Posted on 08/11/2008 6:56:13 AM PDT by MHalblaub
Word that Boeing is strongly considering a “no bid” position for the next round of the U.S. Air Force refueling tanker competition is spreading only two days after the Pentagon released the revised KC-X draft request for proposals (RFP).
Multiple sources familiar with Boeing’s internal discussions say company officials are strongly considering the option of not submitting a proposal as the company’s Integrated Defense Systems sector tries to respond to the draft RFP within the government’s speedy timeline. Comments are due this week.
The move would leave the Defense Dept. without a competition for the KC-135 tanker replacement. A demand from Congress for a competition after the botched attempt to sole-source the work to Boeing in 2003 was what drove the KC-X competition and eventually led to the selection of the Northrop Grumman/EADS Airbus A330-200-based design in February. However, the Government Accountability Office found errors in the scoring of the bids during the last round and directed the government to amend its RFP.
After Northrop Grumman threatened a no-bid position in the last round, the Pentagon added items to the RFP that would take into account the attributes of its A330-200-based design, which was submitted jointly with EADS.
Now, however, the Pentagon is pushing for the replacement tankers as soon as possible after multiple delays. It remains unclear if a no-bid position from Boeing would drag out the KC-X competition or it if would compel the Pentagon to attempt a sole-source of the work to Northrop Grumman/EADS.
?? Weren’t they the ones bitch’n and moaning in the first place?
‘It remains unclear if a no-bid position from Boeing would drag out the KC-X competition or it if would compel the Pentagon to attempt a sole-source of the work to Northrop Grumman/EADS.”
They can’t sole source it. Boeing is probably just playing hardball.
I think they can if they have a good reason. The lack of bids is a pretty good reason.
‘I think they can if they have a good reason. The lack of bids is a pretty good reason.”
Its far too complicated to discuss in this forum and I am certainly no expert. In general the govt cannot sole source if there is more than one qualified company. Even then sole source contracts get an incredible amount of attention and most agencies are cracking down.
Something this large cannot be sole sourced for many reasons. Lack of bids would force the government to extend the response date. That is probably what Boeing really wants.
And, I think they want certain concessions in the RFP that match Boeing’s capabilities.
Yeah, there can be a verdict if Boeing pleads Nolo contendere
I thought you had to have at least three.
A sole source contract is not in the country’s best interest. Forget dislike for Boeing, or dislike for a plane designed by socialists. They are spending at least $40 BILLION dollars.
If its sole soured we will surely get less for our dollars.
The RFP in this case is enormous, I’ve looked at it. They need to make sure some detail wasn’t inserted which would cause them to lose. That takes time.
Its done all the time in govt contracts. A single sentence or requirement is added which can have a significant impact.
“I thought you had to have at least three.”
I think it depends on the dollar amount of the contract. You are required to get three bids on most things but if there are not that many companies interested there are alternatives.
Procurement regulations are extremely complicated and highly subject to manipulation from the govt agents.
Any source other than American can be expected to innocently follow “familiar” standards ... meaning that major components made outside the US have in them a real potential for MAJOR unexpected problems.
Been there, saw that ...
NG/EADS threatened a NO BID the first time around with KC-X unless the bid specs were modified to allow the larger aircraft.
Maybe Boeing is doing the same now.
Boeing could also modify their KC-X bid to include lower cargo hold fuel bladders (which is how the KC-10 can carry more fuel than the KC-30)to address the “more is better” ammended SRD. Boeing doesn’t use the lower hold for pallets anyway (but NG/EADS does, which is why they can carry so many more.)
I’ve read elsewhere (Steve Trimble’s Dew Line) that Boeing cannot offer a 767-300 or 767-400 fuselage because the longer length means a shallower takeoff rotation to avoid tail strike, and that translates to longer than the specified 7000’ takeoff requirement of the SRD.
Wonder if there would be anything wrong with having a flyoff? Build two each and using all the criteria decide that the AF actually needs both A/C. Then decide how many you can afford and what it takes to keep the lines open. We can fart around for the next five or ten years deciding nothing other than the original is getting older and older and we are rehashing the past five or ten years.
In short, Boeing realizes that in a head-to-head competition, NG is going to clean their clock. So, they will take their old ball and go home.
I’ve read elsewhere (Steve Trimble’s Dew Line) that Boeing cannot offer a 767-300 or 767-400 fuselage because the longer length means a shallower takeoff rotation to avoid tail strike, and that translates to longer than the specified 7000’ takeoff requirement of the SRD
Now there is a little tid bit that I haven’t seen before. Kind of points out that the two engine solution does have its negative side, unless you blow out the takeoff distance requirement, and if you can tail strike for certain it will be struck by someone somehow.
“In short, Boeing realizes that in a head-to-head competition, NG is going to clean their clock. So, they will take their old ball and go home.”
Thats that why Northrup lobbied for a change to the first RFP so they could even qualify?
In short, Boeing realizes that in a head-to-head competition, NG is going to clean their clock.
I disagree. This whole problem relates to criteria changes in the first competition that favored the outsized aircraft over the Boeing design. My opinion based somewhat on experience, the Air Force actually needs both aircraft, and that may be fiscally impossible, and in that case can you afford the limitations of the b i g airplane?
Boeing and it's congress critters would go ballistic at that suggestion
Northop-Grumman/EADS already has SDD-1 and SDD-2 airframes flying and they could be fitted with refueling and milspec gear within a year for the flyoff. And they could do it with confidence that if they lost the US flyoff those aircraft could be diverted to the Saudi or UAE orders.
Boeing would have to develop the 767-200LRF/KC-767AT which is not a simple or cheap job (say 3-4 years looking optimistically) in the knowledge that if they lost they would have another two orphan tankers to park alongside the one they've already got
“In short, Boeing realizes that in a head-to-head competition, NG is going to clean their clock. So, they will take their old ball and go home.”
I don’t know what’s worse... Northrop Grumman being whores for the Europeans, or freepers rooting for European companies to beat out American companies for defense contracts.
Why do they need to re-bid? Its theirs if they want it now.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.