This is a breaking story and will be updated as details become available.
GAO Statement
"We recommend that the Air Force reopen discussions with the offerors, obtain revised proposals, re-evaluate the revised proposals and make a new source selection decision, consistent with our decision."
UPDATE:
The GAO sustained Boeing's tanker protest on seven different criteria. Explained in English. Follow the link below.
GAO Statement
"We recommend that the Air Force reopen discussions with the offerors, obtain revised proposals, re-evaluate the revised proposals and make a new source selection decision, consistent with our decision."
UPDATE:
The GAO sustained Boeing's tanker protest on seven different criteria. Explained in English. Follow the link below.
1. The USAF used a different ruler than the one Boeing thought they were using.
The Air Force, in making the award decision, did not assess the relative merits of the proposals in accordance with the evaluation criteria identified in the solicitation, which provided for a relative order of importance for the various technical requirements. The agency also did not take into account the fact that Boeing offered to satisfy more non-mandatory technical "requirements" than Northrop Grumman, even though the solicitation expressly requested offerors to satisfy as many of these technical "requirements" as possible.2. The USAF said "no points for extra credit" then awarded extra credit points to Northrop.
The Air Force's use as a key discriminator that Northrop Grumman proposed to exceed a key performance parameter objective relating to aerial refueling to a greater degree than Boeing violated the solicitation's evaluation provision that "no consideration will be provided for exceeding [key performance parameter] objectives."3. Northrop Grumman didn't adequately show that they could refuel all the Air Force's fixed wing aircraft.
The protest record did not demonstrate the reasonableness of the Air Force's determination that Northrop Grumman's proposed aerial refueling tanker could refuel all current Air Force fixed-wing tanker-compatible receiver aircraft in accordance with current Air Force procedures, as required by the solicitation.4. The USAF told Boeing they met a key requirement, but later decided they hadn't fully met it and didn't tell them while still talking to Northrop about it.
The Air Force conducted misleading and unequal discussions with Boeing, by informing Boeing that it had fully satisfied a key performance parameter objective relating to operational utility, but later determined that Boeing had only partially met this objective, without advising Boeing of this change in the agency's assessment and while continuing to conduct discussions with Northrop Grumman relating to its satisfaction of the same key performance parameter objective.5. The USAF interpreted Northrop's refusal to meet a specific maintenance requirement as an "administrative oversight" when it may not have been.
The Air Force unreasonably determined that Northrop Grumman's refusal to agree to a specific solicitation requirement that it plan and support the agency to achieve initial organic depot-level maintenance within 2 years after delivery of the first full-rate production aircraft was an "administrative oversight," and improperly made award, despite this clear exception to a material solicitation requirement.6. The USAF made errors in determining how much the tankers would cost over their life and later admitted that the correct formula had given the advantage to Boeing.
The Air Force's evaluation of military construction costs in calculating the offerors' most probable life cycle costs for their proposed aircraft was unreasonable, where the agency during the protest conceded that it made a number of errors in evaluation that, when corrected, result in Boeing displacing Northrop Grumman as the offeror with the lowest most probable life cycle cost; where the evaluation did not account for the offerors' specific proposals; and where the calculation of military construction costs based on a notional (hypothetical) plan was not reasonably supported.7. The USAF used their own metrics to estimate Boeing's cost and also couldn't prove that their estimates would produce reliable results.
The Air Force improperly increased Boeing's estimated non-recurring engineering costs in calculating that firm's most probable life cycle costs to account for risk associated with Boeing's failure to satisfactorily explain the basis for how it priced this cost element, where the agency had not found that the proposed costs for that element were unrealistically low. In addition, the Air Force's use of a simulation model to determine Boeing's probable non-recurring engineering costs was unreasonable, because the Air Force used as data inputs in the model the percentage of cost growth associated with weapons systems at an overall program level and there was no indication that these inputs would be a reliable predictor of anticipated growth in Boeing's non-recurring engineering costs.
on June 18, 2008 3:00 PM | Reply
In light of the GAO ruling, the USAF must reopen the bidding process asap. Although the GAO is non-binding, theres little chance of the KC-30 selection making it past congress.
on June 18, 2008 5:45 PM | Reply
it's sure that Boeing doesn't know how to lose... LOL!!!!
it's better that they make better aircraft than complaining at every time he loses a bid!
on June 18, 2008 6:22 PM | Reply
How could they make those mistakes?
on June 18, 2008 6:34 PM | Reply
It should be pointed out that the GAO rejected some components of Boeing's protest. Even so, they believe that Boeing's overall argument has merit.
on June 18, 2008 7:38 PM | Reply
One question is crucial - would the KC-767 have been selected if the GAOs findings had been correctly applied in the selection process?
on June 18, 2008 9:49 PM | Reply
"it's sure that Boeing doesn't know how to lose... LOL!!!!
it's better that they make better aircraft than complaining at every time he loses a bid!"
Given that the GAO found Boeing's protest had merit, I don't it is really worthwhile knocking them for making that protest...
on June 19, 2008 12:23 AM | Reply
The evaluation team should be moved to waste management and The Gen in charge of this feasco fired. I would bet the Gen. is a fighter jockey. Those actions are clearly fraud on USAF's part. Where was the DOD director of procurement in the review of the original award. Perhaps SECDEF should fire some additional people on his staff.
Gates, your air force is out of control.
on June 19, 2008 12:50 AM | Reply
If you believe, as I do, that military procurement is about as legit as pro wrestling, then this whole fiasco makes sense. AF was supposed to give this thing to EADS - least costly means of making a huge overture to the French. Very little tech transfer or loss and not that much pain for giant Boeing. Only hitch was some in the service didn't go for it and slipped in a few oops. Think about it: all those months with review upon review and i-crossing and T-dotting and they STILL screw up this badly? I don't think so.
on June 19, 2008 12:16 PM | Reply
I personally crewed a KC-135 in the 70's and they are the best built Aircraft in the World
thats why they are still flying today.
If it's not Boeing, I'm not going....
The Air Force tried it's best to disregard the facts and get the Airbus. They apparently don't
care if the jobs got to Foreigners.
Thank you GAO for support of American Jobs and
American Aerospace. There is still none better than a Boeing..BTW..ONLY Boeing has developed the future. Can you say "Unattended Refueling"...
on June 19, 2008 12:26 PM | Reply
Finally..Someone is standing up for America.
GAO is correct..AIRBUS no more...
How can anyone stand-by and let them ship parts to the US and then assemble them here on our turf...That is still a European Aircraft.
Gooo Boeing..Gooo America....Gooo Home Airbus..
on June 19, 2008 12:48 PM | Reply
I was thinking that one of the US economy foundation was market openess. I think I just forget the small footnote that are behind some of the facts: do as I say not as I do.
Please avoid comment about Job going to foreigners. You say nothing when Boeing put 70% of them outside of your country for the B787.
And for sure Boeing would not have become what it is (a great aircraft manufacturer) without having sold aicraft WORLDWIDE.
Franck, european guy, Airbus employee and aircraft lover.
on June 19, 2008 2:32 PM | Reply
Franck.
You confuse Airline Manufacturing with Defense of our Country. This is NOT just a B787 but a vital piece of America's Defense. (and NO we are NOT happy about the B787 Jobs going outside our country )but we understand that.
BUT..Market openess stops when the product is required to defend my Country and my children from attack.
I think both Aircraft are equal in quality.
The difference then will be American Jobs or Jobs in Europe.
Please note that this product will not be sold WORLWIDE and is required for U.S. only.
on June 19, 2008 4:04 PM | Reply
To those arguing that the contract should go to Boeing on the basis that it is an American company, and that basis alone, let me pose a question: If there was a competition, and a foreign offering was clearly and demonstrably superior, would you support the selection of the clearly inferior option due to it being American, or the superior option to ensure the American military remains as well equipped as possible?
(No, I'm not saying this is the case in the KC-X program - clearly the two aircraft came up fairly closely matched overall, and for the record I would like to see the 767 win)
on June 19, 2008 6:29 PM | Reply
All very interesting, but the 767 cannot meet one of the most important performance requirements, namely to be able to take off from a 7,000 ft. runway at MTOW.
Isnt this a little bit important?
on June 19, 2008 7:42 PM | Reply
To Anonymous.....
If there was a competition, and a foreign offering was clearly and demonstrably superior, would you support the selection of the clearly inferior option due to it being American.
Response......
IF it was clearly Superior, then yes..
But I worry what would happen if we depend on a foreign supplier and that supply gets shut off..Like bankrupt or parts shortage...Is your superior product still operational..No..We should never depend on someone else for something so vital...
Is a 7000 ft runway important.??
I flew on the orginal KC-135 that used old J-57 engines and used consideraly more runway than 7000 ft and we went all over the world...
To me that's not as critical as keeping the control of the Supply of Manufacturing here not overseas.
Why is that such a problem.??
on June 19, 2008 7:58 PM | Reply
After a search on the Net...The KC-45 appears clearly superior...I stand corrected...
http://blog.al.com/pr/2007/07/kc30_comparison_chart.html
on June 19, 2008 10:21 PM | Reply
787fan, tell me how you would have any more control over the fuselage from Japan and the empanage from Italy for the 767 tanker than you would for the parts from France for the KC 45? All the people being kept employed by the 767 line at Boeing would be much better deployed on the 787 second line.
Should the contest still go the way of Northrop and your government protectionists block it, then I would love to see other countries stop buying your military products. I bet other countries spend significantly more on American products than the other way around. Talk about shooting yourself in the foot....
on June 20, 2008 7:04 AM | Reply
crying,
There's plenty you can criticise about Boeing, but you're wrong on that front. Boeing rarely protests the outcomes of such competitions. I read, but unfortunatly can't find a citation right now, that it had been quite a few years since the last time they protested. The stakes on this one are higher than most though.
Boeing frequently has competitions it wins protested against, such as the CSAR-X combat search and rescue helicopter which has been awarded to Boeing several times and then protested several times.
To 787 fan, think about where that data comes from - a blog about Alabama. The KC-30 is superior in several (but not all) of those aspects because it is a larger aircraft, but that is not what the request for proposals asked for. I'm sure that graph conveniently leaves out the data on areas where the 767 is superior.
on June 20, 2008 2:45 PM | Reply
"Please note that this product will not be sold WORLWIDE and is required for U.S. only."
This product has been sold outside the country
already. Japan has taken delivery of the 767 tanker. Italy has chosen the tanker also.
http://www.boeing.com/news/releases/2008/q1/080219e_nr.html
http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/business/30685_tanker10.shtml
on June 20, 2008 11:59 PM | Reply
It doesn't give me a warm feeling that an aircraft that we must depend on is going to be assembled at a facility that hasn't been built yet and a workforce that hasn't been hired yet and it will all come together and life will be wonderful. Instead of an assembly line that has produced HUNDREDS by the SAME workforce..
Eric..**As far as sold WORLDWIDE..You call 4 Aircraft WORLDWIDE...OTFLMAO..That's On The Floor Laughing My A## Off...Get real..
Protectionist...No..Worried about the quality of the product..Yes..NONE of the other Airbus Tankers for Britian for example, will be produced that way. Does anyone REALLY think that you can just hire a bunch of guys and produce a quality Aircraft...OTFLMAO..again..
on June 21, 2008 1:23 AM | Reply
And the A330 MRTT (aka KC-30) has been sold to Australia, UK and Middle East.
on June 21, 2008 4:47 PM | Reply
On March 28, 2002, the US Air Force selected Boeing's KC-767 stating they "have clearly demonstrated that only the Boeing Corp. can currently meet the requirements".[2]
The USAF was listed as giving four main reasons for this selection of the KC-767 over Airbus's KC-330 (aircraft's name at the time).[2]
""The KC-330 increase in size does not bring with it a commensurate increase in available air refueling offload,..." (USAF quote)
The KC-330 "..presents a higher-risk technical approach and a less preferred financial arrangement." (USAF quote)
" the size difference of the EADS-proposed KC-330 results in an 81 percent larger ground footprint compared to the KC-135E it would replace, whereas the Boeing 767 is only 29 percent larger." (USAF quote)
The KC-330 requires "..greater infrastructure investment and dramatically limits the aircraft's ability to operate effectively in worldwide deployment." (Summary of Quote by MAT magazine)
on June 22, 2008 4:58 AM | Reply
@787fan:
You know that that statement was brought by Boeing!
No need to discuss this special part of history further, after all, it all comes down to politics, then (ask Senator McCain, who gets a lot of public support from that story) and now:
Did anyone think there could have been an other outcome of this inquiry? In reopening the process a final selection is put back to after the elections and therefor can have no negative impact on any of the campaigns of the supporters in both camps. After all the GAO is Congress territory.
on June 24, 2008 3:31 PM | Reply
There is no requirement for the new tanker to take off from a 7000' runway at MTOW... this is a bogus arguement
on June 27, 2008 5:41 PM | Reply
I really wonder why Boeing didn't pitch some sort of 787 derivative to get the tanker fielded with the latest technology. The KC-135 had contemporary technology when it was fielded yet neither of the two candidate planes in this competition is competitive in the commercial field.
Why start out with a disadvantage ?