 |
| Posted: May 12, 2008 |
 |
|
|
|
|
 |
|
When the U.S. military gave a new tanker contract to Northrop Grumman, its competitor, Boeing, called on the Government Accountability Office to investigate, claiming that it did not receive a fair evaluation. Two retired generals who works as consultants to either company answered your questions. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Michael Kim of Marlton, N.J., asks: |
|
| When the Air Force changed the original proposal, shouldn't they have been required to inform both bidders, and allow time for both to provide truly competitive bids? What happened that Boeing did not get the information? |
|
|
 |
|
|
|
| Ret. Gen. Ron Fogleman responds: |
|
 Both of the competitors were told that the Air Force wanted a replacement for the KC-135 in the form of a Request For Proposal (RFP). On January 18, 2007, Michael Wynn, the Secretary of the Air Force said, "Its primary mission is going to be a tanker. The fact that it can carry cargo or passengers is a benefit, but it is not the primary reason for the procurement." The RFP called for the following: First and Foremost: -A tanker, optimized for refueling operations as a primary mission. -Boom, hose and drogue on every mission, with a receptacle for flexible operations. -Capable of refueling all of the refueling capable aircraft in the U.S. inventory. -Maximum booms in the sky from a minimum number of austere bases, close to the fight. -Survivability in a hostile environment. Secondary mission: -Carry a specified amount of cargo, passengers and aero-medical patients. |
|
| Ret. Gen. Gregory Martin responds: |
|
 Mr. Kim Thank you for your question and interest in this important acquisition program. When the very detailed Analysis of Alternatives was accomplished to review all the possible ways the United States Air Force could upgrade or replace its current fleet of aerial refueling aircraft, it was determined that a commercial derivative aircraft of medium size would best accomplish the mission. Basically, three sizes were considered: small, which included the Boeing 737 and Airbus 310-320 series; medium, which included the Boeing 767 and the Airbus 330; and large, which included the Boeing 777 and 747 and the Airbus 340. The study was conducted by the RAND Corporation and they determined that the medium size would best meet the needs of the Air Force. Actually, the Air Force never dictated the size of the aircraft, but the operational scenarios dictated how much fuel needed to be delivered. So it was really up to the competitors to determine what kind of aircraft could best meet the operational scenario demands at the best cost. So in this case the Air Force didn't change the requirement. But to answer your question, when a change to a request for proposal is made it must be clearly articulated to each competitor and each competitor must acknowledge receipt of the change. |
|
|
  |
|
|
|
|
