All of which kind of leaves me scratching my head then, wondering why the USAF actually chose the KC-45.
Technically, they chose KC-30, which was the Northrop Grumman designation for their A330-based tanker offer. The very first round in 2006 (which included a 777 based offer from Boeing) was structured very differently than the 2007 competion. Northrop Grumman/EADS threatened to pull out in 2006, so the competition was rejiggered to enable the A330 to compete.
The politics were complicated. The 2007 competition was driven by USAF's tanker boys which were hold overs from the old Strategic Air Command (SAC). Previously, ALL tankers belonged to SAC. When SAC ceased to exist, some tankers went to Air Combat Command (ACC) and some to Air Mobility Command (AMC). The former SAC guys, now ACC bomber guys, strongly favored a DC-10 sized aircraft, and Northrup Grumman/EADS won that competition for 800 aircraft (800!!) with the KC-30, which was based on the A330-200.
But Boeing formally protested and the Government Accountability Office (an independent arbiter not affiliated with USAF) threw out that competition after USAF admitted to several flaws in their bidding process. An "expedited recompetition" was convened by DoD rather than USAF. This second competition was for a more "realistic" 400 (400!) aircraft with more detailed performance requirements and mission criteria. But this competition collapsed early and did not get out of the starting gate. That was in 2008.
In 2009 USAF started over. The do-over was for a "possible" 179 aircraft. The process stretched into 2010. By now the old SAC guys were gone. ACC's tankers only supported their bombers, so they had a rather narrow vision of the tanker mission. But by this time the tankers were taken from ACC and all of them belonged to Air Mobility Command (AMC). AMC had a completely different vision for their tanker than ACC because AMC was responsible for deploying and supporting the Army, deploying and supporting USAF fighter and bomber units, and for supporting USN and USMC. And by "support" that means both operational support (in-theater air tanking) AND logistics support (providing "bombs, bullets, and butter" for in-theater units). AMC also had the medevac mission. So the AMC guys included a plethora of additional missions not included by the former SAC guys now ACC bomber guys during the first competition. And besides the requirements being very different, this new RFP was for a Firm Fixed Price rather than a cost-plus with incentive fees.
The A330 could still meet the additional requirements, but ONLY if Airbus offered an A330-200F based MRTT. Airbus simply refused. We (NG) never could figure out why, because unlike the first competition, Airbus now had a fully developed freighter version of the A330 and did not need to develop it for the tanker competition. So this is yet another factor in the "politics". Why did Airbus refuse to offer a freighter based MRTT? I don't know. But without a freighter based tanker to offer NG pulled out, and Airbus decided to go it alone with the passenger based version. And predictably, Airbus lost.
I hope this clarified.