GAO Decision on OPC Contract Protest Published

MarineLog is reporting the issue of the text of the GAO’s decision on the protest of the award of the OPC contract.

“Interestingly, the GAO decision includes a Coast Guard table that indicates that all five shipyards that responded to the RFP got “Superior” ratings for the soundness and mission effectiveness of the concept designs offered and also for their design approach. All were rated “Satisfactory” for organizational management and production capability. On past performance, though, differences emerged. Bollinger and Bath Iron Works were rated ‘Satisfactory,’ Eastern was rated ‘Superior,’ but both Huntington Ingalls and VT Halter got ratings of ‘Marginal.'”

8 thoughts on “GAO Decision on OPC Contract Protest Published

  1. Seems a little like apples and oranges to me. Wouldn’t Eastern’s past contracts have been commercial as opposed to the others being military? It seems like it would be difficult to compare past contract performance between them in that case. Or am I missing something?

  2. Interesting Bollinger past performance is Satisfactory since they purposefully created boats with weak hulls to save money on steel. And committed fraud to conceal the design flaws they created on purpose. Nice to see the USCG values their people and the general public so highly. Those weak 123 hulls could have resulted in a catastrophe including the Matagorda who buckled as she tried to out run a hurricane in 2004. And not only did Bollinger put profit ahead of lives they lied about the hull strength to conceal their recklessness. Looks like Skip Bowen and Admiral’s Papp, Allen and Loy worked it all out real nice for Bollinger?

    (I am not against the people down there getting work. The problem is NO ONE on that management team or the owners have been held accountable. Bollinger went so far as to suggest the USCG was to blame for running the 123s and suggested they let them build new 123s to get it right. That after they were the ones who convinced the CG to modify the 110s in the first place.)

      • You are amazing!!! Please shut up and go away! Don’t you have some law suits file?

      • rlcullison, no way I want Dekort to go away. The amusement factor is too great. LOL!

    • So I assume you both disagree? Or don’t want to be on record with an opinion?
      Try sprouting some stones, writing your opinion on the matter and using your whole and real names.

      And just in case someone doesn’t know or wants to make the point I use imispgh – I am Michael DeKort

    • While I share in the others’ weariness of this issue being re-surfaced again and again, I would point out it IS a relavant issue to this discussion.

      Michael, while I am very sympathetic to your circumstance, and agree (as probably most of us here do) that Bollinger never suffered a reasonable consequence for the 123 fiasco, none of us here at Chuck’s can do a darn thing about it. Indeed, the one entity which could, didn’t (for whatever reason). At this point, in my opinion, you are at that point where a victim has to acknowledge that “justice” doesn’t always get it right or seem fair. That sucks, but it’s the way it is… Sometimes you have to be satisfied with knowing you’re right, and move on.

  3. This decision seems to be getting a lot of attention. The Past Performance Evaluation Teams critique of the shipbuilders’ performance is unusually frank. If you do not want to read the whole thing, Aviation Week has a good summary. Makes me wonder if VT Halter and particularly Huntington Ingalls might not regret opening this “can of worms.”

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