The Air Force has two months to develop a new plan for its top acquisition priority: the purchase of 179 aerial refueling tankers. And there’s no shortage of options.

One would be to quickly call for new bids and correct the fouled-up calculations and procedures that led to the Government Accountability Office’s rebuke of the Air Force’s choice of Northrop Grumman-European Aeronautic Defence and Space Co.’s KC-45 tanker over Boeing Co.’s KC-767.

Other options under discussion would be a fly-off competition between the KC-45 and KC-767 or even a split buy, in which the service would purchase some of each tanker.

And there’s the possibility, remote though it may be, of legal action.

The fly-off option, which departing Air Force Secretary Michael Wynne discussed with the Reuters news service at his retirement ceremony, and the split buy are costly prospects. The fly-off would require the two companies to build planes through the prototype stage, and under the split buy, the Defense Department would have to fund two production lines.

Boeing protested the Air Force’s decision to award the contract, worth up to $35 billion, to Northrop Grumman. And last Wednesday, GAO upheld Boeing’s protest and gave the Air Force 60 days to consider its recommendations for recasting the competition.

Supporters of Northrop are pushing for a speedy reconsideration by the Air Force — and trying to ensure that members of Congress don’t step in to steer the process toward Boeing.

The company is stressing that it hasn’t lost anything yet.

“Any significant delay only punishes the men and women who are forced to fly an aging fleet,” said Paul Meyer, vice president of air mobility systems and KC-45 program manager at Northrop Grumman. 

Sen. John Warner (R-Va.), who has backed Northrop in the competition, stressed speed in following up on GAO’s ruling. But he added the possibility of more uncertainty ahead, suggesting the Air Force’s decision “could be followed by action taken in the U.S. Court of Federal Claims, a U.S. district court or a settlement between the two contractors.”

Rep. Jo Bonner (R-Ala.), who represents the Mobile district where Northrop plans to produce the planes, said Northrop would still be the favorite in a competition that takes GAO’s concerns into account.

“It’s hard to imagine, after panning the 767 and saying why, in many areas, the [Northrop] A330 was better for the future, how they could turn around and reverse the contract,” Bonner said.

Given that GAO considered 75 complaints and upheld seven, Bonner believed Northrop’s chances in a new competition were good.

“The way I look at the scoreboard, on Tuesday it was 1-0, Northrop. We were hoping it would be 2-0, game over,” Bonner said. “Instead, it looks like a tie right now.”

Citizens Against Government Waste, a group that defended the initial award to Northrop, and other observers see GAO’s initial statement as unusually harsh.

“It appears that certain information was provided to Northrop and not to Boeing. That’s more of a people issue,” said the group’s president, Tom Schatz.

Jim McAleese, a principal of McAleese and Associates who has looked at many GAO bid protests, said GAO’s ruling last week seemed to be worded as if the office feared the Air Force wouldn’t implement its recommendations.

That wouldn’t be out of line, he said, given recent history between GAO and the Air Force. In a competition for search and rescue helicopters, GAO took issue with elements of some portions of the competition. After follow-on protests, GAO finally directed the Air Force to pursue a new competition, which is due to be finished this fall.

In any case, the standard of proof for Boeing remains high, McAleese said. The Air Force said it chose Northrop’s plane because it provided far more capability than the Air Force called for.

Now, Boeing will have to prove its tanker provides more technical capability at a significantly lower cost than that of Northrop.

A Boeing win in a new competition would eliminate the need for Congress to step in and declare a winner, a possibility mentioned often in the run-up to GAO’s ruling.

Late last week, one of the company’s biggest congressional supporters, Rep. Norm Dicks (D-Wash.), said he believes Boeing will be able to win outright. The reason?

The skyrocketing cost of fuel. According to Dicks, flying a large plane, such as the one offered by Northrop, will burn more fuel than a medium-sized tanker such as that of Boeing.

Boeing contracted with a company to investigate the matter and has calculated a fuel savings of $25 billion to $35 billion over the life of the program, Dicks said.

GAO did not cite fuel costs in its ruling, but Dicks said he hopes fuel costs are included in a larger, 69-page ruling that has yet to be released because of proprietary information.

“I’m going to do everything I can to educate the Air Force and the Defense Department about these issues,” Dicks vowed.