Print 43 comment(s) - last by MCKENZIE1130.. on Nov 29 at 8:11 PM

Boeing NewGen tanker

EADS tanker

Because sometimes one facepalm isn't enough.
Letters sent to the wrong companies by mistake

The long running contest to find a replacement for the Air Force's fleet of tanker aircraft used to refuel aircraft has hit another snag. The latest gaffe happened in the bidding contest that has resulted in each of the participating bidders inadvertently being sent information on the competitors offering by the Air Force.

The Air Force accidentally sent letters to Boeing and EADS that were meant to go to the other company. The letters each company received were the Integrated fleet Aerial Refueling Assessments (IFARA) the Air Force prepared on the bidding aircraft.

Air Force spokesman Col. Les Kodlick said, "Earlier this month, there was a clerical error that resulted in limited amounts of identical source-selection information being provided to both KC-X offerors concerning their competitor's offer. Both offerors immediately recognized the error and contacted the Air Force contracting officers."

The IFARA letter is something that the Air Force prepares that outlines scenarios to determine how many of the tankers will be needed. The assessment takes into consideration fuel and construction costs reports Defense News. The IFARA is considered the biggest risk factor in the tanker bidding program.

The Air Force says that the error will not delay the bidding process and that it is taking action to ensure than an error like this is not repeated. Both Boeing and EADS offered no official comment on the errors. Executives from both aircraft companies did say that in a situation like that the only ethical thing to do was to not review the documents.

Defense News quotes on unnamed exec stating, "That kind of stuff can easily be tracked, so everyone knows you don't mess around."

Kodlick said, "The KC-X source selection will continue. This incident will not impact our schedule for source selection. However, certain aspects of the source selection have taken slightly longer than originally anticipated, and we currently expect the award to occur early next year."

It's still not clear if the error will affect the contest, despite the Air Force saying the process will not be delayed. However, if the Air Force requests another bid from the companies, the error could affect the process according to some familiar with the situation.

"We have to see whether the exchange of the data affects the competition, especially if the next round will be the best-and-final bids. Then it might be of some value to have the other person's information," said Jacques Gansler, a former Pentagon acquisition chief who teaches public policy at the University of Maryland.

This is the latest issue in the problem prone bidding process. Boeing submitted its NewGen tanker proposal to the Air Force in July 2010. EADS came back to the bidding process with a new U.S. partner in June 2010 after dropping out when Northrop-Grumman pulled out of the bidding war.

Comments     Threshold

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

RE: Look, this is utterly ludicrous
By DougF on 11/22/2010 11:56:51 AM , Rating: 4
We just won't talk about the size issue, will we? As someone who has participated in "fighter drags" with tankers, it works better with smaller tankers. Larger tankers work great with larger receivers like cargo aircraft, bombers, etc. Smaller tankers, and greater numbers, provide the flexibility the fighter world needs to get planes from place to place. Cycling fighters off of a larger tanker, while technically more efficient, can easily wear out the refueling crew and creates a single failure point issue, as well as limiting the ability for tanker support to drag a fighter with an IFE (in-flight emergency) to an alternate landing site. Smaller tankers can also fit more easily into crowded air bases and more airfields as well. Lastly, I'm trying to remember just how many years EADS has in air-refueling experience compared to Boeing's. It's a fairly small fraction, as I recall. Personally, think the AF should by a mix to get the best of both worlds with some common elements (like booms, probes, baskets, etc), but that may ratchet up the price per aircraft costs beyond acceptable limits.

RE: Look, this is utterly ludicrous
By marvdmartian on 11/22/2010 3:28:08 PM , Rating: 3
Seriously, how difficult would it be, to buy some of each??

I laughed when I read this line:
Executives from both aircraft companies did say that in a situation like that the only ethical thing to do was to not review the documents.

Yeah, I'm sure they were entirely ethical, and only copied the documents.....which they would ethically have no problem reading, as they're copies. sheesh!!

RE: Look, this is utterly ludicrous
By Danish1 on 11/23/2010 1:46:55 AM , Rating: 2
Corporate executives + ethics does not compute.

"Game reviewers fought each other to write the most glowing coverage possible for the powerhouse Sony, MS systems. Reviewers flipped coins to see who would review the Nintendo Wii. The losers got stuck with the job." -- Andy Marken
Related Articles

Most Popular Articles5 Cases for iPhone 7 and 7 iPhone Plus
September 18, 2016, 10:08 AM
Laptop or Tablet - Which Do You Prefer?
September 20, 2016, 6:32 AM
Update: Samsung Exchange Program Now in Progress
September 20, 2016, 5:30 AM
Smartphone Screen Protectors – What To Look For
September 21, 2016, 9:33 AM
Walmart may get "Robot Shopping Carts?"
September 17, 2016, 6:01 AM

Copyright 2016 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki