DISQUS

imispgh · 6 months ago

Lockheed Martin and Northrop Grumman should be debarred from bidding future Deepwater ship projects, like the OPC, until the refund and fraud issues are resolved and the NSC’s classified communication systems are complete, the system thoroughly tested by an independent source that would report its findings back to congress and the events surrounding the funding of the effort to, include the SCIF, are look in to. (Given the large defense contractors are so integral to the nation’s security it may not be practical to debar the companies as a whole. Of course those companies know this. While that would send the strongest message, one that is certainly maybe the more practical option and the one that sends almost the same message is to debar people. There are several dozen engineering, program management, senior leadership and ethic personnel in these companies who are responsible for these problems. They personally profited from the shoddy workmanship and fraud that was perpetrated on this effort. As the companies would continue on without these people and the nation wouldn’t suffer a bit maybe all of these people should be fired and their 401k company contributions and pensions should be stripped. That might send the loudest and most practical message of all? In future blogs I may start listing the names of the personnel I am speaking about – all the way through to the CEOs and Board of Directors)

To date all the Coast Guard has said is that the future bidding will not include ICGS and may include parties outside of Lockheed and Northrop. Given the contractors have yet to resolve the $96m 123 refund issue, they are now facing charges of fraud filed on behalf of the US government and there are serious questions about the actual capability of the NSC to meet secure communications requirements I am calling for all of this to be cleared up in order for LM and NG to be allowed to bid on future ship projects. The contractors have not only taken no responsibility for the 123 issues but Lockheed for example – still maintains all of the issues were reviewed by their internal ethics process and there was absolutely no wrong doing.

Given these circumstances it is not enough to simply state that ICGS is no longer in the loop. That is a reuse. While it keeps Lockheed and Northrop from picking themselves it does not preclude the Coast Guard from picking them.

The contractors on Deepwater were given and paid for an unparalleled amount of trust on the effort and not only squandered it and profited from it but is put the nation in serious jeopardy post 9/11. As Lead System Integrator’s they were asked to be trusted agents of the US government, the Coast Guard and the citizens of the United States after 9/11. The CG admitted it did not have the right expertise to run the program and more importantly they admitted they didn’t have the expertise to figure out what needed to be done and eventually test the systems to see if they were acceptable. The contractors professed to be able to leverage world class talent and world class ethics to accomplish those tasks – all post 9/11. They were paid for that advertised capability and didn’t deliver on either. They backed the CG in to a corner be not informing them of what was really going on until the program was so far down the road it would be almost impossible to stop. They held the Coast Guard and the country hostage. They took advantage of the Coast Guard’s admitted lack of expertise and conned them into accepting systems they should not have. The contractors withheld important information and lied about what they did tell them in order to ensnare the Coast Guard. These contractors abused the trust of the nation. Their performance, refusal to accept responsibility and pay for their actions should be intolerable.

imispgh · 6 months ago

Recent Deepwater articles on NSC TEMPEST and our lawsuit which we filed against LM, NG and ICGS. (There were more articles in the lawsuit thread but their links are not working at this time. Search Google on "Deepwater" and "Coast Guard" and they will come up. Most are written by Alice Lipowicz)

http://washingtontechnology.com/articles/2009/0...

http://washingtontechnology.com/articles/2009/0...

http://washingtontechnology.com/blogs/editors-n...

http://washingtontechnology.com/articles/2009/0...

hardleftrudder · 6 months ago

"They personally profited from the shoddy workmanship and fraud that was perpetrated on this effort."

That's quite an accusation to make.

imispgh · 6 months ago

They were paid by the project directly or indirectly. Lockheed received funds from the CG and used them to pay these people. Some directly, since they charged the contract directly, and some indirectly through the overhead pool.

I am not saying their were payments on top of that.

A large portion of the $96m went to salaries. Salaries paid while the CG was purposefully given false, misleading or incomplete information.

hardleftrudder · 6 months ago

If you weren't trying to imply crooked dealings or "payments on top", the use of the word "profit" was a poor choice.

imispgh · 6 months ago

Understood

I used this legal definition

"income from something: income from an investment or transaction"