Military AI Works

Back to the Drawing Board: The Government Accountability Office yesterday (July 18) recommended that the Air Force throw out its selection of the KC-45 aerial tanker contract to Northrop Grumman and seek revised proposals from that company and Boeing, which protested the choice in early March. The GAO cited seven "significant errors" (see below) in the Air Force's handling of the $40 billion contract award and determined it would be unfair to let the award stand. "We recommend that the Air Force reopen discussions with the offerors, obtain revised proposals, re-evaluate the revised proposals, and make a new source-selection decision," the GAO said in a three-page release articulating its ruling. Furthermore, it said the Air Force should pay Boeing's legal and administrative costs in bringing the protest--potentially tens of millions of dollars. The GAO suggested that if the Air Force doesn't think the original solicitation "adequately" states the service's needs, it should re-write the document prior to beginning new talks with the two competitors. A similar ruling in the Air Force's combat search and rescue helicopter competition has led to a two-year litigation delay in getting that program under contract, suggesting that the launch of the tanker program could be delayed at least that long, as well. A GAO official told the Daily Report that the recommendations do not suggest that the Air Force "start over," that is open the competition to other bidders, but rather refine the way that it asks for information and evaluates the answers it gets. The GAO said that it also denied some of Boeing's complaints--without saying which ones--because records failed to show that the Air Force had done anything wrong "with respect to those challenges." Further, the agency pointed out that its ruling shouldn't be construed as a comment on the relative merits either of Boeing's KC-767 or Northrop Grumman's KC-30 tanker models. The GAO's decisions focused only on the process.

3 page report(PDF)
http://www.airforce-magazine.com/SiteCo ... 061808.pdf

From AF Daily Report 19 Jun 08

While I'm pro-Boeing, this could turn ugly.

A case of "Be careful of what you wish for".

Just read the latest news. It seems that Airbus/Northrop will be the only bidder. Rumours say Boeing will back out due to lack of time for a stretched 767 or the move to a 777 to meet the new refuel tank capacity requirements.

Maybe one of you has more insider knowledge?

I just read about this earlier today as well... and if this happens(Boeing not submitting), it's absolutely unacceptable. Boeing files a protest and they should follow through with a submission, otherwise time is just being wasted.

I smell a political campaign here to get the requirements altered so that Boeing can meet them.

Firebird wrote:I smell a political campaign here to get the requirements altered so that Boeing can meet them.

Well, Boeing actually met the original RFP(I can't speak to an updated one). USAF sent out a RFP and Boeing MET the original RFP. Airbus came along and then EXCEEDED the RFP and the USAF selected Airbus. Boeing complained that if the USAF wanted an aircraft that exceeded the RFP than they should have changed the RFP and Boeing would have offered a different aircraft. Now, for some reason, Boeing isn't sure they can offer an aircraft comparable to what Airbus is offering; so WHY did they file a protest and waste time? They had to understand that the new RFP was going to favor a larger aircraft. Now they're talking about maybe not bidding at all which would cause ANOTHER delay as the Pentagon won't award a $35B contract without competition.

They were to propose a 777 version of the tanker. The reason they chose a "smaller" aircraft is because they were under the assumption that the USAF wanted a tanker that could operate from shorter fields and pack more of them on an apron. You can fit a lot more 767s on an apron then you can A330s, and anyone who knows anything about commercial aviation knows that the A330/A340 series are slow to roll and climb like rocks

I read in this weeks Flight International, that the contest will have the minimum possible response time periods to be legal.
They have increased the baseline towards what the A330 offered first time around. This leaves Boeing with offering a stretched 767, which apparently has tail strike frequency issues or the 777. Neither of which, I believe, Boeing is going to be able to meet timescale wise.
To give you an example, the first submission phase and final submission phase will be completed and the contract winner declaration announcement is currently scheduled for Dec 24.

Oh and by the way on the subject of the competition. The contest doesn't have to have more than one submission. It just has to free and open to all.

This is why I think Boeing will try politics to win.

Firebird wrote:I read in this weeks Flight International, that the contest will have the minimum possible response time periods to be legal.
They have increased the baseline towards what the A330 offered first time around. This leaves Boeing with offering a stretched 767, which apparently has tail strike frequency issues or the 777. Neither of which, I believe, Boeing is going to be able to meet timescale wise.
To give you an example, the first submission phase and final submission phase will be completed and the contract winner declaration announcement is currently scheduled for Dec 24.

Oh and by the way on the subject of the competition. The contest doesn't have to have more than one submission. It just has to free and open to all.

This is why I think Boeing will try politics to win.

I agree with the first part of your statement... which basically amounts to Boeing files a protest(which I agree with) and then wasn't prepared for a follow up RFP(which is ridiculous and unacceptable).

The second part is where we differ. The size of the contract being awarded to a single source without any competition(should Boeing donkey out) will raise eyebrows and could put the selection off further. That's not just my opinion, that's the opinion inside the five sided wind tunnel. The AP reported it as well.

I was all for Boeing filing the protest to begin with but if they A. don't submit a bid, the American people should be up in arms, or B. don't submit a bid that meets the new RFP the American people should be up in arms.

Whether or not Airbus' 330 meets the new RFP or not, I am isolationist enough that I think Boeing or another wholly owned American headquartered and based company should be the primary designer and manufacturer - period.

Personally, I'm tired of the US farming out design and manufacturing projects in the name of helping other economies/strengthening ties. The economy has reached the point where a bit of protectionism is needed ------------------------- and Boeing makes excellent aircraft to boot.

But that's just my opinion.

Just love those two words - isolationist and protectionism.

I love the phrase "what goes around, comes around".

CelticWarrior wrote:Just love those two words - isolationist and protectionism.

I love the phrase "what goes around, comes around".

He wants the people in his country to be taken of in terms of economy and employment. Is that such a bad thing? You like it when all your jobs are outsourced and no currency remains in country?

Hey FF,
If you are an isolationist perhaps you should tell Boeing to stop having parts for it's 787 made in Italy and Japan.

Perhaps Europe should stop ploughing money into JSF.

Perhaps the UK should never have told the US about the all flying elevator that was required to put an aircraft through the sound barrier, or that you needed oval windows to avert problems with metal fatigue in high flying civil aircraft or stopped Barnes Wallis swing wing idea crossing the pond.

I am not pro Airbus or Boeing but most modern aircraft from airframe and engines are joint colaboration.

Wake up to the global economy, and after all it was a joint Grumman/EADS project with work in the US.

From what I see looking in from the outside is that the only looser in this is your armed forces and tax payers.

Regards,
Steve.

SMOC wrote:He wants the people in his country to be taken of in terms of economy and employment. Is that such a bad thing? You like it when all your jobs are outsourced and no currency remains in country?

And I'm sure he, and you, would like it even less when all the countries who buy American goods see that attitude and turn to other sources. Countries are buying C-17s, but could more cheaply buy An-124s, for an example.

Isolationism and protectionism have historically proven to be a hindrance in long term economic terms.

You know. It's irritatingly humorous to read certain responses when someone offers an unpopular opinion here.

I don't apologize for my opinion or need to explain the reasons for it. It's my opinion.

I will say, however, that I am tired of the US, having supported the global economy since the end of WW2, being seen as the "big bad wolf" when someone like me suggests, even obliquely, that America should protect its own economy and domestic manufacturing infrastructure and jobs.

For the American government to agree to buy or even consider buying a non-American product at the expense of American industry is ludicrous to me.

Like I said, it's an opinion.

CelticWarrior wrote:And I'm sure he, and you, would like it even less when all the countries who buy American goods see that attitude and turn to other sources. Countries are buying C-17s, but could more cheaply buy An-124s, for an example.

Isolationism and protectionism have historically proven to be a hindrance in long term economic terms.

And why do you think they're buying C-17s? To foster international growth with America or because it's truly a better product?

A country is going to do what's best for them, not for someone else. It's a balancing act, I understand. I'm not saying I agree with isolationism and in particular I would NEVER want to isolate the US from Western Europe... my only point was that you came down derisively on someone who doesn't want to his tax dollars lining the pockets of another country. And I won't speak any further for him as I don't want to words into his mouth.

But your point has been made. I don't necessarily agree or disagree with it but it is what it is.

We're all entitled to our opinions, nobody is saying you aren't entitled to them. But don't be surprised when someone disagrees.

CelticWarrior wrote:...But your point has been made....

I'd argue that his point has been "asserted", not made.

CW, I'm not surprised. I am actually amused at the "we are the world" counter argument and not so subtle personal attack. I haven't taken offense.

Edited because I needed to clear up the quoting....

Ford Friendly wrote: I'd argue that his point has been "asserted", not made.

That's rich, given the tone of your original post.

And that's not my quote in your post above.

Ford Friendly wrote:Whether ... I am isolationist enough that I think...
Personally, I'm tired ----- and Boeing makes excellent aircraft to boot.

But that's just my opinion.

Sigh... seems like the original post was pure assertion of my opinion. Not me stating "facts". I don't really see any statement of fact. The tone has a bit exasperation. But I don't see it as negative towards anyone here.

Rhetorically, "made" suggests the argument is closed and "won". Assertion suggests things remain unresolved.