OPC Builders Field Narrows–Unofficial

Selection of at most three shipbuilders to develop proposed contract designs for the Offshore Patrol Cutter is expected soon. MaritimeMemos is reporting the field has already been trimmed down to five.

“The unofficial word is that the Coast Guard has set the competitive range for the OPC program and has thereby eliminated at least three of the competitors – Marinette Marine, NASSCO and Vigor Industrial.  If this is the case, that leaves five yards still under consideration for up to three Phase I contracts – two from the “Big Six” – Bath Iron Works and Ingalls Shipbuilding – and three from the “Second Tier” – Bollinger Shipyards, Eastern Shipbuilding and VT Halter Marine.  My money’s on the three second-tier yards.  September 6,2013.

If you want to  review what has been published about the conceptual designs, you can see them in an earlier post here: “Offshore Patrol Cutter Concepts” Be sure to read the comments, there is more info there. I still have not seen any information on concepts from Bath or NASSCO.

20 thoughts on “OPC Builders Field Narrows–Unofficial

  1. It saddens me to hear Vigor may be out of the race, their XBow design looked like the perfect answer to some of the crazy seas the CG operates in, especially the Bering Sea and the Gulf of Maine.

    • Completely agree. Rather than what’s best for the mission, could they be worried about appearances and wanting to “look” more military?

  2. Bollinger being allowed o bid on this as well as the FRCs is a joke. They build 123s with weak hulls on purpose to save money on steal, putting the men and women of the Coast Guard at risk, post 9/11, and not only is no one held accountable they just keeping getting more work. I am not sure who is more pathetic, Bollinger for doing what they did or the USCG for letting them get away with it. One thing is for sure. The USCG sure told everyone how to treat them going forward. (This as well as the USCG not holding ICGS accountable for the poor condition the fleet is in via the Deepwater contract mission performance guaranty)

  3. That culling, if accurate, has me scratching my head. I can understand leaving in one of Bath and Ingalls in to be the high-end (high cost) option but why both? Why keep Eastern in with no track record over MM and Vigor who do? Why eliminate NASSCO which is the most affordable of the “Big Six” and is linked with the excellent South Korean yards? Considering the dire need for these hulls and the difficulty in holding onto the funding, I’m going to be pretty disappointed if petty politics has already grabbed control of this program.

    • Another excellent point! The decision-making going on has me head scratching… Of course this is all speculative and unofficial, so we must wait and see.

    • Why eliminate NASSCO? Because what you actually wanted was a shipbuilder with the political lobby to pull this program off.

      Barbara Boxer and Dianne Feinstein do not care about NASSCO.

      The USCG isn’t looking for affordability. Their looking for their program to be perceived as affordable.

      It will be a bigger catastrophe than Deepwater.

  4. Looks like potential contractors are getting another opportunity to tune their offers:
    http://www.uscg.mil/acquisition/newsroom/updates/opc090913.asp

    “The Coast Guard received proposals on Jan. 23, 2013, and began technical, management, past performance, and price evaluations for Phase I. Evaluation of revised proposals is expected to support an award of contracts for OPC preliminary and contract design in the 2nd quarter of fiscal year 2014.”

      • totally biased reply here, but spend the extra cash and let bath build you a boat that will go the distance. sure as heck not likely to happen, we are going to have to build boats that will have to go another 40 odd years. bath maybe pricey, but sons o guns know how to build a quality product. like I said, totally biased, but not far off the mark.

      • I agree with Eric, Let BIW build the boats, because Bath sure knows how to build a Naval vessel and they sure do last for a long time

      • I would never say Bath doesn’t make good stuff, but they aren’t the only ones who can build high-quality ships. Someone here at Chuck’s Blog mentioned in a different thread that Vigor (Todd) has the best welders in the ship-building industry, if not the best welders, period, in the US… Marinette Marine has also handled CG construction needs with high quality and satisfaction too. Bath is good, but certainly not the only good choice, and perhaps not the best from the list…

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 )

Google+ photo

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

Connecting to %s