There are now reports that the U.S. Air Force may slip the announcement of a winner of the KC-X contract until the end of the year. The last planned date was the middle of November. This was a slight slip as the original goal was to have work start on that date.

Now it could be as late as just before Christmas that an award will be made. There are potential concerns with the results of the mid-term elections in early November that may have to be reflected on when coming to a decision on whether to award to Boeing (BA) or EADS (EADS:P). No matter what the program may see further delay if the loser protests the decision.

The Government Accountability Office (GAO) is also addressing two protests by the U.S. Aerospace (USAE) and Antonov team over the failure of the Air Force to accept their proposal claiming it was delivered five minutes too late. There is a chance that any upholding of the protests would cause further delays to the source selection and award.

The KC-X is now on its third iteration over the the last nine years and continues to look as if a new tanker won’t be purchased anytime soon.

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.

Boeing (BA) submitted their proposal for the KC-X aerial tanker program a day after rival EADS (EADS:P) did. Today was the day it was formally due, EADS coming in a little early. The Boeing proposal stresses their cost and size benefits over competing EADS with their larger A330 based aircraft. Boeing is basing their bid on a modified 767 airliner with advanced avionics from the yet to enter service 787.

Also U.S. Aerospace and Antonov submitted their competing proposal after losing a bid to delay things sixty days. There total cost is under thirty billion for a contract the Air Force has estimated at $37.5 billion based on an aircraft cost of only $150 million each.

The Air Force plan is to award the contract in four months. The three bids may make the competition’s source selection last longer and may also raise the chance of a protest.

If the U.S. Aerospace / Antonov team wins it might get very interesting.

Earlier this year in responding to questions about the delay to the submissions of proposals to July due to the accommodation for EADS (EADS:P) the Air Force said the contract will start in mid-November. Now word is coming out that the award won’t be made until “late November”. Critics have seized on this changes as a delay due to the decision to allow EADS to bid.

Technically this is a delay of several weeks from the original schedule. The chances though of the Air Force meeting that were low as it was very aggressive. It only gave them four months to review proposals and conduct the award. Even if they assumed the new proposals were similar to the last ones in 2008 that amount of time to conduct a source selection for a contract of this size may have been a little unrealistic.

This decision will spur EADS’ opponents and Boeing (BA) supporters to further their current war of words.

The House of Representatives in their vote on the 2011 Defense Authorization Bill added an amendment sponsored by Washington and Kansas members to force the Pentagon to consider the WTO ruling on illegal subsidies when it comes time to consider EADS’ (EADS:P) bid. The Pentagon has made it clear in the past that their contracting and acquisition laws and regulations do not allow them to factor that into their cost evaluations. This language if it is in the final version of the bill when it is passed after Conference will supposedly make them do that.

One question though is the Air Force plans to receive bids on July and announce a decision in the late Fall. There is a good chance that the source selection if it follows that schedule will be complete before the bill makes it out of Congress. While the Authorization Act often is done before the Appropriations one it is often not complete by 30 September as it should be. The Pentagon could also argue to ignore the language setting up some sort of court fight. EADS could also adjust their prices to take into account the effect of the WTO ruling.

Recently according to the Seattle Post-Intelligencer, Congressman Norm Dicks (D-WA) addressed a local union meeting. Dicks is now the Chair of the defense appropriations sub-committee due to the death of Congressman Murtha (D-PA). This is the place where the defense budget begins its process for approval in the Congress.

Dicks supposedly talked about the new KC-X Tanker contract expressing concern that the U.S. Air Force would make allowances for EADS (EADS:P) to help them be able to bid. Dicks hoped that EADS would not bid leaving the way open for Boeing to win the deal.

Since right now Dicks controls how the entire Air Force budget is built it behooves the service to listen to him. At the same time they want a modicum of competition for the the third attempt to buy this key aircraft. Dicks represents a state that relies on Boeing (BA) to provide lots of good union jobs. He should support them — but not to the point of influencing the Air Force’s decision. Source selection should be based on what contract proposal best meets the requirements at the best price. Sole sourcing a contract of this size historically has led to cost and schedule overruns.

That doesn’t mean that Boeing will not be able to deliver, just a consideration that must be taken by everyone: Defense officials, industry and Congress.

The Secretary of Defense, Robert Gates, testified today to Congress that he felt the leaked World Trade Organization (WTO) ruling on the legality of loans and subsidies to EADS by European nations would not have an effect on the KC-X contest. Of course supporters of Boeing will draw a different conclusion saying the ruling means an unfair advantage for EADS that will affect the pricing of the contract proposal.

Of course right now EADS has not committed to making a bid although there are rumors that the Pentagon would consider a delay of up to ninety days to allow the company to put together a proposal either as the prime or with another partner. If EADS does ultimately end up bidding the WTO ruling will certainly play a role in the politics of the issue if not the actual source selection and contract process.

The Lexington Institute published an op-ed today by Loren B. Thompson that made clear in hid interpretation the launch assist loans clearly were illegal. The A330, he wrote, “was developed using practices that would be prohibited today”.

This could mean that the EADS proposal when it is submitted could be adjusted to reflect the financial advantage received by such aid. This would significantly shift the price difference between EADS, Boeing and any other bidder.

If EADS does bid on the contract the WTO dispute will play a role, that is guaranteed.

Statement From Northrop Grumman on U.S. Air Force Aerial Refueling Tanker Program

WASHINGTON, March 8 /PRNewswire-FirstCall/ — The following is a statement from Wes Bush, Chief Executive Officer and President of Northrop Grumman Corporation (NYSE:NOC) , concerning the U.S. Air Force aerial refueling tanker program.

“After a comprehensive analysis of the final RFP, Northrop Grumman has determined that it will not submit a bid to the Department of Defense for the KC-X program. We reached this conclusion based on the structure of the source selection methodology defined in the RFP, which clearly favors Boeing’s smaller refueling tanker and does not provide adequate value recognition of the added capability of a larger tanker, precluding us from any competitive opportunity.

“Northrop Grumman fully respects the Department’s responsibility to determine the military requirements for the new tanker. In the previous competition, Northrop Grumman was selected by the Air Force as offering the most capable tanker for the warfighter at the best value for the taxpayer. However, the Northrop Grumman and EADS team is very disappointed that the revised source selection methodology now dramatically favors Boeing’s smaller refueling tanker. We agree that the fundamental military requirements for the new tanker have not changed since the last competition, but the Department’s new evaluation methodology now clearly favors the smaller tanker.

“We continue to believe that Northrop Grumman’s tanker represents the best value for the military and taxpayer – a belief supported by the selection of the A330 tanker design over the Boeing design in the last five consecutive tanker competitions around the globe. Regrettably, this means that the U.S. Air Force will be operating a less capable tanker than many of our Allies in this vital mission area.

“Our prior selection by the Air Force, our firm belief that we provide the best value offering, and the hard work and commitment of the many individuals and communities on our team over many years made this a difficult decision for our company. But we have a fiduciary responsibility to our shareholders to prudently invest our corporate resources, as do our more than 200 tanker team suppliers across the United States. Investing further resources to submit a bid would not be acting responsibly.

“We have decided that Northrop Grumman will not protest. While we feel we have substantial grounds to support a GAO or court ruling to overturn this revised source selection process, America’s service men and women have been forced to wait too long for new tankers. We feel a deep responsibility to their safety and to their ability to fulfill the missions our nation calls upon them to perform. Taking actions that would further delay the introduction of this urgent capability would also not be acting responsibly.

“We recognize that our decision likely creates a sole-source outcome for Boeing. We call on the Department to keep in mind the economic conclusions of the prior round of bidding as it takes actions to protect the taxpayer when defining the sole-source procurement contract. In the previous round, the Air Force, through a rigorous assessment of our proposal, determined that it would pay a unit flyaway cost of approximately $184 million per tanker for the first 68 tankers, including the non-recurring development costs. With the Department’s decision to procure a much smaller, less capable design, the taxpayer should certainly expect the bill to be much less.”

Northrop Grumman Corporation is a leading global security company whose 120,000 employees provide innovative systems, products, and solutions in aerospace, electronics, information systems, shipbuilding and technical services to government and commercial customers worldwide.

Source: Northrop Grumman Corporation

It is expected that the final RFP for the KC-X New Aerial Tanker program will be released this week. At a recent forum the Secretary of the Air Force, Michael Donley, said that they hope to have the contract awarded by the end of the summer. This means that if you allow a few months for the proposals to be prepared and submitted the source selection will only take ninety days or so. This is an aggressive time line for a contract this large.

It may be that the Air Force is expecting the Boeing (BA) and Northrop Grumman (NOC) proposals to be much like the ones they submitted in 2008. This will make it easier to do an evaluation and award. There is a great deal of historical work to draw upon. Of course that competition ended in a Northrop win, a Boeing protest, and the GAO upholding it. This led to the current attempt at a contract.

Of course if only Boeing submits a bid as might happen it will make the whole selection process easier.

President Obama sent his 2011 budget to Congress yesterday. It contains as part of its record defense spending $12 billion for the development and initial production of the new KC-X tanker. The Administration and the Air Force have a goal of awarding a contract this Summer and beginning the development of the new aircraft fairly fast.

This plan is fraught with difficulties based on the history of the program. The two main competitors, Boeing (BA) and the Northrop Grumman (NOC) team, have their own supporters in Congress and their own issues with the approach the Air Force is taking. It can be expected that the source selection will be difficult and the chances for a protest fairly high if both groups do submit bids.