Offshore Patrol Cutter Planned Delivery Schedule

HSToday is reporting that the Coast Guard has clarified the expected delivery schedule for the Offshore Patrol Cutters, but the result is still not all that clear. Perhaps more importantly they report the Coast Guard will issue “…a “clean” contract in its request for proposals (RFP), reflecting all amendments to the RFP to date, in the week of Jan. 7.” Responses are required by January 23. There is also a statement of intent to hold the maximum price of units four through nine to $310M each.

They state that the interval between units for the first four ships will be one year. Unit five would be expected six months after unit four, with the remaining units of the eleven ship contract being delivered at six month intervals.

Previous information had indicated that FY2015, 2016, and 2017 would be single ship buys and the remaining eight ships would presumably be in four successive two ship buys. The article does not mention it, but the first ship is reportedly expected near the end of calender year 2019. I had hoped for, and expected, only a six month delay between units three and four, but it may be to early to say anyway. The report states,

“Shipbuilders have the option of proposing a different delivery schedule to the Coast Guard in the second phase of the competition, the solicitation noted. The Coast Guard could then incorporate the revised schedule into the final contract for the winning bidder.”

The competition is to be done in two phase. Phase one (expected to last 18 months with completion near the beginning of FY2015) is an initial selection of up to three competitors  to complete a preliminary design.  Phase two selects a final winner for detail design and construction of the prototype, with options included in the contract for an additional ten ships to be spread over six fiscal years. It might be possible to award all or part of the follow-on construction as a Multi-Year Procurement (MYP) (pdf)). A MYP has the potential to afford substantial savings but requires Congressional commitment.

I’m a bit surprised there is no mention of this clarification on the Acquisitions Directorate (CG-9) web site.

24 thoughts on “Offshore Patrol Cutter Planned Delivery Schedule

  1. issuing a final contract form in the RFP is a good idea which has been done before. Specifiying a top price has also been done before.

    Mandating a construction interval for ALL of the first ships is unusual since typically the first ship takes longer to build and the intervals decrease over time.

    That I would see as limit on th competing firms, which could be protested?

    • Naturally the Coast Guard is going to want to know when the ships will be delivered for purposes of scheduling personnel assignments and training, but they probably don’t really need to know eight years in advance.

      If we assume that they will fund two ships a year, then almost certainly the delivery rate will stabilize at every six months, but we might not have to wait a year between each of the first four. Construction does not have to take four years. Earlier delivery would be all to the good.

      • That will probably happen at least in a general sense, There will not be a one for one replacement because 25 OPCs are expected to replace 28 WMECs, but as OPCs come on line, older cutters will be decommissioned. Still, some of those might include 378s, which may still be in operation when the first OPCs come on line, particularly if NSC #7 and #8 are not built.

      • Funding of contract is not tied to construction intervals. Budgets are based on FY not on the building plans of shipyards.

        Funding is tied to contract modifications and those have to state when the funds will be committed by.

  2. Wow… 4 more years before production starts. Then 3 years to build. Even the Soviets (err, sorry, Russians ;-)) could build faster than that. And the latest French OPV took less than 24 months from detailed design to 1st sea trials… how’s that for a benchmark?

    But I guess there’s really no rush… oh wait.

    And $310 million cap on hulls 4-9? Still too much gold-plating IMHO (but then again, I’m sure all the foreign OPV benchmarks MUST be wrong).

      • Building faster is not a problem if you have a large work force and a steady stream of orders, but there is too much uncertainty in the way work is parceled out by the CG and Navy. Ship yards can’t hire and train the work force they need to build ships rapidly.

      • I actually tried to not mention ICGS, Bollinger etc. But I think given your response it is germane

        Maybe if you don’t lie and waste years of everyone’s time trying to say you can build a composite hull FRC when you can’t, you waste more time and to redesign and fix several NSCs ELC says have hull longevity issues and you waste years building 8 123s with known weak hulls to save money on steal, at least some of the answer lies with some unethical and incompetent yards?

  3. It’s much worse if you look at the RAND study which documented the CG plan of record and its recommended 5 and 10 year post 9/11 accelerations.

    Plan of Record – No 9/11 acceleration
    OPC 1 – 2012
    OPC 2-19 – by 2019 – Same time this program puts out OPC #1 under current schedule

  4. Let’s be honest. The first OPC won’t be operational until late CY2020, if then. Can you imagine how much fun the naval engineers are going to have trying to keep the 270s and 210’s operational?

    And the move to DHS was supposed to help the Coast Guard better compete for physical plant recapitalization……right.

    • Basically a decade beyond what Deepwater and ICGS were supposed to avoid. There was program wide performance guaranty for EXACTLY this situation. ICGS guaranteed the CGs mission performance spec would be met. Not only have things not improved or held constant they have gotten much much worse.

      • Stll chasing ambulances eh Dekort?

        How much do you expect to get to pad your wallet for this, your latest lawsuit? Seems everyone who actually hire you, you go off and try and sue them…

        11-CI-001736
        JEFFERSON
        Not Eligible
        DEKORT, MICHAEL, VS. CINETIC SORTING CORPORATION, , ET
        Scheduled Events
        PRETRIAL CONFERENCE 1/24/2013 09:30 AM

        …and to think you have repeatedly denied accusations over the years that you had any other active lawsuits. No wonder nobody wants to have anything to do with you, you are radioactive, dude.

      • I have no case any more and never mentioned it – you did. (As with most threads I am on)

        “What is the point of buying new ships when we don’t have anyone anymore who is qualified or wants to go to sea?”

        So the men and women of the Coast Guard are whiners and incompetent? And because of that we nor they deserve fully functioning equipment and assets because those who serve are not worthy of them and don’t want to use them anyway?

        That comment and your thought process are exactly what got us in this mess in the first place.

        I am glad the readers get to see all of this in the light of day.

      • I would say that from reading your attempts to try and take over this blog, that it is you who are whiney and incompetant.

        You clearly have your own interests at heart and are trying to use us, the Coast Guard, as another one of your multiple money making schemes. We don’t buy it because it is evident you are out for your self and yourself only.

      • I agree with Timmy, this Dekort could care less about the Coast Guard or the cutter fleet. His posts on every other single CG website show it. incidentally this site is the sole remaining one he has not been banned from…I wonder why that is Chuck since you supposedly run this site to “support” us who are still serving.

        Try looking in the mirror, you can stop this yourself Chuck by not allowing him to continue to take unsubstantiated pot shots at our senior leaders and trying to use this, a Coastie website, for his personal monetary gain.

        Maybe you like what he has to say, or maybe he has promised you a share of his earnings. Either way, you trying to hide the truth about this Dekort guys repeated ambulance chasing telling others who mention factual information to “stop it” says more about your integrity than anyone in CG blue who apparently do not appreciate Dekorts lies and distortions.

    • The Coast Guard is not a seagoing service to begin with. All this whining about us “needing” new ships is stupid; all most Coasties do is try and avoid sea duty at all costs anyway.

      What is the point of buying new ships when we don’t have anyone anymore who is qualified or wants to go to sea?

      • Timmy, I don’t know what you are talking about. I enjoy sea time along with many of my friends. What branch of the service are you in?

      • speak for yourself, timmy d. had a total of 4 sea billets, 3 shore billets. much prefered sea duty. only shore tour i liked was an ant team. i know some coasties never go to sea but this one prefered it.

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 )

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