KenV's points make more sense if "The Star Spangled Banner" is played in the background, at steadily increasing volume.
Wow, you really think my posts are driven by parochial patriotism? What a convenient argument. Weak, but convenient.
FYI, I worked for N-G during the KC-30 days. We wanted desperately to base our proposal on an A330F, but Airbus refused to develop the freighter at that time and by the time they did, it was too late. I was involved in the development of the refueling boom and the RARO station. The boom and RARO station we co-developed with Airbus was far superior to Boeing's. I had a personal, vested interest in the A330 winning against the 767. And we won at least partially because of our superior boom and RARO station. We also used the A340 wings on the A330 tanker. These wings already had hardpoints and fuel lines for the outboard engines which made our WARP (wing aerial refueling pod) installation far superior to the 767's. So our design beat Boeing's on several fronts technically. But the combination of years of delays which allowed Boeing to catch up technically, and the rejiggering of the procurement rules gave the advantage to Boeing.
As for MILCON, that was one of the weakest points of our proposal, price wise. Our proposal would require several years of MILCON investments not just in ramps and taxiways, but also in expensive hangars. BRAC (base realignment and closure) made a HUGE difference for us in our favor by significantly reducing the number of sites that would require MILCON.
There was also a small but powerful contingent of USAF officers who were very skittish about a fly-by-wire tanker. They were also opposed to side sticks, and especially opposed to the "averaging" control laws of the two side sticks (nose down command on one stick would cancel equal nose up command on the other stick) and the fact that neither pilot got feedback what the other pilot was doing. It took lots and lots of simulator time to convince them otherwise. I'm not sure we ever fully convinced them. Fortunately for us, these guys had little influence in the procurement decision. But we were all dreading dealing with these guys when we won.
As for the legality of goldplating, that all depends on the nature and language of the proposal. Goldplating is a big deal to Congress and the procurement bean counters. That's why mission creep was invented.