U.S. Airforce to fly European tankers

[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.

[jon1856]

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

[PeppyGPhiB]

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

[jon1856]

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."

Originally Posted by PeppyGPhiB

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

[PeppyGPhiB]

Originally Posted by jon1856

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.