Skip Navigation Links
Skip navigation links
Home Page
Daily Report Archive
Almanacs
Magazine Archive
Skip navigation links
Monday March 3, 2008
Tuesday March 4, 2008
Wednesday March 5, 2008
Thursday March 6, 2008
Thursday March 27, 2008
Tuesday March 25, 2008
Wednesday March 26, 2008
Friday March 28, 2008
Tuesday March 11, 2008
Monday March 10, 2008
Friday March 7, 2008
Wednesday March 12, 2008
Air Sorties in the Global War on Terrorism
Neighborhood Watch:
Expanding By Leaps And Bounds
Surprise, Surprise
Pix031208tanker
Bad Economy, Good Recruiting?
Right on Target:
“Seriously Flawed”
Size Really Does Matter
CENTCOM Boss Resigns
Ground Truth:
Identified from 1942 Crash:
Pix031208recruit
Saturday March 29, 2008
Friday March 14, 2008
Sunday March 23, 2008
Tuesday March 18, 2008
Thursday March 20, 2008
Wednesday March 19, 2008
Saturday March 22, 2008
Monday March 17, 2008
Friday March 21, 2008
Sunday March 9, 2008
Saturday Marchy 15, 2008
Thursday March 13, 2008
Saturday March 8, 2008
Monday March 24, 2008
Sunday March 16, 2008
Sunday March 30, 2008
Monday March 31, 2008
Sunday March 2, 2008
Saturday March 1, 2008
—John A. Tirpak
“Seriously Flawed”: Boeing officially protested the outcome of the KC-X competition Tuesday, bringing work on the project to a halt while the Government Accountability Office evaluates the company’s complaints. Boeing received a debrief from the Air Force on Friday, and by late Monday had determined it would protest. The competition was “seriously flawed and resulted in the selection of the wrong airplane,” stated Mark McGraw, Boeing VP for tankers, in a March 11 release. McGraw said Boeing found that while the Air Force did start out trying to run a “fair, open, and transparent competition,” the process developed competitive “irregularities.” Specifically, Boeing said that, far from being a wide-margin win for Northrop Grumman, the competition was close, and too many accommodations made to keep Northrop Grumman’s KC-30 from being disqualified added up to a narrow win for the KC-30. In a teleconference with reporters Tuesday, Boeing officials said the two teams “were assigned identical ratings” across all five evaluation factors: mission capability, risk, past performance, cost, and performance in a computer model of each aircraft against a range of scenarios. Boeing said it offered a better price, but the Air Force changed the numbers to what it thought were more realistic ones. This “distortion” hurt Boeing’s offer, the company said. Boeing also said the Air Force was unreasonably subjective in choosing prior programs on which to evaluate past performance.  McGraw said Boeing recognizes that delays in getting the program going will mean hardship for the Air Force, but it is not flippantly protesting. “We were treated unfairly,” he said. The GAO has 100 days—starting today—to make a determination as to the validity of Boeing’s complaints. Historically, the GAO tends to use all the time it’s given, meaning it could be late July before the Air Force knows what will happen next.