jon, see KDAngel's post at the top of the previous page. Her lobbying firm represents EADS, so I'm sure she's heard plenty about the subject.

I forgot about that.:o;)

Boeing is running full page ad in major markets today:
http://www.boeing.com/ids/globaltank.../decision.html
I found the copy on a Boeing blog page on subject:
http://boeingblogs.com/tanker/

Well I'm sure this will excite some people -- the GAO just told the airforce they have to consider Boeing again. So for now, EADS has lost the deal. But they won it for a reason, and deserve to get it back. Period.

More like a question mark.

The GAO says they won it for bogus reasons. It is very rare for the GAO to honor an appeal, so that should be a huge red flag to everyone that this was a very shady review process.

Here's the full story:

Boeing wins a key round in tanker protest

Company complaint over $35 billion Air Force contract is upheld

WASHINGTON - Congressional investigators have upheld Boeing’s protest of a $35 billion Air Force tanker contract awarded to Northrop Grumman Corp. and Airbus parent European Aeronautic Defence and Space Co., and recommended that the service hold a new competition.

The Government Accountability Office said Wednesday that it found “a number of significant errors that could have affected the outcome of what was a close competition between Boeing and Northrop Grumman.”
...

Although the GAO denied some parts of the Boeing protest, it also offered a lengthy rationale for why the contract should be re-competed. Among its conclusions was that the Air Force awarded the Northrop team improper extra credit for offering a larger plane that could carry more fuel, cargo and troops. It also found that the Boeing tanker would be cheaper to operate over its lifespan even though the Air Force initially said the Northrop tanker offered cost advantages.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/25246267/


The Seattle Times, as expected, has the story and they list SEVEN "major mistakes in the Air Force procurement process that detracted from 'full and open competition and fairness'" that were cited in the GAO's ruling. Those seven mistakes, which actually look flat-out inethical in most cases, are:

"The GAO said the Air Force
• didn't assess the relative merits of the two contending airplanes in accordance with its stated criteria.
• gave Northrop extra credit for exceeding certain performance parameters, when this was expressly not allowed.
• failed to show that the A330 could refuel all of the Air Force aircraft it needs to service.
• misled Boeing about its failure to meet certain performance parameters, while giving fuller information to Northrop.
• dismissed a Northrop failure to agree to an aircraft maintenance plan as only "an adminstrative oversight" when it was a material requirement.
• made unreasonable estimates of the cost of constructing runways, ramps and hangars needed for the larger Airbus jet, which led to the conclusion that Northrop offered lower total program costs — when in fact Boeing's overall cost was lower.
• inappropriately rejected Boeing's estimate of its non-recurring cost to develop the program, using an "unreasonable" model to increase that cost estimate.

Here's the full statement from the GAO: http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/ABP...2008004142.pdf

WSJ, Washington Post and LA Times ran story today:
Protest of Air Force tanker contract award to Northrop upheld




A federal audit agrees with Boeing's challenge to the $35-billion contract for aerial refueling planes and says the Pentagon should reopen bidding.nt]http://www.latimes.com/news/printedi...,5302835.story

Surprise Ruling Gives Boeing
New Shot at $40 Billion Job

In Jolt to Northrop,
GAO Calls on Air Force
To Reopen Tanker Bids
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1213...ys_us_page_one


Air Force Faulted Over Handling Of Tanker Deal

Audit Sustains Boeing's Protest of $40 Billion Award
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...=moreheadlines

The Washington Post story is especially damning of the Air Force. They failed, possibly intentionally since one of the allegations is that they misled and supplied incomplete info. to Boeing, to follow their own RFP!!! If you follow the RFP, Boeing didn't deliver the wrong plane - EADS/NG did. Yes, the EADS plane was bigger, but that's the problem - the AF wanted a small enough plane that could fit in its current hangars, take off and land on its current runways. So Boeing submitted a model based on its 767 while EADS submitted a plane that was so big it couldn't even fit in some of the AF's hangars or land on some of its runways, which means the AF would've had to build new hangars and runways. Those restrictions were included in the RFP, and instead of docking points from EADS/NG's proposal, they gave them extra credit!

In my opinion part of the reason for the dismissals at the AF last week was because someone at the GAO gave TPTB a heads up of this verdict. The senior procurement chick's head is gonna roll, I think.

Somewhere near the top of this thread, I provided the sizes of the planes in competition as well as Boeing's plane that is similar in size to EADS'.

Right, Boeing's 777 is the competitor to the Airbus 330, but Boeing did not base its tanker model on the 777 because that was too big of a plane according to the Air Force's RFP.

Found this in my morning news briefs-interesting Washington Post Editorial.
Air Force Adrift

One U.S. military service has yet to adjust to the wars of this century.


......."Now the Government Accountability Office has found that the Air Force bungled one of its largest and most important procurement contracts, for the second time. A GAO report issued Wednesday said that officials "made a number of significant errors" that could have skewed the outcome of a competition between Boeing and Northrop Grumman to build tanker planes used for aerial refueling. We haven't had much sympathy for the public relations campaign Boeing has waged since losing the $40 billion contract award in February, a campaign that has focused in part on rallying protectionist and nationalist sentiment against Northrop Grumman's partner, the European parent of Airbus. Yet the GAO found that Boeing was correct in arguing that the Air Force failed to judge the tanker competition according to the criteria it had established. The service also conceded that it made mistakes in judging the overall cost of the two bids that, when corrected, made Boeing the low bidder...........Though not binding, the GAO decision should compel the Air Force to make a third try at choosing a tanker supplier. A first run, in which Boeing was chosen to build and lease tankers, was blown up by a corruption investigation led by Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) that eventually led to the imprisonment of two Boeing officials. Mr. McCain was right to press for a real and fair competition for the tanker contract; the problem was the Air Force's mismanagement of the subsequent process.".......
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...v=rss_opinions

Third time's the charm?
 

Update: Pentagon to reopen $35 billion tanker bid

By DONNA BORAK
THE ASSOCIATED PRESS

WASHINGTON -- The Boeing Co. and Northrop Grumman Corp. will submit new offers for a disputed $35 billion Air Force tanker contract, and the Pentagon will pick a winner by the end of the year.

Defense Secretary Robert Gates said Wednesday that his office -- not the Air Force -- will oversee the competition between Boeing and the team of Northrop and Airbus parent European Aeronautic Defense and Space Co.

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


http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/busine..._tanker10.html

This is from the LA Times.
The interactive section shows rather well the size differences between all three planes. Which also seems to how the contract specs changed.
http://www.latimes.com/news/printedi...,5831704.story
From prior story:"
Rep. Norm Dicks, D-Wash., told the Seattle P-I's Washington, D.C., bureau that he had learned the Defense Department plans to abandon its original request for proposals and give extra weight to a larger tanker. Dicks said Young told him about the extra credit for a larger aircraft in a telephone call Wednesday afternoon.
"They're making a huge adjustment for Northrop Grumman. This is a major development in favor of Airbus. That is anything but fair," Dicks said. "There seems to be a predisposition to give this to Northrop Grumman."
Sen. Patty Murray, D-Wash., also said she was concerned about the Pentagon's plans to rewrite its original request for proposals to build the tankers.
Murray said she would be upset if the bid specifications are "being rewritten in any way to give an advantage to the EADS-Airbus plane."
Boeing has said before that it could offer its 777 as a military tanker. It is bigger than the Airbus plane. But this would require a major reworking of Boeing's previous tanker bid based on the smaller 767."

It is tremendously unprofessional and inethical to change an RFP after proposals have been submitted. It is not only unfair to the parties that submitted, but also to any other parties that may have wanted to submit a proposal to the revised RFP. And by all accounts so far, the RFP is not being opened back up for additional parties. It's troubling that the Pentagon wouldn't see just how inethical that option is, at least in the timeframe they're giving. If the RFP is being changed so radically, it should be re-opened for competition, and an adequate amount of time should be given for all parties to adjust their proposals. Boeing has a bigger plane if that's what the Air Force is looking for, but it will need time to design a new model for the tanker to fit that plane since its first proposal was to the first RFP's specs. Frankly, I'm expecting various appropriations committees to ask many questions of the Air Force as to why it's now asking for a plane different from the original RFP - one that will come with a MUCH higher cost of ownership that the taxpayers will have to cough up.