Quantcast

Boeing loses the tanker deal!!

$tinkle

Expert on blowing
Feb 12, 2003
14,591
5
^^^ & when i am installed as jack-booted grammar nazi, you'll play eliza doolittle to my professor henry higgins.
 

$tinkle

Expert on blowing
Feb 12, 2003
14,591
5
confusing comic:
- boeing is a pc
- NG is fabio
- AF is a bunch of transgendered pussies
 

N8 v2.0

Not the sharpest tool in the shed
Oct 18, 2002
11,007
149
The Cleft of Venus
now it's McCain's fault...
Pelosi points finger at McCain on Boeing
By James Politi and Demetri Sevastopulo in Washington
Published: March 7 2008 02:00 | Last updated: March 7 2008 02:00


The controversy over the Pentagon decision to award a $35bn refuelling tanker contract to EADS spilled into the presidential race yesterday, when a senior Democrat suggested that John McCain, the Republican nominee, was responsible for the deal being "outsourced" to a European company.

Nancy Pelosi, the Democratic House speaker, said Boeing had been on course to supply the US Air Force with tankers until Mr McCain "intervened".

"My understanding is that it was on course for Boeing before. I mean, the thought was that it would be a domestic supplier for it," Ms Pelosi told reporters.

"Senator McCain intervened, and now we have a situation where the contract may be - this work may be outsourced."

The air force originally chose Boeing to supply it with 100 tankers. But Congress cancelled the deal after it emerged that Darleen Druyun, a former top air force acquisitions official, had held illegal job discussions with Boeing while still negotiating the deal. Ms Druyun admitted boosting the value of the deal to help Boeing.

Mr McCain has pointed to his aggressive investigation into the Boeing deal as evidence that he is willing to stand up to powerful corporate interests.

The tanker scandal claimed the career of former Boeing chief executive Phil Condit. Ms Druyun and Mike Sears, Boeing's former chief financial officer, were sent to jail.

The suggestion by Ms Pelosi came as Boeing supporters on Capitol Hill opened a new line of attack against the deal, which ultimately could be worth more than $100bn as the air force replaces its entire fleet of about 600 in-flight refuelling tankers.

Pat Roberts, a Republican senator from Kansas, where Boeing has a strong presence, claimed the decision to award the deal to EADS and Northrop Grumman, its US partner, ran counter to US trade policy.

Mr Roberts said the decision "defies common sense" because the US was pursuing a subsidies case against Airbus, a subsidiary of EADS, at the World Trade Organisation.

"This is an outrage. It truly makes me question our trade agenda," the Kansas senator told the Senate finance committee.

Mr Roberts' attack follows a spate of criticism in Congress. The decision stunned most analysts, who expected Boeing, which has supplied the US military with in-flight refuelling tankers for five decades, to win.

Boeing will have 10 days to lodge a protest with the Government Accountability Office, the oversight arm of Congress, after it receives an air force briefing.
 

DRB

unemployed bum
Oct 24, 2002
15,243
0
Watchin' you. Writing it all down.
http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/boeingaerospace/2004263690_boeinghearing06.html

During a contentious hearing Wednesday over the Air Force tanker deal awarded to Airbus parent EADS and Northrop Grumman, Rep. Norm Dicks said the Pentagon changed contract specifications to favor that team's bid over Boeing's so they wouldn't drop out of the contest.

Waving documents, the Bremerton Democrat asked Air Force acquisitions director Sue Payton whether she had made changes "at the last minute" to the air-lift standards in the Request for Proposal (RFP) after the bidding process started Jan. 30, 2007 for the $40 billion contract.

"I urge you not to say 'No,' " Dicks said, adding, "I have the letter. You did it."

Payton, the main witness before the House Appropriations Committee, said any alterations to the criteria were not changes to the "requirements" in the RFP after it was formally issued.

Committee Chairman Rep. John Murtha, D-Pa., said he is considering legislation to hold up the tanker contract while members review it for bias toward France-based Airbus and for its impact on the U.S. economy and unemployment.

"All this committee has to do is stop the funding for the program," Murtha said.


Letters between Boeing and the Air Force dated March 2007 indicate the Pentagon raised the strength levels of the takeoff ramps for the tankers and shortened the amount of wing space needed between planes while they are parked.

This gave Airbus, with a heavier and wider aircraft, a better chance in the competition, Dicks said.

Boeing "strenuously objected" to the changes, he said. The company both wrote and called the Pentagon to complain.
 

MMike

A fowl peckerwood.
Sep 5, 2001
18,222
86
just sittin' here drinkin' scotch
The question needs to be asked, why didn't Boeing base their submission on the 777 rather than the 767? MMike?
According to what Boeing is saying, the Pentagon told them that the 777 was too big. They they moved the goalposts on them. Boeing contends that had they known that the something A330-sized was what they wanted, then OBVIOUSLY they would have quoted a 777....

It was in the Seattle times a couple of days ago
 

$tinkle

Expert on blowing
Feb 12, 2003
14,591
5
don't poke the bear; he's been watching lots of KITH & getting his courage up
 

valve bouncer

Master Dildoist
Feb 11, 2002
7,791
36
Japan
According to what Boeing is saying, the Pentagon told them that the 777 was too big. They they moved the goalposts on them. Boeing contends that had they known that the something A330-sized was what they wanted, then OBVIOUSLY they would have quoted a 777....

It was in the Seattle times a couple of days ago
Despite all my bluster the T7 is, in my admittedly dilletantish opinion, the finest commercial airplane there is and would be probably the best option. Without looking at the specs I thought the A330 was basically the Airbus answer to the 767, about the same size as far as I can tell. The T7 is quite a bit bigger.
 

MMike

A fowl peckerwood.
Sep 5, 2001
18,222
86
just sittin' here drinkin' scotch
Despite all my bluster the T7 is, in my admittedly dilletantish opinion, the finest commercial airplane there is and would be probably the best option. Without looking at the specs I thought the A330 was basically the Airbus answer to the 767, about the same size as far as I can tell. The T7 is quite a bit bigger.
I honestly don't know enough about the 330 to make an A-B comparison. There are also many flavours of each model....767-200, -300 and -400.....777-200, -300, -300ER....Same goes for the A330....so who knows what was being proposed?
 

valve bouncer

Master Dildoist
Feb 11, 2002
7,791
36
Japan
Aaaah, the 777-300ER....massive airplane, got me f*cked how fat people can get to the back of it without oxygen.
 

Westy

the teste
Nov 22, 2002
38,636
5,358
Sleazattle
Boeing needs to make the 666. Flat black and comes with afterburners to char any 'Busses behind it on taxiways.
 

MMike

A fowl peckerwood.
Sep 5, 2001
18,222
86
just sittin' here drinkin' scotch
http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/ABPub/2008/03/10/2004273079.pdf

Response to Press Reports Regarding KC-X Following the Air Force’s KC-X decision announcement, press articles have appeared quoting aerospace experts who purport to have insights into why the KC-767 was not chosen. These articles allege that “Northrop Grumman's victory was not a close outcome” and that “Boeing didn't manage to beat Northrop in a single measure of merit.”
Nothing could be further from the truth.
Factor 1 -- Mission Capability

• Boeing scored “Blue (Exceptional) and Low Risk” in this area – the highest possible rating in the most critical “factor” in this competition

• The Air Force assessed Boeing as meeting or exceeding all Key Performance Parameters (thresholds and objectives)

• Indeed, the Air Force evaluated Boeing as having significantly more strengths (discriminators) than the competitor

Therefore, it follows that Boeing 1) received the highest rating possible, 2) met or exceeded all KPP thresholds and objectives, and 3) was graded as having significantly more strengths than the competition
Factor 2 -- Proposal Risk

• Boeing’s proposal risk was rated “Low”

• Surprisingly, the competitor was also rated as low despite the high risk associated with its evolving multi-country, multi-facility, multi-build approach as contrasted with Boeing’s integrated approach to design, build, and certification in existing facilities with experienced personnel

Therefore, it follows that Boeing 1) was low risk, 2) had an integrated and lean build approach, and 3) the competition should have been assessed greater risk for its complex and unproven multi-country build approach.
Factor 3 -- Past Performance

• Boeing’s past performance was rated “Satisfactory”

• Northrop Grumman/Airbus was also rated satisfactory, despite having no relevant tanker experience and having never delivered a tanker with a refueling boom

• Press reports indicate that some of the most relevant programs for Airbus (the KC-30 for Australia and the A-400M) are both significantly over cost and behind schedule

Therefore, it follows that Boeing 1) had satisfactory past performance, and 2) relevant Airbus programs like the Australian KC-30 tanker and the A-400M are struggling.
1 Response to Press Reports Regarding KC-X
Factor 4 -- Cost/Price

• As determined by the RFP, “Most Probable Life Cycle Cost” (MPLCC) was the only measure of cost to be assessed

• The Air Force described the cost visibility information Boeing provided as “unprecedented” and rated Boeing’s MPLCC cost “Reasonable,” “Balanced,” and meeting “Realism” criteria – all the highest ratings a competitor can receive

• As recognized by the Air Force itself in 2002, the significantly bigger A-330 would demand a greater infrastructure investment with dramatically lower operational effectiveness

Therefore, it follows that 1) Boeing’s MPLCC was judged by the Air Force to be realistic,
2) Boeing’s submitted MPLCC were significantly lower than the Air Force adjusted MPLCC costs and, 3) the Air Force adjustments to Boeing MPLCC costs effectively deprived Boeing of the benefits associated with its integrated in-line production approach.
Factor 5 -- Integrated Assessment

• The model used by the Air Force to judge tanker “fleet effectiveness” was developed and is maintained by Northrop Grumman

• The mission scenarios and operational constraints to be used with the model issued in the draft RFP to judge tanker “fleet effectiveness,” were based upon the 2005 Air Mobility Command “Mobility Capabilities Study” (MCS).

• Before and after the RFP release, changes to the model’s parameters occurred so as to allow a “greater variety of aircraft to be considered” – in essence to allow larger aircraft to compete. However the Air Force promised that it would tie the numerical output of the model back to real-world constraints by weighing “insights and observations.”

• The inherent complexities of the model have made its results inconsistent and un-repeatable and its overall operational relevance questionable;

Therefore, 1) Northrop Grumman’s experience with the model was an inherent advantage,
2) changes were made to ensure Airbus’ larger aircraft worked in the model, but there is little evidence that the Air Force used “insights and observations” to tie the model back to real world operational constraints and 3) the model’s accuracy and relevance are debatable.
Conclusion
Boeing submitted a strong and extremely competitive proposal. In assessing the critical factor of Mission Capability, Boeing was given the highest ratings and evaluated by the Air Force as having significantly more strengths (discriminators) than Northrop Grumman/Airbus. The Air Force modified the Northrop Grumman analytical model before and after issuance of the RFP to enable competition and to allow a larger tanker to compete. In the end, the “leveling” of the competition and subjective assessments of the two proposals seems to have led the Air Force to select a larger, more expensive and operationally limited KC-30 tanker despite the fact that both Air Force requirements and the KC-X RFP call for a medium-sized tanker to replace the
KC-135.
2
 

Toshi

Harbinger of Doom
Oct 23, 2001
28,978
2,834
MMike, what's your take on the claims of this last press release?
 

DRB

unemployed bum
Oct 24, 2002
15,243
0
Watchin' you. Writing it all down.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/25607574/

Boeing Co. and Northrop Grumman Corp. will submit new offers for a disputed $35 billion Air Force tanker contract, and the Pentagon will pick a winner by the end of the year.

Defense Secretary Robert Gates said Wednesday that his office — not the Air Force — will oversee the competition between Boeing and the team of Northrop and Airbus parent European Aeronautic Defence and Space Co.

The plan, which hands control to the Pentagon acquisition chief John Young and sets up a dedicated source-selection committee, shows that senior civilians at the Defense Department have lost confidence in the Air Force's ability to manage the contract.
The Government Accountability Office last month detailed "significant errors" the Air Force made in the original award to the Northrop team. The GAO said Chicago-based Boeing might have won the contract had the service not made mistakes in evaluating the bids.

The Pentagon will conduct a limited rebid that looks only at eight issues where government auditors found problems in the initial process, Gates said.
 

DRB

unemployed bum
Oct 24, 2002
15,243
0
Watchin' you. Writing it all down.
http://www.foxbusiness.com/story/markets/industries/government/pentagon-cancels--billion-air-force-tanker-contract-competition/

apparently the air force got confused and decided to trash the whole thing and start over.
The Defense Department has cancelled the $35 billion request for tanker contract proposals, once again delaying the competition between Boeing and Northrop Grumman to rebuild the aging fleet of Air Force refueling tankers.

The office of Congressman Norm Dicks's, D-Wash., who is vice chairman of the Appropriations Subcommittee on Defense, has confirmed with FOX Business that the request was cancelled, likely meaning that the competition will end with no winners. The competition has now gone on for seven years, and includes plans to build 179 planes.

Northrop Grumman (NOC), which had partnered with Airbus parent European Aeronautic Defence and Space Co., had previously been awarded the contract, but decided to re-bid the contract after Boeing (BA) asked for six months to submit another proposal for a larger tanker aircraft. It now appears that Boeing may have all the time in the world, because the request will likely be decided by the next government administration.

This will likely prove to be an enormous boon for Boeing because Northrop Grumman had effectively won the competition. However, Northrop Grumman and Boeing will most likely go head to head in the next administration for this $40 billion contract.

The Department of Defense is expected to comment today on plans moving forward for the tanker.