In Service Vessel Sustainment (ISVS) Project

The Acquisition Directorate (CG-9) Master Chief Ayers answered a question regarding what the CG plans to do after the MEP project is over. The longer answer is here, but this is the meat:

“With the current budgetary challenges our government is facing, I really can’t provide specific timelines other than to say that the 140-foot icebreaking tugs will be the first vessels to receive an ISVS-funded service life extension program in FY 2014-2015, at the Coast Guard Yard. The vessels that will follow the 140-footers include the 225-foot seagoing buoy tenders, Coast Guard Cutter Barque Eagle, the 47-foot motor lifeboats, and the 175-foot coastal buoy tenders. It doesn’t take a crystal ball to know that the purse strings will be getting tighter in the future, but we also know that the most cost-effective way to maintain a fleet of vessels is through proactive and well-planned maintenance, so our druthers is to make it happen sooner rather than later.”

26 thoughts on “In Service Vessel Sustainment (ISVS) Project

  1. At least 17 110s went through MEP. Something that was not supposed to happen and given ICGS/Bollinger’s 123 debacle it was something that should have never been paid for by the USCG either. That is because here is a program wide performance guaranty in the Deepwater contract with ICGS that was supposed to cover ICGS not delivering the mission performance enhancements it was supposed to. Not only did that not happen but mission performance has been severely degraded since that program started. In addition we found in discovery that ICGS lied to the USCG about the guaranty being legally pout in to effect. So even if the USCG tried to use it they would find ICGS never actually provided it. That is fraudulent inducement of the whole Deepwater program. ICGS should never have won the bid.

    In addition to the 110 MEP which should never have been paid for the USCG paid for the “repair” of 4 buckled 123s and have never received a refund for the 123s.

    This is what Bollinger said today about their impeccable shipbuilding
    Reference this article
    http://www.marinelink.com/news/bollinger-business-means349790.aspx

    “Bollinger Shipyards is about family. Not only a Bollinger family business, but our employees and customers are our families. This is the atmosphere created by my grandfather, and this philosophy continues today. It’s about treating people with respect. It’s about ethics and values. It’s about character – doing the right thing when no one else is looking.”
    Internally at this Bollinger, that philosophy seems to alive and well; paying dividends on a daily basis.

    Are you kidding me?????? When “no one was looking” on Deepwater they used thinner steel on the 123s and lied about the calculations to hide it. That was fraud and could very well have gotten someone killed.

    (and)

    “OPC: Bollinger, the Quiet Company
    The race to build OPC is on, but Bollinger, having announced its team, isn’t saying much else. Where others have been increasing vocal about their entries, Bollinger has taken a noticeably lower key approach. The Bollinger team, nevertheless – Damen (proven, durable hull forms) and Gibbs & Cox for design (extensive U.S. government, Coast guard and U.S. Navy experience) – will present a formidable case to the Coast Guard’s decision team. Bollinger would say only, “We are excited about the OPC program and our team, but it is hard to comment too much as there is a competition going on.”
    Notwithstanding the tight-lipped position on OPC at Bollinger, the Gulf Coast boatbuilder appears to be as well-positioned as anyone for the prize. Looking at the FRC program, for example, and with 18 hulls under contract, three already delivered, and 10 more in production, Bollinger is more than proving its mettle in the race.”

    How ironic they say proving their “mettle” because it was using thin “metal”(steel) that caused the 123s to buckle. These guys are shameless,smug, hypocritical, unethical and chock full of bravado. They seem so damn confident they are going to get away with what they did. So confident the DoJ can’t touch them.

    The DoJ has emails from Bollinger internally where TJ Hamblin tells ownership that they used the thinner steel and fudged the hull strength calculations. Yes there is due process, everyone is innocent until proven guilty yada yada yada. And hopefully they will still be held accountable by the DoJ. But this public display demonstrates they don’t even have the decency or enough trepidation about the trial coming in 2013 to keep quiet and play it smart. Instead they throw up this big middle finger to the USCG, the DoJ and the taxpayer. Not only did they get the FRCs when they should have been debarred they are now in the running for the OPCs. All with no accountability for the 123s. No refund, no one fired, no one in jail and the USCG even paid extra for 4 123s to be “fixed” in spite of Bollinger’s fraud and a program wide performance guaranty. How far will the USCG bend over for these guys? I am pretty sure Bollinger spewed the same BS about ethics, quality and treating the customer right when they delivered all 8 123s.

    Just today the Navy Times ran an article on Admiral Papp once gain asking the taxpayer to pay for yet another round of recapitalization. The Commandant should take a crack at holding ICGS accountable before he lays a guilt trip on the taxpayer again and hits them up for money to do it all again. He could hold ICGS accountable through the performance guaranty in the DW contract. There is a program wide performance guaranty in the Deepwater contract with ICGS that was supposed to cover ICGS not delivering the mission performance enhancements it was supposed to. Not only did that not happen but mission performance has been severely degraded since that program started. In addition we found in discovery that ICGS lied to the USCG about the guaranty being legally pout in to effect. So even if the USCG tried to use it they would find ICGS never actually provided it. That is fraudulent inducement of the whole Deepwater program. ICGS should never have won the bid.

      • First – I did not lie and was not found to lie. ICGS etc convinced the judge to ask me to explain myself on something I said. I made a mistake, explained it and that was it. Not finding of a lie or sanctions. The ONLY party sanctioned in the whole ordeal were the defendants for breaking the rules in discovery. And that was over $100k. It would be incredibly stupid and hypocritical for me to lie to the court, the DoJ, the IG, the press or anyone else involved in this ordeal. (My mistake was stating in official court documents a conclusion I made about the hull and shaft issues. I tied the shaft issues to a conversation I was present for in 2003. Turns out there were two shaft issues. One caused by the hull buckling and one not. I was not aware of that until 2010 when the defendants told me in depo. After verifying that we confirmed I was wrong. The other part was from a poorly worded paragraph I tried to change months before it was brought up by anyone else. When we tried to correct it we filed the change without the proper change notice. The judge clearly states in the record he realized we tried to make the change and did it wrong)

        Regardless of what I did that does not address what ICGS did. Why not address their conduct and what I said on their own merits? Are you saying that there is no truth to what I said above?

      • ^ http://www.ndtexblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/11/show_public_doc10.pdf MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER Civil Action No. 3:06-CV-1792-O

        ^ http://www.ca5.uscourts.gov/OralArgRecordings/11/11-10379_5-2-2012.wma Opening Arguements – Dekort Appeal

        ^ ftp://opinions.ca5.uscourts.gov/byDate/Jul2012/Jul16/11-10379.0.wpd.pdf Dekort Appeal – Final

        The above links tell me all I need to know about you Mr. Dekort: “testimony and arguments have been consistently imprecise or deliberately misleading”.

        You gambled you could sneak something by on the government and the courts…you lost. Maybe now it is time for you to grow up and try and do what your parents did and actually get a job? Going around trying to leach off of the Coast Guard and suing others over matters you had nothing to do with, yet lied and pretended to, hasn’t seemed to work out so well for you.

      • Leave it to this site would give this clown a mouthpiece after his own CG Report site could get no traction and folded.

  2. Focusing on me and ignoring the issue is counter productive for the country and the USCG. It is a smoke screen. Fine you don’t like the messenger and we lost on the hulls. Had someone more qualified stepped up I would HAVE NEVER HAD THE LAWSUIT. Don’t be tools. Deal with what I have said on their own objective merits before the wretched state of the fleet results in a loss of life.

  3. And even if we did try to “sneak” something in – what is the problem with that if it is LEGITIMATE? Who else is doing it? And it doesn’t invalidate the cause. The false mission performance guaranty is real. The hull fraud is real. Who is dealing with the guaranty fraud? NO ONE.

    Don’t be tools. Slam me all you want. But NOT dealing with the issues is harmful to the USCG.

    • It was not legitimate because it was we (the Coast Guard) found. You lied and tried to say it was you who was the original source when you were not. The law is clear about self-serving opportunists like yourself not meeting the bar.

      Your claims were invalidated by your own actions and lack of integrity. The cause has nothing to do with you, so I totally understand want to associate ourselves or cooperate with someone like you in any way given what has been revealed about the scam you tried to pull with us.

      • My being original source is not the issue. So now we lost appeal. It’s over.

        The main issues Remain. How are they going to get resolved?

  4. There is only a SCAM if our allegations were wrong. We were right on ALL of the merits. Including the guaranty fraud.

    Again – NOW WHAT? Who is going to address the issues?

    • Unfortunately for you and your wallet you tried to fatten, your allegations were proven wrong though. You amended your complaint multiple times and post facto tried alleging to be the original source of something that was found by the Coast Guard. When you lied and got caught trying to pass of the findings of ours as your own, your allegations lost their validity. Being found to have not been the original source and your “testimony and arguments have been consistently imprecise or deliberately misleading” makes you anything but “right” and demonstrates your lack of merit and credibility to your claims.

      My sources at LM, CG-9 and elsewhere also tell me you have a well established game of constantly suing other employers as well as a way of trying to make a quick buck for yourself. It is no surprise then that given the above factors, nobody in the Coast Guard is willing to “address” anything you have to say related to our acquisition processes other than to point out your lack of ethics.

  5. NONE of the allegations were proven wrong. We won every summary judgement until 2 days before the trial when the judge dismissed on jurisdictional grounds – relator issues.

    EXACTLY which allegation was wrong?????????????

    As the CGs own internal investigation as well as the DoJ v Bollinger suit confirm EVERY allegation is dead on. If we had no case – they have no case. (The only difference being the false guaranty which we found in discovery and tried to add)

    Again – which allegation was wrong? Hull fraud???? ABS fraud???????????

    Given this is not my thread I am not going to persist in the unless you focus on the specifics that matter to the USCG. Me and my dismissed cases no longer matter.

    • From Dekort’s own Wikipedia page: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_DeKort

      The .gov sources on the page are daming and show us all about you.

      “Michael DeKort was a Lockheed Martin project manager who posted a whistleblowing video on Youtube.com.[1] He objected to what he felt were failure to meet contractual requirements of C4I systems onboard United States Coast Guard’s 123 foot patrol boats manufactured for the Deepwater program. DeKort only served on the project as “Lead Systems Engineer” for a brief nine months from July 2003 to February 2004, where he was responsible for C4I issues until he was removed from the 123 conversion program at his own request and assigned to another Lockheed Martin project.

      In September 2006, DeKort filed a False Claims Act lawsuit against alleging false claims by ICGS and Lockheed Martin against the Coast Guard for C4I systems which DeKort claimed did not meet the standard outlined in the contract. DeKort later settled with Lockheed over the C4ISR issues he raised in 2010.[2] In November 28, 2006 Dekort added Northrop Grumman in his first amendment of what it would become five various amendments (and an attempt to submit a sixth) over the course of the next three years as a way of expanding the scope of his lawsuit. This first amendment adding Northrop Grumman was also solely for C4I issues; DeKort initially made no mention of Hull, Mechanical and Electrical (HM&E) design or production issues.

      In April 2007, the House Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure opened hearings to examine issues related to the Coast Guard’s Deepwater Program which included testimony from DeKort, Coast Guard officials, ICGS representatives, and other experts, who also discussed HM&E issues related to the design and conversion of the 123s. These disclosures made public for the first time ever Coast Guard and Navy investigation material which revealed possible section modulus design flaws. Later, DeKort publicly objected to testimony by Lockheed Martin executive Fred Moosally which he called, “not entirely accurate or truthful.”[3] Meanwhile, DeKort then amended his False Claims Act lawsuit, claiming original source knowledge of hull design flaws which mirrored that of which was previously discovered by Coast Guard engineers and publicly revealed for the first time ever during the April 2007 hearings.

      In April 2008, DeKort was awarded the Barus Ethics Award from the IEEE for his initial efforts and whistleblowing video on the C4I issues. The award was presented by U.S. Rep. Elijah Cummings.[4]

      On October 27, 2010 DeKort’s lawsuit against Northrup Grumman was thrown out for lack of jurisdiction in that he did not meet the bar of a Realtor under the False Claims Act and that he was not the original source of any hull design defects to the Coast Guard. Furthermore, many of his claims were merely regurgitations of already publically disclosed information. Judge O’Connor also stated that in some cases he found Dekort’s “testimony and arguments have been consistently imprecise or deliberately misleading”.[5]

      Dekort appealed the District Court decision. However the Appeals Court judge’s comments indicated they were not enamored of his claims of being an original source to the government. Three different times his attorney was asked what specific design defects Dekort supposedly provided to the Coast Guard as an “original source”; each time his was unable name anything that the Coast Guard had not already determined on its own.[6] On July 16, 2012 the Fifth District US Court of Appeals rejected Derkort’s appeal and affirmed the ruling of the District Court for “essentially the same reasons given by the district court in its Memorandum Opinion and Order of October 27, 2010.”[7]

      Dekort subsequently also sued later employers of his to include Humana and Cinetic Sorting over different unrelated issues he had while working for them after he left Lockheed Martin in 2006.”

      • “People from inside the CG are editing the Wiki page and making it what they want.”

        I am with PACAREA on this one and call BS on this lame ass statement. The cite is legimately referenced in each instance to other independent sources. You just seem butt hurt that people know the truth about you and what the Courts have said about you attempts to try and gain financially what you are not legally entitled to.

  6. Report that the 225 foot WLB USCGC Oak is beginning a Major Maintenance Availability. Oak was commissioned in March 2003 so she is relatively young, only a little over 12 years old, so I don’t think you could call this a mid-life renovation. A little surprising Oak is to be the first since first of class, Juniper, is almost seven years older. I’m sure there is a reason, would be interesting to know why.
    http://www.uscg.mil/acquisition/newsroom/updates/isvs_photoupdate070915.asp

  7. Second 225 WLB completes MMA http://www.dcms.uscg.mil/Our-Organization/Assistant-Commandant-for-Acquisitions-CG-9/Newsroom/ISVS_080717/
    Aug. 7, 2017
    Coast Guard Cutter Willow departed the Coast Guard Yard in Curtis Bay, Maryland, Aug. 3, following completion of a midlife maintenance availability (MMA) through the In-Service Vessel Sustainment (ISVS) Program.
    Willow is the second of 16 225-foot seagoing buoy tenders to undergo MMA work through the ISVS Program; work on the first tender, Coast Guard Cutter Oak, was completed Oct. 26, 2016. Renovation of the tender included an overhaul of the deck equipment and weight handling gear, updates to the machinery control system and HVAC systems, topside preservation, and a stability assessment.
    The 225-foot seagoing buoy tenders were commissioned between 1996 and 2004 and are planned to spend 30 years in service. Following its MMA, Willow will head to its Charleston, South Carolina, homeport.

  8. Quote from here: https://www.dcms.uscg.mil/Our-Organization/Assistant-Commandant-for-Acquisitions-CG-9/Newsroom/Latest-Acquisition-News/Article/1627467/coast-guard-begins-renovation-of-eighth-140-foot-icebreaking-tug/

    “Coast Guard Cutter Mobile Bay arrived at the Coast Guard Yard in Curtis Bay, Maryland, Sept. 5, 2018, to start its service life extension project as part of the In-Service Vessel Sustainment (ISVS) Program. Mobile Bay is the eighth of nine 140-foot icebreaking tugs to undergo service life extension work through ISVS. Planned work to extend each cutter’s service life by 15 years includes upgrades to propulsion and electrical systems, replacement of the boat-launching davit and habitability improvements. The tugs entered service in the 1970s.”

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s