How do you square requirements over your apparent dislike of Boeing?
Doesn't the mission count?
The bid was for a replacement for the KC-135, not the KC-10. If the replacement tanker was to replace the KC-10, then the EADS bid would make sense. But the bid was for a mid-size tanker and therefore their bid did not.
Threshold vs Objective? How did the EADS bid rank when evaluated in accordance with those criteria?
Were they compliant? Non-compliant?
Basically, I would like to see a line-by-line analysis of the GAO report and any fact-based arguments refuting the GAO report.
Oh, how much large aircraft manufacturing experience does your area have? Would like to know if the work-force would have to be trained from building. . .what. . .to a level that can efficiently and safely build large aircraft.
Not familiar with the Boeing bid for the location. Please explain or send to link that can cover that subject. Unbiased, of course.
Thanks.
Air Force has to replace its KC-135 tanker fleet but that doesn't mean Air Force has to stop thinking about the future and therefor couldn't choose a bigger aircraft.
Basically, I would like to see a line-by-line analysis of the GAO report and any fact-based arguments refuting the GAO report.
GAO decision: http://www.gao.gov/decisions/bidpro/311344.pdf
Nowhere you could find a statement by GAO that the Boeing offer was compliant. The new RFP dropped the wing mounted refueling system because Boeing isn't able to deliver them. So how honest was Boeing's last offer with wing pods?
What NG/EADS is upset about you can read here:
http://leehamnews.wordpress.com/2009/12/07/usaf-used-criteria-gao-rejected-in-new-drfp-kc-30-backers/
1. The GAO rejected a Boeing complaint that the USAF valued the KC-30’s short-field performance yet the USAF now calls this a non-mandatory factor;
2. The GAO rejected a complaint that the USAF unfairly lengthened Boeing’s delivery schedule; the current DRFP removed this entirely;
3. The GAO rejected Boeing’s complaint that the USAF assigned Boeing an unacceptable high risk for its schedule but this risk assessment was removed from the new DRFP;
4. Boeing complained the USAF’s past-performance criteria was unreasonable, a complaint rejected by the GAO; but the Air Force “significantly diminished” past performance in the current DRFP;
5. Boeing complained the Air Force undervalued Boeing’s advantage in technical manuals, a complaint rejected by the GAO; Northrop says this is now a mandatory requirement and that Boeing’s design is specified.
Air Force calculats fuel costs according to this formular:
costs = (Offeror's Fuel Burn)x(40 years)(179 aircraft)x(KC-135 Average Yearly Flying Hours (489h))x(Adjusted Annual Fuel Price)x(Present Value Discount)
I can see two errors within this formular.