Air Force tanker decision likely this week, official say
- Article
- Comments (0)
The U.S. Defense Department as early as Feb. 24 is likely to announce the winner of the $35 billion aerial tanker contest pitting Chicago-based Boeing Co. and European Aeronautic, Defence & Space Co., according to a government official and congressional aide.
A final decision on when to announce the winner will be made within the next day or so, said the official, who spoke on the condition that he not be identified.
Air Force officials today telephoned Representative Norm Dicks of Washington, the ranking Democrat on the House defense appropriations subcommittee, and other congressional defense panel members “to expect a notification late on Thursday afternoon,” said his spokesman, George Behan, in an e-mail.
Boeing and EADS, which has headquarters in Paris and Munich, are vying for a contract of about $35 billion to replace 179 of the Pentagon's fleet of more than 500 KC-135 tankers.
The U.S. military depends on in-flight refueling to extend the range of combat and transport planes.
The Air Force's nearly 10-year quest for a new tanker program cleared a major hurdle Feb. 17 when the Pentagon's inspector general said he won't conduct a full probe, as requested by several pro-Boeing senators, into the Air Force's accidental sharing of tanker bid data with Boeing and EADS.
Democratic Senators Maria Cantwell and Patty Murray of Washington state, where Boeing builds aircraft, and five other senators on Jan. 27 asked the inspector general to investigate the effect of the mistake on the contest.
The Air Force disclosed Nov. 19 that it mistakenly provided Boeing and EADS with “a limited amount” of data on each other's offers.
Inspector General Gordon Heddell wrote to the senators Feb. 17 that a preliminary review by his office determined the Air Force “fully complied” with federal and Pentagon regulations.
“We conclude that all relevant evidence was discovered through Air Force investigative work” and supported “the determination that the release was inadvertent, not purposeful and not in violation” of the federal Procurement Integrity Act, Heddell wrote.
