The Acquisitions Directorate released their draft specifications for the Offshore Patrol cutter (OPC) Monday, May 2. This is certainly a welcome step, but in some ways it seems the plan ahead has gotten murkier rather than clearer. The description of the ship available to the public has, over time, become more general rather than more specific, and the timing of critical events is now more uncertain.
This release comes five to six months after the previously announced planned release date, as had been published on their website until it was changed this week. Currently the only milestone with a projected date on the Acquisitions Directorate website is “May – June 20, 2011 – Draft Specification Review” everything else is TBD (to be determined). This was the near term plan as it had been previously published:
“November-December 2010 (tentative) – Draft Specification Review
“Release draft specification for industry review and comment through potential primes.
“April-June 2011 (tentative) – Draft RFP Release
“Release draft RFP via website for industry review 30 days before pre-solicitation conference; industry encouraged to provide written comments on draft documentation.
“April-June 2011 (tentative) – Pre-Solicitation Conference
“Conduct pre-solicitation conference; industry asked to provide any final comments.
The solicitation requests responses by 20 June, 2011, only 48 days after its release. I asked a friend, working for one of the shipyards, if this relatively short turn around would have an adverse effect. His response was, “If the CG really wanted the industry comments to lower the price, then they would have allowed at least 90 days to allow the shipyards and major equipment suppliers to find the cost drivers in the spec. Instead they have let the schedule slip and they are trying to get back on schedule with very little time for comment on the Specs. In my mind, a poor trade off.”
More time to actually do the work might have been wise, but it does look like there was never an intention to allow more than two months for comment. Another page from the Acquisitions Directorate website still shows the “draft specification review” scheduled for November 2010, the draft RFP to be release January – March 2011, and a “pre-solicitation conference” tentatively scheduled for February – March 2011 when industry was to be asked to provide any final comments.
Still it doesn’t look look like the delay will necessarily delay the ship. Based on the GAO report referenced here, it looks like the first OPC was expected to be funded in FY2015. The first ship had been expected to be delivered in 2019, still eight years away. The plan called for a three year design process which is relatively generous for a ship of this size. There is money in the FY2012 budget request for the design process.
Distribution of the draft specs is limited, so I can’t tell you what it says. The way the draft specs were published has also been questioned. Colton’s Maritime Memos had this to say:
“DRAFT OPC SPEC PUBLISHED, SORT OF
“The Coast Guard has published the draft spec for the OPC. Well, “published” may be too strong a word. You can find the information you need to submit to be allowed to get a copy, but not the document itself, either here, on the Coast Guard’s web site, or here, on FBO. All this secrecy is because the Cost Guard says “it is impossible to understand the OPC specification, and complete cutter requirements, without access to NVR” and the NVR, wouldn’t you know it, involves ITAR and all that sensitive stuff. It’s a Coast Guard cutter, for crying out load, not a nuclear submarine. I smell another unrealistically expensive boat coming. Will they never learn? May 3, 2011.”
I can certainly understand referencing the American Bureau of Shipping (ABS) to the ABS Rules for Building and Classing Naval Vessels (a.k.a. the Naval Vessel Rules or NVR), but why not at least publish the unclassified portions of the draft specs. It sure would be nice if they would tell the rest of us what the basic specs look like.
I’d also like to be assured we are looking at the long term operating cost of the ships as well as the acquisition costs. Are potential long term savings being looked at?
Colton’s comments raise a question that underlies much of the discussion about Coast Guard ships. Are we building a warship or not? If we are going to require the additional toughness, resilience, and redundancy of a warship, with the associated greater cost, it can only be justified if it has some warlike potential. If it is not built with significant weaponry on board, then at least it has to be planned with space, weight, and moment margins to have them added. If we are not building a warship, then commercial standards would be adequate. Personally I think we should be building warships, although admittedly a modest one. Ultimately this looks like the best investment for the country, but it requires a conscious decision, a clear understanding of potential missions, and coordination with the Navy. Maybe this is happening, but we can’t really tell from the outside, and that lack of clarity may be hurting the program. It certainly makes it difficult to mobilize support and enthusiasm.
Chuck Hill's CG Blog 
Chuck, I like your optimism, such as your belief that the first OPC will be funded in FY2015. From what I’m hearing, it’s going to be a struggle getting all the NSC’s funded over the next five years, much less secure funding for the OPC’s. If the class is even built, I’ll bet it won’t happen until the end of this decade.
And before you ask, I agree that would be very, very bad for the Coast Guard. The trouble is, every federal agency will be required to identify serious $$ for savings in the foreseeable future, and that doesn’t bode well for more shipbuilding money.
That was the plan, not a prediction. You misread what I said. I inferred from the OMB report and the previous statements that the Coast Guard intended to fund the first ship in 2015. My view is, that can only happen if we stop building NSCs at #6 which will apparently be funded in FY2013 and 2o14.
I am certainly not optimistic that we will start funding OPCs in 2015 if we persist in trying to build NSCs. If we continue at the present rate, one every two years, the eight NSC will not be funded until 2018. The first OPC will not be funded until 2019 and will not be finished until 2023, and even assuming we fund two OPCs a year beginning in 2020, the last 210 will not be replaced until 2031 when it will be 62 years old.
If we are going to get the OPC project started, unless additional AC&I money falls from the sky, the Commandant is going to have to change course and truncate the NSC program at no more than six.
http://cgblog.org/2011/03/06/shipbuilding-dealing-with-reality/
My apologies – I didn’t read close enough.
That said, I’m not sure truncating the NSC program is going to be the savior for the OPC. From what I’m hearing, the entire OPC program is in jeopardy, and not because the NSC has been eating up A,C&I money – apparently some on the Hill don’t believe that the Coast Guard has made a solid business case for the program. Add to the mix a DHS that is more focused on funding high tech airport security measures we don’t need and high tech SWB measures that don’t work, and provides lukewarm support to the CG in general, the OPC’s future is not assured.
I do remember many people predicting how great it was going to be for the CG to move to DHS and away from DOT, given DOT’s lack of interest (or to be fair, effectiveness) in advocating the CG’s capital budget needs. It sure doesn’t seem like the big move has been so great after all.
I know, the CG is going to get a snazzy new HQ complex at the new DHS empire across the Anacostia (but let’s not mention the fact that it is already too small a facility to move everyone out of Buzzard’s Point). Oh, and, have you heard the latest? The DHS megacampus not be fully occupied in the near term, due to our little federal budget problem….
Yes, that move was sooo good for the Coast Guard.
There are very few things the Federal Government buys last last as long or provides as great a return on investment as a Coast Guard Cutter. Plus most of the money stays in the US. Unfortunately it seem the CG has not made much of an effort to sell the program. Maybe its early, but seems we should have seen articles in Proceedings and Seapower by now. Doesn’t seem like we are getting the message out.
Still think the only way to kick start the program is for the Coast Guard to offer it as an alternative to the NSC. Once it gets going, it will be harder to kill.
You hit the nail on the head about the move to DHS.
While it might have been good for the vocal bunch of sandpeeps who “joined to do LE” and wanted to turn the CG into a Handcuffs 101 type of organization, DHS has been awful for our services marine safety and national defense statuatory missions. If it does not have a “security” focus, DHS does not care, period.
If we buy a proven design we can probably get them built faster. I like the Sigma 10514.
If we could convince Congress I would think we should build them like the 210’s when we used 4 different yards to expedite production. If we built ships in Maine, Wisconsin, Mississippi, Louisiana, California and Washington we would be in a lot of Congressional baskets and create a lot of jobs.
For those unfamiliar with the Sigma, here is some information:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sigma_class_corvette
They are a family of designs, being built in four variations from 91 to 105 meters in length (298 to 346.5 feet). They are designed in the Netherlands, by Damen, who also did the basic design for the Fast Response Cutter.
Four of the smaller variations have been built for Indonesia and apparently they plan to build several more of the largest version. Three are being built for Morocco in two sizes. At least on the surface they appear to meet our basic needs, except in range which could probably be improved. When the Dutch built their own OPVs they, somewhat surprisingly, opted for a different much larger and more expensive ship. Reportedly the Sigmas are built to merchant standards.
The “10514” Pat refers to above is the largest variation with a length of 105 meters and a beam of 14 meters. This is the largest version, the one the Indonesians have selected for future construction.
Chuck,
That’s what I have been advocating for. Look to Europe for a proven design and have it built in the US by US Shipyards using the European Design. Such as the Holland OPV, Gowind Class Corvette, FM 400 and the FREMM Frigate
Sir,
As you know the Coast Guard does not pick a ship design it likes, it pick’s a ship design that meets the ORD, and the Sigma 10514 does not meet the ORD. For starters it does not have the range or the sea keeping abilities required by the ORD.
As most of you know the Coast Guard has spent generations operating vessels beyond their design capabilities. A lot of work has gone into defining the operational capabilities the OPC needs to meet in order to effectively and safely perform its mission in the areas it needs to operate in. I believe most people would agree we don’t want the Coast Guard to buy a vessel that can’t do the job we need it to do, just because it’s cheaper or already designed.
If the Coast Guard could identify an existing design that met ORD requirements, that was also affordable, the Coast Guard would buy it. The reality is the vessel the Coast Guard needs has not been designed yet.
From an old brownshoe electronics type…what are merchant standards?
Will it be tough enough for a Bering Sea winter? Will we get 50-60 years out of it?
Will it be safe enough in extreme conditions for our fellow Coasties??