When Boeing executives heard last
week that they had failed to beat Northrop Grumman in any of the five selection
criteria for the Air Force's future aerial-refueling tanker, they were
incredulous. Their reaction turned to anger when they were debriefed on
the decision by Air Force officials. Although the debrief confirmed that
they were beaten on four of five measures (and tied on the fifth), the company
detected numerous errors in the process.
Boeing has now embarked on a
two-part strategy to overturn the decision. First, it will file a formal
protest with the Government Accountability Office alleging procedural and
analytical errors in the awarding of the contract. However, since any GAO
determination in its favor would be advisory rather than binding -- the Air
Force can ignore the finding -- Boeing will not oppose legislative
efforts by its backers in Congress to nullify the Northrop win.
Here is Boeing's internal assessment of Air Force mistakes made on each of
the five selection criteria...
1. Mission
capability measured the performance features, support
capabilities and technological maturity of the competing proposals.
Boeing says it satisfied all stated requirements, tying or
surpassing Northrop Grumman in most (for example, it was rated higher on
survivability). Northrop won overall due to greater fuel and cargo
carrying capacity, but Boeing says that deviated from Air Force assertions
that the service was seeking a medium-sized tanker.
2. Proposal
risk assessed the degree of danger that the two teams would fail
to execute as promised. They tied on that measure after Boeing lengthened
its original development schedule. However, Boeing argues the Air
Force failed to accurately assess the risk of Northrop's plan, which
involves building major assemblies in several countries and then
integrating them in a new facility in Alabama.
3. Past performance compared
the success of the two teams on programs similar to the future
tanker. The Northrop Grumman team was rated higher, but Boeing says their
competitor has faltered on programs such as a new Australian tanker and the
A-400M cargo plane. This measure was originally scored by Air Force evaluators
as a tie and then adjusted to favor Northrop for reasons Boeing finds questionable.
4. Cost/Price is
the area where Boeing always expected the Northrop team to fare best,
because European partner EADS is not subject to the same profit pressures as
Boeing. But the key pricing metric was "most probable
life-cycle cost," and Boeing executives are certain their
smaller plane costs less to fuel and operate. They also contend the
multi-site, multi-country assembly plan for the Northrop plane is intrinsically
more expensive.
5. Integrated
Assessment rated the competing planes in a warfighting scenario
using a complex analytic model. Boeing believes Northrop won this
measure because the model was originally developed by Northrop, and was
not an accurate reflection of real-world conditions. It also
contends changes were made in the model to permit Northrop's participation in
the competition, but that little effort was made to look at actual
operational experience in assessing the planes.