Coast Guard acquisition in smoother waters

The Washington Technology article can be found here

http://washingtontechnology.com/Articles/2009/08/31/Policy-Coast-Guard.aspx?Page=4

My response

“Even so, there are lapses, and as of March, the Coast Guard had not met the goal of complete adherence to the acquisitions manual for all Deepwater assets, according to a July GAO report. Coast Guard officials agreed with GAO’s recommendations to follow the manual and raised no objection to those findings.”

In english this said that the CG didn’t used the MSAM as it should have and promised to on the EXACT program it was meant for – Deepwater.

“Congress is stepping up its oversight. The House passed legislation in July that would bar the Coast Guard from using private lead systems integrators. The Senate Commerce, Science and Transportation Committee passed a separate authorization bill.”

This is misleading. The congress passed a bill sating that the CG could waive the reforms in the bill if it chose to do so and those waivers could be used on the Deepwater program – the same program that drove reforms. And the CG has stated the LSI’s would not go away until 2011. That is after all of the NSC contracts and I would imagine the OPC contracts are let. Basically this is all a smoke screen. There have been some worthwhile changes but most are only skin deep – there is no root cause fix here. (The NSC still have major security issues – issues that will be propagated on to the FRCs and OPCs unless the root causes are addressed) Lastly let me mention again that ICGS, LM and NG have not only not paid the $100M refund for the 123s but they blame the CG for the problems with the hulls and have suggested they may actually seek damages from the CG for canceling the 123 effort. The contractors still run this program from behind the scenes.

Is the Coast Guard Significantly Changing How It Manages Deepwater?

The POGO blog with comments from myself and even the Coast Guard can be found here
http://pogoblog.typepad.com/pogo/2009/08/is-the-coast-guard-significantly-changing-how-it-manages-deepwater.html

Earlier this month Nick Baumann at Mother Jones reported that the Coast Guard would no longer be using the services of the Integrated Coast Guard Systems (ICGS)—a joint-venture of the government's top two defense contractors, Lockheed Martin and Northrop Grumman—for its Deepwater modernization program. But it looks like the Coast Guard Acquisition Directorate still needs outside help. Alice Lipowicz at Washington Technology reports that the Coast Guard may be issuing requests for proposals (RFP) for as much as $650 million in program management, engineering, acquisition, and administrative services.

If it comes to fruition, this RFP would continue two troubling trends that have decreased accountability and transparency in contracting at the Department of Homeland Security: relying on contractors to provide inherently and/or core governmental functions, and, because the Coast Guard seeks to issue an indefinite-delivery, indefinite quantity contract, utilizing a risky contracting vehicle.

It's unclear if this really signifies the stated departure from the Lead Systems Integrator concept—the idea that previously drove management of the highly criticized program. While the Coast Guard struggles to restore discipline and accountability to the Deepwater program, these trends call for continued, careful agency and Congressional oversight.

My response

The LSI's didn't go anywhere and aren't going to until they choose to. They simply run things now from behind the scenes.

The bill the congress just passed gives the Coast Guard permission to waive the reforms should they deem it necessary on Deepwater. Keep in mind the reforms were created for and because of Deepwater.

The GAO has stated that the Coast Guard failed to use it's own new reforms, specifically adhering to the MSAM, on core Deepwater efforts.

The Coast Guard has stated the LSI's will not be completely gone until 2011. In that time the rest of the NSC contracts and probably the OPC contracts will be awarded. Also stopping the LSI's basically means ICGS goes away. Well - ICGS has no employees of their own. The employees were all Lockheed and Northrop. All the Coast Guard has to do to honor their shallow promise is to go right to the contractors and create some leadership figurehead positions to cover for those really pulling the strings.

ICGS, Lockheed and Northrop have stated that they will not only not pay the $100M refund for the 123s but that the Coast Guard is responsible for the hull problems, because they didn't operate or maintain them properly, and that they might actually be due damages from the Coast Guard because the project was stopped. Lastly the NSC still has major communications security issues that may never be fixed adequately and will most likely be pushed to other assets like the FRCs and OPCs. Why wouldn't the Coast Guard defend itself here and demand the refund before the contractors can bid on any more efforts and publicly state that the contractors are solely responsible for the 123 problems?

Yes some good things have been done over the past couple of years but they are skin deep at best. The root causes have not been addressed.