Politics, News & Issues >
Political Issues
Get a Widget for this title
RSS FeedIf a defense contractor delivers a boat that doesn't work, should the government seek a refund?
Title endorsed in part by:
Results so far:
| No | 4% | 2 votes | Total: 46 votes | |
| Yes | 96% | 44 votes |
No
Write now
Print
Invite a writer™
Add to FavoritesAttempts to recover funds expended by the government will devolve into a time-consuming and fruitless "he said; she said" with lawyers on both sides bringing arguments to bear. This will simply increase the expense to the government (read, "taxpayers") of the non-functional product and delay procurement of the materiel which was needed.
The appropriate behavior would be at least these three steps-
First, review the specifications and acceptance procedures that controlled the development of the boat to understand why they allowed an unacceptable result to be delivered. That is, "doesn't work" implies a seriously impaired result, yet the purpose of engineering specifications and an acceptance procedure is to preclude exactly this outcome.
Second, a review by an independent third-party group to rule out any deliberate evasion or subversion by either side of the intended process for assuring successful completion of the contracted work. Should such be found criminal penalties would be appropriate. This process and its outcome should be as public as possible to bolster public confidence that no corruption is involved.
Third, the contractor should be penalized in any future bidding for contracts, up to and including denial of such bids either temporarily or permanently. There ought to be a graduated application of such penalties, given that deliberate unscrupulous behavior has not been found in the review of part one.
Never the less, the contractor should be held responsible to exhibit expertise in "boat" design sufficient to forestall a "doesn't work" result. Note that this requires an opportunity for the contractor to continuously liaison with the government's contracting agency before and during the development of the "boat", and to have opportunity to act on their expertise and require modification of the specifications and acceptance process to provide a successful result.
This intercourse too should be as public as possible. Let the public see that common sense is being brought to bear.
Such beneficial conduct by the contractor(s) should result in positive feedback during this and subsequent projects. Perhaps bonuses for bringing to light what would have been important weaknesses in the contracted product. And certainly this conduct should earn the contractor advantage in future bidding, as the compliment to the penalization proposed above.
Children and businesses learn best with positive feedback. Rather than devolve into a "Who is to blame?" mentality, this kind of undesirable outcome should be modified by using an empowering approach based on the open question "How can we prevent this from happening again?"
And all stakeholders-governm ent, defense contractors, and the taxpaying public-need to exhibit patience as a parent does when acknowledging that his or her child will need time to learn the desired behavior.
Make this a collaborative partnership. After all, we're all on the same "team", and we all want good results.
Learn more about this author, Rick Leigh.
Click here to send this author comments or questions.
Yes
In Deepwater
Floating unused in the Coast Guard's Baltimore shipyard are no less than eight cutters that were just delivered a few months ago. Completely useless, the ships are slated to be dismantled instead of patrolling the seas seeking out terrorists, drug smugglers, and illegal aliens.
Designed and destined to become an integral part of the Homeland Security apparatus, these ships, built by a joint venture between Lockheed Martin and Northrup Grumman corporations called Integrated Coast Guard Systems, or ICGS, were so shoddily built that they could not perform the tasks that were assigned to them.
Known as Project Deepwater, the program was supposed to be the shining beacon for Homeland Security to display, but instead turned swiftly into a cost over run nightmare. Originally designated as a 25 year, 24 billion dollar contract that would give the Coast Guard a farther reach than ever before, experts in the ship building industry are calling this a taxpayer ripoff of the grandest type.
Deemed unfit for the high seas, the eight ships in the Baltimore yard are the result of 100 million taxpayer dollars going to the bottom of the deep blue ocean. Having been in the press for about one day, the entire sordid affair has once again slipped beneath the radar and sonar screens, with no repayment for the obvious foul ups on the part of ICGS. ICGS reasons that since they fulfilled the contract given to them by the government, they don't have to pay anything back. Even though the ships could not perform in high seas, and had cost over runs of millions of dollars, as well as security problems with the communications, this corporate alliance feels they fulfilled their contract to the best of their ability.
Months overdue and 255 million dollars over cost, one of two other 'state of the art' cutters has finally come online. But just like the eight sister cutters slated for demolition, the Bertholf, called the flagship of the new and improved Coast Guard, has problems of it's own. Technical problems that prevent communications from being secure, flight deck deficiencies, computer problems that interfere with the ship being able to self propel, and numerous other glitches still have to be fixed in order for the Bertholf to become operational. The second ship, not named as of yet, is due for October delivery. Total cost of just these two ships? 1.1 billion dollars. The problem with the Bertholf? It was supposed to be able to sail out to sea alongside regular Navy vessels, but design flaws don't allow it to build up enough speed to keep up. So it will be the most expensive patrol boat in the history of man instead. Hopefully ICGS gets the second ship right. It's fast becoming a case of if at first you don't succeed, just use some more taxpayer dollars until you get it right.
But the real chutzpah of Lockheed Martin and Northrop Grumman comes in the form of Congressional demands for repayment of the money spent on the eight other ships that don't float properly. Instead of doing the right thing, these corporate behemoths are fighting every step of the way, insisting on negotiations with Congress as to how much, why, and when. And even though they didn't build the Bertholf to specifications, they feel they don't owe anything on that ship because hey, the thing actually floats!
Just imagining how many more cost over runs will be coming up in the 25 year period ahead of us makes one shudder. The brave men and women who will be serving on the ships of Project Deepwater should be the main concern though. Because if ICGS is cutting corners in order to turn a buck, and slapping out ships that could very well sink if used as intended, then we're no longer talking away financial responsibility, we're talking murder. These irresponsible corporations should have had their contracts torn up, their assets frozen until repayment for the cruddy ships was made, and all of the malfunctioning equipment and systems aboard the Bertholf made functional.
There's no room for debate when it comes to the lives of the people who will be out there on the high seas, rescuing those whose boats over turn, protecting our shores, and stopping criminals from entering this country. The old saying of "If you break it, you pay for it" applies here. Lockheed Martin and Northrup Grumman should pay for the ships that they themselves broke, but expect the taxpayers to foot the bill for, period.
Learn more about this author, Paul Wylie.
Click here to send this author comments or questions.
Difference of opinion? Debate now.
