NG Nets Huge Tanker Win

NG Nets Huge Tanker Win

Is Boeing losing its grip on crucial portions of its domestic market? That is the broader question being asked in the wake of a stunning contract loss for the American aerospace giant.

The reason for the uncertainty is that Northrop Grumman has won the nine-year $3.8 billion contract to maintain the KC-10 fleet — which Boeing built and had maintained since 1998.

“This is the second major contract loss that Boeing has incurred in an area — aerial refueling — where it owned the domestic market. While the earlier loss of the KC-X [tanker] contract was overturned on protest, the new award to Northrop will inevitably lead observers to question whether Boeing has lost its edge in the lucrative tanker market. The loss of contractor logistics support for the existing KC-10 is doubly devastating, because Boeing thought it was doing a good job on the existing support contract, awarded in 1998. Frankly, I’m mystified why this turned out the way it did,” said Loren Thompson, defense analyst at the Lexington Institute and a defense consultant. In his weekly analytic piece, Thompson ticks off some of Boeing’s recent losses: “Over the last two years, the Air Force has selected Northrop over Boeing to provide a next-generation tanker; supported termination of Boeing’s C-17 cargo plane; moved to end Boeing’s role in modernizing electronics on the C-130 cargo plane…” [I would add to that list one of the biggest acquisition screw-ups in modern military history, Boeing’s handling of the Future Imagery Architecture, a highly classified series of reconnaissance satellites which were cancelled in September 2005.]


I emailed one of the men who knows the most about tanker competitions, Mike Wynne, former Air Force Secretary, for his read on this astonishing contract award.

“This win will bolster the Northrop team; but I would not count Boeing out. Both of these companies bring enormous talent to the game. So beyond this, the Northrop EADS team must not lose any of their edge, and Boeing is now top full of all the reasons they lost, and must regain why they will win,” he said.

It seems to me that if any award would likely to lead to a protest, this one would, especially given the deep and abiding mistrust and antagonism between Northrop and Boeing. The humiliation of losing this KC-10 contract must be bitter for Boeing’s employees.

Here is what Boeing spokesman Scott Day had to say: “The Boeing Company is disappointed. We presented a competitive proposal that leveraged Boeing’s tremendous experience from over 80 years of building and maintaining tankers as well as inventing boom technology. We provide global readiness to the KC-10 fleet 24 hours a day, seven days a week, and we have done so since 1998, returning KC-10s to the warfighter on time, without exception, more than 750 times. Our team is proud to bring proven performance and experience to the warfighter. We now need to review the Air Force’s selection decision and process before deciding on our next course of action.”

Join the Conversation

When we don’t win, what do we do?

somebody at boeing must have pissed off mr. gates i’m sure he is at the root of this decision.

Or… and bear with me on this… Northrop offered a better package.

I’m guessing we will see the usual Boeing protest. Basically if you guys can’t provide us with the best package for the best price, we are going to look somewhere else.

Good Morning Folks,

This one can come under the heading of, “Boeing should have seen this coming”.

Sec. of Defense Gates since his speech at the AF War College at Maxwell AFB on April 21, 2009 to as late as two weeks at an Beech-L3 production facility in Texas, has been warning both the uniforms and vendors/contractors the old way of doing business is over. This position was reaffirmed at the opening speech of the AFA by AF Chief of Staff General Norton Schwartz when he made “ethics” a big part of his address.

Since the Obama administration has taken over, the AF has trimmed it’s outside contractors in acquisition, procurement, and planning from 39 to 26 and they are not yet done.

Boeing wouldn’t be very smart if they protested this rather small contract to congress, by refilling the ATM’s and getting Congress to over ride the bid, as they usually do when they don’t get their way.

It is not inconceivable that President Obama would once again, like the F-22, refuse to sign any bill that either over turns this bid or gives it to Boeing outright. If Boeing listened very carefully to what Sec. Gates has said, he has made it very, very clear that he wants to bring the Tanker acquisition back in house to the AF and for Congress to keep out of it.

ALLONS,
Byron Skinner

Can you please learn how to spell Northrop? You lose credibility big time when you misspell.

credibility,

Thanks for pointing that out. I had corrected the misspellings but something clearly went awry. Mea culpa. All fixed.

you must have been a school marm..

It will be an interesting development over the next few years if suddenly under NG sustainment for the KC-10 that the mission readiness rates for the KC-10 suddenly fall off creating a higher demand for new larger tankers sooner than KC-Y would have been considered under other circumstances. But then maybe that is the Air Forces real agenda, proving the need for larger tankers sooner.

Actually it is RARE for Boeing to protest. And those RARE times it has, it has usually been upheld.

Hmm, hopefully Boeing can sort out their problems and propose a winning offering for this redo of the KC-X contract.

Maybe Boeing lost the contract for nothing more than the same reason that BAE lost the FMTV contract. Someone else (NG) had a better bid. The real question will be if Northrop (or Oshkosh for the FMTV program if the challenges from BAE are rejected) can continue to deliver the results desired by the USAF. If they can, the Government wins, if they can’t, just shows that any contractor can underestimate what they bid on.

You know, maybe NG provided a better contract deal with USAF, or did they…I have seen time and time again, company X bids on a contract and come in lower because of cutting the payroll. Then if that is no bad enough, have the nerve to ask previous employees to provide the tech support to accomplish the mission. This happens all of the time…now this is nothing new

maybe its because its been rare for boeing to lose out on contracts like this… hence why they are probabley going to protest…

Boeing lost because they have consistently been too costly. The AF has always been screwed by Boeing since the 1980’s when I was in the E-4B SPO. They always over charge and had a gross profit margin. it is finally catching up with them. They will have to redo their entire company to get rid of the excess management people.

Why is the file photo of a Tri Star and not a KC-10?

MF8

There is a curse in incumbancy. The incumbant really knows the ptifalls of the job and the costs to do the job. He also has the history he must use to support his bid. The New Guy (NG-get it?) gets to make assumptions on how things ought to work and can submit out his “outta cost” price.

this is “GOOD” this is “CALLED CHANGE” I heard this from some one.….

Companies sometimes under-bid to gain market share and come up with the difference out of pocket. They then can acquire new technology / processes from the incumbants. They also under-bid knowing full well they will over-run. Jimmy’s comment re; the curse of incumbancy is spot on.

However, we all know there is considerable politics involved in defense acquisition. Either that or “Semper I” John Murtha wasn’t aware that his contributions weren’t supposed to buy earmarks…

I Would love to see another A-10 aircraft developed just like Fairchild did with the A-10. You know have an F=22 line thats just going to be maqking SPARES for the F-22 Why can’t a low tech ground assist tank killer with an f136 would give them engine cred instantly. Keep the speed low /the guns big.the boombs many and everything survivable. If the AF needs them as bad as my pundent say , youall’y sell what you’ll sell all you can build. If there is as big a need as is forcast you’ll need the low and slow AF flippen tanks to aid big dollar boys suppressing the GO-FAST boys keep the enemie in the barn
sMister Tom

It’s no wonder the US Armed forces get ripped off big-time. It’s more important to protect a Senator’s cushy seat than actually buy what the OPERATOR (remember them?) wants. I say that assuming that the $$$$ difference is minimal (what’s a billion here and there?).
I’d just love to do a “private buy exercise” on a military article to see what the difference in price (and time) is.

Here Piggy, Piggy, Piggy.….…

*required

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