While our opponent and their supporters have begun attacking the U.S. Air Force and its KC-X Tanker draft Request for Proposal, we have chosen to work within the process and continue asking questions some of which are posted on the Federal Business Opportunities website.
In the past, this competition to replace America’s critical fleet of air refueling tankers has been fought very publicly. Our preference is to allow the process to play out rather than work the requirements through the media. We will talk about the KC-X tanker competition when we’re ready and when it’s appropriate.
Ultimately, the men and women who selflessly serve our nation deserve the very best. We believe that is an American designed and built, combat-ready tanker with max capability at lowest cost. That tanker is the Boeing KC-7A7.
Comments
shouldn't that "OR the tanker with the maximum capability OR the tanker at teh lowest cost"
Which KC-7A7 will be proposed by Boeing - will you submit both the 777 and 767 based options?
If you don't submit the 777 option - are you implicitly saying the US warfighter should be happy with the cheapest option instead of the most capabel one.
If you don't submit the 767 option - are you implicitly saying the US gov't should be willing to pay for the more capabel option (and the last round was won by the correct competitor?)
We appreciate your interest in following us on the blog. As with all decisions of this magnitude, we have a highly capable team performing a thorough review before a decision is made. We are carefully reviewing each of the 373 requirements in the draft Request for Proposal, and will again when the final RFP is released, to determine the best way to meet the Air Force's requirements. At this time we have not selected a platform but whatever our final proposal, it will be keenly focused on what the Air Force is asking for in the next generation tanker and it will provide the maximum capability at lowest cost. This is a new RFP with new requirements and meeting those requirements goes well beyond the choice of platform. We're confident that with our 80 years of experience building tankers and the best boom in the business, Boeing will provide the best solution.
You mention in your opening paragraph that your “opponent” has attacked the USAF and the KC-X proposal publicly and state that Boeing’s position is to submit questions to the program office.
Is this a move away from your stance in the previous competition when Boeing publicly came out and attacked the USAF calling the result “surprising” and expressing “significant concerns” over the selection process or merely a swipe at your competitor?
In your final paragraph you state the USAF deserves the very best and that you “believe that is an American designed and built, combat-ready tanker with max capability at lowest cost.” Following the decision in the prior competition Sue Payton (then assistant secretary of the Air Force for acquisition) stated "Northrop Grumman clearly provided the best value to the government when you take a look at, in accordance with the [request for proposal], the five factors that were important to this decision: in mission capability, in proposal risk, in the area of past performance, in cost price, and in something we call an integrated fleet aerial refuelling rating. So I would tell you that overall, Northrop Grumman did have strong areas in aerial refuelling and in airlift, as well as their past performance which was excellent and they offered great advantage to the government in cost price, and they had an excellent integrated fleet aerial refuelling rating."
It seems as though the winner of the previous competition (which was a European designed and American built, combat ready tanker with max capability at lower cost) was the better option over the B767 variant. Does Boeing not publicly admit this by now including a B777 variant in the new competition?
I’d be interested to read your comments on the above.
Thanks.
As demonstrated by the fact that the previous award was overturned, Boeing submitted the most responsive (and winning) bid to the previous RFP. (Read the GAO report, it's all there.) This latest RFP has different judgment criteria, and so, I imagine, Boeing will weigh all factors before deciding which platform to bid. Airbus will bid the same thing they bid last time, and whine if it doesn't meet the criteria outlined in the RFP. Go Boeing!