Given the quote below, has Admiral Allen's viewpoint changed especially when he signed the letter giving "technical authority" to the Chief Engineer of the Coast Guard? Did "ruthless execution" (un)intentionally mean to ignore the valid concerns from the engineers?

“If I were to give you two words that would categorize the next four years in relation to Deepwater, they would be 'ruthless execution'."

Adm. Thad W. Allen
Commandant, U.S. Coast Guard
"Man With a Plan", Government Executive Magazine
June 1, 2006

Without reading the entire article to understand the context of the quote I would be hesitant to be so critical. Two things come to mind Jonesy, 1 - did you read the entire article; if so is it available on line? and 2 - I suspect, if the quote is in connection with Deepwater, that knowing what I do know, Admiral Allen is telling us that he intends to make sure that Deepwater gets on course, stays on course, and all are held accountable.

Finger waggling time is over; lets let Deepwater get back on course and give CGHQ a chance to fix it before the continual condemnation rolls over it.

Submitted for your approval Tim:

From GovernmentExecutive.com (June 1 2006 edition):

Man With A Plan

Mark, I wasn't looking to "approve or disapprove" but thank you for the link. After reading it, I tend to think my interpretation - making sure Deepwater is managed right and produces was right.

Tim, my sentance was more in the spirit of Rod Serling's weekly opener in his program, "The Twilight Zone".

quote:

Without holding anybody accountable for the Deepwater failures promotes an environment where there won't be acountability for future failures.

M Wood, Your relating the Twilight Zone tv show's introduction to the Deepwater concept is hilarious

re-edited by me; my intent was to quote jonesy, not edit his post!

This message has been edited. Last edited by: Nobodyaskedmebut,

What just happened here? Now I seem to be in the deepest recesses of the sixth dimension.

(Wanna see something really scary?)

I believe Tim added two paragraphs to Jonesy's reply.

I do agree with Tim. Who is "Aaron Jones, Department of Defense , Military Enthusiast Resides in Arkansas"?

He seems to have a huge interest in Deepwater.

Military contractor?

Inquiring minds want to know.

Tim, I see you edited my post. And that M Wood provided his esoteric observances of this editing. Tim, it is not about condemning the need for new Coast Guard assets. It is about those that took advantage of the situation by putting their interests way above such a goal.

As you can tell I don't just comment about Deepwater. But it cuts to the very core of the major issue, the influence of the Defense Industrial Complex. I would think that discussion of this topic would be of significance here.

KeepingupwithJones:

I erroneously edited your post instead of quoting it; so I removed my paragraphs that I added...I didn't realize I edited instead of quoted - the joys of typing faster then reading I guess...sorry about that!

I agree; Mark has a great sense of humor. Sometimes I don't; I have just about reached my limit on Deepwater Critics, who are more concerned about tying someone to the mainmast and unleashing the 'cat or condeming the entire program as a dismal failure. Deepwater is the most ambitious procurement/contracting plan ever attempted. Perhaps over the contracting skills of the service but it is not fatally infected with some virus that requires eradication...

Lets get the program back on track and give the Coast Guard a fair chance at implementing the course directions and changes. It is old news, all the bellyaching, muling, whining, and puking. What makes you Jonesy, or anyone else for that matter, qualified to pronounce Deepwater a terminally sick patient? I have Deepwater contract proposal experience; but so what? Who are you Jonesy? What qualifies you?

Tim, I agree that the program needs to succeed with the constructive changes that Admiral Allen enacted based on major lessons learned. I never said that Deepwater was "terminally ill". But we need to understand this, that it is not belly aching, whining, etc. when we ask for ACCOUNTABILITY, and for the unfiltered truth to come out about the Deepwater problems. For example, Dekort's claims were written off as not true, and I believe Lockheed claimed the Coast Guard agreed with this. Now the Coast Guard has recently annouced in a letter to ICGS that appears to validate Dekort's claims.

Sincerely,
A. J.

Jonesy, there are a core group of posters that in my opinion do nothing but come across as demanding the head, someone's head, because of the errors of Deepwater. As a taxpayer and retired Coast Guard CWO and a logistics consultant that worked on portions of the (now) winning proposal for Deepwater, my main concern/interest is that get the program back on a proper course - the capital assets aren't getting better as time goes on.

Should there be accountability? Sure there should. How many Weapons Systems Acquisitions (which a cutter fleet, aircraft, communications array would all be considered a Weapons System; it is a formal name for this type of procurement) over time for all branches of the military have had problems in design, manufacture, or errors discovered in ORE or actual use? Nearly all of them.

Why now, all of a sudden, should there be sweeping changes to the Acquisition Process and hue and cry to attack the Defense Industry at the expense of Deepwater? Grumman Ship Systems and Lockheed Martin were competitors for Deepwater; LM won and brought GSS into the picture to help.

The worse thing that the Coast Guard is guilty of, because they don't deal with major acquisitions daily, on the level and magnitude like Deepwater; One Billion Dollars to the Coast Guard used to represent the Military Pay Account for 1 year; in DoD, it is a change order; or "critical wartime" material for 2 days operations in Iraq...the worse thing is being naive...not understanding the game. Let the Coast Guard do what they are doing - trying to get back on track; I wouldn't be surprised if after the smoke clears, the fire watch has been secured, and there is positive O2, Negative Toxic, Negative Explosive Gases, and the compartment has been overhauled with power restored then there might be an inquisition with justice served. Until then, or unless I hear different, I lend my support to Deepwater and pray for its success.

I do have a question; why do we keep seeing references to Michael DeKoort and the part he played? Are you his fan club? Everyone who has followed the forums for the last year or so knows who he is, what he did, and why he did it; what is your motivation to mention it with some regularity?

"....I do have a question; why do we keep seeing references to Michael DeKoort and the part he played? Are you his fan club? Everyone who has followed the forums for the last year or so knows who he is, what he did, and why he did it; what is your motivation to mention it with some regularity?"

that's simple.........jones is thad's boy from the grave.....right hunter?

Sac Metal: I have read about Dekort. His situation interests me. It has interested me since the situation has evolved as more and more information has been released by the Coast Guard. I am no one in the past on this board, and who is hunter?

A. Jones

quote:

I am no one in the past on this board,

That is what you say.. I do not think you are who you say you are in your profile..... or located there either.....

I'd guess Virginia... And to be more specific, I'd say Alexandria..

Wray..

Wray, is that where ATGs offices are?

I am not too sure why this discussion has gotten to where it is but I do know where it should go. We should be discussing the Deepwater contract, and nothing else. Let's take the chatter to the Soapbox.

Mr Wray, who are you? Have we met before?

quote:

We should be discussing the Deepwater contract, and nothing else. Let's take the chatter to the Soapbox.

No, let's talk about the gawdawful heat effecting the global and burning us to a cookie crisp.

And if I were you, I wouldn't be addressing BMCM Gillette as "Mr. Wray". I heard that when he was in charge of a few river tenders, he'd have a person keel hawled for lessor offenses.

M Wood, I am not too sure what your intent was with your post. I am not too sure if you know the intent also.

My experience with Deepwater/ICGS was not good as it related to certain aviation assets. One contractor in particular absolutely positively guaranteed a critical document to us.......and absolutely positively failed to produce one. I sat in the room with that particular contractors' rep when he promised to deliver. Upon expiration of the "cannot wait any longer" date, I vowed never to trust any of those boogers again. We did our own pubs after that despite the extra load incurred at the expense of liberty and leave. The document had to go out to the fleet or the asset would not be legal to operate. ICGS = "I Can't Get Sh*t" for us. Now that ADM Allen appears to be taking some round turns on the line here, hope may be in the offing. We must have some people on the payroll who understand Contracting and the legalities involved or we'll keep getting the short end of the stick.