“Coast Guard Cutter Procurement: Background and Issues for Congress” –CRS, October 21, 2019, A New Version Reflects RFI

Congressional Research Service has again updated their review of the Coast Guard’s Cutter acquisition programs. (Again only five days after the previous update) The changes reflect the Request for Information (RFI) issued Oct. 18, 2019. You can see the new CRS report here.

The significant changes begin on page 11, and continues through page 14 with quotes from the RFI, and in the “Issues for Congress” section, beginning on page 18 under “Follow-On Competition,” continuing through page 20.

It still seems strange to me that Eastern’s team is not being required to complete the detail design and that the Coast Guard would take the time to develop a second detail design.

As I understand, it the design team is Vard. They should not have been significantly  effected by the hurricane that struck Eastern. Have they been unable to complete a detail design? Shouldn’t they be able to complete one before the re-compete contracts for design studies, evaluates design studies, awards another contract, and completes a second detail design? That the Coast Guard is considering this course make be suspicious that that something is terribly wrong within the Eastern team. I hope I am wrong.

It is gratifying to note that two posts from this blog are referenced in the report:

6 thoughts on ““Coast Guard Cutter Procurement: Background and Issues for Congress” –CRS, October 21, 2019, A New Version Reflects RFI

  1. My understanding is that the basic engineering work for the ESG OPC winning proposal was performed by VARD Marine Canada, but the detailed design/engineering for the construction of first ship was subcontracted by ESG to Babcock International UK in March 2017, using the Spanish Sener company’s FORAN-CAD/CAM/CAE systems.

    All follow-on ships detail design/modifications will be carried entirely by ESG.

  2. I’m concerned that we were going to end up with 2 different OPC designs, one with 4 ships, the other with 21. Even when I read the following: “it is assumed that Shipbuilders would utilize the mature parts of the existing OPC functional design—to the maximum extent possible—and mature any incomplete aspects of the [OPC] detail design.” This suggests that the Coast Guard envisions that OPCs 5 through 25 would be built to a design that is largely similar to that of ESG’s design for the first four OPCs.

    It still doesn’t quite make sense to me. If a second yard refines the design to make it more efficient to produce or more cost effective, there are bound to be differences. They could be the propulsion and electrical equipment, topside layout including hangar and helicopter deck, or even elements of the hull form itself.

    And the constant mention of ‘non-warranted’ design…so who is going to be responsible, ESG or the new shipyard?

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 )

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