Boeing says Air Force miscalculated tanker costs (contract will be rebid)

[Wretched Excess]

it's so hard to find objective truth on this issue;  but this fiasco apparently had something to do
with most of the air force brass getting fired last week.

we discussed the background of this issue last month;  here is the link

Boeing says Air Force miscalculated tanker costs

The Air Force has conceded it chose the more expensive option in awarding a $35 billion contract for refueling tankers to a team led by Northrop Grumman Corp. instead of Boeing Co., the companies said Thursday.

Northrop acknowledged Boeing's assertions that its proposal included cheaper life cycle costs for the tankers. The Air Force said it cannot legally comment on the tanker proposals, the evaluation process or its selection decision. In a statement, however, the Air Force said it "stands by its process and its decision."

Boeing's action is the Chicago-based company's latest attempt to show that the Air Force's award to European Aeronautic Defence and Space Co. -- parent company of its rival Airbus -- and Northrop was unfair. The disclosure comes days before the Government Accountability Office is set to rule on Boeing's protest of the deal.

Although the Air Force is not bound by the GAO decision, any finding of error with the competition is certain to give ammunition to Boeing's supporters in Congress as they seek to block or overturn it.

"We have been saying for months now that errors had to be present in this contract award," said Rep. Todd Tiahrt, a Kansas Republican who represents a district where Boeing would do much of its tanker work. "This is strong evidence that the tanker contract should be re-competed."

The new information appears to undermine the Air Force's original assertion that the Northrop/EADS plane offers cost advantages, according to Boeing.

When announcing the award in February, the Air Force said the larger size of the Northrop/EADS plane helped tip the balance in its favor since that tanker would be able to haul more fuel, cargo and troops.

Boeing contends the larger tanker will cost the Air Force more to operate since it will be less fuel efficient, and will require the military to strengthen runways and expand hangars.

link

[Lacarnut]

but this fiasco apparently had something to do
with most of the air force brass getting fired last week.

quote]Boeing says Air Force miscalculated tanker costs

The Air Force has conceded it chose the more expensive option in awarding a $35 billion contract for refueling tankers to a team led by Northrop Grumman Corp. instead of Boeing Co., the companies said Thursday.

Northrop acknowledged Boeing's assertions that its proposal included cheaper life cycle costs for the tankers. The Air Force said it cannot legally comment on the tanker proposals, the evaluation process or its selection decision. In a statement, however, the Air Force said it "stands by its process and its decision."

Boeing's action is the Chicago-based company's latest attempt to show that the Air Force's award to European Aeronautic Defence and Space Co. -- parent company of its rival Airbus -- and Northrop was unfair. The disclosure comes days before the Government Accountability Office is set to rule on Boeing's protest of the deal.

Although the Air Force is not bound by the GAO decision, any finding of error with the competition is certain to give ammunition to Boeing's supporters in Congress as they seek to block or overturn it.

"We have been saying for months now that errors had to be present in this contract award," said Rep. Todd Tiahrt, a Kansas Republican who represents a district where Boeing would do much of its tanker work. "This is strong evidence that the tanker contract should be re-competed."

The new information appears to undermine the Air Force's original assertion that the Northrop/EADS plane offers cost advantages, according to Boeing.

When announcing the award in February, the Air Force said the larger size of the Northrop/EADS plane helped tip the balance in its favor since that tanker would be able to haul more fuel, cargo and troops.

Boeing contends the larger tanker will cost the Air Force more to operate since it will be less fuel efficient, and will require the military to strengthen runways and expand hangars.

link

[/quote]

The 2 top Air force officials were fired because of several screw-up; a B-52 flew from ND to LA with live nuclear bombs, a government contract was steered to a retired general and nuclear fuses were sent to Taiwan by accident.   

[djones520]

With the firings, we've had numerous commanders calls regarding WHY they occured.  With word coming from as high as the PACAF Commander, I've never heard of any mention regarding the tanker fiasco.  It was all about the Nukes and Missile Fuses.

[formerlurker]

Nukes was just an excuse for Gates to install someone who is a war general, and not a fighter guy.   Schwartz is a special ops guy from the workhorse part of the air force -- the airlift side.    His resume reads a lot like my husband's does.  Buffs to C-130s to Hurlburt (Schwartz did gunships, my husband did Talons when he was there) with a boat load of operations experience, and lots and lots of deployment time.    Schwartz is not a part of the Pentagon's fighter pilot boys club.   He is a perfect choice, and the right one.

[djones520]

Nukes was just an excuse for Gates to install someone who is a war general, and not a fighter guy.   Schwartz is a special ops guy from the workhorse part of the air force -- the airlift side.    His resume reads a lot like my husband's does.  Buffs to C-130s to Hurlburt (Schwartz did gunships, my husband did Talons when he was there) with a boat load of operations experience, and lots and lots of deployment time.    Schwartz is not a part of the Pentagon's fighter pilot boys club.   He is a perfect choice, and the right one.

I haven't heard a single person in the AF disagree.

[Wretched Excess]

Nukes was just an excuse for Gates to install someone who is a war general, and not a fighter guy.   Schwartz is a special ops guy from the workhorse part of the air force -- the airlift side.    His resume reads a lot like my husband's does.  Buffs to C-130s to Hurlburt (Schwartz did gunships, my husband did Talons when he was there) with a boat load of operations experience, and lots and lots of deployment time.    Schwartz is not a part of the Pentagon's fighter pilot boys club.   He is a perfect choice, and the right one.

I haven't heard a single person in the AF disagree.

disagree with the firings, or that the firings were politically motivated?

[Wretched Excess]

the  GAO report on Boeing's protest is due tomorrow, apparently.

[djones520]

Nukes was just an excuse for Gates to install someone who is a war general, and not a fighter guy.   Schwartz is a special ops guy from the workhorse part of the air force -- the airlift side.    His resume reads a lot like my husband's does.  Buffs to C-130s to Hurlburt (Schwartz did gunships, my husband did Talons when he was there) with a boat load of operations experience, and lots and lots of deployment time.    Schwartz is not a part of the Pentagon's fighter pilot boys club.   He is a perfect choice, and the right one.

I haven't heard a single person in the AF disagree.

disagree with the firings, or that the firings were politically motivated?

Disagree that Schwartz is the best choice for the Air Force at this time.  He's exactly the type of leader we need with the war that we are fighting.

[Wretched Excess]

Nukes was just an excuse for Gates to install someone who is a war general, and not a fighter guy.   Schwartz is a special ops guy from the workhorse part of the air force -- the airlift side.    His resume reads a lot like my husband's does.  Buffs to C-130s to Hurlburt (Schwartz did gunships, my husband did Talons when he was there) with a boat load of operations experience, and lots and lots of deployment time.    Schwartz is not a part of the Pentagon's fighter pilot boys club.   He is a perfect choice, and the right one.

I haven't heard a single person in the AF disagree.

disagree with the firings, or that the firings were politically motivated?

Disagree that Schwartz is the best choice for the Air Force at this time.  He's exactly the type of leader we need with the war that we are fighting.

ah.  glad I asked.  I had missed your point entirely. 

[Wretched Excess]

Boeing wins key round in Air Force tanker protest

wow.  the AF is never going to get their tanker.  this deal just won't get done.

While the GAO decision is not binding, it puts tremendous pressure on the Air Force to reopen the contract and could pave the way for Boeing to capture part or all of the award from Northrop and Airbus parent European Aeronautic Defence and Space Co. And it gives ammunition to Boeing supporters in Congress who have been seeking to block funding for the deal or force a new competition.

and, of course, everything seems to be a "blow" to john mccain in the MSM these days.

The decision also is a setback for Sen. John McCain, the Republican presidential nominee in waiting, who was instrumental in the Pentagon's long attempt to complete a deal on the tanker.

[Wretched Excess]

some of the conclusions reached in the GAO report are damning.  this is jaw dropping stuff.

from the link:

"If Boeing's proposal is ultimately selected for award, the Air Force should terminate the contract awarded to Northrop Grumman," the GAO ruling states. "We also recommended that the Air Force reimburse Boeing the costs of filing and pursuing the protest, including reasonable attorneys' fees."

• didn't assess the relative merits of the two contending airplanes in accordance with its stated criteria.

• gave Northrop extra credit for exceeding certain performance parameters, when this was expressly not allowed.

• failed to show that the A330 could refuel all of the Air Force aircraft it needs to service.

• misled Boeing about its failure to meet certain performance parameters, while giving fuller information to Northrop.

• dismissed a Northrop failure to agree to an aircraft maintenance plan as only "an adminstrative oversight" when it was a material requirement.

• made unreasonable estimates of the cost of constructing runways, ramps and hangars needed for the larger Airbus jet, which led to the conclusion that Northrop offered lower total program costs — when in fact Boeing's overall cost was lower.

• inappropriately rejected Boeing's estimate of its non-recurring cost to develop the program, using an "unreasonable" model to increase that cost estimate.

[formerlurker]

You do realize that the USAF had very little to do with this and that it is all driven by extremely powerful members of Congress whose states and/or lobbyists they are beholden the most to calling the shots. 

The USAF wishes they didn't have to deal with Congress and could just bid for what they need, but HAHAHAHAHAHA to that.    Never.Happen.

[formerlurker]

Let's see, Northrop will make the tankers in Mobile Alabama.    Hmmm, would you look at who sits on the defense appropriations committee and is a ranking member?    Why it's Senator Shelby.   

Imagine my surprise. 

[Wretched Excess]

the whole thing is going to be rebid.

Gates says Pentagon will reopen $35B tanker bid

[Chris_]

This is the first time I have spent any time in the DC area and it amazes me how many commercials are aired concerning political stuff.

Northrop is really hitting hard, saying. essentially, that their tanker (KC45) is real and ready for deployment and the Boeing tanker only exists on paper. 

Really interesting...

[DumbAss Tanker]

The procurement fiasco that led to this hit the fan about four years ago, and involved Boeing firing some people and the senior USAF procurement official going to jail for four years for being in Boeing's pocket.  Boeing is about as clean as your average DEA informant on this whole thing, but thre is so much money involved that Congresscritters are going to interfere with it until the cows come home regardless of who 'Technically' comes out on top.  Complex decision processes being what they are, there will almost certainly be some further flaws in the evaluation for the loser to pick on after the recompetition.