TANKER USAF - Appels d'offres

BRUSSELS - The EU on Tuesday warned the United States against protectionism after a European-led consortium pulled out of the bidding for an Air Force contract, saying the terms had been altered to favor a U.S. company.
EADS, the parent company of Airbus, had partnered with Northrop Grumman to vie for the 179 tanker order, but their consortium pulled out on Monday. They said the terms of the deal appeared designed to eliminate its design in favor of a smaller jet offered by rival Boeing Co.
The announcement left Boeing as the only bidder for the project. It is offering a version of the 767 commercial airplane to replace the U.S. Air Force's 1960s-era fleet of KC-135 tankers.

"The European Commission would be extremely concerned if it were to emerge that the terms of tender were such as to inhibit open competition for the contract," the European Commission said in a statement.
In the United States, the political fallout from the announcement was also swift, with several U.S. lawmakers - including Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., President Barack Obama's campaign rival in 2008 - saying they regretted the Northrop Grumman/EADS decision.

In 2008, the EADS-led consortium was awarded a contract for the tanker fleet, but Boeing protested and the deal was annulled later that year.
In December, Northrop Grumman/EADS expressed serious concerns to the Pentagon and the Air Force that the new criteria for the project were slanted in favor the Boeing design.
"It is highly regrettable that a major potential supplier would feel unable to bid for a contract of this type," said EU Trade Commissioner Karel De Gucht. "Open procurement markets guarantee better competition and better value for money for the taxpayer."

The EU noted that the trade balance in defense equipment with the 27-nation EU has traditionally been heavily in favor of the American side, and that in 2008 the US exported $5 billion worth of defense materials while importing only $2.2 billion from the European side.

"The Commission will be following further developments in this case very closely," the statement said.
In Washington, Pentagon spokesman Bryan Whitman said the military plans to move ahead with the program and that the requirements for a new tanker fleet won't be reworked just to ensure there are two bidders.
"The question for us is, competition at what cost?" Whitman told reporters. "We know what the requirements are . . . we are going to buy to those capabilities."

Meanwhile, German Economy Minister Rainer Bruederle said on Tuesday he was disappointed by the developments in the U.S. and warned the situation had "signs of protectionism."
"The free market should not be unilaterally restricted," he said.

Twenty-eight of the EADS KC-45 tankers have been ordered or are already in service with the air forces of Australia, Britain, Saudi Arabia, and the United Arab Emirates. Boeing's KC-767 tanker, which can carry a smaller payload, has been ordered by Italy and Japan.

In Paris, EADS CEO Louis Gallois maintained that the EADS design - based on Airbus A330 - makes a better tanker than the Boeing alternative.
"We deeply regret that the U.S. Air Force will not get the best available airplane," he told journalists.

He said the decision doesn't change EADS' intention to boost its presence on the American defense market.

Gallois said the consortium was talking to the administration in Washington to recoup some of the money it spent on its bids.

Also on Tuesday, EADS reported that spiraling costs on its new military airlifter, the A400M, and its A380 superjumbo had led to losses in the fourth quarter and full year but said its outlook visibility was improving.

WASHINGTON, March 9 /PRNewswire-USNewswire/ --

The European Commission notes yesterday's decision by Northrop Grumman / EADS not to submit a bid to the US Department of Defense for the US Air Force's aerial refueling tanker contract.

"It is highly regrettable that a major potential supplier would feel unable to bid for a contract of this type.

Open procurement markets guarantee better competition and better value for money for the taxpayer," stated EU Trade Commissioner Karel De Gucht.

In February 2008, Northrop Grumman / EADS was selected and awarded the contract to provide aerial refueling tankers for the US Air Force in a fair and transparent competition. This was a positive sign for free and open competition across the Atlantic.
This also seemed to indicate that successful bids are possible when European industry teams up with US industry and they are allowed to compete fairly. This award was subsequently cancelled at the end of 2008.

In December 2009, Northrop Grumman / EADS expressed serious concerns to the Department of Defense and the
US Air Force on the proposed acquisition criteria for the contract.

The European Commission would be extremely concerned if it were to emerge that the terms of tender were such as to inhibit open competition for the contract.

The US defense trade balance with the EU has traditionally been significantly in the US' favor.
In 2008 the US exported $5 billion and imported only $2.2 billion worth of defense material, in line with a historic ratio of double exports to imports.

The Commission will be following further developments in this case very closely.

SOURCE Delegation of the European Union to the United States


PR Newswire

Mar. 8--U.S. Sen. Jeff Sessions (R-AL) made the following comments today regarding Northrop Grumman's announcement that it would not submit a bid in the U.S. Air Force's tanker recapitalization program:
"This is truly a dark day for the American warfighter and for the Pentagon. Today's withdrawal by the Northrop Grumman team is concrete proof that the dramatic changes in the way that the Pentagon will evaluate competing proposals had the effect of eliminating the superior aircraft that was the low bidder in the last competition. Tasked by Congress to conduct a fair competition, the Obama Defense Department rewrote the bid rules in such a biased fashion that only one team felt it could win.

"This is a tragic result for this important program, made all the more damaging given Northrop Grumman/EADS' resounding victory when this competition was administered using the original Air Force criteria. Those guidelines were consistent with the Air Force's well-documented need for a transformational tanker with capabilities for assisting in airlift missions. After a careful evaluation, the Air Force determined that the NG/EADS aircraft was clearly superior, outperforming its competitor in nearly every category. Even in upholding Boeing's protest, government auditors declined to criticize that conclusion.

"The unjustifiable overhaul of the Request for Proposals--which went far beyond the narrow problems raised by the GAO--completely abandoned the idea of a game-changing tanker in favor of a smaller, less capable plane.
Of the 14 major changes to the solicitation, 12 favored Boeing's smaller, older aircraft. In the end, the process was skewed, and no one can fault a private company for declining to participate in a government competition engineered to guarantee its failure.

The outcome is tragic for our men and women in uniform--who are being denied the best aircraft--and for American taxpayers, who could now be on the hook for the most expensive sole-source contract in history. We know from previous experience that sole-source deals result in less capability and higher costs."

"Allegations that this would be a foreign-based aircraft production were simply false.

The lead contractor was one of America's finest defense companies, and EADS is based in Europe, the home of our allies and closest defense partners. The aircraft would be built in Alabama, with suppliers employing Americans in all 50 states, employing 48,000 Americans.

"I hope that the Secretary of Defense will personally review the competition in light of this disastrous result for the taxpayer. There is no way the Defense Department will be able to get the best price without competition."

Le Pentagone a défendu mardi son appel d'offre pour des avions ravitailleurs contesté par les Européens qui regrettent le retrait d'Airbus, assurant que la procédure avait été équitable entre l'avionneur de Toulouse et son concurrent Boeing.

2010 AFP

[Vous devez être inscrit et connecté pour voir ce lien]and its US partner [Vous devez être inscrit et connecté pour voir ce lien]decided late on Monday night to pull out of the tender after concluding that, under current rules, their larger A330 tanker could not win.
The decision is likely to raise transatlantic trade tensions further. Relations between America and Europe on trade are already stretched by the on­going row between [Vous devez être inscrit et connecté pour voir ce lien] and Airbus over government subsidies for aircraft programmes.

The French foreign ministry said it would, with the European Commission, “examine the new development and its possible implications”. Christine Lagarde, French finance minister, openly suggested the competition had been rigged to favour EADS’s US rival Boeing, now the sole bidder.
“The best situation is one of fair competition and I think it’s a shame that the company wasn’t in the best competitive situation” for the bid, she said.

Rainer Bruederle, German economy minister, also said the US government had given a clear advantage to Boeing.
In Britain, one of the countries that would have benefited from an Airbus win, Lord Mandelson, business secretary, said he was “disappointed”. “Given the open market to US producers we have in Europe, it is very disappointing that a US-led European consortium feels that the revised tanker procurement process is now so biased against them that it is not even worth making a bid,” he said.
People close to the UK government warned there could be repercussions for US trade. “The ramifications of this are potentially very serious. It sends a protectionist signal,” said one.

Some US politicians were dismayed. Richard Shelby, Republican senator of Alabama, where EADS would have created jobs, said: “This so–called competition was not structured to produce the best outcome for our men and women in uniform; it was structured to produce the best outcome for Boeing.”

The Pentagon said last night: “The Northrop decision does not change our commitment to transatlantic defence ties . . . We do not set the rules to favour one party or another, European or American companies. We set the requirements that the war fighter needs and hope that a range of companies find it lucrative enough to bid.”

Concerns have been growing over the fairness of the bid process. In 2004, Boeing was awarded a contract, which was rescinded after an ethics scandal. The competition was re-tendered and won by Northrop-EADS in 2008, only for Boeing to protest successfully.

Jefferies & Co. analyst Howard A. Rubel was surprised by Northrop Grumman’s decision not to support a joint bid with EADS for the U.S. Air Force’s aerial-refueling tanker competition. Oppenheimer & Co.’s Myles Walton was not surprised. But both analysts share the opinion that Northrop’s decision was a sound one.
“Northrop had a large share of the risk, while it carried only a modest benefit as the commercial synergies would inure to [EADS-owned] Airbus,” Rubel said in a note to his clients on Tuesday. “The action to stop the process before the bid is submitted reflects well on management.”
The Northrop Grumman/EADS team won the $35 billion tanker contract two years ago with its Airbus A330-based aircraft, only to have it yanked away on an appeal from Boeing. But Walton notes that the team now faces a different leadership team at the Pentagon and a different request for proposal and contract structure. “The decision came down to economics that left Northrop Grumman with the choice to submit a token bid in the name of competition or try to compete on price with a more expensive – but more capable – aircraft, and potentially end up with a fixed-price contact that could dramatically increase the risk profile of Northrop Grumman’s future earnings and cash flows,” Walton told his clients. “This contract has always been a “must-win” for Boeing and “nice-to-have” for Northrop Grumman.”
Both analysts agree that a sole-source award would not give Boeing carte blanche to inflate its tanker bid.
Rubel notes that Northrop’s per-unit price of $184 million per tanker in the original contract sets a benchmark that Boeing will have to beat with its smaller 767-based aircraft. “Boeing is aware that it must justify its bid to Congress, the Defense Dept. and other decision makers,” he says. “This is about reputation. Poor performance will impact the outcome of other competitive decisions.”

Northrop decides not to submit bid due to source selection methodology

08:59 GMT, March 9, 2010 defpro.com | European aerospace giant EADS has experienced some hot days since last Friday. It began with an important step forward which was achieved in the future European airlift programme on Friday afternoon when EADS and the customer nations for the A400M reached a principal agreement on the funding of the aircraft. Further, today EADS reported its 2009 results that led to a loss of share value in pre-market trade in Frankfurt, also due to the company’s heavy losses in 2009, the scrapping of its dividend and a poor outlook going into 2010 (see [Vous devez être inscrit et connecté pour voir ce lien]). But most important, yesterday’s announcement by Northrop Grumman and EADS not to submit its bid to the US Air Force KC-X tanker competition is poised above all further developments.

The announcement of this remarkable decision, in particular including the decision not to protest against the RfP and thereby not further delaying the programme, was released by Northrop Grumman on Monday. Wes Bush, Chief Executive Officer and President of Northrop Grumman Corporation, announced the decision in a wide-ranging statement, saying “After a comprehensive analysis of the final RfP [Request for Proposal], 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.”

This decision deals a heavy blow to the EADS’ plan to gain a stronger foothold on the US market, which traditionally has been a tough market to enter for non-US companies. Boeing and its supporters throughout the entire industrial and political sphere have repeatedly used the significant share of EADS in the competitor’s team to promote its “buy American” solution. Despite Northrop Grumman’s efforts to emphasise that most of the work would be performed in the US and that the order would create hundreds of jobs in Alabama, the team could not avert the general perception that it was a European solution.

Winning the competition against its archrival Boeing, the KC-X tanker contract would have been a wholesome bonanza for EADS. According to the Aircraft Investment Plan of the US Air Force, recently released to Congress, the service intends to buy 109 tankers at an estimated cost of over $30 billion (€22 billion) through 2020. Beyond this year, the Air Force would have to replace its entire ageing fleet of tankers, which would have provided Northrop Grumman and EADS with stable revenue of over $100 billion, not including earnings generated by maintenance and spare part support.

The decision not to submit a bid to the competition is even more dramatic in light of the fact that the KC-30 (designated KC-45A by the USAF) tanker solution of Northrop Grumman and EADS had already been awarded a contract by the US Air Force in 2008 which, subsequently, was cancelled due to a protest filed by Boeing.

All parties disappointed ... except for one
In his statement, Bush added: “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.”

Airbus CEO Tom Enders underlined the assessment of its US partner and said “If Northrop Grumman is convinced that we don’t have a chance to win in the current environment – no matter how good our offer is - then I can only support this assessment. Today, the German government called on the US to revisit its contract awarding policy. As Peter Hintze, aviation coordinator of the German government told a German daily, he sees “a tiny rest of a chance that the US government perceives this signal and will revise the [contracting] procedure.”

While Northrop Grumman emphasises that the competition would not have been fair and that the terms of the competition focus on a smaller platform (which allegedly would automatically rule out the A330 MRTT-based tanker), US officials dismiss any such reproaches. Deputy Defense Secretary William Lynn expressed his disappointment in Northrop Grumman’s decision, saying: “In the last tanker replacement competition, Northrop Grumman competed well on both price and non-price factors. We strongly believe that the current competition is structured fairly and that both companies could compete effectively.”

Lynn further explained that “based on the inputs we received from both offerors to the Department’s draft Request for Proposal (RFP), we made changes to reduce the out-year risk to the potential manufacturers of KC-X. However, we did not change the war-fighters’ requirements to accommodate either offeror.”

One can hear the corks popping in Seattle all the way in Europe, although Boeing statements so far have been rather sparse and reserved. Boeing tanker spokesman William Barksdale said: “Boeing remains 100 percent focused on the KC-X competition and intends to submit a fully responsive, transparent and competitive proposal that meets the terms the Air Force has announced. As we have in each of the previous rounds of competition, Boeing will offer the most capable tanker and the tanker best suited to begin modernizing the aging KC-135 fleet - at a lower total life cycle cost than any competitor. The Boeing NewGen Tanker will be safe and survivable in combat, will save the American taxpayer $10 billion in fuel costs over its 40-year life, and is American designed and built.

Mixed opinions in East and West
Next to Arizona Republican Senator John McCain, who has been one of the fiercest critics of the Boeing solution, Senator Richard Shelby (R) of Alabama has been a strong supporter of Northrop Grumman as the company’s tanker assembly plant would have been constructed in his state. Reacting to Northrop's announcement, Shelby said: “This so-called competition was not structured to produce the best outcome for our men and women in uniform; it was structured to produce the best outcome for Boeing. The Air Force's refusal to make substantive changes to level the playing field shows that once again politics trumps the needs of our military."

More enthusiastic about yesterday’s decision, Senator Maria Cantwell (D-Wash.) said on Monday: “Today's announcement by Northrop Grumman is a significant development in what has been a long effort to get a new and much needed air refueling tanker to our military. Secretary of Defense Gates has personally assured me that he is going to move ahead with this bidding process regardless of the number of bidders. It appears that as a result of Northrop's decision not to bid on the tanker and not to protest the Pentagon's request for proposal (RFP), that Washington will be the beneficiary of more than 12,000 jobs, with over 50,000 jobs associated with this contract nationwide.

She is supported by Washington Senator Patty Murray (D), stating: “Washington workers deserve this opportunity. They have delivered a combat ready tanker before and they're ready to do it again. But today's news is by no means the end of the line, and this contract is no slam dunk. It's important to remember that the American people are the customers, and that we drive a hard bargain.”

Despite the assessment by defence analyst Lauren Thompson of the Lexington Institute saying she doesn’t believe “that the Pentagon has a plan for what they're going to do now, because their whole solicitation was based on the assumption of competition,” the Air Force will have to go on with its procurement programme somehow. According to a Seattle-based online news service, Democratic Representative Rick Larson warned that sole-source contracts “don't tend to be good deals for the taxpayers, as a general rule.” Thompson extended these warnings by saying that Boeing could get into trouble if it bids too high, but actually is likely to find the fixed-price provisions of the tanker request limit its profitability. “They could end up breaking even or losing money,” noted Thompson.

Le Figaro. - Northrop et EADS renoncent à répondre à l'appel d'offres pour les ravitailleurs de l'armée américaine…

Louis GALLOIS. - Nous n'y allons pas, car cet [Vous devez être inscrit et connecté pour voir ce lien].

Les spécifications s'adressent à un avion plus petit que l'Airbus A 330 sans prise en compte des capacités supérieures de ces derniers.
Je le regrette, car nous avons le meilleur avion, qui a gagné toutes les compétitions dans le monde, notamment en
Grande-Bretagne et en Australie, face à Boeing.

Il était inutile de déposer un recours. Je ne suis pas sûr que le contribuable américain fera une bonne affaire ; quant à l'armée américaine, elle aura un avion moins moderne, moins capable que la Grande-Bretagne, l'Australie, l'Arabie saoudite ou les Émirats arabes unis.

Bâtirez-vous une usine en Alabama ?

Le site de Mobile en Alabama devait assembler les ravitailleurs. Dès lors, ce projet d'assemblage dans le sud des États-Unis n'est plus d'actualité. Cette décision ne remet pas en cause notre intérêt global pour le marché américain.
Nous devons nous y développer.

Dans quels métiers voulez-vous vous développer aux États-Unis ?

Pour le moment, nous regardons plutôt des acquisitions de taille moyenne, notamment aux États-Unis, mais pas exclusivement.
Quant aux métiers, au-delà de la défense, nous portons un intérêt particulier aux services et à la sécurité.

Mais tout est affaire d'opportunité.

Il est "légitime" que l'Europe demande des explications aux Etats-Unis après le retrait d'EADS de l'appel d'offres sur le contrat des avions ravitailleurs, a estimé jeudi son président exécutif Louis Gallois, tout en jugeant "improbable" un retour de son groupe dans la course.

2010 AFP

Avions ravitailleurs: Gates promet d'âpres négociations avec Boeing

SUR UNE BASE AMERICAINE DE L'ASIE DU SUD-OUEST - Le secrétaire américain à la Défense Robert Gates a affirmé jeudi que le Pentagone allait mener d'âpres négociations avec Boeing sur le contrat d'avions ravitailleurs après le retrait de son concurrent européen EADS.
"J'aurais souhaité avoir une compétition et que les deux compagnies soient restées" en lice pour le contrat, a déclaré à la presse le chef du Pentagone.
"Nous allons certainement tailler nos crayons pour négocier le contrat avec Boeing", a-t-il ajouté, disant que le retrait d'EADS et de son allié américain Northrop Grumman ne devait pas retarder davantage "un programme attendu depuis longtemps pour remplacer la flotte vieillissante d'avions ravitailleurs".
M. Gates a fait cette déclaration dans une base américaine de l'Asie du sud-ouest alors qu'il faisait route pour Abou Dhabi.
Airbus, filiale d'EADS, a dû renoncer à participer à un appel d'offres pour un méga-contrat d'avions ravitailleurs pour l'armée de l'air américaine après le retrait lundi de son allié américain Northrop Grumman. Ce retrait laisse l'Américain Boeing seul en course pour ce contrat.
Les Européens accusent Washington de protectionnisme. "Manifestement la pression politique a été telle qu'on a fait un appel d'offres sur mesure pour Boeing", a dénoncé mercredi le ministre allemand de l'Economie Rainer Brüderle.
La fourniture de 179 avions ravitailleurs à l'armée américaine est un contrat évalué à 35 milliards de dollars, qui pèserait lourd dans la balance commerciale entre l'UE et les Etats-Unis pour ce qui est de la défense.
Ce contrat avait été attribué une première fois à Boeing en 2003, puis une deuxième fois à Airbus et Northrop Grumman en 2008 et à chaque fois annulé.

Le porte-parole de l'UMP Frédéric Lefebvre a estimé jeudi que la France et l'Allemagne pourraient "demander des explications aux ambassadeurs" américains, après le retrait d'EADS de l'appel d'offres pour la fourniture d'avions ravitailleurs au Pentagone.

2010 AFP

On whether the terms of the new tanker request for proposals amounted to protectionism by the USA, and whether he thought Europe should retaliate, he said:

"I am not a politician. I am a businessman. We will not compete because the RFP is based on a smaller, less capable airplane. This is giving a huge advantage to the 767. That is a fact.

FERGUSON a écrit:Je viens de lire les réactions des "lecteurs" sur le blog du Seattle P.I.

[Vous devez être inscrit et connecté pour voir ce lien]

J'ai honte devant un tel niveau de c...rie. Et c'est moi, un des US du forum qui lit ça !

Pentagon may extend tanker deadline to allow EADS bid

The Pentagon may extend the deadline for bidding on the Air Force's aerial refueling [Vous devez être inscrit et connecté pour voir ce lien] contract to allow EADS to potentially enter the competition alone, Reuters [Vous devez être inscrit et connecté pour voir ce lien] Friday, quoting an unnamed "source familiar with Pentagon thinking."
Defense analyst Loren Thompson, chief operating officer of the non-profit Lexington Institute, said Friday that "there are rumors that something might pop this weekend" in terms of extending the deadline.
"But," he added, "if the Pentagon were to change the schedule or the rules in order to accommodate a new team at this late date it will get its head handed to it by the U.S. Congress."
An unnamed congressional aide [Vous devez être inscrit et connecté pour voir ce lien] Air Force Times: "We're hearing that EADS has approached DoD and asked for an extension to the tanker bid submittal deadline."
Asked about potentially extending the deadline during a Friday news conference, Pentagon acquisitions chief Ashton Carter said, according to the [Vous devez être inscrit et connecté pour voir ce lien]: "We don't have an indication of any additional bidders for the tanker. We're happy to have competition. We've said that right along, that we welcome competition in the tanker solicitation."
When a questioner followed up by asking again if the Pentagon would extend the deadline, Carter ended the news conference.
EADS was teamed with Northrop Grumman in the competition. But Northrop [Vous devez être inscrit et connecté pour voir ce lien] Monday that it would not bid on the contract because it felt the request favored Boeing's smaller 767-based tanker over their Airbus A330-based offering.
On Thursday, Aviation Week [Vous devez être inscrit et connecté pour voir ce lien] EADS North America Chief Executive Sean O'Keefe saying the company's systems integration, program management and government compliance abilities were not mature enough to go it alone on the tanker contract.
In any case, EADS wouldn't stand any better chance of winning the contract alone than it did teamed with Northrop, Thompson said.
EADS may have more interest in offering a cut-rate tanker price than Northrop did, because it planned to use the tanker to support opening a new U.S. assembly plant that also could produce commercial airliners.
"I think it would really be foolhardy for EADS to offer an alternative to the Boeing plane based on a cut-rate price," Thompson said. "We just had a World Trade Organization finding on Airbus [Vous devez être inscrit et connecté pour voir ce lien], and it said $5 billion dollars of the money used to develop the A330 was improper subsidies. ...
"I can't imagine the EADS people would be naive enough to believe they could actually pitch a subsidized European aircraft without an American partner against the smaller Boeing plane. It would be a case study in corporate delusion."
One theoretical possibility is that EADS could team up with another U.S. partner. While EADS North America officials declined to comment to Air Force Times, Raytheon replied to questions about it possibly teaming up with EADS by saying: "We have the technology and capabilities to support the tanker program in a number of ways, but we have to refer [inquiries on the matter] to EADS."
Pentagon officials have repeatedly said they prefer to have a competition for the tanker contract. In releasing the final tanker request last month, they [Vous devez être inscrit et connecté pour voir ce lien] they had a plan to get a good price from Boeing should it be the only bidder, but they were not prepared to give details.

Carter still would elaborate on the plan Friday, saying: "We will tell you as we proceed with the tanker solicitation, but that's not -- I don't have anything new for you today."
European government officials have reacted angrily to the tanker request and Northrop's pullout, accusing the U.S. government of protectionism and threatening unspecified consequences (more [Vous devez être inscrit et connecté pour voir ce lien] and [Vous devez être inscrit et connecté pour voir ce lien]).
Responding to a question about the European reaction Friday, Carter said: "(W)e value the contribution of European industry to the choices we can make as a department. We welcome that. There is no protectionism going on."
Could delaying the deadline be an effort to mollify the Europeans?
"(Defense) Secretary (Robert) Gates said they were going to stick with the plan whether Northrop was going to bid or not," Thompson noted. "Delaying would not be sticking with the plan. In fact, it would be changing the rules before they even got to the competition."
Asked about the tanker competition on Tuesday, Boeing Commercial Airplanes Chief Executive Jim Albaugh [Vous devez être inscrit et connecté pour voir ce lien]: "It's the longest running soap opera since Days of our Lives. I'm not sure we've seen the last episode."

Un haut responsable du Pentagone a rejeté aujorud'hui les accusations européennes de protectionnisme dans l'affaire du méga-contrat des avions ravitailleurs, pour lequel Airbus a renoncé à concourir face à son rival américain [Vous devez être inscrit et connecté pour voir ce lien].

"Il n'y a pas de protectionnisme" dans ce dossier, a affirmé le sous-secrétaire américain à la Défense chargé des acquisitions, Ashton Carter, lors d'une conférence de presse.
Il a assuré que le Pentagone était "en faveur" de la participation de l'industrie européenne de défense aux appels d'offres américains.

Ces propos interviennent alors que [Vous devez être inscrit et connecté pour voir ce lien] la manière dont a été géré cet appel
d'offres par le Pentagone, en estimant que ce n'était "pas des méthodes".

Le ministre allemand de l'Economie Rainer Brüderle avait quant à lui jugé mercredi que "manifestement la pression politique a été telle qu'on a fait un appel d'offres sur mesure pour Boeing".

Un haut responsable du Pentagone a rejeté vendredi les accusations européennes de protectionnisme dans l'affaire du méga-contrat des avions ravitailleurs, pour lequel Airbus a renoncé à concourir face à son rival américain Boeing, désormais seul en lice.

2010 AFP

Des élus contre une extension de l'appel d'offres

Trois parlementaires américains du Kansas ont rejeté vendredi par avance une éventuelle prolongation de l'appel d'offres concernant les avions ravitailleurs de l'armée de l'air américaine.
Les sénateurs Sam Brownback et Pat Roberts et le représentant Todd Tiahrt, tous élus républicains du Kansas, où Boeing dispose d'une importante usine, ont publié un communiqué qualifiant un éventuel report de la date limite de l'appel d'offres de "totalement inacceptable".
Northrop Gruman et EADS ont annoncé lundi renoncer au second appel d'offres concernant le remplacement de la flotte d'avions ravitailleurs de l'US Air Force, estimant que les termes du cahier des changes favorisaient le 767 proposé par Boeing sur l'appareil présenté par EADS, un dérivé de l'Airbus A330.
EADS a exclu de concourir seul même si certains responsables ont suggéré que l'avionneur européen n'avait pas encore pris de décisions définitive au cas où le Pentagone réviserait le calendrier.
Vendredi, on a indiqué de source proche du Pentagone, que certains responsables étudiaient la possibilité de reporter la date limite pour permettre à EADS d'éventuellement présenter une offre sans Northrop.
Selon les trois élus du Kansas, si EADS ne peut pas répondre dans les délais impartis, le Pentagone doit attribuer l'appel d'offres à "une société américaine", c'est-à-dire à Boeing.

Le constructeur aéronautique européen EADS n'a pas reçu d'information sur une éventuelle réouverture de l'appel d'offres sur des avions ravitailleurs de l'armée américaine auquel il a renoncé la semaine dernière, a indiqué lundi le directeur de la division Airbus military.

2010 AFP

SEVRIEN a écrit:Ce genre de tentative de rafistolage des appels d'offres, qui ont capoté, est totalement non conforme aux principes, règles et modalités de la préparation, gestion et évaluation des appels d'offres internationaux !

En terme de "best practice" / "Corporate Gouvernance", ... tout cela est 'nul', ...... et 'nul & non avenu' !

Il ne fut pas que NG-EADS ou un autre entre dans ce jeu d'un "re-run" !

Selon les règles en vigueur, certes bafouées par le Pentagone (les USA), il y a obligation de tout recommencer à zéro !