NOVEMBER 19, 2015—SAFE Boats International, Bremerton, WA, will build a series of Type-F Riverine Interceptor Vessels under a contract with the Colombian Navy and Coast Guard. Under the contract, SAFE Boats will
. Inchcape is a marine services contractor headquartered in the United Kingdom. As a ship husbanding services provider, Inchcape arranged for the provision of goods and services to Navy ships at ports in several regions throughout the world, including southwest Asia, Africa, Panama, North America, South America and Mexico. Inchcape’s services typically included the provision of food and other subsistence items, arrangement of local transportation, waste removal, telephone services, ship-to-shore transportation and force protection services.
The lawsuit, which was unsealed today, alleges that Inchcape knowingly overbilled the Navy by submitting invoices that overstated the quantity of goods and services provided, billed at rates in excess of applicable contract rates and double-billed for certain goods and services.
The lawsuit was brought under the qui tam, or whistleblower, provisions of the False Claims Act by three former employees of Inchcape, Noah Rudolph, Andrea Ford and Lawrence Cosgriff, who are represented by Washington, DC, law firm Vogel, Slade & Goldstein, LLP.
Under the act, a private citizen may bring suit on behalf of the United States and share in any recovery.
The government may intervene in the case, as it has done here. The False Claims Act allows the government to recover treble damages and penalties from those who violate it.
“Those who contract with the federal government and accept taxpayer dollars must follow the rules,” said Principal Deputy Assistant Attorney General Benjamin C. Mizer, head of the Justice Department’s Civil Division. “The Department of Justice will not tolerate contractors who submit false claims to defraud the armed forces or any other agency of the United States.”
“Ensuring that federal contractors deliver the goods and services at the agreed upon prices in return for receiving the taxpayers’ money is a priority for the U.S. Attorney’s Office,” said U.S. Attorney Channing D. Phillips of the District of Columbia. “This lawsuit reflects our commitment to combat fraud against federal government agencies.”
“The Department of the Navy continues to hold contractors accountable for the agreements they have made to supply our fleet,” said Captain Amy Derrick, a senior spokeswoman for the Department of the Navy. “We also continue to expect strict adherence to higher standards within the Department and expect the same from industry.”
The case is being handled jointly by the Civil Division’s Commercial Litigation Branch and the U.S. Attorney’s Office of the District of Columbia, with assistance from the Department of the Navy and the Naval Criminal Investigative Service.
The case is captioned United States ex rel. Rudolph v. Inchcape Shipping Services Holdings Limited, et al., No. 1:10-cv-01109 (D.D.C).
You can access the complaint HERE
The ship, which was constructed by shipbuilder Austal USA, is the sixth in the EPF class. The EPF class ships were formerly known as Joint High Speed Vessels, or JHSVs. In September, the Secretary of the Navy brought in a new E ship class designator that, in addition to seeing the Joint High Speed Vessel (JHSV) become the Expeditionary Fast Transport, or EPF, sees the Mobile Landing Platform (MLP) become the Expeditionary Transfer Dock, or ESD; and the Afloat Forward Staging Base (AFSB) variant of the MLP become the Expeditionary Mobile Base, or ESB.
“Conducting Acceptance Trials is a major milestone for the shipyard and the program office,” said Capt. Henry Stevens, Strategic and Theater Sealift Program Manager, Program Executive Office, Ships. “We are very proud of our contractor and government team’s commitment to delivering affordable, quality ships and look forward to the delivery of EPF 6 later this year.”
The ship’s trials included dockside testing to clear the ship for sea and rigorous at-sea trials during which the Navy’s Board of Inspection and Survey (INSURV) evaluated and observed the performance of EPF 6’s major systems.
Completion of Brunswick’s Acceptance Trials signifies that the ship is ready for delivery to the fleet in the near future.
“We’re proud to have successfully completed acceptance trials for USNS Brunswick, and excited to see the continued improvement ship to ship on this mature program,” said Craig Perciavalle, Austal USA’s president. “Austal’s EPF team continues to do a tremendous job constructing incredible ships and preparing them to enter the fleet.”
The Brunswick is the sixth ship in Austal’s 10-ship $1.6 billion EPF block-buy contract awarded by the U.S. Navy in 2008. Three more under construction at Austal’s Mobile, AL, shipyard.
EPFs are versatile, non-combatant, transport ships that will be used for fast intra-theater transportation of troops, military vehicles, and equipment. EPF is designed to commercial standards, with limited modifications for military use. The vessel is capable of transporting 600 short tons 1,200 nautical miles at an average speed of 35 knots, and can operate in shallow-draft ports and waterways, interfacing with roll-on/roll-off discharge facilities, and on/off-loading vehicles such as a combat-loaded Abrams Main Battle Tank. Other joint requirements include an aviation flight deck to support day and night aircraft launch and recovery operations.
EPF 6 will have airline style seating for 312 embarked forces, with fixed berthing for 104.
The EPF’s large, open mission deck and large habitability spaces provide the opportunity to conduct a wide range of missions.
“We’re excited about the feedback we’re receiving about how well these ships are doing on deployment and about the overall potential of the program,” said Mr. Perciavalle.
In addition to the EPF program, Austal is also building 10 Independence-variant Littoral Combat Ships (LCS) for the U.S. Navy under a $3.5 billion block-buy contract. Three LCS have been delivered while an additional six are in various stages of construction.When it was launched at Austal’s Mobile, AL, shipyard in May EPF 6 was JHSV 6.
NOVEMBER 1, 2015—The U.S. National Transportation Safety Board reports that a search team on board the U.S. Navy tug USNS Apache has found the wreckage of a ship that they believe to be
Here’s how the CBO see things.
CBO says it estimates that the cost of the Navy’s 2016 shipbuilding plan—an average of about $20 billion per year (adjusted for inflation) over 30 years—would be $4 billion higher than the funding that the Navy has received in recent decades.
The Department of Defense (DoD) submitted the Navy’s 2016 shipbuilding plan for fiscal years 2016 to 2045 in April 2015. The $20 billion total annual cost of carrying out the 2016 plan over the next 30 years, CBO estimates—would be one-third more than the amount the Navy has received in Congressional appropriations for shipbuilding in recent decades.
The Navy’s 2016 shipbuilding plan, says CBO, is similar to its 2015 plan with respect to the goal for the total number of battle force ships, the number and types of ships the Navy would purchase, and the funding proposed to implement its plans.
The Navy Plans to Expand the Fleet to 308 Battle Force Ships
The Navy’s 2016 shipbuilding plan states that the service’s goal (in military parlance, its requirement) is to have 308 battle force ships, consisting of aircraft carriers, submarines, surface combatants, amphibious ships, combat logistics ships, and some support ships. The 2016 shipbuilding plan falls short of the goals for some types of ships in some years, although generally the shortfalls are smaller than they have been in previous years’ plans. The fleet today numbers 273 ships.Under the 2016 plan, the Navy would buy a total of 264 ships over the 2016–2045 period: 218 combat ships and 46 combat logistics and support ships.
Given the rate at which the Navy plans to retire ships from the fleet, says CBO the 2016 plan would not meet the inventory goal of 308 ships until 2022, but it would allow the Navy to maintain its inventory at least at that level through 2031. After that, in most years through 2045, the fleet would fall below 308 ships.
The size of the Navy does not depend on ship construction alone; the length of time that particular ships remain in the fleet affects the force structure as well. The CBO notes that the Navy often shows flexibility in its approach to retiring ships: A ship may be retired before the end of its service life to save money or may be kept beyond that span to maintain a desired force level. Generally, the Navy’s estimates of expected service life align with historical experience.
However, the Navy currently assumes a 35- or 40-year service life for its large surface combatants; in the past, few of those ships were in the fleet for longer than 30 years.
CBO Estimates That Spending for New Ships in the Navy’s Plan Would Average $18.4 Billion per Year
The Navy estimates that buying the new ships specified in the 2016 plan would cost $494 billion (in 2015 dollars) over 30 years—or an average of $16.5 billion per year—slightly less than the costs of the 2015 plan. Using its own models and assumptions, CBO estimates that the cost of new-ship construction in the Navy’s 2016 plan would total $552 billion over 30 years, or an average of $18.4 billion per year.
CBO’s estimates are higher because the Navy and CBO use different estimating methods and assumptions regarding future ships’ design and capabilities and treat growth in the costs of labor and materials for building ships differently.
CBO’s constant-dollar estimate is 8 percent higher than the Navy’s for the first 10 years of the plan, 12 percent higher for the following decade, and 17 percent higher for the final 10 years (see figure).
The difference widens over time in part because the Navy’s method of developing constant-dollar estimates (which differs from CBO’s method) does not account for the faster growth in the costs of labor and materials in the shipbuilding industry than in the economy as a whole and thus does not reflect the anticipated increase in inflation-adjusted costs of future purchases of ships with today’s capabilities.
Average Annual Costs of New-Ship Construction Under the Navy’s 2016 Plan
The Navy’s shipbuilding plan reports only the costs of new-ship construction.Other activities typically funded from the Navy’s budget accounts for ship construction—such as refueling nuclear-powered aircraft carriers or outfitting new ships with various small pieces of equipment after the ships are built and delivered—would add $1.7 billion to the Navy’s average annual shipbuilding costs under the 2016 plan, by CBO’s estimate. (Between 2010 and 2015, the cost of those other activities averaged $2.1 billion per year.) Including those extra costs would increase the average annual cost of the Navy’s 2016 plan to $20.2 billion per year, CBO estimates.
CBO’s estimate of the total cost of the Navy’s plan is 10 percent above the Navy’s estimate.
The Navy’s Shipbuilding Plan for the Next 30 Years Would Cost Almost One-Third More Than It Has Spent Over the Past 30 Years
If the Navy received the same amount of funding (in constant dollars) for new-ship construction in each of the next 30 years that it has received, on average, over the past three decades, the service would not be able to afford its 2016 plan.
CBO’s estimate of the $18.4 billion per year for new-ship construction in the Navy’s 2016 shipbuilding plan is 32 percent above the historical average annual funding of $13.9 billion (in 2015 dollars). And CBO’s estimate of $20.2 billion per year for the full cost of the plan is 28 percent higher than the $15.8 billion the Navy has spent, on average, annually over the past 30 years for all items in its shipbuilding accounts. If funding were to continue at the average for the past 30 years, under one possible approach to ship construction, the Navy would be able to build about 70 fewer battle force ships than it currently plans, CBO estimates.
Download the CBO report HERE
The new name for the series is part of a change in ship type designators that began back in January when Secretary of the Navy Ray Mabus announced that the next flight of “frigatized” Littoral Combat Ships would get the FF, or frigate, designator.
Last month, the secretary brought in a new E designator that, in addition to see the Joint High Speed Vessel (JHSV) become the Expeditionary Fast Transport, or EPF, sees the Mobile Landing Platform (MLP) become the Expeditionary Transfer Dock, or ESD; and the Afloat Forward Staging Base (AFSB) variant of the MLP become the Expeditionary Mobile Base, or ESB.
The EPF will provide high speed, shallow draft transportation capability to support the intra-theater maneuver of personnel, supplies and equipment for the Navy, Marine Corps, and Army.
Austal’s new contract action allows the procurement of ship sets for the specifications supporting integrated propulsion, main diesel generator engines, propeller and shafting, integrated bridge and voice communications.
Fiscal 2015 shipbuilding and conversion (Navy) funding in the amount of $26,739,198 is being obligated at time of award and will not expire at the end of the current fiscal year.
The contract was not competitively procured in accordance with U.S. Code 2304(c)(1) – only one responsible source and no other supplies or services will satisfy agency requirements.
The Naval Sea Systems Command, Washington, DC, is the contracting activity (N00024-16-C-2217).
The tug is deploying to a search area northeast of Crooked Island in the Bahamas island chain, which is the last known location of the vessel.
The initial search area is 100 square miles, and water depth is estimated to be 15,000 feet across the expected search area. Transit to this search area is expected to take four-to-five days due to weather.
Apache is equipped with several pieces of underwater search equipment, including a voyage data recorder locator, side-scan sonar and an underwater remote operated vehicle.
The Navy’s mission will be to first locate the ship and then, if possible, to retrieve the voyage data recorder (VDR) – commonly known as a black box.
The U.S. Navy operates some of the world’s most advanced underwater search and salvage systems. Though this equipment is typically used to search for and recover downed military ships and aircraft, the Navy has a long history in assisting other federal agencies in underwater search and salvage operations, including the search and recovery of TWA 800 and the space shuttle Challenger. In 2013, the Navy assisted the government of Australia in its search for missing Malaysian Airliner MH 370.
USN Apache is a fleet ocean tug operated by the Military Sealift Command. The ship provides towing, diving and standby submarine rescue services for the Navy.
The ship is 226 feet long and has a crew of approximately 22 civilian mariners and uniformed Navy personnel.
The crew will be joined by a team from the Navy’s Supervisor of Diving and Salvage.
Also on board is the NTSB Investigator-in-Charge, Tom Roth-Roffy, and representatives from the USCG, TOTE and ABS, all parties to the NTSB investigation (see new story).
OCTOBER 9, 2015—Over the next several weeks, the U.S. Navy will begin searching for the 790 ft containership El Faro, which is believed to have sunk near the Crooked Islands in the
The contract includes a 215-day base period, nine one-year option periods and one 150-day option period. The cumulative value of this contract when option one is exercised will be $44,159,520. Work will be performed at sea worldwide, and is expected to be completed by Sept. 30, 2016.
Subject to availability, fiscal 2016 operations and maintenance contract funds in the amount of $26,615,520 are being obligated at the time of award, and will not expire at the end of the current fiscal year.
This contract was issued on an other than full and open competition basis in accordance with Federal Acquisition Regulation, Sec 6.303.
Military Sealift Command, Washington, District of Columbia, is the contracting activity.
Since their construction by Leevac Shipyards in 2008 and 2009, three 250EDF class OSVs, the HOS Arrowhead, the HOS Eagleview and the HOS Westwind have supported the U.S. Navy’s submarine fleet on the east and west coast of the U.S. In order for the Navy to continue receiving the unique capabilities of these vessels, Congress subsequently required their purchase from HOS, which sold them to the Navy for $114 million. A fourth vessel, HOS Black Powder, remained on charter to the Navy, with an option for purchase that was expected to close September 30, 2015.
Yesterday, the ship repairer was awarded a $13,705,115 modification to previously awarded contract (N00024-14-C-4412) for fiscal 2015 and 2016 ship inter-availability planning that will see it provide administration, continuous maintenance planning and program management for continuous maintenance availabilities, emergent availabilities and windows of opportunity. Work will be performed at Pearl Harbor, Hawaii, and is expected to be completed by August 2016. Fiscal 2015 operations and maintenance (Navy) funding in the amount of $9,133,057 will be obligated at time of award and will expire at the end of the current fiscal year.
Today it got a a $39,144,842 modification to previously awarded contract N00024-14-C-4412 for scheduled drydocking selected restricted availability (DSRA) of USS Halsey (DDG 97). The scheduled DSRA is the opportunity in the ship’s life cycle primarily to conduct repair and alteration to systems and hull not available when the ship is waterborne. Work will again be performed in Pearl Harbor, Hawaii, and is expected to be completed by July 2016. Fiscal 2015 operations and maintenance (Navy) funding in the amount of $39,144,842 will be obligated at time of award and will expire at the end of the current fiscal year.
Pearl Harbor Naval Shipyard and Intermediate Maintenance Facility, Pearl Harbor, Hawaii, is the contracting activity for both contracts.