« The General Services Administration (GSA) – Another Acquisition Reform Disaster | Main | Office of Special Counsel’s Follies: The Ugly Side of Leaking »

May 25, 2007

TrackBack

TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d8341c68bf53ef00d8357dbc8069e2

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Deepwater Whistleblower Challenges Testimony by Lockheed Martin:

Comments

Michael DeKort

Open call for assistance in Deepwater case:

Within the next few months we will be fighting the motions to dismiss from Lockheed, Northrop and ICGS. If we lose this round the case is over. That means there will be no refund and the contractors will not be held accountable for the Deepwater problem.

(In addition to that Northrop has signaled that the companies actually intend to seek damages from the Coast Guard for stopping the program. Text from Northrop motion to dismiss the Bollinger suit states the following:

"Presumably, Lockheed Martin could seek compensation from the Coast Guard under the CDA for C4ISR equipment and information delivery delays, if any, caused by the government. As the prime contractor, ICGS, not NGSS or Bollinger, could best determine whether Lockheed Martin or NGSS could assert a CDA claim against the government for delays experienced in delivering equipment or information to Bollinger. ICGS could also sponsor such a claim against the Coast Guard on behalf of Lockheed Martin.")

Additionally one of the tactics Northrop is using is to blame the Coast Guard for the 123 problems. They state that the Coast Guard abused these boats, did not operate nor not maintain them properly. From the motion:

"The Coast Guard decision to decommission vessels does not lead to the inescapable conclusion that the defendants committed fraud. To the contrary, there is strong evidence suggesting that the 123 structural issues were attributable to the Coast Guard's operation of the vessels beyond their performance parameters and failure to maintain the structural integrity of the vessels, not any nonconformance with contract requirements."

This is an open call for assistance. We are asking for the Coast Guard and even contractor personnel who read these blogs to get involved. We feel there should actually be very little trouble winning this motion but given the importance and finality of the event we believe it is prudent to not take anything for granted. If there was ever a time to act to ensure the refund is paid and the contractors are held responsible this may be the last opportunity. Finally I am calling on the Commandant himself to make a public and service wide call for the men and women who serve in the Coast Guard to assist in our efforts.

- Michael DeKort
[email protected]

Thadsboy

As far as the "low smoke cable", are there non-low smoke cable on Lockheed installed equipment within the Cutter? Such as in th secure communications rooms of the 123 WPB? If yes, should it be low smoke? I thought the Navy requirements which are followed by the Coast Guard mandate low smoke cable in the cutters and ships. Wasn't the low smoke cable requirement in the Deepwater's Design and Construction Standards, hence it was a clear requirement for C4ISR systems? Unless, ICGS decided not to assign Lockheed this requirement for whatever "unknown real" reasons.

As far as TEMPEST, why did Lockheed "self-certify" if the Navy reports said that the boat wasn't in compliance with TEMPEST requirements? What test reports did Lockheed reference when it "self-certified"? When a requirement is "certified" there needs to be a test and evaluation method (i.e. inspection, examination, etc.) to ensure the requirement was satisfied by the design and fabrication.

The comments to this entry are closed.