bonwich wrote:I think y'all are missing the biggest point here: There weren't two American aerospace companies who could compete against each other on their own for this contract.
Note: These are my opinions after reading much public material.
Exactly bonwich, it is in the best interest of American taxpayers for there to be a competition. And first and foremost, it should be a
fair competition.
Fair means taking illegal European subsidies into account (US has protested European subsidies to EADS in the WTO.) Of primary importance, it also means not fundamentally changing selection criteria after the RFP has been submitted. Just conducting a fair competition is more important than the issues with both profits and US jobs going overseas instead of them staying at home in the midst of a recession.
We should not ignore that environments are in flux. You see, the Air Force has a need for more airlift capability. They've recently requested more C-17's yet the Congress has been shooting them down due to budget constraints. This, after the Tanker RFP was issued. As you can imagine, this puts the Air Force in a bind and I think this is why it appears they've changed the selection criteria for the Tanker to also emphasize greater airlift capability, necessitating a larger platform.
More info will become available soon, and not necessarily the whole truth, on how the decision was made. The Air Force will likely say the criteria had not changed, that there were other factors. But the inability for Congress to meet Air Force airlift needs suggests otherwise. You see, altering the selection criteria after the RFP puts the procurement process in serious question. Serious enough for an investigation which I personally think should include John McCain's activities.
If you think I could be full of it, listen to Goldman Sachs. "Amid broader specifications, Boeing then considered basing its tanker on its newer, larger 777 aircraft. In the end it opted to stick with the 767, which may have been a mistake. "We thought the Air Force preferred a smaller aircraft (had it been otherwise, Boeing would have offered the 777)," Goldman Sachs analysts wrote Sunday." Ref:
http://tinyurl.com/2ztfqt
Or how about Credit Suisse's Robert Spingam? "Spingarn thinks a protest is likely after Boeing receives its debrief from Pentagon officials on March 12. He and other analysts expressed surprise that Air Force procurement officials appeared to favor the A330's bigger capacity over the 767's apparent lower operating costs. "We think Boeing would have bid the 777, rather than the 767, if that weighting had been clearer," Spingarn writes." Ref:
http://tinyurl.com/2t3q7k
Check out the statement of Air Force General Hoffman. His words indicate just how important airlift capability is to him, even mentioning why he won't need to crossload onto a C-130 or C-17. Too bad this emphasis didn't appear to be reflected in the RFP. "The KC-45 is a tanker first, but
the cargo capacity will be very useful," the general said. "The new tanker will be able to haul people and cargo directly to military airfields instead of having to cross-load onto C-130 (Hercules aircraft) or C-17 (Globemaster IIIs), which is what we do now." Ref:
http://www.af.mil/news/story.asp?id=123088536
But more damning is this statement from the head of Boeing's defense unit, "If they had wanted a big airplane, obviously we could offer the 777," Albaugh added, "and we were discouraged from offering the 777."
After studying the history, I do believe Boeing proposed the best tanker to meet the Air Force's request (RFP.) I think the question begs to be asked, is changing the rules at the end of a game how our government should conduct its business? Given the gravity of the contract and apparent government missteps, perhaps a recompete is in order.
