GAO upholds Boeing Air Force tanker protest

[CommunityEditor]

WASHINGTON — Congressional investigators have upheld Boeing’s protest of a $35 billion Air Force tanker contract awarded to Northrop Grumman Corp. and Airbus parent European Aeronautic Defence and Space Co., and recommended that the service hold a new competition.

The Government Accountability Office said it found “a number of significant errors that could have affected the outcome of what was a close competition between Boeing and Northrop Grumman.”

While the GAO decision is not binding, it puts tremendous pressure on the Air Force to reopen the contract and could help Boeing capture part or all of the award. It also gives ammunition to Boeing supporters in Congress who have been seeking to block funding for the deal or force a new competition.

“Boeing and the American people are the big winners in this decision,” said Sen. Maria Cantwell, D-Wash. “The GAO criticisms were a scathing indictment of the Air Force’s process. The Air Force will have no choice but to rebid this project.”

The contract for 179 aerial refueling tankers is the first of three deals worth up to $100 billion to replace the Air Force’s entire tanker fleet over the next 30 years.


Article: http://www.airforcetimes.com/news/20...rotest_061808/

It is a shame that this came down to politics and not capability and mission,,,,,again.

Go figure that it would be Wash. that would cry the loudest. I ask how many of those politiicians have ties back to Boeing. Bottom line, Airbus makes a better product and it was good back for them to get into the market back in the late 80s to put pressure on Boeing to step up their quality.

Initially I was shocked when EADS was selected as the prime vendor for this tanker. As I dug down deeper to understand how the decision was arrived at, I became more convinced that Boeing was treated unfairly.

When it came to light that at least twice the Air Force shifted the goal posts on Boeing, and that both times the shift favored the larger EADS design, I knew the Air Force was in serious trouble. I am totally in agreement with the GAO's finding. I would have been shocked had the GAO ruled against Boeing.

Both changes in design specs favored cargo hauling over refueling, despite the initial AF contract specifying that the design was to be primarily suited for refueling and to be tailored for the most efficient tanker. Boeing had a 777 variant ready, that would have beaten the A-330 design for cargo hauling, and actually discussed it with the Air Force. But the Air Force was most clear to Boeing that a strategic tanker/hauler was not what the Air Force wanted. The Air Force wanted a medium sized tanker that could pump the most fuel for the most efficient cost of operation and logistical basing.

That is why Boeing opted for the 767 design. It is why Boeing felt very confident their design bested the EADS option based upon the A-330. The A-330 was larger, took up greatly more valuable ramp space, and costs more to operate per hour of flight. Very troubling was the second contract change, where the Air Force seemed to deliberately reduce the importance of reduced ramp space. This change negated one of the A-330's prime deficiencies and if Boeing had been given those specs initially, it would have made their 777 proposal a winning proposal.

By every measure except strategic cargo throughout, the Boeing 767 design was superior to the EADS A-330 design.

Nowhere does this account for the huge economic impact of having EADS build the aircraft. Those considerations, along with the associated domestic security issues, merely served to further strengthen the Boeing design.

Yet, the AF chose the EADS design.

I knew when this decision was made that something seemed out of place. Having crunched the numbers the worst foul then emerged. The AF chose to disregard Boeing's cost of operation numbers, choosing instead to use inflated numbers of the AF's own making! No such modification of the EADS numbers were used, and yet in the GAO review the Air Force was unable to provide any substantive justification for these changes.

In short, the Air Force changed the contract provisions twice to favor the EADS design. Then, the AF chose to degrade Boeing's numbers with no practical evidence by which to justify the move.

It seems to objective thinking people that the USAF simply wanted to punish Boeing for the previous tanker lease fiasco. It seems that the USAF was hell bent for leather to select the EADS design, and was going to change the design goals and modify the empirical data until it arrived at a formula with which to select the EADS design.

To do this to the largest domestic aircraft producer is terrible. National defense is about more than merely the strength of the military. It is also about the strength of your domestic defense industries.

All this doesn't even consider the government subsidizing which EADS enjoys, actions that are already slated to go before an international court in a case filed by the United State government! The USAF chose to completely ignore this very troubling advantage that EADS gets in the aerospace industry. Those subsidies without question allowed EADS to lower the price of its design to make it more competitive against the Boeing option.

When one adds up all these inconsistencies, it paints an ugly picture against the USAF. It seems likely this contract will become a black eye for the USAF. It may be many years before the stain wears away.

But as much as it pains me, it appears now justice has been served by the GAO, and it is time for the USAF to come clean and accept that the process was grossly unfair to Boeing.

Originally Posted by Unregistered

It is a shame that this came down to politics and not capability and mission,,,,,again.

Go figure that it would be Wash. that would cry the loudest. I ask how many of those politiicians have ties back to Boeing. Bottom line, Airbus makes a better product and it was good back for them to get into the market back in the late 80s to put pressure on Boeing to step up their quality.

Unless you are prepared to offer facts to support that opinion, I suggest you read my post and think about it some!

This wasn't even a close contest. It became close only when the USAF tweaked the numbers every which way but loose to work against Boeing. Then, and only then, did the EADS arrive at a slighly higher score.

No matter what your political views are, the losers are indeed the warfighters and the American people. This will indeed further delay the production of a tanker that is sorely needed. I don't know all the facts of who screwed this one, but the ones who will hurt the most will be the ones in uniform fighting our wars. Makes me sick.

Originally Posted by Unregistered

No matter what your political views are, the losers are indeed the warfighters and the American people. This will indeed further delay the production of a tanker that is sorely needed. I don't know all the facts of who screwed this one, but the ones who will hurt the most will be the ones in uniform fighting our wars. Makes me sick.

The Air Force is becoming a joke. First the tanker lease, then the rescue helo debacle and now this. Not to mention Moseley and Wynne getting fired and the Sec of the AF reserve Bradley under investigation. They cram the core values down our throats but forget them when they're not convenient.

I am confident the 767 is superior. I fly 767s commercially and the KC-10 in the AF Reserve. My entire career has been with tankers, KC-135s and KC-10s. Airbus be gone...And to the one who said Airbus is superior, please enlighten us as to how.

Originally Posted by Unregistered

Unless you are prepared to offer facts to support that opinion, I suggest you read my post and think about it some!

This wasn't even a close contest. It became close only when the USAF tweaked the numbers every which way but loose to work against Boeing. Then, and only then, did the EADS arrive at a slighly higher score.

As the post below this one states. The real loser is the warfighter. Now long will it take before funding is granted. Then added on testing. Then add on cost overruns. Then add more testing. So when will the actual tanker hit the tarmac? No one knows. If we are going to give all the marbles to an American company then why bid it? Why not have the government build and design their own weapons? Because in the end, everyone will complain. Of coure EADS is going to complain now. They met the specifications. And as for the facts, Boeing and everyone else knew what they Air Force wanted. It had been out there for a long time the new Tanker was going to be used to carry cargo to offset the shortage of C-17s. It was not a secret. Besides didn't Boeing have a shot at this one time before and got caught with their hands in the cookie jar with Drunyan. So go cry that river to someone else. The Air Force was stuck in a position of NOT giving it to Boeing. It is like your child getting caught cheating on a test but they still want the good grade after they get caught. Personally, I think Boeing should have been banned for rebidding on the Tanker project period. I know the first one was for a lease and not outright purchase. They cheated, they got caught they should pay the price. Only when politicians stop playing games with the military will they actually be able to do their job and that is to protect and defend the people.

Originally Posted by Unregistered

As the post below this one states. The real loser is the warfighter. Now long will it take before funding is granted. Then added on testing. Then add on cost overruns. Then add more testing. So when will the actual tanker hit the tarmac? No one knows. If we are going to give all the marbles to an American company then why bid it? Why not have the government build and design their own weapons? Because in the end, everyone will complain. Of course EADS is going to complain now. They met the specifications. And as for the facts, Boeing and everyone else knew what they Air Force wanted. It had been out there for a long time the new Tanker was going to be used to carry cargo to offset the shortage of C-17s. It was not a secret. Besides didn't Boeing have a shot at this one time before and got caught with their hands in the cookie jar with Drunyan. So go cry that river to someone else. The Air Force was stuck in a position of NOT giving it to Boeing. It is like your child getting caught cheating on a test but they still want the good grade after they get caught. Personally, I think Boeing should have been banned for rebidding on the Tanker project period. I know the first one was for a lease and not outright purchase. They cheated, they got caught they should pay the price. Only when politicians stop playing games with the military will they actually be able to do their job and that is to protect and defend the people.

Bull!

The warfighter will be the loser only if an inferior aircraft is chosen.

Let me add to my previous two posts. There are other details that bear considerably on why the Boeing design is superior.

It gets down to basics that a pilot will appreciate. The A-330 reflects a computer perspective. Boeing aircraft reflect a pilot perspective. Want proof?

The control stick for the A-330 returns to a neutral setting when aircraft control is transferred from the left to the right seat, and vice-versa, or when the autopilot is disconnected. This is no big deal in civilian airline flying. But it is huge in military flying and especially huge in aerial refueling.

The breakaway maneuver may be called for various reasons. One is when the pilot flying becomes disoriented and the other pilot must seize controls to recover. To have the stick neutralize at the moment of control transfer could exceed the margin of space between the tanker and the receiving aircraft. This design feature in the A-330 alone could easily lead to mid-air collisions.

The Boeing 767 does not have this design limitation. The stick can be pre-positioned by either pilot so that when he turns off the autopilot, or takes control, his pre-position is immediately recognized. This results in a smooth transfer of aircraft control during unusual attitudes and other critical phases of flight.

Pilots generally prefer the feel and control of Boeing aircraft. They fly truer than the Airbus/EADS aircraft. That's not a political view. It is entirely a pilot's view echoed by most professional pilots in the aviation industry.

Airbus/EADS survives because they receive a significant government cash infusion to support their R&D. Boeing does not enjoy this. European politicians and media claim US defense contracts provide Boeing an equivalent. But this ignores two realities. First, Boeing has to compete for these contracts. Second, EADS enjoys many international (including US) defense contracts also in addition to the direct government subsidies!

Based strictly upon the flight qualities Boeing surpasses Airbus by a large margin. Airbus gets orders because they can underbid Boeing because they can absorb smaller margins due to the money they get from the European governments.

This is the heart of the pending US court case against EADS. And frankly, I think that court case has a strong chance of winning. The competitive advantage that EADS receives is clear and really undebatable.

One final point. You admit your own bias by expressely saying Boeing should have lost the contract regardless of the merits of their design simply because of the Druyan affair. Do you routinely throw the children of a convicted criminal in prison because they are related to the criminal? Or do you just hold that unreasonable standard to the head of Boeing aircraft?

Look, let me be clear. I don't work for Boeing and likely never will. I'm objective on this with the exception that I am an American and I don't like seeing government-subsidized European (or any nation's) industry slowly killing our domestic industries which are required to survive in the private sector.

[FLAPS]

This comes down to pure politics and business and very little to do with what is best for our nation's defense. How sad, yet typical.

Frankly, I think choosing EADS was purely about keeping up appearances- something the US Diva Force has became consumed with. Ultimately it came down to getting the bigger and newer model when what we need is a gas-passer. Think buying a Navigator when all you really need is an Explorer.

A larger aircraft require more maintenance. It takes longer to inspect, service and repair. This means a longer turn times- something that can make or break a mission in a crunch.

On another note- How long was the AF willing to wait for Northrup/EADS to build a plant and hire and train people? Not something that can happen in reasonable time, regardless of the promise. Did the AF consider that Boeing has built a KC-767 that is operational? Northrup's system was theoretical at best- not built and definitely not tested. The AF is screaming about delays now, but had it gotten off its ass ten years ago and had this done, time might not be such a worrisome factor. Lets do this one final time, get it right, and have another tanker that will last 50 years.