Coast Guard Performance Metrics–DHS IG

Fiercehomelandsecurity has a short report on the findings of the Department Inspector General regarding how the Coast Guard is meeting its goals for the five missions that are considered “Homeland Security missions.”

Hopefully I will be able to take a closer look at this 40 page report in the near future.

11 thoughts on “Coast Guard Performance Metrics–DHS IG

  1. You get what you pay for, most of these metrics are related to missions primarily owned by major cutters and fixed wing aircraft. Since we haven’t invested in offshore assets much since the 1960s it isn’t much of a surprise. To put it in context, the entire time the Coast Guard was under DOT we only bought 13 major cutters (the HECs were well underway when we shifted from treasury and they cut the line down from 36 to 18 and then to 12). DHS hasn’t been much better with only three. Congress is either going to have to invest or get comfortable with these metrics.

  2. Same story used to justify the $36B spent on Deepwater (originally $17B). And now the USCG is far worse off than before than program began. Did you know there was an “unconditional” Performance guaranty in the ICGS contract? It was supposed to guaranty the USCG mission requirements were met. Not only were they not met but things are far worse off. The root cause is not money. It is ethics and leadership.

    Just give more work to Bollinger. They used thin steel and put crews at risk to save money then they and ICGS blamed the 123 debacle on the USCG for abusing the 110s. They got the FRCs – why not give them the OPCs etc? Keep teaching them how far the USCG leadership will roll over for them.

    Far worse than that scene in deliverance.

    • BINGO

      Commandant Papp is spinning the data to cover himself and those who came before them. They sold out to the contractors and continue to do so. They whine and wail that they need more money and use the same pitches to get more money they used to get Deepwater in the first place. They were fully funded to at least 2008 and screwed it up. Now they want to rewrite history so they are the victims again. No one is held accountable for a damn thing. Sooner o later, there will be a loss of life and or treasure because of this. Because of how much worse of the CG and the fleet is since Deepwater began. When that unfortunate event happens I would imagine these pathetic cowards use that to try to distance themselves from responsibility and try to lay an even larger guilt trip on the taxpayer to coerce them into paying for their mess.

      • Funny to see Dekort and Chuck Hill allied. Guess we should have all seen that coming though.

      • I don’t endorse what Mr. DeKort says, but I also don’t see any reason to censor him.

        Basically the metric that has been reported on is meaningless because an hour of patrol by a 25 foot RB-S counts the same as an hour by a C-130 or an NSC. There is more to the report that may be instructive, and I will talk about it later. Also the reason for the report has not been discussed, it is in fact intended to make sure traditional non-DHS Coast Guard missions are not short changed by the Department.

      • Chuck – thank you
        Here is the RAND study the USCG commissioned post 9/11. Look at the baseline plan for how many ships were supposed to be replaced, upgraded or built by 2013. That performance was guaranteed by ICGS in the contract. They were paid and were in charge as the LSI. They and the CG senior leaders who rolled over for them and to protect their own egos put the men and women of the CG and the nation in the deplorable state they are in relative to the CG’s mission performance capability. Deepwater was originally a $17B 20 effort that is now a $36B 30 year or longer effort. That was NOT primarily caused by changing requirements or inflation.

        As for Bill and I being in agreement somehow meaning we are allied. Agreement that runs counter to what you believe has to mean some kind of organized conspiracy? The fact is we independently came to the same conclusion and have never discussed it. Try critical thinking some time. it can be very liberating.

  3. Couple interesting points.

    From the Rand study: “Our main conclusion is that the Deepwater program will not provide the USCG with adequate assets and capabilities to fulfill the demands of traditional missions and emerging responsibilities. ”

    And the purpose of the DHS Inspector General’s report on “the five identified CG Homeland Security Missions,” is about ensuring non-DHS traditional missions (like environment and ATON?) are not short-changed? How? Is there going to be a second, companion report on those missions, or is this report just saying “CG is accomplishing HS missions well,” and leaving it to the audience to infer more assets (budget) can be spent on non-DHS mission areas?

    This all reinforces my point and convinces me more that those non-DHS missions be transferred to NOAA and Army CoE…

    • Bill

      I believe the RAND folks said the program would not meet the needs as contracted. They recommended the schedule be accelerated by 10 years.

      In the end not only did the CG not get the baseline plan they were promised, which RAND said was not enough post 9/11, but the CG is far worse off now than before the Deepwater program began.

      • The fact that the CG leadership and contractors left the CG in such a deplorable condition, with a performance guaranty in place, is beyond deplorable. This will, unfortunately lead to a loss of life and treasure. When it does the press will spin up, the former and current Commandants will blame congress and the taxpayer for not giving them more money while protecting themselves and their buddy contractors, congress will hold some hearings and we will probably repeat the cycle. It all depends on how catastrophic the event is. I will do my best to out each and every one of them and hold their feet (or probably just toes) to the fire.

        Had strong leaders in the CG and contr4actor sides been in place, ones who were ethically and professionally sound, the CG would be much better off right now. That is and what was needed most. Not money.

Leave a Reply

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

You are commenting using your 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