Oct. 7 Daily News editorial

The Pentagon reopened competition between Boeing Co. and Northrop Grumman Corp. for the $40 billion tanker contract this month, hoping the third time would be the charm. Right out of the gate that hope began to fade. Politicians and attorneys representing each of the two aircraft manufacturers immediately faced off, complaining that the process was tilted in their rival’s favor.

Members of Washington’s congressional delegation objected to the Pentagon’s decision not to consider the World Trade Organization’s recent ruling that European Union loans to Airbus, Northrop’s partner in the tanker bidding, amounted to illegal government subsidies. This subsidy, the delegation argued, threatened to give the Northrop team an unfair advantage, enabling it to underbid Boeing.

Northrop and its political supporters — mostly from Alabama, where the new tankers would be assembled — complained that the Pentagon had given Boeing an unfair advantage by sharing Northrop’s cost information from its previous bid. Paul Meyer, a Northrop vice president issued a statement saying, “It’s fundamentally unfair, and distorts any new competition, to provide such critical information to only one of the bidders.”

The Pentagon soldiered on in the face the two companies’ claims and counterclaims. Pentagon officials summarily dismissed Northrop’s complaint, calling the cost information from the previous bid outdated and of no competitive value to Boeing engineers. The Pentagon acknowledged Boeing’s complaint, saying it was aware of the World Trade Organization’s ruling on European government subsidies to Northrop’s partner. But Pentagon officials gave no indication they’d take the subsidies into consideration in awarding the contract.

One thing now seems certain, whichever company wins the contract — one of the largest military contracts in the nation’s history — there will be mighty effort by the losing company and its supporters to undo the result. And, given the complexity of the bidding process and the many influential interests affected by the outcome, that effort could well succeed.

The nation can ill-afford dragging this process for another several years. The need for these new tankers was somewhat urgent in 2004, when Boeing was awarded the contract. Scandal did in that initial deal, when news broke that a former Air Force official who helped negotiate the contract had been hired by Boeing. The second contract, awarded in 2008 went to Northrop and its European partner Airbus. Boeing complained of irregularities in the bidding process, and a Pentagon review upheld the complaint.

This third competition should be the charm. Would we like Boeing to win the contract and bring more jobs to the state? Absolutely. But most important is a successful outcome — one that gives the Air Force the best tanker at the lowest cost and allows construction of the new fleet to finally begin. Tankers in the existing fleet — Boeing-built KC-135s — are from 44 to 52 years old. The need for a new generation of tankers has become critical. Meeting that defense need trumps any regional economic interest.