Northrop Grumman pulls out of Air Force tanker bid
Northrop Grumman has decided not to bid on a contract to build the next generation of refueling tankers for the Air Force, a move that leaves Boeing as the sole competitor for the roughly $40 billion Pentagon deal, according to sources familiar with the company's plans.
"Five years ago EADS partnered with Northrop Grumman, as prime, to pursue the U.S. Air Force KC-135 modernization program. Two years ago our team was selected and awarded the contract. Today Northrop Grumman has decided not to submit a bid to the Department of Defense for the KC-X program.
"As a team, our serious concerns were expressed to the Department of Defense and the U.S. Air Force that the acquisition methodology outlined in the request for proposal (RFP) would heavily weigh the competition in favor of the smaller, less capable Boeing tanker. Northrop Grumman's analysis of the RFP reaffirmed those concerns and prompted the decision not to bid.
"The source selection methodology clearly signals a preference for a smaller aircraft. This is particularly disappointing given that the Air Force previously selected the A330-based KC-45 because of its added capability, lower risk and best value for both the warfighter and U.S. taxpayer. The Defense Department's RFP ignores the added combat capability that could be provided to our military and, for the first time, ensures that our allies will operate with superior capability in this vital mission area.
"The A330 multi-role tanker transport is the most capable, low risk tanker in the world today -- having been flown, tested and proven. The A330 MRTT has been selected over the Boeing tanker in the last five consecutive competitions and will shortly enter service with several U.S. allies.
"This decision does not diminish our commitment to the U.S., or to its service men and women. The enduring strength of our commitment is reflected in the success of the Army's Light Utility Helicopter -- of which we are prime contractor and that just celebrated its 100th on-schedule delivery. And it also can be seen in the many EADS systems and capabilities that operate with the U.S. Army, Navy, Air Force and Coast Guard.
"EADS is the largest international customer for U.S. aerospace and defense products, contributing over $11 billion dollars annually to the American economy and supporting more than 200,000 high technology jobs. We remain committed to our U.S. customers, suppliers and the American workforce.
"We express our appreciation to the states and communities in which we do business, and particularly to their elected officials who have been unwavering in their determination to provide the best available capability to the American warfighter.
"We also must acknowledge the support from the leadership of France, Germany, the United Kingdom and Spain in promoting transatlantic defense cooperation as a two-way street and the interoperability that the KC-45 would offer."
Queso wrote:Really now, can you blame them for taking their marbles and leaving the playground? The government did everything but tell them they weren't going to win no matter what the parameters of the RFP called for. I'm actually ashamed of our government for the way this whole tanker thing has played out.
Lucas wrote:Queso wrote:Really now, can you blame them for taking their marbles and leaving the playground? The government did everything but tell them they weren't going to win no matter what the parameters of the RFP called for. I'm actually ashamed of our government for the way this whole tanker thing has played out.
To an extent I agree, but I wish it had been competition between American companies without EADS involvement.
Queso wrote:Lucas wrote:Queso wrote:Really now, can you blame them for taking their marbles and leaving the playground? The government did everything but tell them they weren't going to win no matter what the parameters of the RFP called for. I'm actually ashamed of our government for the way this whole tanker thing has played out.
To an extent I agree, but I wish it had been competition between American companies without EADS involvement.
Fine. But let's change the rules of procurement to reflect that requirement BEFORE the bidding is begun. You can't change the rules halfway through it just to disqualify a certain competitor that shows up.
aloges wrote:Well played, Boeing lobbyists!
NWA742 wrote:aloges wrote:Well played, Boeing lobbyists!
Oh, there was much more at play than Boeing lobbyists.
Queso wrote:Lucas wrote:Queso wrote:Really now, can you blame them for taking their marbles and leaving the playground? The government did everything but tell them they weren't going to win no matter what the parameters of the RFP called for. I'm actually ashamed of our government for the way this whole tanker thing has played out.
To an extent I agree, but I wish it had been competition between American companies without EADS involvement.
Fine. But let's change the rules of procurement to reflect that requirement BEFORE the bidding is begun. You can't change the rules halfway through it just to disqualify a certain competitor that shows up.
Lucas wrote:To an extent I agree, but I wish it had been competition between American companies without EADS involvement.
AndesSMF wrote:Is there not a requirement for certain amount of US product and work for military contracts? I still have to agree with Queso on this one, though I am not surprised.
Lucas wrote:Cornish,
That's my point, which many apparently didn't understand. I suppose that the subtlety of nostalgia is easily missed if not more explicitly worded.
