The Good, the Bad, and the Ugly from the Commandant of the Coast Guard's Testimony to the Homeland Security Committee.

One interesting question regarding the Polar Security Cutter, but mostly more of the same from the July 24, 2024 hearing.

The Homeland Security Committee held a hearing on July 24th. Titled From Drug Interdictions in the Caribbean to National Security Patrols in the Arctic: Examining U.S. Coast Guard’s Role in Securing the Homeland, the hearing featured testimony by Commandant of the Coast Guard Admiral Linda Fagan concerning the Polar Security Cutter (PSC).

Using my usual framework, let’s break down The Good, The Bad, and The Ugly from this hearing.

The Good:

Although most of the hearing was a rehash of talking points already made, the Committee’s ranking member, Mr. Bennie Thompson of Mississippi, asked an interesting question concerning the requirement to build the PSC in a U.S. shipyard. Unfortunately, Admiral Fagan didn’t answer the question. You can see the exchange around the around the 29:00 minute mark:

Mr. Thompson: The other thing I’d like to talk a little bit about is the uh the process that we included that the ship had to be built by an American-owned company, am I correct?

Admiral Fagan: Yes

Mr. Thompson: So can you tell me how many shipbuilders that could build that ship that’s American owned?

Admiral Fagan: (The) Polar Security Cutter will be- is a complex ship to build. We have a number of shipyards particularly along the Gulf Coast of the United States. As the contract was bid, any yard that won that bid was going to need to make significant capital investments in their structure and that yard which is now Bollinger Mississippi has made those capital investments and are now in a position to build the ship.

Mr. Thomson: So did that slow the process down, saying that it had to be built by an American company?

Admiral Fagan: So I’ll have my staff come back to look at as we were making those- the bid and the contract award decisions- and give you clarity there. There’s a limit to the National Defense industrial base. We compete with the Navy for shipyard building capacity and ship repair capacity. The nation needs all the capacity we have and more to ensure a ready force and that applies to us as once the branches of the Armed Services.

Mr. Thompson also indirectly highlighted the U.S. Coast Guard’s failure to plan to avoid the current situation. Even if the PSC program builds three ships within the next decade, that will still leave the U.S. Coast Guard 5-6 icebreakers short of its own identified requirements. As of now, there is no program of record- and no funding requests- for icebreakers beyond the PSC and the purchase of the Anchor-handling vessel Aiviq.

Mr. Thompson: So do you have any knowledge of how often a request was made to Congress to fund an icebreaker?

Admiral Fagan: I don’t have the specifics of the funding ask and then the appropriation journey that we’ve been on but happy to work with your staff-

Mr. Thompson: I think it’s important that if the Coast Guard made the request that we need money to either build or expand the fleet, and Congress didn’t award the money, I mean I think that would be significant….

Perhaps the Commandant’s Staff will provide the committee some good information about how quickly foreign shipyards have been able to build complex polar icebreakers. Might I suggest comparing the PSC to Le Commandant Charcot?

A Successful Commercial Icebreaker Program: Le Commandant Charcot

Admiral Fagan’s lack of answers serves appropriately as a transition to the next portion of my analysis:

The Bad

I first became aware of the hearing when a colleague shared this tweet with me on the afternoon of the 24th:

After watching the video, I wasn’t sure if this was a new hearing, as this exchange sounded very familiar:

Admiral Fagan: The Polar Security Cutter contact has been delayed. We’re working with the shipyard- there was a - the shipyard was sold and purchased by Bollinger, it is now Bollinger Mississippi. We’re working with that shipbuilder to finalize the detailed design (and) begin building the cutter in earnest. We’ve begin (sic) some module work. I owe the Committee an update on what the timeline will be for actual construction of the cutter.

Mr. Gimenez: (Interrupt) Admiral can I cut you off- you say you’re working on the final design? You’re supposed to have a ship in the water and you’re still working on a design?

Admiral Fagan: We have a design. The design maturity is critical to keeping the- to reducing risk in onward schedule slippage and cost. So that work-

Mr. Gimenez: How many years have you been designing this, this icebreaker?

Admiral Fagan: We’ve been working with the yard in earnest for the past several years. the original..

Mr. Gimenez: What’s several years? How many years? It’s supposed to been the water- now. You’re five years behind, right?

Admiral Fagan: We are absolutely behind.

Mr. Gimenez: How many years have you been designing this cutter?

Admiral Fagan: I’ll have my staff come back to when we actually started this design work. We are very close to having the design maturity needed to begin to build and (in) create certainty around cost and schedule

Mr. Gimenez: With all due respect Commandant I’ve been on this committee three years. We’ve been hearing the same thing, that we’re really close to design and finishing the design. What is the problem, why haven’t you finished the design, you can’t start building until you have the design, what’s the problem?

Admiral Fagan: The original company that the bid was awarded to lost time and schedule with they did not have all of the engineers on -that they needed to begin to move that forward. COVID complicated that timeline. I’m confident in the shipbuilder that we have, I’m confident in where we are in regard to design maturity and I’m confident that we will begin building that ship before the end of the year.

Of course it was from a new hearing, although it seems very familiar with Admiral Fagan’s testimony from April of 2023, which included this exchange:

Admiral Fagan: I’m confident in the design, I’m confident in the yard. We’ve got work to do to mature that design, we’ve not build an icebreaker in this nation since the mid 70s. This is an incredibly complex ship to build. The steel thicknesses, the scantlings, will take effort to ensure that the design is at the right level of maturity. If we begin constructing before there is an appropriate level of design that will continue to delay reaching full operating capacity with the vessel downstream….

Mr. Garamendi: So when will the design be completed?

Admiral Fagan: I continue to work- I don’t have a defin- I would give you a date if I had one. I don't have a definitive date from my team. I’m hopeful we will have one soon, as soon as we have it I will share it with the committee. And once we’ve got that level of design maturity we will begin to put put estimates around what the actual-

Mr Garamendi: So we do’t know when the design will be completed, do you have some idea of in which decade it might actually be built?

Admiral Fagan: The design will be completed soon, I’m optimistic. Once we begin to build the ship it is a complex ship it will take a number of years to build.

Mr. Garamendi: So which decade?

Admiral Fagan: I- I do not want to put a date out there without- once we have the detailed design it will be several years, three plus to begin to get the completion on that ship.

At least we’ve gone from “soon” and “I do not want to put a date out there” to “we will begin building that ship before the end of the year.” However, previous testimony indicates that beginning before the end of this year means that PSC construction will start before the detailed design is complete, against the advice of the GAO.

Confidence and optimism continue, despite recent reports from the Government Accountability Office, Congressional Budget Office, and Congressional Research Service that warn of likely significant cost increases and longer delays associated with the PSC program. (For more on these reports, see my previous posts here and here.) Yet, following these reports, Admiral Fagan continues to express confidence in the program.

This optimism simply does not match the reality of the program. Additionally, at least in Congressional testimony, the U.S. Coast Guard continues to take no ownership of the delay, instead blaming the shipyard. The U.S. Coast Guard awarded the contract, and demanded design changes that are driving the delays. It’s time for some ownership of the problem.

The Ugly

For this, we’ll turn to a comment from Mr. Mike Ezell, also of Mississippi:

Mr. Ezell: I’m also encouraged by the recent trilateral agreement between the US, Canada and Finland to place South Mississippi as the icebreaker capital of the world for our allies.

Mr. Ezell’s district includes Bollinger Mississippi shipyard.

This is in the same category as Bollinger’s press release and post on X/twitter following the announcement of the ICE pact. Simply unbelievable.

Meanwhile, Down the Hall…

…the Committee on Oversight held a hearing, also on July 24th, called Wasteful Spending and Inefficiencies: Examining DoD Platform Performance and Costs. Although the hearing did not cover U.S. Coast Guard performance, I could not help think of the PSC as I listened.

Moshe Schwartz and MacKenzie Eaglen offered solid criticism of the current acquisition system in which “compliance and process are more important that performance,” leading to "a Soviet style management” in which “what used to take the government five years to buy now takes twenty-five years.”

Bryan Clark’s testimony concerning “overly ambitious requirements” reminded me of an anecdote shared with me about a shipbuilding program.

In this anecdote, the service had a metric which required a change to the hull shape. The change resulted in less volume available for fuel storage, which required redesign as vessel endurance, which depends on fuel load, was a key performance indictor (KPI). This redesign resulted in a longer and/or wider vessel, requiring many other changes to the design to meet speed, stability, and damage control requirements. Yet the requirement driving this change was a trivial matter not related to mission performance. It isn’t hard to see how these changes make the perfect the enemy of the good enough, adding cost and delays to a program for no discernible benefit.

This makes Brian Clark’s testimony from this hearing quite relevant:

Instead of focusing on performance at all costs, look instead at achieving relevant capability with a relevant capacity by varying the operational concepts and tactics that operators use. That’s how commercial businesses pursue new capability development and that’s how the DoD should be doing it as well. (Bryan Clark).

In hearing after hearing on shipbuilding delays from the U.S. Navy and the U.S. Coast Guard, I have not heard the services take any ownership of the incredible delays and cost increases because of their required changes.

Concluding Thoughts:

Having been watching these hearings for some time, it is interesting when someone begins to take a new angle on the issues. Rep. Bennie Thompson’s question related to foreign shipbuilding may be the start of a Congressional line of inquiry that looks seriously at working with capable allies and partners to improve our capabilities.

Other than that potential ‘good’ point, the conversation about the PSC featured the same basic talking points of Admiral Fagan’s April 2023 testimony. When asked questions about the potential delays caused by excluding foreign shipyards or the failure to start the PSC program earlier, the Commandant did not provide answers, but did promise that her staff would get back to the committee- something that I do hope happens soon, and that the answers become public.

Like many, I am waiting for the revised PSC program schedule and cost (supposed to be coming this autumn) and the details of the ICE Pact. I will provide updates as information becomes available.

Thanks for reading. If you like what you’ve seen, press the heart and subscribe to make sure that you never miss an update. Consider sharing with a friend or twenty-three; it takes me some time to research and write these articles, so I’m happy to see them spread far and wide. It’s important to keep this conversation going.

Until next time.

All the Best,

PGR

Notes: The transcripts from testimony are my own, as are the use of bold and italics for emphasis within the transcript.