GAO comes down on Bollinger’s side
by Michael DeKort
The GAO came down on Bollinger’s side today. I understand that it’s an uphill climb for the protester and less than 15% of those protesters win – but something doesn’t look right here.
- The GAO asked for two extensions that would have put the decision past the inauguration. Then 3 days before the original deadline they make their decision? What were the extensions for? Did someone press for a decision before the new administration takes over?
- Previous performance is normally part of the process. Congressional aids told me that the Coast Guard didn’t evaluate previous performance of Bollinger, relative to the 123 debacle, because the DHS IG and DoJ hadn’t finished their investigation. How convenient is that? (The DoJ is also now responsible for the 123 refund acquisition.) Did the GAO ignore previous performance too or do their own investigation? If so what did they find? It’s interesting that the Coast Guard can ignore previous performance of an ICGS subcontractor and award them what may be a $1.5b contract and they virtually ignore what is very recent poor performance.
- A little while back the DHS took back acquisition authority. Did they approve this?
- Marinette Maine was the low bidder.
- I was told the Coast Guard didn’t evaluate any of the bidder’s C4ISR solutions. That’s interesting because it is 1/3 or more of the cost of each boat.
- Bollinger sued Northrop right after the protest was filed. In the suit they ask for $12m in compensation for hull/shaft and C4ISR work because the 123 contracts were canceled. In the suit Bollinger said Northrop was completely responsible for the hull, shaft and C4ISR problems. If there was no wrong doing why try to pass the blame? Sure looks like Bollinger was trying real hard to void the blame so the GAO, DHS IG or DoJ wouldn’t come down on them or find reason to deny the FRC award. Also – we learned from the lawsuit that ICGS appears to not only be inclined to pay the $96m 123 refund but they believe they may be due compensation for the government canceling the contract because all of the 123s were lost.
I realize there are a lot of issues that go in to issues like this. and a lot of politics. Maybe Bollinger has the best product etc. (I have no problem with the people of southern Louisiana getting a big contract. They could use the break.) But something seems wrong here. Did the GAO investigate Bollinger’s performance and make some kind of evaluation of that? If not shouldn’t they have waited until the DoJ and DHS IG finished their investigations – especially since they were investigating all of the potential wrong doing relative to the 123 project? Why did the GAO ask for two extensions they didn’t use? Why didn’t they wait until the new administration took over – especially since both of the extensions they asked for were after 1/20? Did the DHS and Coast Guard pull a fast one while they could? Will the Obama administration step in and review this? Can the DHS and Coast Guard keeping giving the parties involved in the 123 debacle more work and more money – especially since it appears that the contractors not only have no interest in paying the $96m refund but may want to be financially compensated because the government canceled the contract?
Michael,
It doesn’t surprise me that you are so misinformed regarding the relationship between Bollinger and the CG. To you the CG didn’t exist until your bosses got hired by the organization to work on the WPB rehab. Since you can’t seem to believe the the CG built any cutters before ICGS let me provide you with a very quick history lesson…. the 87′ WPB program. That is all that really needs to be said. The 87′ program is the model by which all CG acquisition programs should be modeled…wait, I think that is exactly what he CG is doing with the FRC. Accept it, the ICGS concept is dead. The CG under the leadership of ADM Allen has abandoned the idea in total and migrated to the concept of product line management which is providing segmented management and oversight of each individual fleet component from the maintenance of each legacy class up to the development and acquisition of each new class. Why don’t you take a ride on one of the 87 WPB’s and then decide if Bollinger is up to the task. I’d be proud to soon sail onboard a Bollinger built FRC, the Damen hull is proven, the MTU engines are wonderful and a stripped down version of CGC2 will work just fine for the FRC needs.
Your crying over tempest is the past. The CG has rogered up and is addressing it. You won’t see the classified side of the WMSL kick on until its certified. So if CG-9 is reaching back and making LHM and NGSS hold true on tempest with the WMSL what makes you think they won’t hold the line with the FRC. It’s over, find a new cause.
Also, its great how this blog is posting the entire source instead of just the authors spin. Why don’t you get in line and post the entire report as a link.
As of last night, GAO had posted the report to their website. Admin@CGR will post a ling as soon as it becomes available.
Marinette Marine Corporation (HSCG23-07-R-AFR001)
Department of Homeland Security : United States Coast Guard
Quick View Quick view toggle Outcome: Denied Date Decided: January 12, 2009
Filed Date: November 17, 2008
Due: February 25, 2009
Case Type: Bid Protest
GAO Attorney: John L. Formica
File Number: 400697.3
He can’t find a new cause….hell, he can’t even find a new job. But hey, the Obama administration will fix everything…rrriiighhht.
C4ISR on the FRC wasn’t evaluated because the CG is going to do that part themselves. Considering the C4ISR garbage that ICGS provided with WMSL, I don’t blame them. LMCO and NGSS do some pretty shoddy work.
You are correct. Bollinger and the rest of it didn’t show up on my radar until I worked on Deepwater. During that time I spun up a bit on that past – being down at the Bollinger shipyard for a while. I understand they have built assets for the CG before – including the 110s and the 87s as you mentioned. I have no problem believing that Bollinger built great stuff. As a matter of fact, when I was there, only three people pushed to do the right thing – me and two of Bollinger’s program managers. I had a lot of respect for the Bollinger team. I also heard they never wanted to extend the 110 hulls. However my opinion of them changed a bit when one of those managers said he thought the hull design problem was caused by a power surge to a computer. That quote was given to the press. On that day my opinion shifted, not entirely, to the other side. Now I see they are suing Northrop saying NG is 100% responsible as they purposely supplied late and incorrect data. Bollinger had the design on their systems and mechanical engineers on staff. Why didn’t they catch the moment and center of gravity problems? Especially given their waring to not extend them in the first place. Why did they build 8 of them anyway – especially after the first few clearly demonstrated the design had failed? Unfortunately I think Bollinger lost it’s way during that effort. They at least drifted to the dark side.
Yes the ICGS concept may be dead but the cover up is not. The Coast Guard has a vested interest now in pumping money and projects to those involved in the 123s and NSCs because the majority of the problems have not been well publicized and nor have they powers that be been held accountable. I am sure all of the parties are much less than friends now but they have to have each others back in order to avoid a domino effect of a The Coast Guard Commandant Allen is a shrewd opportunist. Apparently you don’t see the pattern. First he says all of the allegations are baseless then after he is caught by the press he rogers up a bit while stonewalling congress – something he then had to apologize for.
As for TEMEPST – the majority of the problems have not been appropriately exposed and no one has taken accountability for them. The ICGS parties, including the CG, knowingly permitted documents to be forged that waived classified testing failures the Navy did not want waived. They all know Porter was not permitted by law to waive anything. Then they knowingly permitted some of the 123s to transmit classified data – and in Cuban waters. They all broke the law. That whole thing led to a cover up which has severely impacted the NSC. The NSCs should not have SCIFs.
Back to the FRCs. My issue was that the refund had not been paid, no one identified what caused the problems and there was no accountability. (Not only was there no refund but now all of the contractors, including Bollinger, may be filing for compensation because the CG stopped the 123 contract. How insane is that?) As previous performance is supposed to be a part of the bid determination process the ICGS parties and Bollinger should have been barred from bidding until the DoJ and DHS IG finished their investigations. If Bollinger is entirely in the clear they should go to the feds or even the press and tell them everything so all of the issues can be in the open and dealt with. If Bollinger is in the clear then let them build the FRCs.
The GAO asked for two extensions and then determined Bollinger should win earlier than their original date and before the DoJ and DHS IG finished. Something is wrong here and I think the new administration will look in to it.
Lastly – the report itself is not out yet. All the GAO did was update the status on the docket page.
Michael and “Editors” of CG Report:
If this blog is supposed to be exercising “Journalism” then you should delete this entire post and issue a retraction. Journalism doesn’t list a bunch of questions based on the authors own biases and opinions, but answers questions based on diligently researched facts.
What is your source of the claimed GAO request for extensions?
Rather than citing Congressional Aids, who remain nameless, shouldn’t you exercise a little patience and wait to read the GAO’s full decision before you attempt your smear job?
Did DHS approve this? Really…You are actually going to ask that question? Look at the docket. What agency is on it? Do you seriously think DHS would not be cognizant of this? Let me rephrase considering the source…Do you really think a reasonable person would think DHS wasn’t cognizant of this?
All the rest of your rant is speculation and hearsay about a lawsuit that is still ongoing.
It is sad that since you are now so far out of the know that you are essentially just making stuff up.
To the Editors…This kind of stuff on your site won’t raise your credibility any. The right thing to do would be to stick to the facts and do your homework before you just publish completely unverified and clearly biased opinions. The single most significant thing you could do to improve your blog would be to cut all ties with Mr. Dekort. He is officially uninformed and irrelevant.
What’s up with the shit at CGblog? Cutterman and JacksonThomas have taken over the site. Glad to see a bit of change here from highschool shit.
P.S. Like the Jack Mehoff. Didn’t get it at first.
CG Retort
- Found the GAO status here. You can see the 2 extensions. The Navy Times said those extensions were filed because Marinette Marine filed two amendments/Additions
http://www.gao.gov/decision/docket
Search on Protester=Marinette Marine
http://www.navytimes.com/news/2009/01/coastguard_frcprotest_011309/
- As for nameless congressional aids let me suggest this. Call the relevant committee staff and see what their opinions is. If I was at liberty to provide the name I would.
- Yes it would be good to read the report
- I assume that since congress ordered the DHS to take back acquisition authority from the Coast Guard that they had to approve the Bollinger win – no?
- My information about the suit is not hearsay (I assume you mean Bollinger v Northrop?). I can provide all the docs filed with the courts if you like. Tell me where to send them. You will see I got the analysis right.
- As you can see I answered you challenge for info with info. As such I am in the know. Did you read those docs? They were released within the past month. Are you in the know and shooting me from higher ground?
- So what homework didn’t I do? Which one of my allegations is incorrect and why? Since every one of my allegations about the 123s were dead on would you like to move to to the NSC issues or actually challenge me on the 123 issues?
- Did you do your homework? And please try to stick to the data and be objective. The shoot the messenger nonsense gets us nowhere.
- Cutterman and to a much greater degree Jackson Thomas are just venting I think. Once you try to discuss any data they start shooting the messenger, avoid any discussion of that data and start misrepresenting the truth. Cutterman started off fine but then stated he was not knowledgeable enough about the subject to continue after I posted proof. Jackson Thomas doesn’t even get close to being objective. My guess is he is s young gun just feeling his oats, an insider playing shoot the messenger or a misinformed Kool Aid drinker who feels any criticism of those he believes in is tantamount to being unpatriotic. It’s a shame. I would like for someone who wants to challenge me to actually discuss the data and have an objective conversation. I think those who read these blogs would benefit from that. To this day no one has ever hung in there to do that.
So point one…your claim of GAOs filed extension is FALSE…yes or no? You have screwed the pooch on this whole issue. Wasn’t it just a week ago that you made a big deal about GAO delaying their decision? What was that all about?
Regarding DHS …Didn’t you just answer your own question? Why ask such a misleading question if you know the answer?
Regarding the lawsuit…It is a lawsuit! Of course the opponents are going to make competing claims and posture as the victim…that is why they are in a lawsuit! I’ll withhold judgement until their is a judgement.
Objectivity…let me give you an example of objectivity: “Today the GAO delivered its decision regarding the bid protest on the FRC project. They found in favor of the Coast Guard and ruled that the award to Bollinger was appropriate. We will provide an analysis of their finding once the details are released.”
- I did make a big deal out of the GAO moving the date. I assumed it was because they or someone wanted them to wait until the Obama administration took over. Now I (we) know it is because of late data entered by Marinette Marine. I think if you look back you will see I posited the reason. But that’s neither here nor there – I got that assumption wrong. Having said that why postpone two times because of new data and then finish earlier than the original date? The GAO postponed TWICE and did so for a reason right? What changed?
- The question wasn’t misleading but it was leading. I was making the point that it would be safe to assume (right?) that the DHS is on board with all of this(?) as such they may have something to answer for as well. (Or did they pencil whip it and let the CG run amok?)
- One of my points regarding the lawsuit is that Northrop filed a legal opinion that Bollinger (and thereby themselves or Lockheed) could seek compensation from the government for their termination of the 123 contract – even though those parties are responsible for the termination. How crazy is that? So no refund and the government owes THEM money? I thought it was a heck of a thing to state on record.
- You are correct the objective thing to do regarding the GAO’s decision – and why they did what they did – can only be objectively discussed when the report comes out. I was simply positing about the situation. No conclusions – mostly observations and quite a few QUESTIONS and areas for which I would was seeking clarity.
- Good push back. Your criticism is fair and objective in some cases.
The reaction I have when I read these sorts of posts as that there is some conclusion or idea that you (Mr. Dekort) want or expect to occur, and that you speculate to that end.
A quick example: you speculate that incoming administration asked GAO to delay the FRC protest so that it would be released on their watch. Then, the GAO releases the decision ahead of their original deadline, and so you speculate further that something is amiss….why would this happen?
The overall read I get is that, absent a successful protest by Marinette, you WANT something to be wrong with the GAO’s findings and, generally, the award to Bollinger. I think that desire is what drives your analysis.
Again – my speculation was incorrect. And I have no problem with the workforce at Bollinger getting a nice contract. My issue is with the leadership of Bollinger and the rest of the companies. Having said that Bollinger’s suit alleges Northrop is 100% at fault (of course Northrop says Lockheed, ICGS and the government are at fault). That may very well be true. As I have said before the Bollinger leadership impressed me while I was there. What turned things a bit was blaming a computer’s power hit for the bad 123 hull design etc. If they truly were not at fault then they should try to work with the appropriate authorities and help them straightened out the whole mess. The Coast Guard should have forced all the 123 parties to do so before they could bid on surface assets again – including the FRC. If Bollinger is in the clear and has the better offering then they should win. If that is the case I wish them well.
Michael,
I want to go back to the original comment and your reply. The comment stated that the CG has rogered up on the importance of TEMPEST on the WMSL. As such, to date no classified systems are functioning onboard BERTHOLF. This will not changed until the entire ship, its cabling, it C2 systems, and its procedures meet FULL TEMPEST standards. Recently BERTHOLF successfully completed its visual TEMPEST inspection and the CG is making necessary modifications to full satisfy TEMPEST requirments. With that said (unless you want to say all above is a lie) where is your beef. I’ll gladly admit that you probably know more about the 123 “CF” than most that read this blog and if you want to go on about that then fine. The plain and simple truth is that everything you say about the WMSL is from third party sources in conjunction with your own extrapolations and suppositions. Stick to what you know and leave the WMSL discussion to actual sources and cited references. Regarding your opinion of whether the WMSL should have a SCIF; that sounds like your diasgreement with policy not TEMPEST itself. Throwing such a bold one-liner out there is inappropriate unless you intend to actually follow it up. Your repeated crying that the CG allegedly transmited near Cuba with inproperly shielded systems does not give you the credibility or experience to claim that the CG is incapable of properly creating, integrating, operating, and maintaining a SCIF. In fact, the SCIF will never be turned on until those parties that do possess such authority clear the system. So please do me and all the readers a simple favor. Put a cork in your assumptions on the WMSL’s future. Feel free to call out ICGS and the CG for the blunder that was Deepwater. Use the benefit of hindsight to show every wrong decision up to now. Tell CG-9 that they have a long way to go. Tell everyone how like evey Navy first of class hull 750 is painful. Please feel free to do all of that but until the day that the red side of BERTHOLF is turned on shut up about WMSL TEMPEST. You have beat the horse but it takes time for the CG to completely redesign the C2 system the LMCO built.
You can either report the facts and leave the fiction to those that call it a profession or you can take a stab at the great American novel and leave the journalism to those that do that for a living.
Let me take these in order
- The fact that the NSC has yet to run the instrumented tests, which it promised to do over a year ago (and then announced several major schedule slips) demonstrates there is still a problem. Would you like me to post the slip dates?
- You never addressed my point that a s SCIF was never part of the original design, something Adm. Gore stated incorrectly (a lie?). I have the original requirements as well as the CG’s own status report showing the status of the Engineering Change Proposal to add the SCIFs. Would you like me to send you those docs? This data is first hand – not third hand as you suggest. This means the SCIFs are new and a design addition. Why? Why add interior modules to spaces that are and were supposed to be designed to secure spaces on their own? Of course there is some supposition on my part – but I don’t think very much given the history and the data shown here. (That history included the Porter improper and illegal waivers, which are at the heart of the cover up. Something I also see you didn’t address either). Additionally others have posted (including on other sites) that there are major design flaws with the interior of the NSC, that they would cost hundreds of millions to fix, if they could be fixed at all, and that the SCIFs are a huge bastardization of the ship to hide that situation.
- I know the Coast Guard transmitted the SIPRNET, the government wide secure internet, because the Coast Guard bragged about doing that from the 123s in a press release. Additionally the committee that held my hearing last year concluded the exact same thing. Shall I send that first hand data to you? Would you like me to post that here?
- I do not know if SCIFs can be forced fit or not and if they were they could probably be maintained. The issue real issue is that the Coast Guard and contractors are willing to bastardize 8 ships, over $3b worth of ships I believe, in order to hide their continued incompetence and to avoid being held accountable for those and previous issues.
- I do want to commend the anonymous blogger. While they shot the messenger a little they made what appears to be an attempt to deal with the issues and information. I applaud that. Unfortunately the writer does not appear to be in possession of the correct or first hand information they lambaste me for not having – a charge I demonstrated is incorrect. Now let’s see how the response is handled
- Lastly I will send the data I mention to ANYONE who provides me a means for doing so. If you pay attention to this site you can see that I post quite a lot of the first hand information I have. To date I have never had a single data item successfully refuted. (To be honest 99% of the time when I post data the bloggers who challenged me ignore it)