NG Frets About Tanker Data

NG Frets About Tanker Data

Northrop Grumman is really, really worried that Boeing will get the march on them in the tanker competition because its KC-X pricing data was revealed during the last go-round.

“Northrop Grumman continues to be greatly concerned that its pricing information from the previous tanker competition was provided by the Government to its competitor, Boeing,” Paul Meyer, vice president for Northrop’s advanced technology and programs division, said in a company statement. “Access to comparable pricing information from Boeing has thus far been denied by the Pentagon.”

Northrop has clearly grown alarmed after combing through the draft RFP, which places great emphasis on cost. “It is fundamentally unfair, and distorts any new competition, to provide such critical information to only one of the bidders. The company will continue to work with its customer to fully resolve this issue,” Meyer said in the statement.

Northrop may not get much traction here if Deputy Defense Secretary Bill Lynn’s briefing to Congress last week can be considered authoritative. “It is worth mentioning that Northrop Grumman has suggested that information was disclosed about its previous tanker bid that puts it at a competitive disadvantage. DoD has examined this claim and found both that this disclosure was in accordance with regulation and more importantly that it created no competitive disadvantage because the data in question are inaccurate, outdated and not germane to this Source Selection Strategy,” says the briefing in a section attributed to Ash Carter, defense undersecretary for acquisition, technology and logistics.

Of course, Boeing will fight price disclosure tooth and nail and I’m sure we will hear whispers of a protest should Boeing’s pricing data be shared with Northrop. Since Boeing did offer a substantially higher price last time the company has had ample time to rejigger its bid to lower costs. That may well be part of the reason Boeing will not go with the so-called Frankentanker approach this time. During the Air Force Association conference this year, the company announced there would be no major modifications to whichever airplanes it submits for the competition.

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

> the data in question are inaccurate, outdated and not germane to this Source Selection Strategy

if that’s the case, then certainly there would be no problem giving similarly inaccurate, outdated and not germane info to NG

right?

Boeing Cheats Business the Chicago Way…I hope NG sues in Federal Court…Might as well be like Boeing

Our SecDef and of course AUSD Acquisitions should stop quibbling and squabbling to realize that a fly-off may ultimately be one of the resolutions here.

Let us see if the KC-45 can in actuality perform as NG says it could.

We already know what the JASDF KC-767J’s can accomplish so let the games begin.… Oh, but the KC-45 isn’t that far along, is it? Not by a long-shot, buster.

However, if a compromise is potentially in the cards then let’s give them the go-ahead to begin commensurate production lines as it is in our country’s best interests… i.e., it’s a criticality-one issue, or isn’t it?

For goodness sake… split the order in half, if need be and let’s get the show on the road before our KC-135R’s and even E’s are grounded as being non-airworthy. However, if the truth be known it’s already a fait accompli.…

As yours truly alluded earlier, General Curt LeMay if he were alive today would be raising Cain regarding this ridiculous debacle.… He’d be hauling people on the carpet if he were SecDef and not just relieving the SecAF and COS as whipping boys… as they certainly did not deserve this treatment, IMNSHO.…

@ZWEIFEL

I love the idea of a fly off. Build models, test them, let pilots refuel and debrief the pilots’ expiences, etcetera. You know…competition. Plain and simple.

Daniel Russ
Civilianmilitaryintelligencegroup.com

fred thomas,

Let me get this straight, the government discloses (supposedly/presumably super secret) NG/EADS pricing information & you accuse Boeing of cheating…

***

DON ZWEIFEL,

The KC-30 is NOT the KC-45. The KC-X (what ever it ultimately ends up being) is the KC-45.

The KC-135Es are already grounded (retired THIS month).

It is an interesting observation that the last tanker contract was made based on information that was known by the DoD to be , “the data in question are inaccurate”. 

I dont know which way to take this characterization of NG Information. 

Did the decision on last tanker competition contain inaccurate information that the Air Force depended on in the source selection and knew was inaccurate? 

Did the outbrief from the Air Force distort the accurate NG information in a way that effected Boeings ability to protest the last award? 

Was this inaccurate information that the last tanker decision was made on the real reason that a whole new bidding was required instead of just fixing the award in the last contract? Wouldnt the making of a false statement in an acquisition be a reason to debar a competitor from the next competition on that platform or contract.

If NG provided known inaccurate information last time will shouldnt that be considered in their specific performance record in this competition and in the judging and review of their next submitted information package. Will it be filled with information that will be newly inaccurate and known as such by the Air Force but awarded on price only because the metrics internal wont really matter?

Sorry all I have questions but it seems like someone should have the answers.

I’m all for the idea of a fly off and I know a lot of my boys and fellow pilots are as well. Anyone on here above me able to kick this idea up the chain?

Heh guys, there are no evil-doings involved by either side. It’s simply common sense. The high bidder knows the low bidders numbers. Clearly NG/EADS will submit the same aircraft again with minor mods to accommodate mandatory requirements. It’s equally obvious that Boeing will bid the 767. What is inaccurate, outdated, or non-germaine about that?

It isn’t as though NG/EADS just brought this up. Check out this article from April this year where they say they could live with a split buy if they get a minimum of 12 aircraft per year. Read the end of the article where they cite the problem of Boeing knowing the numbers.

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/04/17/business/global/17defense.html?_r=1

What both sides also know is that Boeing will have two of the credits for fuel and construction costs. NG/EADS will have the IFARA credit. Very precise estimates can be made by the accountants/engineers of both sides on what those credit amounts will be. Then Boeing simply does the math.

The sad part is that the USAF and warfighter will not even get a chance to evaluate and exploit the major A330 advantages unless the bids are within 1%, or a split buy occurs.

The nation can afford a split buy. If we must, take some stimulus money and divert it to DoD. Create a lot of new skilled American jobs and the promise of many more. If we can bail out Chrysler and GM, we can provide jobs for southern workers as well. Boeing won’t be hurting for work anytime soon. If NG/EADS forces them to be more competitive, they are more likely to sell lots of 787s worldwide by keeping a lid on union expenses that already doomed one U.S. industry.

DerbyTims,

The reason that a whole new bidding was required is because the last solicitation was unfair & the KC-X Source Selection Team did not assess the relative merits of the proposals in accordance with the evaluation criteria identified in the solicitation, it has nothing to do with inaccurate pricing information.

@ USAFMaj.…I like the fly-off idea. Not exactly sure what Boeing would show up with though.

The only practical solution is to sole source this deal to Boeing. Airbus doesn’t have the votes. Get 100 KC-767s now & 50+ KC-777s later. This “competition” is only going to result in “war without end”. 

If the USAF & DOD truly want a tanker NOW, they better start quietly lobbying in the background for Boeing’s Congressional supporters to introduce legislation to give the deal to Boeing. They could insist on the last round’s pricing or something to make it politically palatable. 

Fly offs, best and final offers, split buys, etc., will all be doomed to failure. This thing is political. Besides, with unemployment expected to top 10% shortly, how does one expect the administration to justify a tanker build in europe and assembled & painted in Alabama?

To NGC — Offer a better aircraft that meets mission, reliability, and ownership cost requirements, bid a lower price, and win the contract. You did it once, you can do it again. Boing is not invincable. If only the AF would have set up a fly-off as the deciding bid factor. But I suspect that would have been disadvantageous to Boing, the ‘house’ favorite. Eh?

Wow Did I hear another person suggest a Fly Off. That would be great but we would have to wait for Beoing to build their plane. Hey pfcem, afraid that if there was a fly off we might have to wait a long time for Boeing to get their tanker in the air. After all NGC has a flying platform where Boeing only has the few they built for their partners Japan and Italy and are not the configuration they would be submitting.

FLY OFF, FLY OFF

NORTHROP/GRUMMAN WON IT FAIR,BUT BOEING SAID IT WAS NOT FAIR,SO HERE WE ARE AGAIN,N/G FLYING THERE A/C WITH MANY FLIGHT HOURS ON A PROVEN IN-FLIGHT TRANSFER OF FUEL AND BOEING STILL HAS TO BUILD IT.…BUT THE BIG STORY IS WHY DO WE NEED THE TANKER AT ALL…WE DO NOT DRILL FOR OUR OWN OIL.…

Isn’t Boeing’s real fear that EADS will get a foothold in the US?

Bakeoff!

What’s unfair is now Boeing knows they were $3 Billion over NG’s bid. Guarantee their number will come way down.

Besides, now Chitown is toast for 2016 paybacks to the unions will be a biotch. I’d say $35B might just suffice.

*required

Spam Protection by WP-SpamFree

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