backtop


Print 82 comment(s) - last by NYBandits.. on Aug 26 at 8:47 AM

The Air Force tanker drama continues...

The ongoing saga between Northrop Grumman/EADS, Boeing, the Air Force, Congress, and the Government Accountability Office (GAO) continues to languish on in the face of an aging tanker fleet. Northrop Grumman/EADS formally won the contract earlier this year -- the $35B contract would have given the Air Force 179 Airbus A330-based KC-45 aircraft to replace 531 KC-135 tankers.

Boeing filed an official protest of the deal with the GAO in early March and received redemption in mid-June when the GAO agreed that errors were made during the selection process. "We recommended that the Air Force reopen discussions ... obtain revised proposals, re-evaluate the revised proposals, and make a new source selection decision, consistent with our decision," said the GAO at the time.

It now appears that Boeing isn't quite satisfied with just having the competition reopened -- according to the Wall Street Journal, it now wants more time to design a suitable aircraft to meet the Air Force's needs or it is threatening to walk away from the competition altogether. Boeing now wants an additional six months to submit a proper bid that the Air Force would be willing to accept.

"I think the option we would have if we were not given the six months, there is a really high likelihood that we would no-bid the program," said Boeing defense unit head Jim Albaugh.

The Defense Department is already considering giving both Northrop Grumman/EADS and Boeing two additional months to submit new bids for the competition according to close sources, but Boeing's Albaugh said that is not enough. "This is an airplane that's going to be in the inventory 40 years. What we're asking for is an additional four months to have a meaningful competition."

For Boeing, the request for more time and the threat of a "no-bid" is somewhat of a payback to Northrop Grumman/EADS which performed a similar feat back in 2007. The maneuvering by Northrop Grumman/EADS forced the Air Force to make some changes to the requirements for the competition that put Boeing's entry at a disadvantage.

Boeing's current proposal is based around a 767-200 airframe -- it is simply too small and doesn't meet the fuel capacity requirements of the Air Force. Albaugh acknowledges that without the extra time to bid a larger version of the 767-200, it will lose the contract.



Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled

RE: This is getting ridiculous...
By karielash on 8/23/2008 2:29:21 PM , Rating: 0

Your jest, seriously.

Boeing had people JAILED over this, the contempt with which they treated the American tax payers is staggering, it is US who would be paying for Boeing.

Boeing SHOULD have tried NOT screwing the taxpayers first time round, Boeing DID NOT CARE about the requirements as they were the only major US manufacturer involved they assumed that whatever they put forward would be excepted.

There was (and STILL IS) a presumption that they should automatically be allowed to win.

Not rushing the process, this bid has been going on for YEARS, it was rebid because of the corruption within Boeing and the USAF, the lives of American Service men and women are being risked daily because of the greed of Boeing.

I think you should go stand alongside Boeing. Your motto could be 'We don't give a shit how many of our troops suffer as long as it's made in the US'


RE: This is getting ridiculous...
By mindless1 on 8/24/2008 1:37:56 AM , Rating: 3
How easily you avoid the central issue. That issue is a finalized, non-changing, engineering spec against which both companies design their best alternative as a bid.

There's really no other BS that matters, it's as simple as thing. When the AF changed their minds they should have immediately issued a revision and given both companies the sufficient amount of time to redirect their efforts towards the new specifications.


RE: This is getting ridiculous...
By Calin on 8/24/2008 3:39:50 AM , Rating: 2
The issue was a changing engineering spec.
Or that's what it seems to be, at least for me - while the tanker capabilities were required first, extra requirements were later added (oh, we have this big plane? Why won't we use it for cargo transportation, if we don't need it for fuel? What about medical evacuation? What about troop transport? What about this? What about that?).
While they are right to request multiple roles (air tankers are needed plenty at some times, and none at other times, and can easily fly other types of missions during pauses in fueling needs), the final tally took into account things not specified in initial requirements (those for a TANKER)


RE: This is getting ridiculous...
By ikkeman2 on 8/25/2008 7:23:24 AM , Rating: 2
the RFP specifically stated the multirole aspect would be considered, and considered important.

The problem is that the RFP was written by Boeing based on beating the kc-135 with the kc-767AT.
The NG/EADS kc-30 beats the kc-767AT in every aspect, unless you include not beeing bigger than the kc-135


"The Space Elevator will be built about 50 years after everyone stops laughing" -- Sir Arthur C. Clarke














botimage
Copyright 2014 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki