Ford, General Motors, Boeing, McDonalds, Starbucks, Microsoft, Intel, IBM, Apple, AOL Time Warner, Exxon Mobil, Kodak, Pfizer, GlaxoSmithKline, Hilton... all American companies that market and sell their products all over the world on a massive scale. If everyone was trying to keep American companies and products out how is it these brands have become instantly recognised around the globe?Now name me the same number of non-American companies that have such a market presence in America, or indeed the world.

I might be asking for trouble posting on this Thread,....Toyota, Daimler-Benz, Target, British Petroleum, Honda, Airbus, BMW,BASF (we dont make we make better),Siemens, Asus,hapag-loyyd, cannon, Richoh, Minolta,HSBC, just a few of fthe top ..... :( :(

I might be asking for trouble posting on this Thread,....Toyota, Daimler-Benz, Target, British Petroleum, Honda, Airbus, BMW,BASF (we dont make we make better),Siemens, Asus,hapag-loyyd, cannon, Richoh, Minolta,HSBC, just a few of fthe top ..... :( :(

:( Not trouble, no. I had to stop and think very hard about that list of companies; in all cases they have something better to offer than any compatible American company, otherwise they wouldn't have gotten the foothold there in the first place. Well, maybe not BP. @Michal

What good is a competition if requirements can be changed at a whim?

What good is a competition if the requirements are slanted firmly in favour of one vendor before the competition starts? If you have only two vendors then the second one isn't going to waste time and money competing. If they can help it, of course - L-1011/DC-10 comes to mind. Lockheed got well and truly shafted by AA over that competition - the winner was decided before the first tender hit the table. It would have been something very similar here if the requirements hadn't been changed to 'present a level palying field' (Yeugh. I hate that expression).Oh - and 'changing requirements on whim' is a typical and much-employed tactic on the part of a buyer, especially if it will drive down costs. More often than not, it drives them up but I know of one example personally where an American company employed the tactic to such good use that they destroyed a British shipyard and sailed off with $800million worth of ships for less than $200million. In that case the buyer viciously exploited a loophole in the contract over the space of two years and there was nothing the shipyard could do about it because they'd signed the contract and missed the loophole. (Hearsay coming up) - apparently this was the second time they had exploited the same tactic but the first victim was a South Korean shipyard - I was not able to run that one down to its end even though my informant was the contracts manager of the British shipyard. You didn't want to be at the meeting where we were told why so many workers were being laid off. Given the opportunity, I suspect both oilships would have been blown up and sunk.-Dai

What good is a competition if the requirements are slanted firmly in favour of one vendor before the competition starts?

Just for argument's sake what if these happen to be true requirements? Am I supposed to change requirements only to allow for competition?

"in all cases they have something better to offer than any compatible American company, otherwise they wouldn't have gotten the foothold there in the first place"You were doing ok until this sentence. That's trying too hard. A good troll is more subtle. I applaud the effort though. :(

"an American company employed the tactic to such good use that they destroyed a British shipyard and sailed off with $800million worth of ships for less than $200million"OK, at least now I know where you're coming from. I knew there had to be a reason you were going the extra mile in this thread! :(

A good troll is more subtle. I applaud the effort though. cool.gif

I knew there had to be a reason you were going the extra mile in this thread! :(

That's more than I did.... perhaps it was a mistake to back up an assertion with a factual illustration that included my country of domicile. It's just one that I knew about because I happened to be there on contract at the time. I'll leave this thread to you though, as in the past I have absolutely refused to get caught up in a round of flamewars and name-calling and I do not intend to change that stance now. Good luck to you and yours; I wish you all the best for your future.Michal: I apologise for not countering your argument but... see above.-Dai

As someone who has actually done military source selection, I see this contract as a real mine field. One thing is that since the prospective bidders are known, it becomes possible to steer the source selection towards one or the other. Since there is not a justification for a sole-source procurement, the solicitation is subject to "full and open" competition, the exact meaning of this in any specific procurement being a matter of opinion. The contract is planned to be FPI (fixed price incentive) with a series of CLINs (contract line items) providing 4 EDM (engineering development models) and then options for two lots of LRIP (low rate initial production) aircraft and 5 FRP (full rate production) lots.Included is a data package for a simulator.The draft solicitation is available from www.fbo.gov as FA8625-10-R-6600 25 Sep 09. Of interest to the casual reader might be the basic solicitation, section J Attachment 1 which is the SRD (system requirements document) , Section L 047 836 Information to Offerors (explains what offerors have to provide in their bids), and Section M 001 836 Solicitation Provisions (explains how the USAF will evaluate and "score" the bids to determine the "winner").Though you may need to be a contracting geek to appreciate all this. As far as what is the best deal for USAF, I haven't a clue. I do like it if the aircraft has some seats for retired space-a pax like myself though (the KC-10 is very nice in this regard).scott s.a Contracting Officer's Technical Representative in a prior life

I wish it true that they've set up some kind of rules for this procurement but the fact is the military isn't going to get any tankers unless they buy them from Boeing. Given the latest news from the WTO of illegal subsidies against EADS and the EU the politicians just have another Ace up their sleeves. Boeing could sure use the cash now that it doesn't have a 787 for at least another 2 years, and given the WTO nonsense it can literally charge whatever it wants. What I don't understand however is why the government would choose to go with the option that is not going to produce any new jobs versus the Lockheed deal which will produce thousands. At the end of the day this doesn't benefit Americans, just Boeing share holders.

Well, maybe not BP.

A very brief digression: the multi-million dollar efforts of British Petroleum to convince the gulible American public that "BP" really means "Beyond Petroleum" is rather laughable... :(

I guess that gone are the days where the government issues a contract for the design of an airplane, and then, runs separate bidding for the actual manufacture of the winning design! (i.e., the company that came up with the winning design, doesn't necessarily get the contract to build it...)

By some fluke I am currently in France - Lorient to be exact

I think France has or had a major shipyard in Lorient. But you know that already I'd bet. :) Lorient Naval Dockyard is what they used to call it if I recall correctly. Lorient and Toulon are two places I'd like to visit some time.

Hello,Sorry .. little OT .. just answering post above ...Lorient is today mainly a submarines base.This base was created by the Germans during WW2At today the french shipyards are crippled .. (Marseilles-Toulon-La Rochelle .. etc ..) and I think St Nazaire still the most active.Regards.Gus.

I guess that gone are the days where the government issues a contract for the design of an airplane, and then, runs separate bidding for the actual manufacture of the winning design! (i.e., the company that came up with the winning design, doesn't necessarily get the contract to build it...)

The problem you run up against is the software-intensive avionics. You either have to procure all the necessary technical rights in data, so you can supply it to the builder, or you have to procure the avionics separately, and supply it as government furnished equipment. That approach works a little better in shipbuilding, where I don't think the integration issues are quite as severe as in aircraft construction (that is what the US Navy announced they are going to do with the LCS procurement).scott s..