Home » Air » Boeing Offering Two Bids, Two Planes

Boeing Offering Two Bids, Two Planes

By Colin Clark Monday, September 28th, 2009 3:50 pm
Posted in Air, International, Policy

UPDATED: Boeing Spokesman Says No Decision “About Which Plane To Offer Or Whether To Offer Both“

Building a bid for a major acquisition program like the KC-X tanker is expensive and consumes many man hours, but Boeing will place bids for both the 767 and the 777 versions of their airborne tanker.

A lot of the defense press was puzzled by Boeing’s statement last week after the release of the draft RFP. “Our next step is to conduct a detailed review of the document. We want to understand how requirements will be defined and prioritized and how the proposals will be evaluated. That information will help us decide which plane to offer or whether to offer both planes. We appreciate that there will be frequent, open discussion with the U.S. Air Force as we go forward. Both the Air Force and the American taxpayer will benefit from the tanker options we can offer. Boeing has a KC-7A7 ‘family of tankers’ available to meet the warfighter’s requirements. Whether it’s the agile, flexible 767-based tanker or the large 777-based tanker, Boeing will deliver a combat-ready tanker with maximum capability at the lowest cost.”

Did this mean they were offering both planes in one bid? Two planes in two bids? One plane definitely and one plane maybe? I dug around and got someone to confirm that Boeing plans to offer two bids. I can understand the logic behind Boeing offering the 777 since it and the Northrop plane are the most similar in terms of size and range and the fact that they are both recent designs. But virtually no work has been done on a tanker version of the plane, although Boeing has certainly done internal studies and must have done preliminary design work.

The company, on reading our story, made clear Tuesday that it wants to maintain the ambiguity of its earlier statement. “We have not made any decision about which plane to offer or whether to offer both planes,” William Barksdale, Boeing’s tanker spokesman, wrote in an email.

For fun, here is some video of Sen. Pat Murray of Washington at the controls of the boom simulator that Boeing had up on Capitol Hill last week. None of you will be surprised to learn that all of the lawmakers who visited the simulator were either from Washington or from districts with lots of Boeing jobs.

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

	TB September 28th, 2009 at 4:02 pm Are any of those Congressmen/women in the decision chain for the bid? For as much as Congress gets on the DoD’s case for having open and fair and impartial decisions, they need to make sure they get out of the way if its their constituents.
	Solomon September 28th, 2009 at 4:55 pm This is the first decision that I think Gates did with a political tinge to it. There is no way in heaven or hell that the Air Force should have been given this grenade. DOD procurement officials should have stepped in on this one. Prediction. Split buy due to politics. The Air Force and DOD will be forced to eat the cost of two production and maintenance pipelines.
	pfcem September 28th, 2009 at 5:08 pm The majority of the tanker systems are the same whether the tanker be a 767 or 777. The difference being specific to the airframe flight perfomance/control systems. While the 777–200 (209′ 1″ x 199′ 11″) is similar in size to the A330-200 (193′ 7″ x 197′ 10″), it offers MUCH greater payload (weight/fuel load) capability (at the expense of greater weight) in ER &/or LR form. Note that the large KC-10 is smaller (181′ 7″ x 165′ 4″) & lighter (240,000 lbs OEW) than the A330-200… I really do not see why Boeing would bid the 777 unless it is to ensure it can trump the “bigger is better” BS…
	Byron Skinner September 28th, 2009 at 7:07 pm Good Afternoon Folks, Is their nothing Boeing won’t try? All this is, is Low Ball, High Ball and then the switch to Congress after the bid is announced. If Boeing is not careful Sec. Gates under the law might have to disqualify from the bidding process for fraudulent practices. This is the kind of stuff a bidder who knows he doesn’t have a chance of getting the job by the rules will try. If Boeing’s position is that week on the Tanker bid then they don’t deserve the contract. ALLONS, Byron Skinner
	pfcem September 28th, 2009 at 8:02 pm Byron Skinner, What are you talking about?
	Byron Skinner September 28th, 2009 at 10:33 pm Good Evening pfcem, I’m talking about the bidding process. First question is who wrote the specifications for the tankers that are the subject of the bid. It would appear by Boeings actions that is was not the Air Force. Was it a contracted out process to a civilian think tank? Does this contractor have a relationship with Boeing? Was it Boeing? Most RFQ’s from the DoD that I’ve seen and I have seen a fair numbers starts with an RFQ based on lose requirements and perhaps a preliminary cost with some options listed separately. The cost estimate of an RFQ is for budget purposes and is to be on the high side. When the Bid is issued there is often a set of bid/project manuals (bidders have to leave a deposit in most cases) that specify the project. Most of this document is what is referred to as boiler plate it describes welding process, materials, fasteners and other general items and then there is the contract specific information. This is what you are to price for your bid. It’s pretty dull stuff bit it’s the process. Boeing by wanting to submit what in effect is an alternate bid along with the requested bis, is a clear indication that the 767 does not and can not meet the bid specifications and or performance requirements as given in the project manual and that the price of the Boeing 777 would exceed the Air Bus Bid for the A-330, which one assumes fills all the specifications. It would appear that Boeing is banking on bidding and winning with the 767 and then going to Congress and selling the 777 for an a little more. This is illegal pfcem. Have I answered you question?
	irtusk September 29th, 2009 at 12:07 am > is a clear indication that the 767 does not and can not meet the bid specifications and or performance requirements as given in the project manual > Boeing is banking on bidding and winning with the 767 how can they win with the 767 if it doesn’t meet specifications? > and then going to Congress and selling the 777 for an a little more and if they can win with the 767, why would they get it changed to 777, wouldn’t they just be happy with doing the 767?
	Curt September 29th, 2009 at 4:02 am @Byron Skinner, Not everything is an evil corporate plot to defraud the taxpayer. Let’s see, read Boeing rep statement, OK, nothing new here, you would hear the same thing from NG/Airbus but they only have one option. Boeing has already said they will evaluate the requirements and then decide how to compete to best meet those requirements (gee, kind of what you expect from a company). DoD buzz said this, “I dug around and got someone to confirm that Boeing plans to offer two bids.” Of course we don’t know who they talked to or how the questions were phrased or what the conditions of the statement were. Then they speculate on why Boeing might offer two separate bids. And finally, “None of you will be surprised to learn that all of the lawmakers who visited the simulator were either from Washington or from districts with lots of Boeing jobs.” Note that Boeing probably offered everyone an opportunity to try the simulator. Read the quote, the lawmakers chose to visit the simulator. Mass conspiracy, members of Congress interested in companies with products manufactured in their districts! “I’m talking about the bidding process. First question is who wrote the specifications for the tankers that are the subject of the bid. It would appear by Boeings actions that is was not the Air Force. Was it a contracted out process to a civilian think tank? Does this contractor have a relationship with Boeing? Was it Boeing?“ What specifically in Boeing actions leads you to believe they, or anyone outside the DoD, wrote the specifications? Both contractors are reviewing the RFP, and to date, I don’t see any action from either that questions the RFP, do you? I am sure there will be a bunch of discussions and positioning down the road, but then it is a DRAFT RFP! That means that the contractors bidding get to provide input before it is finalized, you know, things like clarification of specific requirements, how specific mission requirements are going to be evaluated and how many points you get for exceeding the requirements, argue to change grading criteria, etc. If they submit two bids, Boeing would have to submit two of everything. Can you cite the law that says that a contractor can’t offer two separate bids for a contract? Because for a variety of reasons JSF had several contractors with multiple bids. “Boeing by wanting to submit what in effect is an alternate bid along with the requested bid, is a clear indication that the 767 does not and can not meet the bid specifications and or performance requirements as given in the project manual and that the price of the Boeing 777 would exceed the Air Bus Bid for the A-330, which one assumes fills all the specifications. It would appear that Boeing is banking on bidding and winning with the 767 and then going to Congress and selling the 777 for an a little more. This is illegal pfcem.” I don’t understand what convoluted logic the above statement makes any sense at all. In order for this to make sense, you have to assume that the USAF and DoD can’t decide if the 767 meets its requirements (which no one has ever asserted). Let me give you an alternate rational for Boeing’s actions that is maybe less of a concern. Boeing knows they can win the KC-X contract with the 767 tanker. Their product is superior, cheaper, and better fits the stated requirements unlike that illegally subsidized Airbus POS(I am not asserting this, just saying that maybe this is how Boeing thinks. Personal disclaimer, I have flown on numerous 767/777s and A330s and there is no comparison, 767s and 777s are much more comfortable but that is probably more the cheap interiors used on the A330s and not the airframe). But they are concerned that when they win, NG will cry to Congress and Congress will make the USAF buy a KC-30 for the KC-Y tanker with the argument that “We already have a tanker that is too big for KC-X but can meet the KC-Y specifications, why have a competition and delay. Everyone wins, the USAF needs these tankers now, the KC-10s are going to start falling out of the sky. Let’s just have a split buy and not have any competition.” So Boeing thinks, “The 767 is a better KC-X platform, and based on what we think the USAF wants, the 777 will be a better KC-Y platform, I will close out NG/Airbus from both contracts and take over the world! Bwah hah hah (sorry, couldn’t resist). And as a side benefit, if it turns out that the USAF really thinks bigger is always better, we will win KC-X with the 777. We’ll give the USAF the best plane that meets their requirements, unlike NG/Airbus who has one plane only, damn the requirements. So by my logic, which has the advantage of actually being logical, Boeing is either looking to box NG in with both a more flexible tanker or a better bigger tanker (kind of like buying insurance in blackjack but not really because Boeing wins both ways and insurance is normally a sucker’s bet) thereby demonstrating the flexibility of the Boeing family of jets or they are using KC-X to position for KC-Y and keep NG/Airbus from playing politics after they lose. After all, they were probably planning to compete the 777 for the KC-Y anyway, why not start now. Or believe your theory of a sinister plot, I don’t really care, just had some extra time this morning.
	Tom Pugh September 29th, 2009 at 5:19 am The current fleet still has close to half its useful life left so why in hell is anyone considering wasting billions of dollars buying new aircraft? And, during the last tanker fiasco, Boeing demonstrated that it was little more than a gang of crooks out to screw the taxpayer. They should be barred from bidding on any new tanker.
	JN September 29th, 2009 at 7:04 am Its obvious Boeing is trying to do a number of things here. The 767 met the requirements in the previous competition, but the A-330 won all these imaginary brownie points for being things other than what the competition asked for. Boeing by placing two bids is saying we can do either one, “we can do exactly whats asked for” or “we can give you everything and the kitchen sink”. You go into a car dealership say you want something big, its not wrong of them to show a selection of minivans and SUVs. Boeing is playing to their strong suit in offering the Govt. options and choices. Options and choices are never bad, unless you make the wrong one.
	Cole September 29th, 2009 at 8:16 am The competition allows a split buy and we already hear Rep. Murtha talking about 36 a year. Not sure how they would afford that but could envision 24 a year with each team getting 12 aircraft. Net result would be 4 different types of aircraft during the first few years compared to 3 different aircraft with a single winner. Big deal. For the rest of the competition, if you decided to roll KC-X and KC-Z into this same competition for 15 years x 24 aircraft, you would replace all the KC-135R. Then have a final competition for the newer KC-10 replacement. As you see below, with EITHER strategy you end up with 3 aircraft types in the end and 4 aircraft for most of the procurement: Present KC-X/KC-Y/KC-Z plan: —————————- KC-135R..KC-135R..KC-135R..KC-X KC-10.…KC-10.…KC-X.….KC-Y KC-X.….KC-X.….KC-Y.….KC-Z .….….KC-Y.….KC-Z Alternate strategy: ================== KC-135R..KC-135R..KC-10..KC-Y KC-110…KC-10.…KC-Y…KC-X1 (B767) KC-X1.…KC-X1.…KC-X1..KC-X2 (A330) KC-X2.…KC-X2.…KC-X2 The advantage of having a smaller and larger aircraft from the get go is obvious. You could tailor larger KC-10/A330 aircraft to larger missions and the smaller B767 and KC-135R for smaller missions. Although it currently is not considered, the USAF and DoD should consider the fuel savings of using A330 in place of C-17 flights. That results in MAJOR savings in both fuel and C-17 life. BTW, in my earlier calculations, there is a discount factor in the next to last column of the spreadsheet that I haven’t been considering. That probably has something to do with present value of options. So the fuel difference may be much less than the $7.3 billion based on inflated dollars. After all, you shouldn’t compare inflated 40 year fuel prices to “current” 10–15 year procurement dollars.
	Taker September 29th, 2009 at 8:48 am There isn’t going to be a split buy. The money just isn’t there for 25–30 tankers a year.
	Frank Arcieri September 29th, 2009 at 8:54 am So, this is what we get for allowing Boeing to gobble up all their competitors, little by little, to the point that their only competitor in this bid is, foreign owned and foreign government subsidized, Airbus. It’s either, Boeing or Airbus. Take your pick. Reminds one when it comes to voting in the Presidental election.
	LockMartSkunk September 29th, 2009 at 9:14 am Haha ok this is hilarious. Our team barely has any real material to work with in building components for the 767 and now they want to build the 777?? Is the target year for IOC like 2025 or something??
	DensityDuck September 29th, 2009 at 11:16 am I love it when people say that something is “illegal”, when what they mean is “I don’t like it that this is allowed”.
	Buzz September 29th, 2009 at 11:44 am Bidding two aircraft makes sense to me. The 767 meets the requirements originally specified, before they were tailored to favor the A330 and placate Senator McCain. But if the Air Force wants bigger and newer, the 777 is bigger and newer than the A330. Plus,the 767 and 777 are made in the USA.
	Sgt JFK September 29th, 2009 at 12:24 pm I think this is a great move by Boeing. This gives the USAF the most options to base its decision on (Remember, Best equipment for the war fighter IS the MOST important factor here) and also gives them the edge in the bigger = better aspect of this. The move also gives the USAF the option to keep all parties happy here and do a split buy of KC-45s and KC-777s. With a split buy (and I am sure its been talked about behind closed doors even though Gates has said No in the past) KC-135s could be retired faster for cost savings and the cancelation of KC-Y can be sold to the public as a large cost avoidance. The 767 is too old a design and sustainment costs will be too high in the long run. Good move Boeing.
	Pug Mahone September 29th, 2009 at 1:18 pm Too many comparisons to auto manufacturers. What’s next? “We’ll give you up to $4500 for your old tanker and put you in the left seat of a brand new 7X7/A-330 at a low monthly payment you can afford.”
	TB September 29th, 2009 at 1:28 pm “This gives the USAF the most options to base its decision on (Remember, Best equipment for the war fighter IS the MOST important factor here)…” Sgt JFK, the reason I made the comment about certain members of Congress is that for many of them the best warfighting equipment is not the most important factor. The last time we went down this road (when NG/EADS got the tanker) the Congresspeople from Boeing districts shouted to the heavens about jobs, and never once mentioned if it was a good plane or not.
	fred thomas September 29th, 2009 at 1:59 pm Can someone ask Tiahrt about his picture at Airbus in Kansas when they opened shop there and how proud he was to have them, and then how he worked so hard to sell the Cessna Sky-catcher line to China and all the years and jobs lost. People in Kansas need to wake up this guy is no different than Chris Dodd except he has a “R” instead of a “D” after his name. And now they might make him a Senator? Come on Todd what is with the double talk, how much is Boeing Paying you…
	Don Zweifel September 29th, 2009 at 2:08 pm Well perhaps we should hold our horses here a moment. The JASDF/Japan Air Self-Defense Force currently has three KC-767J’s in IOC/Initial Operational Capability as of May, 2009 and shall receive a fourth during the first quarter of 2010. The aforementioned is a version of the 767-200ER as a civilian counterpart. What we’re alluding to here is that Boeing could hit the ground running with nary a hiccup. Could the KC-45 do as much? Me thinks not. Even the Italian AF has decided on the above and we still don’t have traction on this matter. May yours truly also mention what General Curt LeMay told me over 20 years ago when he mused… “Don, if we wear out our tanker fleet and don’t have ready replacements we’ll end up being about as effective as a fart in the wind.…” Needless to say he’d be spinning in his grave if he realized that we have way too much time on our KC-135R airframes and are still utilizing the worn-out E’s.… So when the balloon goes up we’ll be caught with our pants down… n’est ce-pas?
	RJ September 29th, 2009 at 3:03 pm Whatever company rewarded the bid, I am hopeful that one of the requirements will be that it will in addition; carry cargo just as the KC-10 is capable of doing. In recent years there has been a clamor for the purchase of 747 aircraft to bolster cargo airlift capability and reliability. Congress is against that idea as are some in the Pentagon so it only seems prudent that they would be looking for a tanker that is capable of carrying a greater cargo load than that of the KC-10 as well as being the next generation tanker. As the much acclaimed modernization of the aging C-5 cargo airlift fleet which only consists of digitizing the cockpit and adding newer engines, you still have an airframe with a lower mission reliability rate than desired. The C-5M is still a much needed upgrade however, the progress of the program slowly inches forward with four aircraft in the test phase and the need to provide the war fighter with supplies increasing as we switch from the war in Iraq to finally focus on the real war in Afghanistan. The political and military minds in the position of acquisition should be focused on the big picture of acquiring an aircraft that will have a dual mission as a tanker and a cargo deliver platform.
	pfcem September 29th, 2009 at 3:39 pm Byron Skinner, So where/what is the “Low Ball, High Ball and then the switch to Congress after the bid is announced” you are babbling about? *** Tom Pugh, We need to start replacing the current fleet ASAP because the the amount of money being projected to be available each year to buy new tankers it is going to take 35–40 years to replace the entire fleet. Go right on making as ass of yourself calling Boeing a bunch of crooks & should be banned from bidding. It demonstrates quite clearly how ignorant you are & how fearful you are that the only way the KC-30 can win (without cheating) is if Boeing is not allowed to compete for the contract.
	Byron Skinner September 29th, 2009 at 3:58 pm Good Afternoon Folks, Lets see in Curt’s defense of Boeing and two bids he states the 767 can’t meet the bid requirements, so why bid it? What is being said here is that Boeing can’t get the tanker project through an open bid process so it will use the old Congressional graft and corruption way to do it. Of course if Boeing loses again they will protest. Tom Pugh by the way is correct an AF study of the current fleet of tankers show that they are not anyway near being worn out. Which is good because a corrupted company like Boeing will protest any bid it doesn’t get until the other side just gives up and Boeing become a sole source. ALLONS, Byron Skinner
	JN September 29th, 2009 at 4:10 pm Boeing by submitting two aircraft may also be planning ahead for a split buy. If the 777 ends up comparable to the A330, Boeing can make it that much harder to justify a split buy between two different companies. A split buy between one companies planes would be cheaper than a split buy between two separate companies. A 767 and 777 have enough commonality that in handling equipment and maintenance parts cost is reduced as well as long term maintainance agreements with Boeing, relative to splitting it between two companies.
	ReconTeam September 29th, 2009 at 4:35 pm Good for Boeing. They should certainly be allowed to make two offers if the USAF can’t make up their mind on what size tanker they want. Hell if NG wants to make two offerings let them too, as long as whatever is chosen can start production be the specified date. Boeing may have shot themselves in the foot the first time around, but hopefully they can deliver the goods this time around. And yes my personal preference is Boeing, but if they screw up again I would have no problems with NG winning. That would certainly send them a message.
	pfcem September 29th, 2009 at 6:12 pm Byron Skinner, Boeing can’t get the tanker project through an open bid process is pure BS. Boeing won the 1st round by being the only bidder to offer a competative product but the USAF/DOD screwed up. In the 2nd round, the KC-X Source Selection Team ingored its own solitation (did not assess the relative merits of the proposals in accordance with the evaluation criteria identified in the solicitation) AND its own results (Boeing offer met more requirements, was superior in more & higher valued requirements AND was the lower cost bid even under the flawed in favor of the KC-30 cost evaluation methodology). It is EADS that can’t seem to get the tanker project through an open bid process… It is in fact very RARE for Boeing to protest ANY bid it doesn’t get & in the case of the KC-X its protest was proven to be valid & was sustained. *** ReconTeam, How did Boeing shoot themselves in the foot the first time around? Surely you are not suggesting Boeing should have kept the Druyun/Sears misconduct that IT discovered to itself… And how did they screw up EITHER the 1st OR 2nd times around?
	Byron Skinner September 29th, 2009 at 10:55 pm Good Evening Folks, So here is where this issue stands. Boeing knows that the 767 doesn’t meet bid specs., most likely because they gained access to Grumman pricing on the last bid from with in the Air Force. Although as pointed out their was no laws broken here by the military or the contracting authority I would suggest that all of Boeing pricing information in the last bid also be made available to Grumman. Thus in order to meet the specifications of the bid Boeing must go with it’s 777 which of course is no where near being price competitive with the A-330. If Curt’s claim was correct that the 767 does in fact fulfill all of the bid requirements their would be no reason for Boeing to try and sell the 777. To pfcem, when bidding on a Federal contract each bidder is expected to meet the specifications as given. If a bidder decides to exceed the specifications, that’s fine, but it doesn’t penalize other bidders who only meet specifications. By Boeing political actions on this bid, it is a strong indicator that Boeing is in trouble, mostly by the rather poor job Boeing’s defenders are doing here, indicates that they have no path way to resolving these problems with in the frame work of the competitive bidding process. As indicated in other posts here Boeings problems are all self inflicted. While my friend Cole’s models of optimizing the use of tankers including yet to be specified KC-X“s and KC-Y’s, the Air Force should definitely considers employing his considerable talents, they have nothing to do with the question at hand. The issue here really is not tankers which there is no pressing need by the Air Forces own admission but the live of the service personal who must operate these platforms and who must relay on them to perform the mission of in air refueling. Quite frankly the profits and return on equity to Grumman or Boeing share holders don’t mean squat. This is our nations defense we are talking about, and the corporate corruption that has been shown here brings the behavior of Boeing to a higher level the that of criminal activity, but this is in fact treason. Strong words but as someone who has had to put dead American soldiers in body bags because of flawed weapons that didn’t perform in battle, that’s the way I see it. ALLONS, Byron Skinner
	Ted September 29th, 2009 at 10:58 pm Bigger equates to greater efficiency when it is utiilized to capacity. A loaded A380 is more efficient than a 777. Why does the KC-135 need to be replaced by something equal or bigger? Perhaps two planes half the size is the answer. Domestic 707s and widebodies have been replaced by 737s and 320s. Half empty planes are expensive to operate, and that should apply to the tanker RFP.
	pfcem September 30th, 2009 at 1:40 am Byron Skinner, What are you smoking? The ‘new specs’ are essentially the same as the last time (only even remotely significant ‘spec’ change being the fuel onload/offload increased to 1200 gal/min) & the 767 MET OR EXCEEDED ALL OF THEM. Gainging access to competator pricing has NOTHING to do with meeting or not meeting ‘bid specs’. Where did I say that bidders are penalized for ‘only meeting specifications’ when another exceeds them? What political actions by Boeing? How are Boeing supporters doing a rather poor job here? What problems with in the frame work of the competitive bidding process? What Boeings problems? ABSOLUTELY the yet to be specified KC-Y should be considered & realize that KC-X is a KC-135 replacement MEDIUM TANKER with the upcoming KC-Y indended to be the KC-10 replacement LARGE TANKER of the mixed medium/large tanker force! Every time ‘more’ comes up, the KC-Y LARGE TANKER is the answer, not the KC-X MEDIUM TANKER. Hardly a month has gone by in the past 6+ years where the USAF has not stated the pressing need to begin tanker recapitalization ASAP. Stop the BS lies about Boeing corporate corruption!
	JN September 30th, 2009 at 7:03 am Byron, all the reasons I previously wrote are reasons Boeing has submitted two planes and none of them require a conspiracy theory to understand. –With requirements and a number of bonus items (that potentially can be considered), Boeing is bidding two planes, the 767 can meet the requirements but not the bonus items, Boeing is likely bidding the 777 to provide a bid that can meet those bonus requirements but with a trade off in the cost difference in attaining those bonus items. –With a split buy on the table and that possibility becoming a reality Boeing is vying to be sole source even in a split buy. Commonality of components and maintainance can be selling point for an all Boeing split buy, in comparison to a Boeing/EAD split buy. All the problems could have been avoided if some one had a better understanding of what they really needed the first time around and stuck to it. Putting these bids together cost money and whichever company wins, they will have to charge more to cover all this. The GAO has said that this type of uncertainty over desired specification and the changes that occur as a result are the leading cause of cost overuns. This time around they need to decide what needed and stick to it.
	Byron Skinner September 30th, 2009 at 3:49 pm Good Afternoon pfcem, Lets see. First off I stopped smoking anything decades ago. Item#1: On specifications you claim the 767 met (?) or exceeds all of them. The answer to this of course since the 767 is a cheaper air frame then why include the 777? A split buy is simply out of the question, I don’t recall anyone saying that it was a bid option. The bid calls for a single air craft that meets the bid requirements. Two different aircraft would burden the AF with duplicating maintenance, support facilities and supply lines for two air craft doing the same mission. Only a politician could even consider this compromise. I apologize to my friend Cole but I just can’t resist. (KCY+KCX)=(KCy(a)+KCx(b))+KCY+KCX. Who knows what goes on inside those hangers at night? After submarines, what next, Tankers? Boeings corporate corruption is no BS, see the public record. To JN: I’ve done a lot of Federal Bids and never saw any bonus points for adding items, I have seen bids with optional items to be priced separately, but they were not to be part of or a consideration to the bid price and would be ordered, if desired, separately. It is true the Government doesn’t have to take the lowest bid. I’ve never seen that option exercised because someone offered something at a higher price, but exceeded the bid requirements. The reason(s) for taking the alternate price as it is called, is that there is some question about the ability of the winning bidder to do the contract. I would say that either of these vendors can perform on this contract. In short none of my question were addressed. pfcem says that the 767 mets or exceeds the specifications, but he seems to be alone in this contention, and it would explain why the push for including the 777 and then selling it to Congress. There is no conspiracy going on here, there is no collusion between Grumman and the AF, Boeing simply can’t provide at a competitive price what the AF wants and Grumman can. Boeing is acting like a spoiled child who for one is having a hard time getting what it wants vs. what the military is asking for. Boeing as in the past will use politics and it’s favorite user of the Boeing ATM, Congressman John Murtha is leading the charge. This is the meat of the problem that Sec. of Defense Gates is attempting to deal with. ALLONS, Byron Skinner
	pfcem September 30th, 2009 at 7:49 pm Byron Skinner, No, I do not claim the 767 met or exceeded all the key requirements of the last solicitation (which are essentailly the same in the new draft RFP). The KC-X Source Selection Team SAID IT DID. Colin’s sources are wrong. Boeing had NOT decided yet what it will bid. But it could include a bid with the 777 in order trump the “bigger is better” BS & remind everyone that the KC-30 is the size of a large tanker (larger & heavier than the KC-10) but does not have the capability of a large tanker, making it the wrong choice for a medium tanker. It is YOU who should see the public record. If you have information/proof of Boeings corporate corruption you should contact the appropriate authorities so they can make a case in a cort of law. Otherwise your baseless accusations are just making you look like an ass DESPIRATE to somehow disquilify Boeing because you fear NG/EADS can’t win a fair competition. Who is proposing any bonus points for adding items? Earth to Byron Skinner, in the last solicitation Boeing’s offer met more requirements, was superior in more & higher valued requirements AND was the LOWER COST bid even under the flawed in favor of the KC-30 cost evaluation methodology!
	Colin Clark September 30th, 2009 at 8:03 pm Pfcem, I can’t say much about my source but it is excellent. As you well know, organizations regularly make initial decisions which they then review to make sure they are not doing something really stupid. My source said Boeing will submit two bids. The spokesman made clear they have not officially made a decision and I would expect to keep hearing that until the day they submit the bids or reverse course for whatever reason.
	irtusk September 30th, 2009 at 8:54 pm > My source said Boeing will submit two bids. Can your source give any insight into why boeing would even consider bidding the KC-777? there is no way it’s price can be within 1% of the 767 and it’s highly doubtful it can meet the schedule requirements
	Byron Skinner September 30th, 2009 at 10:19 pm Good Evening pfcem, You are talking in circles, as usual. Other then personal attacks you seem to have nothing to say. As far as Grumman goes, I could care less about them as I do about Boeing. In my opinion this whole bid should be scrapped and not visited again for another five years. The AF has not indicated a pressing need for these tankers and in five years the AF’s future needs will be more clear. ALLONS, Byron Skinner
	Mr."P" October 1st, 2009 at 9:33 am Looking back 2008 when the lobbyists and congressmen complained when NGC won the contract, the KC45 was flying and refueling already. Boeing’s tanker delivered to Japan based on the 767 platform, had not passed the test yet, and would not meet the requirements in the Specs anyway. Then they all started crying foul because the airbus was from a foreign country, and security would be compromised. They must of forgot that a lot of the boeing aircraft are buitl in China and other foreign countries. As late as Aug. 2008, Japan had not excepted the 767 tanker anyway. Lets wait and see which paper airplane Boeing will offer, and where it will be built.
	L Berry October 1st, 2009 at 9:40 am The previous RFP specified a set of requirements for the new tanker. The Boing 767 proposal fully met the original requirements. The Airbus was a bigger airframe and exceeded several technical specifications. It could carry more fuel basically. The AF Source Selection Team decided to ignor long term costs of a bigger aircraft and decided that the Airbus was better value. The fact that both met original requirements was overlooked as were the Life Cycle Costs of Airbus. That is why GAO ruled the AF selection of Airbus as bogus. Boing is now in delima. They can again submit a bid that fully meets requirements, and possiblt lose again. But they can also play both sides…meet requirement with 767 or exceed requirements with 777. The reason DoD took over program was to insure that rules were followed. You cannot change selection process after bids are submitted which is what AF did. If they need a bigger payload, change the specification. If they just want a bigger plane…forget it. Make RFP specific and stick to specifications. Boing is smart enough to bid the right Airframe for the RFP. Thats what they did with 767 and lost to Airbus. But as we know GAO reversed the faulty AF decision. As anyone who has participated in a major program source selection can attest to, politics are brought in, not by evaluation team, but by the “Higher Level Review Boards”.
	L Berry October 1st, 2009 at 9:50 am I haven’t seen anything on here about the recent declaration that the EAD has been subsidized by EU and as such it doesn’t represent a true bid. The original RFP specifically required non-subsidized bids. Sen McCain is the one responsible for EAD being allowed to bid, even though everyone knew EU subsidized labor and made low cost lows to EAD. They were not qualified to bid in original RFP. Sen McCain fought for, and won a change to RFP to allow EAD to compeat even with subsidies. The RFP should still require non-subsidies. If not, allow Washington State and other major manufacturing states to provide incentives to Boing. The offset in more jobs and less unemployment would be made up in long term jobs.
	irtusk October 1st, 2009 at 10:32 am > The AF Source Selection Team decided to ignor long term costs of a bigger aircraft no they didn’t, they found the KC-30 to have lower life-cycle costs those calculations may have been in error, but they didn’t ignore it > the recent declaration that the EAD has been subsidized by EU and as such it doesn’t represent a true bid because 1) it’s a PRELIMINARY report, there are still appeals 2) there’s a similar counter-claim against Boeing in process 3) they aren’t legally allowed to impose any sanctions/penalties outside the WTO process what if both sides are found to have been illegally subsidized? go to embraer? > The original RFP specifically required non-subsidized bids no, it said the USAF wouldn’t have to pay anyting extra whatever judgments the WTO may pass down
	Taxpayer October 1st, 2009 at 12:31 pm Not sure why all the pro Boeing people are worried. The DRFP is a set up for Boeing’s 767. Their strategy of massive political support and a patriotic public campaign (ironic with all the American jobs they outsourced) of misinformation and spinning facts has worked. Having the next decision based upon 373 min requirements (sure the 767 meets all of them) and lowest cost including fuel burn and MILCON costs gives Boeing the contract. In summary, DoD is handing the contract to Boeing except the DoD said, you will not overcharge us this time (being a fixed price contract).
	robertro2 October 1st, 2009 at 1:41 pm BOEING WAS CAUGHT TRYING TO PULL A FAST ONE AT THE BEGINNING,SEN.McCAIN STOPPED IT,SO THEY WENT FOR A BID AND “NORTHROP/GRUMMAN” WON AND HAD A PLANE FLYING WITH A NEW DESIGN FOR FUELING AND THAT MADE THEM THE “WINNER”…NOW YOU GOT BOEING AGAIN GOING TO HAVE THIS GOVT.PAY FOR THERE DESIGN “767 OR 777“AND THEN GIVE THEM THE CONTRACT.…SO TELL ME WHY DO WE NEED ANY TANKERS,THIS GOVT.DOES NOT WANT TO DRILL HERE IN THIS “ONCE GREAT COUNTRY” FOR OIL,WHERE ARE WE GOING TO GET THE FUEL TO PUT IN THESE PLANES WHEN THE IDIOTS THAT HAVE ALL THE OIL CUTS US OFF.…
	william October 3rd, 2009 at 8:32 pm Byron skinner, The reason boeing is bidding the 777 frame is because they feel they lost the contract due to the a300 being larger. The 767 met the requirements of the contract, but boeing wanted to level the playing field so they are also going to offer an equal size airframe. This makes the winner the truly better airframe and takes out the potential of bonus points out for size and weight. As for the kc-135’s they are in desperate need of replacements. i have talked to the maintainers at Macdill afb and they are trying their best to keep them flying, but have said the airframes are pretty shot. you can only do so much before there is nothing left. the longer this contract takes to be awarded the better chance of there being an accident. they need to get these new tankers now before they start falling out of the sky. our air capabilities should not be hindered or supported by 40+ yearold airframes.
	pfcem October 4th, 2009 at 6:29 am Mr.“P”, Wrong. First of all, the KC-30 is NOT the KC-45. The KC-X is the KC-45 & we don’t know what it wil ultimately be yet. The KC-30 is not even as far along TODAY as the KC-767 was back in 2008. Not is the Aurtralian KC-30 the same as the NG/EADS KC-30 offered for KC-X. *** Taxpayer, No the Draft RFP is NOT set up for Boeing’s 767. It is set up for what the USAF has determined it requires for a new tanker (with some alterations to accomodate the noncompetative KC-30 so that EADS dosn’t pull out of the ‘competition’). It is NG/EADS which has used misinformation & been spinning facts.
	pfcem October 4th, 2009 at 6:29 am robertro2, Stop with the lies. Boeing wasn’t caught doing ANYTHING wrong. It was BOEING with caught Druyun & Sears, fired them, passed of the relavant information to the proper autorities & cooperated fully in the criminal investigation into the Druyun & Sears misconduct. McCain didn’t stop anything. It was BOEING blowing the lid on the Druyun & Sears misconduct which lead to the investigations into the tanker lease whcih ultimately undovered ‘mistakes’ made BY THE USAF/DOD in its rush to get the the tankers it wanted sooner. The rest of your rant isn’t even worth responding to.
	Taxpayer October 5th, 2009 at 4:54 pm pfcem, stop drinking the Boeing kool aid. Amazing how you believe Boeing blew the lid on Druyun. If McCain did not question the first Tanker contract and initiated an investigation, Boeing would still be booking large profits on that contract. Boeing only cooperated after the cat was out of the bag.
	BS_Buster October 6th, 2009 at 5:40 pm JN, I love your comment on Boeing planning for a split buy! SInce they already have the 767 and 777 option the (split) 787 fits right in. You were referring to the 787 cracks weren’t you?
	Lou October 15th, 2009 at 11:03 am Not unusual for a company to submit more than one proposal. In the early 80s’, Lockheed submitted a second proposal for the C-XX RFP. Lockheed called it an “Alternate Proposal” because it was the C-5N (modified C-5) and did not meet all requirements. Of course MDC was the winner with their C-17.