USAF Tanker Selection In Trouble Again

[Pooky 3,844]

US Aerospace appeals against KC-X exclusion, blames USAF ‘conspiracy’

By Stephen Trimble

US Aerospace is appealing against its exclusion from the KC-X competition, on the grounds that US Air Force personnel intentionally delayed the company's messenger from submitting a bid on time.

The protest, filed on 2 August with the US Government Accountability Office, is the latest twist since US Aerospace entered the KC-X contract race shortly before the USAF's 9 July deadline, offering a twinjet-powered version of the Antonov An-70 airlifter called the An-112KC.

It is unclear whether the protest could immediately halt the USAF's source selection process for the 179-aircraft deal, which involves the Boeing KC-767 NewGen Tanker and EADS North America KC-45.

US Aerospace is offering a twinjet-powered version of the Antonov An-70 airlifter called the An-112KC

The GAO bid docket website shows that the USAF's response to US Aerospace's claims is not due until 10 November, which is two days before the KC-X contract is scheduled to be awarded.

California-based US Aerospace says in a filing with the US Securities Exchange Commission that it believes USAF personnel intentionally held up a messenger dispatched to Wright Patterson AFB, Ohio, on 9 July.

The messenger arrived at the base 30min before the 14:00 bid deadline, US Aerospace says, but was initially denied entry, given incorrect directions and finally instructed to wait for USAF personnel to meet him. Air force officials then "arbitrarily marked" the proposal as received at 14:05, or five minutes after the mandatory deadline.

"Certain air force personnel may have intentionally delayed the messenger from delivering our proposal to create a pretext for refusing to consider it because they have political issues with our eastern European supplier," US Aerospace says in the filing.

The US company was virtually unknown in the aerospace industry before signing a joint venture with Antonov on 1 July to enter the KC-X competition.

Six days later, it requested a 60-day extension to the 9 July deadline, citing the USAF's previous decision to grant such a move for EADS NA. The air force denied its request.

Flightglobal link

So, first time around, in 2003, The Pentagon awarded Boeing the contract, but subsequently suspended it for an ethics violation between Boeing and an Air Force official that ended with the latter convicted of criminal conspiracy.

Then, in 2008, The USAF awarded the second go-around to Northrop-Grumman/EADS, which Boeing promptly protested, ending with the GAO recommending a further re-bid, on the grounds that the Air Force seriously botched evaluation.

Now in its third incarnation, things are getting really messy. The WTO ruling on Airbus subsidies, which went Boeing's way, rightfully added subsidy considerations to the cost of the EADS bid this time around. However, the WTO then delayed its ruling on Boeing subsidies, a counter-suit by Airbus, to an as-yet unconfirmed date, a ruling which may level that particular playing field once again. Now, just to make things worse, there is controversy over the wild-card bid from the Ukraine.

Now the bid from the Ukraine was a late entry and the USAF is rather unlikely to fly an aircraft made by a major supplier to the Russian Air Force, but was such an obvious attempt to exclude them from consideration really necessary?

Is this ever going to end? The Boeing KC-135 first entered service in 1957, 53 years ago. All of the airframes in service are over 40 years old and rapidly coming to the end of their useful life. The USAF needs something soon and another protest, if it is upheld, will just push this farce out two more years. And cost still more money.

[slim 1,533]

This is a great example of how transparency sometimes doesn't work.

If you don't want Russian planes in the competition, say so. If you don't want there to be corruption, buy them on the open market, not in a contract.

Either way, as you've said, it needs to be done sooner rather than later.