|
|
|
Trooper
Group: Community Supporter
Last Login: Yesterday @ 10:24 PM
Posts: 729,
Visits: 1,892
|
|
| With all true respect, Arcticabn, LM and GM are, in part, the partners on Deepwater. I do know, for a fact, that the Coasties delegated all responsibility for requirements development to the contractors who provided the CG with things that they didn't need (and, now revealed) don't work. I have the greatest respect for the portion of LCS that you work on but, let's both agree that we can't paint a wide brush (positive or negative) on all contractors or across one company. With respect to the portion that I alluded to, the division of LM to which I refer is based in Eagen, MN. I've been there, worked with them and almost blew my stack when I found out that they added $18M to a project that, without them, would have cost the government $9M.
You can run and you can hide, but you'll only die tired !
|
|
|
|
|
Trooper
Group: Community Supporter
Last Login: Yesterday @ 10:24 PM
Posts: 729,
Visits: 1,892
|
|
Coast Guard To Take Over 'Deepwater'
Move Wrests Control From Consortium of Contractors
By Renae Merle and Spencer Hsu
Washington Post Staff Writers
Tuesday, April 17, 2007; D01
The Coast Guard is taking control of its troubled $24 billion modernization program from Lockheed Martin and Northrop Grumman as part of a restructuring of the project, congressional sources confirmed yesterday.
The move comes during mounting criticism of the contract for the so-called Deepwater program that made a Lockheed-Northrop consortium "lead systems integrator" and gave it significant management powers. Critics said the contract gave the corporate team too much control and that the Coast Guard was lax in its oversight duties -- a combination they say led to a series of setbacks. Deployment of cutters and patrol boats produced so far has been delayed, the capabilities of some larger ships have been reduced, and costs have increased.
The Coast Guard will gradually take over the lead systems integrator role, congressional officials said, but a representative for the consortium said it would continue to work on the program. The sources spoke on condition of anonymity because the change is not to be announced until today.
Lawmakers praised the Coast Guard's move, saying the service had followed Congress's urgings to rein in the Deepwater contractors. "Ending Coast Guard's reliance on a single private-sector entity to oversee the entire project, increasing transparency and taking back oversight responsibility is critical," said Sen. Maria Cantwell (D-Wash.), who has drafted a bill to revoke the contractors' Deepwater role. "This announcement shows me that the Coast Guard has been listening."
Rep. Elijah E. Cummings (D-Md.), who chairs a House transportation subcommittee that will release findings of a Deepwater investigation on Wednesday, said, "I have absolutely no doubt that if it were not for our committee . . . that this would not be happening right now."
Coast Guard "personnel would be in jeopardy with some of the things that have been done with these vessels," Cummings said. "Most members of Congress and most Americans will be shocked."
Both houses of Congress have moved to crack down on the Deepwater program, and a critical report by military contracting experts faulted its strategy and management, including its reliance on Northrop of Los Angeles and Lockheed of Bethesda. Last month, the Coast Guard moved to cancel a portion of the program intended to develop a $600 million patrol boat after determining it could manage the effort more efficiently than Northrop or Lockheed.
Among the most significant failures of Deepwater has been a project to lengthen 110-foot patrol boats to 123 feet. Eight of the upgraded boats had to be drydocked in December after the Coast Guard found buckling in the structure underneath the main engine of one of the ships. The Coast Guard will announce today that those boats, which cost about $100 million, will be decommissioned, according to congressional sources.
Cummings and the chairman of the House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee, James L. Oberstar (D-Minn.), yesterday called for the Justice Department to open a civil and criminal investigation into Deepwater. "We cannot risk the lives of the men and women in the Coast Guard by operating unsafe boats. It is time for the Department of Justice to step up and hold those who perpetuated this fraud accountable," Cummings said.
A committee spokesman said the panel members thought Coast Guard and Justice Department investigators were reviewing the evidence. Justice Department spokesman Bryan Sierra declined to comment and said he could not confirm an inquiry was underway.
The contractors played down the significance of the Coast Guard's announcement, saying the service has always had ultimate authority over the program. "It's not really a big surprise. The Coast Guard has always been able to determine what gets bought," said Margaret Mitchell-Jones, spokeswoman for the contracting team. "It seems to reflect what Congress is looking for -- that is, for the government to serve overtly as the lead systems integrator."
Some skeptics in Congress said that since the Coast Guard would continue to route business to Northrop and Lockheed, the full effect of the shift in responsibility would not be clear for some time. For instance, if the Coast Guard goes on to award a contract for construction of its largest-ever vessel, the proposed National Security Cutter, to Northrop and continues to give Lockheed responsibility for command and control systems of its ships and aircraft, today's announcement could amount to a fig leaf covering up its continued reliance on the contractors, said a House official who spoke on condition of anonymity.
Congressional analysts also said it remains to be seen whether and how the Coast Guard rewrites a pending 43-month extension of the Deepwater contract now being negotiated with the contractors. About $2.3 billion has been committed to the program so far, and the Coast Guard has said the second phase will be worth $2.5 billion to $3 billion.
"Why not abandon the contract? Why bother renewing it?" one congressional source said. "The real proof in the pudding will be how they do the contract."
"The Coast Guard must do more than change course -- it must chart a new direction," Rep. Bennie G. Thompson (D-Miss.), chairman of the House Homeland Security Committee, said in a statement. "Millions of taxpayer dollars have been misspent on boats that are not operational, and we must ensure that this type of waste and abuse never happens again."
You can run and you can hide, but you'll only die tired !
|
|
|
|
|
Masters of Hard Knocks from the University of Gravity
 
Group: Past PNET Supporter
Last Login: Yesterday @ 9:14 PM
Posts: 2,540,
Visits: 3,187
|
|
Hossra (4/16/2007)
With all true respect, Arcticabn, LM and GM are, in part, the partners on Deepwater. I do know, for a fact, that the Coasties delegated all responsibility for requirements development to the contractors who provided the CG with things that they didn't need (and, now revealed) don't work.
I have the greatest respect for the portion of LCS that you work on but, let's both agree that we can't paint a wide brush (positive or negative) on all contractors or across one company.
With respect to the portion that I alluded to, the division of LM to which I refer is based in Eagen, MN. I've been there, worked with them and almost blew my stack when I found out that they added $18M to a project that, without them, would have cost the government $9M.
Next time you come to Eagan, let's have a beer. I'd be interested to find out just what part of the program you are talking about considering that our total program budget here in Eagan is $25M for LCS1 which includes nearly $8M in hardware costs alone.
"Si Vis Pacum Para Bellum"
If you want peace prepare for war!
|
|
|
|
|
Trooper
Group: Community Supporter
Last Login: Yesterday @ 10:24 PM
Posts: 729,
Visits: 1,892
|
|
WILCO, brother. This effort that I am working on, however, is TS and has nothing to do with LCS.
You can run and you can hide, but you'll only die tired !
|
|
|
|
|
Masters of Hard Knocks from the University of Gravity
Group: Past PNET Supporter
Last Login: Yesterday @ 9:14 PM
Posts: 2,540,
Visits: 3,187
|
|
Hossra (4/17/2007)
WILCO, brother. This effort that I am working on, however, is TS and has nothing to do with LCS.
Yep many of those down in the basement. But let me know the next time your in town. Beer is still on me.
"Si Vis Pacum Para Bellum"
If you want peace prepare for war!
|
|
|
|
|
Trooper
Group: Community Supporter
Last Login: Yesterday @ 10:24 PM
Posts: 729,
Visits: 1,892
|
|
Articabn -- duck !
Coast Guard project investigated by DOJ
Much criticized contract managed by Lockheed Martin, Northrop Grumman
The Associated Press
Updated: 9:22 p.m. ET April 18, 2007
WASHINGTON - The Justice Department is investigating a much-criticized Coast Guard contract managed by Lockheed Martin and Northrop Grumman over design flaws in cutters that are central to the $24 billion (euro17.68 billion) modernization project, a member of Congress and a representative for the companies said Wednesday.
A spokeswoman for a joint venture between Lockheed Martin Corp. and Northrop Grumman Corp. said the Justice Department notified the companies in December of an "investigation" into the so-called Deepwater program. The Justice Department told Lockheed, Northrop and other contractors not to destroy any documents related to command and control systems, the conversion of 123-foot (37.5-meter) cutters and National Security Cutters, the spokeswoman for Integrated Coast Guard Systems, Margaret Mitchell-Jones, said.
Mitchell-Jones said the joint venture was cooperating with the Justice Department, but "is not allowed to comment if any subpoena has been received."
On Tuesday, the Coast Guard said it was taking over management of the contract from ICGS, following criticism on Capitol Hill for skyrocketing costs, design flaws and lax contract oversight.
Also on Wednesday, government and industry witnesses told lawmakers that the U.S. Coast Guard and the contractors it hired to run the modernization program ignored repeated internal warnings about the design and electronics flaws in the cutters.
A House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee hearing focused on the results of an inquiry conducted by its oversight staff on the 123-foot (37.5-meter) patrol boat conversion project. The project is part of the Deepwater program that operates under a contract awarded in 2002 to ICGS.
Committee Chairman James L. Oberstar said the Justice Department was "conducting its own inquiry into this matter."
Coast Guard response
A Coast Guard spokesman said the agency had no reason to believe the Justice Department had "undertaken any wide-ranging investigation of Deepwater," and no reason to believe "any action taken in connection with Deepwater by anyone raises any inference of criminal conduct."
The spokesman referred all further questions to the Justice Department. The agency did not immediately return calls seeking comment.
The eight 123-foot (37.5-meter) patrol boats, which were the first to be lengthened and outfitted with new computer and navigation systems, had been removed from service patrolling Florida's waters late last year because of hull problems.
"The initial problem of not increasing the strength of the 123 was a serious oversight of basic naval architecture and their failure was predicted," Scott Sampson, who is responsible for recommending repairs on Coast Guard vessels, said in prepared testimony. "Despite the offering of applicable experience and lessons learned, ICGS and the Coast Guard failed to take advantage of them and suffered a devastating setback to the program and its mission capability."
The Department of Homeland Security's inspector general concluded in a February report that Lockheed also knowingly equipped the ships with unauthorized electronics. That investigation was prompted by Michael DeKort, a former Lockheed Martin employee who detailed additional electronics safety and security issues in the cutters beginning in 2003, and later chronicled his complaints in a YouTube video. He said the problems identified were "not simply mistakes."
"They were informed deliberate acts," DeKort said.
© 2007 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.Copyright 2007 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.
URL: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/18185752/
You can run and you can hide, but you'll only die tired !
|
|
|
|