The General Accountability Office gave seven reasons on Wednesday for sustaining the Boeing Co.’s protest over a $35 billion contract to build new refueling tankers for the Air Force.

Not one of them had anything to do with the involvement of a foreign contractor. Not one of them had anything to do with how many jobs would be created in this or any other state. Not one of them had anything to do with government subsidies provided to the European consortium that makes Airbus.

Instead, the federal watchdog agency faulted the Air Force for the way it evaluated the proposals from Boeing and Northrop Grumman Systems Corp. (in partnership with European Aeronautic Defence and Space Co.). The bid award resulted from such flaws as bad calculations and failure to comply strictly with its own solicitation for bids, according to the GAO.

But the federal watchdog agency pointedly did not say the contract should have gone to Boeing. Nor did it make any judgments about the relative merits of the two competitors. It said the competition was close and eliminating the evaluation errors “could have” affected the decision. Therefore, do it over.

If the senators and representatives from Washington, Kansas and Missouri – all states with Boeing payrolls – read that part of the GAO announcement, it was hard to tell from the spirit of vindication at their jubilant press conference. They couched their comments mostly in terms of issues the GAO didn’t mention: American manufacturing (without mentioning that Boeing relies on foreign subcontractors) and American jobs.

Those objectives are desirable, and Washingtonians rightly want to see a contract that would produce some 9,000 jobs in this state go to Boeing, just as Alabamans wanted it to go to Northrop Grumman. But all Americans should want such decisions based on what will produce the best airplane for the Air Force and the wisest expenditure of taxpayers’ funds.

As the statement from the Office of the Comptroller General made clear, it is the GAO’s job to assess the process, but the Air Force’s job to determine its needs and select the best proposal. The GAO thus called on the Air Force to reopen its discussions with the contractors and be more diligent this time. If the Air Force bungled the process the first time around, it is essential to do it over. Washingtonians can hope that revisiting the process will produce a better outcome for Boeing – but only if it’s based on merit rather than political pressures.