Home » Air » KC-X: Darn Those Deadlines

KC-X: Darn Those Deadlines

By Colin Clark Thursday, August 5th, 2010 11:46 am
Posted in Air, International

Buzz readers will know that we have largely refrained from writing about the efforts by a tiny U.S. company to wiggle its way into the KC-X competition, but our friends at Aviation Week have come up with such a wonderful denouement that we have to write something.

As Amy Butler reports, the folks at U.S. Aerospace, teaming with the Russian giant Antonov, missed the deadline for delivery of the bid by 5 minutes. On top of that, the company has filed a protest with the GAO. Here’s what the company said about its efforts in a filing with the SEC:

Our proposal was hand delivered on July 9, 2010. The messenger arrived at the government installation, Wright-Patterson Air Force Base, well before 1:30 pm, more than half an hour before the 2:00 pm deadline. Air Force personnel initially denied the messenger entry to the base, then gave incorrect directions to 1755 Eleventh Street Building 570, and finally instructed the messenger to wait where he was for Air Force personnel to come and get him. He at all times complied with the instructions of Air Force personnel, from the time he arrived at the installation until the proposal was taken by Air Force personnel at the program building. Although the proposal was arbitrarily marked received at 2:05 pm, it was under Air Force control before the bid deadline.

As Pentagon spokesman Geoff Morrell told Amy: “The proposal was late and by law we are not allowed to consider it.”

It would seem we’re back to the only two realistic and truly credible competitors, Boeing and EADS NA.

Join the Conversation

	William C. August 5th, 2010 at 4:00 pm For God’s sake… Their proposal is very unlikely to be chosen anyway, just accept it and look over it regardless of it was on time or late. We don’t need another GAO protest.
	Aurora August 5th, 2010 at 4:48 pm DOD has lost control of this process. This is only the first protest. There will be others. This thing could end up in court. And to think that DOD could have ended this game of monkey football back in May?
	Byron Skinner August 5th, 2010 at 2:30 pm Good Morning Folks, Geoff Morrel is incorrect. This bid was hand carried, a legal option, the messenger was on on Federal property, Wright-Patterson AFB before the bid deadline. It was in fact delivered on time. The same courtesy is extended to electronic bids, the bid is placed when the sender hits, for either E-Mail or a Fax, the send button, that is considered to be a time stamp. One on base or sent the sender no longer has control of the bid. If the messenger left base and the returned the second entry would be considered not the first. The fact that it appears that Air Force personal deliberately held up the delivery of this document is a strong indicator that this bid was not wanted. It would appear the US Aerospace has a rather strong case in this matter. I do think that Colin here is making an assumption on the fitness of the US Aerospace bid that is premature. There are known problems (EADS, no domestic plant built, and Boeing took a $21 billion loss for the last quarter and it military business is “soft”) with the other two bidders, remember this is the third time this has been bid. Lay out the bids and see how they stack up and how close they come to meeting the 372 AF requirements. Both Boeing and EADS have said that they have meet or came close to all of the requirements, US Aerospace has said they meet, “no bull sh**”, all of the 372 requirements. An interesting side bar point here. The Russian Federation Security Service has said that if US Aerospace gets the contract to build the tankers, the Russian Air Force will also buy compatible tankers, so that both Russian and US aircraft could be in air refueled by either country. With the current unrest in land locked former Soviet Republics attracting terrorists groups this might not be a bad opinion for the US military to have. One question that I have did Boeing as an alternative bid, bid the “Glass 787 cockpit”? If Boeing didn’t bid an alternate number, any consideration for this would be outside the rules of Federal Contract Bidding and reason to once again protest the bid and back to square one. ALLONS, Byron Skinner
	Aurora August 5th, 2010 at 7:16 pm Well, all they have to do is convince a lawyer or two at GAO and they’ve thrown a monkey wrench into this monkey football game. Obviously they didn’t consider the consequences when they bent over backwards to allow airbus back into the game. Too bad, this whole thing could have been over and USAF on their way to finally getting a tanker. This won’t be the last protest.
	josh August 5th, 2010 at 8:33 pm This is even worse than your usual inaccurate drivel. U.S. Aerospace’s proposal, no matter what they claim, doesn’t come close to meeting the RFP requirements. By virtue of being BIGGER than the A330 it would seem the Anatov would never meet that requirement. Also, the U.S. and Russia are NOT allies. Refuelling each other’s aircraft is an absurd notion that we all know would never happen.
	Byron Skinner August 5th, 2010 at 6:16 pm Good Evening Folks, To Josh. How do you know that the US Aerospace bid doesn’t meet the 372 bid specifications. Are you a spy for Boeing/EADS? I would say that that determination is to be made by the DoD contracting agency. The inference to you post is that some other party other then the USAF is the only qualified determinator of who gets this contract. Your comments sound strongly like the those of winger thing tanks. Ooops, I mean outside experts who call themselves contractors. To SSgt. Bill Frazer. Look up the word “indicator”. I freely go on and off military bases all the time, and have for over 45 years, show ID drive on. All messenger/courier services have valid identification to enter military bases. Show ID show package or what ever you are delivering and keep going The fact that the messenger was detained until the bid time had passes is a strong indicator that there was an organized effort either by the AF or another bidder to delay this bid. Boeing has shown in the past that Federal law is no barrier to getting an edge on a bid, people have went to jail because of this contract. The idea that some knuckle headed Sgt. in Air Force Security or a Civilian security contractor could be bought off to hold up this messenger or give wrong directions that would cause the bid to be delivered after 1400 is definitely with in the realm of possibilities in this instance. ALLONS, Byron Skinner
	Byron Skinner August 5th, 2010 at 6:27 pm Good Evening Folks, To Charlie Wagner. The answer to you question is security. Nearly all contractors would wait until 1359 to start the send on an electronic bid on this. It is not uncommon for one of the bidder on a contract to have “arranged” for someone to call them with numbers of “early birds” before the bid deadline. That is also why at many bid opening contractors will send a representative to be in the “gallery” as the bids come in and pay close attention to who sees them, and who goes for a mobile phone. This is common practice, I use to have knock out 25 years administrative assistant, who had her own personal ID so she had no trouble getting on base, who did this for the company. ALLONS, Byron Skinner
	SSgt. Bill Frazer August 5th, 2010 at 10:45 pm ‘The fact that it appears that Air Force personal deliberately held up the delivery of this document is a strong indicator that this bid was not wanted.” Mr. Skinner, How the heck do you know that? First off I am not a lawer, just your average Air Force flyer, but have you EVER tried to get on ANY DoD installation without proper ID? Just ask those nuts that were detained for trying to get on base with a gun.… The point being is that the Security Forces or most likely the contractors have good enough reason to NOT allow anyone on the base if they deem so.
	SSgt. Bill Frazer August 5th, 2010 at 6:45 pm I am sick and tired of all this bickering and stalling on an aircraft that should have been built and in service over 10 years ago.… I love my tanker but geez.. She’s an old girl! lol As for the improvements made by Boeing by adding the “787 glass flightdeck” — btw that’s what its called now instead of cockpit — its a non-factor since GAO made the decision to rebid. Thus allowing all to resubmit with whatever design they want.. Boeing didn’t break any rules.… AEDS did and still does by having unfair subsidies from thier parent owners — France, Germany, and England.
	SSgt. Bill Frazer August 5th, 2010 at 6:46 pm I am sick and tired of all this bickering and stalling on an aircraft that should have been built and in service over 10 years ago.… I love my tanker but geez.. She’s an old girl! lol As for the improvements made by Boeing by adding the “787 glass flightdeck” — btw that’s what its called now instead of cockpit — its a non-factor since GAO made the decision to rebid. Thus allowing all to resubmit with whatever design they want.. Boeing didn’t break any rules.… AEDS did and still does by having unfair subsidies from thier parent owners — France, Germany, and England.
	Charlie Wagner August 5th, 2010 at 11:12 pm When you are bidding on a contract that you are serious about winning — WHY DO YOU WAIT UNTIL THE VERY LAST MOMENT TO SUBMIT THE PROP? If it is that important, submit the day before so you don’t miss the deadline. Good Grief Get Real :)
	seesthrubs August 5th, 2010 at 7:13 pm Firstly, I know rules are rules but this situation is an absolute clusterF**. Its unlikely though possible that the misdirection of the submission delivery was deliberate but in light of this, for the sake of 5 minutes* to discount the bid is very silly and lends weight to the claims of bias. Secondly, I think you will find that Antonov is Ukrainian not Russian, though they have a close relationship with Russia who have been their primary customer. Thirdly, as for the comment “Also, the U.S. and Russia are NOT allies. Refuelling each other’s aircraft is an absurd notion that we all know would never happen.” Little do you know…yes the US and Russia are not allies but there is a focus on both sides to improve the relationship and there is already cooperation occurring beyond what most people probably even know. Eg http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/blogs/defense/inde… One may well ask whether they took on fuel too, which would make the previous statement absurd.
	irtusk August 5th, 2010 at 7:35 pm > By virtue of being BIGGER than the A330 it would seem the Anatov would never meet that requirement. The Antonov proposal is actually the smallest plane of the three
	Daexion August 6th, 2010 at 12:18 am This isn’t technically their fault, this is, technically the fault of the AF base personnel. Had they given him correct directions, or had AF personnel take him where he needed to go, the proposal would have been on-time, but they didn’t do any of that until they’d given him wrong directions, and had to send AF personnel to pick him up and take him where he needed to go. We don’t know when the messenger actually left for the base, or where he left from which might be why he arrived 30 minutes before the deadline.
	Bronco46 August 6th, 2010 at 2:39 am The Russians are launching some of our satellites, will be the only people capable of launching to the international space station, and now we’re worrying about whether or not they got a fair deal in suppling your mid-air re-fuelers. Is there anything else we’d like to turn over to them. Maybe we should let them help us build the F-22.
	Aurora August 6th, 2010 at 5:30 am The “he said, she said” will be sorted out by the GAO. What is relevant is the filing of the opening protest in this flawed acquisition which will by no means be the last. The acquisition rules were written for a different time when there were multiple, domestic prime bidders available. There are really only two large commercial aircraft builders left in the world, one of which is state owned, government subsidized and european. Against the macro economic backdrop of falling housing prices, low GDP growth, and real unemployment in excess of 15%, for the USAF/DOD to think they can get away with giving this deal to a foreign company is simply dumb beyond belief. Most likely they’ll select their beloved airbus again, but politically speaking, there is a good chance it won’t happen. So far, they have cynically gamed the system, even moving the award date past the mid-term elections in hopes that Congressman Dicks and his ilk won’t be in a position to sway the funding for the eventual winner (and there’s no doubt in my mind that DOD/USAF is maneuvering for an eventual EADS win). Very similar to what the same SECDEF did during the presidential elections in 2008: cancel the competition to make sure that the procurement did not become a campaign issue. What they can’t control is the outcome of the mid-terms and results of the ensuing protest(s). The next Congress–regardless of which party wins– will be under enormous pressure to create jobs and stimulate GDP growth. Closing the 767 line and its suppliers in favor of a paint booth and a few hundred jobs in Mobile won’t endear them to a large number of voters. I’m by no means psychic but I see hearings, hearings, and more hearings in 2011. As for protests, all it takes is for any of the losing bidders to convince a couple of folks at GAO, or failing that a federal judge and this whole sorry mess is back to the start line. This could have been over last May.
	Byron Skinner August 6th, 2010 at 10:00 am Good Morning Folks, To selll. All serving in the military are not saints in blue or green. There are reasons why there are Stockades and Briggs on ALL military bases and the US Disciplinary Barracks at Ft. Leavenworth Ka. It appears that you have never served in the military. The UCMJ and Sentry Duty are among the first items covered in both Enlisted BCT/Boot Camp and Officer Basic School training. Even in the US Air Force. Both Boeing and EADS before the bids were opened had spent a $125 million in lobbying for this bid, or nearly a $1,000,000.00 dollars per aircraft. Spreading out a few $100.00 bills amount the security at WP AFB to see that this messenger didn’t make it on time, is a no brainer. As said before Boeing doesn’t let the US Code come in their way when they want something. I’m sure that in the daily briefing that all guard/security reliefs go through before being posted that this was mentioned to the 1200 to 1400 gate guards. If their was no briefing on this it is a clear sign of dereliction of duty by the command at Wright– Patterson AFB. To remind all of you, ALL military instillations are in war time security status. ALLONS, Byron Skinner
	selll August 6th, 2010 at 10:25 am Not likely, the base security guards had any knowledge of this RFP or delivery of the proposal. To think they were in on a conspiarcy is absured
	selll August 6th, 2010 at 10:28 am failure to meet any technical instruction is reason for disqualification. They failed regardless of how. If you were running border line late, wouldn’t you at least send someone that new where the contracting office was? Do a recon a day or two before? I hope they throw this bid out or the rules will forever more come under question. A precedent will have been set.
	selll August 6th, 2010 at 10:34 am We have preseverd the Nation Ship Building business in the interest of National Security. Essentially we preserved GM to ensure we had a national Tank Building capability, why wouldn’t we preserve our Aircraft building capability. Award this contract to Airbus and give Boeing federal bailout money now that would make good economic sense.
	Rich August 6th, 2010 at 12:33 pm Why in the heck wasn’t the deadline the last hour of the duty day?
	Rich August 6th, 2010 at 12:35 pm Oh and by the way, base personnel are not part of the contract process…however, WPAFB security personnel are contract employees, not uniformed DoD personnel.
	MJO August 6th, 2010 at 12:43 pm The bid can and will be considered. See: FAR 52.215–1©(3)(ii)(A), et seq.
	Shail August 6th, 2010 at 12:53 pm …and for a USAF claiming it doesn’t need any more C-17s, there certainly were plenty of flights of leased Russian Il-76’s, An-12s, and a few other types that I saw during my desert vacation in Iraq in 2009, because the USAF obviously didn’t have enough air transport assets to haul in and out all the ass-and-trash that the people fighting the ground war needed (anything from mission-essential supplies and expidited repair parts from stateside, to mail from home, to the latest crap for the PX).
	Mark August 6th, 2010 at 1:32 pm They were most likely NATO deliveries using Russian a/c.
	Aurora August 6th, 2010 at 2:37 pm Good info, MJO. Lots of grist here for the lawyers.
	Dub August 6th, 2010 at 6:02 pm IMHO, if an American aircraft manufacturer is not the winner, the entire procurement process should be ashamed of themselves. This is more than just an airplane,. This is part of our National Defense. Imagine if you will, a conflict going on someplace in the world. We are using the Antonov platform as our primary tanker. The US supports one side of the conflict, Russia the other. We need spare parts for our aircraft. Think we will get them if they are Antonov parts? And for EADS to get it would be almost as bad. Our money would ultimately be going to a country (France) that could care less about us — and perhaps only a little more than the Russians.
	Armywonk August 6th, 2010 at 7:15 pm Boeing didn’t take a $21 billion loss last quarter. If you think they did, show your work. Otherwise, be accurate.
	GuamVet August 7th, 2010 at 5:49 pm USAE did not give ‘control’ of their bid documents until the USAF personel stamped it at 1405. It was late, and the RFP/SRD said the bids had to be turned into Wright-Patt NLT 1400L on 9 July. It does not matter the courier was attempting to get on the base at 1330, or what ever time USAE said they were there. It does not matter wrong directions were given to the courier, or he got lost on base. USAE had the responsibility to assure the courier had the proper documents to get on base, and the proper directions to get to the right office or building. They are the ones who were bidding on a $35B project, they had a responsibility to assure everything was set up for their courier, not the USAF. USAE is a penny stock company, they are not viable to take on a $35B project. They don’t even build airplanes, or modify any to the extent needed for a tanker.
	GuamVet August 7th, 2010 at 5:49 pm Boeing needs to win this contract, or this whole program should be canceled, period. It makes no sense in these poor economic times to buy an airplane built mostly by European workers. If no KC-X contract for Boeing, then go ahead and reengine the KC-135A/Es that are in storage at DM. The KC-135 has done us well for over 50 years now, and even the USAF says it will last until at least 2040.
	irtusk August 8th, 2010 at 6:04 am > It makes no sense in these poor economic times to buy an airplane built mostly by European workers. the KC-30 would be built mostly by American workers
	pfcem August 8th, 2010 at 4:57 pm Problem is that at the planned rate of recaptalization it will take to ~2050 to recieve all KC-X, KC-Y & KC-Z as is. Not to mention that by ~2018–2020 it will cost MORE to maintain the current fleet each year than what is to be spent each year procuring new tankers.
	Byron Skinner August 8th, 2010 at 6:38 pm Good Evening Folks, To Armywonk. On this one my source is the Wall Street Journal. Boeing being a publicly traded company has to post quarterlies with the SEC and they are public knowledge. I won’t go on with the speculation in the article, because its just that, but if I were working for Boeing right now especially in any of their defense divisions I wouldn’t be buying green bananas, or making any long term plans. Now Armywonk show us where Boeing didn’t take a $21 million loss for the quarter. ALLONS, Byron Skinner
	Byron Skinner August 8th, 2010 at 7:14 pm Good Evening Folks, Gee now that Boeing might not get this contract the KC-135’s are OK and will last till 2040. Thats what I said a year ago. As I though this whole bid is a sham and nothing more then corporate welfare for a failing Boeing who gambled wrong in the civilian market. The cut to chase is Boeing can’t compete in the international market place and is to big to fail and needs “Socialism” to bail it out? If Boeing can’t survive on its own then it should fail. Thats part of “Capitalism” or as one economists calls it Creative Destruction, look up the Economic Theory. When you put something up to be bid thats exactly what it is a bid by all who are interested and are pre qualified. Since US Aeroapace was pre qualified, to place a bid, and in view of the Shannagians by Air Force security personal that made the bid delivery five minutes late. I don’t see how the USAF could refuse to consider the US Aerospace bid. There will be some really pi**ed off countries, not just the Russian FEderation if the US Aerospace bid is not considered and weighted the same as Boeing and EADS. In coming years the United States is going to need help and cooperation from The Russian Federation to deal with terrorists threats. We are currently asking for and receiving The Russian Federations help in Afghanistan. We are using the very same airframes that the wingers say is unsuited to be tankers to supply our troops in Afghanistan. If none of you have noticed the terrorists have established a pattern, they are not operating in Kansas or Connecticut but in former Soviet Islamic Republics that are land locked. If we are going to contain and hopefully eliminate the terrorists threat, we need access to those areas, The Russian Federation has that access as well and logistic capabilities that they are willing to use to help us. Shafting them on this bid is not a way to show The Russian Federation that we want to be allies in the war on terrorism. It would be nothing more then short sighted stupidity on the part of the United States, and in the long term could cost Us lives. ALLONS, Byron Skinner
	Bronco46 August 9th, 2010 at 5:10 am I couldn’t agree more.
	Bronco46 August 9th, 2010 at 5:11 am Agreed.
	Bronco46 August 9th, 2010 at 5:17 am Agreed, the subsidies make this an unfair bid. Boeing is an American company, building for American service men and women. Let Boeing get started building these things. And thank you for your service (from a veteran)!
	GuamVet August 9th, 2010 at 8:55 am Well, we don’t know the KC-Y and KC-Z programs will go at all, do we? Congress is finiky when it comes to military weapons projects. As far as the Gen. Lighte complaint of the KC-135R will need reskin beginning in 2018 goes how can believe him? He lobbied for a post retirement job from NG in 2008, and got one with EADS this year. The USAF reported to Congress the KC-135E/R/T is viable and reliable until at least 2040. So, who do you believe? So even with a KC-Y and KC-Z program in future years, we can afford to cancel the current KC-X program and accelerate the KC-Y and KC-Z programs start dates by a few years, maybe 2020, or so. This would still give us reliable KC-135s until then. KC-Y is to replace the KC-10 and KC-Z is to replace all remaining KC-135s. Canceling the KC-X program and upgrading the KC-135A/Es will cost about 1/3 of what the KC-X will cost, and no MilCon costs.
	Jay Kitsap August 9th, 2010 at 1:32 pm Most governments on competitive bids a “no-sh*t” date and time for submissions. I bet it happens in 5% or more contracts someone submits late. It is the bidders responsibility to understand the time it takes to delivery including access, weather, power outages, snowstorms, acts of god, and the stupid acts of man. Bids are not accepted after the bid date (unless the agency chooses to accept the non-responsive bid — it sometimes happens like when it is the only bid received. But that is solely at their discretion) On a very public bid there is a snowball’s chance any bidding variance would be accepted, as it is grounds for protest.
	pfcem August 9th, 2010 at 2:40 pm Problem is that at the planned rate of recaptalization it will take to ~2050 to recieve all KC-X, KC-Y & KC-Z as is. Not to mention that by ~2018–2020 it will cost MORE to maintain the current fleet (including the now retired KC-135Es) each year than what is to be spent each year procuring new tankers.
	GuamVet August 9th, 2010 at 3:19 pm We only have the word of Gen Lichte that the KC-135 will need more maintenance, then now, beginning in 2018. Other USAF sourses, including reports to Congress have yet to mention any of those claims made by Lichte. Gen Lichte was the AMC commander that wanted “more, more, and more” in 2008, even though the offer from NG did not meet the requirements. Lichte was lobbying for his post retirement job with NG. But Boeing and the GAO got in the way of his plans. Lichte retired early this year (finally!!!!), and was still supporting NG’s bid up until they dropped out last March. So when EADS decided to bid, Lichte shiufted is loyality to EADS and got a cushy job on the borad of EADS-NA. Rumors have it Lichte has been calling the KC-X evaluation team (even though members are not suppose to be publicly know), pushing the A-330MRTT. This is illegal lobbying activity on Gen. Lichte’s part. Boeing should just be given the contract just on that alone, if we are to buy the KC-X.
	GuamVet August 9th, 2010 at 3:20 pm But, I still believe we don’t need, nor can we afford a new tanker right now. According to the USAF, the KC-135E can safely fly up to 36,000 hours, the KC-135R/T to 39,000 hours. Both without benefit of a SLEP for the KC-135 (it has never had one). The KC-135 flys about 725 hours per year at current rates (prior to 9/11 the rate was about 485 hours per year per tanker). They all currently have between 18,000 hours and 22,000 hours. The average number of cycles on each KC-135 is between 4,500 cycles and 5,000 cycles per airplane.
	Aurora August 9th, 2010 at 3:20 pm If USAF wants a tanker sometime this decade, then a sole source to Boeing is the only realistic option. The political support for the euro tanker just isn’t there and these competitions are an invitation to mischief and war without end. That’s the reality. They’ve been at this for about ten years now and are still flailing around. Congress will grant the sole source–just ask. The french will be pi$$ed, but they’ll either get over it, or they won’t.
	GuamVet August 9th, 2010 at 3:20 pm Correct, this is clearly a failure of USAE.
	milret152 August 9th, 2010 at 6:33 pm No sir, you are wrong. Because the messenger was on federal property does not mean the proposal was deilvered on time. Wright-Patterson is a large AFB. The Air Force RFP states, “Proposals must be received (mailed or hand-carried) at the place specified in Block 8 by 2:00 p.m. local time 10 May 2010. Caution — Late Submission, Modification, and Withdrawals: Proposal receipt after the due date and time shall be governed by the provisions of FAR 52.215–1©(3). All offers are subject to all terms and conditions contained in this solicitation.“ The address specified in block 8 is an address that I just loaded into MAPQUEST and up popped a map, NO DIRECTIONS FROM AIR FORCE personnel at the gate REQUIRED. No, this is a case of simple imcompetence and improper planning.
	milret152 August 9th, 2010 at 6:58 pm 1. You don’t honestly believe there was a deliberate action of deceiving the messenger by the rent a cop at the gate do you. 2. Who in their right mind with a proposal of this worth would depend on the directions from someone completely unassociated with this competition? If there was any question as to the address that was specified FOR A LONG TIME in the RFP, a request for a map before the proposal left the plant could have easily been requested and readily honored by the USAF.
	milret152 August 9th, 2010 at 7:11 pm One more thing, according to Wikipedia: Wright-Patterson AFB is “one of the largest, most diverse, and organizationally complex bases in the Air Force.” Who in their right mind would expect to deliver a proposal of such value by relying on the directions of the gate guard ONCE YOU GOT THERE!
	milret152 August 9th, 2010 at 8:14 pm Getting to the base is half the battle, the RFP specifies an address. According to Wkipedia, WPAFB is “one of the largest, most diverse, and organizationally complex bases in the Air Force.” Every RFP cites an immutable deadline with unequivocal wording, DON’T MISS IT! Yet the messenger arrived at this large, complex base a half hour before the deadline. Are you kidding me! The protest alleges being held up and then improper directions. All commercial deliveries at DoD bases are subject to delay for inspection. (9–11 ring any bells?) I live near to the commercial delivery gate of a SMALL AFB and I often see a line of commercial vehicles waiting to gain entry. Lastly, who plans to depend on directions once you get there! OMG! Use MAPQUEST, it provides a map of the address! If there was any confusion, ASK A QUESTION beforehand! I’m sure the AF would have elaborated as to which gate to use, the paperwork required to gain entry, typical delays experienced at the gate, and a map from the commercial gate to the delivery location. It’s called proper planning. GAO needs to deny this protest.
	seesthrubs August 10th, 2010 at 12:16 am Returning to the comment that US and Russia will never (in-flight) refuel each other heres proof its not far off — http://rt.com/Politics/2010–08-09/vigilant-eagle-… I quote “They are focusing on the cooperative hand-off of the monitored aircraft between the fighters and refueling aircraft from both countries.”
	Macman 1138 August 10th, 2010 at 8:48 am Byron, your help is needed at NASA Watch too (http://www.nasawatch.com/). Please give give Keith a hand in the comments section. Thanks!
	Guest August 10th, 2010 at 10:09 am Anybody who waits until 30 minutes before the deadline to enter an installation as big as WPAFB and expect to find the right office should lose. Their courier should have scoped the exact location weeks before the date of the submittal. Buufoonery.
	Shail August 10th, 2010 at 12:43 pm Nope. They were leased via civilian contractors supporting the US govt’s operations. I can attest to deliveries to at least one COB in Iraq (was there personally for ~9 months), and Candids and Cubs were seen, quite often, more times than C-17s. (have a great pic somewhere of a pair of Candids flanked by one Cub and one Hercules sitting in the staging area…) And this was after the majority of NATO types had left that COB, with principally only the US remaining. These aircraft brought in, like I said, mail from home, critical parts (damn near overnight delivery from the States), even AAFES/PX stuff (I was at the terminal numerous times watching them unload stuff, because often I was one of the truck drivers hauling it around the COB).
	TheInfidelDog August 10th, 2010 at 4:02 pm Seems to me that we simply make sure the bidder we want to get the bid, will always get the bid. What about the AF tanker that John McCain pulled out of Alabama (Grumman Plant) and returened to his Home state of Arizona (Boeing Plant) after numerous revisions to the original bid.… Same ole story.. Boeing wins again.
	pfcem August 10th, 2010 at 11:39 pm What part of just maintaining the current fleet will cost MORE each year by 2018–2020 than is planned to be spent each procuring new tankers? While in THEORY (based on airframe flight hour life) the KC-135s are good for many years still (note that the estimates on how long was based on PRE-911 op levels & with the now retired KC-135Es) but the reality is they will become economically unviable (aka F-14) long before then — & heaven forbid age related airframe cracks appear. While it is possible the KC-Y &/or KC-Z as we ‘know’ them may not come to be the KC-135s & KC-10 ARE going to be replaced eventually and the later it begins/longer it take the MORE it will cost to do so. And it is NOT just Gen. Lichte.
	Tom August 12th, 2010 at 3:06 am DOD is wasting so much money on the contract for the air refueler aircraft. There is a tremendous amount of money being spent just maintaining and upgrading our current fleet of tanker that they are just throwing money out like it was confetti. DOD needs to quit wasting money and choose Bleing to make our refueling tankers for the Air Force. Why are we even considering a foreign aircraft manyfacture. We need jobs and companies in this country to provide the jobs that people need to live on and pay their bills. Quit wasting money. Make the decision for Boeing to build the air refuiling tanker for the Air Force as it is desperately needed to replace the aging fleet of aircraft.
	mikethemonk August 12th, 2010 at 1:45 pm com’on, Boeing has made the tankers for the US for years; were is the problem? God for bid we pick the people who have known how to build the aircraft and keep jobs in the UNITED STATES OF AMERICA.
	Warhawk August 20th, 2010 at 5:29 pm My company recently hand delivered a proposal that is a fraction of the size and dollars of this one. We sent two senior employees with hard copies in their carry ons, a duplicate set in their suitcases, and Fedex’d a set to thier hotel. Not only that, but we sent them two days early so they could scout the location the day before turning it in, which was exactly one day prior to the deadline. Bottom line, you do not trust your proposal delivery to a courier that no doubt cost your company a great deal of money to produce. U.S Aerospace has no business (and no case) going after such a large contract after exhibting such amateur business acumen followed by whining to the GAO. Those of you saying to give them a chance only excaserbate the problems we have in our country today. Enough of constantly bowing to those who fail. Grow up and hold people accountable.
	Bones August 23rd, 2010 at 12:35 pm Little known facts: Boeing foreign-produced content approached 40% in their last attempt to take a bite from the apple (this is attempt 3). They cannot even produce composites anymore — outsourced to Japan. In the end, they’ll get the contract due to politics, not due to the best offering.

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

DoD Buzz

KC-X: Darn Those Deadlines

Join the Conversation

Recent Comments