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.