Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Politics for Pros- moderated -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: LindyBill who wrote (376643)	8/5/2010 7:42:31 PM
From: Bridge Player	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 793939

Re: Refueling AF tanker award. It is totally absurd that this piece did not even mention that when this contract was originally put out for bid, the Air Force initially awarded the contract to the Northrop Grumman/EADS team. The United States Air Force issued the KC-X request for proposal in January 2007,[1] then selected the Northrop Grumman/EADS team and their Airbus A330-based tankers in February 2008.[2] I do not know what the actual basis of the award was. I assume that it was based on considering such factors as original cost, total cost, maintenance cost, range, capacity, fuel costs, engine efficiency, delivery schedules, cruise speed, maximum takeoff weight, etc. etc. as called out in the original RFP. The contract award was subsequently cancelled based on a protest from the Boeing Company. In June 2008, the U.S. Government Accountability Office sustained a protest by Boeing on the award of the contract. =============================================================== ST. LOUIS, March 11, 2008 -- Citing irregularities with the process of the competition and the evaluation of the competitors' bids, The Boeing Company [NYSE: BA] has filed a formal protest with the Government Accountability Office (GAO), asking the agency to review the decision by the U.S. Air Force to award a contract to a team of Northrop Grumman and European Aeronautic Defence and Space Company (EADS) to replace 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 warfighter," 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. warfighters and taxpayers." Following a thorough analysis of data presented at a March 7 debriefing on the decision, Boeing concluded that 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 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 were fundamentally flawed. ==================================================================== [3][4] In July 2008, the U.S. Defense Department reopened the bidding process,[5] but canceled the KC-X solicitation in September 2008.[6] In September 2009, the USAF began the first steps toward accepting new bids.[7] In March 2010, Northrop Grumman announced that it would pull out of the bidding process.[8] Despite Northrop Grumman's withdrawal, EADS decided to remain in the ongoing competition alone.[9] I have no idea who will eventually win this competition. But I have a few ideas about the process. The original RFP should clearly state the percentage weights that will apply to each element of specifications contained in the competing proposals. Failure to do so opens the process up to being gamed and politicized. Subsidies to be given to the competitors are an inevitable part of the process. Those offered to the EADS bid are more easily visible than those offered to the Boeing bid, most notably tax and other inducements by the various states in which aircraft and their components will be manufactured. Regaining America's industrial and manufacturing base carries a lot of weight with public opinion and is a factor that is hard for politicians (and there are a lot of those in the DOD) to ignore. Lobbyists in Washington have an incredible degree of influence on day-to-day operations of our government, not always immediately visible. The bottom line is that this award will not be based on the best deal for the AF and the DOD. It will be a political award. Pure and simple.