Originally Posted by
LowObservable
Me: but presumably both NG-EADS and EADS offered a compliant solution... including provision for the cloaking device, defensive l@ser, atomic trebuchet or whatevs.
KenV: Ummmm, no.
Also KenV, about 25,000 words later in same post: Both offerings were technically acceptable in that they met all key performance parameters
He's the only guy on this board who can lose an argument with himself.
Ummmm, there is a vast difference between providing a t
echnically acceptable product that meets all key performance parameters and providing a fully compliant solicitation. You can offer a fully equipped starship Enterprise that meets all key performance parameters, but submit the proposal one hour late, or miss just one CDRL item or one SOW item in your proposal and your solicitation is non compliant.
As an example, for their JSF bid McDonnell Douglas offered a solution that met or exceeded all the
key performance parameters by a significant margin. So surely, they gotta be in like Flynn. So it would seem, but no. There was one problem. When their gas coupled lift fan failed, they substituted a lift engine on their STOVL version. Their bid was thrown out because it did not meet the "single engine" requirement.
Once again, one needs to be careful about definition of terms. Words have meaning and in a technical arena like aviation and specifically aviation procurement, they have very specific meanings.