Project management evaluated twin and quad turbofan engine configurations, a quad propfan configuration, and a quad turboprop configuration, eventually settling on the turboprop option. Since no existing turboprop engine in the western world was powerful enough to reach the projected cruise speed of Mach 0.72, a new engine design was required. Originally, the SNECMA M138 turboprop (based on the M88 turbofan core) was selected, but this powerplant was found to be incapable of satisfying the requirements. During April 2002, Airbus Military issued a new request for proposal (RFP), which Pratt & Whitney Canada with the PW180 and Europrop International answered. In May 2003, Airbus Military selected the Europrop TP400-D6. United Technologies alleged that the selection was a result of political interference. A Europrop partner executive said on 16 April that Airbus was close to selecting the P&WC offer, claiming it was more than €400 million (USD$436.7 million) cheaper than Europrop's bid. Then as the original deadline for the engine decision passed, Airbus CEO Noel Forgeard said P&WC's bid was nearly 20 percent less expensive and declared that "As of today Pratt and Whitney is the winner without doubt, a much lower offer could make us change our minds." inviting Europrop to revise its offering, which it reportedly reduced in price by 10 or 20 percent. A later report described the revised bid as exceeding P&WC's bid by €120 million.