Pentagon Tightens Controls on Tanker Info

Radarnav August 11th, 2008 at 1:23 pm

Just announced on the MSM — Boeing is having a meeting with Pentagon officials to complain to them that the revised RFP is slanted toward NG; in other news reports, NGC is saying the draft RFP is slanted toward Boeing.

4th procurement = same story = same results — PROTEST

pfcem August 11th, 2008 at 5:28 pm

Sorry, I was responding to the article about the rumer that Boeing was considering not bidding…

By the way, the KC-X RFP was not written for Boeing to win. It was written to indicate what the USAF wanted & needed in a KC-135 replacement tanker. If just so happens that (as pretty much everyone knew to be the case) the KC-767 more closely match the RFP. EADS knew that the KC-30 was noncompetative & indicated that it would not bid for a contract it knew it could not win. Since Congress mandated a competition, the USAF was forced to change its criteria to accompdate the KC-30. BUT even after doing so EADS wanted “further clearification” of the new criteria (as did Boeing) but the USAF refused to budge even after NG/EADS threatened to pull its bid.

But quite simply, you either (as most did) agree that the KC-X solicitation reasonably depicted what was wanted/needed (in which case Boeing probably would win if the you assess the relative merits of the proposals in accordance with the evaluation criteria identified in the solicitation) or you better have said you didn’t BEFORE the GAO ruled that in selecting the KC-30 the KC-X source selction team & DOD KC-X oversite team did not assess the relative merits of the proposals in accordance with the evaluation criteria identified in the solicitation.

Bill August 11th, 2008 at 8:38 pm

Rumor is that Claire McCaskill will require sole source to Boeing (she’s from Misoury) before she releases her hold on the acting secaf

pfcem August 11th, 2008 at 9:55 pm

mojojojo,

First of all, I did nothing. I don’t work for Boeing, I am just a concerned citizen who, unlike so many others, has followed the USAF’s tanker recapitalization efforts since BEFORE 9/11/01 (& that includes having actually spoken with tanker flight & maintenance crews).

Second, it is NG/EADS, not Northrop Grumman. Yes NG is listed as the prime contractor in charge of systems integration but don’t fool yourself into thinking the KC-30 is a Northrop Grumman aircraft. NG’s actual workshare by value is unlikely more than 1/3.

I do have my own theory as to why the KC-30 was selected which I have shared elsewhere but will wait until the new solicitation is finalized to see if new events fit my theory or if I should look at a few things more thoroughly & revise my theory in light of it. But just read the GAO ruling & it is clear that either the USAF KC-X source selection team & the DOD KC-X oversight team were either grossely incompotent or had motives other than what was indicated throughout the solicitation (read what ever you want as to what that means) or a combination of the two.

Everyone who has followed the USAF’s tanker recapitalization efforts long enough has known since 2002 what BOTH Boeing & EADS were offering — it was no secret.

No, 4 of the 5 factors did not go to NG/EADS. That was pure propaganda that was put out even before the official selection announcement was made & was thoroughly shown to be false by the GAO ruling.

The USAF only has itself to blaim for delays. IT is the one who has screwed up TWICE. If had done it correctly the first time we would, assuming the delivery schedule did not slip (which it likely would have), we would have more than 20 new KC-767 (abeit essentially Italian KC-767A) already. Now the USAF is no longer even the one making the selection.

pfcem August 12th, 2008 at 10:43 am

Jon,

Congress did not order a forced lease of Boeing tankers. The USAF had been working on a tanker recapitalization since 1996 when the GAO determined that the long-term viability of the KC-135 fleet was in doubt. The USAF had alll but chsen the KC-767 prior to 9/11/01 & its roadmap have it taking delivery in 2012. The events of 9/11/01 changes things & the USAF sought to begin recapitalization sooner rather than later. The USAF informed Congress that if Congress provided the proper language, that the USAF could “jump start” tanker recapitalization through an operational lease of KC-767s. Congress responded by putting just such language in the 2002 defense appropriations bill. The USAF sent out a RFI in Feb 02 & BOTH Boeing & EADS responded. It was absolutely clear to “everyone” from the responses that the KC-767 was the correct choice & the USAF spelled out a number of reasons why. The USAF cleary stated that the KC-767 would meet all its requirements but in an attempt to get new tankers ASAP, the USAF negotiated with Boeing that the initial tankers would be essentially the sme as the Italian KC-767A — it was always intended that improvements to the basic KC-767 platform would be made & that (assuming the USAF would purchase the leased tankers at the end of the lease) modifications could/would be made to the lease tankers to bring them up to near full capability standard (likely ultimately something akin to the KC-767AT) of later procurement batches. Note that just because all 26 tanker requirements were not included in the tanker lease DOES NOT mean that the KC-767 could not meet them, just that it was not required to (it was more importatnt at the time to get new tankers ASAP then to have them fully meet all requirements).

I included in one of my previous posts the contents of the tanker lease system requirements. The USAF wanted the KC-767 so much & wanted it ASAP that the tanker lease system requirements were written around the KC-767. MANY changes were made (some specifically to get EADS to compete) for the KC-X solicitation yet still the KC-767AT more closely matched the criteria that the KC-30 (including NG/EADS & the USAF failing to justify the KC-30 meeting some requirements that it appears it did not meet).

Qute a lot can be found here:
http://armedservices.house.gov/
http://digital.library.unt.edu/
http://www.gao.gov/
http://www.govexec.com/
http://www.leeham.net/
http://opencrs.com/
http://stinet.dtic.mil/

http://www.fas.org/
http://www.globalsecurity.org/

Educate yourself…

oldgoat August 13th, 2008 at 4:23 am

I wonder why nobody is saying anything about the McCain/AB lobby in this issue? Why did McCain go to Gates and the AF to get rules that only favored the 330? Will he now go to the AF to make sure that there are multiple bids if Boeing says that the rules are against it? Why are we even considering a plane that is a large tanker when we are seeking a replacement for a medium tanker? The 330 will on be able to use half the fields that the KC135 did and will cost not only more to operate on a daily basis but also over a life basis.

pfcem August 14th, 2008 at 11:17 am

mojojojo,

The USAF is to blaim for the the lease deal. It was the USAF which screwed up trying to rush the process to get the tanker it wanted ASAP.

Yes Druyun (USAF acquisition officer) & Sears (Boeing CFO) went to jail for illegally negotiating a job for Druyun while negotiating the tanker lease. And guess what Druyun retired in Nov 2002 & Boeing fired BOTH Druyun & Sears in Nov 2003. Everything that they had done had been undone/renegotiated before the contract was finally cancelled due to the mistakes the USAF made.

What are you smoking? Boeing did not get lazy. It propossed a new KC-767 varient SPECIFICALLY TAILORED to the KC-X requirements. One which met or exceeded all key requirements (the KC-X source selection team/DOD KC-X oversight team & NG/EADS failed to justify that the KC-30 met a number of requirements) & met more non-key requirements that the KC-30. The KC-767 had 98 discriminators & only one weakness, the KC-30 had 30 discriminators & five weaknesses AND the GAO ruling puts a number of the KC-30’s discriminators in doubt/increases its weaknesses. NG/EADS DID NOT win most of the critertia.

Don’t give me that BS that the GAO sustained less than 10% of Boeing’s protest items. The GAO did not have the scope &/or athority to rule on every one of Boeing’s protest items & what it did sustain encompassed a number of specific protest items PLUS the GAO indicated a number of other items that it recommended be looked more closely at but did not specifically sustain the protest over. The GAO ruling was one of (if not THE) harshest ruling in its history. It is truly pathetic how EADS/KC-30 Kool-Aid drinkers attempt to minimized it.

Cole August 14th, 2008 at 1:35 pm

Wonder what pfcem will say about this:

http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/business/374735_boeingitaly13.html

Can’t bode well for that risk rating.…

Chris August 14th, 2008 at 2:56 pm

Boeing is a joke plain and simple

pfcem August 14th, 2008 at 3:25 pm

The late delivery of the Italian & Japanese KC-767s was already considered a part of Boeing’s risk rating.

What remains to be seen now is how possible/likely additional delays & cost overruns to various programs will effect EADS’s risk rating…

At any rate delays & cost overruns are a fact of life & are much more the norm rather than the exception. What should REALLY be looked at is how the contractor deals with the seemingly inevitable delays & cost overruns

pfcem August 14th, 2008 at 3:53 pm

Jack,

No, it is pointing out the blatant hipocracy of the anti-Boeing/KC-767 pro-EADS/KC-30 crowd when they fault Boeing while ignoring that EADS has the same faults.

BS_Buster August 15th, 2008 at 4:32 am

mojojojo — For those on the Boeing/Aeronovali/JADC Team I’ve attached the following link:

http://www.merriam-webster.com

They will need to look up the definitions of dignity and respect, not something they run across very often in their corporate offices these days!

Today’s Non-Ethics 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 August 15th, 2008 at 1:29 pm

This is an interesting link that Jon posted. 

http://www.military.com/NewContent/0,13190,Galloway_033104,00.html

Shows just how much Boeing was in bed with the AF. Given all the events for the last half decade, it appears the honeymoon is over.

Corruption’s never good for a resume. That’s why the muckety-mucks keep shoving ethics down our throats. It’s hard to shake.

I’d like to be a fly on the wall for Boeing’s Saturday “discussions”. Would probably make some great press, but alas we’ll never get the truth.

Chris August 15th, 2008 at 3:45 pm

Let me guess pfcem is going to talk about how John McCain cannot be trusted, that Joe Galloway is no better then a newsroom cartoonist who has no credibility, That Boeing had no wrong doing,That Airbus is the front man of a French conspiracy to over take America’s economy, the 767 Tanker can fly Mach 3, carry 999,999 gallons of fuel and refuel 2 carrier airwings Simultaneously, and that the KC-45 is about as stucturally sound as the Graf Zeppelin.And follow up with his typical 3rd grade coined phrase “that we are all KC-45 Kool Aid drinkers”

pfcem August 16th, 2008 at 1:42 pm

mojojojo,

Actually, aside from the half-truths, misrepresentations of the truth & outright untruths of the Galloway article, it shows/hints at just how much the USAF was in bed with Boeing & the lengths at which it went to to get the KC-767AT it asked for ASAP.

It is also helpful to know something of the actual Inspector General Report which details the mistakes the USAF made.

D-2004–064 “Acquisition of the Boeing KC-767A Tanker Aircraft.”
http://www.dodig.osd.mil/Audit/reports/fy04/04064sum.htm
Report summary, pdf file of actual report is corrupt.

Statement of The Honorable Joseph E. Schmitz Inspector General Department of Defense before the Airland Subcommittee Senate Committee on Armed Services on “Air Force Acquisition Oversight”
http://www.dodig.osd.mil/fo/Testimony_DoDIG_4-14-05_Final11.pdf
While not the actual report itself it is what Inspector General Schmitz testified to Congress on the report.

An important timeline for those who happen to actually take the time to educate themselves (take particular note of the time gap between them)…

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

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

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

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

Chris August 16th, 2008 at 6:07 pm

Thanks for demonstrating just how patheric & childish you (& your fellow EADS/KC-30 Kool-Aid drinkers) are

–You post crap like this and you are calling me childish. Lol! Typical Boeing apologist attacking anyone who will not believe their little fairytale

pfcem August 17th, 2008 at 2:33 pm

Oops forgaot to add…

Just love the liberal-like responce that calling someone what they are (EADS/KC-30 Kool-Aid drinker) &/or calling them on their half truths, misrepresentations & outright lies is an attack. LOL

Chris August 18th, 2008 at 11:35 am

Any one notice that pfcem is the only one on here that believes his Boeing half truths. I find that to be quite hilarious!!!!!

Chris August 19th, 2008 at 8:15 am

unablke

??????????? Does that mean something in Boeing-ese???

OR refute those of others.

–I’ve never disagreed with anyone on here,except you, Once again catching you in a lie, just go away you keep making a fool of yourself