More KC-X shenanigans from the Air Force?

[Sabre]

http://www.military.com/news/article/lawmaker-charges-bias-on-new-tanker-bid.html?ESRC=airforce.nl

Rep. Norm Dicks' office issued a statement at least an hour before the Pentagon's director of procurement unveiled the new draft request for proposal (RFP), saying that "there is an obvious change inserted into the System Requirements Document" which would favor the larger plane offered by Northrop Grumman. Dicks' office said that the revised tanker RFP "clearly favors the larger aircraft even though it is not necessarily connected to any real-world use of tanker."

The curious thing to me is that the GAO did NOT say there was any problem with the original RFP, only that the Air Force had not properly and consistently applied it to the competing proposals.  My understanding was that original plan following the GAO's finding was that the Office of the Secretary of Defense (OSD) was going to simply re-evaluate the proposals against the original proposals.  Instead, the Air Force has issued a revised draft RFP with significant changes, and that the competitors will have a greatly compressed time-line to repond.

I've been on both sides of the Military procurement process, and this looks stinky.  My personal opinion is that Congress should immediately put a hold on funding for KC-X, and sopeana the entire procurment team to explain themselves before a Congressional investigation.  The appearance of continued bias against Boeing and in favor of the NG/EADS team is simply too obvious to ignore.

[Ripsnort]

This was relatively easy to predict. The Pentagon gets its hand slapped by Congress for unfairly changing the RFP 1/2 through the process on the first time. So, in retaliation, it opened up the bidding, with originally modified RFP (no change) knowing Boeing can't commit the 777 line...almost as punishment to Boeing for appealing in the first place.

If Boeing doesn't bid, it's a single-source contract, and we all know that the taxpayers will take it in the butt.

Yep, Cha-ching to the tax payers once again.

[Airscrew]

for 13 of the 20 years I was in the Air Force I worked Medical/Dental supply and equipment, and even though I never "bought" an airplane I did alot of 601s for equipment and submitted requirements so the contract people could solicite bids for equipment and I got a pretty good idea how its done.

The doctors didnt dream up the requirements and submit to me what they were looking for.  They used catalogs and brouchers and shopped first and then said this was what they wanted.  It was my job to write the specifications and the request in such away that the only thing that would fit the request was the very brand and type equipment they wanted.  If there was even a hint there might be a possible substitute that would fit the requirment then they would also give me a short justification why that particluar equipment was critical and only that one would do.   

[Furball]

Boeing -----> 

 

[Ripsnort]

Boeing -----> 

 

Taxpayer <--------Government