Billions Later, Plan to Remake the Coast Guard Fleet Stumbles

kach22i · kach22i's Garage

Billions Later, Plan to Remake the Coast Guard Fleet Stumbles

Link to article - long:
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/12/09/us/09ship.html?_r=1&oref=slogin

If you can't read it there it's been posted in this boat forum:
http://www.boatdesign.net/forums/showthread.php?t=15038

So much for progress, hey?

Seahawk · 12-12-2006, 04:29 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by kach22i
Billions Later, Plan to Remake the Coast Guard Fleet Stumbles

Link to article - long:
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/12/09/us/09ship.html?_r=1&oref=slogin

If you can't read it there it's been posted in this boat forum:
http://www.boatdesign.net/forums/showthread.php?t=15038

So much for progress, hey?

It is debacle...and no BS about Pentagon waste: The CG belongs to the Dept. of Transportation and awarded a contract to Lockheed Martin for all prime systems intergration, against the recommendation of the DoD.

LM f'd this up like it had a franchise on f'd up.

m21sniper · 12-12-2006, 04:59 PM

I think the Coast Guard belongs to Homeland Security now Seahawk. They did used to be under DoT though.

jyl · jyl's Garage

For those of you who know about these things, what happens when a large government contract is botched like this?

Do some high-ranking military officers lose their jobs? Do some contractors get fined $100s of millions? Does anyone pay for their incompetence?

74-911 · 12-12-2006, 06:41 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by jyl
For those of you who know about these things, what happens when a large government contract is botched like this?

Do some high-ranking military officers lose their jobs? Do some contractors get fined $100s of millions? Does anyone pay for their incompetence?

Officers lose jobs? - no
contractors get fined - no
anyone pay? - yes, we taxpayers pay for their incompetence.

VaSteve · 12-12-2006, 07:21 PM

I worked on that project in 2001 - 2002. It was the USCG's largest procurement ever and one of the gov't's biggest as well. It was supposed to be a revolutionary procurment program, but ended up becoming more of a run of the mill procurement as time went on.

We laughed that we could sit around in 40 years as they finished the project and Deepwater II assets started coming on board.

One of the biggest problems was the operating model for the equipment...it was all devised in a pre-9/11 world. When 9/11 hit we were still in the eval phase. Once the ink was dry they wanted to accellerate the procurement.

I don't need to read the articles since I know what they say. They wanted to take a 110' cutter, cut off the tail and weld on 13' to make a 123' cutter. Without doing much else, the ship was supposed to have the same operating profile as a brand new ship.

It's a real shame...the CG does a lot of good stuff. I worked with DoD before and I found the CG foolks to be very down to earth good people.

I don't know that it hurts LM much, they run most of it through a joint venture called ICGS. It really was interesting work and I got a nice mug and shirt out of the deal.

Seahawk · 12-12-2006, 07:36 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by 74-911
Officers lose jobs? - no
contractors get fined - no
anyone pay? - yes, we taxpayers pay for their incompetence.

Sniper is right...too many reorgs for me to recount.

But, yes, the military will get fired. LM will obfuscate and the tax payers will get drilled.

The key is as VaSteve mentioned...the rank and file CG folks are the absolute finest kind. They will save your ass even when you don't deserve it, often at grave peril to themselves.

That is why I can't stand the Deep Water stupidity. They were trusting and got fleeced.

kach22i · kach22i's Garage

Just to make sure you read the article, it's not just the design failures of one ship design in the program, it's the program it's self which is flawed.

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/12/09/us/09ship.html?_r=2&oref=slogin&oref=slogin

Quote:

Even some of the smaller Deepwater projects raise questions about management. The radios placed in small, open boats were not waterproof and immediately shorted out, for example. Electronics equipment costing millions of dollars is still being installed in the new cutter, even though it will be ripped out because the Coast Guard does not want it

If I had the time, I'd read the pdf called; Inspector General Report on Deepwater and some of the other items to the far left in the page in the link above.

The Deepwater program’s few Congressional skeptics were outmatched by lawmakers who became enthusiastic supporters, mobilized by an aggressive lobbying campaign financed by Lockheed and Northrop.

Something fishy is going on.

Seahawk · 12-13-2006, 05:14 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by kach22i
Just to make sure you read the article, it's not just the design failures of one ship design in the program, it's the program it's self which is flawed.

I unfortunately know this program well...the Coast Guard, a group I admire, was in over their head.

kach22i · kach22i's Garage

Quote:

Originally posted by Seahawk
I unfortunately know this program well...the Coast Guard, a group I admire, was in over their head.

Were all the decisions about this program made by Congress via funding, or does the CG share responsiblity too?

Who was at the helm?

74-911 · 12-13-2006, 05:31 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Seahawk

But, yes, the military will get fired. LM will obfuscate and the tax payers will get drilled.

The key is as VaSteve mentioned...the rank and file CG folks are the absolute finest kind. They will save your ass even when you don't deserve it, often at grave peril to themselves.

Perhaps things have changed since I was in the military (1968-72) but when someone was fired in those days, they were just shunted off to a dead end job and would probably never get promoted again. They were not fired as in becoming unemployed.

Agree 100% on the coasties being the finest. I see their boats and helicopters daily and they regularly pull dumba$$ people out of the gulf.

Seahawk · 12-13-2006, 05:44 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by kach22i
Were all the decisions about this program made by Congress via funding, or does the CG share responsiblity too?

Who was at the helm?

Federal Acquisition Regulations (FAR) govern all programs in the Federal Government. A program of this size and scope will get the highest oversight rating, call an Acquisition Catagory or ACAT. In this case an ACAT ID...which means Congressional oversight.
I manage two seperate programs with like ACAT ratings. While congress funds the program, I am responsible for cost, schedule and performance.
Congress gets insight into programs via management reviews.
The CG gave a lot of the responsibility for cost, schedule and performance to LM via a contract term called, "Prime System Integration" responsibility. Hugh mistake. I never issue these types of contracts.

Who was at the helm? No one IMHO.

cashflyer · 05:52 AM

I first saw this on Monday in my DID update. I honestly didn't read through it then because it is not directly related to my business, bu after seeing it mentioned here I decided to glance over it.

Here is the DID article: http://tinyurl.com/y45lcd

I guess that's what happens when predominantly "aviation" companies try to build boats.

As to what will happen... well, there will be a congressional inquiry looking for scapegoats. Either a) somebody will be paraded out as being "at-fault", or b) the snafu will quietly fade away into obscurity. With players this big, it depends solely on how much noise the media makes about it - and not at all about who is really to blame.

Quote:

"One contracting official told the inspector general that the Coast Guard, because of personnel shortages, struggles to review documents within the 30 days the contractors allow. By the time it reviews the documents, the companies may have moved ahead with their plans, leaving the agency to accept the work or try to change it at additional cost, the report said."

This is why the CG gets stuck with a lot of junk they either don't need, or don't want. And though it seems dirty, it is within the regulations to use (and abuse) that 30 day review window.

Quote:

Admiral Thad W. Allen, CG Commandant
Our people are demoralized by it, they don't deserve it, and it really impedes our ability to execute our mission....

Here is an older article from September which gives some extra background: http://tinyurl.com/ydnmfe

cashflyer · 12-13-2006, 05:55 AM

Oh, and here are the original videos from the Lockheed engineer who first came forward about the problems.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qd3VV8Za04g

john70t · 12-13-2006, 05:55 AM

The captain used to go down with the ship.

Seahawk · 12-13-2006, 05:55 AM

Great link.

The CG is now becoming interested in two of my Unmanned Air Vehicles, which is why I have been involved with Deep Water.

fingpilot · 12-13-2006, 07:37 AM

Seahawk... I was involved with Outrider and GlobalHawk for a while. Are you in the microUAV's?

Kach22i... You and I seldom agree on stuff, but this one you are spot on. The people that guard our shores and ports have been left on the beach, high and dry. Worse than that, their lives are endagered because of this massive failure.

So now what, do we start over, do we refit something in inventory, or buy elsewhere?

Seahawk · 12-13-2006, 08:45 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by fingpilot
Seahawk... I was involved with Outrider and GlobalHawk for a while. Are you in the microUAV's?

Fing,

We are doing some development with DARPA on the micros. My Program Office website is below. The list of UAV's we're working on is along the left side.

PMA-263

m21sniper · 12-13-2006, 08:52 AM

Compared to the MV-22 Osprey, "Deepwater" is a model program.

VaSteve · 12-13-2006, 02:22 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by kach22i
Just to make sure you read the article, it's not just the design failures of one ship design in the program, it's the program it's self which is flawed.

The Deepwater program’s few Congressional skeptics were outmatched by lawmakers who became enthusiastic supporters, mobilized by an aggressive lobbying campaign financed by Lockheed and Northrop.

Something fishy is going on.

I don't know how much I'm allowed to saw about the whole thing because I was one of the evaluators....it would be my own opinion anyway....but I'll keep quiet (nothing scandalous, so don't get excited).

Yes, the program had some great ideas with some pretty poor execution I guess it would seem. I think that everyone I knew involved was probably on the level and really wanted to do something new and good. The USCG has the need for the stuff, they are running some old Navy ships and I think a seized German ship fom WWII (but that might be retired).

The companies that bid, built proposals that had work spread out to so many states, smaller firms, etc. We had a nice map that showed all of the locations something would be done for Deepwater.

Maybe I'm silly, but I still think the concept is a good idea.....all your stuff works together and talks to each other. it probably should have been done on a smaller scale to make sure it worked.