LSI's are really not gone

It appears, as I have stated all along, that the LSI's are not really gone.
A new Mother Jones article (http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2009/07/coast-guard-still-deepwater) and The Center for Public Integrity had this to say about the Coast Guard modernization bill that has been floating around congress for years.

"Part of that effort is a bill sponsored by Cummings that is nearing passage in the House. The new law would prevent the Coast Guard from using lead systems integrators to manage future contracting. But the legislation includes exceptions that cover much of Deepwater, and that program represents almost all of the Coast Guard's planned acquisitions for the near future.

Nick Schwellenbach of the Center for Public Integrity, a good-government nonprofit, says the new law is a half-step at best. "The legislation is fine and contains many of the 'best practices' that organizations such as [the Government Accountability Office] suggest," he says. "But if these practices don't apply to the Coast Guard's premier modernization program, what's the point?"

Exactly – what’s the point?

If the PR coming out of the Coast Guard is correct and they have contractually directed the LSI's stop in 2011 why would the congress feel the need to pull up short and give them an out for the Deepwater program? (Additionally stopping in 2011 is a ruse. Waiting that long means all of the NSCs and OPCs will probably be awarded. I wonder to whom?)

So the contractors are not only not going to refund the 123 money (from Northrop’s point of view this is because the Coast Guard didn’t operate and maintain the boats properly) and, according to Northrop, the contractors are planning to file a claim against the Coast Guard for the stopping the 123 project but they are going to hang around as the party actually in charge (from behind the scenes now) and bid on the rest of the NSCs and OPCs. (With the OPCs being the bulk of the Deepwater budget). How far are the congress, the DHS IG and the Coast Guard going to roll over for these guys? Makes you wonder why they want to or feel they have to.

Open call for assistance in the Deepwater case

Within the next few months we will be fighting the motions to dismiss from Lockheed, Northrop and ICGS. If we lose this round the case is over. That means there will be no refund and the contractors will not be held accountable for the Deepwater problem.

(In addition to that Northrop has signaled that the companies actually intend to seek damages from the Coast Guard for stopping the program. Text from Northrop motion to dismiss the Bollinger suit states the following:
"Presumably, Lockheed Martin could seek compensation from the Coast Guard under the CDA for C4ISR equipment and information delivery delays, if any, caused by the government. As the prime contractor, ICGS, not NGSS or Bollinger, could best determine whether Lockheed Martin or NGSS could assert a CDA claim against the government for delays experienced in delivering equipment or information to Bollinger. ICGS could also sponsor such a claim against the Coast Guard on behalf of Lockheed Martin.")

Additionally one of the tactics Northrop is using is to blame the Coast Guard for the 123 problems. They state that the Coast Guard abused these boats, did not operate nor not maintain them properly. From the motion:
"The Coast Guard decision to decommission vessels does not lead to the inescapable conclusion that the defendants committed fraud. To the contrary, there is strong evidence suggesting that the 123 structural issues were attributable to the Coast Guard's operation of the vessels beyond their performance parameters and failure to maintain the structural integrity of the vessels, not any nonconformance with contract requirements.

This is an open call for assistance. We are asking for the Coast Guard and even contractor personnel who read these blogs to get involved. We feel there should actually be very little trouble winning this motion but given the importance and finality of the event we believe it is prudent to not take anything for granted. If there was ever a time to act to ensure the refund is paid and the contractors are held responsible this may be the last opportunity. Finally I am calling on the Commandant himself to make a public and service wide call for the men and women who serve in the Coast Guard to assist in our efforts.

ICGS parties to file suit agianst the Coast Guard over the 123s?

ICGS, Lockheed and Northrop not only don't plan to refund any of the 123 money but they are actually considering taking legal action to secure damages from the Coast Guard because they canceled the program. So not only does Northrop believe the Coast Guard is at fault for the 123 problems, due to their negligence in operating and maintaining the boats, but they believe they are owed compensation because the program was canceled. Again - how many of you involved in these issues are going to sit by and not get involved. If we were to lose the motions to dismiss process we are in now the refund will be lost and these contractors will sue the Coast Guard for damages.

http://pogoblog.typepad.com/pogo/2009/01/deepwater-problems-motivated-by-disinterested-malevolence.html

The link to the Northrop court filing that contains the following quote is embedded in the POGO blog. See the footnote on page 12.

"Presumably, Lockheed Martin could seek compensation from the Coast Guard under the CDA for C4ISR equipment and information delivery delays, if any, caused by the government. As the prime contractor, ICGS, not NGSS or Bollinger, could best determine whether Lockheed Martin or NGSS could assert a CDA claim against the government for delays experienced in delivering equipment or information to Bollinger. ICGS could also sponsor such a claim against the Coast Guard on behalf of Lockheed Martin."

Northrop blames Coast Guard for 123 debacle

From the Northrop Motion to Dismiss our False Claims Act suit.

"The Coast Guard decision to decommission vessels does not
lead to the inescapable conclusion that the defendants committed fraud. To the contrary, there is strong evidence suggesting that the 123 structural issues were attributable to the Coast Guard's operation of the vessels beyond their performance parameters and failure to maintain the structural integrity of the vessels, not any nonconformance with contract requirements. Simply put, defendants fully complied with the 123 contract requirements.

This is the partner the Coast Guard is still supporting? The partner the Coast Guard is willing to cover for? (All three companies - Lockheed, Northrop and ICGS also state there can be no fraud because the Coast Guard knew about all of the problems and accepted the boats anyway. Keep in mind no refund has been paid to date and these contractors are still under contract to do most of the work they originally signed up to do and are in the running for the OPC - which is the bulk of the DW program)

This statement is in the spec for the boat

"The 123-Ft WPB scantling characteristics will provide structural integrity equivalent to, or in excess of the existing 110-Ft WPB. Any cutter structural member found to be less than ninety percent (90%) of the original nominal metal thickness as a result of the post arrival hull survey shall be replaced."

Looks to me like ICGS/NG knew exactly what they were getting in to, promised to upgrade all of the 110s, designed and fabricated a flawed solution, misrepresented the problem to the Coast Guard, collected their money and then looked for a way out. That way out is to blame the customer by saying the Coast Guard abused, mistreated and did not maintain these boats prior to the modification.

All of you people in the Coast Guard (and the contractors for that matter) who read these posts and defend the organization or the contractors pay close attention here. These companies have filed motions to dismiss our claims. If they win there will be no refund, no penalty and no accountability. Is that what you want?

Are there any persons out there willing to provide additional information so that justice will be done on the Deepwater boondoggle?

Taking Lockheed to Task on the F-22 and F-35 Programs

My attorney Sam Boyd has recently served Lockheed in the F-22 and F-35 False Claims act cases. Interesting that two more Lockheed whistle blowers would use the same attorney I am?

Today, partly as a result of our getting the word to the right people, the F-22 program was killed.

Here are some relevant links
http://www.f-16.net/news_article3635.html

http://www.airforcetimes.com/news/2009/07/airforce_F22_lawsuit_070209/

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/07/21/AR2009072100135.html?hpid=moreheadlines

http://www.standard.net/live/news/178961/

POGO posts my latest Deepwater response

The link can be found here
http://pogoblog.typepad.com/pogo/2009/07/deepwater-whistleblower-time-to-tell-all.html

I have posted it before but they did a good job of tying in the relevant links

GAO slams CG - Sen Cantwell takes on the Commandant

From the hearing
http://commerce.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Hearings.Hearing&Hearing_ID=35b1f525-607c-4290-8ce7-7660a9d7f8f1

Sen Cantwell asked the Commandant if there were any contracts that operated outside of the MSAM (procurement guidelines) and he said no. Then she raised the new GAO report (below) and said the GAO mentioned the FRC was done outside of the MSAM (as I stated above). The Commandant had no answer.- because he got caught - and needed to have the GAO rep next to him bail him out.

Sen Cantwell also asked about the SCIF. The Commandant said it was never planned for the NSC and was added after 9/11. When the Senator asked why the design for it was started so late the Commandant said the spaces were reserved and all they have to do is add equipment. It's a shame she didn't press him further. This is a massive oversimplification. Those spaces have to be very specially designed and can't be near things like cabling, A/C ducts etc. I am told the reason the SCIF is not done is because there was a major interior redesign which is nowhere near complete and that the CG agreed to add the SCIF to fund Lockheed for the other C4ISR work it said it was not contractually obligated to do. See below for more on this)

Also - Cantwell asked why the parent craft for the FRCs is $10m and the boat the CG bought is $50m (remember Marinette protested because theirs was cheaper among other things). The Commandant said it was shipyard issues and electronics. Cantwell didn't buy it (She also wondered why the CG would buy a boat the ABS said may not have a strong enough hull. Where have we had hull issues before?)

------------
There was a new GAO report out this week on the CG's management of Deepwater
http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-09-682
Highlights - http://www.gao.gov/highlights/d09682high.pdf
From the report

"However, the Coast Guard has not applied the disciplined acquisition process to the FRC and the second increment of C4ISR, recent contract actions that will involve additional investments of taxpayer dollars over time. "

So - how was the FRC bid process fair and professional? There was enough there for the GAO and CG to refute Marinette's challenge - especially they had the cheaper bid? (Plus the ABS says the FRC parent craft's hull may not be strong enough). It also says the second increment of C4ISR was not done in a disciplined way. Well either was the first increment. So what will they fall back on - system of systems - and repeat the same problems.
They said use of subs in program management and engineering roles has gone up. Who supplies them? Lockheed? Northrop? L-3 (Lockheed)?
"Finally, in light of the sheer size and scope of the Deepwater Program and Congress’s role in providing funds, the Coast Guard’s budget submissions do not provide a complete picture of the planned costs of Deepwater assets that would help inform the decision-making process. "
Why would congress allow this?

Also there is a major increase of funding for C4ISR? Was this to pay Lockheed off? The CG paid for the SCIF under this. I was told that was a way to pay LM to do the TEMPEST work on the NSC that LM was refusing to do because they said it was out of scope on the 123s. (The specs clearly say it is in scope. Remember the DHS IG auditor told me the DHS IG got this wrong in their 123 report when they sided with LM) In order to get LM working on the NSC, very late in the program, the CG had to pay them and change scope to get them to do the work they were always signed up to do. If they didn't pay - no NSC and LM might out the CG for their part in the cover up.