There has been plenty of expectations that the loser of the latest KC-X competition would file a protest. Boeing (BA) was able to overturn the award to Northrop Grumman (NOC) and EADS (EADS:P) in 2008 when the Government Accountability Office (GAO) upheld its protest of that contract. Now there has already been a protest of this round before the source selection has really got underway. The protester, too, is not one of the usual suspects but U.S. Aerospace (USAE) who announced that they were teaming with Ukrainian aircraft manufacturer Antonov for the multi-billion program to replace the KC-135 in use by the U.S. Air Force.

U.S. Aerospace is protesting the fact that the Air Force said their proposal was received late and will not be considered in the competition. The service has made clear that only the EADS and Boeing ones were received by the deadline of 2:00 PM on 9 July.

The upstart bidder says that their proposal was at the site thirty minutes prior to that time but that Air Force personnel deliberately delayed the courier preventing delivery until five minutes after the deadline. The Air Force is standing by its decision.

The KC-X has been an on-again-off-again program for most of this decade. The initial plan of a lease of 767 based aircraft from Boeing was thrown out amid convictions of U.S. Air Force and Boeing personnel for corruption. The second attempt as mentioned above was lost on protest. This third try looked fairly smooth once EADS committed to bid on their own until late June when the U.S. Aerospace proposal emerged. Now a source selection that is supposed to be complete in early November is facing a potential hiccup depending on how the GAO rules on U.S. Aerospace’s protest. The addition of a third proposal to evaluate may cause delays in the selection and award process.

KC-X just gets more interesting as time passes.

The KC-X new aerial tanker program Request for Proposals (RFP) attracted a third bid this time around. U.S. Aerospace submitted one based on the Ukrainian made Antonov transport. The question that immediately comes to mind is can this team win, or will it be Boeing (BA) or EADS (EADS:P)?

Realistically the chances of this bid being selected are low. The companies had asked for a sixty day extension to work on their proposal. The Air Force already slipping the contract deadline one month to accommodate EADS refused the further two month slip. This would have pushed award into 2011 with the current planned date of mid-November this year already late enough. The U.S. has been trying to get a replacement tanker for the aging KC-135 since 2001.

U.S. Aerospace and its partner obviously felt their proposal could be improved with the extra two months but did go ahead an turn one in that they feel meets all of the Air Force requirements. At the same time in a recent filing with the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) U.S. Aerospace makes clear that the Air Force could easily reject them.

The company writes “For any or all of these reasons, the Air Force may not select our bid, may disqualify our bid, or may refuse to consider it on the merits, or at all,” based on myriad factors. These include not meeting requirements, not having qualified sub-contractors, not having necessary facilities or capabilities and even missing the deadline. They didn’t do that turning one in on time.

Of course all of this could be standard “Forward Looking Statements” meant to make clear to anyone investing in their stock that they are being conservative in their estimates. The stock was trading at 18 cents at the close on Friday.

Certainly they have offered a cost effective approach. The Air Force must consider if it meets their requirements and they have the ability to produce the systems to the necessary schedule. Certainly stranger things have happened in defense contracting.

The Secretary of Defense Robert Gates made clear that the Defense Department and the Air Force want some competition for the KC-X aerial tanker program. This is going to have to include EADS (EADS:P) against Boeing (BA) due to the requirements of the program. Gates stressed disappointment with those in Congress attempting to prevent U.S. companies working with EADS on their bid.

If there is going to be any competition for the third attempt to buy a replacement for the aging KC-135 aircraft it will have to include EADS. The only other potentially viable contender would be a Russian aircraft either based on the Ilyushin IL-78 Midas system or perhaps on the IL-96 wide body airliner. Having a Russian competitor would make the contest even more difficult then just one with EADS.

The current U.S. fleet of aerial tankers consists of a few hundred Cold War era KC-135 aircraft and less then a hundred KC-10 built in the Eighties. The KC-135 is based on the Boeing (BA) 707 airliner but were built as tankers not converted from passenger aircraft. The KC-X program will replace most of the KC-135 if all 400 or more are purchased and built. The initial contract which the proposals are due on is for about 150 aircraft.

Because it will now be several years before the first KC-X flies and a substantial number are available the U.S. Air Force will need to continue to upgrade, maintain and overhaul the existing aircraft. The most modern variant of the KC-135 is the R model. Today ARINC Engineering Services was awarded a contract to upgrade several KC-135R models with new avionics. No value was given for the contract but it will provide modern, digital instruments for the older aircraft. Eventually all KC-135R will receive this upgrade.

Due to the fact that it has taken almost ten years to get to this, the third, attempt to award a contract for a new tanker the KC-135 and KC-10 fleets will fly for several more years beyond what was expected. The continued investment in modernizing these aircraft will help them meet the current set of mission requirements while waiting for the new tankers.

This is an article I wrote at BNET: Government about EADS decision to submit a proposal.

“The decade-long saga to replace the KC-X aerial tanker contract begins a new chapter. The European aerospace giant EADS (EADS: P) and Airbus, its subsidiary, announced that it will definitely submit a contract proposal to the Air Force. The program will replace the aging Cold War KC-135 tankers (pictured).

Boeing (BA) thought it had won the contract for at least 179 new aircraft earlier this year when Northrop Grumman (NOC) who had bid in partnership with EADS withdrew from the bidding. Then, earlier this month, the Pentagon agreed to extend the deadline, at EADS’ request, to allow it time to submit a new bid.”

Read the rest at BNET.

In an article at the Seattle Times, Dominic Gates writes that EADS (EADS:P) is planning on offsetting some of their cost disadvantages related to the bigger aircraft and establishing a new production facility with less development. The aircraft they will offer again for the KC-X program is a modified version of the A330 MRTT already planned for Australia, Great Britain, UAE and Saudi Arabia.

The aircraft is a little behind schedule but is in test flights and will deploy the first of five aircraft to Australia this year. The U.K. ones are slated for 2011 and the two oil states will get there aircraft soon after. There will have to be some modifications to the A330 to meet U.S. Air Force needs but they should be minor. EADS feels that Boeing (BA) will have to spend more money to get their 767 based tanker ready as it does incorporate the 787 cockpit and parts of other 767 models. This means that it is not identical to the 767 tankers ordered by Japan and Italy. Japan has received three of their four aircraft while Italy has seen developmental delays and has not received any.

It is expected that the A330 will cost more to manufacture due to its size and the shipping involved to send the components to the U.S. from overseas. The bigger aircraft while capable of carrying more fuel and having a longer range then the 767 will cost more to operate and may require infrastructure investment as it is much larger then the KC-135 tankers being replaced.

Once the proposals are in it will be seen if EADS can do their pricing correctly.

Over at BNET: Government where I also publish I have a piece on how this third try will be the winning one for the Air Force and Defense Department to get a new aircraft to replace the aging KC-135 fleet. There still remain many challenges with the contest as Northrop may not bid and Boeing has expressed concerns with the fixed price portion of the contract.

It will be an interesting next few months as this is all worked out. Next deadline is May 10th when proposals are due.

Congressman John Murtha (D-PA) a senior Democratic Representative and the Chair of the Defense Appropriations Subcommittee died yesterday from surgery complications. Murtha had at one time pushed the idea of awarding KC-X contracts to both Boeing (BA) and the Northrop Grumman (NOC) and EADS (EADS:P) teams as a way to rapidly replace the aging KC-135 aircraft. He eventually gave up on the idea.

The rationale for the split buy is that it builds the aircraft quicker while also removing the uncertainty of a protest over a single award. The U.S. Air Force and Department of Defense have made it clear that they do not want to do this due to the increased logistical cost associated with operating two different aircraft. The systems might complement each other with the bigger, longer range KC-30 being based further back in the U.S. and its more permanent bases overseas with the KC-767 flying forward and supporting operations in-and-around South West Asia.

The dual award would also mean that Northrop and EADS will be guaranteed work so their threat not to participate in the latest round would not need to be carried out. That is why organizations like the Aerospace Alliance representing Mississippi, Alabama and Florida support they idea. Some work in Mobile, AL is better then none.

The chances of a split buy are fairly remote but there are still those who want it.

The Mayor of Mobile, AL was recently on Capitol Hill raising the issue of buying the new KC-X tanker from both Boeing (BA) and Northrop Grumman (NOC). Northrop and its partner EADS (EADS:P) plan to assemble the A330 aircraft in Mobile and then fit them out with the necessary equipment at a Northrop plant. The idea of awarding contracts to both companies has been discussed before. The primary benefit besides avoiding a protest and delaying the program again would be to more quickly replace the KC-135 aircraft.

The U.S.A.F. and Defense Department have not been positive about this idea in the past due to the larger, more expensive logistics tail required to support two dissimilar systems. During World War II and the Cold War the U.S. often did invest in multiple systems for a mission often operated by separate services. The U.S. military has not had the resources to afford this kind of commitment.

The new RFP is expected to be released within a matter of weeks. For the Air Force to do a dual award it would require development and approval of a whole new acquisition strategy. This would lead to even further delays in this contract. The chances of buying the two aircraft in the next year or so are very slight.

The KC-X Tanker RFP is expected to be released in the next few weeks. Previously Notthrop and its partner EADS had threatened not to participate as they felt the draft RFP was biased in favor of Boeing. Now they are saying they will wait and see what is in the RFP when it is put out. It is in the best interest of the Air Force and the U.S. Government to receive multiple bids on the project.

Without competition the chance of this third attempt proceeding will be difficult. Sole sourcing the contract to either Boeing or the Northrop team will cause an outcry in Congress no matter what as both companies have their supporters. Not putting out a competitive RFP will only lead to protests and further delays in what has become a critical program to replace the aging KC-135 aircraft.

We are all going to have to wait to see what the Air Force puts out and how Northrop, EADS and Boeing respond to it.