the tanker they need...NOW!

I agree I am so tired of hearing it I dont really care what they buy just get it done already.
 
Ken777
Posts: 9965
Joined: Thu Mar 11, 2004 5:39 am

RE: AF To Rebid Tanker Replacement

Thu Jul 10, 2008 2:57 am

From part of the Press Release of Senator Cantwell:

"Congress must play a strong oversight role and I have urged the Senate Armed Services Committee to quickly hold a closed hearing to make sure the Department of Defense and Congress are fully aware of the national security issues involved. If they do not address these concerns, it's a non-starter and I will place a hold on the nominations of the Secretary of the Air Force and ask that this information be declassified for public debate. This issue is too important to have another whitewashed contracting process."

Placing a hold on the SecAF nomination is bringing out the big guns. There is no doubt that she is going to want strong Congressional oversight, making it even more difficult for some AF generals to play their games again.

I think that the congressional interest as well as the focus today on cost factors will make this one unique procurement when all is said and done.
 
Venus6971
Posts: 1415
Joined: Tue Dec 14, 2004 1:55 pm

RE: AF To Rebid Tanker Replacement

Thu Jul 10, 2008 4:03 am

It appears that SecDef Gates has absoluty no faith in the USAF on this pick so he has is own aquistion chief handling it.
http://www.washtimes.com/news/2008/j...tagon-to-select-offer-for-tankers/
I would help you but it is not in the contract
 
astuteman
Posts: 6963
Joined: Mon Jan 24, 2005 7:50 pm

RE: AF To Rebid Tanker Replacement

Thu Jul 10, 2008 5:20 am



Quoting RedFlyer (Reply 44):
I find it amazing how, despite the European perception for having nothing but a bunch of gun-and-Bible toting toothless knuck-draggers

Funny. I thought that was an American perception....  duck   biggrin 

Rgds

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 12 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