How Boeing blew the Air Force tanker contract
Posted by BrianAccording to this article from US News & World Report Boeing’s proposal for the tanker contract essentially, well, sucked.
So how did Northrop, in conjunction with European giant EADS, surprise virtually everybody in the defense industry and snag the huge contract from Boeing?
On the merits, apparently. Details of the competing proposals are just beginning to emerge, and a forthcoming spate of congressional hearings is sure to elicit more info—plus plenty of overwrought political rhetoric. But defense analyst Loren Thompson of the Lexington Institute has scrutinized data released by the Air Force and concluded that the Northrop proposal “was deemed much better in virtually all regards.” The Air Force, he writes, considered the Northrop proposal to be cheaper and less risky, and to provide more overall capability. Poor performance on a few recent contracts also worked against Boeing; the Air Force judged the Northrop team more likely to deliver the planes on time and on budget.
If that is truly the case then the upcoming congressional inquiries into this award might not be the best PR move for Boeing.
So long as there are no shenanigans in Congress this contract is a big win for Alabama.
Related content:
March 5th, 2008 at 8:49 am
‘In From the Cold’ has been following this, provides good insights. He’s also got some posts on why the EADS is a superior tanker (most importantly, better fuel off-loading).
[QUOTE]In an election year, with thousands of jobs at stake and all that money on the table, Congressional efforts to scuttle the new tanker contract are inevitable. We can expect endless hearings on the issue, along with legislative amendments and, of course, various earmarks.
After all, if Ted Kennedy can fund a jet engine the Air Force doesn’t want (to the tune of $1 billion), we can easily envision Pat Roberts, Patty Murray, Nancy Pelosi and their friends setting aside money for a “next-generation tanker aircraft,” while working to defund the Northrop-Grumman aircraft. Boeing has already indicated that it can build a larger tanker—based on the 777 airframe—and its Congressional supporters will quickly rally to that cause.[/QUOTE]
http://formerspook.blogspot.com/2008/03/tankers-and-politics.html
March 5th, 2008 at 9:47 am
I used to read “In From the Cold” regularly. It is a very good, and usually very accurate, blog. It fell off my regular read list when I changed RSS feed readers.
March 8th, 2008 at 7:11 pm
Well maybe you … and many others jump to the conclusion the leaky airforce reports are accurate?
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
“Company executives said they had “significant concerns” about the contract decision after an Air Force briefing on the victory by a team made up of Northrop Grumman Corp (NOC.N: Quote, Profile, Research) and Airbus parent EADS (EAD.PA: Quote, Profile, Research).
These concerns include “evaluation of the bids and the ultimate decision,” said Mark McGraw, program manager for Boeing’s tanker, based on the company’s 767 commercial airliner.
“What is clear now is that reports claiming that the Airbus offering won by a wide margin could not be more inaccurate,” he added in a statement.
Chicago-based Boeing said it would take the next few days to evaluate the data presented by the Air Force and will give “serious consideration to filing a protest.”
U.S. Air Force Secretary Michael Wynne told a congressional panel on Wednesday that the Northrop-EADS tanker was “clearly a better performer.”
Do you really explicitly trust these guys .. on either side?
Tom
March 8th, 2008 at 7:49 pm
Tom, what do you expect Boeing management to say? The independent, or at least non overtly affiliated, analysts I’ve read have said NG/EADS’s proposal was significantly better.