Boeing Formally Protests US Air Force Tanker Contract Award

Boeing Formally Protests US Air Force Tanker Contract Award
Says KC-X RFP Differs From Criteria Cited In Going with KC-45A

(From: Aero-News.net)

It's official. Citing irregularities with the process of the
competition and the evaluation of the competitors' bids, on Tuesday
Boeing filed a formal protest with the Government Accountability
Office (GAO), asking the agency to review the decision by the US Air
Force to award a contract to a team of Northrop Grumman and European
Aeronautic Defense and Space Company (EADS) to replace the aging fleet
of KC-135 aerial refueling tankers.

"Our analysis of the data presented by the Air Force shows that this
competition was seriously flawed and resulted in the selection of the
wrong airplane for the war fighter," said Mark McGraw, vice president
and program manager, Boeing Tanker Programs. "We have fundamental
concerns with the Air Force's evaluation, and we are exercising
our right under the process for a GAO review of the decision to ensure
that the process by which America's next refueling tanker is selected
is fair and results in the best choice for the U.S. war fighters and
taxpayers."

Following an internal analysis of data presented at a March 7
debriefing on the decision, Boeing concluded what began as an effort
by the Air Force to run a fair, open and transparent competition
evolved into a process replete with irregularities. These
irregularities placed Boeing at a competitive disadvantage throughout
this competition, the American plane maker asserts, and even penalized
Boeing for offering a commercial-derivative airplane with lower costs
and risks and greater protection for troops.

"It is clear that the original mission for these tankers -- that is, a
medium-sized tanker where cargo and passenger transport was a
secondary consideration -- became lost in the process, and the Air
Force ended up with an oversized tanker," McGraw said. "As the
requirements were changed to accommodate the bigger, less capable
Airbus plane, evaluators arbitrarily discounted the significant
strengths of the KC-767, compromising on operational capabilities,
including the ability to refuel a more versatile array of aircraft
such as the V-22 and even the survivability of the tanker during the
most dangerous missions it will encounter."

Boeing is asking the GAO to examine several factors in the
competition, that it states were fundamentally flawed: The contract
award and subsequent reports ignore the fact that in reality Boeing
and the Northrop/EADS team were assigned identical ratings across all
five evaluation factors: 1) Mission Capability, 2) Risk, 3) Past
Performance, 4) Cost/Price and 5) Integrated Fleet Aerial Refueling
Assessment. Indeed, an objective review of the data as measured
against the Request for Proposal shows that Boeing had the better
offering in terms of Most Probable Life Cycle Costs, lower risk and
better capability.

Flaws in this procurement process resulted in a significant gap
between the aircraft the Air Force originally set out to procure -- a
medium-sized tanker to replace the KC-135, as stated in the RFP -- and
the much larger Airbus A330-based tanker it ultimately selected. It is
clear that frequent and often unstated changes during the course of
the competition -- including manipulation of evaluation criteria and
application of unstated and unsupported priorities among the key
system requirements -- resulted in selection of an aircraft that was
radically different from that sought by the Air Force and inferior to
the Boeing 767 tanker offering.

Because of the way the Air Force treated Boeing's cost/price data, the
company was effectively denied its right to compete with a commercial-
derivative product, contrary not only to the RFP but also to federal
statute and regulation. The Air Force refused to accept Boeing's
Federal Acquisition Regulation-compliant cost/price information,
developed over 50 years of building commercial aircraft, and instead
treated the company's airframe cost/price information as if it were a
military-defense product. Not only did this flawed
decision deny the government the manufacturing benefits of Boeing's
unique in-line production capability, subjecting the Air Force to
higher risk, but it also resulted in a distortion of the price at
which Boeing actually offered to produce tankers.

In evaluating Past Performance, Boeing claims the Air Force ignored
the fact that Boeing -- with 75 years of success in producing tankers
-- is the only company in the world that has produced a commercial-
derivative tanker equipped with an operational aerial-refueling boom.
Rather than consider recent performance assessments that should have
enhanced Boeing's position, the Air Force focused on relatively
insignificant details on "somewhat relevant" Northrop/EADS programs to
the disadvantage of Boeing's experience.

"Boeing offered an aircraft that provided the best value and
performance for the stated mission at the lowest risk and lowest life
cycle cost," said McGraw. "We did bring our A-game to this
competition. Regrettably, irregularities in the process resulted in an
inconsistent and prejudicial application of procurement practices and
the selection of a higher-risk, higher-cost airplane that's less
suitable for the mission as defined by the Air Force's own Request For
Proposal. We are only asking that the rules of fair competition be
followed."

For better or for worse, they're gonna do it. Boeing announced early
Tuesday it will file a formal protest later today, asking the
Government Accountability Office (GAO) to review the decision by the
US Air Force to award a contract to a team of Northrop Grumman and
European Aeronautic Defense and Space Company (EADS) to replace aerial
refueling tankers.

"Our team has taken a very close look at the tanker decision and found
serious flaws in the process that we believe warrant appeal," said Jim
McNerney, Boeing chairman, president and chief executive officer.
"This is an extraordinary step rarely taken by our company, and one we
take very seriously."

Following a debriefing on the decision by the Air Force on March 7,
Boeing officials spent three days reviewing the Air Force case for its
tanker award. Boeing states a "rigorous" analysis of the Air Force
evaluation that resulted in the Northrop/EADS contract led the
American plane maker to the conclusion that a protest was necessary.

"Based upon what we have seen, we continue to believe we submitted the
most capable, lowest risk, lowest Most Probable Life Cycle Cost
airplane as measured against the Air Force's Request for Proposal,"
McNerney said. "We look forward to the GAO's review of the decision."

Boeing said it would provide additional details of its case in
conjunction with the protest filing on Tuesday. Stay tuned.

FMI: www.boeing.com, www.globaltanker.com

On Mar 12, 10:12*am, AJ wrote:

Boeing Formally Protests US Air Force Tanker Contract Award
Says KC-X RFP Differs From Criteria Cited In Going with KC-45A


snip long story on Boeing's whining...

This shouldn't surprise anyone familiary with gov't contracts. With
the huge $$ at stake in the KC-X program I expected the loser
(whomever that would be) to appeal. Apparently that's the automatic
response to losing a big contract now. Sikorsky and Lockheed Martin/
Agusta Westland did the same when the USAF chose Boeing's HH-47 for
the CSAR-X program.

On Mar 12, 4:43 pm, john smith wrote:
I suspect that if the government went back to the competitive flyoff for
determining the winner (as was done with the F-16/F-17; F-22/F23;
F-32/F-35) we would see a clear cut winner.

Let Boeing and EADS build two or three copies of each at their own
expense, let the Air Force crews test them out for 6-/12-months then let
the chips fall where they may.

Airbus would win since their design actually exists and is flying
today while Boeing's is just a proposal.

Don't you have that backward? Boeing's 767 tanker is flying in Italy (and
another country. Japan?) today and has been for a couple of years. EADS has
never built a tanker.

Bob Gardner

"xyzzy" wrote in message
...
On Mar 12, 4:43 pm, john smith wrote:
I suspect that if the government went back to the competitive flyoff for
determining the winner (as was done with the F-16/F-17; F-22/F23;
F-32/F-35) we would see a clear cut winner.

Let Boeing and EADS build two or three copies of each at their own
expense, let the Air Force crews test them out for 6-/12-months then let
the chips fall where they may.

Airbus would win since their design actually exists and is flying
today while Boeing's is just a proposal.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/KC-767

"xyzzy" wrote in message
...
On Mar 12, 4:43 pm, john smith wrote:
I suspect that if the government went back to the competitive flyoff for
determining the winner (as was done with the F-16/F-17; F-22/F23;
F-32/F-35) we would see a clear cut winner.

Let Boeing and EADS build two or three copies of each at their own
expense, let the Air Force crews test them out for 6-/12-months then let
the chips fall where they may.

Airbus would win since their design actually exists and is flying
today while Boeing's is just a proposal.

Bob Gardner wrote:

EADS has never built a tanker.

Really ?

You seem to be confused.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Airbus_A330_MRTT

A330 MRTT / KC-30B
Type Aerial refuelling and transport
Manufacturer EADS (Airbus)
Maiden flight 15 June 2007

Graham

Bob Gardner wrote:

EADS has never built a tanker.

Really ?

You seem to be confused.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Airbus_A330_MRTT

A330 MRTT / KC-30B
Type Aerial refuelling and transport
Manufacturer EADS (Airbus)
Maiden flight 15 June 2007

Graham

So they have eight months of tanker experience (that may be generous)
versus how many DECADES for Boeing?

Ron Lee

I assume that your diatribe was aimed at the OP, not at me. Another point in
Boeing's favor: they have a 767 production line and skilled workers in
Everett right now...EADS would have to build an assembly plant in Mobile and
hire aerospace workers from......???

Bob Gardner

"Ron Lee" wrote in message
...
Bob Gardner wrote:

EADS has never built a tanker.

Really ?

You seem to be confused.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Airbus_A330_MRTT

A330 MRTT / KC-30B
Type Aerial refuelling and transport
Manufacturer EADS (Airbus)
Maiden flight 15 June 2007

Graham

So they have eight months of tanker experience (that may be generous)
versus how many DECADES for Boeing?

Ron Lee

"Bob Gardner" wrote:

I assume that your diatribe was aimed at the OP, not at me. Another point in
Boeing's favor: they have a 767 production line and skilled workers in
Everett right now...EADS would have to build an assembly plant in Mobile and
hire aerospace workers from......???

Maiden flight 15 June 2007

Graham

So they have eight months of tanker experience (that may be generous)
versus how many DECADES for Boeing?

Ron Lee



You are correct. June 2007 to Feb 2008 is about eight months plus or
minus.

Ron Lee

On Mar 12, 8:54*pm, "Bob Gardner" wrote:

Another point in Boeing's favor: they have a 767 production line and skilled workers in
Everett right now...EADS would have to build an assembly plant in Mobile and
hire aerospace workers from......???


Boeing definitely has an advantage there, but it's amazing to me that
they based their tanker on the 767-200 and not the stretch 767-300 or
-400. One of the USAF requirements was the flexibility of the aircraft
to be used as a transport, augmenting the C-5 & C-17 fleet. Now with
over half the C-5s being retired (the C-5As) the extra lift from the
KC-45A will be significant. Boeing even considered a tanker/transport
version of the 777 but decided against it.