Sen. John McCain, who singlehandedly started investigations that led the U.S. Air Force to scuttle plans to lease Boeing 767 tankers in 2002, is now raising questions about the service’s source selection methodology for yet another attempt to procure replacements for aging KC-135 refuelers.

The questions from McCain, the ranking member of the Senate Armed Services Committee, are outlined in an Oct. 29 letter to Defense Secretary Robert Gates that was also sent to Pentagon acquisition czar Ashton Carter and Air Force Secretary Michael Donley.

McCain asks why the KC-X source selection criteria laid out in a September draft request for proposals (RFP) for the forthcoming competition estimated to be worth $35 billion lacks some commonly used data in Pentagon pricing. Typically, Air Force ownership estimates include a probable lifecycle cost (including pricing for research and development, operations and maintenance and depot-level maintenance.

In the draft RFP, the pricing includes fuel usage rates and a calculation of military construction needs. “Why should the current source selection methodology not require that the [total proposed price] be adjusted to reflect those (and perhaps other similar) ownership costs?” McCain asks.

Furthermore, echoing complaints from the Northrop Grumman/EADS team offering the Airbus A330-based design, the senator questions why the pricing requirements in the draft RFP would “not favor mostly smaller airframes offered in response to the request for proposals.”

The Northrop-led team will be pitted against Boeing, which hasn’t announced which platform it will offer, although is widely expected to propose a tanker based on the 767.

McCain also seems to take issue with the lack of subjectivity in the draft RFP. The risk of the two proposals is essentially given a pass/fail rating. “How does the source-selection methodology provide for an assessment of relative developmental and integration risk among the offerings?”

In the 2007-2008 competition, in which the Northrop Grumman/EADS team won the $1.5 billion development contract, the Air Force inflated Boeing’s proposed price because of perceived risk. Officials were concerned that Boeing’s plans to pull parts ‑ such as the cockpit, flaps and doors and floors ‑ from various commercial aircraft into a single model was not executable along the time provided.

However, it was partly a perceived subjectivity in the last competition that eventually led officials to pursue a very different strategy this time. Officials have outlined 373 mandatory system-level requirements, each of which both contractors must meet prior to a cost comparison. If the cost of the two bids is within 1 percent of difference in their adjusted values, another 93 requirements would be considered.

McCain also questions this approach. The last competition included 800 requirements, and McCain is curious whether the Joint Requirements Oversight Council (the military body that oversees weapon system requirements) had concurred with the articulation of the 373 new requirements. “Were any requirements that were previously validated as mandatory in the original competition designated as non-mandatory in the pending effort?” the senator asks.

The letter was obtained by Aviation Week. McCain’s office declined to provide it; an official said it was a private correspondence. However, it has already begun to get press attention.

McCain’s questions mirror concerns outlined by Northrop Grumman officials during an Oct. 28 press conference (Aerospace DAILY, Oct. 30). Air Force Secretary Michael Donley has signaled a willingness to change the RFP, though he said he thinks it is a strong approach.

The final RFP was expected to be released at the end of the month, but could go into December or January, according to a defense official.

Photo: EADS