Aug. 19, 2007
The Troubled Waters Of "Deepwater"
Congressman: The Country Is Less Safe Than Before $24 Billion Refurbishment
-
Play CBS Video Video Preview: Deepwater Only On The Web: An ex-Coast Guard officer tells Steve Kroft that having contractors run the agency's upgrade program was like asking "the fox to develop the security plan for the henhouse."
-
Video Kroft's Reporter's Notebook Only On The Web: "60 Minutes" correspondent Steve Kroft discusses his upcoming exposé of the Coast Guard's botched effort to upgrade its fleet.
-
Video Deepwater In Full: An ex-Coast Guard officer tells Steve Kroft that having contractors run the agency's upgrade program is like asking "the fox to develop the security plan for the henhouse."
-
-
(CBS)
-
Retired Coast Guard Capt. Kevin Jarvis talks with Steve Kroft. (CBS)
-
-
Interactive Military 101 Basic training to learn all about America's fighting force.
-
News Tools 60 Minutes
Email AlertSign up for our 60 Minutes email alert.
After 9/11, few government entities were as poorly prepared to take on an expanded role as the U.S. Coast Guard. Already charged with sea rescues, drug interdictions and immigration enforcement, the Coast Guard became the primary maritime force for homeland security, tasked with protecting 95,000 miles of coastline and 361 ports with an old and antiquated fleet.
So five years ago the Coast Guard undertook a massive modernization program called "Deepwater" and ended up way over its head. As correspondent Steve Kroft reports, the $24 billion project has turned into a fiasco that has set new standards for incompetence, and triggered a Justice Department investigation.
A promotional video for the biggest project the Coast Guard had ever taken on looked impressive enough: "Deepwater" would include 91 new ships and 124 smaller boats, plus new planes and helicopters.
But five years into the program, the Coast Guard has fewer boats and ships now than it did before it started. Congressman Elijah Cummings, chairman of the Coast Guard oversight subcommittee calls the program, "a mess."
"Here it goes to the national security of this country," Rep. Cummings says. "That's serious business. Particularly after 9/11. And so, you know, it pains me. It really does."
Asked if he thinks the Coast Guard in worse shape now than it was before it began Deepwater, the congressman tells Kroft, "They say they're not. But I think they are."
You can begin with the fact that the Coast Guard spent nearly $100 million to ruin eight patrol boats. The plan was to take the aging workhorses of the fleet, the 110-foot Island Class patrol boats, and lengthen them by 13 feet, adding a launch ramp for small inflatable boats and expanding the superstructure. But something went drastically wrong at the Bollinger Shipyard near New Orleans, where the first eight boats were extended.
"What you see is a lot of buckling. In the floor. And spaces where you know something is bending that shouldn't be bending in other words it should be flat," Cummings recalls.
After just a few weeks on the water, all eight boats experienced severe structural problems and had to be pulled out of service. They are currently tied up at a pier at the Coast Guard’s Baltimore yard waiting to be decommissioned. Their problems, the Coast Guard says, are too serious to be fixed.
Rep. Cummings wanted to show Kroft the cracks and buckling himself, but the Coast Guard refused to let him take 60 Minutes on its base.
"We should not allow situations to occur where you spend $14 million for a boat that doesn't float," Cummings says.
"You don't think it was seaworthy?" Kroft asks.
"No. And they don't either. That’s why when I say ‘they,’ I'm referring to the Coast Guard," the congressman replies.
How does that happen?
Says Cummings, "I don't know. The thing I'll tell you and I think I know partly. It started with some people not either paying attention. Or people who didn't care. Or people who were greedy. Or people who were incompetent. Or people who lacked integrity. Or a combination of all."
That pretty much sums up the sentiments of just about every government organization that has taken the time to investigate Deepwater and its problems, which go far beyond the patrol boats.
And there has been no shortage of whistleblowers shouting "Mayday." Some of the blame can be traced to the original Deepwater contract.
From the outset, the Coast Guard didn’t have the resources to run a $24 billion project. So it outsourced the entire program to the private sector—not just the construction—but the day-to-day management of the contract. It went to a company called Integrated Coast Guard Systems, a joint venture of Lockheed Martin and Northrop Grumman that had been formed specifically for this job. Not surprisingly, the joint venture picked Lockheed Martin and Northrop Grumman to do the lion's share of the work.
One of the first people to send up a warning flare about the contract was Captain Kevin Jarvis, who, until his retirement last fall, commanded of the Coast Guard’s Engineering and Logistics Center.
"People have told us, ‘Look, the people that were supposedly managing the contractors were, in many cases, the contractors themselves.’ The same companies. Correct?" Kroft asks.
"Correct. Correct. People say that this is like the fox watching the henhouse. And it's worse than that," Capt. Jarvis says. "It's where the government asked the fox to develop the security system for the henhouse. Then told 'em, ‘You're gonna do it. You know, by the way, we'll give you the security code to the system and we'll tell you when we're on vacation.'"
Produced by L. Franklin Devine
© MMVII, CBS Worldwide Inc. All Rights Reserved.
Recent Segments
Scroll Left Scroll Right
You have pointed out the pro''s and con''s about our US Coast Guard organization. The best improvement for any powerful organizations, example, for our US Coast Guard is not pretending that there is no problem. If you have kept hiding problem without reporting out to the American people, then there won''t be good and positive will coming out from, for improving roles , and enforcing discipline, especially toward the leadership in US Coast Guard. Forgive me for saying this, but Too many Officers were in charged in the office, and studied papers for passing test only for more paycheck, just to become an officers without the skills experiences about common sense to do a good job. These Officers did not cared about doing good job, except for helding power, and big paycheck, too.
Speaking of Which, The Navy folks have problem, but the good thing about the Navy, is they know how to taken cared of their every family members. They provided hospital just for their own. For example, when the US Coast Guard have messed up our tiny paycheck, and do not want to paying our healthcare, I have gone sleep without eating, except coffee, and water. These are really sadden for the small guy in the US Coast Guard have works so hard supporting his family and doing good job,(serving his country...) and have ended-up shuffling around, because of poor leadership coming from the top, and because I''ve happen to be a non-white, wife, too. Respectfully.
The deepwater program was origianlly devised to spend not-enough-money and in the end, the U.S. taxpayer will wind up paying for poor quality.
As it stands today, the USCG has one of the oldest fleets in the world and still they manage day-in and day-out without much complaint.
I know that there is no question of who is resposnible for the present mess - the U.S. Congress. Feel free to write them and ask them to start doing their jobs of supporting this service.
Here is a real article about the USCG:
http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1122007-1,00.html
Respectfully.
they need to do over night.If CG would have gotten the Money they ask for, this ship expansion might not have had to happen. You should go back and do a study of why Congress alway cut the CG''s money yet excepted them to do there job there an old saying follow the money or should I say lack of Richard LeLievre
to thoughtrules: you don''t have to believe they are "all a bunch of crooks and idiots", just that the CG finds itself hamstrung by a system that took operational control away and gave it to contractors who were inexperienced and only thinking of profit. Ever work in a defense industry? Most of the contracts are cost plus%; so the greater the cost the greater the plus (profit).
Coast50 did a great job of summing this up (read it below). This is not just about these examples but about a system that the CG had that was corrupted by outsourcing to the very people it was supposed to oversee.
Who allowed this contract in the first place?
The 110''s were used up pieces of *** when the FRAM jobs were done on them, and the first one should have been extensively tested before any others were altered.
That''s the usual manner, but not for Lockheed,Gruman,Northrup,Halliburton,KB&R. Ripoff is what they do and did, and jail isn''t good enough.
It''s times like this I''m so embarrassed to be an American...
As stated in the interview Northup Gruman owned the "ONLY" shipyard on the Gulf Coast that was capable of building a composite hull of the required size. Northrup Gruman was also 50% of ICGS...therefore it only made good company sense to approach the CG with a composite hull plan. Why not? Northup Gruman runs the contract and then offers it to themselves to build. What could make it any better?
Oh yeah I forgot to mention...Northrup Gruman also proposed to pay a substantial percentage of the composite hull prototype. Don't make the mistake of thinking they were being generous.... they would have more than made it up in follow-on hulls once they convinced the CG composite was the way to go.
This interview and video is ridiculous. Everything about it from the congressmen, to the whistleblower, and especially the sensationlist reporter...my god could you make it any more Jerry Springerish?
I won't go into the specifics of the contract or shipbiuilding, but I will comment on the CG's readiness and stance. The USCG, even before 9:11, was responsible for protection of US waterways, coastline, ship inspections, and a thousand other assignments the general public never hears about could even fathom. We performed these jobs with equipment and personnel shortages then...just as we perform them now! We have never faultered in our job because we were short on something. We made due and got the job done. We are a small and very proud service with many, many jobs that we do very well.
My real point of posting here is to advise anyone to not listen to this kind of sensationlism reporting and learn the facts for yourself. I've always had a high opinion of 60 Minutes until I saw this video. I was involved in the Deepwater project for some while and that gives me very good insight on just how realistic this report is...and in my opinion it is simply a weak attempt at stirring controversy vs showing the real CG. 60 Minutes should try to save face and leave this type of reporting to Springer.