GAO may force KC-45 contract rebid
Thread Starter
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: flyover country USA
Age: 82
Posts: 4,579
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Devon, England
Posts: 249
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Sounds like sour grapes to me.
Lets see just how much fairness is demonstrated by the US in this instance; may the best product win, not just the American as has happened a lot recently not least of which are contracts for renewal of Iraq.
Lets see just how much fairness is demonstrated by the US in this instance; may the best product win, not just the American as has happened a lot recently not least of which are contracts for renewal of Iraq.
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Greater Aldergrove
Age: 52
Posts: 851
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Was bound to happen...
The Boeing arguments were based on the Air Force not having applied their own criteria properly. And if they were right about that, which they now appear to be, then any auditor could only uphold their protest.
The seven points of the GAO determination are fairly damning...not on the KC-330 (as we should probably resume calling it!), but on the Air Force and their process...
The Boeing arguments were based on the Air Force not having applied their own criteria properly. And if they were right about that, which they now appear to be, then any auditor could only uphold their protest.
The seven points of the GAO determination are fairly damning...not on the KC-330 (as we should probably resume calling it!), but on the Air Force and their process...
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: UK
Posts: 117
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Re-bid?
Sounds like Boeing imitating Mugabe in Zimbabwe. Dont like the result so lets call foul and start over again. Put the old war veterans out as well no doubt. Well who would have thought it.
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Ohio
Posts: 121
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Sour Grapes?
Ignoring the PR war waged by both Boeing and NG, Boeing actually had some valid points.
Boeing's primary contetion is that the evaluation criteria used by the Air Force were not consistent with the RFP, and also that the Air Force gave far more deference to the EADS/NG cost and risk figures than they did with Boeing's.
Boeing's case is bolstered by the fact that they could have offered a larger version of the 767, and they also have a couple of other large frames upon which a proposal could have been based, had Boeing been told that cubic capacity and payload would count for as much as they did.
The GAO is nobody's lap dog, so I don't think we can discount their finding as merely political or nationalistic.
Boeing's primary contetion is that the evaluation criteria used by the Air Force were not consistent with the RFP, and also that the Air Force gave far more deference to the EADS/NG cost and risk figures than they did with Boeing's.
Boeing's case is bolstered by the fact that they could have offered a larger version of the 767, and they also have a couple of other large frames upon which a proposal could have been based, had Boeing been told that cubic capacity and payload would count for as much as they did.
The GAO is nobody's lap dog, so I don't think we can discount their finding as merely political or nationalistic.
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: fort sheridan, il
Posts: 1,656
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Boeing gets another chance...and you know what, its not the first time.
AND the last time it really mattered, it was the B17.
AND the French should be damned glad that Boeing got that chance.
And I'm glad Boeing is getting another chance now.
AND the last time it really mattered, it was the B17.
AND the French should be damned glad that Boeing got that chance.
And I'm glad Boeing is getting another chance now.
Rebel PPRuNer
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: Toronto, Canada (formerly EICK)
Age: 51
Posts: 2,834
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
7stroke - what was the alternative offered to the B-17 as in this case?
edit - by my count this is actually the third chance (Druyun then the EADS win being 1 & 2)
edit - by my count this is actually the third chance (Druyun then the EADS win being 1 & 2)
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: fort sheridan, il
Posts: 1,656
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
alternative to b17
what was chosen was the B18 Bolo...I hope you look it up. Sort of a modified DC2...but you have to look it up.
The demo B17 crashed and couldn't fulfill all the parts of the contact awarding process just prior to WW2...but someone smart enough at the AAF got them built anyway.
The demo B17 crashed and couldn't fulfill all the parts of the contact awarding process just prior to WW2...but someone smart enough at the AAF got them built anyway.
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: www
Posts: 19
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Sevenstroke,
No doubt a lot of hi jinx going on prior to the USA's eventual involvement in WW2. Who were the proposed design/manufacturing team for the B-18 Bolo? Had they fallen into disgrace ala Boeing recently? Or was the ultimate decision to award the BIG and final contract based national defense priorities?
CANOPUS
No doubt a lot of hi jinx going on prior to the USA's eventual involvement in WW2. Who were the proposed design/manufacturing team for the B-18 Bolo? Had they fallen into disgrace ala Boeing recently? Or was the ultimate decision to award the BIG and final contract based national defense priorities?
CANOPUS
Paxing All Over The World
BenThere
I think that what irritates many Europeans (perhaps many outside f the USA) is that they lobby every country to let them (the USA) bid for their strategic projects - but don't want the rest of the world to be allowed to bid for USA ones. The same attitude is shown in food production and other areas of manufacturing.
djfingerscrossed
Ah, I think that you have hit one of the nails on the head: where the profit is going ...
As it is a strategic asset, I would have supported excluding non-American bidders. And I would understand if other countries responded in kind.
djfingerscrossed
Does it really matter that much where the profit is going to as long as the working men/women (from the US) get paid and then the state can reap the benefit from that?)
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Kerry Eire
Age: 76
Posts: 609
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Moreover Boeing as an entity needs this project after the massive delays and cost over runs on the 787 and the almost total disinterest in the B747-8, so we can be assured that, in an election year, the airways between Chicago, Seattle and Washington, not to mention the candidates' destinations on their whistle stops, will be constantly being flown by Boeing execs eager to have the decision overturned.
It isn't a case of the winning product being generically non-American, it's a Boeing thing that only they should have right to produce transports and tankers in the USA.
It isn't a case of the winning product being generically non-American, it's a Boeing thing that only they should have right to produce transports and tankers in the USA.
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Lincolnshire, UK
Posts: 46
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Why can't Boeing and the American public accept that they don't always make the best product for the job, they knew when the RFP was issued that the criteria had been modified so that the A330 based design had a decent chance of winning, they could have offered a 777 based design then, so why moan now that the Airforce decided that the extra capacity was going to be useful.
EADS/Northrop/Grumman gave the Airforce very detailed parts and maintenance cost information, Boeing didn't ( commercially sensitive), so the Airforce have more confidence in lifetime costs.
EADS have a new technology boom refueling system up and running on the proposed airframe and have delivered the first airframe for conversion to Australia this month, so the Airforce had more confidence in the ability to deliver on time.
The KC767 is a hybrid of many variants of the commercial 767, Boeing haven't delivered any of thier recent military programs on time or on cost, they have only won 1 out of about 5 air refueling contracts worldwide in recent years, they haven't built an air refueling tanker for the best part of 50 years so is it any surprise that the Airforce don't have much confidence in them.
I believe that the Airforce chose EADS etc more because of this lack of confidence in Boeing than because of any significant cost benefit from either supplier.
EADS/Northrop/Grumman gave the Airforce very detailed parts and maintenance cost information, Boeing didn't ( commercially sensitive), so the Airforce have more confidence in lifetime costs.
EADS have a new technology boom refueling system up and running on the proposed airframe and have delivered the first airframe for conversion to Australia this month, so the Airforce had more confidence in the ability to deliver on time.
The KC767 is a hybrid of many variants of the commercial 767, Boeing haven't delivered any of thier recent military programs on time or on cost, they have only won 1 out of about 5 air refueling contracts worldwide in recent years, they haven't built an air refueling tanker for the best part of 50 years so is it any surprise that the Airforce don't have much confidence in them.
I believe that the Airforce chose EADS etc more because of this lack of confidence in Boeing than because of any significant cost benefit from either supplier.
Last edited by smuff2000; 19th Jun 2008 at 13:38.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: flyover country USA
Age: 82
Posts: 4,579
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Actually - I think initial contracts (a hundred ships or so) were awarded for both the B-17 and B-18, and after a year or two's service experience it was obvious which was fulfilling the real mission (which was not necessarily the original contract mission description...)
B-17s were so in demand that they were second-sourced (to Lockheed IIRC)
B-17s were so in demand that they were second-sourced (to Lockheed IIRC)