I know. But it certainly gives weight to their protestations. The game was rigged, methinks.
Here is a summary of the RFP, and the bullet points are repeated below. As you may note, nowhere was the requirement to fit into the tarmac footprint of the KC-135, or into the hanger space of the KC-135, or to be the lowest cost aircraft that met or exceeded the KC-135 in range and deliverable fuel at a given distance.
However, Boeing never could have bid the 777, because it is a third larger than the KC-30, and another third more expensive. The 777 was too much aircraft for this round of bidding, and the 767 was just enough aircraft. The KC-30 was more aircraft at not much more money.
Also note that all summer long this has been a "$40 billion" tanker deal, but now that it has tentatively been awarded to the KC-30, it is a "$35 billion" tanker deal. Northrop Grumman/EADS came in under the unofficial spending cap of $40 billion.
The RFP stipulates nine primary key performance parameters:1) Air refueling capability
2) Fuel offload and range at least as great as the KC-135
3) Compliant Communication, Navigation, Surveillance/Air Traffic Management (CNS/ATM) equipment
4) Airlift capability
5) Ability to take on fuel while airborne
6) Sufficient force protection measures
7) Ability to network into the information available in the battle space
8) Survivability measures (defensive systems, Electro-Magnetic Pulse (EMP) hardening, chemical/biological protection, etc)
9) Provisioning for a multi-point refueling system to support Navy and Allied aircraft