U.S. shipbuilder Bollinger has dragged defense giant Northrop Grumman into court in Louisiana, claiming Northrop owes Bollinger at least $12 million for work performed five years ago on small Coast Guard cutters that was subsequently canceled. Northrop tapped Bollinger to stretch and modernize 49 110-foot patrol boats under the $24-billion Deepwater modernization scheme. But Bollinger finished only eight before the Coast Guard in 2005 discovered hull cracks and other problems on the modernized boats that forced their early retirement. The other 41 boat modifications were canceled.
The 110-foot cutter fiasco was the first sign of an impending meltdown in the Coast Guard over Deepwater. The bad 110s were followed by problems with the design and construction of the flagship National Security Cutters plus cost overruns on other aspects of Deepwater. In 2007 the Coast Guard “fired” Northrop and partner Lockheed Martin from their roles as systems-integrators. Deepwater got an overhaul, and today is struggling to emerge from years of bad management that wasted hundreds of millions of dollars.
But for all the public debate over Deepwater, the Coast Guard repeatedly has declined to confirm allegations that Deepwater’s biggest problem was systems-wide flaws in the command-and-control architecture that was supposed to be common to all the new ships and aircraft. Lockheed whistleblower Mike DeKort has been harping on this point for years, and documents have surfaced hinting at command-and-control systems problems in the modernized 110s and the new National Security Cutters. Now there’s further indication, buried deep in the Bollinger lawsuit.
The shipbuilder claims that Northrop changed the command-and-control design for the 110s at the last minute, forcing Bollinger to radically alter its production methods on the fly — never a good thing in ship construction. Specifically, according to the lawsuit:
This change to COMDAC [the new command system] would include new requirements for security for wire emissions (“TEMPEST requirement”). NGSS [Northrop] was aware of this change well before the award of the Subcontract, but Bollinger was not informed of the extent of this change until long after the award and only a few weeks before the scheduled delivery of the first boat.
Problems with TEMPEST — a security standard for limiting the leaking of classified electronic transmissions from wires connected to command systems — has vexed many of the Coast Guard’s major new weapons programs, from the modified 110s to the National Security Cutter. Now we have a window into the beginning of the screw-ups.
Notably, when the Coast Guard went shopping last year for new boats to replace the 110s, it tapped Bollinger to do the work. (The award since has been protested by losing shipyards, so the program is delayed.) Some observers wondered if it were wise to trust Bollinger with another complex shipbuilding program, in light of the failure of the 110 modernization. But if Bollinger’s claims in its lawsuit are true, then the problems with the 110s’ electronics are Northrop’s fault, not Bollinger’s.
(Photo: me)
Related:
Coast Guard’s sunk costs
Coast Guard’s billions
Congress wants to take away CG’s buying power
Coasties in Georgia
Coasties to the rescue!
Behind the Coast Guard’s rescue spin
Coast Guard spins rescue
Cutters got leaky networks
Coast Guard slams contractors
What’s next for Deepwater?
Coast Guard sinking ever faster
Deepwater: the good and the bad
Lockheed’s bad boats
Related posts:
[...] Coast Guard Deepwater Fallout: Lawsuit! From David Axe at WarIsBoring.com [...]
This is a quote from Axe’s article: “the problems with the 110s’ electronics are Northrop’s fault, not Bollinger’s.” Is not ICGS ultimately responsible? And who is responsible for electronics integration within ICGS? Northrop or Lockheed? Perhaps there was a written agreement between Northrop and Lockheed that identified who is responsible for electronics integration.
Forget the Refund – ICGS thinks it is OWED $ for the 123s? And other things I learned from Bollinger v. Northrop
- Bollinger is now (by amendment) suing Northrop for C4ISR issues like TEMPEST for the first time – $7m worth. (The overall amount is about $12m down from $15m)
- Northrop states that the government (Coast Guard) terminated the contract for “convenience for the government”. It appears that means that not only is no refund due but ICGS is OWED money from the government – Coast Guard
- NG blames Lockheed for the late C4ISR data to Bollinger even though the Bollinger subcontract was only to Northrop. Northrop states it is not responsible for Lockheed/ICGS not providing data or incorrect data (Even though NG is in ICGS)
-Northrop also suggests Bollinger may be due compensation if the government was responsible for the late or faulty data relative to C4ISR
- Bollinger says Northrop illegally terminated a contract for 49 ships not just the 12 it finished or was working on
- Northrop states a 3 year statue of limitations is up. Bollinger refutes that
- Northrop states the issues may not be able to be determined until the DoJ AND the DHS IG finish their investigation (Keep in mind there is a Marinette Marine FRC award protest filed with the GAO. The GAO completion date moved recently from 1/15 to 2/20)
- Bollinger and Northrop are arguing over which court has jurisdiction, whether arbitration is allowed, who can recover what money from who and whether or not 600 docs submitted after Bollinger’s original complaint are relevant
- There are open Motions to Dismiss the Case and to end Arbitration pending. There is a meeting in the Louisiana court on 1/6 between all of the parties to discuss dates. I was told no Motions have been decided on
NG is going wild trying to make this probelm go away as they know way more then LMCO about TEMPEST, and until this debacle were considered the “go to” people for TEMPEST, and now they are looking like complete fools because of Deepwater.
This fiasco demonstrates why large contractors should not be trusted to perform TSCM inspections or comply with standards and protocols and why people who work outside of the large companies and outside of the accepting agency shoudl never be allowed to certify the item as it just invites fraud in the name of war profiteering.
ICGS tried to scam the government, this has been irrefutably proven. The Coast Guard was asleep at the wheel (or at a minimum operating the ship in a drunken stupor). NG and LMCO knew full well what they were doing which is why they created ICGS to act as a cover-up when/if they screwed anything up.
Remember that ICGS was created and operated by both LMCO and NG so that ICGS could monoplize the projects and scam the government out of not only the initial budget, but also out of the huge budget overruns.
Both LMCO and NG are convicted felons, so by creating ICGS they could dodge their previous crimnal conduct that is a matter of public record.
…and the entire time the CG just stood by and did nothing by help the felons bilk the public out of even more money, and they willing and knowling but their subordinates in dangers path, and though thier own malfeasance put this nations most classified secrets into the hands of our enemies.
[...] Related: Coast Guard lawsuit Coast Guard’s sunk costs Coast Guard’s billions Congress wants to take away CG’s buying power Coasties in Georgia Coasties to the rescue! Behind the Coast Guard’s rescue spin Coast Guard spins rescue Cutters got leaky networks Coast Guard slams contractors What’s next for Deepwater? Coast Guard sinking ever faster Deepwater: the good and the bad Lockheed’s bad boats No Comments so far Leave a comment RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URI Leave a comment Line and paragraph breaks automatic, e-mail address never displayed, HTML allowed: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <code> <em> <i> <strike> <strong> [...]
[...] suit occurring shortly after another contractor protested the award. Over at War is Boring, David Axe argues that this lawsuit may suggest that the problems with the electronics for this project are the fault [...]