Trade Barbs Over Costs, Mission Suitability

"In this corner: the scrappy hometown contender, the favorite of apple-pie Americana and various congressional compatriots! Weighing in at a svelte 400,000 lbs -- including fuel -- this once favorite-turned-dark horse candidate is going up against a larger, heavier... and FOREIGN!... challenger, that's already won the first round of our competition... and is only waiting for the bell to ring to get down to business!"

Sorry. We tend to get wrapped up in the whole KC-X mess here at Aero-News. This week, Boeing and Northrop/EADS issued new volleys in the ongoing war of words between the two heavyweights, regarding their KC-767 and KC-45A aerial refueling aircraft. As ANN reported, Boeing is challenging the US Air Force's February decision to award a lucrative tanker contract to the Airbus-derived KC-45A.

In its latest statement questioning the USAF's logic in ruling in the KC-45A's favor, Boeing claims its offering was better optimized to the parameters originally spelled out by the KC-X bid... before the Air Force changed the rules slightly, to make the larger Northrop/EADS offering more competitive.

"Despite the fact that the stated parameters for evaluating the aircraft said no extra credit would be assigned for exceeding certain requirement objectives, the Northrop Grumman and European Aeronautic Defence and Space Company (EADS) team received such credit," Boeing said Wednesday. "As a result, the oversized Airbus A330-based KC-30 was selected. Boeing has protested the decision to the US Government Accountability Office.

Boeing adds the KC-767 meets the documented mission requirements for KC-X, "while also exceeding the highest requirements for airlift, passenger and aeromedical evacuation capabilities."

"Tanker flight crews are asked to bring the right amount of fuel to the fight in the most efficient, reliable manner, and the KC-767 meets that fundamental requirement," said Mark McGraw, vice president, Boeing Tanker Programs. "Asking these aircrews to fly longer missions in larger, less survivable planes with more fuel capacity than needed and vast amounts of unused cargo and passenger space just doesn't add up.

"The Boeing KC-767 exceeded the requirements in a manner that still kept the plane right-sized and efficient," McGraw said. "Our competition likes to talk about offering more, more, more -- but in reality, the KC-30 will cost more to operate, more to maintain, and more to house, with the US taxpayer footing the bill."

Not surprisingly, Northrop/EADS dispute Boeing's assertion its plane is less efficient, and more costly. The KC-45A team notes "the Air Force concluded that Northrop Grumman's development and production costs were lower and the total life cycle cost (which includes development, procurement, military construction, and operations and support) for each system would be about the same. Accordingly, the Northrop Grumman KC-45 offered significantly more capability for the same cost, thus providing the Air Force and taxpayer with the best value."

Pointedly, Northrop also notes the Air Force said its entrant posed a "low" risk of exceeding costs estimates... but gave Boeing a "moderate" rating, indicating the USAF believes Boeing might not be able to stick to budgetary guidelines.

"According to the Air Force source selection document, a "Moderate cost/price risk" is assigned "Only if some difference exists between the offeror's proposed cost/price and the government's probable cost/price that is not reasonably explained" in the offeror's proposal," Northrop writes.

Directly contradicting Boeing's claims the KC-767 is the less expensive choice, Northrop also said the Air Force estimated "substantially less funds required to develop and buy the first 68 aircraft," and that the cost for each KC-45 was significantly less expensive than each KC-767.

The Government Accountability Office is set to rule on Boeing's protest by mid-June.

FMI: www.northropgrumman.com/kc45, www.globaltanker.com