Pulling from its playbook last time around, Northrop Grumman told Defense Dept. officials today that it would not bid for the USAF KC-X aerial tanker replacement program under the standing request for proposals (RFP).
The company, which paired with Europe's EADS Airbus in what seems a perpetual tanker saga, indicated in a letter it could change its mind if the Pentagon makes substantial changes to the draft RFP.
“It is my hope that the department will elect to modify its approach to this procurement in a way that would enable us to offer our product for your consideration,” Bush wrote (See Northrop letter in PDF here.)
Defense leaders let known recently that changes to the source-selection plan for the U.S. Air Force’s $35-billion KC-X program were not likely to be substantial. Northrop executives have complained that the 373 pass/fail requirements outlined for qualification in the competition equally weigh less important items—such as water flow in sinks and toilets—with critical capabilities—such as fuel offload rates.
The USAF’s latest cost-shootout approach is also perceived by some observers as favoring the smaller tanker, presumably a Boeing 767-based solution (though Boeing has not announced a design).
Northrop’s offer could be based on the Airbus A330, in partnership with Europe’s EADS.
Whether Northrop’s latest move is just another maneuver toward a similar compromise remains to be seen, with some on Wall Street telling clients not to consider anything settled. “We are not counting [Northrop] out of the competition,” JSA Research analysts said.
only if boeing can meet the requirements as set forth in the RFP. if the air force lower the standards at a later date, there will be all sorts of accusations of foul play
I guess we know which platform Boeing is going to submit.
Honest- wish Gates & Co had the guts to say fine. No matter how much Boeing tries to overcharge in their bid, it will undoubtedly cost less than the alternatives: split buy or further contesting of the award.
i wish, at this point, DoD could go back to Boeing and say 'if you will take the contract at the last bid price (or something close to it), you can have it. otherwise, we'll have to amend the RFP.'
This whole debacle could almost considered funny if it wasn't for the fact that everyday, pilots and aircrew have to get into ancient, 45 year-old aircraft and in many cases, fly missions over non-friendly skies. I certainly hope that the crews remain safe while others, on the ground,continually argue and pontificate over every little nuance of an FRP.
If the doo-doo's hits the fan and there is a problem with one of those aircraft, then of course there'll be much wringing of hands and gnashing of teeth by all concerned. It's a British way of life to always be wise after the event, don't let it be an American one. Just split the darned deal 50/50 and move on.
This was foredoomed. The trouble is that the AF knows, within one or two per cent, what the KC-767 and KC-330 will do: fuel offload at range, cargo capacity, fuel burn, maintenance costs, everything. So either you write a vague requirement that culminates in sorties needed to support a notional force mix, and aircraft needed to generate them - which then gets challenged because it's vague - or you write a classic pounds-and-miles requirement that favors one or the other.
And at the bottom of it is the clear intent of Congress: that the USAF should conduct a fair and open competition which Boeing wins.
Now it depends on your personal pursuasion which way you think that would be.
Honest- wish Gates & Co had the guts to say fine. No matter how much Boeing tries to overcharge in their bid, it will undoubtedly cost less than the alternatives: split buy or further contesting of the award.
We need the tankers. If Boeing is willing to take the fixed-price deal and provide the airframes on time, then let's move forward.
I certainly hope that the crews remain safe while others, on the ground,continually argue and pontificate over every little nuance of an FRP.
If the doo-doo's hits the fan and there is a problem with one of those aircraft, then of course there'll be much wringing of hands and gnashing of teeth by all concerned. It's a British way of life to always be wise after the event, don't let it be an American one. Just split the darned deal 50/50 and move on.
And at the bottom of it is the clear intent of Congress: that the USAF should conduct a fair and open competition which Boeing wins.