• Please take a moment and update your account profile. If you have an updated account profile with basic information on why you are on Air Warriors it will help other people respond to your posts. How do you update your profile you ask?

    Go here:

    Edit Account Details and Profile

Boeing Tanker: Beans, Bullets, Oil, and politics .. and did we mention: politics ??

HeyJoe

HeyJoe

Fly Navy! ...or USMC
None
Super Moderator
Contributor
scoolbubba said:
sick burn. regardless of their shenanigans, they ought to have some kind of say in what they get...am I right?
Click to expand...

They get plenty of say. USD AT&L doesn't just pick a winner without interaction with service(s). Most of the legwork and recommendations will come from Air Force (and his staff). ALL Major Defense Acquisition Programs (MDAP) originally have decision authority at OSD level (USD AT&L is the Defense Aquisition Executive) until it is delegated to services. Not typical, but not unusual for an ACAT 1 program to revert back to DoD purview if there are contentious issues. The Air Force Acquisition Executive will be sitting in the room for sure with Mr Young.
 
picklesuit

picklesuit

Dirty Hinge
pilot
Contributor
Okay, I am admittedly uneducated in the bidding process. In college we had to get 3 bids to get a capital procurement, but if there weren't three available (i.e. the mechanical bull we spent $13,000 on) then we got what was available.

So does this mean that if only one agency wants to bid on the project, then the government cannot proceed with buying the planes? That sounds like a corporate filibuster to me. I guess I always see it as if you want to play ball, take the field, otherwise, get out of the way and let the big boys play.

So, from what I understand, this means Boeing still wants the KC-X contract, they just want to change the rules? I'm so fucking confused right now...:icon_rage
 
Uncle Fester

Uncle Fester

Robot Pimp
None
Super Moderator
Contributor
My guess would be Boeing submits a no-bid, then lets loose the lawyers again, to whit: "We no-bid because the rules weren't fair".
 
nugget61

nugget61

Active Member
pilot
Well Boeing was screwed hard the first time over - AvWeek had a good article on it a few weeks back. Maybe this time around the AF will play fair.
 
B

bert

Enjoying the real world
pilot
Contributor
nugget61 said:
Well Boeing was screwed hard the first time over - AvWeek had a good article on it a few weeks back. Maybe this time around the AF will play fair.
Click to expand...

How does

Boeing would have had a reasonable chance of winning the hotly contested U.S. Air Force refueling tanker program had the service followed its own procurement guidelines, according to the findings of the Government Accountability Office (GAO).
Click to expand...

translate to "screwed hard"? You can accuse USAF of a lot of shenanigans in the acquisitions arena, but implying that they are out to screw Boeing isn't one of them.
 
nugget61

nugget61

Active Member
pilot
bert said:
How does

[Boeing would have had a reasonable chance of winning the hotly contested U.S. Air Force refueling tanker program had the service followed its own procurement guidelines, according to the findings of the Government Accountability Office (GAO).]

translate to "screwed hard"? You can accuse USAF of a lot of shenanigans in the acquisitions arena, but implying that they are out to screw Boeing isn't one of them.
Click to expand...


Well,

The Air Force failed “to evaluate proposals in accordance with the RFP criteria and requirements and to conduct discussion in a fair and equal manner” between the bidders, GAO says. “But for these errors, we believe that Boeing would have had a substantial chance of being selected for award.”
Click to expand...
and

...the Air Force unfairly awarded extra credit to Northrop Grumman in the area of aerial refueling capability... Air Force officials cited the superior aerial refueling capability of the A330-based aircraft as one of the discriminators in the proposal’s win. GAO, however, found that both contractors were “unambiguously informed that their proposal would not receive additional consideration or credit for exceeding a KPP objective.”
Click to expand...
And I don't have the magazine with me, but in the longer article it also cited the requirement that the winning contractor had to set up a facility for the planes - and NG/EADS refused. This should have DQ them immediately, yet it did not.

That this was a $35 Billion deal and the AF decided to not play by the rules = Boeing got screwed.
 
Uncle Fester

Uncle Fester

Robot Pimp
None
Super Moderator
Contributor
Poor Boeing. Guess they should try sneaking some sweet leasing deals under the table with pet DoD officials again. I got no sympathy.

How do you mean about NorthGrumm/EADS refusing to set up a facility? Do you mean for production? Because the plant in Mobile thing has been around for a while, as I recall. It's always been discussed as a US plant being critical to EADS' chances of winning the contract.
 
nugget61

nugget61

Active Member
pilot
I didn't follow the whole lease thing, so I can't comment on that one. But as for the base, its for maitenance, not construction. From the 06/30/08 issue of AvWeek:

One of the thorniest issues for the service is a requirement to provide a plan to begin an Air Force-run depot maintenance facility for the KC-45A within two years of delivery of the first production aircraft. During the competition, the Air Force raised as a problem Northrop Grumman’s multiple failures to provide documentation to support this requirement. However, the Air Force source selection committee concluded “this was an ‘administrative oversight’ because Northrop Grumman had promised to provide the required services.”
During a hearing conducted by the GAO as part of the audit, the Air Force “admitted for the first time that Northrop Grumman’s ‘omission’ appeared to be a conscious decision.” This was later bolstered when the company admitted during a rebuttal period that its omission was “intentional,” the GAO audit finds.
Click to expand...
 
nugget61

nugget61

Active Member
pilot
A4sForever

A4sForever

BTDT OLD GUY
pilot
Contributor
Flash said:
Looks like the tanker competition won't happen until the next administration:

Absolutely friggin ridiculous. :(
Click to expand...
Like someone once said .... repeatedly .... when it comes to military procurement /basing/what have you .... it's ALWAYS politics & $$$$$.

As in .... always. :)
 
W

whitesoxnation

Well-Known Member
pilot
Contributor
Bumping this because a new RFP was released today.

I haven't read it but from reading articles it seems it favors the A330 until it comes down to the two prices having to be within 1% of each other.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top