Wednesday, January 28, 2009

Coast Guard Sentinel-Class and Acquisitions Moving Forward

Guest Post from RADM Gary Blore (CG-9), Assistant Commandant for Acquisition

The Government Accountability Office (GAO) today publicly released its report about its decision on the bid protest of the award of the Sentinel-class patrol boat. As I reported earlier this month, the GAO issued a bid protest decision on January 12 that upheld the U.S. Coast Guard's award of the Sentinel-class Patrol Boat to Bollinger Shipyards, Inc. I don't think I can overstate the importance to the Coast Guard of the GAO upholding this award. While we had every expectation the award would be upheld, in reviewing the GAO decision, I'm proud that the Coast Guard's efforts to reform acquisition processes have been demonstrated.

The 153-foot Sentinel-class patrol boat will replace the 110-foot Island-class patrol boats, which have reached the end of their 20-year service lives. This contract award is valued at $88 million. If all options are exercised, the Coast Guard could order as many as 34 cutters on this contract, for a total approximate contract value of $1.5 billion.

6 comments:

Anonymous said...

Admiral – that is certainly good news for our modernization efforts. I have to admit though, that my gestalt reaction is (and was) surprise that we’re awarding the contract to the very contractor that built 123’ cutters that were unseaworthy.
That being said – I’m sure we exercised due diligence in this situation and am excited about this addition to our Coast Guard fleet.

RADM Gary T. Blore said...

For Anonymous: Your point on past performance of the manufacturer, in the award of any major acquisition project, is well-stated. I believe you would conclude we did practice "due diligence." Details of how past performance was considered is discussed in the GAO analysis and upholding of the award (see main article for link).

Anonymous said...

Admiral,

The report was released on 12 January and carried in several CG blogs. Your statement here on the 28th of January says "GAO today publicly released its report."

Did they release additional information that wasn't contained in the 12 Jan release?

iCommandant said...

Anonymous,

As stated in the Jan. 12 post, the decision was issued that day under a Protective Order by the GAO and we were not able to release the report until they approved a redacted version.

The GAO posted the redacted report on the 28th.

Anonymous said...

Not to argue, but since "a" version was posted on-line by the GAO on 12 Jan, why not say so.

Anonymous said...

Admiral A substantial increase in installed power, increased displacement and higher speed than the parent all look risky. Are technical warrant holders and ABS as confident in a successful outcome?