GovernmentExecutive.com

Return to Article: Coast Guard to take over management of fleet upgrade

• 22420
  

  ICGS = Integrated Coast Guard Systems

  A joint venture company between Lockheed Martin Corp. and Northrop Grumman Corp created to integrate the efforts of the prime contractors. Trivia question -- who are the prime contractors? Answer: Lockheed Martin Corp. and Northrop Grumman Corp. Ever heard of the "fox watching the hen house"?

  GovExec.com reader Posted April 20, 2007 7:38 AM
• 22398
  

  The conversion of 8 Coast Guard patrol boats was a failure, and all had to be decommissioned due to severe structural problems. The Commnandant estimates the cost as being between $ 30 million and $ 60 million of our hard-earned tax dollars, which has been totally wasted and squandered. My question is, who is getting indicted for this fiasco, and how soon? This is a total disgrace, and someone has to pay for it.

  GovExec.com reader Posted April 18, 2007 2:46 PM
• 22388
  

  Would you mind telling us what ICGS is? There is no mention anywhere in the article of what ICGS stands for. A lot of times I have to think that these stories are pulled by a computer off of some wire service and never reviewed by anybody in the organization that posts them.

  It is cases like this where I lament the withering of print journalism.

  GovExec.com reader Posted April 18, 2007 10:06 AM
• 22383
  

  "In a major reversal, Coast Guard Commandant Adm. Thad Allen announced Tuesday that the service would take over as lead systems integrator for all assets acquired under the problem-plagued $24 billion modernization program known as Deepwater.
  The move is a blow to Defense giants Lockheed Martin Corp. and Northrop Grumman Corp., which, in 2002, won the contract to manage the program through the joint venture Integrated Coast Guard Systems."

  Oh is it a problem for Lockheed and Northrop, or their salvation? Let's look at the last major program where the Federal Government became the lead systems integrator, the B-1 Bomber. Has that system ever really met its design goals? No. Was it able to be certified as a nuclear penetrating bomber for more that a week? No. Does the avionics systems work according to design? No.

  So who is responsible, Rockwell? Nope, the US Air Force is. No recourse for design flaws and integration errors. What made the Department of Defense think that they could perform such integration and engineering design when they had never done it before? Cost, keep the per unit airframe under a set dollar value.

  I would agree that there is too much dependency on contractors, but that is when the feds decided that it would be better to hire technical knowledge from beltway bandits rather than have that capability organically. The federal employees with job protection did not hesitate to point out problems that upper management wanted swept under the carpet, but contract experts seemed to come to the conclusion that upper management wanted.

  No, have a competent core of government employees, who have the needed knowledge and skills to oversee the development, and have industry that does design and integration develop the system.

  The present system of having contractors providing the technical assessments of development are too littered with retirements from government service going to those same contractors, shortly after giving them great gifts of bonuses and increased work.

  GovExec.com reader Posted April 18, 2007 8:00 AM