“
The KC 46 has been an extremely problematical program. I speak with Leanne Caret, the CEO of the defense side of Boeing, on a regular basis about it,” Lord said. “One issue is frankly the technical solution. That was the original design [and] is now being redesigned, but also we have had a myriad of manufacturing issues with [foreign object debris] and other issues.”
However, she said the root cause of the problems is the fixed-price firm contract used for the KC-46 program, which makes Boeing financially responsible for any costs beyond the $4.9 billion ceiling. So far, Boeing has spent more than $4.7 billion in company funds on the KC-46 program — almost equivalent to the Air Force’s own investment in the program.
So basically, the head of acquisitions for DOD sees the KC-46 as a poorly designed solution to the tanker mission. Then turns around and says it’s the AF’s fault for using a fixed-price firm contract, since Boeing couldn’t soak the taxpayers for wildly underbidding the true cost.
This sounds like AF acquisitions didn’t know how to draw up a proper competition that measured what actually matters and Boeing assumed that when it became evident how much they had underestimated costs Congress would bail them out. The ineptitude and corporate laziness is mind boggling. A clean sheet design would have better met the mission needs and would have avoided the contract contortions that trying to buy an American COTS airframe resulted in.