http://www.nasawatch.com/

The in-line versus side-mount issue Keith mentions refers to B-team substitutes for the ATK launchers, in particular the Lock-Mart's Atlas derivatives with solid strap ons. Whether Boeing is looking at strap ons for Delta (to speed ascent out of the plume) is unknown, but clearly ATK is curently winning whatever happens. That is ATK wins unless the environmental effects of solids turn out to be devastating. Any recent news on the ozone holes?

Since Mazanek broke up his payloads to be used with the HPM (which appears to be equivalent to the EDS, but more useful for manned Mars flight) any of these architectures could win. It may come down to whether there will be three launch manufacturers or two. Simply on the jobs issue, I expect three to be kept in business by the Congress, one way or another - I wouldn't want to have to choose two, but it may come down to that, depending on how the logs are rolled. I don't have any idea as to how the DoD and commercial aspects of this are working out. You can be sure that everyone is hard at work. Perhaps some journalist (AvWeek?) will be presenting all of the architectures side by side, with plenty of pretty pictures, or perhaps the story may hit at space.com or spacer.com.

Realistically, I don't expect the architecture alternatives to be reported to Congress until the end of September. The use of MLLVs and a lunar orbit fueling station and separately launched transfer stages looks dead irght now but that could change in a heartbeat.

I have no idea what fuels the ATK lunar transfer stage.