So a handful of bloggers have the CG so worried about their posts they run to daddy to get them to weigh in? This after several attempts through the blogs, internet press conferences, press and official Coast Guard releases it appears the Coast Guards PR and spin machine has yet again come up short.
Apparently DHS has the same credibility issue the Coast Guard does. They never addressed the core issue. They also praised the changes to date and say the Coast Guard has turned the corner on Deepwater. “The Coast Guard has made remarkable progress to improve their programs across the board, and I have complete faith in their acquisition program. Without a doubt, they turned the corner from early acquisition errors.” That isn’t even remotely close to the truth. The congress pulled back the acquisition authority arrangement due to poor performance - and stated so. I see just like the CG - DHS refuses to be open and transparent. They do not acknowledge or address the severe reservations the congress has – the exact reasons they pulled the acquisition authority from the Coast Guard. Congress specifically stated they do not believe the Coast Guard has handled the Deepwater reform process well and doesn't trust the current leadership to fix the root causes and truly get the program back on track. As a matter of fact there are still significant and serious safety and security issues involving the NSC, 123s and the Coast Guard's primary classified internet system called SIPRNET. As another example of Deepwater’s overall poor performance one can simply look at the programs baseline and post 9/11 goals. By the end of 09 the surface fleet acquisitions will be between 50 and just over 100 boat/ship upgrades/fabrications short of the Coast Guard and the nations needs - depending on whether you use the original baseline schedule or those recommended by RAND post 9/11. That performance is deplorable. That means that whether the CG planned not to use the waiver again or not is irrelevant. If they had wanted to continue to use it they would have been told they could not. Instead of having the courage to implement the Commandant's motto - Transparency breeds self corrective behavior - the CG decided to spin the story. Now DHS decides to support their boondoggle. What real leadership, transparency, ethical fortitude and political courage would have resulted in would have been the Coast Guard and DHS directly acknowledging and addressing what the congress stated and thinks about their performance. The fact that the CG continues to act in this manner shows they are incapable, at least with this cadre of leadership, to step up to the plate. Until we put someone in charge of that group who is a true leader and who would not be effected negatively by the tsunami that would take place if the whole and actual truth were known, about the 123s, ongoing security and NSCs issues, deals that were made with contractors to cover up the problems etc we have no chance for resolving these issues and getting on the true path to recovery. It only gets worse from here. We need new DHS and Coast Guard leadership. Maybe we should also add a Secretary of the Coast Guard position to the mix?
I had only read one blog post on the matter and you're right, it did seem to be presented in negative sounding language. Glad you cleared it up so that these misrepresentations can stop.
As one of the several Blogs, we look forward to any and all posts made by DHS and CG leadership that dispute what we have said.
Simple yes and no answers rather than long and very dancing around the point answers would be a great start.
Thomas Jackson CoastGuardReport.org
November 19, 2008 6:38 PM
Michael DeKort said...
First I want to say that I commend the DHS for putting up my and other comments that are critical in nature.
Here is the quote
"Due to the Coast Guard's failure to adequately oversee the Deepwater program, the Secretary shall rescind the delegation of acquisition authority to the Coast Guard Directorate in order to keep oversight with the Office of the Chief Procurement Officer, as recommended by the Government Accountability Office,' the report states."
What was the reason ???
". . failure to oversee. . ."
Not due to a time limit. Not to bring it back in line with normal policy and procedure. Not anything positive or even benign. They are FAILING to oversee the Deepwater contract according to congress.
If that press report was inaccurate then someone please clear that up.
November 19, 2008 8:06 PM
Michael DeKort said...
I wonder if it's legal for DHS and the Coast Guard to use public means of communication to purposefully misrepresent official congressional policy?
November 20, 2008 9:01 AM
Laura Williams, Coast Guard Acquisition said...
Good morning,
The Coast Guard's Assistant Commandant for Acquisition, Rear Admiral Gary Blore, discussed this topic during a recent bloggers' roundtable. Read the transcript, or listen to the audio, online here: http://www.defenselink.mil/Blogger/Index.aspx?ID=321.
Here's the link to the GAO report, which offers more background: http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-08-745.
The Coast Guard Acquisition Directorate has a website with RSS feeds to keep readers up-to-date on its initiatives and projects. I encourage readers to review our processes documented in our Major Acquisitions Systems Manual and future plans outlined in our "Blueprint for Acquisition Reform" here: www.uscg.mil/acquisition.
November 20, 2008 10:09 AM
Michael DeKort said...
Another DHS/CG contract official comes out and simply asks everyone to read or listen to the previous spin. I hope everyone sees that they continue to ignore the comments congress made when it pulled the authority. They want to ask the readers to reread their points so I will repeat the point congress made
"Due to the Coast Guard's failure to adequately oversee the Deepwater program, the Secretary shall rescind the delegation of acquisition authority to the Coast Guard Directorate in order to keep oversight with the Office of the Chief Procurement Officer, as recommended by the Government Accountability Office,' the report states."
If the congress had not actually stated this I assure you the CG would immediately make everyone aware of that. Since it is accurate they choose to ignore it as opposed to face it. Senior military leaders afraid to face political criticism.
I hope all of those people who pay attention to these issues get it. The DHS and CG leadership is trying to manipulate you. This is a leadership structure that refuses to acknowledge reality and their shortcomings. Nothing will truly improve, no root causes will be fixed until the leadership paradigm changes. We need transparency, courage and ethical fortitude.
Some blog entries presented the acquisition decision as a disciplinary measure with negative ramifications for the Coast Guard. In fact, the language puts in writing a best practice that the Coast Guard voluntarily implemented.
Bottom line – the re-establishment of DHS as the acquisition decision authority formalizes an oversight structure that had effectively been in place since 2006; despite the delegation authority provided in 2003. Our Investment Review Process conducted reviews of the Coast Guard acquisition programs, including the various Deepwater projects and contracts, as documented in Acquisition Decision Memorandums. The formal rescission merely documents the operating procedures and demonstrates uniformity in the DHS acquisition management function as detailed in our new Acquisition Directive 102-01.
The Coast Guard marked a major milestone in July 2007 with a new consolidated acquisition directorate. Rear Adm. Gary T. Blore, leads the enterprise as assistant commandant for acquisition, managing an investment portfolio worth more than a billion dollars of investment annually.
It should be noted that Rear Adm. Blore welcomed the acquisition decision since brings Deepwater into the fold of the normal acquisition process. This re-establishment of DHS as the acquisition decision authority restores the checks and balances the Department needs, and it provides full transparency to our acquisition process.
On Nov. 7, Rear Adm. Blore clarified for his entire directorate several misrepresentations made in traditional and social media outlets concerning the Department of Homeland Security's rescission of its delegation of authority to the Coast Guard for acquisition of Deepwater projects.
The Coast Guard has made remarkable progress to improve their programs across the board, and I have complete faith in their acquisition program. Without a doubt, they turned the corner from early acquisition errors.
7 Comments
Close this window Jump to comment formSo a handful of bloggers have the CG so worried about their posts they run to daddy to get them to weigh in? This after several attempts through the blogs, internet press conferences, press and official Coast Guard releases it appears the Coast Guards PR and spin machine has yet again come up short.
Apparently DHS has the same credibility issue the Coast Guard does. They never addressed the core issue. They also praised the changes to date and say the Coast Guard has turned the corner on Deepwater. “The Coast Guard has made remarkable progress to improve their programs across the board, and I have complete faith in their acquisition program. Without a doubt, they turned the corner from early acquisition errors.” That isn’t even remotely close to the truth. The congress pulled back the acquisition authority arrangement due to poor performance - and stated so. I see just like the CG - DHS refuses to be open and transparent. They do not acknowledge or address the severe reservations the congress has – the exact reasons they pulled the acquisition authority from the Coast Guard. Congress specifically stated they do not believe the Coast Guard has handled the Deepwater reform process well and doesn't trust the current leadership to fix the root causes and truly get the program back on track. As a matter of fact there are still significant and serious safety and security issues involving the NSC, 123s and the Coast Guard's primary classified internet system called SIPRNET. As another example of Deepwater’s overall poor performance one can simply look at the programs baseline and post 9/11 goals. By the end of 09 the surface fleet acquisitions will be between 50 and just over 100 boat/ship upgrades/fabrications short of the Coast Guard and the nations needs - depending on whether you use the original baseline schedule or those recommended by RAND post 9/11. That performance is deplorable. That means that whether the CG planned not to use the waiver again or not is irrelevant. If they had wanted to continue to use it they would have been told they could not. Instead of having the courage to implement the Commandant's motto - Transparency breeds self corrective behavior - the CG decided to spin the story. Now DHS decides to support their boondoggle. What real leadership, transparency, ethical fortitude and political courage would have resulted in would have been the Coast Guard and DHS directly acknowledging and addressing what the congress stated and thinks about their performance. The fact that the CG continues to act in this manner shows they are incapable, at least with this cadre of leadership, to step up to the plate. Until we put someone in charge of that group who is a true leader and who would not be effected negatively by the tsunami that would take place if the whole and actual truth were known, about the 123s, ongoing security and NSCs issues, deals that were made with contractors to cover up the problems etc we have no chance for resolving these issues and getting on the true path to recovery. It only gets worse from here. We need new DHS and Coast Guard leadership. Maybe we should also add a Secretary of the Coast Guard position to the mix?
November 19, 2008 11:54 AM
I had only read one blog post on the matter and you're right, it did seem to be presented in negative sounding language. Glad you cleared it up so that these misrepresentations can stop.
November 19, 2008 11:56 AM
As one of the several Blogs, we look forward to any and all posts made by DHS and CG leadership that dispute what we have said.
Simple yes and no answers rather than long and very dancing around the point answers would be a great start.
Thomas Jackson
CoastGuardReport.org
November 19, 2008 6:38 PM
First I want to say that I commend the DHS for putting up my and other comments that are critical in nature.
Here is the quote
"Due to the Coast Guard's failure to adequately oversee the Deepwater program, the Secretary shall rescind the delegation of acquisition authority to the Coast Guard Directorate in order to keep oversight with the Office of the Chief Procurement Officer, as recommended by the Government Accountability Office,' the report states."
What was the reason ???
". . failure to oversee. . ."
Not due to a time limit. Not to bring it back in line with normal policy and procedure. Not anything positive or even benign. They are FAILING to oversee the Deepwater contract according to congress.
If that press report was inaccurate then someone please clear that up.
November 19, 2008 8:06 PM
I wonder if it's legal for DHS and the Coast Guard to use public means of communication to purposefully misrepresent official congressional policy?
November 20, 2008 9:01 AM
Good morning,
The Coast Guard's Assistant Commandant for Acquisition, Rear Admiral Gary Blore, discussed this topic during a recent bloggers' roundtable. Read the transcript, or listen to the audio, online here: http://www.defenselink.mil/Blogger/Index.aspx?ID=321.
Here's the link to the GAO report, which offers more background: http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-08-745.
The Coast Guard Acquisition Directorate has a website with RSS feeds to keep readers up-to-date on its initiatives and projects. I encourage readers to review our processes documented in our Major Acquisitions Systems Manual and future plans outlined in our "Blueprint for Acquisition Reform" here: www.uscg.mil/acquisition.
November 20, 2008 10:09 AM
Another DHS/CG contract official comes out and simply asks everyone to read or listen to the previous spin. I hope everyone sees that they continue to ignore the comments congress made when it pulled the authority. They want to ask the readers to reread their points so I will repeat the point congress made
"Due to the Coast Guard's failure to adequately oversee the Deepwater program, the Secretary shall rescind the delegation of acquisition authority to the Coast Guard Directorate in order to keep oversight with the Office of the Chief Procurement Officer, as recommended by the Government Accountability Office,' the report states."
If the congress had not actually stated this I assure you the CG would immediately make everyone aware of that. Since it is accurate they choose to ignore it as opposed to face it. Senior military leaders afraid to face political criticism.
I hope all of those people who pay attention to these issues get it. The DHS and CG leadership is trying to manipulate you. This is a leadership structure that refuses to acknowledge reality and their shortcomings. Nothing will truly improve, no root causes will be fixed until the leadership paradigm changes. We need transparency, courage and ethical fortitude.
November 20, 2008 5:14 PM