U.S. Airforce to fly European tankers

[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.