irtusk“After initial review, the Air Force has made the fair and just determination to not include provisions that would irresponsibly penalize one competitor based on unfounded results of an interim World Trade Organization report,” said Republican Sen. Richard Shelby of Alabama, where Northrop Grumman and EADS would assemble their tanker.
“The Defense Dept. appears to have made a good step forward, but I remain concerned about several details and a lack of essential provisions needed to truly achieve a level playing field for American workers,” said Buy American advocate Rep. Todd Tiahrt (R-Kan.). “I was encouraged to hear the draft RFP will include a 40-year life-cycle cost consideration, which more fully accounts for the product American taxpayers will be purchasing for the Air Force.”
Meanwhile, House Appropriations defense subcommittee Chairman John Murtha (D-Pa.) reiterated his desire to ramp up the tanker acquisition, as delays in the purchase have stressed the existing fleet. “The committee believes that it is in the best interest of the taxpayer to build 36 aircraft per year, versus the 15 per year as planned by the latest proposal,” he said.
irtuskRead the GAO ruling!
i did and it doesn’t support your boeing propaganda
How can MILCON not favor the 767.
i’m comparing to a baseline of the last contest which had them at identical lifecyce costs
milcon costs were already included in last contest
they were just judged to not be adequately justified
that doesn’t mean the milcon costs were low or high, it just means they didn’t justify them
IFARA only favors the KC-30 is they once again use alternate reality data
the only alternate reality is your dreams
both boeing and the gao have conceded using ifara as it was last time
How do you calculate the fuel adjustment being 4.32% & the IFARA adjustment being 5.79%?
my understanding is the fuel cost calculation was changed as such:
old: 25 years * 750 hours/year = 18,750 hours
new: 40 years * 489 hours/year = 19,560 hours
which is 4.32% more hours than before
ifara adjustment is simply (1-1.79/1.90)
They weren’t able to last time . . . it should NOT have been THAT difficult to have reasonably justified that it did last time
they also weren’t able to introduce any new evidence or documentation at that time
the gao appeal process is all about legalities not realities
I wouldn’t expect you to have visited the Boeing tanker blog but Boeing has not made any decision about which tanker to offer or whether to offer both KC-7A7 tankers.
however they have made a decision about which tanker NOT to offer
they don’t know what they will offer, but it won’t be the 767AT
And while Boeing has said it does not plan to offer the KC-767AT this time, that comment was made BEFORE the release of the draft RFP. Depending on how the FUEL BURN/MILCON/IFARA numbers work out, Boeing MAY in fact conclude that the KC-767AT (or something much like it), by its calculations, get the highest score
they why would they make a pronouncement right before the release of the draft RFP if their decision depended on the requirements?
they made the pronouncement because they were confident that whatever the requirements, the 767AT is dead
It certainly would look like a fix if somehow the KC-30’s higher IFARA score were enough to overcome the KC-767’s fuel burn AND MILCON advantage. That’s what you wanted me to say right?
you left out the part about the KC-30’s lower acquisition cost
irtuskYes it did. It meet more requirments, was superior in more
yes
& higher value requirements
no
sorry bud, this is the root of your ‘confusion’
it met more nonmandatory requirements, but not the important ones
what the KSST got dinged on was they didn’t make it clear how they would value everything so Boeing could cry foul and say “but we didn’t know you considered tanker capability to actually be important”
yes they did, that’s what selecting it means, that they thought it was the superior product
No it does not. Again, if so why the charade?
yes it does
i know this is hard for you to wrap your mind around, but try
when you pick a winner, you are selecting the one you think is superior
period
why would you select the one you don’t want?
there was no charade, they selected the product they felt was superior
Yet under the the relative merits of the proposals in accordance with the evaluation criteria identified in the solicitation they did…
no, the problem wasn’t the evaluation criteria, the problem was not fully documenting the evaluation criteria beforehand so all the bidders knew exactly how everything would be evaluated
Lets see…two ‘cost criteria’ which favor smaller/lighter tankers & one which could (but not necessarily does) favor larger/heavier tankers. 🙂
the fuel cost is a 4.32% adjustment upward from the previous number
the milcon is an unknown adjustment. i wouldn’t be so quick to assume that the adjustment will favor 767. last time they just evaluated one base they considered representative, this time they are evaluating more bases to get a more accurate estimate. that estimate may be above or below the previous number
ifara does absolutely favor the KC-30 and using the numbers from last competition (using the now-dead 767AT), gives a 5.79% adjustment downward for the KC-30 price
so we have 4.32% down for the 767, 5.79% down for the KC-30 and an unknown adjustment for milcon
Oh, & those requirements the GAO said the KC-X Source Selection Team did not reasonable justify that the KC-30 meet…they are MANDITORY requirements in the new draft RFP.
blah blah no big deal, now they’ve had time to generate the paperwork to make everyone happy
they said they expect both teams to meet the mandatory requirements, so i have to assume they know any outstanding issues have been dealt with
boeing will bid a cheaper tanker that will also have a lower ifara, so more uncertainties
Maybe it will, maybe it won’t. Boeing does not even know yet what it will bid so don’t be so disingenuous to claim that you do.
sure they do, i even started a thread about it
Rick Lemaster, the head of Boeing’s tanker program said they wouldn’t offer the 767AT (aka frankentanker)
that’s pretty definitive to me
if you’re referring to the possibility of a 777 bid, get real
if they actually bid the 777 i’ll eat my shirt
If, as you claim, a larger/heavier tanker (like the KC-30) is what is now wanted, why not change the requirements to reflect that instead of keeping requiremnts which reflect the desire for a smaller/lighter tanker (like the KC-767).
they have to keep the requirements artificially low just so the 767 can compete since they are required to have a competition :diablo:
what? that’s what you wanted me to say right?
again, i think they possibly did change the requirements to favor the KC-30. including the ifara adjustment to the price is a huge concession to the KC-30
they showed how the KC-30 could meet their requirements better than the KC-767
No they did not, In fact the opposite is the case. They ignored their own findings.
yes they did show how the KC-30 was better than the KC-767
(gee, arguing using the ‘pfcem method’ is pretty nifty)
irtuskThey DID NOT come out & say that even though the KC-767AT proved to better meet/fit the requirments of the solicitation (at a lower price)
they didn’t say that because it didn’t
“EADS made its case and showed them how they could use the KC-30 to do the job more effectively and more efficiently and their concerns about size weren’t as big an issue as they feared” or anything anywhere close to it.
yes they did, that’s what selecting it means, that they thought it was the superior product
you don’t choose the inferior product
Thats funny. The KC-767AT was the lower cost bid the last time.
they were practically identical in cost last time but they’ve changed the way they calculate cost
namely including the IFARA adjustment and adding a few more hours to the lifecycle evaluation and possibly different milcon costs
it is not clear to me how those changes will balance out
boeing will bid a cheaper tanker that will also have a lower ifara, so more uncertainties
Although it DOES look as though this time the winner is to be the bid evaluated to be the least costly rather than the one which best meets/fits the requirements.
well that’s accounted for under the ifara adjustment to a certain extent
BUT, if as you claim, “EADS made its case and showed them how they could use the KC-30 to do the job more effectively and more efficiently and their concerns about size weren’t as big an issue as they feared” why have the requirements not changed to show this?
i’m not sure i understand your question
they showed how the KC-30 could meet their requirements better than the KC-767
why would they need to change their requirements?
irtuskToday’s statement from Northrop Grumman tanker boss, Paul Meyer:
“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. Access to comparable pricing information from Boeing has thus far been denied by the Pentagon. With predominant emphasis placed on price in this tanker re-competition and Northrop Grumman again proposing its KC-45 refueling tanker, such competitive pricing information takes on even greater importance. 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.”
from the draft rfp briefing
http://www.defenselink.mil/transcripts/transcript.aspx?transcriptid=4484
It’s 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.
if the data is inaccurate, outdated and not germane, then there should certainly be no problem giving similarly inaccurate, outdated and non-germane data to NG
right?
irtuskhttp://www.dodbuzz.com/2009/09/28/boeing-offering-two-bids-two-planes/
UPDATED: Boeing Spokesman Says No Decision “About Which Plane To Offer Or Whether To Offer Both”
i’ll just say again, no way they offer the 777
irtuskThen why the charade? Why not just come out & say so?
um, they did say so
in case you missed it, they SELECTED THE KC-30
And why are there no changes in the new draft RFP indicating such. 🙂
the new way of calculating the costs has already determined the winner . . . we just don’t know who that is yet
so in short, maybe they have
irtuskLink: A330-200F now 1,100 lbs under previous weight forecast
This seems like a development that could effect the score for the Northop/Airbus bid…?
doubt it because EADS has no incentive to offer the freighter version with the new RFP
the bid will undoubtedly be a modified passenger version
irtuskBoeing Offering Two Bids, Two Planes
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.
preparing 2 bids is very surprising considering the cost and effort of preparing a bid
i also don’t see how they expect the 777 to come within 1% of the total cost of their 767 proposal and i don’t see how they can expect the KC-777 to be ready in time
it smells of a stunt of some sort
or colin clark simply got his story wrong
irtuskif it makes you feel any better, i believe at one time you were right, they did want the 767
but then EADS made its case and showed them how they could use the KC-30 to do the job more effectively and more efficiently and their concerns about size weren’t as big an issue as they feared
in short, they sold them on their product
irtuskThe KC-X Source Selection Team, not the USAF…
if that’s what you have to tell yourself to sleep at night, so be it
but everyone else knows that the KC-X Source Selection Team was the USAF
irtuskBecause the KC-X Source Selection Team lied to Boeing about the ‘fairness’ of the competition.
Your conspiracy theory makes no sense. It’s basically saying that the USAF *gasp* wanted the KC-30 to win
but OF COURSE we know that’s not true, since we have it on your impeccable authority that they REALLY want the 767 (nevermind that they ACTUALLY selected the KC-30)
If they really wanted the 767, why wouldn’t they tilt the competition to the 767 and lie to EADS to keep them interested?
maybe they aren’t as enamored with the 767 as you believe
things that make you go hmmm
irtuskAfter the lease contract was cancelled and politicians decided to have a competition in which Airbus would enter. And as Airbus would only enter if they have an advantage it became an unfair competition.
why would Boeing compete if they were at unfair disadvantage?
they wouldn’t
irtuskIt was an artful response intended to break the trolling cycle.
just like this one, eh?
you should write a book, ‘The Audacity of Trolling’
But their [USAF] decision was taken away from them by politicians.
you mean their ‘decision’ when EADS didn’t have a viable boom?
in case you forgot, the the KC-30 was selected by the USAF
irtusk“At this point, neither (company) knows enough about the selection process to figure who is better off with the new terms,” said Loren Thompson, a defense consultant for the Lexington Institute.
Richard Aboulafia, aerospace analyst for the Teal Group, said despite a strong start, the Air Force’s efforts won’t be enough to shield the contract from political bickering on Capitol Hill.
“It’s tough to be optimistic of avoiding yet another political firestorm, but this is the best chance they’ve got to start with,” said Aboulafia.
Rep. Norm Dicks, D-Wash., a Boeing supporter, said the service’s plan appeared to be “a much fairer approach.”
always good to get Dicks on the record being positive about the plan
Northrop supporter, Alabama Republican Sen. Richard Shelby welcomed the service’s decision to exclude the WTO’s results from the competition. Sen. Jeff Sessions, also an Alabama Republican, said it was too early to tell whether the draft request includes more objective criteria
Murtha says Air Force’s latest $35 billion tanker contract appears ‘open and less subjective’
http://dealbook.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/09/25/pentagon-opens-35-billion-tanker-contract/
Representative Norman D. Dicks, Democrat of Washington and a Boeing supporter, said that the proposed rules sounded “a lot better than in the last go-around.”
. . .
Northrop Grumman and EADS initially won by offering the larger plane at a much lower initial price.
So analysts said that a crucial question in the new bidding could be whether a smaller Boeing plane would save enough over the long term in fuel and other costs to offset the cheaper initial price that Northrop Grumman and EADS might offer.
. . .
And while the Pentagon has “made a good-faith effort to wring out the ambiguities,” said Representative Neil Abercrombie, Democrat of Hawaii, who chairs a House military subcommittee, “in the end, they still have to make some judgment calls about what they want most.”
Sign In
