« Morning Smoke: Turning Back to the Financial Regulation Good Ol' Days of 2008 | Main | Morning Smoke: Panetta Has "No Plan" to Make $600 Billion Sequestration Cuts »

Jan 09, 2012


Michael DeKort

Thomas Jackson please post exactly what those "obvious flaws" are and areas where I should post more information to support what was written. Let's try the guaranty. Please post how my claim is inaccurate and information to support that. The issue is important enough to deal with specifics and data not hyperbole.

Thomas Jackson

From the links Mike D. provides and the obvious flaws in his arguements exhibited in his inablity to defend himself on them and back his assertions, it is pretty self-evident he is just as much of a problem as the contractors were, if not worse.

Michael DeKort

Look at the recent decision making by the Coast Guard. The IG just reported the mission performance is going down and that the CG wants to hide some critical pieces of those measurements from the public including Cutter Defensive Readiness. The fleet is in horrible shape – worse than before Deepwater began. The contract price went from $17B to $29B for what? Even though a couple NSCs and an FRC are out they are years behind replacing ships that should have been replaced years ago and 10-15 years ago if you take the post 9/11 RAND report seriously. Another huge issue problem is the program wide PERFORMANCE guaranty fraud we found in discovery of our 123 lawsuit against ICGS. That is currently a $9B fraud being ignored by the USCG. ICGS said they would provide the performance guaranty and even stated in writing they “executed” and “delivered” the “unconditional” guaranty after the contract was signed. Since ICGS was an LSI and in charge of the program after the CG wrote the mission requirements they were responsible to design and deliver systems/assets that met the those CG mission performance specs. Since they didn’t the performance guaranty should have kicked in. It didn’t because it was never provided. Ever wonder why the CG paid for several of the buckled 123s to be repaired outside of ICGS? Or why we even have to have lawsuits to get the 123 $ back? Look at the new IG report. 70k less mission hours since 2005. That is a performance problem ICGS caused. Hours were supposed to go up not down. Sooner or later that will result in a rescue or some other critical mission that goes bad because an asset Deepwater was already supposed to replace breaks down. The CG knows all of this which is why they obstructed our case when we tried to add the guaranty fraud. They want to protect themselves by going after only Bollinger for the 123s, letting ICGS off the hook for that, while they avoid the $9B guaranty and fraudulent inducement claims.
Congress needs to look into the false guaranty issue.



The comments to this entry are closed.