The Facts About the KC-767 Tanker
Factor 1 -- Mission Capability
- Boeing scored "Blue (Exceptional) and Low Risk" in this area -- the highest possible rating in the most critical "factor" in this competition.
- The Air Force assessed Boeing as meeting or exceeding all Key Performance Parameters (thresholds and objectives).
- Indeed, the Air Force evaluated Boeing as having significantly more strengths (discriminators) than the competitor.
Factor 2 -- Proposal Risk
- Boeing's proposal risk was rated "Low."
- Surprisingly, the competitor was also rated as low despite the high risk associated with its evolving multi-country, multi-facility, multi-build approach as contrasted with Boeing's integrated approach to design, build, and certification in existing facilities with experienced personnel.
Factor 3 -- Past Performance
- Boeing's past performance was rated "Satisfactory."
- Northrop Grumman/Airbus was also rated satisfactory, despite having no relevant tanker experience and having never delivered a tanker with a refueling boom.
- Press reports indicate that some of the most relevant programs for Airbus (the KC-30 for Australia and the A-400M) are both significantly over cost and behind schedule.
Factor 4 -- Cost/Price
- As determined by the RFP, "Most Probable Life Cycle Cost" (MPLCC) was the only measure of cost to be assessed.
- The Air Force described the cost visibility information Boeing provided as "unprecedented" and rated Boeing's MPLCC cost "Reasonable," "Balanced," and meeting "Realism" criteria -- all the highest ratings a competitor can receive.
- As recognized by the Air Force itself in 2002, the significantly bigger A-330 would demand a greater infrastructure investment with dramatically lower operational effectiveness.
Factor 5 -- Integrated Assessment
- The model used by the Air Force to judge tanker "fleet effectiveness" was developed and is maintained by Northrop Grumman.
- The mission scenarios and operational constraints to be used with the model issued in the draft RFP to judge tanker "fleet effectiveness" were based upon the 2005 Air Mobility Command "Mobility Capabilities Study" (MCS).
- Before and after the RFP release, changes to the model's parameters occurred so as to allow a "greater variety of aircraft to be considered" -- in essence to allow larger aircraft to compete. However the Air Force promised that it would tie the numerical output of the model back to real-world constraints by weighing "insights and observations."
- The inherent complexities of the model have made its results inconsistent and un-repeatable and its overall operational relevance questionable.