A few things about the KC-X award. I'm not talking about the subsequent development in which Boeing and USAF did not exactly cover themselves in glory, just the selection. Keep in mind that this took place during a time when USAF was screwing up contract after contract.
USAF put out certain specs and requirements for KC-X, which included mandatory requirements, and things they'd give extra credit for and things that would be nice but would not receive extra credit (they might count as tie breakers if all else was equal). Keep in mind that the objective was to replace the KC-135, not the KC-10 or a potential future larger tanker.
When Boeing lost to the the KC-45 they looked at the rationale USAF publicly disclosed in justifying the award. Boeing felt the award so egregiously violated the rules that they decided to, unusually for the time, protest the award. What had clearly happened was that USAF had asked for one thing, but when they saw the bids got excited by the extra cargo capacity of the more expensive A330. Instead of doing the right thing and withdrawing the solicitation and coming out with a new one that reflected their new desires, they just cooked the books to award the contact to EADS/Northrop Grumman (no one alleged that that team itself did anything untoward). When the protest got to GAO their decision was that they wouldn't say that Boeing's bid was better or worse, just that by its own criteria and their published description of how the bids would be judged the award couldn't be justified and invited USAF to explain how the award was made. USAF couldn't, so withdrew the award (and had to pay penalties).
Some, though not all, of the problems included: USAF said points for more cargo capacity would only be provided up to a certain amount. However, USAF gave credit beyond what they said. Boeing said that if USAF had disclosed that, they would have bid a tanker based on the 777, which carried even more cargo than the A330. The requirements included the ability to refuel any AAR-capable USAF fixed wing; A330 couldn't do that for at least one a/c, but this was ignored as was the requirement that the new tanker had to be able to operate from any KC-135 base. But to operate a KC-45 from said bases, modifications to the base(s) costing hundreds of millions of $ were required which USAF didn't include in the cost of the EADS/NG bid. Points were to be awarded regarding how many tankers could be parked on a ramp of a specified size. When it was found that more 767 tankers could be parked there (767 was smaller), USAF simply lowered the standard separation required between parked tankers so that the A330 could fit in more a/c (I don't know if Boeing was ever informed of this change). Air Force had a requirement that the winner would assist in setting up a transition for maintenance from the contractor to USAF. EADS/NG said they wouldn't do that; USAF characterized that as an "administrative oversight"- which normally refers to typos or minor mistakes that have no significant effect on the overall bid. There were more...
Again, GAO did Not say which plane was better for USAF, simply that per USAF's own solicitation and announced selection criteria the award could not be sustained.
Work started on a second solicitation, but it was soon seen that it was written in such a way that any problems with the A330 were simply written out of the requirement, and the suspense for response was so unusually short that there was no time to design and propose a KC-777 that wouldn't be judged "high risk". This was so obvious that the solicitation was never formally issued.
On the third try, Boeing said that it would bid a plane based on either the 767 or 777 depending on how much capacity USAF said it wanted. The new criteria were similar to the original, for a smaller KC-135 replacement. Since apparently a larger A330 based craft could not be offered for a price as low as a 767 based one, EADS (NG had dropped out) decided not to go to the expense (they cost tens of millions of $$) of making a bid.
Personally, I think if they had won EADS would have had almost as many problems, because USAF was asking for a lot more than just a 767 or A330 based tanker (this includes A330MRTT).
Last edited by Commando Cody; 17th Apr 2021 at 21:34.