The Acquisitions Directorate (CG-9)’s Master Chief Ayer has addressed the following question: “Q: I was aboard one of the new Fast Response Cutters (FRC) last week, and I saw that the water tight doors were non-standard. Why would we do that? How can we maintain and support them?”
I do note that despite the Master Chief’s response, the specs for the Offshore Patrol Cutter do call out a particular brand of water tight doors.
Chuck Hill's CG Blog 
The USCG has no one to blame but themselves. If you let Bollinger or any other contractor roll over on you time and time again this is what you get.
As it stands now, with the lawsuit dismissed, I am forced to agree, although the latest gov’t screw-up is DOJ’s fault. If Bollinger would have said, “we screwed up on the 123s; here’s a discount on (or a few free of) the new FRCs, not only would all be forgiven, but they’d have made things look and feel totally legit. As it stands now, I’m waiting to see who in the Directorate of Acquisitions gets a retirement job at Bollinger…
Good for Bollinger. The lawsuit wasn’t the CG’s idea anyway.
If that is true it is very unfortunate.
While it may be correct since Adm Papp became Commandant in Adm Allen’s defense we found out during our efforts that the USCG legal office expected and wanted the DoJ to intervene in our case against the prime contractors. (We did not go after Bollinger because the contract wasn’t with them, Obviously in retrospect that may have been a mistake on our part)
So either Adm Papp didn’t want the suit at all or didn’t want Bollinger to be the DoJ’s only target or at a target at all.
You use thin steal on purpose to save money and then say in official documents the boats are safe based on falsified hull strength calculations and you escape justice? Damn shame
Now, that all said, I will say that some of the best acquisition programs in history were done by leaving industry alone. Look at the P-51 Mustang, for one example.
Back on topic, Master Chief Airhead wouldn’t have the foggest idea of what types of watertight doors are required onboard a cutter since he has been shirking sea duty his entire career. Chucky-boy here seems to like quoting him as if he knows something though. LOL!
While your point may have some validity it’s really much more emotional than objective or factually based.
Sea time is not the single qualifier or even the primary qualifier in knowing if the doors are correct. (And that goes for most items installed on boats, aircraft or anything else)
How many people in that industry, especially at those companies, who design, install and test those doors have any sea time? You can easily be an expert of those doors and never have stepped foot on a boat at sea. As a matter of fact I would imagine the vast majority of people who design the vast majority of items installed on the ship have no sea time.
Has there ever been a time in your life when you found a mistake someone else made and you are not in their career field? Plumbing, electrical, mechanical etc? With all the sea time you have would you be able to see even the smallest of design flaws in that door or for that matter in every items installed on the ship?
@ PACAREA Staff Weenie,
No where did I imply agreement (or disagreement) with the Master Chief’s position. I was simply reporting that he had stated one, and because he is in an influential position and is presumably reporting the position of the Acquisition Directorate, not just his personal preference, I think some people would like to know what that position is. I reported that the position had been published without comment, other than to say that, in fact CG-9 had apparently specified the WT doors on a different project. Obviously not everyone agrees with the Master Chief. I think the discussion is healthy, particularly since the CG-9 site does not have a comments area.
Agree
It’s not really about bad companies. It’s all about people and who is in charge.
If someone with the proper ethical standards were in charge at Bollinger they would have never even thought of using thinner steal to save money. Thjey would have admitted they underestimated the bid and asked for help.
Likewise if people of the same low ethical fortitude were on your Mustang example there could very well have been a catastrophe.
Does anyone know what is “non-standard” about the water tight doors? If this information was in the original question, then it was removed in the response. And for better or worse, the Master Chief said he was not addressing the FRC specific question.
Here is a quote that raises more questions than it answers, “In other words, establish requirements and allow the car company to pick the specific equipment and leverage superior buying power for larger quantities across all its vehicles. We try to do the same thing whenever practical.”
In general from a cost view, I have no difficulty with the philosophy. However, in the case of doors, why allow the contractor to pick non-standard WTDs on their own. As the quote notes, the purchaser established the requirements and to further the analogy of an automobile; is it why most new automobiles come with some great features–the purchaser required better than was was being previously offered. The question is why the Coast Guard did not require standard WTDs? Who said the contractor could not purchase doors en masse. So many left and right-hand doors, quick acting, non-WTD and so on. The contractor has the plans and knows how many doors will be needed over the life of the contract with a few spare thrown in. Perhaps they should have asked the Coast Guard Yard how they did it when it was building WPBs.
In the 1990s, I had occasion to do work on several DOE nuclear sites. Each had numerous projects under construction with some very rigorous and technical requirements. The DOE had oversight of both design and implementation. It was DOE that set the requirements to every facet of production. It was the contractors job to fill the requirement and not pick whatever they could get on the best deal.
As posted by Snake-Bit, the type of non-standard door was not given. The question is will these non-standard doors be available in years to come or will this lead to the extra costs of repair to access these doors by special order. Why was the requirement for standard doors simply put in the requirements?
If anyone wants to see the result of contractor chosen parts just take a walk through any new housing subdivision while the houses are being built. Take a close look what is inside the walls.