Lawsuits gone wild!

(From Aero-News.net

Washington Guv Raises Possibility Of Legal Action If KC-X Doesn't Go
To Boeing
Gregoire Believes Hometown Team Will Win Contract

At this writing, Boeing hasn't lost the US Air Force's KC-X contract
to provide the service with new tankers just yet -- and many analysts
feel a Boeing win over a team comprised of EADS and Northrop Grumman
is all-but assured. But that didn't stop the governor of Washington
from threatening a possible legal protest if Boeing is denied the
contract.

Speaking to reporters Tuesday after a meeting with the state's
congressional delegation, Gov. Chris Gregoire said the state could
file a congressional inquiry or take another course of action if
Boeing isn't awarded the KC-X deal.

A decision from the Air Force was originally said to be coming as soon
as Wednesday evening... though officials said Wednesday afternoon not
to expect an announcement until Friday, at the earliest.

Gregoire then stressed she still believes Boeing will come out on top,
reports The Seattle Post-Intelligencer. "I'm banking on us getting
it," she said. "I just think we win if it's done absolutely without
politics, based on experience, work force, all of that. So I'm feeling
good about this.

"If we don't win, then I think there'll be a lot of questions asked
about why in the world would Boeing, with that work force, that
expertise, that experience, that history -- how could they not have
gotten this?" Gregoire then added, muddying the waters somewhat. "My
sense is there'll be a lot of questions raised and then we'll get into
the protest."

Of course, Gregoire isn't the first person to raise the ominous
specter of legal action, from either side of the hotly-contested KC-X
battle. As ANN has reported extensively, Boeing is offering its KC-767
aerial refueling platform to replace 179 aging KC-135 tankers in the
Air Force fleet; Northrop/EADS has countered with a variant of its
KC-330 Multi-Role Tanker Transport.

Boeing recently delivered the first KC-767 to Japan, albeit one year
behind schedule; the KC-330 is still undergoing development.

The contract to be awarded shortly is the first of three phases of the
KC-X program, which aims to ultimately replace 502 aging tankers. Both
sides have appealed to lawmakers in Washington and Kansas (Boeing) and
Alabama (EADS/Northrop) to support their respective bids, touting new
jobs and economic growth.

Federal law allows losing bidders on federal contracts to appeal to
the Government Accountability Office, if they allege the agency
involved violated terms of the procurement agreement when selecting
the winning contract.

Such a battle is now underway with another Air Force program -- the
CSAR-X search-and-rescue helicopter bid, which was originally awarded
to Boeing's HH-47 in November 2006. Losing bidders Sikorsky and
Lockheed promptly lodged protests... and the Air Force, after some
stalling, agreed to reopen the bidding process last year.

There's also a fair amount of political irony here... as in 2005,
Gregoire was among the most vocal supporters of efforts by three
Washington counties to bring the KC-30 assembly plant to the state.

On Thu, 28 Feb 2008 08:49:45 -0800 (PST), AJ
wrote in
:

Gregoire then stressed she still believes Boeing will come out on top,
reports The Seattle Post-Intelligencer. "I'm banking on us getting
it," she said.

Based upon here feminine intuition no doubt.

"I just think we win if it's done absolutely without
politics, based on experience, work force, all of that. So I'm feeling
good about this.

I would expect, that the contract would be awarded based on price, not
on "experience, work force, all of that."

Larry Dighera wrote in
:

On Thu, 28 Feb 2008 08:49:45 -0800 (PST), AJ
wrote in
:

Gregoire then stressed she still believes Boeing will come out on top,
reports The Seattle Post-Intelligencer. "I'm banking on us getting
it," she said.

Based upon here feminine intuition no doubt.

You get to be a juicier target every day , Lar.


Bertie

Larry Dighera wrote:
/snip/

I would expect, that the contract would be awarded based on price, not
on "experience, work force, all of that."


Good grief, Dighera, are you really *that* naive???

Happy Flying!
Scott Skylane

On Thu, 28 Feb 2008 13:08:07 -0900, Scott Skylane
wrote in :

Larry Dighera wrote:
/snip/

I would expect, that the contract would be awarded based on price, not
on "experience, work force, all of that."


Good grief, Dighera, are you really *that* naive???


Yah, I know what you mean, but we can hope.

On Thu, 28 Feb 2008 17:55:59 -0500, John Smith wrote
in :

I am trying to figure out why we are willing to purchase either of two
30+ year old airframe designs to provide our air force with its needs in
the future.
There should be a significant discount below the price of a used
airframe of either of these models. In Boeing's case, all the tooling
has been paid for, the company has been in the process of shutting down
the line for several years, the suppliers already exist.
But because it is a government contract, the bureaucracy will spend
excessive taxpayer dollars for an outdated product.

Originally, it was worse than that. The Pentagon wasn't even getting
competitive bids, but some people at DOD and Boeing went to jail, and
now we have at least the semblance of competition.

In article ,
Larry Dighera wrote:

I would expect, that the contract would be awarded based on price, not
on "experience, work force, all of that."

The RFP for the program would lay out the award criteria. Generally,
those criteria would sum up to best value to the Government so that
it is not necessarily lowest price that would win.

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

"John Smith" wrote in message
...
I am trying to figure out why we are willing to purchase either of two
30+ year old airframe designs to provide our air force with its needs in
the future.
There should be a significant discount below the price of a used
airframe of either of these models. In Boeing's case, all the tooling
has been paid for, the company has been in the process of shutting down
the line for several years, the suppliers already exist.
But because it is a government contract, the bureaucracy will spend
excessive taxpayer dollars for an outdated product.

Several thoughts:

1) If the airplane fits the spec, it doesn't really matter when it was
designed. Beyond that,other than exception of engine development, not a
whole lot has changed in the airliner/transport business since the KC-135/
B707 was launched 50 years ago, so calling a 767 derived product obsolete is
misleading.

2) Would you rather send those jobs overseas? I'd prefer to keep those jobs
here and have 10 or 20 thousand US citizens have good paying jobs than have
many of those jobs go overseas and have to pay unemployment for the Boeing
employees.

3) Government always spends too much money on a given undertaking. The
bureaucracy that is supposed to prevent it from buying a $700 hammer also
makes it impossible for anyone to profitably sell the government $5 hammers.

On Feb 28, 8:16*pm, "Kyle Boatright" wrote:

Several thoughts:

1) If the airplane fits the spec, it doesn't really matter when it was
designed. *Beyond that,other than exception of engine development, not a
whole lot has changed in the airliner/transport business since the KC-135/
B707 was launched 50 years ago, so calling a 767 derived product obsolete is
misleading.

You don't consider composite construction a new development? (787,
A350XWB) Granted, neither of the KC-X entrants is a composite design
but it's a stretch to say not much has changed in 50 years. A big leap
happend when turbojets were replaced by efficient turbofans, for one
example.

2) Would you rather send those jobs overseas? *I'd prefer to keep those jobs
here and have 10 or 20 thousand US citizens have good paying jobs than have
many of those jobs go overseas and have to pay unemployment for the Boeing
employees.

If the KC-30 is picked they will be assembled in Alabama. Many other
states will share in the work from the new contract. It's all on
Northrop Grumman's KC-30 site.

http://www.northropgrumman.com/kc30/...ts/impact.html


3) *Government always spends too much money on a given undertaking. *The
bureaucracy that is supposed to prevent it from buying a $700 hammer also
makes it impossible for anyone to profitably sell the government $5 hammers.

No argument here, although the reason for $700 hammers/toilet seats/
etc (aside from non-competitive bids) is that they usually have to
meet some particular milspec, which means they aren't available
commercially and are made in low quantities. This is not conducive to
low cost.

"Kyle Boatright" wrote in message . ..


Several thoughts:

1) If the airplane fits the spec, it doesn't really matter when it was
designed. Beyond that,other than exception of engine development, not a
whole lot has changed in the airliner/transport business since the KC-135/
B707 was launched 50 years ago, so calling a 767 derived product obsolete is
misleading.

2) Would you rather send those jobs overseas? I'd prefer to keep those jobs
here and have 10 or 20 thousand US citizens have good paying jobs than have
many of those jobs go overseas and have to pay unemployment for the Boeing
employees.

3) Government always spends too much money on a given undertaking. The
bureaucracy that is supposed to prevent it from buying a $700 hammer also
makes it impossible for anyone to profitably sell the government $5 hammers.




It was announced today that the KC-30 (derived from the Airbus A-330) has won the "competition."