Contest For Air Force Refueling Tanker Contract

Military News and current conflicts. Middle East, Iraq, Afghanistan, etc.
USS ALASKA
Member
Posts: 144
Joined: Fri Sep 05, 2008 8:05 pm

Contest For Air Force Refueling Tanker Contract

Postby USS ALASKA » Wed Oct 07, 2009 1:20 pm

Los Angeles Times
October 5, 2009


Contest For Air Force Refueling Tanker Contract Again Hits Turbulence

Boeing and Northrop are vying for a $35-billion deal to replace a fleet of in-flight refueling jets. But criticism of the evaluation process could cause the competition to be scrapped for a third time.

By W.J. Hennigan

When the U.S. Air Force recently launched its third attempt to award a $35-billion contract for aerial refueling tankers, Pentagon officials said the competition would be fair and transparent.

But it was only a matter of days before the process was under attack.

Interest groups, politicians and the contenders -- Boeing Co. and Northrop Grumman Corp. -- began blasting the way the bids were evaluated, prompting some defense industry analysts to question whether the Air Force would ever get its much-needed tankers.

"I don't see how either of these two companies walk away being the sole winner of the contract," said Loren Thompson, defense policy analyst for the Lexington Institute in Virginia. "The Pentagon says the competition will be objective, but that's going to be hard. It's a very complicated framework."

Handing out one of the largest military contracts in U.S. history hasn't been easy for the Pentagon. Twice it has held a competition to replace its fleet of 415 Eisenhower administration-era Air Force refueling tankers, and both times it has failed amid accusations of underhanded politics and discriminatory rule-making. The process first started in 2001.

The tankers, modified Boeing 707 passenger jets, have enabled the U.S. to project its military might all over the world because they can refuel bombers, fighters and cargo planes in midair.

Last month, the Pentagon unveiled the new criteria it would use to award the contract.

Just days later, Century City-based Northrop complained that the latest competition was flawed because its pricing information from the previous tanker bid was provided to Boeing by the government but it had not been given Boeing's pricing information.

"It is fundamentally unfair, and distorts any new competition, to provide such critical information to only one of the bidders," said Paul K. Meyer, Northrop's vice president and general manager of advanced technology and programs.

The Pentagon immediately fired back, saying that "it created no competitive disadvantage because the data in question are inaccurate, outdated and not germane to this source-selection strategy."

Then a collection of eight leaders from conservative groups went on the offensive for Chicago-based Boeing.

They collaborated on a letter that was sent to each member of Congress, asking them to factor in a recent World Trade Organization ruling that found that European Union governments illegally subsidized Airbus, whose parent company, European Aeronautic Defense & Space Co., is teamed with Northrop in the tanker contest.

"The illegal trade subsidies were specifically intended to enable Airbus to underbid its chief rival Boeing," said Kerri Toloczko, senior vice president for policy at the Institute for Liberty. "If the only way you can win is by cheating, what does it say about your team? I don't think the American taxpayer wants their hard-earned dollars going toward a company like that."

The latest scuttlebutt has added to the nearly decade-long controversy that the Pentagon had hoped would end when it awarded a contract last year.

Boeing won the first contract in 2004, but it fell apart because of an ethics scandal that resulted in prison terms for a former senior Boeing executive and a former high-ranking Air Force official.

The competition was relaunched and in 2008 Northrop took home the $35-billion contract to build 179 tankers based on a modified Airbus A330 passenger jet.

It was a huge upset since Boeing had built all of the tankers in the current fleet.

Northrop said the contract award would have created more than 7,500 jobs for California's struggling aerospace industry, even though the planes would be assembled in Alabama.

But the decision was overturned after the Government Accountability Office found that the Air Force mishandled the yearlong competition by failing to credit Boeing, which had offered a tanker based on its 767 airliner, for some of its plane's capabilities.

Defense Secretary Robert Gates was hoping to avoid similar problems, said James McAleese, a lawyer in McLean, Va., who specializes in defense contracts.

"It appears that the secretary worked very hard to be objective," McAleese said.

He pointed to the 373 mandatory requirements and 93 optional provisions the bidders have to consider to secure the contract. With criteria this precise, it leaves little room for variation between the two companies.

So the competition is centered on price, McAleese said, as opposed to previous contests in which "price was secondary."

"It's a significant deviation from the previous competition," he said. "Price is the primary discriminator."

The Air Force wants to announce a winner by mid-2010. However, judging by what has gone on in the last two competitions, a midyear announcement isn't very likely, said aviation analyst Richard Aboulafia of Teal Group Corp.

"This proposal is a lot clearer and more straightforward, but the bad news is it doesn't get rid of the outside problems, namely, politicians," he said.

Sen. Jeff Sessions (R-Ala.) has pushed for the Pentagon to select Northrop, which would build the tankers in his state. He recently introduced an amendment that would require the Air Force to release pricing information of previous bids from both Northrop and its partner. On the other side, Sen. Patty Murray (D-Wash.) has backed Boeing and asked the Pentagon to be mindful of the WTO ruling.

Amid the hyper-politicized atmosphere, a "split-buy" may be the only workable option, Aboulafia said. Under a proposal being pushed by Rep. John P. Murtha (D-Pa.), each company would get to build 12 of their planes a year. The downside is it could cost about $2 billion more annually, but it could break the stalemate, he said.

"Everyone's trying to legitimize why their side should win and why the other side shouldn't," Aboulafia said. "Both have justifiable reasons, but it's possible that they could create perpetual gridlock."

Bgile
Senior Member
Posts: 3658
Joined: Wed Mar 09, 2005 7:33 pm
Location: Portland, OR, USA

Re: Contest For Air Force Refueling Tanker Contract

Postby Bgile » Wed Oct 07, 2009 3:08 pm

One of Airbus' biggest advantages is that Boeing has to pay for health insurance, while Airbus is located in countries where the govt pays it. That's huge.

USS ALASKA
Member
Posts: 144
Joined: Fri Sep 05, 2008 8:05 pm

Re: Contest For Air Force Refueling Tanker Contract

Postby USS ALASKA » Thu Oct 08, 2009 12:22 pm

Something that might help Boeing...Airbus just took a hit through the WTO...

Wichita Eagle
September 29, 2009


Senator: Air Force Must Hear WTO

By Molly McMillin, The Wichita Eagle

Sen. Sam Brownback said he and others in Congress will fight to have the Air Force's proposal to replace its fleet of aging aerial refuelers consider a World Trade Organization's finding that Airbus received billions of dollars in illegal subsidies.

That it doesn't consider the ruling is a major shortfall in the request for proposal, Brownback said.

Brownback was in Wichita on Monday to see work Boeing Wichita is doing on refueling tankers for Japan and Italy.

The Air Force should consider the subsidized price of the aircraft to level the playing field, Brownback said.

The WTO recently issued an interim ruling that Airbus received $5 billion in illegal "launch aid" from four European governments for the A330 and billions more for other aircraft.

The head of Airbus parent EADS, Louis Gallois, said Monday that the WTO decision can't be taken into account because it's preliminary and because the WTO won't rule for several months on a counterclaim against the U.S. that the Pentagon and NASA are indirectly subsidizing Boeing.

Brownback said, however, that Boeing has lost 20 percent of its commercial airline market share to Airbus as a result of the aid.

"Airbus has subsidized its way into damaging the commercial (aviation) market," Brownback said. It shouldn't be able to do it on military programs, he said.

How difficult it may be to get the ruling into the proposal, though, is "too early to assess," Brownback said.

Since it's only tentative, "it could be very tough," he said.

He said the military "pretty much side-stepped" the matter when it was brought up last week.

The Air Force's request for proposal this time around, however, is clearer than the last.

In February 2008, EADS and Northrop Grumman beat Boeing for a $35 billion deal to replace 179 aging refuelers. Boeing later successfully protested the award after investigators found the Air Force failed to evaluate the proposals on the same merits.

The new proposal also takes into consideration the costs associated with building bigger hangars and larger runways to accommodate a larger Airbus tanker, Brownback said.

It also takes into account the higher use of fuel consumption by a bigger plane. The last proposals did not, he said.

Contributing: Associated Press


Return to “Military Conflicts Today”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest