It seems as though another day or two will pass before the release of the public version of the GAO tanker Decision. We have been told by several sources that the Decision is either 67 or 69 pages long. (We suppose some are counting the cover or blank page or two.)
We have held off commenting extensively on the GAO statement regarding the bid protest decision until we get a chance to look at the report, even if major portions are reacted, but here are some areas we feel our readers should be aware of:
1) The GAO statement does not mention fuel usage differences and the Air Force's use of them in determining life cycle costs. This was a an issue Boeing's strenuously raised, so it will be interesting to see how the GAO ruled on that issue.
2) The GAO statement does not mention the Air Force's use as a discriminator of the KC-30 exceeding key performance parameter objects in medevac capacity, passenger carrying or cargo hauling. The GOA reason #2 only mentions aerial refueling.
3) The GAO statement seems to say that, contrary to the KC-30 team's many claims, the A330 tanker can not refuel the V-22. (See reason #3) If so, we would offer the numerous naysayers who hurled insults/false accusation against TWB for stating just this in March, to feel free to use the comments section to make your apology. If we turn out to be wrong on this, we will be sure to apologize to the KC-30 team.(Don't worry SMSGT MAC, we exempt you from having to admit any mistake ever.)
4) Lastly, in the GAO reason #7 for sustaining the protest, it mentions that the Air Force improperly increased Boeing's estimated non-recurring engineering costs. No mention was made of the recurring costs.
There are a number of other issues, such as the findings on the use/misuse of the IFARA and the CMARPS model, that we will be looking for but the above list is a good start.