spicedogs: (Default)

Coast Guard Cancels Contract

Cutter Program Part of Troubled Deepwater Effort

 By Renae Merle

Washington Post Staff Writer
Thursday, March 15, 2007; Page D01

 The Coast Guard took the unusual step yesterday of canceling a troubled $600 million patrol boat program, saying the service could manage the effort more efficiently than two of the nation's largest defense contractors.

The Coast Guard had given Lockheed Martin and Northrop Grumman broad latitude to develop the Fast Response Cutter, shifting significant control to the contractors. But the effort stalled after concerns emerged last year about the design of the vessel. By managing the work itself and rebidding the development work, Coast Guard officials estimated they would save enough money to buy an extra ship and address a patrol boat shortage by getting ships built faster.

"We are the patrol boat experts in the United States," said Rear Adm. Gary Blore, the program's executive officer.

Development of the Fast Response Cutter is part of a $24 billion Coast Guard effort, known as Deepwater, to modernize and greatly expand its aging fleet of ships, planes and helicopters. The program has faced heavy criticism from Congress as government auditors have identified design flaws in three ship programs and attributed the problems in part to the service's decision to give so much control to the contractors. About $2.3 billion has been spent on the overall Deepwater effort.

Lockheed, based in Bethesda, and Northrop, headquartered in Los Angeles, had teamed up to manage the entire Deepwater project. They said they understood that the Coast Guard had the option to cancel the contract.

The companies said in a statement yesterday that they had "only just been informed of the Coast Guard's decision. It is difficult to comment as we have not seen their new program plan."

The Fast Response Cutter is meant to be speedier and more durable than its predecessor. To achieve those goals, the contractors had proposed a hull design using composite materials instead of steel, which they said would weigh less and be cheaper in the long run. The Coast Guard approved the approach despite having never used such material, officials have confirmed. But concern emerged within the service about the decision, and the Coast Guard opted to halt work in February 2006 so it could study alternatives.

During that lull, service officials said they reassessed the contract and estimated they could save 4 to 6 percent overall if they did not have to pay the contractors to manage the program. The Coast Guard also surveyed the market for potential builders and found more companies willing to do the work than Lockheed and Northrop had initially identified when they were running the program. "Competition is really going to help us," Blore said.

The move is also a reflection of the Coast Guard's effort to beef up its internal acquisition capabilities, he said.

"The Coast Guard has become a lot more self-sufficient" than when Deepwater was launched, Blore said.

When it restarts the program, the service plans to solicit bids on the first 12 of 58 cutters it buys. Delivery on ships is expected to begin in 2010.

The decision to rebid the contract comes as Congress continues to heap criticism on the management of the Deepwater program. One measure being considered by the House would limit Lockheed's and Northrop's powers. "We need a comprehensive fix for Deepwater's problems before any more taxpayer dollars go down the drain," Sen. Maria Cantwell (D-Wash.) said in a statement yesterday, calling for the Coast Guard to ensure that taxpayers would not cover cost overruns on the project.

The Coast Guard said it would review other portions of the Deepwater program as it goes forward. "We will make the decision on an asset by asset basis" whether the contractors or the service will be in charge of those phases, said Adm. Thad Allen, commandant of the Coast Guard.

Source: The Washington Post

spicedogs: (Default)

On August 11, 2006, I posted here about how my job may be eliminated (http://spicedogs.livejournal.com/6856.html). My position is being considered to be outsourced. That means that I would be either fired or hired by the commercial business that actually replaced my job. In other words, I and my colleagues would be employees of a consulting firm.

I know that a lot of people who are not involved with government and who tend to think of themselves as conservatives find the outsourcing system useful. Government workers are deemed to be lazy, nonproductive, and useless. Folks, I worked on all types of business: commercial, nonprofit, self-employment, freelance, and now government. Of all my jobs, this is where not only do I work hard, I am also very productive and extremely needed.

Outsourcing benefits only one entity: The consulting business to whom the work was outsourced. But my CEO, who is our president, loves business and made a mandate that lot of us would have to go. The government is spending too much money on our salaries. Some one has to pay for the Iraqi war.

If I am to be fired (or laid off), I will no longer be a productive, tax-paying member of the society. What good is that? If I am to be hired by the winner of the bidding war for my job, I will have my salary more than likely cut in half and the consulting firm will charge the government 5 times the amount that I would have received as a salary. How is that improving our spending?

Now, where am I going with this essay? I just read that the troubles that Walter Reed Hospital is having in its ill-treatment of our veterans is caused by none other than outsourcing of work through the A-76 system. Is our current administration incapable of learning anything? I just heard that after my A-76 bidding is done, they want to issue a mandate for 2 more in my office. 

Mr. President, please wake up and smell the coffee!



 

spicedogs: (Fired)
I work as a writer/editor for the federal government. About 2 months ago, I was told that my husband and I will be part of what the government calls “A-76.” What is A-76? I it s a federal policy mandated by the White House to proceed with a study that would compare the cost effectiveness of keeping me on the staff as an editor/writer or whether to hire outside contractors to do my job.

According to the studies that have been made on the financial effect of A-76, it takes 15 years for the government to recover financially from the required procedures, which by the way, will take at least 18 months.

During the next 18 months, I and 50 other employees from my agency, as well as 833 other employees from my department will have to compete for the rights to keep our job. Chances are, the federal government will win the bid, but winning is not really winning. If we win the bid, my position will be downgraded. My salary will be frozen for 2 years (no raises) and if I still don’t find another job, I will lose my pay to a lower grade.

Needless to say, I am looking for another job. My userpic is a small version of a figure I made for my union's newsletter:



What bothers me about the whole thing is that the government (hence, the tax payers) lose. First, there’s the financial loss that the actual study creates. Second, if the government loses the bid and contractors are hired, then the government pays higher fees to obtain the contractors, AND the contractors hire workers at a lower salary that a government worker would be earning.

Where’s justice?

Profile

spicedogs: (Default)
spiecedogs

May 2009

S M T W T F S
      1 2
3 4 5 6789
10111213141516
17181920212223
24252627282930
31      

Syndicate

RSS Atom

Most Popular Tags

Style Credit

Expand Cut Tags

No cut tags
Page generated Jul. 16th, 2025 07:17 pm
Powered by Dreamwidth Studios