Sign In
Airforce-Magazine.com: Online journal of the Air Force Association
Article Collections
Editorials
Airpower Classics
Perspectives (Articles by Topic)
Verbatim
The Chart Page
The Keeper File
Valor
Enola Gay Controversy
Advertising
Media Kit
Print Advertising
Online Advertising
 
Send Letter to Editor
Reprint Permission
About Us
Subscription Manager
How to Join AFA

Let’s Work It Out 

Let’s Work It Out

Northrop is unhappy and wants changes in the KC-X solicitation.

—Marc V. Schanz

Oct. 29, 2009—Days after the formal comment period on the Air Force’s KC-X tanker draft request for proposals closed, Northrop Grumman officials publicly expressed their displeasure with the current format of the competition during a press conference Wednesday in Washington D.C.

They said they had voiced their concerns to the Air Force during this initial feedback phase. They also intimated that the company reserved the right to withdraw from the contest if key concerns about proprietary information from the last competition are not resolved.

The rebooted KC-X is “fundamentally different” than the requirements worked out in the last competition, said Mitch Waldman, Northrop’s vice president of business development for advanced aerospace programs and technology.

Northrop beat out Boeing back in February 2008 for the rights to supply the Air Force with 179 new tankers, but the decision was later nullified by Defense Secretary Robert Gates after Boeing’s successful legal protest and intense political wrangling on Capitol Hill.

Waldman said the draft RFP as written amounts to a “cost shootout” that could sacrifice capability for a race to the bottom line.

The company, he said, has three core objections with the new RFP centered on capability; the lack of mechanisms to evaluate cost, schedule and past performance risk; and acquisition program structure. For example, with capability, the number of threshold requirements has increased to 373, while highly valued factors in the first competition such as better passenger, fuel, and cargo capacity are not included, he noted.

“This is not a best-value, capabilities-based source selection,” Waldman said.

The key threshold requirements are all weighted equally, he noted, meaning that, in theory, factors such as net-centricity and survivability would be as important as waste flow in the aircraft’s lavatory.

“If everything’s important, is anything important?” he asked rhetorically.

Going forward, Northrop sees four courses of action: the concerns in the draft RFP are alleviated; the government proceeds with the competition as is; the final RFP addresses the initial eight objections raised by the Government Accountability Office when it sustained Boeing’s protest in the last round; or a “continuous competition” is maintained with both contractors for the life of the KC-X program.

While Waldman said Northrop would be receptive to action on the GAO’s recommendations, there is a “range of options” to address concerns with the draft RFP. As a part of this, he would not rule out the company’s withdrawal from the competition.

“We need to see the final RFP before we make that determination,” he said of that extreme measure.

Following Northrop’s presentation, Boeing spokesman Bill Barksdale issued a statement critical of Northrop’s position, alleging that Northrop had begun “attacking” the Air Force’s proposal.

“Boeing has chosen to work within the process and continue asking questions,” Barksdale said. He added, “Our preference is to allow the process to play out rather than work the requirements through the media.”  

Verbatim

No Dog, Just Concern
"You know it concerns me that we keep hearing, 'Well this is something that the military doesn't want. They didn't ask for,' and all that. Then I go over there [Southwest Asia theater], and that's not their attitude at all. They have needs over there. Our lift capacity is in dire straights. … Now on the F-22—just yesterday we read about the T-50 … a fifth generation [fighter] that the Russians have. … I'm concerned about this. And I guess, you know, if we're down to 187 F-22s, and I think out of that only—what 120 are actually combat ready and used for combat. … I look at our committee—the Senate Armed Services Committee—and on these two vehicles I mentioned—the F-22 and the C-17—in Oklahoma. I don't have a dog in that fight. We don't have any parochial interest there. But it's the capability that we're going to need."
—Sen. James Inhofe (R-Okla.), speaking during the Senate Armed Services Committee hearing on the Fiscal 2011 defense budget, Feb. 2, 2010.

Verbatim

Taming Expectations
"Every QDR disappoints those who look for radical reallocation of resources. The current fiscal environment is compounding that trend."
—Jim Thomas, vice president for studies at the Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessments, briefing reporters in Washington, D.C., Jan. 26, 2010. 

Sponsored Links

airforce-magazine.com material is under copyright by the Air Force Association. All rights reserved.

The Air Force Association, 1501 Lee Highway, Arlington,VA 22209-1198