[djwright]

the bids were not $5B apart.

The AF abitrarily added cost to Boeing’s bid for risk. The GAO found a math error in the AF numbers and the Boeing bid was actually the lower bid.

this is even after the AF neglected real world issues like ramp space.

[Yo-Yo]

I did not say the bids were $5 billion apart. I said that the contract was expected to be around $40 billion based on prior attempts to lease or sole source the KC-767.

The competition by NG-EADS brought the costs down to $35 billion.

The tanker Boeing bid was based on a civil Boeing 767-200LRF, which has never been built, which violated the spirit of the requirement that the tanker aircraft be based on COTS airframes.

The NG-EADS tanker was the same airframe as is being delivered to the RAAF.

And for this bid, the requirement is for a boom that can deliver 1,200 GPM. The A330 MRTT boom can deliver 1,200 GPM. The Boom that Boeing built for the Italian and Japanese KC-767s can only deliver 900 GPM.

If Boeing wins this contract, they will have to develop a 1,200 GPM boom, causing extra uncertanity in their ability to deliver on time.

[Oztrich Boy]

The AF abitrarily added cost to Boeing’s bid for risk. The GAO found a math error in the AF numbers and the Boeing bid was actually the lower bid.

February 13, 2007 WASHINGTON — Boeing on Monday announced a newly designed KC-767 as its proposed aircraft for a $40 billion Air Force contest to replace 179 refueling planes.

Oct. 28, 2007 Despite a scandal related to a tanker deal that sent two Boeing officials to jail two years ago, the Chicago company has been favored to win the $40-billion award for the fuel-carrying tankers.

It seems that Seattle/Chicago was assuming they would get $40 billion until the details of the Northrop-Grumman bid was leaked to them at the end of 2007