Boeing Formally Protests US Air Force Tanker Contract Award

[AJ]

Boeing Formally Protests US Air Force Tanker Contract Award
Says KC-X RFP Differs From Criteria Cited In Going with KC-45A

(From: Aero-News.net)

It's official. Citing irregularities with the process of the
competition and the evaluation of the competitors' bids, on Tuesday
Boeing filed a formal protest with the Government Accountability
Office (GAO), asking the agency to review the decision by the US Air
Force to award a contract to a team of Northrop Grumman and European
Aeronautic Defense and Space Company (EADS) to replace the aging fleet
of KC-135 aerial refueling tankers.

"Our analysis of the data presented by the Air Force shows that this
competition was seriously flawed and resulted in the selection of the
wrong airplane for the war fighter," said Mark McGraw, vice president
and program manager, Boeing Tanker Programs. "We have fundamental
concerns with the Air Force's evaluation, and we are exercising
our right under the process for a GAO review of the decision to ensure
that the process by which America's next refueling tanker is selected
is fair and results in the best choice for the U.S. war fighters and
taxpayers."

Following an internal analysis of data presented at a March 7
debriefing on the decision, Boeing concluded what began as an effort
by the Air Force to run a fair, open and transparent competition
evolved into a process replete with irregularities. These
irregularities placed Boeing at a competitive disadvantage throughout
this competition, the American plane maker asserts, and even penalized
Boeing for offering a commercial-derivative airplane with lower costs
and risks and greater protection for troops.

"It is clear that the original mission for these tankers -- that is, a
medium-sized tanker where cargo and passenger transport was a
secondary consideration -- became lost in the process, and the Air
Force ended up with an oversized tanker," McGraw said. "As the
requirements were changed to accommodate the bigger, less capable
Airbus plane, evaluators arbitrarily discounted the significant
strengths of the KC-767, compromising on operational capabilities,
including the ability to refuel a more versatile array of aircraft
such as the V-22 and even the survivability of the tanker during the
most dangerous missions it will encounter."

Boeing is asking the GAO to examine several factors in the
competition, that it states were fundamentally flawed: The contract
award and subsequent reports ignore the fact that in reality Boeing
and the Northrop/EADS team were assigned identical ratings across all
five evaluation factors: 1) Mission Capability, 2) Risk, 3) Past
Performance, 4) Cost/Price and 5) Integrated Fleet Aerial Refueling
Assessment. Indeed, an objective review of the data as measured
against the Request for Proposal shows that Boeing had the better
offering in terms of Most Probable Life Cycle Costs, lower risk and
better capability.

Flaws in this procurement process resulted in a significant gap
between the aircraft the Air Force originally set out to procure -- a
medium-sized tanker to replace the KC-135, as stated in the RFP -- and
the much larger Airbus A330-based tanker it ultimately selected. It is
clear that frequent and often unstated changes during the course of
the competition -- including manipulation of evaluation criteria and
application of unstated and unsupported priorities among the key
system requirements -- resulted in selection of an aircraft that was
radically different from that sought by the Air Force and inferior to
the Boeing 767 tanker offering.

Because of the way the Air Force treated Boeing's cost/price data, the
company was effectively denied its right to compete with a commercial-
derivative product, contrary not only to the RFP but also to federal
statute and regulation. The Air Force refused to accept Boeing's
Federal Acquisition Regulation-compliant cost/price information,
developed over 50 years of building commercial aircraft, and instead
treated the company's airframe cost/price information as if it were a
military-defense product. Not only did this flawed
decision deny the government the manufacturing benefits of Boeing's
unique in-line production capability, subjecting the Air Force to
higher risk, but it also resulted in a distortion of the price at
which Boeing actually offered to produce tankers.

In evaluating Past Performance, Boeing claims the Air Force ignored
the fact that Boeing -- with 75 years of success in producing tankers
-- is the only company in the world that has produced a commercial-
derivative tanker equipped with an operational aerial-refueling boom.
Rather than consider recent performance assessments that should have
enhanced Boeing's position, the Air Force focused on relatively
insignificant details on "somewhat relevant" Northrop/EADS programs to
the disadvantage of Boeing's experience.

"Boeing offered an aircraft that provided the best value and
performance for the stated mission at the lowest risk and lowest life
cycle cost," said McGraw. "We did bring our A-game to this
competition. Regrettably, irregularities in the process resulted in an
inconsistent and prejudicial application of procurement practices and
the selection of a higher-risk, higher-cost airplane that's less
suitable for the mission as defined by the Air Force's own Request For
Proposal. We are only asking that the rules of fair competition be
followed."

For better or for worse, they're gonna do it. Boeing announced early
Tuesday it will file a formal protest later today, asking the
Government Accountability Office (GAO) to review the decision by the
US Air Force to award a contract to a team of Northrop Grumman and
European Aeronautic Defense and Space Company (EADS) to replace aerial
refueling tankers.

"Our team has taken a very close look at the tanker decision and found
serious flaws in the process that we believe warrant appeal," said Jim
McNerney, Boeing chairman, president and chief executive officer.
"This is an extraordinary step rarely taken by our company, and one we
take very seriously."

Following a debriefing on the decision by the Air Force on March 7,
Boeing officials spent three days reviewing the Air Force case for its
tanker award. Boeing states a "rigorous" analysis of the Air Force
evaluation that resulted in the Northrop/EADS contract led the
American plane maker to the conclusion that a protest was necessary.

"Based upon what we have seen, we continue to believe we submitted the
most capable, lowest risk, lowest Most Probable Life Cycle Cost
airplane as measured against the Air Force's Request for Proposal,"
McNerney said. "We look forward to the GAO's review of the decision."

Boeing said it would provide additional details of its case in
conjunction with the protest filing on Tuesday. Stay tuned.

FMI: www.boeing.com, www.globaltanker.com

[Kingfish]

On Mar 12, 10:12*am, AJ > wrote:

> Boeing Formally Protests US Air Force Tanker Contract Award
> Says KC-X RFP Differs From Criteria Cited In Going with KC-45A
>

<snip long story on Boeing's whining...>

This shouldn't surprise anyone familiary with gov't contracts. With
the huge $$ at stake in the KC-X program I expected the loser
(whomever that would be) to appeal. Apparently that's the automatic
response to losing a big contract now. Sikorsky and Lockheed Martin/
Agusta Westland did the same when the USAF chose Boeing's HH-47 for
the CSAR-X program.

[xyzzy]

On Mar 12, 4:43 pm, john smith > wrote:
> I suspect that if the government went back to the competitive flyoff for
> determining the winner (as was done with the F-16/F-17; F-22/F23;
> F-32/F-35) we would see a clear cut winner.
>
> Let Boeing and EADS build two or three copies of each at their own
> expense, let the Air Force crews test them out for 6-/12-months then let
> the chips fall where they may.

Airbus would win since their design actually exists and is flying
today while Boeing's is just a proposal.

[Bob Gardner]

Don't you have that backward? Boeing's 767 tanker is flying in Italy (and
another country. Japan?) today and has been for a couple of years. EADS has
never built a tanker.

Bob Gardner

"xyzzy" > wrote in message
...
> On Mar 12, 4:43 pm, john smith > wrote:
>> I suspect that if the government went back to the competitive flyoff for
>> determining the winner (as was done with the F-16/F-17; F-22/F23;
>> F-32/F-35) we would see a clear cut winner.
>>
>> Let Boeing and EADS build two or three copies of each at their own
>> expense, let the Air Force crews test them out for 6-/12-months then let
>> the chips fall where they may.
>
> Airbus would win since their design actually exists and is flying
> today while Boeing's is just a proposal.

[Bob Gardner]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/KC-767

"xyzzy" > wrote in message
...
> On Mar 12, 4:43 pm, john smith > wrote:
>> I suspect that if the government went back to the competitive flyoff for
>> determining the winner (as was done with the F-16/F-17; F-22/F23;
>> F-32/F-35) we would see a clear cut winner.
>>
>> Let Boeing and EADS build two or three copies of each at their own
>> expense, let the Air Force crews test them out for 6-/12-months then let
>> the chips fall where they may.
>
> Airbus would win since their design actually exists and is flying
> today while Boeing's is just a proposal.

[Eeyore[_2_]]

Bob Gardner wrote:

> EADS has never built a tanker.

Really ?

You seem to be confused.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Airbus_A330_MRTT

A330 MRTT / KC-30B
Type Aerial refuelling and transport
Manufacturer EADS (Airbus)
Maiden flight 15 June 2007

Graham

[Ron Lee[_2_]]

>Bob Gardner wrote:
>
>> EADS has never built a tanker.
>
>Really ?
>
>You seem to be confused.
>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Airbus_A330_MRTT
>
>A330 MRTT / KC-30B
>Type Aerial refuelling and transport
>Manufacturer EADS (Airbus)
>Maiden flight 15 June 2007
>
>Graham

So they have eight months of tanker experience (that may be generous)
versus how many DECADES for Boeing?

Ron Lee

[Bob Gardner]

I assume that your diatribe was aimed at the OP, not at me. Another point in
Boeing's favor: they have a 767 production line and skilled workers in
Everett right now...EADS would have to build an assembly plant in Mobile and
hire aerospace workers from......???

Bob Gardner

"Ron Lee" > wrote in message
...
> >Bob Gardner wrote:
>>
>>> EADS has never built a tanker.
>>
>>Really ?
>>
>>You seem to be confused.
>>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Airbus_A330_MRTT
>>
>>A330 MRTT / KC-30B
>>Type Aerial refuelling and transport
>>Manufacturer EADS (Airbus)
>>Maiden flight 15 June 2007
>>
>>Graham
>
> So they have eight months of tanker experience (that may be generous)
> versus how many DECADES for Boeing?
>
> Ron Lee
>

[Ron Lee[_2_]]

"Bob Gardner" > wrote:

>I assume that your diatribe was aimed at the OP, not at me. Another point in
>Boeing's favor: they have a 767 production line and skilled workers in
>Everett right now...EADS would have to build an assembly plant in Mobile and
>hire aerospace workers from......???

>>>Maiden flight 15 June 2007
>>>
>>>Graham
>>
>> So they have eight months of tanker experience (that may be generous)
>> versus how many DECADES for Boeing?
>>
>> Ron Lee
>>
>

You are correct. June 2007 to Feb 2008 is about eight months plus or
minus.

Ron Lee

[Kingfish]

On Mar 12, 8:54*pm, "Bob Gardner" > wrote:

> Another point in Boeing's favor: they have a 767 production line and skilled workers in
> Everett right now...EADS would have to build an assembly plant in Mobile and
> hire aerospace workers from......???
>

Boeing definitely has an advantage there, but it's amazing to me that
they based their tanker on the 767-200 and not the stretch 767-300 or
-400. One of the USAF requirements was the flexibility of the aircraft
to be used as a transport, augmenting the C-5 & C-17 fleet. Now with
over half the C-5s being retired (the C-5As) the extra lift from the
KC-45A will be significant. Boeing even considered a tanker/transport
version of the 777 but decided against it.

[Kingfish]

On Mar 12, 5:56*pm, "Bob Gardner" > wrote:
> Don't you have that backward? Boeing's 767 tanker is flying in Italy (and
> another country. Japan?) today and has been for a couple of years. EADS has
> never built a tanker.
>

Japan got their first tanker just last month.

[Jeff Dougherty]

On Mar 12, 5:56 pm, "Bob Gardner" > wrote:
> Don't you have that backward? Boeing's 767 tanker is flying in Italy (and
> another country. Japan?) today and has been for a couple of years. EADS has
> never built a tanker.
>
> Bob Gardner

I believe that the design Boeing offered to the USAF was not the same
as the one currently being built for Italy and Japan- it's based on
the 767-200LRF airframe rather than the 767-200ER. And while the
airframes themselves have been flying since 2005, they only started
testing the refueling systems last year and none have actually entered
service yet. First deliveries are supposed to be in the first quarter
of 2008. It's still been around longer than the A330-MRTT variant,
but the disparity isn't as large as it first appears.

Boeing still has a great deal more experience building tankers, of
course, but I'd hesitate to call either of these designs significantly
more mature than the other.

-JTD

[BT]

Now wouldn't you think.. that after Boeing got in trouble.. ok.. not Boeing
but a high up muckymuck in the Pentagon that went to work for Boeing.. got
in trouble over the KC-X program.. that Northrop/EADS would have a complaint
of Boeing got the contract?

Wait.. Northrop is an AMERICAN company.. so what's the big whup all about..
B

"Kingfish" > wrote in message
...
On Mar 12, 10:12 am, AJ > wrote:

> Boeing Formally Protests US Air Force Tanker Contract Award
> Says KC-X RFP Differs From Criteria Cited In Going with KC-45A
>

<snip long story on Boeing's whining...>

This shouldn't surprise anyone familiary with gov't contracts. With
the huge $$ at stake in the KC-X program I expected the loser
(whomever that would be) to appeal. Apparently that's the automatic
response to losing a big contract now. Sikorsky and Lockheed Martin/
Agusta Westland did the same when the USAF chose Boeing's HH-47 for
the CSAR-X program.

[Eeyore[_2_]]

Ron Lee wrote:

> >Bob Gardner wrote:
> >
> >> EADS has never built a tanker.
> >
> >Really ?
> >
> >You seem to be confused.
> >http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Airbus_A330_MRTT
> >
> >A330 MRTT / KC-30B
> >Type Aerial refuelling and transport
> >Manufacturer EADS (Airbus)
> >Maiden flight 15 June 2007
>
>
> So they have eight months of tanker experience (that may be generous)
> versus how many DECADES for Boeing?

What does KC135 experience have to do with it ? In any event, EADS is
supplying the AIRFRAMES, and jolly fine airframes they are too. Northrop
Grumman is doing the tanker conversion stuff for this contract. Do you
have a problem with Northrop Grumman ?

Airbus have shown a consistent ability to deliver the goods over the
years too. They don't outsell Boeing by accident.

Graham

[Kingfish]

On Mar 13, 12:18*am, Jeff Dougherty >
wrote:
>
> I believe that the design Boeing offered to the USAF was not the same
> as the one currently being built for Italy and Japan- it's based on
> the 767-200LRF airframe rather than the 767-200ER. *And while the
> airframes themselves have been flying since 2005, they only started
> testing the refueling systems last year and none have actually entered
> service yet. *First deliveries are supposed to be in the first quarter
> of 2008. *It's still been around longer than the A330-MRTT variant,
> but the disparity isn't as large as it first appears.
>
> Boeing still has a great deal more experience building tankers, of
> course, but I'd hesitate to call either of these designs significantly
> more mature than the other.


I recall Boeing's Advanced Tanker was some kind of hybrid, like you
said it's based on the 767-200LRF but it has a different wing. (can't
find a source for this) The 767 has been around longer than the A330
for sure, but I don't think that lessens the risk in developing a
refueler based on that plane. Either airplane would be a huge
improvement over the creaky KC-135 (now I'm reading they may not be in
as bad a shape as was previously believed)

[Bertie the Bunyip[_25_]]

Eeyore > wrote in
:

>
>
> Ron Lee wrote:
>
>> >Bob Gardner wrote:
>> >
>> >> EADS has never built a tanker.
>> >
>> >Really ?
>> >
>> >You seem to be confused.
>> >http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Airbus_A330_MRTT
>> >
>> >A330 MRTT / KC-30B
>> >Type Aerial refuelling and transport
>> >Manufacturer EADS (Airbus)
>> >Maiden flight 15 June 2007
>>
>>
>> So they have eight months of tanker experience (that may be generous)
>> versus how many DECADES for Boeing?
>
> What does KC135 experience have to do with it ?

What have you got to do with it , planespotter?



Bertie
>

[Jeff Dougherty]

On Mar 13, 9:46 am, Kingfish > wrote:
> On Mar 13, 12:18 am, Jeff Dougherty >
> wrote:
>
>
>
> > I believe that the design Boeing offered to the USAF was not the same
> > as the one currently being built for Italy and Japan- it's based on
> > the 767-200LRF airframe rather than the 767-200ER. And while the
> > airframes themselves have been flying since 2005, they only started
> > testing the refueling systems last year and none have actually entered
> > service yet. First deliveries are supposed to be in the first quarter
> > of 2008. It's still been around longer than the A330-MRTT variant,
> > but the disparity isn't as large as it first appears.
>
> > Boeing still has a great deal more experience building tankers, of
> > course, but I'd hesitate to call either of these designs significantly
> > more mature than the other.
>
> I recall Boeing's Advanced Tanker was some kind of hybrid, like you
> said it's based on the 767-200LRF but it has a different wing. (can't
> find a source for this) The 767 has been around longer than the A330
> for sure, but I don't think that lessens the risk in developing a
> refueler based on that plane. Either airplane would be a huge
> improvement over the creaky KC-135 (now I'm reading they may not be in
> as bad a shape as was previously believed)

Per Aviation Leak at: http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/generic/story_generic.jsp?channel=awst&id=news/aw031008p2.xml

The airframe that was actually being offered, the -200LRF, appears to
still be in development. According to the article, it had the
airframe of a 767-200, wings from the -300F freighter, and cockpit and
empennage from the -400ER model. The 767 is a proven airframe, but
I'm not sure that putting together all those parts and trying to make
them work together is a low-risk strategy. In contrast, I believe
that the KC-767s for Italy and Japan are straight up conversions of
the -200ER airframe, similar to Airbus' proposal for their KC-X
competitor.

With that in mind, meseems that it's a bit of a stretch to call the
KC-767 that's now getting ready to enter service and Boeing's KC-X
proposal the same airplane. They're both tankers based on the 767,
but their construction seems radically different.

-JTD

[Bertie the Bunyip[_24_]]

Jeff Dougherty > wrote in
:

> On Mar 13, 9:46 am, Kingfish > wrote:
>> On Mar 13, 12:18 am, Jeff Dougherty >
>> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> > I believe that the design Boeing offered to the USAF was not the
>> > same as the one currently being built for Italy and Japan- it's
>> > based on the 767-200LRF airframe rather than the 767-200ER. And
>> > while the airframes themselves have been flying since 2005, they
>> > only started testing the refueling systems last year and none have
>> > actually entered service yet. First deliveries are supposed to be
>> > in the first quarter of 2008. It's still been around longer than
>> > the A330-MRTT variant, but the disparity isn't as large as it first
>> > appears.
>>
>> > Boeing still has a great deal more experience building tankers, of
>> > course, but I'd hesitate to call either of these designs
>> > significantly more mature than the other.
>>
>> I recall Boeing's Advanced Tanker was some kind of hybrid, like you
>> said it's based on the 767-200LRF but it has a different wing. (can't
>> find a source for this) The 767 has been around longer than the A330
>> for sure, but I don't think that lessens the risk in developing a
>> refueler based on that plane. Either airplane would be a huge
>> improvement over the creaky KC-135 (now I'm reading they may not be
>> in as bad a shape as was previously believed)
>
> Per Aviation Leak at:
> http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/generic/story_generic.jsp?
channel=awst&i
> d=news/aw031008p2.xml
>
> The airframe that was actually being offered, the -200LRF, appears to
> still be in development. According to the article, it had the
> airframe of a 767-200, wings from the -300F freighter, and cockpit and
> empennage from the -400ER model. The 767 is a proven airframe, but
> I'm not sure that putting together all those parts and trying to make
> them work together is a low-risk strategy.

It's been done for years by all sorts of manufacturers, including
Boeing.



Bertie

[Jeff Dougherty]

On Mar 13, 1:14*pm, Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
> Jeff Dougherty > wrote :
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Mar 13, 9:46 am, Kingfish > wrote:
> >> On Mar 13, 12:18 am, Jeff Dougherty >
> >> wrote:
>
> >> > I believe that the design Boeing offered to the USAF was not the
> >> > same as the one currently being built for Italy and Japan- it's
> >> > based on the 767-200LRF airframe rather than the 767-200ER. *And
> >> > while the airframes themselves have been flying since 2005, they
> >> > only started testing the refueling systems last year and none have
> >> > actually entered service yet. *First deliveries are supposed to be
> >> > in the first quarter of 2008. *It's still been around longer than
> >> > the A330-MRTT variant, but the disparity isn't as large as it first
> >> > appears.
>
> >> > Boeing still has a great deal more experience building tankers, of
> >> > course, but I'd hesitate to call either of these designs
> >> > significantly more mature than the other.
>
> >> I recall Boeing's Advanced Tanker was some kind of hybrid, like you
> >> said it's based on the 767-200LRF but it has a different wing. (can't
> >> find a source for this) The 767 has been around longer than the A330
> >> for sure, but I don't think that lessens the risk in developing a
> >> refueler based on that plane. Either airplane would be a huge
> >> improvement over the creaky KC-135 (now I'm reading they may not be
> >> in as bad a shape as was previously believed)
>
> > Per Aviation Leak at:
> >http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/generic/story_generic.jsp?
> channel=awst&i
> > d=news/aw031008p2.xml
>
> > The airframe that was actually being offered, the -200LRF, appears to
> > still be in development. *According to the article, it had the
> > airframe of a 767-200, wings from the -300F freighter, and cockpit and
> > empennage from the -400ER model. *The 767 is a proven airframe, but
> > I'm not sure that putting together all those parts and trying to make
> > them work together is a low-risk strategy.
>
> It's been done for years by all sorts of manufacturers, including
> Boeing.

Fair enough. The AvLeak article made it sound like a relatively high-
risk approach that turned off the Air Force, but the key word there
may be "relatively". Thanks for the clarification- I'm not even
remotely familiar with airliner manufacture and I guess it showed.

It'll be interesting to see how this all turns out. At the risk of
pontificating (again) about something I don't really understand, it
seems to me that the real take-home lesson is that we can look forward
to pretty much every major defense contract award being protested
unless and until the rules are changed. There's pretty much no
downside to losing the protest, and it gives you the potential to
swing the contract and all the associated millions. I wonder how long
it will be before procurement officers start building time into their
project schedules to deal with "routine" protests? :-)

-JTD

[Bertie the Bunyip[_24_]]

Jeff Dougherty > wrote in
:

> On Mar 13, 1:14*pm, Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
>> Jeff Dougherty > wrote
>> innews:1c300e63-969f-4e
> :
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> > On Mar 13, 9:46 am, Kingfish > wrote:
>> >> On Mar 13, 12:18 am, Jeff Dougherty >
>> >> wrote:
>>
>> >> > I believe that the design Boeing offered to the USAF was not the
>> >> > same as the one currently being built for Italy and Japan- it's
>> >> > based on the 767-200LRF airframe rather than the 767-200ER. *And
>> >> > while the airframes themselves have been flying since 2005, they
>> >> > only started testing the refueling systems last year and none
>> >> > have actually entered service yet. *First deliveries are
>> >> > supposed to be in the first quarter of 2008. *It's still been
>> >> > around longer than the A330-MRTT variant, but the disparity
>> >> > isn't as large as it first appears.
>>
>> >> > Boeing still has a great deal more experience building tankers,
>> >> > of course, but I'd hesitate to call either of these designs
>> >> > significantly more mature than the other.
>>
>> >> I recall Boeing's Advanced Tanker was some kind of hybrid, like
>> >> you said it's based on the 767-200LRF but it has a different wing.
>> >> (can't find a source for this) The 767 has been around longer than
>> >> the A330 for sure, but I don't think that lessens the risk in
>> >> developing a refueler based on that plane. Either airplane would
>> >> be a huge improvement over the creaky KC-135 (now I'm reading they
>> >> may not be in as bad a shape as was previously believed)
>>
>> > Per Aviation Leak at:
>> >http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/generic/story_generic.jsp?
>> channel=awst&i
>> > d=news/aw031008p2.xml
>>
>> > The airframe that was actually being offered, the -200LRF, appears
>> > to still be in development. *According to the article, it had the
>> > airframe of a 767-200, wings from the -300F freighter, and cockpit
>> > and empennage from the -400ER model. *The 767 is a proven airframe,
>> > but I'm not sure that putting together all those parts and trying
>> > to make them work together is a low-risk strategy.
>>
>> It's been done for years by all sorts of manufacturers, including
>> Boeing.
>
> Fair enough. The AvLeak article made it sound like a relatively high-
> risk approach that turned off the Air Force, but the key word there
> may be "relatively". Thanks for the clarification- I'm not even
> remotely familiar with airliner manufacture and I guess it showed.
>

Well, they're just like any other airplane for the most part. Douglas
made up 'new' DC-8s by mixing wings fuselages and engines. Boeing did
roughly the same. all of the skinny ones from the 707 onwards have the
same fuselage. The 757 was initially suppose to have th esmae nose as
the 707, 727 etc but they wanted the glass out of the 767 in it so they
put them in and built the nose up around it. The new 737 has the 757
wing. Avweb could be right, of course. I can't see a big deal in doing
as they suggest, though. Boeing generally seem to know what they are
doing.

> It'll be interesting to see how this all turns out. At the risk of
> pontificating (again) about something I don't really understand, it
> seems to me that the real take-home lesson is that we can look forward
> to pretty much every major defense contract award being protested
> unless and until the rules are changed. There's pretty much no
> downside to losing the protest, and it gives you the potential to
> swing the contract and all the associated millions. I wonder how long
> it will be before procurement officers start building time into their
> project schedules to deal with "routine" protests? :-)
>

Well, I would assume the military looked at the mission fist, a fact
that's often lost in the shouting and roaring that goes on in a case
like this. Presumably the 'Bus had some advantages in an actual
operational situation. No point buying a machine that's going to let you
down. I don't know that htis had anything to do with anything for sure,
but they don't buy toys like this without looking into these sorts of
things.


Bertie

[Gig 601XL Builder[_2_]]

Bertie the Bunyip wrote:

>
> Well, I would assume the military looked at the mission fist, a fact
> that's often lost in the shouting and roaring that goes on in a case
> like this. Presumably the 'Bus had some advantages in an actual
> operational situation. No point buying a machine that's going to let you
> down. I don't know that htis had anything to do with anything for sure,
> but they don't buy toys like this without looking into these sorts of
> things.
>

Here's where you might be wrong Bertie. The US Military has a long
history of buying hardware for political not strategic or tactical reasons.

[Ron Wanttaja]

On Fri, 14 Mar 2008 10:02:24 -0500, Gig 601XL Builder
> wrote:

> Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
>
> >
> > Well, I would assume the military looked at the mission fist, a fact
> > that's often lost in the shouting and roaring that goes on in a case
> > like this. Presumably the 'Bus had some advantages in an actual
> > operational situation. No point buying a machine that's going to let you
> > down. I don't know that htis had anything to do with anything for sure,
> > but they don't buy toys like this without looking into these sorts of
> > things.
>
> Here's where you might be wrong Bertie. The US Military has a long
> history of buying hardware for political not strategic or tactical reasons.

It's called "maintaining the industrial base." My guess is if Boeing and MacDac
were still separate companies and had submitted separate entries, EADs probably
wouldn't have stood a chance. But the military prefers to keep a bit of
competition going, for obvious reasons.

It's not unique to government contracts. I knew a company planning on deploying
a new civilian space system that used large subcontracts to entice concessions
from various world governments. The problem was, the cost of the hardware
obtained this way was about double that of the low bidder. Maybe worth it to
the company, but its own engineers kept getting hammered by management because
they couldn't get the per-vehicle cost of the satellites down to the level
management needed to make the system viable....

Ron Wanttaja

[Bertie the Bunyip[_24_]]

Ron Wanttaja > wrote in
:

> On Fri, 14 Mar 2008 10:02:24 -0500, Gig 601XL Builder
> > wrote:
>
>> Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
>>
>> >
>> > Well, I would assume the military looked at the mission fist, a
>> > fact that's often lost in the shouting and roaring that goes on in
>> > a case like this. Presumably the 'Bus had some advantages in an
>> > actual operational situation. No point buying a machine that's
>> > going to let you down. I don't know that htis had anything to do
>> > with anything for sure, but they don't buy toys like this without
>> > looking into these sorts of things.
>>
>> Here's where you might be wrong Bertie. The US Military has a long
>> history of buying hardware for political not strategic or tactical
>> reasons.
>
> It's called "maintaining the industrial base." My guess is if Boeing
> and MacDac were still separate companies and had submitted separate
> entries, EADs probably wouldn't have stood a chance. But the military
> prefers to keep a bit of competition going, for obvious reasons.

OK, I can buy that. I guess I was just looking at it as I might have done
it!
Just got a new car for Mrs Bunyip and about the only test it didn't go
through before I "approved" it was it's combat capability...



Bertie

[Larry Dighera]

The fat lady hasn't sung yet:

http://www.boeing.com/ids/news/2008/q2/080403d_nr.html
ST. LOUIS, April 03, 2008 -- While the U.S. Air Force awarded a
contract to build the next aerial refueling airplane to the team of
Northrop Grumman and the European Aeronautic Defence and Space Company
(EADS), Air Force evaluators found the Boeing [NYSE: BA] KC-767
Advanced Tanker offers more mission capability and has a better chance
of surviving combat than the larger Northrop-EADS KC-30 tanker.

"The fact that the Air Force gave Boeing the highest possible
rating in mission capability and cited the KC-767 Advanced Tanker as
having three times more strengths than the Northrop-EADS tanker in
this most important category further highlights the inconsistencies in
the selection process," said Mark McGraw, vice president and program
manager for Boeing Tanker Programs. "As for protecting flight crews on
the most dangerous missions, the Air Force evaluated Boeing's tanker
as much more survivable than the Northrop-EADS tanker." ...

"Despite the changes made in favor of the KC-30 in the area of
mission capability, the evaluation was clear in its assessment,"
McGraw said. "The Air Force identified 98 strengths and only one
weakness with the KC-767, while they pinpointed 30 strengths and five
weaknesses for the KC-30, including four weaknesses in aerial
refueling." ...






On Wed, 12 Mar 2008 07:12:17 -0700 (PDT), AJ >
wrote:

>Boeing Formally Protests US Air Force Tanker Contract Award
>Says KC-X RFP Differs From Criteria Cited In Going with KC-45A
>
>(From: Aero-News.net)
>
>It's official. Citing irregularities with the process of the
>competition and the evaluation of the competitors' bids, on Tuesday
>Boeing filed a formal protest with the Government Accountability
>Office (GAO), asking the agency to review the decision by the US Air
>Force to award a contract to a team of Northrop Grumman and European
>Aeronautic Defense and Space Company (EADS) to replace the aging fleet
>of KC-135 aerial refueling tankers.
>
>"Our analysis of the data presented by the Air Force shows that this
>competition was seriously flawed and resulted in the selection of the
>wrong airplane for the war fighter," said Mark McGraw, vice president
>and program manager, Boeing Tanker Programs. "We have fundamental
>concerns with the Air Force's evaluation, and we are exercising
>our right under the process for a GAO review of the decision to ensure
>that the process by which America's next refueling tanker is selected
>is fair and results in the best choice for the U.S. war fighters and
>taxpayers."
>
>Following an internal analysis of data presented at a March 7
>debriefing on the decision, Boeing concluded what began as an effort
>by the Air Force to run a fair, open and transparent competition
>evolved into a process replete with irregularities. These
>irregularities placed Boeing at a competitive disadvantage throughout
>this competition, the American plane maker asserts, and even penalized
>Boeing for offering a commercial-derivative airplane with lower costs
>and risks and greater protection for troops.
>
>"It is clear that the original mission for these tankers -- that is, a
>medium-sized tanker where cargo and passenger transport was a
>secondary consideration -- became lost in the process, and the Air
>Force ended up with an oversized tanker," McGraw said. "As the
>requirements were changed to accommodate the bigger, less capable
>Airbus plane, evaluators arbitrarily discounted the significant
>strengths of the KC-767, compromising on operational capabilities,
>including the ability to refuel a more versatile array of aircraft
>such as the V-22 and even the survivability of the tanker during the
>most dangerous missions it will encounter."
>
>Boeing is asking the GAO to examine several factors in the
>competition, that it states were fundamentally flawed: The contract
>award and subsequent reports ignore the fact that in reality Boeing
>and the Northrop/EADS team were assigned identical ratings across all
>five evaluation factors: 1) Mission Capability, 2) Risk, 3) Past
>Performance, 4) Cost/Price and 5) Integrated Fleet Aerial Refueling
>Assessment. Indeed, an objective review of the data as measured
>against the Request for Proposal shows that Boeing had the better
>offering in terms of Most Probable Life Cycle Costs, lower risk and
>better capability.
>
>Flaws in this procurement process resulted in a significant gap
>between the aircraft the Air Force originally set out to procure -- a
>medium-sized tanker to replace the KC-135, as stated in the RFP -- and
>the much larger Airbus A330-based tanker it ultimately selected. It is
>clear that frequent and often unstated changes during the course of
>the competition -- including manipulation of evaluation criteria and
>application of unstated and unsupported priorities among the key
>system requirements -- resulted in selection of an aircraft that was
>radically different from that sought by the Air Force and inferior to
>the Boeing 767 tanker offering.
>
>Because of the way the Air Force treated Boeing's cost/price data, the
>company was effectively denied its right to compete with a commercial-
>derivative product, contrary not only to the RFP but also to federal
>statute and regulation. The Air Force refused to accept Boeing's
>Federal Acquisition Regulation-compliant cost/price information,
>developed over 50 years of building commercial aircraft, and instead
>treated the company's airframe cost/price information as if it were a
>military-defense product. Not only did this flawed
>decision deny the government the manufacturing benefits of Boeing's
>unique in-line production capability, subjecting the Air Force to
>higher risk, but it also resulted in a distortion of the price at
>which Boeing actually offered to produce tankers.
>
>In evaluating Past Performance, Boeing claims the Air Force ignored
>the fact that Boeing -- with 75 years of success in producing tankers
>-- is the only company in the world that has produced a commercial-
>derivative tanker equipped with an operational aerial-refueling boom.
>Rather than consider recent performance assessments that should have
>enhanced Boeing's position, the Air Force focused on relatively
>insignificant details on "somewhat relevant" Northrop/EADS programs to
>the disadvantage of Boeing's experience.
>
>"Boeing offered an aircraft that provided the best value and
>performance for the stated mission at the lowest risk and lowest life
>cycle cost," said McGraw. "We did bring our A-game to this
>competition. Regrettably, irregularities in the process resulted in an
>inconsistent and prejudicial application of procurement practices and
>the selection of a higher-risk, higher-cost airplane that's less
>suitable for the mission as defined by the Air Force's own Request For
>Proposal. We are only asking that the rules of fair competition be
>followed."
>
>For better or for worse, they're gonna do it. Boeing announced early
>Tuesday it will file a formal protest later today, asking the
>Government Accountability Office (GAO) to review the decision by the
>US Air Force to award a contract to a team of Northrop Grumman and
>European Aeronautic Defense and Space Company (EADS) to replace aerial
>refueling tankers.
>
>"Our team has taken a very close look at the tanker decision and found
>serious flaws in the process that we believe warrant appeal," said Jim
>McNerney, Boeing chairman, president and chief executive officer.
>"This is an extraordinary step rarely taken by our company, and one we
>take very seriously."
>
>Following a debriefing on the decision by the Air Force on March 7,
>Boeing officials spent three days reviewing the Air Force case for its
>tanker award. Boeing states a "rigorous" analysis of the Air Force
>evaluation that resulted in the Northrop/EADS contract led the
>American plane maker to the conclusion that a protest was necessary.
>
>"Based upon what we have seen, we continue to believe we submitted the
>most capable, lowest risk, lowest Most Probable Life Cycle Cost
>airplane as measured against the Air Force's Request for Proposal,"
>McNerney said. "We look forward to the GAO's review of the decision."
>
>Boeing said it would provide additional details of its case in
>conjunction with the protest filing on Tuesday. Stay tuned.
>
>FMI: www.boeing.com, www.globaltanker.com

[Stefan]

Larry Dighera schrieb:

> ... said Mark McGraw, vice president and program
> manager for Boeing Tanker Programs.

The ultimate unbiased source.

[Larry Dighera]

On Wed, 12 Mar 2008 07:12:17 -0700 (PDT), AJ >
wrote:

>Boeing Formally Protests US Air Force Tanker Contract Award
>Says KC-X RFP Differs From Criteria Cited In Going with KC-45A
>
>(From: Aero-News.net)
[snip]


From the press release below, it seems that Bowing feels a fly-by-wire
aircraft may not be suitable for operation in an EMP environment,
among other issues.

It sure is tough when you don't have a mole inside the Pentagon.



-----------------------
The Boeing Company <http://www.boeing.com/news/releases/index.html>
Boeing KC-767 Tanker Determined More Survivable in U.S. Air Force
Evaluation

ST. LOUIS, April 11, 2008 -- Boeing [NYSE: BA] today said the U.S. Air
Force's decision to award a contract for the next aerial refueling
airplane to the team of Northrop Grumman and the European Aeronautic
Defence and Space Company (EADS) is at odds with the fact that the
Northrop/EADS team's KC-30 is less survivable and more vulnerable to
attack than the Boeing KC-767 Advanced Tanker.

The Air Force evaluation cited the Boeing offering to be more
advantageous in the critical area of survivability. The evaluators
found the KC-767 tanker had almost five times as many survivability
discriminators as its competitor.

Speaking this week at the Aerial Refueling Systems Advisory Group
(ARSAG) Conference in Orlando, Fla., former U.S. Air Force Chief of
Staff and retired Gen. Ronald Fogleman stressed that survivability
greatly enhances the operational utility of a tanker.

"When I saw the Air Force's assessment of both candidate aircraft in
the survivability area, I was struck by the fact that they clearly saw
the KC-767 as a more survivable tanker," Fogleman told the ARSAG
audience in his role as a consultant to Boeing's tanker effort. "To be
survivable, tanker aircraft must contain systems to identify and
defeat threats, provide improved situational awareness to the aircrew
to avoid threat areas, and protect the crew in the event of attack.
The KC-767 has a superior survivability rating and will have greater
operational utility to the joint commander and provide better
protection to aircrews that must face real-world threats."

On Feb. 29, the Air Force selected Northrop/EADS' Airbus A330
derivative over Boeing's 767 derivative. Boeing subsequently asked the
Government Accountability Office to review the decision, citing
numerous irregularities and a flawed process that included deviations
from the evaluation and award criteria established by the service for
the competition.

During the Air Force debrief, the Boeing team discovered the KC-767
outranked the KC-30 in the critical survivability category. The KC-767
achieved a total score of 24 positive discriminators -- including 11
described as major -- while the KC-30 scored five, none of which were
major.

Major survivability discriminators for the Boeing KC-767 included:

* More robust surface-to-air missile defense systems
* Cockpit displays that improve situational awareness to enable
flight crews to better see and assess the threat environment
* Better Electro-Magnetic Pulse (EMP) hardening -- the KC-767 is
better able to operate in an EMP environment compared with the KC-30
* Automatic route planning/rerouting and steering cues to the
flight crew to avoid threats once they are detected
* Better armor-protection features for the flight crew and
critical aircraft systems
* Better fuel-tank-explosion protection features.

Boeing's KC-767 Advanced Tanker will be equipped with the latest and
most reliable integrated defensive equipment to protect the aircraft
and crew by avoiding, defeating or surviving threats, resulting in
unprecedented tanker survivability -- far superior to all current Air
Force tankers as well as the Northrop/EADS KC-30. The Boeing KC-767
also includes a comprehensive set of capabilities that enables
unrestricted operations while providing maximum protection for the
tanker crew.

[Larry Dighera]

Boeing KC-767 Tanker Adds Up to Best Value for Warfighter, Taxpayers

ST. LOUIS, April 15, 2008 -- The Boeing [NYSE: BA] KC-767 Advanced
Tanker would save billions of dollars over the anticipated lifetime of
the aircraft compared with the larger Airbus-based KC-30. Nonetheless,
the U.S. government selected the larger air tanker from the team of
Northrop Grumman and the European Aeronautic Defence and Space Company
(EADS).

Due to irregularities in the competition, such as the cost comparison,
Boeing has protested the decision and asked the Government
Accountability Office (GAO) to determine if the tanker acquisition
process, including the cost analysis, was unfair and flawed. As the
GAO reviews the decision, Boeing is also calling on policymakers to
question why the comparison of full costs of the new tanker fleet
failed to reflect that the Airbus KC-30 tanker is larger, heavier,
less fuel-efficient and -- according to the Northrop/EADS team itself
-- more costly to operate.

"As Americans pay their taxes this week, it's essential that they
consider how effectively those dollars will be spent to equip U.S.
warfighters," said Sen. Sam Brownback of Kansas. "It's especially
important to think about the total cost of developing, producing,
operating and maintaining vital defense assets that must be ready to
fly at least two generations of American military men and women."

In evaluating the two tanker offerings, the U.S. government determined
that the Boeing KC-767 and the Northrop/EADS KC-30 were nearly equal
at a cost of $108 billion to buy and operate 179 tankers over 25
years. Boeing contends that a realistic comparison of life-cycle costs
-- what the Air Force calls Most Probable Life-Cycle Costs (MPLCC) --
should have resulted in a significantly higher price tag for the
Airbus KC-30 when considering the biggest cost drivers: fuel,
maintenance costs and infrastructure.

* Fuel: Using commercial aviation data, a Conklin & deDecker
Aviation Information fuel study funded by Boeing indicated that with
the price of oil between $100-125 per barrel, the larger, heavier and
less fuel-efficient KC-30 would cost $30 billion more in fuel costs
than the Boeing KC-767 over an anticipated 40-year service life.
* Maintenance: Based on the requirements for a smaller aircraft,
the KC-767 would be approximately 22 percent less costly than the
KC-30.

* Military Construction: The larger KC-30 would require
approximately $2 billion to build or upgrade hangars, ramps, access
roads and other facilities at tanker bases, while existing facilities
that are sized for the current fleet of KC-135 tankers will be able to
accommodate the smaller KC-767 with substantially less costly
improvements required.
* Additional Infrastructure Costs: To accommodate Air National
Guard and Air Force Reserve units -- which operate primarily from
civilian airfields and have 60 percent of the Air Force tanker fleet
--
further costly investment would be required to upgrade facilities
where KC-30s would be based.

[[email protected]]

On Apr 11, 2:54*pm, Larry Dighera > wrote:
> On Wed, 12 Mar 2008 07:12:17 -0700 (PDT), AJ >
> wrote:
>
> >Boeing Formally Protests US Air Force Tanker Contract Award
> >Says KC-X RFP Differs From Criteria Cited In Going with KC-45A
>
> >(From: Aero-News.net)
>
> *[snip]
>
> From the press release below, it seems that Bowing feels a fly-by-wire
> aircraft may not be suitable for operation in an EMP environment,
> among other issues. *
>
> It sure is tough when you don't have a mole inside the Pentagon.
>
> -----------------------
> The Boeing Company <http://www.boeing.com/news/releases/index.html> *
> Boeing KC-767 Tanker Determined More Survivable in U.S. Air Force
> Evaluation
>
> ST. LOUIS, April 11, 2008 -- Boeing [NYSE: BA] today said the U.S. Air
> Force's decision to award a contract for the next aerial refueling
> airplane to the team of Northrop Grumman and the European Aeronautic
> Defence and Space Company (EADS) is at odds with the fact that the
> Northrop/EADS team's KC-30 is less survivable and more vulnerable to
> attack than the Boeing KC-767 Advanced Tanker.
>
> The Air Force evaluation cited the Boeing offering to be more
> advantageous in the critical area of survivability. The evaluators
> found *the KC-767 tanker had almost five times as many survivability
> discriminators as its competitor.
>
> Speaking this week at the Aerial Refueling Systems Advisory Group
> (ARSAG) Conference in Orlando, Fla., former U.S. Air Force Chief of
> Staff and retired Gen. Ronald Fogleman stressed that survivability
> greatly enhances the operational utility of a tanker.
>
> "When I saw the Air Force's assessment of both candidate aircraft in
> the survivability area, I was struck by the fact that they clearly saw
> the KC-767 as a more survivable tanker," Fogleman told the ARSAG
> audience in his role as a consultant to Boeing's tanker effort. "To be
> survivable, tanker aircraft must contain systems to identify and
> defeat threats, provide improved situational awareness to the aircrew
> to avoid threat areas, and protect the crew in the event of attack.
> The KC-767 has a superior survivability rating and will have greater
> operational utility to the joint commander and provide better
> protection to aircrews that must face real-world threats."
>
> On Feb. 29, the Air Force selected Northrop/EADS' Airbus A330
> derivative over Boeing's 767 derivative. Boeing subsequently asked the
> Government Accountability Office to review the decision, citing
> numerous irregularities and a flawed process that included deviations
> from the evaluation and award criteria established by the service for
> the competition.
>
> During the Air Force debrief, the Boeing team discovered the KC-767
> outranked the KC-30 in the critical survivability category. The KC-767
> achieved a total score of 24 positive discriminators -- including 11
> described as major -- while the KC-30 scored five, none of which were
> major.
>
> Major survivability discriminators for the Boeing KC-767 included:
>
> * * * * More robust surface-to-air missile defense systems
> * * * * Cockpit displays that improve situational awareness to enable
> flight crews to better see and assess the threat environment
> * * * * Better Electro-Magnetic Pulse (EMP) hardening -- the KC-767 is
> better able to operate in an EMP environment compared with the KC-30
> * * * * Automatic route planning/rerouting and steering cues to the
> flight crew to avoid threats once they are detected
> * * * * Better armor-protection features for the flight crew and
> critical aircraft systems
> * * * * Better fuel-tank-explosion protection features.
>
> Boeing's KC-767 Advanced Tanker will be equipped with the latest and
> most reliable integrated defensive equipment to protect the aircraft
> and crew by avoiding, defeating or surviving threats, resulting in
> unprecedented tanker survivability -- far superior to all current Air
> Force tankers as well as the Northrop/EADS KC-30. The Boeing KC-767
> also *includes a comprehensive set of capabilities that enables
> unrestricted operations while providing maximum protection for the
> tanker crew.

The Air Force doesn't care about survivability... Tanker crews are
expendable.

[Larry Dighera]

Well, you've got to give Boeing high marks for tenacity even if their
history of unethical/criminal behavior put them at a disadvantage in
this competitive bid for USAF tankers. Here's the latest:



The Boeing Company <http://www.boeing.com/news/releases/index.html>
Boeing KC-767 Tanker: Sized Right for the Fight

ST. LOUIS, May 07, 2008 -- The KC-767 Advanced Tanker developed by
Boeing [NYSE: BA] was sized to meet the aerial refueling requirements
of the U.S. Air Force's mission and exceeded performance requirements
to replace the aging, yet storied fleet of KC-135 medium tankers.

Despite the fact that the stated parameters for evaluating the
aircraft said no extra credit would be assigned for exceeding certain
requirement objectives, the Northrop Grumman and European Aeronautic
Defence and Space Company (EADS) team received such credit. As a
result, the oversized Airbus A330-based KC-30 was selected. Boeing has
protested the decision to the U.S. Government Accountability Office.

According to the Statement of Objectives for the KC-X program, the
primary mission of the new tanker would be aerial refueling rather
than hauling cargo or transporting passengers. In order to meet the
documented mission requirements, Boeing offered the KC-767, which
efficiently fulfills the vital mission of a mid-sized aerial refueling
fleet while also exceeding the highest requirements for airlift,
passenger and aeromedical evacuation capabilities.

"Tanker flight crews are asked to bring the right amount of fuel to
the fight in the most efficient, reliable manner, and the KC-767 meets
that fundamental requirement," said Mark McGraw, vice president,
Boeing Tanker Programs. "Asking these aircrews to fly longer missions
in larger, less survivable planes with more fuel capacity than needed
and vast amounts of unused cargo and passenger space just doesn't add
up.

"The Boeing KC-767 exceeded the requirements in a manner that still
kept the plane right-sized and efficient," McGraw said. "Our
competition likes to talk about offering more, more, more -- but in
reality, the KC-30 will cost more to operate, more to maintain, and
more to house, with the U.S. taxpayer footing the bill."

A larger plane -- like the KC-30 tanker offered by Northrop Grumman
and EADS -- simply results in wasted capacity, wasted efficiency and
wasted taxpayer dollars.

The contrasts between the KC-767 and the KC-30 are notable and worth
considering in determining the appropriate tanker for the mission:

* Fuel Capacity -- The historical average offload on a tanker
mission is 60,000 to 70,000 pounds of fuel. The Air Force fuel offload
requirement was set at 94,000 pounds of fuel at 1,000 nautical miles,
comfortably above the historical average. The KC-767 exceeded the
94,000-pound requirement by 20 percent while remaining within the
optimum size for medium tanker operations. The KC-30 fuel capacity
exceeded that requirement by 50 percent -- meaning more than half of
its fuel load would be unused during an average mission. The result: a
large tanker that burns more fuel and requires significantly higher
costs in maintenance and support.
* Cargo/Passenger Capacity -- In 2006, the Air Force moved less
than 1 percent of its cargo and passengers in tankers. The KC-767 does
offer significantly more cargo and passenger capacity than the KC-135,
but not at the expense of airplane size or efficiency. Again, the
KC-30 carries more passengers and slightly more cargo based on weight,
but with a bigger, less survivable and more costly plane.
* Aeromedical Evacuation -- The Air Force Request for Proposals
set an objective requirement of being able to carry 24 litters and 26
ambulatory patients. The KC-767 carries 30 litters and 67 ambulatory
patients, far exceeding the highest requirement. The Air Force praised
the KC-767's superior aeromedical crew stations, its ability to
generate oxygen onboard, and the power provided for aeromedical crew
systems. The KC-30 again offered more quantity with less quality and
less survivability.

[Bob Noel]

In article >,
Larry Dighera > wrote:

> Well, you've got to give Boeing high marks for tenacity even if their
> history of unethical/criminal behavior put them at a disadvantage in
> this competitive bid for USAF tankers. Here's the latest:

"history of unethical/criminal behavior"? Aside from the Drunyan stuff,
what history are you thinking about?

(Note: I have no interest in Boeing and nothing against Northrup, I'm just
uncertain as to what history)

--
Bob Noel
(goodness, please trim replies!!!)

[Larry Dighera]

On Wed, 07 May 2008 19:52:20 -0400, Bob Noel
> wrote in
>:

>In article >,
> Larry Dighera > wrote:
>
>> Well, you've got to give Boeing high marks for tenacity even if their
>> history of unethical/criminal behavior put them at a disadvantage in
>> this competitive bid for USAF tankers. Here's the latest:
>
>"history of unethical/criminal behavior"? Aside from the Drunyan stuff,
>what history are you thinking about?
>
>(Note: I have no interest in Boeing and nothing against Northrup, I'm just
>uncertain as to what history)


That's what I'm thinking about; isn't that enough? But there is the
issue with the CEO and something about sexual harassment that got him
fired, IIRC.

[Big John]

On Thu, 08 May 2008 00:27:38 GMT, Larry Dighera >
wrote:

>On Wed, 07 May 2008 19:52:20 -0400, Bob Noel
> wrote in
>:
>
>>In article >,
>> Larry Dighera > wrote:
>>
>>> Well, you've got to give Boeing high marks for tenacity even if their
>>> history of unethical/criminal behavior put them at a disadvantage in
>>> this competitive bid for USAF tankers. Here's the latest:
>>
>>"history of unethical/criminal behavior"? Aside from the Drunyan stuff,
>>what history are you thinking about?
>>
>>(Note: I have no interest in Boeing and nothing against Northrup, I'm just
>>uncertain as to what history)
>
>
>That's what I'm thinking about; isn't that enough? But there is the
>issue with the CEO and something about sexual harassment that got him
>fired, IIRC.
*********************************************

Are you talking about Clinton????? He didn't get fired did he?

Big John

[Larry Dighera]

On Thu, 08 May 2008 00:09:16 -0500, Big John >
wrote in >:

>On Thu, 08 May 2008 00:27:38 GMT, Larry Dighera >
>wrote:
>
>>On Wed, 07 May 2008 19:52:20 -0400, Bob Noel
> wrote in
>:
>>
>>>In article >,
>>> Larry Dighera > wrote:
>>>
>>>> Well, you've got to give Boeing high marks for tenacity even if their
>>>> history of unethical/criminal behavior put them at a disadvantage in
>>>> this competitive bid for USAF tankers. Here's the latest:
>>>
>>>"history of unethical/criminal behavior"? Aside from the Drunyan stuff,
>>>what history are you thinking about?
>>>
>>>(Note: I have no interest in Boeing and nothing against Northrup, I'm just
>>>uncertain as to what history)
>>
>>
>>That's what I'm thinking about; isn't that enough? But there is the
>>issue with the CEO and something about sexual harassment that got him
>>fired, IIRC.
>*********************************************
>
>Are you talking about Clinton????? He didn't get fired did he?
>
>Big John



http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A13173-2005Mar7.html
Boeing CEO Resigns Over Affair With Subordinate

By Renae Merle
Washington Post Staff Writer
Tuesday, March 8, 2005; Page A01

Boeing Co. announced yesterday that it forced its chief executive
to resign after an investigation uncovered that he had an affair
with a female employee.

Harry C. Stonecipher, 68, had rejoined Boeing from retirement 15
months ago to help repair the aerospace giant's reputation after a
string of military procurement scandals led to the resignation of
his predecessor.

Harry C. Stonecipher, 68, returned to Boeing on the heels of
scandal. (M. Spencer Green--AP)

Boeing officials said Stonecipher's ouster was a sign that the
company's board has little tolerance for missteps as it struggles
to regain its place as a leading global corporation. The board
used a code of conduct, adopted last year and proudly touted by
Stonecipher as evidence of Boeing's progress, to dismiss him.

"It's not the fact that he was having an affair" that caused him
to be fired, said Lewis E. Platt, Boeing's non-executive chairman.
"But as we explored the circumstances surrounding the affair, we
just thought there were some issues of poor judgment that . . .
impaired his ability to lead going forward."

It was another embarrassing blow for Chicago-based Boeing, whose
former chief financial officer Michael M. Sears was sentenced to
four months in prison last month for illegally negotiating a job
at the company for a former Air Force procurement official who
admitted showing Boeing favoritism for years. Boeing promoted
current finance chief James A. Bell to be interim chief executive
and launched an accelerated search for a permanent replacement.
...

[Benjamin Dover]

Larry Dighera > wrote in
:

> On Thu, 08 May 2008 00:09:16 -0500, Big John >
> wrote in >:
>
>>On Thu, 08 May 2008 00:27:38 GMT, Larry Dighera >
>>wrote:
>>
>>>On Wed, 07 May 2008 19:52:20 -0400, Bob Noel
> wrote in
>:
>>>
>>>>In article >,
>>>> Larry Dighera > wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Well, you've got to give Boeing high marks for tenacity even if
>>>>> their history of unethical/criminal behavior put them at a
>>>>> disadvantage in this competitive bid for USAF tankers. Here's the
>>>>> latest:
>>>>
>>>>"history of unethical/criminal behavior"? Aside from the Drunyan
>>>>stuff, what history are you thinking about?
>>>>
>>>>(Note: I have no interest in Boeing and nothing against Northrup,
>>>>I'm just uncertain as to what history)
>>>
>>>
>>>That's what I'm thinking about; isn't that enough? But there is the
>>>issue with the CEO and something about sexual harassment that got him
>>>fired, IIRC.
>>*********************************************
>>
>>Are you talking about Clinton????? He didn't get fired did he?
>>
>>Big John
>
>
>
> http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A13173-2005Mar7.html
> Boeing CEO Resigns Over Affair With Subordinate
>
> By Renae Merle
> Washington Post Staff Writer
> Tuesday, March 8, 2005; Page A01
>
> Boeing Co. announced yesterday that it forced its chief executive
> to resign after an investigation uncovered that he had an affair
> with a female employee.
>
> Harry C. Stonecipher, 68, had rejoined Boeing from retirement 15
> months ago to help repair the aerospace giant's reputation after a
> string of military procurement scandals led to the resignation of
> his predecessor.
>
> Harry C. Stonecipher, 68, returned to Boeing on the heels of
> scandal. (M. Spencer Green--AP)
>
> Boeing officials said Stonecipher's ouster was a sign that the
> company's board has little tolerance for missteps as it struggles
> to regain its place as a leading global corporation. The board
> used a code of conduct, adopted last year and proudly touted by
> Stonecipher as evidence of Boeing's progress, to dismiss him.
>
> "It's not the fact that he was having an affair" that caused him
> to be fired, said Lewis E. Platt, Boeing's non-executive chairman.
> "But as we explored the circumstances surrounding the affair, we
> just thought there were some issues of poor judgment that . . .
> impaired his ability to lead going forward."
>
> It was another embarrassing blow for Chicago-based Boeing, whose
> former chief financial officer Michael M. Sears was sentenced to
> four months in prison last month for illegally negotiating a job
> at the company for a former Air Force procurement official who
> admitted showing Boeing favoritism for years. Boeing promoted
> current finance chief James A. Bell to be interim chief executive
> and launched an accelerated search for a permanent replacement.
> ...
>

So, according to you, a CEO of a corporation fooling around is bad, but it
is OK for the CEO of the United States, aka POTUS, to get a hummer from an
aide while in the Oval Office!

[Gig 601Xl Builder]

Larry Dighera wrote:

>
> http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A13173-2005Mar7.html
> Boeing CEO Resigns Over Affair With Subordinate
>
> By Renae Merle
> Washington Post Staff Writer
> Tuesday, March 8, 2005; Page A01
>
> Boeing Co. announced yesterday that it forced its chief executive
> to resign after an investigation uncovered that he had an affair
> with a female employee.
>

Boeing did exactly what the EEOC expects a company to do in this
situation. They investigated the complaint and terminated the employee
when they found wrong doing.

[C J Campbell[_1_]]

On 2008-03-12 07:12:17 -0700, AJ > said:

> Boeing Formally Protests US Air Force Tanker Contract Award
> Says KC-X RFP Differs From Criteria Cited In Going with KC-45A

Boeing's plane actually met the requirements of the request for
proposal. Airbus offered a more expensive plane that offered a cargo
capability and other features that Boeing was not allowed to offer.
Boeing could have offered a 747 tanker with the same capability, but
was discouraged from doing so. Then they selected the EADS design on
the basis of the cargo capability. Somebody had already decided from
the very beginning that the Airbus design would be selected and simply
rigged the bidding process to make sure Airbus won.

No doubt this was partially in revenge for the way Boeing was awarded
the original contract.

--
Waddling Eagle
World Famous Flight Instructor

[Larry Dighera]

Now the real fun begins:

The Boeing Company
<http://www.boeing.com/news/releases/index.html>
Boeing Statement on Tanker Protest Ruling

ST. LOUIS, June 18, 2008 -- Boeing [NYSE: BA] was informed today
that the Government Accountability Office (GAO) found in Boeing's
favor on a number of issues related to its protest of the U.S. Air
Force's award of a $35 billion contract to supply the service with
its next-generation aerial refueling aircraft -- or KC-X tankers
-- to begin replacing the current fleet of KC-135 tankers.

In response to the ruling, Boeing released the following statement
from Mark McGraw, vice president, Tanker Programs:

"We welcome and support today's ruling by the GAO fully supporting
the grounds of our protest.

"We appreciate the professionalism and diligence the GAO showed in
its review of the KC-X acquisition process. We look forward to
working with the Air Force on next steps in this critical
procurement for our warfighters."




On Wed, 12 Mar 2008 07:12:17 -0700 (PDT), AJ >
wrote in
>:

>Boeing Formally Protests US Air Force Tanker Contract Award
>Says KC-X RFP Differs From Criteria Cited In Going with KC-45A
>
>(From: Aero-News.net)
>
>It's official. Citing irregularities with the process of the
>competition and the evaluation of the competitors' bids, on Tuesday
>Boeing filed a formal protest with the Government Accountability
>Office (GAO), asking the agency to review the decision by the US Air
>Force to award a contract to a team of Northrop Grumman and European
>Aeronautic Defense and Space Company (EADS) to replace the aging fleet
>of KC-135 aerial refueling tankers.
>
>"Our analysis of the data presented by the Air Force shows that this
>competition was seriously flawed and resulted in the selection of the
>wrong airplane for the war fighter," said Mark McGraw, vice president
>and program manager, Boeing Tanker Programs. "We have fundamental
>concerns with the Air Force's evaluation, and we are exercising
>our right under the process for a GAO review of the decision to ensure
>that the process by which America's next refueling tanker is selected
>is fair and results in the best choice for the U.S. war fighters and
>taxpayers."
>
>Following an internal analysis of data presented at a March 7
>debriefing on the decision, Boeing concluded what began as an effort
>by the Air Force to run a fair, open and transparent competition
>evolved into a process replete with irregularities. These
>irregularities placed Boeing at a competitive disadvantage throughout
>this competition, the American plane maker asserts, and even penalized
>Boeing for offering a commercial-derivative airplane with lower costs
>and risks and greater protection for troops.
>
>"It is clear that the original mission for these tankers -- that is, a
>medium-sized tanker where cargo and passenger transport was a
>secondary consideration -- became lost in the process, and the Air
>Force ended up with an oversized tanker," McGraw said. "As the
>requirements were changed to accommodate the bigger, less capable
>Airbus plane, evaluators arbitrarily discounted the significant
>strengths of the KC-767, compromising on operational capabilities,
>including the ability to refuel a more versatile array of aircraft
>such as the V-22 and even the survivability of the tanker during the
>most dangerous missions it will encounter."
>
>Boeing is asking the GAO to examine several factors in the
>competition, that it states were fundamentally flawed: The contract
>award and subsequent reports ignore the fact that in reality Boeing
>and the Northrop/EADS team were assigned identical ratings across all
>five evaluation factors: 1) Mission Capability, 2) Risk, 3) Past
>Performance, 4) Cost/Price and 5) Integrated Fleet Aerial Refueling
>Assessment. Indeed, an objective review of the data as measured
>against the Request for Proposal shows that Boeing had the better
>offering in terms of Most Probable Life Cycle Costs, lower risk and
>better capability.
>
>Flaws in this procurement process resulted in a significant gap
>between the aircraft the Air Force originally set out to procure -- a
>medium-sized tanker to replace the KC-135, as stated in the RFP -- and
>the much larger Airbus A330-based tanker it ultimately selected. It is
>clear that frequent and often unstated changes during the course of
>the competition -- including manipulation of evaluation criteria and
>application of unstated and unsupported priorities among the key
>system requirements -- resulted in selection of an aircraft that was
>radically different from that sought by the Air Force and inferior to
>the Boeing 767 tanker offering.
>
>Because of the way the Air Force treated Boeing's cost/price data, the
>company was effectively denied its right to compete with a commercial-
>derivative product, contrary not only to the RFP but also to federal
>statute and regulation. The Air Force refused to accept Boeing's
>Federal Acquisition Regulation-compliant cost/price information,
>developed over 50 years of building commercial aircraft, and instead
>treated the company's airframe cost/price information as if it were a
>military-defense product. Not only did this flawed
>decision deny the government the manufacturing benefits of Boeing's
>unique in-line production capability, subjecting the Air Force to
>higher risk, but it also resulted in a distortion of the price at
>which Boeing actually offered to produce tankers.
>
>In evaluating Past Performance, Boeing claims the Air Force ignored
>the fact that Boeing -- with 75 years of success in producing tankers
>-- is the only company in the world that has produced a commercial-
>derivative tanker equipped with an operational aerial-refueling boom.
>Rather than consider recent performance assessments that should have
>enhanced Boeing's position, the Air Force focused on relatively
>insignificant details on "somewhat relevant" Northrop/EADS programs to
>the disadvantage of Boeing's experience.
>
>"Boeing offered an aircraft that provided the best value and
>performance for the stated mission at the lowest risk and lowest life
>cycle cost," said McGraw. "We did bring our A-game to this
>competition. Regrettably, irregularities in the process resulted in an
>inconsistent and prejudicial application of procurement practices and
>the selection of a higher-risk, higher-cost airplane that's less
>suitable for the mission as defined by the Air Force's own Request For
>Proposal. We are only asking that the rules of fair competition be
>followed."
>
>For better or for worse, they're gonna do it. Boeing announced early
>Tuesday it will file a formal protest later today, asking the
>Government Accountability Office (GAO) to review the decision by the
>US Air Force to award a contract to a team of Northrop Grumman and
>European Aeronautic Defense and Space Company (EADS) to replace aerial
>refueling tankers.
>
>"Our team has taken a very close look at the tanker decision and found
>serious flaws in the process that we believe warrant appeal," said Jim
>McNerney, Boeing chairman, president and chief executive officer.
>"This is an extraordinary step rarely taken by our company, and one we
>take very seriously."
>
>Following a debriefing on the decision by the Air Force on March 7,
>Boeing officials spent three days reviewing the Air Force case for its
>tanker award. Boeing states a "rigorous" analysis of the Air Force
>evaluation that resulted in the Northrop/EADS contract led the
>American plane maker to the conclusion that a protest was necessary.
>
>"Based upon what we have seen, we continue to believe we submitted the
>most capable, lowest risk, lowest Most Probable Life Cycle Cost
>airplane as measured against the Air Force's Request for Proposal,"
>McNerney said. "We look forward to the GAO's review of the decision."
>
>Boeing said it would provide additional details of its case in
>conjunction with the protest filing on Tuesday. Stay tuned.
>
>FMI: www.boeing.com, www.globaltanker.com

[Bob Noel]

In article >,
Larry Dighera > wrote:

> Now the real fun begins:
>
> The Boeing Company
> <http://www.boeing.com/news/releases/index.html>
> Boeing Statement on Tanker Protest Ruling
>
> ST. LOUIS, June 18, 2008 -- Boeing [NYSE: BA] was informed today
> that the Government Accountability Office (GAO) found in Boeing's
> favor on a number of issues related to its protest of the U.S. Air
> Force's award of a $35 billion contract to supply the service with
> its next-generation aerial refueling aircraft -- or KC-X tankers
> -- to begin replacing the current fleet of KC-135 tankers.
>
> In response to the ruling, Boeing released the following statement
> from Mark McGraw, vice president, Tanker Programs:
>
> "We welcome and support today's ruling by the GAO fully supporting
> the grounds of our protest.
>
> "We appreciate the professionalism and diligence the GAO showed in
> its review of the KC-X acquisition process. We look forward to
> working with the Air Force on next steps in this critical
> procurement for our warfighters."
>


http://www.gao.gov/press/press-boeing2008jun18_3.pdf

Of particular note (to this non-lawyer) is:

"The GAO recommended that the Air Force reopen discussions with the
offerors, obtain revised proposals, re-evaluate the revised proposals,
and make a new source selection decision, consistent with the GAO¹s
decision. The agency also made a number of other recommendations
including that, if the Air Force believed that the solicitation, as reasonably
interpreted, does not adequately state its needs, the Air Force should amend
the solicitation prior to conducting further discussions with the offerors; that
if Boeing¹s proposal is ultimately selected for award, the Air Force should
terminate the contract awarded to Northrop Grumman; and that the Air Force
reimburse Boeing the costs of filing and pursuing the protest, including
reasonable attorneys¹ fees. By statute, the Air Force is given 60 days to
inform the GAO of the Air Force¹s actions in response to GAO¹s recommendations."

--
Bob Noel
(goodness, please trim replies!!!)

[Larry Dighera]

On Wed, 18 Jun 2008 18:37:56 -0400, Bob Noel
> wrote in
>:

>
>http://www.gao.gov/press/press-boeing2008jun18_3.pdf
>
>Of particular note (to this non-lawyer) is:
>
>"The GAO recommended that the Air Force reopen discussions with the
>offerors, obtain revised proposals, re-evaluate the revised proposals,
>and make a new source selection decision, consistent with the GAO¹s
>decision. The agency also made a number of other recommendations
>including that, if the Air Force believed that the solicitation, as reasonably
>interpreted, does not adequately state its needs, the Air Force should amend
>the solicitation prior to conducting further discussions with the offerors; that
>if Boeing¹s proposal is ultimately selected for award, the Air Force should
>terminate the contract awarded to Northrop Grumman; and that the Air Force
>reimburse Boeing the costs of filing and pursuing the protest, including
>reasonable attorneys¹ fees. By statute, the Air Force is given 60 days to
>inform the GAO of the Air Force¹s actions in response to GAO¹s recommendations."

Thanks for that information.

This looks like an opportunity for the USAF to perhaps end up with a
price reduction on the contract.

Here's an excerpt from Northrop Grumman's last press release before
the GAO ruling:

http://www.irconnect.com/noc/press/pages/news_releases.html?d=144827
In addition, more delay makes it more likely that money currently
set aside for the tanker program could be diverted to other
service or U.S. Department of Defense programs. The loss of these
funds would require drawing on monies set aside for the KC-X
program in 2009, which in turn would cause rippling delays to the
entire effort and ultimately increase the overall cost of the new
tankers.

"While Boeing was within its rights to protest, it has knocked the
program three months off schedule," Belote added. "Further delay
will achieve nothing but an increase in cost and risk." GAO
affirmation of the Air Force selection will be the second win in a
row for Northrop Grumman and the KC-45.

[Larry Dighera]

On Thu, 19 Jun 2008 15:25:49 -0400, John Smith > wrote
in >:

>Norhtrup-Grumman announced the ground breaking for the Alabama assembly
>facility will be next week.


That may be a bit premature.

Needless to say, American labor feels granting the contract to
Northrop Grumman will send too many US jobs overseas:

http://www.teamster.org/08news/nr_080619_1.asp
Hoffal Urges Air Force to Terminate Foreign Contract, Keep
Military
Jobs in U.S.

Keeping Military Manufacturing Jobs at Home A Matter of National
Security

June 19, 2008

(Washington, D.C.) – The Teamsters Union called on the U.S. Air
Force to terminate a $35 billion contract for 179 aerial refueling
tankers that it unfairly gave to a European manufacturer, and
award it to U.S.-based Boeing Co., keeping important military
manufacturing jobs in the United States.

The Government Accountability Office (GAO), the investigative arm
of Congress, cited major errors yesterday in the Air Force’s
selection of foreign-built Airbus A330, including unfairly
skewering the selection process and misleading Boeing. GAO said
the Boeing tanker is less costly to operate, saving American
taxpayers $8.5 billion over 25 years.

“The Air Force should be ashamed of supporting Europe’s military
readiness and economy at the expense of America’s during a time of
war and economic duress at home,” said Teamsters General President
Jim Hoffa.

With the GAO’s scathing report, the Air Force has little choice
but to reopen the competition, at the very least. The contract,
worth an estimated $108 billion over 25 years, would support
44,000 new jobs at home -- at a time when the United States needs
them the most. The nation’s unemployment rate soared to 5.5
percent last month, the biggest jump in 22 years. Americans lost
49,000 jobs in May.

“Our skills, knowledge, technology and capital are being packed up
and sent overseas,” Hoffa said. “America’s economic power, once
the envy of the world, is being threatened. We are giving away our
industrial base under the guise of so-called ‘free trade
agreements.’”