Tanker Truths

03 Apr 2008
Boeing continues misinformation campaign
Boeing, today, will hold a conference call to continue its misinformation campaign concerning the selection of Northrop Grumman to build America's New Tanker.

Because Boeing's rhetoric is often factually challenged, we thought it might be helpful to provide the top 10 questions Boeing can't, or won't, answer – questions that probably should be asked.

1. In recent days, you've claimed that your proposal was rated superior to Northrop Grumman's on "discriminators" the Air Force listed in its request for proposal. But isn't it true that Air Force officials judged Northrop Grumman's bid superior in four of the five major evaluation criteria? Isn't it true that the Air Force expressed little confidence in your program management? And didn't Air Force officials say that Northrop Grumman offered a superior proposal at better value? If these things are true, how can you say you should have been selected?

2. Lately, you and your supporters in Congress have suggested that the bidding process was changed in ways that unfairly favored Northrop Grumman. But you had the right to protest the bidding process while it was going on, and didn't. Mark McGraw frequently referred to the process as open and transparent and one of your chief government allies, Patty Murray, was praising the process as open and fair as recently one week before the selection. Isn't it true that you only changed your mind after you lost?

3. Staying with your complaints about the bidding process for a moment, isn't it a fact that while the bidding process was going on, the Air Force asked the GAO, the Congressional Research Service, the Pentagon Inspector General's office, and top procurement officials from the Army and Navy to investigate the bidding process for signs of bias? And isn't it the case that none found any problems, and that all gave the bidding process a clean bill of health?

4. You claim that your proposed plane would create 44,000 jobs, but you haven't shared your methodology about how you arrive at that figure, while Northrop Grumman backs up its estimate that the contract will support 48,000 U.S. jobs by listing the number of jobs for each of 230 suppliers in 49 states, along with its reliance on commonly-accepted Department of Labor evaluation standards for estimating how many indirect jobs will be supported by the contract. Why can't you back up your figures? When will you share your methodology?

5. Some of your supporters allege that the Northrop Grumman contract will move sensitive military technology overseas. The company says, however, that all military technology will be installed by Defense Department and Northrop Grumman officials with appropriate security clearances at Northrop Grumman's secure facility in Mobile, Alabama. How can you support your claim that military technology would be shipped overseas? What examples or evidence do you have?

6. Your supporters claim that EADS received foreign government subsidies that allowed Northrop Grumman to lower its bid price, unfairly impacting Boeing. But isn't it true that EADS received only loans, which it fully repaid, with interest, last year? And doesn't Boeing receive research grants and tax breaks from the U.S. government that for all intents and purposes are subsidies themselves?

7. Your supporters have argued in recent days that a French investigation into alleged insider trading by EADS, Northrop Grumman's subcontractor, raises ethical problems that should lead to the contract being overturned. But isn't it a fact that a Boeing executive went to jail on federal corruption charges over the original tanker leasing deal, and isn't it true that Boeing officials have been charged with serious felony violations in recent years, including spying on a competitor and selling trade secrets to the Chinese? Applying the same ethical standard to Boeing as you would apply to your competitor, why shouldn't those problems disqualify you from being eligible for this contract?

8. Your supporters have been harshly critical of Northrop Grumman using EADS as a foreign subcontractor, suggesting that partnering with foreign companies is wrong. But isn't it true that Boeing would partner with companies in China, Italy, Japan and the United Kingdom to build its proposed tanker? And hasn't Boeing partnered with an Italian company to build the next generation of Joint Cargo Aircraft in Jacksonville? How is that different from Northrop Grumman's plan to assemble the KC-45 in Mobile? And doesn't Boeing rely on partnerships in numerous foreign countries to construct its commercial aircraft?

9. You say your past experience makes you more qualified than Northrop Grumman for this contract. But isn't it true that you don't even have a plane to fly, while Northrop Grumman has already conducted 73 tests, comprising more than 200 flight hours? And isn't it also true that the Air Force concluded that that there was higher risk over Boeing delivering than Northrop Grumman, and that Northrop Grumman could deliver more planes by 2013 than Boeing? And isn't it true that you are behind schedule in delivering tankers to Italy and Japan?

10. What have your interactions with Air Force officials in recent days told you about how the Air Force feels about your criticisms of their decision-making process and your request that the Government Accountability Office overturn their award?

< Back to index