CG issues Draft RFP for Second Phase of FRC Procurement


The Acquisition Directorate is reporting that they have issued a draft Request for Proposal (RFP) for a new contract to build Webber class WPCs.

It will provide for options of either four or six cutters per year for seven years. If all options were exercised the maximum number of cutters that could be built would total 42, but this probably will not be the case.

In February 2012, the Coast Guard exercised a $27.2M option to purchase the “Procurement and Data License Package” for the Webber class Fast Response Cutters, so the Coast Guard can allow other shipyards to bid to build follow-on ships of the same class.

25 September 2013, the Coast Guard exercised an option for six more cutters. This resulted in a total 24 Webber class built or under contract. I believe this was FY2013 money and we will see another contract to exercise the final option on the existing contract bringing the total to 30, which leads to a question. There is a statement in the RFP that I find difficult to understand, B.2.(b) “The total number of cutters obtained under this contract will be limited to twenty-six (26).” All along the program of record has been 58 of these vessels. The maximum number of vessels that can be funded under the phase one contract is 30 cutters so why limit this second contract to 26 when we have a stated requirement for 28 more? Does the Coast Guard plan on making a sole source buy of two ships in FY2015 and award this contract in FY2016?

Why preemptively limit the buy to less than the total of the options anyway. There might be a change of plans that would increase the Coast Guard requirement. The Navy might want to buy some using our existing contract, or the Coast Guard might want to make a Foreign Military Sale purchase on behalf of a friendly foreign government.

Despite being probably the best candidate we will ever see (a mature program with a proven product, approved by the Department for full rate production, that will continue for at least another five years), I saw no indication that a multi-year procurement was considered. I would hope that savvy ship builders would offer this as an additional option. It is still not too late for the Coast Guard to obtain Congressional permission to award a Multi-year Procurement for these ships. Or for Congress to direct this money saving procurement method.

14 thoughts on “CG issues Draft RFP for Second Phase of FRC Procurement

  1. Let’s see if Bollinger runs the table on the FRC and OPC. While the USCG still ignores the ongoing DoJ case against Bollinger for fraud. It should be for negligence as well. Bollinger built 123s with thin steel on purpose to save money. Then they falsified strength calculations to mislead the USCG into paying for them. This put the crews and general public at risk.

    Bollinger should not even be permitted to bid until this issue is cleared up. (The USCG will say they do not have the option to process a contract action while the DoJ has the case. Pure bought and paid for cowards)

      • It seems to make a ton of sense given the fact that the USCG is buying large quantities of FRC’s and OPC’s.

        You do an excellent job. I check your site regularly and appreciate the info you provide.

        I’m curious to see how the new commandant affects the shipbuilding programs.

  2. I have just gotten confirmation that the new contract will begin in FY2016 and there will be a separate sole source contract for FY2015. How many cutters? don’t really know yet. Once again the administration request is for two just as it was the previous two years, but in the previous years Congress has funded six.

  3. Here is a news story about USCGC Vigorous changing homeport from Cape May to Littlecreek, to be followed by a second MEC from Cape May, but also included is news that three Webber Class WPCs are going to Cape May. Part of what I find interesting here is that they seem to be basing these vessels in groups of three. This should allow better support, but it also suggest that these ships will not be used in a widely distributed “fast response” mode and will actually be more likely to be cruising, an employment model more like MECs than WPBs. Presumably a group of three could support one underway, one in standby, and one down for maintenance.

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 )

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