U.S. Airforce to fly European tankers

[jon1856]

Boeing to File Protest on Lost Tanker Deal
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...v=rss_business

http://www.foxbusiness.com/article/b..._513928_1.html

Some interesting comments on why, perhaps, Boeing did not use the 777 rather than the 767.
Which could be the cause of the lose of contract.

[PeppyGPhiB]

Boeing issued a formal statement today to rebuff media reports that it lost "in every category," which turns out to be 100% false. In fact, Boeing won out in one or two categories and came up equal with EADS in others. It appears the issue is the model used to compare cost and "real life" operations, which was altered after the RFP was issued so that Airbus/NG could remain in the contest. The alterations made to the model favored Airbus' large aircraft, and Boeing is taking issue with the reported cost comparison of the two bids, since Boeing's bid was LOWER than the one submitted by EADS/NG and LOWER than what the Air Force was asking for.

Here's the point-by-point on how Boeing compared to Airbus:
http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/ABP...2004273079.pdf

[jon1856]

If someone, not I for sure, wishes to do a chart on all the planes here is the info on them all:
http://www.aerospaceweb.org/aircraft/jetliner/b777/
http://www.aerospaceweb.org/aircraft/jetliner/b767/
http://www.aerospaceweb.org/aircraft/jetliner/a330/


767-200: http://www.airliners.net/info/stats.main?id=103
767-300: http://www.airliners.net/info/stats.main?id=104
767-400: http://www.airliners.net/info/stats.main?id=105
777-200: http://www.airliners.net/info/stats.main?id=106
777-300: http://www.airliners.net/info/stats.main?id=107
A330-200: http://www.airliners.net/info/stats.main?id=26
A330-300: http://www.airliners.net/info/stats.main?id=25

Any one here work on Capital Hill?

[KDAngel]

Originally Posted by jon1856

Any one here work on Capital Hill?

I don't work ON the Hill, but I'm on the Hill working all day everyday. And all my friends work there.

[jon1856]

Originally Posted by KDAngel

I don't work ON the Hill, but I'm on the Hill working all day everyday. And all my friends work there.

So, have you had any conversations with them on just what is going on?
And how this seems to have been rather twisted around?

[PeppyGPhiB]

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.

[jon1856]

Originally Posted by PeppyGPhiB

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

I forgot about that.

[KDAngel]

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.

[PeppyGPhiB]

Originally Posted by KDAngel

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

[jon1856]

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

[PeppyGPhiB]

Originally Posted by jon1856

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

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.

[jon1856]

Originally Posted by PeppyGPhiB

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'.

[PeppyGPhiB]

Originally Posted by jon1856

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.