Originally Posted by
JFZ90
So, you don't think it was fixed when
a) EADS won
b) politicians didn't like it
c) competition CHANGED to favour Boeing solution
I run a load of competitions, and you can't normally just go changing the goal posts* once you have firm bids in. No matter how you dress it up, the outcome was effectively determined by the shift in criteria to favour a smaller, 767 based, offering.
For the reasons LO allude to though, it seems EADS (though not Northrop, interestingly, who have no relevant civil aerospace interest) were content to go along with it to squeeze any potential excessive profit/"subsidy" to Boeing.
* not without exposing yourself to legal challenge, bid costs etc. Did Northrop recover their costs under the 2008 award?
If I remember correctly, the RFP sent out for round 2 favored a platform about the size of the 767, but the scoring criteria for round 2 ignored the RFP profile and
that was why Boeing's protest was upheld.
* I have no idea what NG's profit margin was for the 2008 proposal.