Problems with US Coast Guard's "Deepwater" program

[MarkOttawa]

Coast Guard Failed to Properly Oversee Contracts, Officials Say
Washington Post, February 8, 2007
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/02/07/AR2007020702334.html

Even as contractors built patrol boats with buckling hulls and a large new cutter with structural flaws, a U.S. Coast Guard review gave their performance high marks last year, extended their deal for nearly four years and paid them a multimillion-dollar bonus, government investigators said.

Coast Guard analysts evaluated only boats, aircraft and equipment systems that had been delivered under its troubled $24 billion, 25-year fleet-replacement program, known as Deepwater, disregarding defective ships under development by companies led by Northrop Grumman and Lockheed Martin, Homeland Security Department Inspector General Richard L. Skinner said at a congressional hearing Tuesday...

Adm. Thad W. Allen, Coast Guard commandant, met with Lockheed and Northrop executives Jan. 19 to negotiate terms for the contract renewal and has reorganized the service's contracting staff to beef up and unify their authority.

Allen is seeking to set new performance guidelines, toughen rules that an outside entity certify boats and planes produced under Deepwater, and take a bigger role in determining the work done by subcontractors, Skinner said.

"He recognizes we, the Coast Guard, need to get a grip over these contractors," Skinner said.

Skinner's office reported on Jan. 29 that the Coast Guard's new, 418-foot National Security Cutter -- the largest ship the service has ever commissioned and the cornerstone of its new fleet -- suffers from design flaws that even when corrected will curtail its operating days by as much as 20 percent. The errors also helped nearly double the cost of the first two of eight planned vessels, from $517 million to about $1 billion, depending on negotiations and repairs ultimately required. None of the cutters has yet entered Coast Guard service.

The ship's "design and performance deficiencies are fundamentally the result of the Coast Guard's failure to exercise technical oversight over the design and construction of its Deepwater assets," the report said.

In December, the Coast Guard also docked eight 123-foot cutters retrofitted under the program and based in Key West, Fla., after determining they were not seaworthy. That came after the Coast Guard had spent nearly $100 million...

More on the "National Security Cutter":
http://www.navytimes.com/news/2007/01/gnscgflaws070131/
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/01/26/AR2007012601901.html

Mark
Ottawa

 

[MarkOttawa]

Coast Guard Cancels Contract for Vessel
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/03/15/us/15coast.html?_r=1&th&emc=th&oref=slogin

The Coast Guard said Wednesday that it was canceling a contract with two military contractors to develop a vessel for a wide range of missions in the post-9/11 world and would instead have the Coast Guard’s own acquisition branch handle the project.

The deal that the Coast Guard pulled out of Wednesday, involving a joint venture of Lockheed Martin and Northrop Grumman, is to develop a 120- to 160-foot “fast-response cutter,” which is to be armed with .50-caliber machine guns, travel at 28 knots or more and be suitable for tasks ranging from patrols of fishing lanes to military operations.

Development of the cutter is part of the service’s $24 billion, 25-year modernization program, which is replacing or rebuilding most of the Coast Guard’s vessels, airplanes and helicopters. The program, called Deepwater, has already been hit with cost overruns and construction problems that have embarrassed the Coast Guard and stoked criticism from legislators.

Adm. Thad Allen, the Coast Guard commandant, said the decision to end the joint-venture contract was made to “achieve the best value for taxpayers and the government” and provide the Coast Guard with the best possible equipment...

Mark
Ottawa

 

[Sherwood4459]

Can't the Coast Guard join Navy and buy some of the LCS's?  Why do they need their own design?  Are the needs that different? One of the things they say about the LCS is it will be config'ed with mission packages.  Can't they have a mission package geared for the CG?

 

[Ex-Dragoon]

From what I have seen of the LCS the design does not seem to be too condusive to be a rescue vessel, pollution control tender or a bouy tender...

 

[Sherwood4459]

From what I have seen of the LCS the design does not seem to be too condusive to be a rescue vessel, pollution control tender or a bouy tender...

Why Not -- Could you be more specific.  I admit that I’m no expert,  so I don’t see that much different between a small frigate size vessel with a big landing deck and a CG “cutter”.  Are you saying that the LCS is lacking something or that it is overkill for a cutter?

 

[Blackadder1916]

Why Not -- Could you be more specific.   I admit that I’m no expert,  so I don’t see that much different between a small frigate size vessel with a big landing deck and a CG “cutter”.  Are you saying that the LCS is lacking something or that it is overkill for a cutter?

Make a comparison

The USCG vessel that was referred to    https://www.piersystem.com/go/doc/786/150632/

FRC-B RFP Requirements Include:

Length: 120 ft. – 160 ft.
Flank Speed: 28 knots min.
Independent Operations: 5 days min.
Seakeeping: At a minimum conduct all missions through SS4 and survive through SS6
C4ISR: Interoperable with CG, DHS, DOD, RESCUE 21.
Armament: 25mm remote operated weapon system, .50-caliber machine guns
Crew Size: 20 Enlisted and 2 Officers
Small Boat Launch/recovery: Performed safely with no more than 3 personnel

the USN LCS  http://peoships.crane.navy.mil/lcs/

First Littoral Combat Ship Christened Marinette, Wis. (Sept. 23, 2006) – The nation’s first Littoral Combat Ship, Freedom (LCS 1) – the inaugural ship in an entirely new class of U.S. Navy surface warships – prepares to make a side launch during her christening at the Marinette Marine shipyard. The agile 377-foot Freedom -- designed and built by a team led by Lockheed Martin -- will help the U.S. Navy defeat growing littoral, or close-to-shore, threats and provide access and dominance in coastal water battle-space. Displacing 3,000 metric tons and with a capability of reaching speeds well over 40 knots,  …..

 

[Cdn Blackshirt]

I will never understand why militaries are unwilling to demand turn-key contracts, and hold contractors to deliver upon the terms.

The fact that these design flaws and cost overruns will end up ballooning LM's or Grumman's net income is absolutely sickening to me....


Matthew.  :threat:

 

[MarkOttawa]

In any event the LCS is not going swimmingly:

Navy Issues Stop Work Order for Littoral Combat Ship 3
http://forums.army.ca/forums/threads/55754.0.html

Mark
Ottawa

 

[Sherwood4459]

Blackadder
Sorry,    I was talking about replacing the CG’s 418 foot 4300 ton National Security Cutter(planned 8) or the 360ft 3715 ton Offshore Patrol Cutter(planned 25) with the LCS.

As for problems with the LCS, most of the problems I've heard have been with the Lockheed Martin LCS1 and LCS3.  Is the General Dynamic version having problems too?  If nothing else it is the far cooler looking ship.

 

[Blackadder1916]

I was talking about replacing the CG’s 418 foot 4300 ton National Security Cutter(planned 8) or the 360ft 3715 ton Offshore Patrol Cutter(planned 25) with the LCS.

I don't think that 'cool looking' was included in the specifications.  But, when in doubt always ask those who know.
http://www.uscg.mil/deepwater/faqs/faqssurface.htm#faq2

Why isn’t the Coast Guard buying into the Navy’s littoral command ship program instead of building its own offshore patrol cutter?

The Littoral Combat Ship (LCS) is being designed to achieve a different naval warfare mission than the Coast Guard multi-mission Offshore Patrol Cutter (OPC). The LCS is designed as a sprinter. It will have high speed and a short range, and will be designed to take on various naval warfare mission modules. The concept of operations for the OPC is different. It isn’t a sprinter. The Deepwater system delivers speed with its off-board vehicles (armed helo, VUAVs, LRI, and SRP). The OPC needs the ability to remain on station for extended periods of time and have a greater range than the LCS. Deepwater has partnered with the Navy in regards to the LCS to share useful information, identify risk mitigations to new technology, and to ensure commonality where it is practicable and cost effective.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

How is the Navy and Coast Guard coordination on the Littoral Combat Ship and Deepwater Programs benefiting both services?

There is close coordination between the Navy and Coast Guard LCS and NSC program staffs. Our new Deepwater air and surface platforms are being designed with high levels of system commonality with Navy assets to improve interoperability. For example, both LCS and NSC will have a common 57mm gun and air search radar. We also are drawing heavily on the Navy’s AEGIS program’s C4ISR software.

• This collaboration also extends to our assessment of training requirements shared between the LCS and NSC. Deepwater is developing the air search course at TRACEN Petaluma and will make slots available to LCS sailors. This will save LCS funds since the only other alternative would have been to send Navy sailors to Germany for 30 days of training. Conversely, LCS is hosting a course for the 57mm gun at Dahlgren, Va., and NSC will have six slots for our gunner’s mates.

• The Commandant and Chief of Naval Operations Adm. Mike Mullen recently signed an important update to the National Fleet Policy aimed at strengthening Navy-Coast Guard cooperation and tailored operational integration of each of our service’s multimission platforms, infrastructure and personnel. This firm commitment to shared purpose directly supports the new National Strategy for Maritime Security approved by President Bush this past September.

• The National Fleet Policy reflects a 1998 agreement between the Navy and the Coast Guard to plan, acquire, and maintain forces that support and complement each service’s roles and missions. With this latest update, the services will be able to share assets, providing unique capabilities for expeditionary warfare and maritime homeland defense and security missions. This continues to ensure the highest level of maritime capabilities and readiness for the nation’s security and investment.

 

[Blackadder1916]

Rival contractor protests cutter deal
http://www.navytimes.com/news/2008/10/cg_frcprotest_100908w/

By Amy McCullough - Staff writer Navy Times  Posted : Monday Oct 13, 2008 7:35:47 EDT

The Coast Guard’s patrol boat replacement program is once again on hold after a competing contractor filed a protest Tuesday opposing the service’s decision to award the $88 million deal to Bollinger Shipyards.

Marinette Marine Corp. confirmed the protest was filed with federal investigators but declined to discuss the reasoning behind it.

The Coast Guard awarded Bollinger Shipyards the contract for the Fast Response Cutter on Sept. 26 despite the company’s role in the Deepwater-related controversy stemming from a failed attempt to convert 110-foot cutters into 123-foot cutters. The failed conversions, which Bollinger designed, and the media fallout forced senior leaders to revamp the Coast Guard’s acquisition service.

After the contract for the FRC was awarded, Coast Guard officials said they felt confident Bollinger’s design, which is based on the design of Dutch shipbuilder and designer Damen, already has been tested and will be a success.

“We searched all the patrol boats around the world and came up with that design as best fitting the Coast Guard requirements,” Bollinger said in September, adding that the award shows the Coast Guard still has faith in the shipbuilder.

A Bollinger official said he is “disappointed” with Marinette’s decision to protest because it will delay the process but that the company is willing to work with the Coast Guard.

“It appears to us the U.S. Coast Guard has used a very vigorous and disciplined selection process for awarding the program and we are confident in the selection,” said Robert Socha, Bollinger executive vice president of sales and marketing. “If required, we will provide the U.S. Coast Guard with whatever information is needed to confirm their selection.”

‘Disappointed’ in delay

The service needs 58 fast response cutters to replace its aging 110-foot Island-class cutters. The FRC is the smallest of three new cutter types envisioned under Deepwater, a major upgrade of the Coast Guard’s ships, aircraft and systems.

The protest could delay the program up to 100 days, the time allotted for the Government Accountability Office to reach a decision, Coast Guard spokeswoman Laura Williams said.

“While of course [we are] disappointed to receive an award protest, we recognize the legitimate role of GAO to resolve federal procurement process questions,” Rear Adm. Gary Blore, assistant commandant for acquisitions, said in a statement.

“I am confident that the robust and well-documented acquisition process used in making this patrol boat award will be upheld by GAO.”

GAO officials could not be reached for comment.

The Coast Guard initially put off awarding the FRC contract in July, saying it planned to “open another round of discussions.” Blore said the decision was meant to “provide all offerers in the competitive range an opportunity to improve their proposals and address any deficiencies and/or weaknesses.”

The Coast Guard declined to name the finalists for the contract, but Marinette Vice President and General Manager Richard McCreary said the company was among them, saying he hoped the success of the Response Boat-Medium program could prove the company was up to the challenge.

Marinette was awarded the roughly $600 million RBM contract in June 2006.

“We have a long-standing relationship with the Coast Guard, ... and we have delivered a product to the Coast Guard that the Coast Guard is thrilled with,” McCreary said days before the FRC contract was announced.