HSToday is reporting that the Coast Guard has clarified the expected delivery schedule for the Offshore Patrol Cutters, but the result is still not all that clear. Perhaps more importantly they report the Coast Guard will issue “…a “clean” contract in its request for proposals (RFP), reflecting all amendments to the RFP to date, in the week of Jan. 7.” Responses are required by January 23. There is also a statement of intent to hold the maximum price of units four through nine to $310M each.
They state that the interval between units for the first four ships will be one year. Unit five would be expected six months after unit four, with the remaining units of the eleven ship contract being delivered at six month intervals.
Previous information had indicated that FY2015, 2016, and 2017 would be single ship buys and the remaining eight ships would presumably be in four successive two ship buys. The article does not mention it, but the first ship is reportedly expected near the end of calender year 2019. I had hoped for, and expected, only a six month delay between units three and four, but it may be to early to say anyway. The report states,
“Shipbuilders have the option of proposing a different delivery schedule to the Coast Guard in the second phase of the competition, the solicitation noted. The Coast Guard could then incorporate the revised schedule into the final contract for the winning bidder.”
The competition is to be done in two phase. Phase one (expected to last 18 months with completion near the beginning of FY2015) is an initial selection of up to three competitors to complete a preliminary design. Phase two selects a final winner for detail design and construction of the prototype, with options included in the contract for an additional ten ships to be spread over six fiscal years. It might be possible to award all or part of the follow-on construction as a Multi-Year Procurement (MYP) (pdf)). A MYP has the potential to afford substantial savings but requires Congressional commitment.
I’m a bit surprised there is no mention of this clarification on the Acquisitions Directorate (CG-9) web site.