G.A.O. Backs Boeing on Aerial Tanker Deal

[maddezmom]

Source: NYT

The Government Accountability Office on Wednesday backed Boeing’s protest of the awarding of a multibillion-dollar contract for refueling tankers to Northrop Grumman and a European partner, saying the Air Force made errors during the process.

The G.A.O., the investigative arm of Congress, recommended that the Air Force reopen the bidding and obtain revised proposals.

The $40 billion tanker program is the Air Force’s No. 1 priority, intended to replace a fleet of aerial refueling tankers — which provide fuel to fighter jets and cargo planes in mid-air — that date back to the Eisenhower administration and which are being stressed in wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.

It is one of the modern military’s most lucrative contracts, but it is more than a battle over planes. It has become a trans-Atlantic battle involving controversy, delays, politics and cries over jobs and national pride. Three global military contractors were the chief players — Boeing on one side and Northrop Grumman and its partner, European Aeronautic Defense and Space, on the other. Behind them were hundreds of global subcontractors and suppliers depending on the outcome.



Read more: http://www.nytimes.com/2008/06/19/business/19tanker.html?ref=business

---

Sen. Patty Murray's statement on the GAO's sustaining of Boeing's protest

"Today, the GAO sustained Boeing's protest and confirmed what I have been saying for months -- the Air Force's tanker decision was fundamentally flawed.

"Today, the GAO sustained Boeing's protest and confirmed what I have been saying for months -- the Air Force's tanker decision was fundamentally flawed.

"I am not surprised that the GAO identified significant errors in the selection process. The Air Force bought a tanker that doesn't meet their needs and has been waging a PR campaign ever since.

~snip~

"It is Congress' job to determine whether major defense purchases meet the needs of our warfighter and deserve taxpayer funding. The Pentagon must both justify its decision and address the flawed process that led to today's ruling.

"We need answers before handing billions of American defense dollars to a subsidized, foreign company focused on dismantling the American aerospace industry."


more: http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/boeingaerospace/2008004153_webmurraystatement18.html

[Parche]

1. Boeing

Can Congress still change that?

Is this a done deal yet with Airbus?


Boeing could make the 767-300, 777, tanker, that would be far better then the A-330

and made here in the US, not in France...

:hi:

[Sen. Walter Sobchak]

5. I can't say I am fond of Alabama

and as much as it pains me to say it, Alabama is part of the United States.

If Boeing gets this contract it will send the message to corporate America that being busted for fraud will not hurt their bottom line as long as they have some assholes lined up to throw under the bus.

[OwnedByFerrets]

8. And I'm not fond of

whatever state you are from either.:evilgrin: :P

[Sen. Walter Sobchak]

10. I tease

the corporate criminal apologists are deliberately dishonest claiming the work is going to France.

[pnwmom]

14. No it won't. Boeing suffered consequences for that fraud.

Awarding this contract to Airbus, even though it did not meet the specs called for in the contract proposal (and Boeing did), makes no sense.

[Sen. Walter Sobchak]

20. bullshit!

a couple of assholes went to jail,I would imagine Boeing feels sending a few redundant executives to jail in exchange for keeping a $30 billion dollar order the bargian of the century.

I am absolutely disgusted to see democrats standing up for this corporate criminal,

[OwnedByFerrets]

30. Amazing, isnt it?

You would think "we" could see past the corporate fascism.

[Sen. Walter Sobchak]

40. useful idiots

the corporate criminal class has discovered that the canard of preserving union jobs (that they will cut anyways) can earn them a free pass from liberals on their criminal conduct.

If the sub-prime cons were to form "The Brotherhood of Retail Mortgage Professionals" these guys would defend them.

[rsmith6621]

2. Use This Against McSame

....he voted to allow the Airbus deal.......

[Sen. Walter Sobchak]

3. McCain shut down a corporate fraud on a massive scale

I want to know why Democrats didn't beat him to it.

[Sen. Walter Sobchak]

4. Boeing should have been banned from the competition

There are not very many situations where a vendor could attempt to defraud their customer of $30 billion dollars and still be in the running.

Boeings abysmal performance on the Japanese and Italian 767 Tankers alone would be an adaquate reason to reject Boeing. The performance of the Airbus based tanker alone is reason enough to reject Boeing. But when you put those together with the attempted massive $30 Billion fraud how can anybody seriously question the result?

[Squatch]

6. Boeing was rejected for criteria that were NOT specified in the RFP

therefore, it had grounds to protest. This is an appropriate finding by the GAO.

[Sen. Walter Sobchak]

9. False

The evolving multi-mission role was made very clear by the air force as the project went forward.

And even if Boeing had the perfect plane they still shouldn't get the contract, Boeing needs a $30 billion dollar spanking.

[Squatch]

11. The GAO disagrees with you.

"In a three-page release explaining the decision, the agency said the Air Force failed to assess relative merits of the bids in accordance with evaluation criteria"

Link

Good on Boeing. :thumbsup:

[Sen. Walter Sobchak]

12. The GAO is getting Duncan Hunter and Maria Cantwell off their ass

Democrats and Republicans alike have been lining up to lend their support to Americas formost corporate criminal.

[Squatch]

13. Nah, that's not it.

The USAF did not follow the law as specified in the FARs and DFARS and is being called on it. This is defense acquisition 101.

Boeing (and every other company submitting proposals) should have its entry in the composition measured against the criteria set forth in the original solicitation and not be rejected because of "moving targets" of changing requirements that clearly favor one company over another.

[pnwmom]

16. And their ruling makes sense. n/t

[Squatch]

17. I agree...

when I heard that EADS/Northrop got the contract, I could see Boeing's challenge from a mile away.

[pnwmom]

18. Since Airbus didn't design the plane that the contract proposal asked for

it certainly seemed strange that they got the contract.

[Squatch]

19. That arrangement is actually quite common

Prime/sub-contractors and all that. It's very common for a big company like GD to respond to and be awarded a lucrative solicitation only to outsource final design/assembly to sub-contractos. Some mom-and-pop contractors might have phenomenal products, but get squeezed by the big boys, so they sometimes have no option but to piggyback.

[pnwmom]

21. That's not what I meant.

I wasn't talking about subcontracting, I was talking about the fact that the plane that Airbus designed was not the SIZE that the Air Force had asked for. If the contract had called for that size of an aircraft, then Boeing could have designed it.

[Squatch]

23. Aha...I see. It's been a long day.

[Sen. Walter Sobchak]

24. again false

Boeing refused to field a 777 based tanker, at one point they said they were open to using any of their airliners as a platform but they never made a serious proposal because they believed they would win the order no matter what, the purpose of the 767 tanker program is to extend the production life of an obsolete airliner, Boeing can't keep up with demand for the 777 from commercial customers so they didn't want to divert them to the airforce when they believed they would win the order no matter what.

They also assumed the airforce wouldn't fly in the Japanese and Italian airforces to talk shop about their 767 tanker programs which have been a disaster and which are only now barely getting off the ground.

Boeing was fortunate as it was that their risk assesment wasn't elevated by their poor performance on the allies 767 tanker programs, especially since the tanker they proposed building for the USAF had little in common with the marginally functional Japanese and Italian tanker. However their dismal performance on those small contracts no doubt came into the decision.

Boeing has lost every single tanker competition world-wide since the A330 based tanker went on the market. And when the last 767 tanker is built the 767 line will close forever while the plant in Alabama will be building A330 freighters for another 20 years.

I understand why people have a kneejerk sympathy for Boeing, but this is a corporation that is rotten to the core and needs to die.

Look at the 787 program, it is a total disaster because they outsourced every last bit of it based on which jurisdictions were offering the richest subsudies.

Seeing Democrats rally around this company makes me physically ill.

[pnwmom]

27. Yeah, well it should make you sick to rally around Airbus.

The craft that Airbus designed is too big to fit on our runways. It makes no sense.

[Sen. Walter Sobchak]

34. you have that wrong too

The A330 tanker has better take-off performance than the 767 tanker which requires a longer runway who fully loaded with fuel, the "issue" is that the A330 doesn't fit in the smallest hangars for the KC-135, all of which could be replaced for a fraction of the price of a single tanker.

I believe the corporate criminal class which Boeing represents needs to be punished harshly and the only sanction they understand is the multi-billion dollar spanking. You could go Chinese and start executing directors and it wouldn't adjust their behavior if they still got the contract in the end.

And the way Boeing is going within the next decade Airbus will employ more Americans than Boeing does.

[OwnedByFerrets]

7. Boeing greasing palms again....

if you think they are not, you are naive. More hyperbole from people bought and paid for by lobbyist. Boeing isnt going to lose even ONE job based on this contract. And yes, I have a bias on this issue. My hometown, Mobile AL got the contract.:shrug: We want those extra jobs to be in America.:)

[pnwmom]

15. Your bias is showing. Many more American jobs would be produced through a

Boeing contract than through the Airbus contract.

And if you think that Airbus hasn't been guilty of unfair competition, then you are naive.

[Parche]

25. Exactly

One bad apple does not make a deceiving company

Boeing is the best one for this contract

and when a time of high Bush unemployment in this Country, it makes no sense to give this to Airbus

I want jobs here, no more outsourcing, i am tired of that


Like I said, the 767-300 777 would make good tankers


:hi:

[BigDaddy44]

22. You really think Boeing "bought" the GAO?

[OwnedByFerrets]

29. If you dont think its possible

you are, again, naive. The answer to YOUR question is YES! You and I cant prove it either way, but I never give "this" particular government the benefit of a doubt.

[pnwmom]

32. No, Airbus did. How else did they get the contract while costing $91 mil MORE?

[Sen. Walter Sobchak]

35. because they got more for the money

The A330 is the airliner that put the 767 in the grave and the Multirole Tanker version is far more superior than the passenger version is.

Boeing brought a Vespa to a Motocross rally and lost, they thought waving the flag and making frog jokes would win the competition, they were wrong.

[pnwmom]

36. They got a plane that wasn't specified in the contract proposal

for their money.

And that would cost $91 million more than the plane they asked for.

That's why the GAO wants to revisit the decision.

[Diclotican]

26. maddezmom

maddezmom

Typical.. Why don't just tell from the beginning that the "invitation" to build the next tanker was a don deal for Boeing in the first place, And don't go down as stupid ones.. This look more and more like an rigged thing.. It was never a free choice, where the "best aircraft" could be the next tanker. It was a deal where in the end Boeing would take the deal, and where everyone who was in the competition should just say Okay and go away again.. When NG-Airbus got the deal, who surprised my very because I do believed it would be an Boeing deal. The "crying crowd" was out, both here in DU, and on many other sites I know about. And they was using the same program. Boeing was the "better deal" and so on.. Even that Airbus was howen to have the best aircraft for the job at hand...

Now, millions of YOUR taxpayers money, the case is not closed by far, and it look more and more that it would go in another round of "Which aircraft is the best for the USAF tanker". And in the meantime the KC135 would NOT be younger, and even the KC-10 would one day be grounded, scraped and then what?.

The US aerospace industry have killed many industry in other places in the world. Our European industry, both French, germany, UK and other parts of europe, was almost killed by the underbidding from Boeing when it come to sell aircraft.. Both UK and France had an great industry, who could produce some extremely good aircraft.. Well all know about the Comet, the british aircraft, who was the first Jet in the air.. An Aircraft far beyond the ages.. But with a reputation that was greatly damaged because of the type of windows the first aircraft types was using.. But after they had found out what was wrong, and working around it, it was an great aircraft... And should have given rice to a lot of other spin off, and other type of aircraft instead of being killed by the competition from cheap Boeing product, who in the end was more expensive than their european counterpart..

VC10. The best aircraft the british ever produced maybe, more capable than Boeing 707-120 but was not as cheap as Boeing managed to sell it as.. But they who purchased the VC10. was very, very glad in the aircraft, and was found of it to..

And so, and so can we go around the whole aerospace industry in Europe. Cheap aircraft from the US, and unfair practice when it come to selling aircraft from Europe to US, almost killed the European aerospace industry in the 1960s.. The bit and Pisces who survived, was in the end given the name Airbus in the early 1970-1980s.

And for the record.. Most of the A330 are not made in FRANCE.. It is made in GERMANY. and send by barge to Toulouse in France, The most of the pieces is not produces in France, but scattered over most of europa... And then send to germany, who in their time are sending them to Toulouse in France...

And if the A330 should be named as an france aircraft, what so. Many airlines in the world are using the A330-A340-A318-A319-A320-A321 and are pretty happy with the aircraft they have... So it should be not THAT difficult for USAF to handle some A330, when they could handle more than 50 year old KC135.... And I would bet that the A330 would be MUCH more easy to operate, and more comfortable for the pilots than the 50 year old design of KC135..

This is pure obstruction of a deal who could help USAF into the 21 century.. But if they WANT an B767-400 as their tanker, be my guest, but next time they want to take an open contract to everyone to submit.. Please not ask Airbus to do it once MORE. We all know that in the end, Boeing would get the deal, and that it is an rotten deal to boot...

Diclotican

Sorry my bad english, not my native language

[pnwmom]

28. The Airbus craft is too big to fit on our runways.

And the Air Force suddenly changed its specs very late in the process, putting Boeing at an unfair disadvantage. The GAO made the correct decision. The process needs to be revisited.

[Diclotican]

33. pnwmom

pnwmom

And you think that B777 who are LARGER than the A330 would fit better into your runways.. Sorry if I sound rude, but that is what I would call bullshit by the pounds.. Or by the Kilograms in my context;)IF that is the only reason that they really want 777 instead of A330 then it is just a silly excuse. For the most part the 777 would never possible be used in the many theaters that the USAF would operate.. IF then US was to build a LOT of larger airfields the world over.. And the B777 have had some issue with MATOW in civilian use.. And I would bet that the issue are no less problematic when it come to military use...

And, when it come to 767, this is an rather old construction, all the time the fuselage and engines are more same as the 757, Who was flying first in the early 1980s.. The Boeing have hoped for a long time that the 767-400 would be the basis for the new tanker deal. A Aircraft who in many cases are less effective than the newer A330/340 fuselage.. This is fact because the A330/340 is an newer design than the 767..

But, off course if it was the meaning that the Boeing should win the contest, regardless of the competition from other product, why don't just tell the world that the next tanker would be an Boeing an be gone with it.. This have been a silly game for the start, and if the 767 tanker was that an great deal, why have not UK, Japan and Italy get their product for an long time ago... As I know it, the program the UK, Japan and Italy was getting into with their new brand 767-400 tanker have been plagued with accidents, product fault and its like from the beginning.. And that is the Product they want to sell to the USAF?? I know Japan treated to get out of the deal all together. And refurnished and used 767 and build the aircraft itself.. And I know also that both Italy and Japan was given a rather generous deal when it come to pay for the aircraft.. Boeing was pretty scared by the prospect of having to abandon the project all together.. And if Boeing are not getting the USAF tanker deal. The 767 line is DEAD.. As in NEVER build another aircraft more on that line.. The 767-400 is the end of the line for this type of aircraft..


Diclotican

Sorry my bad english,not my native language

[pnwmom]

37. Here's more, from Bloomberg news.

SNIP

The selection was undermined June 12 when both companies confirmed the Air Force miscalculated operating costs of the competing aircraft. After the fixes, Boeing turned out to have a $91.8 million cost advantage, according to an Air Force document obtained today.


The GAO's full 69-page ruling remains under protective order because it contains proprietary information.

In a three-page release explaining the decision, the agency said the Air Force failed to assess relative merits of the bids in accordance with evaluation criteria; improperly credited Northrop for exceeding aerial-refueling parameters; and didn't adequately explain its finding that Northrop's tanker could refuel all current fixed-wing aircraft as required.

In addition, the GAO said the Air Force conducted ``misleading and unequal discussions'' with Boeing; made an improper exception for Northrop when it failed to agree to a timeline for depot-level aircraft maintenance; miscalculated operation costs for the aircraft; and improperly increased Boeing's estimated engineering costs to account for risk.

SNIP

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601103&sid=aKWqDgmrcOdQ&refer=news

[Diclotican]

38. pnwmom

pnwmom

Then a new competition, where more aircraft producers should be invited to come into play should be given the opportunity.. If not, tis is just the "game" where in the end we all know what would happened in the end. Poor Old Boeing would get the deal, and be so happy to build 767-400 for the future. Even that the NG-Airbus deal would have given the USAF a far better and more capable aircraft then the current 7674 is today...

What is 91.8 million cost advance when US military contractors have pulled the Treasury for billions for the last 8 year?:. This smell not good, that Boeing surprisingly would get the upper hand now, and are playing the "we can do it cheaper" attitude.. When have Boeing ever let the bone picker be the most important thing for a new military toy?

This more because Boeing was MAD when the NG-Airbus won the competition, and would do whatever to win back the deal.. Boeing get the impression from the start that off course they should get the deal. And when NG-Airbus was winning the deal, the boardrooms at Boeing get into a hell house.. It was bad enough when they was loosing the F35 fighter jet project, Locked Martin had the best product in the end.. But to loose the tanker contract to a foreign company, was to mutch..

And this show how many billions would be spend before a final deal is struck here?:. Two, tree billions.. It looks like the 91,8 million advance can be killed long before the tanker deal is clear.. And in the meantime the pilots are flying aircraft that are very old. In many cases at the age of their grandparents..

But relax, Airbus would not collapse because of this.. Many country would be happy to get the Airbus A330 BOTH as an passenger, and as an military tanker.. They don't need to be pushed around to get the Airbus product.. SO, in some few years time when US are sitting there with an aircraft that is plagued with problems, then we can came back and discuss why the KC45-B767-400 was not the greatest aircraft int he USAF arsenal when everything come to it.. But then it will be to late...

Diclotican

Sorry my bad english, not my native language

[pnwmom]

39. Boeing expected to win the contract because they were offering to

produce the plane that the government contract proposal had asked for, and at a better price than the competition.

And later, Airbus acknowledged that the government made an error -- in Airbus's favor -- in calculating costs.

It is completely reasonable to review this decision now. The contract is not going to be handed to Boeing, however. The Air Force is going to have to reopen its decision.

[pnwmom]

31. Here's a good reason for revisiting the decision: a huge miscalculation of COSTS.

And there are other good reasons.

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601103&sid=aKWqDgmrcOdQ&refer=news

"The selection was undermined June 12 when both companies confirmed the Air Force miscalculated operating costs of the competing aircraft. After the fixes, Boeing turned out to have a $91.8 million cost advantage, according to an Air Force document obtained today.

The GAO's full 69-page ruling remains under protective order because it contains proprietary information.

In a three-page release explaining the decision, the agency said the Air Force failed to assess relative merits of the bids in accordance with evaluation criteria; improperly credited Northrop for exceeding aerial-refueling parameters; and didn't adequately explain its finding that Northrop's tanker could refuel all current fixed-wing aircraft as required.

In addition, the GAO said the Air Force conducted ``misleading and unequal discussions'' with Boeing; made an improper exception for Northrop when it failed to agree to a timeline for depot-level aircraft maintenance; miscalculated operation costs for the aircraft; and improperly increased Boeing's estimated engineering costs to account for risk.

SNIP