Press Release: Time to Move On

Boeing's emphasis since Day One of the renewed KC-X competition has been on clarity -- in the process as well as in Boeing's approach to the bid process.  That brings us to this question of pricing data from the last campaign.  Perhaps we can put this distracting side issue to rest and get on with the process of arriving at the final requirements and evaluation criteria that will enable the Air Force to flawlessly choose the right tanker at the best value.

It's been said that our competitor has been disadvantaged due to the release of their pricing data from the last competition.  The fact is, during that previous acquisition effort the U.S. Government followed the Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) and released limited price information from the successful offerer. More specifically, the FAR mandates that the price of the awarded contract be made publicly available upon request.  This is how the system works to protect the American taxpayer and keep the award of billions of defense dollars honest.

Simply put, when you win a contract you expect details to become public along with details of the decision that are shared with the team that was not awarded the contract. And there's no requirement for the government to share the losing bidder's proprietary pricing information with the winner or the public.  Indeed, when Boeing won the competition to build the new U.S. Air Force combat search-and-rescue helicopter the post-award process followed this same regulatory requirement.

What you may be unaware of is that on August 20, 2008, to ensure that every effort was made to "level the playing field" in a new competition, the government released consistent KC-X pricing information to both sides.  In other words, the Department of Defense has already handed over a comparative amount of Boeing's pricing data from the previous KC-X competition.

The Air Force has said repeatedly that this old data is no longer relevant for either side in the renewed competition.  Meanwhile, others continue to contend that their ability to win is dependent on this rather than on simply offering the best proposal that meets the Air Force's new requirements.  We are confident that at the end of this process next summer the contract award will be based on that rather than on any special treatment given to one competitor over another.