Now Boeing’s gone all “new media” on us, putting together a web log that focuses on its Tanker Deal protest.
Good on ‘em for recognizing that blogs like DT and Ares and The Dewline are a force to be reckoned with in shaping the debate and often cross-reference within the blog world. But I’ve always found it kind of pathetic when “big business” tries to blog.
I mean, isn’t the appeal of Defense Tech and our other blog friends the fact that we’re not tied to any corporate interests in the defense world? That’s what blogs are for; and the idea that Boeing — or NorGrum/EADS, for that matter — can pump out investigative insights on the subject instead of market-tested bullet points is preposterous. There won’t be any candor. There won’t be any objectivity.
While we have our protest in with the GAO, we wanted Americans to know that the KC-X acquisition process was flawed and clearly understand our reasons for protesting. Boeing firmly believes that changes were made to the bid requirements and evaluation criteria that led the Air Force away from a highly capable, mid-sized tanker and pushed them into selecting a less capable, less survivable tanker.
With a GAO decision on the protest due in twelve weeks, we will continue to tell our story throughout the country in order to leave no doubt that Boeing offered the most capable tanker, at the lowest risk to the warfighter and taxpayer.
Mark McGraw Vice President & Program Manager 767 Tanker Programs.
Oh well.
But that’s okay. Since the blogosphere is open to everyone, everyone seems to think they need a presence in it. We’ll take the info for what it’s worth and move on.
Let’s just keep an eye on the internet jockeying and where it lands.
– Christian
i’m guessing the Boeing blog will about as biased as this blog is, perhaps less so as we won’t have any loony leftist Kos kiddies posting up on the Boeing blog.…
While I can’t speak to the demographic audience of defense tech, I’d imagine that most of us are connected to the corporate interests of the defense world, be it as customers or suppliers. The very nature of this industry, namely the sensitivity of either proprietary or classified information, creates at atmosphere of dialog of “Here is my opinion, but I can’t explain to you why apart from corporate PR statements, Jane’s articles and John Pike references as evidence.” If a corporate blog discloses more information, regardless of how propagandized it may be, than what the public domain currently holds, I think it’s beneficial for the dialog. Many of us are employees of these very corporations and can sort it out accordingly.
It would be hard to be less objective than some of the people they let post here.…
My beef with Boeing’s ‘blog’ and other ‘faux blogs’ like it (see http://www.flightglobal.com/blogs/graham-warwick/2008/03/in-the-tanker-war-beware-bogus.html) is that they really aren’t blogs at all, but just another outlet for company marketing or political agendas. I still don’t know if “americasnewtanker.com” from an earlier DT article is a blog, because the site isn’t up for public consumption yet (I get a login popup)or if it ever will be. All I know right now about it is that it is “Pro” KC-45 because it has started spamming my inbox (although with some fairly factual messages), but it still P*s me off, because it won’t help their cause if they go around spamming people. Its bad manners.
Compare Boeing’s faux blog with a little place like mine: I posted on how their ‘commercial data rejection’ complaint very much appears to be baseless and provided boring detailed information supporting my argument, and anybody with a Blogger account can comment if they want to disagree. (One reason I use blogger is that it allows somebody to reuse a login from elsewhere– I hate it when little sites make you register for ‘just’ their place.)
Now look at Boeing’s site where they just regurgitated the same complaint on their blog as in the protest and it is STILL without any supporting material (probably on advice of Counsel). Now add to what is essentially a PR release, the fact that they are moderating all comments. What are the chances of ANY dialog involving info contrary to the protest assertions getting exposure on their website? Maybe over time they can gain some credibility, but Boeing’s site is almost certainly a here-today-and-gone-tomorrow drive-by propaganda mill.
Remember, Boeing is trying to ‘manage reality’ and I think the KC-45 team is just now waking up to the scale and nature of Boeing’s asymetrical warfare.
> the fact that they are moderating all comments. What are the chances
> of ANY dialog involving info contrary to the protest assertions
> getting exposure on their website?
all my comments have made it so far
just be sure not to include any links
BTW: Boeing’s ‘we were mislead’ on tanker size argument is low hanging fruit on the Debunking Tree. I’ll get around to it AFTER I expose them on the ‘we were better because we had more ‘major and minor discriminators’ trope, but here’s a morsel on the topic for now.
Both the Sep06 and Dec 06 draft SDD Statement Of Objectives (SOO) as well as the Final SDD SOO have the work ‘size’ in them in exactly one place, and that is in the section dealing with parts packaging.
It is a good thing the acquisistion proces was so transparent and open, otherwise we in the public wouldn’t have access to all this information, would we?
correction: word ‘size’ not work ‘size’.
Christian: Can DT get some spell check feature for the few of us non-typists?
Hi Irtusk:
I still have several issues with their site.
First: Your comments may make it, but how do you KNOW anyone else’s supporting comments do as well? They are exercising the same editorial license as a newspaper editor on the opinion page (where i’ve been burned before). They can control and shape the dialog overtly or covertly and you’d never know.
Second: I also have a problem with the possibility of their site being a direct feed into their management and legal brain trust. If they want to know what I’m thinking they’ll have work for it.
Third: If I’m commenting there, I’m not spending my commenting time elsewhere where it could reach more non-Boeing types. They could be using their site as an attractor: like moths to the flame. 90+% of the people posting on non-trade sites will get something off their chest, feel like they’ve done something, and move on with their life and never think about it again. DT and sites like it get read by a wider audience that includes policy makers = better time spent.
.…and thus my lunchtime is spent, Drat! To the vending machines!
Remember, Boeing is trying to ‘manage reality’ and I think the KC-45 team is just now waking up to the scale and nature of Boeing’s asymetrical warfare.
Ahh, 21st-century warfare.
FYI The old media gatekeepers of information are being destroyed by the Internet, not replaced.
This will make you sound less pompousness in the future.
Somewhat related but of more interest:
Today the UK signed for there A330 based tankers — now the question is ; will these be built in the USA on the soon-to-be-constructed production line in alabama , thus securing MORE , US jobs for a european tanker being flown by the UK
ironic it would be.
irtusk,
Indeed it would be embarrassing to have Boeing’s disproven claim on their blog. However, that is near 0% probability as Boeing’s claims are strong and valid.
For “strong and valid”, substitute “lies, hypocrisy, and infantile Euro-bashing”.
RE: Earlier exchanges–
Me:
> Me now: Hardly. The program I’m working now is
> in the trade and gov’t news constantly . Every
> week management reviews a spreadsheet with every
> news reference to the program, including foreign
> language sources AND in the last year– major
> blogs as well. The only thing tougher than getting
> a contract is keeping it and keeping the program sold.
the point is that Boeing already knows the weaknesses in their protest, you’re not going to show them anything they don’t already know
those who do need the rebuttal are the general public or the media who visit the official boeing site
in general, the wider rebuttals are spread, the lesser chance Boeing has of overriding a technical/legal decision with a political decision
> And…try this.
> 1. the modifications to the commercial A330 aircraft that turn
> it into NG/EADS KC-X contender are ‘minor’?
as i understand it, EADS/NG did give full pricing data (which Boeing refused to do)
FWIW my reason for reading defense blogs: I’m an engineer who spent 30-plus years as a defense contractor, and I’ve seen spin, dishonesty, self-interest, corruption, incompetence, and a lot of wishful thinking. And it happens on the corporate side too;-) But the theme of the big, bad corporations and the politics of contracting has zero interest for me. I read the blogs to know what’s going on in the minds of those thinking about tactics, strategy, technology, and systems, mainly so that I can see where my ideas might fit into military needs.
irtusk,
Thanks for continuing to demonstrate you do not understand the procurement process &/or timeline. Last I checked October 2007 was well AFTER the final RFP…
***
SMSgt Mac,
Do you have a copy of the final RFP? Unfortunately the pdf file I have is currupt & no longer readable.
SMSgt Mac,
Like I said thanks for continueing to demostrate you do not understand the process or the timeline.
Final RFP was Jan 2007. The USAF had commended Boeing for the “unprecedented” levels of data it had supplied & that it was satified with the commercial cost data Boeing had provided AFTER the final RFP was issued! So your theory does not hold any water — aka it is BS. Plus since this was supposed to be a “fair & transparent” competition, what justification is there for the USAF commending Boeing for the “unprecedented” levels of data it had supplied & that it was satisfied with the data Boeing had provided it (as late as November 2007) if the information Boeing had provided would not be given credit or credibility during the final selection process…Better yet how could Being have “scored” satisfactory in cost/price if the data it provided was unsatisfactory?
And yes, BOTH Boeing & NG/EADS voiced concerns throughout the entire process. BUT on both the cost data & the performance criteria (& who knows what else — even I do not know what all was contained in the full 133 page protest) the USAF has assured Boeing “that they were good” & had no need for concern.
Where was the request for better data?
What Boeing is saying on the “scores” is that while NG/EADS is claiming that the competition was not even close the summary “scorecard” shows the two teams as receiving IDENTICAL scores in Mission Capability/Proposed Risk but that when you look at the details the “scores” should NOT have been identical & that the KC-767AT was actually superior.
It also points out its perceived errors in the other “scoring” as well.
I agree that more detail is needed to get a true indication on how the two bids actually faired & I suspect that greater detail IS included in the full 133 protest which we obviously have not seen.
> you DO NOT commended them for unprecedented levels of data & that
> you are satisfied with the data they had provided.
we don’t know exactly what was said, but it is very possible that this was taken out of context
for instance the person dealing with the pricing on the military components (the boom and stuff) found it unprecedented while the person dealing with the ‘civilian’ components found it inadequate
i’m not saying that’s what happened, just giving an example of how both the ‘unprecedented’ and ‘inadequate’ statements could both be true
RE: Part of your problem is that you are looking at what is basically a SUMMARY of Boeing’s protest & failing to realize that it is just a summary.
Read the thread front to back again: we covered this ground. You are ‘do looping’.
My problem is I used to BE a designated acquisition official and I know how this process works. I know that there are errors or misundertandings in EVERY aquisition because there are always humans involved. I know historically it is exremely rare for someone to cobb things up to the extent the process is materially corrupted on the government side and I also know that with shrinking defense budgets (%GDP) and fewer programs, the threshold for litigation and dissolution of contracts is being lowered faster and farther than ever before. Boeing’s machinations in this case seems to seek the subversion of the whole process and replace it with a pure political one. My cost/price guy is on the Boeing protectionist side of the argument and even he is aghast at this facet of Boieng’s plot.
Don’t think I don’t appreciate the exchanges though, because it helps me hone my future posts.
SMSgt Mac.
How could Boeing possibly have a plot “to seek the subversion of the whole process and replace it with a pure political one” when THAT already happened YEARS ago (& not by Boeing)…
And don’t forget that BECAUSE OF the problems with the cancelled tanker lease & the resulting “demands” for a “fair & transparent competition” such misundertandings were NOT supposed to happen.
> they are obligated in the interest of being “fair & transparent“
> of making sure the that the necessary parties are informed of the
> “problem” & given the opportunity to correct it.
the story is that they were told several times that what the provided was unacceptable, yet they flat out refused to provide the cost buildup data the AF wanted
ie it wasn’t a surprise that the AF rejected it, it was just that Boeing and the AF didn’t agree on what was required
> What REALLY sets off a red flag on the cost issue for me is that
> BOTH teams received the same “score” on Cost/Price for reasonableness,
> realistic & balanced offer. Such scores are IMPOSSIBLE with “insufficient
> cost data”.
it was possible because the AF bumped up the Boeing bid by $4.2 billion dollars to account for that risk
“How could Boeing possibly have a plot “to seek the subversion of the whole process and replace it with a pure political one” when THAT already happened YEARS ago (& not by Boeing)…
“
You mean it wasn’t Boeing that plotted to subvert the normal acquisition process back in 2001, and replace it with a purely political (and criminal) effort to get the USAF to lease 767s at vastly inflated prices? Hmmm. Is there some _other_ tanker leasing scandal besides the Boeing one?
Lugo,
Thats right it wasn’t Boeing. Boeing was just the manufacturer of the chosen aircraft…It was not Boeing’s (no the USAF’s) idea to lease them — nor do so at that particular time. And contrary to what you & those like want people to believe scandalous activity IS NOT all that uncommon…
It was also not Boeing (no the USAF) who then demanded that the program be recompeted (as apposed to renegotiated) which forced the USAF to change the criteria JUST SO THE ONLY OTHER COMPETITION (which had already lost) COULD/WOULD COMPETE.
“Thats right it wasn’t Boeing. Boeing was just the manufacturer of the chosen aircraft…It was not Boeing’s (no the USAF’s) idea to lease them — nor do so at that particular time.“
I have addressed and refuted your preposterous claims about this at length in the other thread. The leasing scandal was a Boeing scandal, and only a Boeing scandal, from end to end, period. You want to blame it on Congress for some absurd reason, but sorry, that just doesn’t fly. (As if Boeing’s lobbyists had NOTHING to do with the FY02 legislation that mandated a lease — yeah, right, pull the other one.)
“And contrary to what you & those like want people to believe scandalous activity IS NOT all that uncommon…“
Contrary to what you seem to believe, ONLY Boeing has been caught and punished trying to bribe Darleen Druyun, and ONLY Boeing is guilty of trying to screw the taxpayers and the government by “leasing” tanker aircraft at grossly inflated prices.
Even if it is true that “everybody does it” (and I will point out that you have not specifically cited what other companies are guilty of “scandalous behavior”, and if this behavior is so common you should be able to give many examples), contrary to what you want people to believe, this IN NO WAY excuses Boeing or diminishes Boeing’s guilt.
“It was also not Boeing (no the USAF) who then demanded that the program be recompeted (as apposed to renegotiated) which forced the USAF to change the criteria JUST SO THE ONLY OTHER COMPETITION (which had already lost) COULD/WOULD COMPETE.“
Actually, yes, it was Boeing that forced a recompete (which was not truly a recompete but a competition in the first place as opposed to a Boeing sole-source screwjob). If Boeing hadn’t been so greedy and criminal, there would have been no “recompete”. Boeing has nobody but itself to blame for the fact that the government insisted on a tanker competition.
Lugo,
Itis YOUR refuted & preposterous claims that just don’t fly.
You haven’t refuted anything. As more than one person has said, you just keep repeating the same things over and over. No matter how many times you say them, it doesn’t make them true.
Boeing Airplane Co. last week supplied a sad example of how jittery the stock market is these days, especially in reaction to offhand remarks of Administration officials.
Newhouse introduces a fleet of issues: international sensitivities, cost overruns, governance structure, missed deadlines, the U.S. airline crisis, purchase negotiations, engine mechanics, government subsidies, the economics of plane size, the composition of airplane wings.
Even sports