FLASH — Amended Tanker RFP Here

FLASH — Amended Tanker RFP Here

UPDATE: I’ve attached the RFP, which we just got. Post away!!

Click HERE for the revised RFP document.

The Pentagon just announced that Shay Assad, OSD’s director of defense procurement and acquisitions policy, will brief reporters about the amended tanker RFP at 3 p.m.

A few items of interest, for perspective. former Air Force Secretary Mike Wynne and I spoke recently about the options the Pentagon has. They are very few if John Young, undersecretary of defense for acquisition, technology and logistics, stuck with what he said he would stick with. First, the requirements would not change. So the Northrop Grumman team would seem to come out ahead on this score since all the OSD and Air Force personnel who have talked about this agree that Northrop does the best job overall of meeting or exceeding the requirements..

Second, Wynne agreed that since Young made clear a dual buy would just be too expensive that also tips things in Northrop’s favor. Young said several times after the GAO ruling that buying tankers from both companies would add substantial costs, costs the Pentagon was not willing to shoulder.

Still, Wynne professed to like the idea of a dual buy. But I think that’s because he believes Boeing couldn’t get enough planes in the air and certified quickly enough and believes it would, in the long run, just strengthen Northrop’s position.

Finally, while it may not be “factual,” the swagger of senior EADS personnel before and during the Farnborough Air Show was palpable.  They have little doubt they will not lose to Boeing, amended RFP or not.  Boeing personnel, on the other hand, were clearly on the defensive during Farnborough. More after the briefing.

This website uses IntenseDebate comments, but they are not currently loaded because either your browser doesn't support JavaScript, or they didn't load fast enough.

Join the Conversation

LOL…

Now that we are about to get on with it, maybe the AF can get the best product for the job at hand. The Northrop Grumman acft is still the best choice of the two. The Boeing 767 is by now an older airframe and the AF needs to look down the pike at mid-21st Century and beyond. Also the area of operations will most likely include the wide expanses of the Pacific Rim and those oceans distances are long.

The technical meat is contained on page 22.

1) Split of Cost vs Life Cycle Cost
2) Fuel burn information will be considered
3) Unspecified change in KPP priority

Also: quite a few of changes on specialty metals and lots of contracts stuff.

Timeframe for revised submission: 3 months.

So, we put in “Industrial Base” requirements, brilliant!, So why have a competition? Save the money, give it to Boeing as a reward for bad behaviour and don’t you dare ask, as per the FAR’s, for competition in future acquistions, what a damn joke the acquisition process has become, why, politicians are part of it, lobbyists another. Lose gracefully dammit!

WTF,

Industrial base consideration in defense contracts is a matter of law! A law (along with others) which was waived as a bribe to EADS so that it would enter & stay in the competition since EADS made it clear that is would not do so unless it felt it could/would win.

Why is it that the EADS/KC-30 Kool-Aid drinkers get so upset at any mention of anything which suggests that the KC-X solicitation be conducted in accordance with the laws/rules/regulation that dictate how a solicitation is SUPPOSED to be conducted? And why is it that conducting a solicitation conducted in accordance with the laws/rules/regulation that dictate how a solicitation is SUPPOSED to be conducted vavors Boeing? Could it be that you know full well that a solicitation conducted in accordance with the laws/rules/regulation that dictate how a solicitation is SUPPOSED to be conducted is a slam dunk for the KC-767AT…

QUIT BLAIMING BOEING FOR THE USAF’s/DOD’s SCREW UPS!!! The USAF SCREWED UP THE TANKER LEASE & THE USAF (& the DOD) SCREWED UP THE KC-X. Now that the USAF has all but been taken out of the loop it remains to be seen if the DOD will screw this solicitation up.

Boeing has done exactly what it was supposed to do. It saw that the KC-X selection was flawed & protested the selection. The GOA sustained Boeing’s protest in what many are saying is among (if not THE) most critical & strongly worded rulings in it’s history.

I fully agree that politicians & lobbyists are a BIG part of the problem with the acquisition process. If not for them we would most likely already have more than 20 new operational KC-767 tankers (abeit essentially the same as the KC-767A Italy now has 2 of) at this point.

Industrial base consideration in defense contracts is a matter of law! A law (along with others) which was waived as a bribe to EADS so that it would enter & stay in the competition since EADS made it clear that is would not do so unless it felt it could/would win

–Bribe huh? Those are big accusations, got any proof of that?

The Boeing manipulators are at it again. They want to force the Air Force to buy the less sophisticated and less efficient 767 to preserve an antiquated production line. Hold up the Donley nomination, take away credit for a larger more efficient plane, delay the tanker award until they win by default. These politicians should be ashamed. They should apologize to Northrop, the American people, the Air Force, and EADS. Meanwhile, Boeing continuing to outsource most all other military contract work to other countries is the greatest irony of all.

pfcem,
Industrial base consideration in defense contracts is a matter of law! A law (along with others) which was waived as a bribe to EADS so that it would enter & stay in the competition since EADS made it clear that is would not do so unless it felt it could/would win.

Let’s be completely accurate — the Law as written and implemented in the Fed Acq Regs (FAR) considers NATO nations a domestic source, so it is NOT required to consider Industrial base in an evaluation of this nature.

If this is now being factored, a clear deviation from the FAR (AKA — Protest Bait), it is the result of Boeing’s Lobbyists and Congressional members that are placing Boeing’s and their Region’s interests over the interest of the USAF, as well as the entire Aerospace Industry.

The US Aerospace Industry exports more that 4x the business to NATO than European firms do in the US. So, this jingoistic argument has serious business ramifications for hundreds of thousands of american workers in the aerospace industry

Here you go quoting Boeing propaganda. The ink is not even dry on the document and Boeing and it Congressional cronies are crying over it. Why not just issue the Protest to GAO now and get it over with.

When did Italy get the 2 Tankers? I have not seen a Boeing bulletin saying they have delivered the tankers. Last I heard the Italian COS for the Air Force was mad at Boeing

Also is it not true that the FAA would not give the aircraft a certification, which means those aircraft can never come back to the US without a special wavier.

Also heard the Japanese are having problems with their tankers, something about passing gas. Not sure if that is true or not.

Your line of “If not for them we would most likely already have more than 20 new operational KC-767 tankers.” 20 Tankers that would have cost the American Taxpayers a lot of money, oh and do not forget the GIs pays taxes also, over the long run.

Let face it Boeing will not be happy until Congress fixes the proposal so they can win.

pfcem is at it again now accusing Northrop/EADS of accepting bribes, And yet he offers no proof of it(suprised anyone?).If you do not agree with him he’ll refer to you as a “Northrop/EADS Kool Aide Drinker”, He tries to pin the blame on the Air Force for everything going wrong in the proposal, He claims that Boeing can do no wrong even though in the “lease” fiasco 2 Boeing Executives went to prison. He seems to think that it’s okay for congress to skew the Tanker decision so it favors THEIR OWN INTEREST in spite of what is best for the Warfighter and the Air Force’s own want and needs, but He’ll tell you that the USAF WANTS THE BOEING TANKER and that he personally heard this from the mouth of Air Force officials, He fails to see that Boeing could’ve based their Tanker proposal on the 777 (and would have probably won) yet chose not to because they want to keep an ageing 767 line open. Congress is trying to take more and more control to FORCE the Air Force to buy the BOEING TANKER so over paid Union workers in Washington and Kansas can insure their re-elections. He has even gone on record to say that certain Air Force personel who support the Northrop Tanker are “misguided and mis-informed” and yet he has all the answers? Sounds to me like another scared and desperate BOEING employee erhh stock holder.

pj,

The KC-767AT IS NOT less sophisticated than the KC-30 & is MORE efficient at the kinds of missions the KC-X is expected to do the VAST MAJORITY of the time.

Nobody took credit away for a larger tanker because the solicitation was unambiguous that credit was not to be given for exceeding objectives.

It is those on the KC-X source selection & oversite teams that are to blaim & who should be ashamed & apologize. THEY ARE THE ONES WHO SCREWED UP!

Boeing is not outsourcing most all other military contract work to other countries.

Old391,

There are 2 KC-767A IN Italy. The 2nd airframe arrived in Naples in May of 2005 to be converted by Italy.

No, the KC-767A IS FAA certified, more than a year delay in delivering them to Italy was due to the additioanl tests required for FAA certification.

Even with the additional costs of the lease, they would have cost A LOT less money than we are & will be paying for the KC-X. AND the funds (at least for those that were leased rather than procured outright) did not have to come from the USAF procurement budget.

The only thing that needs to be “fixed” for Boeing to win is for the solicitation to be based on REAL WORLD operations/requirements & to assess the relative merits of the proposals in accordance with the evaluation rules & criteria identified in the solicitation.

pfcem — Most of the people here railing about the tanker deal know squat about the military procurement process, and instead resort to truisms and hyperbole like “Air force knows best,” “bigger is better,” & “Boeing are crooks.” Even more interesting is how many condemn Boeing for lobbying their representatives yet leave NG unscorned for their exact same efforts. Rallying for the perceived underdog in the name of proclaimed congressional meddling is punditry at best when one ignores meddling by all parties.

pfcem

You would not know the real world from Boeings world.

I still say why is it every other country Air Force is buying the Airbus Tanker not the Boeing Tanker. Because they recognize the Airbus Tanker is better and offers more then the Boeing tanker.

I’d bet Boeing has their protest letter to GAO already written just waiting to fill in the blanks to be dropped in the mail.

I use to think highly of that company. This entire fiasco has exposed them for what they really are. If they have the best product for our Air Force, then they deserve to win. If they don’t, they need to STFU and move on. The competition will decide.

If Boeing looses again I suspect they’ll go to the GAO only to stop work while the law offices of Boeing Aerospace file their law suits.

If there’s someone in the know on this board, can you tell us if the fuel offload objective requirement (I.e., 250K lbs) was in the original solicitation? Not the lease agreement, but the competitive solicitation? Or did the OSD add that in the recent amendment?

Old391,

I know the real world from the artificial/fantasy world created in order for the KC-30 to appear competative JUST SO THERE WOULD BE A COMPETITION.

Don’t be so nieve. No other nation has the same requirements as the US & you are an absolute fool if you think that all these other “competitons” where fair &/or determined soaly on the merits of the two tankers.

mojojojo,

In the “original” KC-X RFP/SRD the objective was to exceed the threshold — no value was given.

3.2.1.1.1 Fuel Offload and Radius Range (KPP #2)
3.2.1.1.1.1 The aircraft shall be capable of fuel offload versus unrefueled radius range as depicted in Figure 3–1 (THRESHOLD, KPP #2). The following ground rules for calculating radius-offload shall be used: maximum weight, not to exceed maximum takeoff gross weight, for 10,000 foot runway (critical field length), takeoff fuel allowance from brake release of 2.5 minutes at maximum continuous thrust, climb at 250 knots indicated airspeed (KIAS) to 10,000 ft, then at recommended climb speed above 10,000 ft, cruise at flight level (FL) 250 at best range speed to planned loiter point, perform loiter orbit for 1 hour and offload fuel during loiter at 275 KIAS at 25,000 ft, transferring fuel at 900 gal/minute (refueling boois in the deployed position for the entire hour), return to base of origin at FL250 at best range speed, perform penetration and landing (15 minutes) (no time/fuel/distance credit for descent to initial approach fix), and land with reserve fuel sufficient for 2 hours at best range speed at optimum altitude(s) (fuel burn to climb to this condition need not be considered).
3.2.1.1.1.2 The aircraft should be capable of exceeding the fuel offload versus unrefueled radius range as depicted in Figure 3–1 using the above ground rules (OBJECTIVE, KPP #2).

The Fuel Offload at Radius
0500nm: 117,000 lbs
1000nm: 094,000 lbs
1500nm: 069,500 lbs
2000nm: 044,000 lbs
2500nm: 020,000 lbs

The KC-767AT exceeded the threshold by >25,000 lbs or >500nm across the entire radius.

I suspect the Northrop bid further exceeded the threshold since the entire universe understands their aircraft holds more fuel. We can leave that to the SSA to decide. But the argument of being “stacked” or “biases” is BS. The desire was there in the original RFP. If you were concerned about that one objective when you submitted your original bid you would have proposed a bigger AC.

mojojojo,

Yes the KC-30 further exceeds the threashold BUT there zilch, zero, nada to indicate or even imply that KC-30 capacity is required or desired. And Boeing was told that it had met the objective.

GAO ruling

We find from our review of the solicitation that the offerors were unambiguously
informed that their proposals would not receive additional consideration or credit
for exceeding a KPP objective. This is true whether we look to the express provision
itself, the meaning of which is plain, or whether we view this restriction within the
context of the whole solicitation. The only reasonable interpretation of the KPP
objective here is that an offeror would be credited for meeting the fuel offload versus
unrefueled radius range objective if its aircraft exceeded the charted KPP threshold,
and that no additional credit would be provided for exceeding the charted threshold
amount to a greater degree than other proposed aircraft.

Contrary to the Air Force’s and Northrop Grumman’s positions that this KPP
objective was “unbounded” because no finite number or level is stated as part of the
objective, the plain language of section M.2.2.1.2.a. of the RFP unequivocally
prohibited any consideration for exceeding the stated KPP objective and the RFP did
not suggest that the stated objective must be finite or be at an objective level in order
for this section to be applicable. To read this provision as suggested by the
intervenor and agency would render meaningless section M.2.2.1.2.a, and be
inconsistent with identification of an objective for this KPP threshold. See Brown &
Root, Inc. and Perini Corp., a joint venture, B-270505.2, B-270505.3, Sept. 12, 1996,
96–2 CPD ¶ 143 at 8 (a solicitation should be reasonably read to give effect to all of
its provisions). We do not find such a reading reasonable.

The Air Force, as the drafter of the RFP, could have provided for unbounded
consideration of the degree to which offerors exceeded the fuel offload versus
unrefueled range, but did not. In fact, the last sentence in section M.2.2.1.1.a. states
that “[i]f there is no objective and, depending on substantiating rationale, positive
consideration will be provided when the specified capability above the KPP
threshold is viewed as advantageous to the Government.” Thus, according to the
RFP, “unbounded” credit could be given for exceeding the KPP where no KPP
objective is stated (depending on the substantiating rationale and when
advantageous to the government). 48 Indeed, the solicitation contained a number of
KPP thresholds that did not have corresponding KPP objectives, see, e.g., RFP, SRD
§ 3.2.1.6.1. (KPP No. 4, Airlift Capability); § 3.2.8 (KPP No. 8, Survivability), but that
is not the case with respect to this KPP threshold.

We also note that the RFP elsewhere specifically informed offerors of other
objectives for which their proposals could receive additional consideration for
exceeding objectives; that is, with respect to non-KPP requirements, the RFP stated
that the agency may give “additional consideration if the offeror proposes to meet
(or exceed if there is an objective) the SRD threshold or requirement, depending on
the substantiating rationale.” See RFP § M.2.2.1.1.b. In addition, offerors were
informed with regard to certain non-KPP objectives that they should try to exceed
the requirement by as much as possible. See, e.g., RFP, SRD § 3.2.10.1.5.2.2 (“The
boom envelope should exceed the ATP-56 envelope as much as possible
(OBJECTIVE).”)

We also agree with Boeing that the RFP, read as whole, established a complex set of
trade-offs for offerors to consider in determining what aircraft to propose to the
agency, and we do not agree that “common sense” mandates that “unbounded”
refueling capabilities were being sought by the RFP. 49 Although it is apparent that a
larger aircraft could provide greater refueling capabilities, there could be associated
disadvantages with respect to costs and space constraints. Thus, given that the RFP
did not establish any size requirements or limitations upon the aircraft that could be
proposed, the restriction on credit for exceeding this KPP objective provided
offerors with a key consideration in determining what sort of aircraft to offer, as well
as how to best structure their proposals.

As indicated above, the Air Force and Northrop Grumman argued that Boeing’s
protest of the agency’s evaluation of the firms’ proposal under this KPP objective is
untimely because it is actually a challenge to the terms of the solicitation. 50
They base this argument upon their contention that Boeing learned of the agency’s
interpretation from the agency’s briefings during the competition. However, we
agree with Boeing’s contention that the agency’s briefings supported Boeing’s
understanding that no credit would be given for exceeding this KPP objective. For
example, in Boeing’s mid-term briefing, the Air Force reported to Boeing with regard
to the aerial refueling area of the key system requirements that, although its aircraft
exceeded the fuel offload versus unrefueled range and the agency identified by how
much Boeing’s aircraft exceeded the range, its proposal was evaluated to have “met”
the objective. 51 See AR, Tab 129, Mid-term Briefing to Boeing, at 26. Similarly, in its
pre-Final Proposal Revision Briefing, Boeing was informed that its offer to exceed
the KPP threshold for this requirement was evaluated as having “met” the objective.
52 See AR, Tab 135, Pre-Final Proposal Revision Briefing to Boeing, at 30. Based on our
review of the record, Boeing was not informed in its briefings of the SSA’s and
SSAC’s interpretation that the RFP allowed “unbounded” credit to be given for
exceeding the fuel offload versus unrefueled radius range KPP objective, and only
became aware of the agency’s interpretation from the redacted source selection
decision that was provided to Boeing at its post-award required debriefing. 53

In sum, we find that a key discriminator relied upon by the SSA in making [the SSA’s]
selection decision–that is, the assessment related to the KPP objective to exceed the
fuel offload versus unrefueled range–was not consistent with the RFP. It is a
fundamental principle of competitive procurements that competitors be treated
fairly, and fairness in competitions for federal procurements is largely defined by an
evaluation that is reasonable and consistent with the terms of the solicitation. For
that reason, agencies are required to identify the bases upon which offerors’
proposals will be evaluated and to evaluate offers in accordance with the stated
evaluation criteria. See Competition in Contracting Act of 1984, 10 U.S.C.
§ 2305(a)(2)(A), (b)(1) (2000); FAR §§ 15.304(d), 15.305(a); Sikorsky Aircraft Co.;
Lockheed Martin Sys. Integration-Owego, B-299145 et al., Feb. 26, 2007, 2007 CPD
¶ 45 at 4. The Air Force did not fulfill this fundamental obligation here.

THE ENTIRE SOLICITATION PROCESS INDICATED A DESIRE FOR A MEDIUM TANKER. Just because RAND chose to set its cut-off for “medium” at 550,000 lbs MTOW [note that at that cut-off the 777–200 “qualifies” yet the A340-200 (which dimentionally identical to the A330-200) does not] does not mean that the KC-30 qualifies as a medium tanker. The KC-10 IS a large tanker yet the KC-30 is larger & heavier (at operational empty & when carrying the same load — the greater MTOW of the KC-10 is due to 110,000 lbs greater max fuel capacity) than the KC-10!

And in the only airlift capacity where a quantitative threshold & objective was stated (that of patients), the KC-767AT exceeded the objective. So the KC-767AT met the fuel offload vs radius objective (no quantitative value given to exceed) & exceeded the patient objective. When both offers met or exceed objective, how can you justify giving extra credit to the one which exxeeds the the other? ;)

For me what is MORE important than what the “new” thresholds &/or objectives are is if the selection process assesses offers fairly & justly based on REAL WORLD operations/requirements (particularly in weighing additional capacity vs both operational & monetary costs incurred from that additional capacity & that the additional capacity is actually justified/beneficial in the REAL WORLD rather than faling for the false montra the bigger/more is better.)

But you are misreading what I have said. “Everyone” agreed (up until just recently when it became clear to the EADS/KC-30 Kool-Aid drinkers that it did not in fact ask for a larger than KC-10 but less capable KC-30) that the RFP/SRD accurately indicated what was wanted. The RFP/SRD set the fuel offload vs radius threshold AT the capability of the KC-135R & the objective to exceed it with NO qualitative value to indicate by how much & was unambiguous that no additional credit would be given for exceeding objecives. If the fuel offload vs radius threshold &/or objective are significantly changed to values which favor the KC-30, that CLEARLY is favoring the KC-30 & changing the mission/requirements to fit the KC-30 rather than (as it is SUPPOSED to be) setting the desired/needed mission/requirements & selecting the offer which best/most closely fits the mission/requirements.

The RAND report has an awful lot of NEF’s (I.e., NOT ENOUGH FUEL.) in the study.

I think there’s a fundamental problem with aerial refueling and the gov has clearly stated their desires to fix it (regardless of the bad wording in the RFP). In that context Boeing appears to be trying to roll the Gov over a barrel. I can’t imagine that being a good plan.

In my 22 years of doing contracts I have yet to see a perfect RFP. lawyering this up and pi$$ing off a prospective customer AND the OSD is no way to run a business. I wouldn’t want to work that program. Furthermore I would say Northrop Grumman is taking a measured and calculated approach to this issue. I suspect they want this contract more than anything, but their not willing to sacrifice their ethics and ties to their existing customers. Boeing appears to be all-in and they’re really looking bad with every news article regurgitating your corruption scandal. And quite frankly, every article makes Boeing appear whiney. Cantwell, Dicks, Murtha are the whiniest of all–sickening. And finally, Boeing’s actions in the global court of opinion may be detrimental far beyond the value of this contract. But Good luck to you. You’re a good soldier.

pfcem says, “Boeing is not outsourcing most all other military contract work to other countries.
” Time to expose individual lies as they appear!

So tell us phlem, where exactly is Boeing manufacturing the parts for the A-10 wing mod?
Would that be Korea? Never mind the 30 paragraph diatribe for a change, 1 word, Yes or No?

Today’s Non-Ethic Word: Boinginate
Pronunciation: \Bo-ing-i-nate\
Function: Verb
Etymology: North Western US & Boeing/Aeronovali/JADC Consortium
Date: 2008
Transitive verb
: to habitually lie, cheat, bribe or steal if you really, really want to win

mojojojo,

The RAND report tries to make multipoint aerial refueling as advantageous as possible. Read the ENTIRE document with the other studies (particularly note that under one type of refueling, multipoint has some advantage but under the other hardly any). Nodody is arguing that multipoint aerial refueling has signifiant advantages over just boom (but it is more in flexibility than actual major operational improvement (for example the improvement is only half, or less, the number of fewer tankers therorized). Besides, just because the KC-135s did not have enough fuel to combine many sorties together DOES NOT mean that the KC-30 would & the KC-767AT would not. ;) Also note that if the KC-135R could take-off from a <8,000′ runway with a full load of fuel it likely WOULD have had enough fuel. But none of that changes the simple fact that in the REAL world, refueling demands will be met by a given number of tankers in order to have as many booms as possible to fill the need in the most effectively & timely manner possible. As the USAF knows full well from its decades of experience with the KC-135 & KC-10, bigger IS NOT necessarily better. There are missions/requirements which medium intra-theater KC-135-like tankers do better (which is the vast majority of missions/sorties) & there are missions/requirements which large inter-theater KC-10-like tankers do better. And the KC-X is SUPPOSED to be a medium intra-theater KC-135-like tanker to replace the KC-135Es & some KC-135Rs, not a larger than KC-10 tanker that doesn’t do what the KC-135R does as well as the KC-135R OR what the KC-10 does as well as the KC-10 does.

No there is not a fundamental problem with aerial refueling & the government certainly is not fixing anything — more like making it worse. The USAF has been in the business of aerial refueling for a half century. If the KC-135s were not already 40+ years old with ever increasing maintanence/operating costs & ever lowering mission capability rates AND it was not going to take 35–45 years to replace them, there would be NO serious effort to replace them yet because the simple fact is the KC-135R is perfectly capable of doing (some even say perfectly matched for) the job (so much so that a modernized/updated KC-135 could meet most the the KC-X requirements) & WILL for many decades to come.

You have it backwords. It is Airbus/EADS & its supporters that are rolling this over. They are the ones which forced the USAF to change its criteria [criteria which by the way has NOT been justified] so that the noncompetative KC-30 could appear competative. If you go though the GAO ruling you SHOULD be able to see that every one of the points it sustained the protest over CAN be contributed to one of two things — either absolute incompetence on behalf of the KC-X source selection team AND the DOD KC-X oversight team or bowing to the pro-Airbus/EADS anti-Boeing pressure believing that the pro-Airbus/EADS anti-Boeing crowd was never going to allow Boeing to get the contract & that Boeing would simply tuck its tail between its legs (due to all the anti-Boeing retoric blaiming it for the the tanker lease problems even though it was the USAF which screwed it up) & let Airbus/EADS have the KC-X.

Northrop Grumman is taking a measured and calculated approach to this issue…LOL It DOES want this contract more than anything, & HAS sacrificed its ethics & ties to its existing customers.

Let me get this straight…The government screwded up (for the 2nd time), Boeing calls foul & the GAO issues one of the harshest rulings in its history sustaining Boeing’s protest causing “everyone” to lose ALL confidence in the USAF’s solicitation process so much so that it has been taken away from it & the DOD (THE SAME PEOPLE WHO DIDN’T SEE ANYTHING WRONG WITH THE LAST SOLICITATION) is now in DIRECT control over the selection. And since the DOD does not appear to be taking the GAO ruling seriously, Congress backs the GAO up by including language in the appropriations bill that funds shall not be allocated unless the new selection is done in accordance with the GAO ruling (which can more-or-less be summed up as assess the relative merits of the proposals in accordance with the evaluation rules & criteria identified in the solicitation) & reinstates a law that was previously waived so that EADS would compete. AND BOEING LOOKS BAD…LOL

Yes much of the “media” has it in for Boeing & is doing its part to make Boeing look bad to the public.

It is truly pathetic how the EADS/KC-30 Kool-Aid drinkers see everything about Boeing as bad while ignoring that Airbus/EADS are WORSE & how everything they think is so great about the KC-30, the KC-767AT can do but does not sacrifice the PRIMARY MISSION of the KC-X in the process.

It is not about getting the tanker with the greatest capacity reguardless of the costs (& changing the mission/requirements to fit said tanker) but getting the tanker which best (most closely & least costly) meets the already well established mission/requirements. If it were, then we would/should through out the whole medium tanker idea & be looking at KC-747 vs KC-380 (both of which can probably take off from a 8,000′ runway with just 250,000 lbs of fuel) or just bite the bullet & wait for something even BIGGER (like the Boeing BWB) to mature.

BS_Buster,

The A-10 wing mod is ONE small part of ONE coctract. Not “all other military contract work”.

Do you people have ANY sense of reality?

Word spreading like wildfire today (again) that Boeing may no-bid the amended RFP.

One word: Ruse

Boeing’s not going to bow out of this competition. They don’t want to no-bid. It’s just a ruse to stall for more time while they read the RFP and write a new proposal.

Threatening a no-bid is equivalent to rolling the OSD over a barrel.

The threat to the OSD is if they don’t get their way they’ll take their last play of no bid and let the sock puppets in congress take care of it from there. A no-bid to the Boeing sock puppets would mean there’s not a competition. I don’t even want to get out of bed the morning the squeeling starts about the lack of competition. Sickening how these pukes think it’s either a Boeing program or no program at all.

A no-bid wipes out Boeing’s GAO gift of life thread they’re currently hanging from.

mojojojo,

You are such a hypocrite. NG/EADS threatened to not bid unless the critera was changed so that it could win & then even after changes were made, threatened to pull out if the unless there was further clearification (read changes). And has now been exposed by the GAO NG/EADS didn’t win under the 2007 criteria. Now significant changes have been made AGAIN & Boeing is requesting a mear six months (nothing compared to the more than half decade delay from the tanker lease) in order to put together another proposal specifically tailored to the “new” criteria. Note that unlike NG/EADS, Boeing is not threatening to not bid or pull its bid unless the criteria is changed in its favor…Instead it is REQUESTING time to put together another bid since the new changes in criteria are its existing proposal may not be the best option.

alright…hypocrit here. As I understand it, NG was draggged into the scandal ridden procurement because a few key personel at Boeing couldn’t help making the pot a little sweeter for themselves and their families. NG would have walked away and never looked back on this tainted piece of sh!t.

That’s a huge difference between the two companies: All-in vs Ethical.

So for the nine-thousandth time…NG was walking away from an RFP that was effectively written for Boeing. I hardly consider the changes requested by NG that bad.

That’s why your rhetoric and that of the sock puppets in congress makes me sick…It’s spin to puke sickness level. Your sense of entitlement and your blather makes me sick!!!

7 years Boeing had to pull it together!!! 7 Years!!! honeymoon’s over…Boeing blew it…

er…wait wait wait wait wait.…no, give me more time…I’ll read and understand the requirements this time.…i’ll make my sh!t proposal better.…You’ll see… and, oh, by the way, could you pay for it?

bunch of f’ing clowns. Funny thing is…the cartoons on the alabama blog spot sum up the Boeing monkeys (and you) perfectly.

mojojojo,

NG didn’t get dragged into anything.

It was NOT a few key personel at Boeing who couldn’t help making the pot a little sweeter for themselves and their families, it was a USAF acquisition official (Darleen Druyun) who couldn’t help making the pot a little sweeter for HERSELF & HER familiy and Boeing lead negotiator & CFO (Michael Sears) who offered her a job when the two of them where still negotiating the tanker lease [this lead to Druyun & Sears going to jail & BOTH their bosses resigning]. EADS/Airbus supporters then used the unethical & illegal actions of Druyun & Sears to call for more scrutiny into the tanker lease which revealed a number of errors BY THE USAF (which I have referenced before) which lead to the cancelation of the tanker lease & ultimately to the mess we are now in.

November 2002 — Druyun recuses herself from further negotiations with Boeing, retires mid-month & then accepts $250,000-a-year job with Boeing.

November 2003 — Boeing fires Druyun (former USAF acquisitions officer) & Sears for unethical conduct in Druyun’s hiring.

December 2003 — The USAF finalized negotiations with Boeing in December 2003 to lease 20 KC-767A tanker aircraft and procure 80 tanker aircraft.

October 2004 — Congress passes defense spending bill for fiscal 2005 that terminates Air Force’s authority to lease tanker aircraft.

The tanker lease wasn’t finalized until a year AFTER Druyun left & it wasn’t cancelled until a year AFTER Boeing had fired both Druyun & Sears.

The initial ~2005/2006 KC-X RFP WAS NOT written for Boeing. It already had changes meant to intice EADS/Airbus (then partnered with NG for political reasons) into competing. You don’t think the changes NG/EADS “requested” were that bad? How about you show just how much you DON’T know & list or even generalze what changes they asked for & how they were not that bad given what the USAF had so CLEARLY indicated it wanted since 2001 & why it did NOT want a A330-based tanker. ;)

Boeing DID NOT blow it. Boeing offered a tanker specifically tailored to the 2007 RFP that met or exceeded all key requirements (the USAF & NG/EADS failed to justify how it concluded that the KC-30 met a number of key requirements) AND met more no-key requirements than the NG/EADS offer. The USAF blew it by in making the award decision not assess the relative merits of the proposals in accordance with the evaluation criteria (which had ALREADY been changed multiple times to make the KC-30 appear competative) identified in the solicitation.

According to this news article “Boeing began considering using its 767 as a new tanker as early as 1992; it might have used a larger plane in the recent tanker competition, but the company says it had no idea the Air Force would want a plane with more fuel and cargo capacity.” So you can see that Boeing only listened to what Boeing wanted to hear not what the Air Force wanted them to hear. Maybe if they read the proposal a little more then they could have seem this.

You think it was EADS/airbus that overturned an existing program? You blame EADS/Airbus for pointing out some facts or some violation of ethics that lead to the multibillion dollar contract cancellation? Puhhleaaaze. That wouldn’t have anything to do with ethics (maybe extortion or bribery–which is criminal). You either know something that you’re not telling us or you’re just plain nuts.

Boeing couldn’t hold a sweatheart deal together. Already heads have rolled or they’re taking cushy jobs in the FCS pasture.

Old391,

Boeing listened to what they were told, not only by the KC-X source selection team but by actual USAF personnel such as tanker Generals, flight crew & maintenance crew as well. EVERYTHING in the solicitation (all the breifings, all the documents, EVERYTHING) prior to the “selection” of the KC-30 indicated the requirement was for a medium KC-135-like tanker with superior take-off performance in order to best utilize smaller airfields (completely contradictory to the larger than KC-10 KC-30) & greater airlift capacity (but the only airlift capacity quantified at not much greater than the KC-135 & less than half that of the KC-767AT). Oh, & of course, the offerors were unambiguously informed that their proposals would not receive additional consideration or credit for exceeding a KPP objective.

As Boeing has said, it COULD have offered a larger plane but EVERYTHING from the solicitation & the USAF indicated the requirement was NOT for a larger plane. In fact given that the KC-767AT exceeded all the quantified capacity requirements, it could be said that the KC-767AT is bigger (offering greater capacity) than the solicitation asked for.

mojojojo,

Good god your reading comprehension is lacking. No I do not think it was EADS/Airbus that overturned an existing program. And I DO NOT blame EADS/Airbus for pointing out some facts or some violation of ethics (which EADS/Airbus did not do but it did take advantage of it) that lead to the multibillion dollar contract cancellation. Note that while the unethical & illegal actions of Druyun & Sears LEAD to the contract cancellation it was NOT the reason for the cancellation (the reasons for the cancellation were the USAF screw ups as indicated in Inspector General Schmitz’s report). Look at the timeline, see what happened when…

The USAF couldn’t hold the sweatheart deal together because it SCREWED UP & got caught. And in round two, the USAF screwed up & got caught AGAIN — resulting in its selection authority being taken away…

And when the DOD and the SOD decide on the KC-45 tanker I guess they screwed up according to you thinking. You say Tanker Generals, I seem to remember the Commander of the AMC said that we have a tanker that will offer the war fighter more capability when the contract was awarded to NGC/EADS. Seems like he is the HEAD Tanker General. You seem to forget that Boeing said to the world all the way to the final selection that this was a fair competition UP UNTIL THEY LOST.

At the request of The Senate Committee on Armed Services, the Schmitz review is REQUIRED to leave out White House officials, Members of Congress, and officials of the Boeing Company stating “the objective of the review focused on the accountability of members of the Office of the Secretary of Defense and of the Air Force who were involved in the Boeing KC-767A Tanker Program.”

http://​www​.dodig​.osd​.mil/​f​o​/​H​r​n​g​_​K​C​7​6​7​A​_​6​-​7​-​2​0​0​5​_​v​5​.​pdf

Many ways to slice a pie, eh Pfcem?

Your blaming the AF for not following acquisition procedures? With support of the White House and authorization from congress to proceed? At a time when emotions were high and after the worst attack ever on American soil?

Oh…man….That’s thick. You’re sitting over there like Boeing’s the most ethical company in America? Claiming the AF “screwed up” trying to sign a multi-billion dollar lease deal with Boeing? That’s almost laughable. Had Boeing not got caught with blatant corruption, they’d be fat and happy building tankers right about now — ethics smethics. A reputation of corruption is hard to shake isn’t it?

http://​www​.nlpc​.org/​v​i​e​w​.​a​s​p​?​a​c​t​i​o​n​=​v​i​e​w​A​r​t​i​c​l​e​&​a​m​p​;​a​i​d​=46

Now Boeing is hanging by a gift of life thread the GAO graciously doled up. Crowing the AF once again “screwed up” when in fact only 8% of Boeings protest was sustained. And now with the nuts to ask for more time? Incredible.

I can’t believe I read the your rediculous spew. If Boeing is successful in getting the program awarded to them, it won’t be because they earned it.

http://​www​.pogo​.org/​p​/​c​o​n​t​r​a​c​t​s​/​c​o​-​0​2​0​5​0​7​-​b​o​e​i​n​g​.​h​tml

Oldest391,

http://​www​.amc​.af​.mil/​n​e​w​s​/​s​t​o​r​y​.​a​s​p​?​i​d​=​1​2​3​0​8​8​300

Sounds an aweful lot like a pre-written statement that would apply to the KC-45 REGUARDLESS if the KC-767AT or KC-30 was chosen…In fact just about every statement by the government concerning the KC-45 could have been made if the KC-767AT was selected.

You seem to forget that it up until the actual selection announcement Boeing was lead to believe (& 90+% of the “experts” were convinced) that Boeing was most likely to win. And that it was not until Boeing was debriefed (which was rather questionably delayed) on the selection of the KC-30 that the truth came out that it was NOT a fair competition — and that the GAO agreed. You ALSO seem to forget how “every” completely lost confidence in the USAF’s ability to conduct the solicitation, so much so in fact that the selection authority was taken away from the USAF & given to Defense Secretary Gates who then gave it to the very man who was responsible for overseeing the previous solicitation but somehow did not find fault with it…Appearantly he feels the USAF did not go far enough to alter its requirements to fit the KC-30.

mojojojo,

Nice try but this is the kind of BS you & your fellow EADS/KC-30 Kool-Aid drinkers come up with to misrepresent the truth. The objective of the review focusing on the accountability of members of the Office of the Secretary of Defense and of the Air Force DOES NOT REQUIRE (or even request) that the IG leave out White House officials, Members of Congress, and officials of the Boeing Company. If during the investigation the IG found reason to interview White House officials, Members of Congress, and officials of the Boeing Company such interviews COULD have ben requested (although I am sure White House officials & possible Members of Congress would have found some way to get out of doing so). You are confusing (or deliberatly mistating) not being required to do something with being required not to do something.

NO, I am not blaiming the USAF for doing what it felt it needed to do to get what it wanted ASAP (while it had the support of the White House & Congress). The IG found that the USAF did not follow acquisition procedures & thus the contract to lease 20 & buy 80 KC-767 (finalized a YEAR after Druyun left the USAF & a month after Boeing fired BOTH Druyun & Sears). What I AM doing is pointing out how absurd it is to blaim Boeing (the company) for what happened during the tanker lease. Boeing was a participant (I never said it wasn’t) but it was the USAF & the DOD which was in CONTROL & it is quite possible that if Druyun & Sears had NOT (or not got caught) unethically & illegally negotiated a job for Druyun at Boeing while negotiating the tanker lease causing greater concern over the whole program that what the USAF did would have been “swept under the table” in the interest of getting the KC-767.

No, I am NOT sitting over there like Boeing’s the most ethical company in America. You & your fellow EADS/KC-30 Kool-Aid drinkers DO however sit over there like EADS/Airbus is/are the most ethical company in the world when it/they easily as, if not more, unethical than Boeing.

BOEING (the company) DID NOT get caught with blatant corruption! Druyun (USAF) & Sears got caught negotiating a job for Druyun at Boeing while negotiating the tanker lease. BUT guess what, the contract to lease 20 & buy 80 KC-767 wasn’t finalized until a YEAR after Druyun left the USAF & a month after Boeing fired BOTH Druyun & Sears.

Sorry, the GAO didn’t graciously dole up anything. It did its job & went out of its way NOT to go so far as to say that the contract SHOULD have gone to Boeing athough it is hard NOT to conclude it DOES feel that way.

That only 8% of Boeings protest was sustained is a deliberate disingenuous attempt to minimize the scathing report by the GAO. First of all, the limited scope & authority of the GAO PREVENTED it from sustaining all protest items. Second the ruling, while sustaining 8 points (which is A LOT), also specifically suggested that a number of other items be looked at more closely (items which the GAO could very well sustain later if not done so to the GAO’s satisfaction). And third the GAO does not “count/figure” it as 8%…

NG/EADS sure as hell didn’t earn the contract (the GAO made that ABUNDANTLY clear) so quit your whining.

One can easily see the winds of change in pfcem’s posts. He likely sees the writing on the wall and realizes his handlers in the Boeing/Aeronovali/JADC Consortium will no longer need his lobbying once they pull out of the competition. He goes as far as to correctly place NG as prime in his NG/EADS reference above. Sucking up for a new job, eh?

Today’s Non-Ethic Word: Boinginate
Pronunciation: \Bo-ing-i-nate\
Function: Verb
Etymology: North Western US & Boeing/Aeronovali/JADC Consortium
Date: 2008
Transitive verb
: to habitually lie, cheat, bribe or steal if you really, really want to win

BS_Buster,

LOL..

ANOTHER post with ZERO accuracies.

Let’s see:
“winds of change in pfcem’s posts.“
pfcem August 6th, 2008 at 8:17 pm — EADS/KC-30
pfcem August 8th, 2008 at 2:26 pm — EADS/KC-30
pfcem August 9th, 2008 at 1:14 pm — EADS/KC-30

Silence from pfcem as Boeing/Aeronovali/JADC contemplates their failure and imminent withdrawal:

pfcem August 22nd, 2008 at 3:44 pm — NG/EADS X3
pfcem August 24th, 2008 at 11:42pm — NG/EADS X3
pfcem August 26th, 2008 at 9:37 pm — Both in one post as pfcem covers all his bases just in case.

Today’s Non-Ethic Word: Boinginate
Pronunciation: \Bo-ing-i-nate\
Function: Verb
Etymology: North Western US & Boeing/Aeronovali/JADC Consortium
Date: 2008
Transitive verb
: to habitually lie, cheat, bribe or steal if you really, really want to win

The websters submittal for new words is definitely accurate. Seems like you, pfcem, are boinginating about “zero accuracies.” as would be expected from a Boinginiter.

pcfem:
If you are correct and the GAO truly believes that Boeing should have been awarded the contract, then they have the legal authority to direct that award! Since they only sustained 8% of Boeing’s protest, they clearly did not feel that the award should go to Boeing.

If you had dealt with the GAO for as long as I have, as a PM in the Service, you would understand: They have the power to over-turn contract awards; to direct a new solicitation; or to direct a revised solicitation to correct procedural errors — the later is all they did. They are just correcting the process, not stating an opinion on who should win.

BTW: Could it be that real-world events, threats, and contingency plans have changed since 2001 which has changed the USAF’s interpretation (qualitatively) of their stated requirements? If you had any experience in acquisition and/or real source selections, you would understand that the regulations allow/encourage qualitative interpretation of stated requirements. Finally, did you realize that the final Source Selection Authority (SSA) is not bound by law or regulation to agree with the Source Selection Evaluation Board’s recommendation? The SSA is allowed to inject other national security, economic, etc. factors in his decision and he DOES NOT have to justify his decision.

So, after all Boeing and NG has done to influence the RFP and evaluation criteria, the SSA is cleared to pick who he wants. The only thing he needs to ensure is that the SSEB followed the process correctly. Then he can do as he pleases.

I invite everyone to go back & read my posts & see what I posted & the context in which it was posted.

just another example of BS_Buster not having jack & having to make shit up &/or misquote something.

Radarnav,

Where did I say that the GAO believes that Boeing should have been awarded the contract? I guess if you want to infer that since it said it should NOT have been awarded to NG/EADS that it means it should have been awarded to Boeing, YOU are perfectly welcome to do so. ;) As I said, the GAO has gone out of its way to point out that its ruling SHOULD NOT “be read to reflect a view as to the merits of the firms’
respective aircraft” & that there are limits to what the GAO CAN sustsain.

Where do you get that the GAO has the legal authority to direct the awarding of the contract to Boeing. The GAO went out of its way to say that that IS NOT its purpose.

If the KC-30 is selected again & the GAO feels that its concerns were not adequitely addressed then it could & likely would over-turn contract award. At this time the GAO has recommend that the USAF reopen discussions with the offerors, obtain revised proposals, re-evaluate the revised proposals, and make a new source selection decision, consistent with this decision — which is in essense overturning the award to NG/EADS but NOT directing that it be awarded to Boeing.

Stop spouting that made up lie that the GAO only sustained 8% of Boeing’s protest. The GAO SPECIFICALLY addressed that nonsense in the HASC hearing.

If something changes then it is the agency’s responsibility to ensure that all offerers are FULLY aware of it & if necessary ammend/edit the RFP (or if the changes are significant enough issue a new RFP) PRIOR TO AWARDING THE CONTRACT. And MUST give all offeres ample time to asses the changes & ammend/edit its (or submit a new) offer. That IS NOT what has happened here. The agency made a selection NOT based the relative merits of the proposals in accordance with the evaluation criteria identified in the solicitation & (& perhaps knowing full well that) tried to justify the selection on alternate criteria.

Yes I am fully aware of the SSA’s authority & that is what stinks about the rebid because the same man who was responsible to overseeing the last solicitation & making sure that what did happen didn’t is now the SSA. Under the same kind of scrutiny that the tanker lease was put under such an occurrence WOULD NOT happen & Mr. Young in fact would have all authority relating to the KC-X selection revolked & perhaps would have been shamed into resigning if not ‘asked” to step down.

pfcem writes,

just another example of BS_Buster not having jack & having to make shit up &/or misquote something

–Keep it civil Boeing Ball Washer

I’m going to take this low hanging fruit because I don’t have time…but here are some references.

Gates and Donley said 8 of 100

http://​www​.dodbuzz​.com/​2​0​0​8​/​0​7​/​0​9​/​g​a​t​e​s​-​s​t​r​i​p​s​-​a​f​-​o​f​-​t​a​n​k​e​r​-​c​o​n​t​r​a​c​t​-​d​e​c​i​s​i​on/

Probably reason enough for the sock puppet Cantwell to try to stall the Donley appointment.

http://​www​.dodbuzz​.com/​2​0​0​8​/​0​8​/​0​1​/​d​o​n​l​e​y​-​n​o​m​i​n​a​t​i​o​n​-​s​t​a​l​l​s​-​b​o​e​i​n​g​-​f​r​i​e​n​d​s​-​a​t​-​w​o​rk/

The Air Force reports:

“The Boeing protest filed early this year alleged more than 100 violations of proper contracting practices, eight of which were sustained by the GAO, the investigative arm of Congress.”

http://​www​.af​.mil/​n​e​w​s​/​s​t​o​r​y​.​a​s​p​?​i​d​=​1​2​3​1​0​5​961

Here it is in your own hometown news (but they got it wrong):

“Gates and others emphasized that while Boeing raised more than 100 issues in its protest, the GAO identified only seven the Air Force had mishandled.”

http://​seattletimes​.nwsource​.com/​h​t​m​l​/​b​u​s​i​n​e​s​s​t​e​c​h​n​o​l​o​g​y​/​2​0​0​8​0​4​3​0​9​1​_​t​a​n​k​e​r​c​o​n​t​r​a​c​t​1​0​0​.​h​tml

By the way, the HASC hearing only identified the 8 issues and would not elaborate further on the machinations from Boeing’s protest.

The GAO SPECIFICALLY addressed that nonsense in the HASC hearing.

PLUS if you actually read the GAO you will find several more “points” that while the GAO did not chose to list as an item which is sustained that it DID incicate needed to be addressed.

You need to start providing credible links with your spew.

I see 8 protest sustainments.

http://​www​.scribd​.com/​d​o​c​/​3​8​9​4​8​4​7​/​M​E​M​O​-​f​o​r​-​M​e​m​b​e​r​s​-​H​A​S​C​-​T​a​n​k​e​r​-​H​e​a​r​i​n​g​1​0​-​J​u​ly1

pfcem and credible should not be in the same sentence

The link to a full transcript of the entire 10 July 2008 HASC hearing had already been provided in an earlier thread. Everyone with intrest in the tanker recapitalization effort should have read it & informed themselves.

If any of you EADS/KC-30 Kool-Aid drinkers were half as informed as to try to make yourselves out to be you would know full well that the claim of 8 out of 100+ is utter nonsense which came from the idiot Gates in a pathetic attempt to lessen the impact of the GAO ruling. But NO, you have no concept of the truth & rely simply on headlines & questionable (at best) news reports. Not to mention the fact that the GAO could only sustain a protest under a rather limited scope/authority & that the 8 sustainment point encompass multiple protest items (the 1st sustainment point for example) & that in addtion to the 8 sustainment pints the GAO made a point of a number of ADDITIONAL issues which were done incorrectly & should be looked at/corrected but that under the GAO’s limited scope/authority were not made a point of sustainment.

Well remember who the “GAO” works for and I do not care what you say, they wrote what they were suggested to write. Their report almost sounds like what that waste Murth and Dicks say in their hearings.

And thus the conspiracy theories from those who have nothing else to support their BS come out…

Hey pfcem, why aren’t you out on the picket line with the rest of your Boeing buddies?

Now watch, the Boeing/Aeronovali/JADC Consortium will quit the competition so they can screw over their own people and the warfighter all in the same year.

Just one more of the risks that need to be considered for the Boeing/Aeronovali/JADC Consortium.

Today’s Non-Ethic Word: Boinginate
Pronunciation: \Bo-ing-i-nate\
Function: Verb
Etymology: North Western US & Boeing/Aeronovali/JADC Consortium
Date: 2008
Transitive verb
: to habitually lie, cheat, bribe or steal if you really, really want to win

I don’t work for Boeing.

What do Aeronovali &/or JADC have to do with the KC-X?

The same thing NG\EADS has to do with America’s New Tanker the KC-45. Parts is parts!

Today’s Non-Ethic Word: Boinginate
Pronunciation: \Bo-ing-i-nate\
Function: Verb
Etymology: North Western US & Boeing/Aeronovali/JADC Consortium
Date: 2008
Transitive verb
: to habitually lie, cheat, bribe or steal if you really, really want to win

Another shining example of Boeing ethics:

U.S. government sues Boeing over B-1 decoy system.
The AP (9/3) reports, “The federal government claims in a civil lawsuit that Chicago-based Boeing inflated the price it charged the Air Force for a towed decoy system to protect B-1 bombers from missiles.” According to the suit, “the Air Force paid $7.5 million more than it should have” for the system.

Bloomberg (9/3) quotes U.S. Attorney Thomas O’Brien, who said, “During contract negotiations, Boeing failed to disclose that it would outsource the fabrication of most of the components of the parts that were to be used in the program.” O’Brien continued, “Had the Air Force known the truth, it would have negotiated a substantially lower price for the towed decoy system.” Another AP (9/3, Dillon) article also reports the story.

*required

Spam Protection by WP-SpamFree

NOTE: Comments are limited to 2500 characters and spaces.

By commenting on this topic you agree to the terms and conditions of our User Agreement