Arctic/Offshore Patrol Ship AOPS

[Good2Golf]

You forgot:

Irving:  Here’s the invoice for $23,635.54 for providing you with an initial feasibility and scoping assessment of the estimate costs of an AWR for fitment of a non-contracted capability.

Net 30, please and thank you.

 

[dapaterson]

You forgot:

Irving:  Here’s the invoice for $23,635.54 for providing you with an initial feasibility and scoping assessment of the estimate costs of an AWR for fitment of a non-contracted capability.

Net 30, please and thank you.

More likely $21739.12, so that with tax it's just under $25K...

 

[Navy_Pete]

At the risk of seeming flippant, how is a mix if civilian and military engineers working at ADM(Mat)?  I guess the answer to that is dependent on how you think ADN(Mat) is doing?

The EPMs is running with about half the people needed for the scope of work, handcuffed by procurement/logistic policies to getting stuff bought and available on shelves, and also supporting the projects. We're supplementing that with bringing in outside contractors, but if you can only do 'just in time' purchases for long lead items when a demand comes in, the min/maxes and other control items the LCMMs set are pretty much useless. At that point it doesn't matter how much/little expertise you have left as you are always reacting to whatever is the hottest fire of the day, and even critical stuff slides off when higher priority critical stuff comes in. It's not unusual for people to be covering two or three additional spots for years, and it's only run this long because there are a lot of people going above and beyond to try and keep up.

The ISSCs are a really expensive bandaid, but the current ADM(Mat) has been getting cut since the 80s. You don't get a high burnout rate from people that don't care about their job doing the bare minimum, and working in the Mat matrix was really eye opening at what a house of cards it is. Sure, there are probably people not pulling their own weight, but lots of people in the fleet are effectively mobile, top heavy ballast as well, and probably inevitable when you reach a certain size of a group.

 

[OceanBonfire]

The ship will enter active naval service in summer 2021.


https://twitter.com/IrvingShipbuild/status/1289164479377346560

https://twitter.com/battisctv/status/1289234364623200257

https://twitter.com/CanadianForces/status/1289232432127004673

https://twitter.com/CanadianForces/status/1289233896735875073

https://twitter.com/RoyalCanNavy/status/1289251929957076992

https://www.canada.ca/en/department-national-defence/news/2020/07/government-of-canada-receives-first-new-arctic-and-offshore-patrol-ship.html

 

[Colin Parkinson]

Watching the ceremony right now, choking on the "thank you Irving bit" but politicians have to say all the "right things" at these events. I think the crew is lucky, a new ship of a new class and bringing new capabilities to the RCN, so they get to help "write the book" on how these ships will be used in the Arctic and elsewhere.

 

[Underway]

Watching the ceremony right now, choking on the "thank you Irving bit" but politicians have to say all the "right things" at these events. I think the crew is lucky, a new ship of a new class and bringing new capabilities to the RCN, so they get to help "write the book" on how these ships will be used in the Arctic and elsewhere.

The best ship is the one you have.  And the best shipyard is the one building ships.  I think thanks are in order.  Can they be better?  Yes.  This entire program can be better.  But that doesn't invalidate the fact they built a ship for the RCN.  We can argue the usefulness or the competence or the quality.  We have a new ship for the first time in 25 years. 

So I'm going to enjoy today, toast the crew, the builders and the navy with a half full glass and worry about the empty half Tuesday after the long weekend!
  :cheers:

 

[dapaterson]

We have a new ship for the first time in 25 years. 

Summerside was commissioned 21 years ago (not 25).  Harry DeWolf is not yet commissioned, so maybe fill the glass with a toast to the crew, and leave half for the second part of the toast, once she is commissioned (next year, if all proceeds according to plan).

 

[Weinie]

Summerside was commissioned 21 years ago (not 25).  Harry DeWolf is not yet commissioned, so maybe fill the glass with a toast to the crew, and leave half for the second part of the toast, once she is commissioned (next year, if all proceeds according to plan).

And cork that bottle tightly, as delays might be the hallmark of this class.

 

[Underway]

Summerside was commissioned 21 years ago (not 25).  Harry DeWolf is not yet commissioned, so maybe fill the glass with a toast to the crew, and leave half for the second part of the toast, once she is commissioned (next year, if all proceeds according to plan).

Meh whats 4 years between friends (who were drinking at the time).  Also, don't really care when the commissioning date is.  She's been accepted by the RCN.  She's our problem now.

 

[Eye In The Sky]

Meh whats 4 years between friends (who were drinking at the time).  Also, don't really care when the commissioning date is.  She's been accepted by the RCN.  She's our problem now.

Sounds...sounds like we're off to a good start...

 

[Spencer100]

The 6th AOPS will be called the HMCS Robert Hampton Gray.  He was a WWII RCN corsair pilot received the VC bombing a Japanese destroyer. 

Last Canadian to Receive a VC

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Hampton_Gray

https://www.msn.com/en-ca/news/world/arctic-patrol-vessel-named-after-robert-hampton-gray-second-world-war-navy-pilot/ar-BB17Nac4?ocid=spartan-ntp-feeds

 

[Gorgo]

So it's confirmed!  Sweet!

Now, all we need are the names of the two CCG AOPS.

 

[Weinie]

Too bad Boaty McBoatface is already gone.

 

[dapaterson]

Shippy McShipHead?

 

[Cloud Cover]

Yah a mess all round and I completely agree with the 4 AOR requirement, though not with the iAOR rush to procure.  If you want 4 AOR then expand the build for a 3rd proper one or wait until the experiment with the Asterix shows positive results. 

The original Conservative plane was for 6-8 AOPS so I suppose we are back to the future.  I'm pretty sure that Irving will find a way to make a 6th AOPS with the current contract structure.  The way I understand the contract is that Irving gets a guaranteed profit per ship.  Any money left over from the contract that isn't used doesn't get paid out to the shipbuilder.  It's not like Irving was handed $3.5 billion and told to make 5 or 6 ships with that amount and keep the change.  It's more like we have a budget of $3.5 billion.  Build 5 or 6 ships within that budget.  For every ship built we cut you $50 million.  You build 5 you get $250 million,  you build 6 you get $300 million.  No idea if its a flat amount or an escalator of profit.  If an escalator there is even more incentive to get that 6th ship built.  (note: not experienced with contracts so I may be mistaken).

Are you sure about that. I can see a slight premium paid for exceeding contract deliverables or bettering milestones, but guarantee profits are a disincentive to do a good job or even a mediocre job. 

 

[MilEME09]

I would agree, Covid be damned Irving, seaspan or anyone else should incur penalties for late delivery. Not only that but should get a permanent red flag next time they bid saying they came in late and/or over budget, making it harder to get the contract and make the onus on them to prove they can do better.

 

[FJAG]

Are you sure about that. I can see a slight premium paid for exceeding contract deliverables or bettering milestones, but guarantee profits are a disincentive to do a good job or even a mediocre job.

I have no idea as to whether or not Irving has such a contract, but "cost-plus" contracts are not unusual in situations where the parties agree to shift the risks of uncertainties from the builder to the owner. These are especially useful where the design specifications of the project are not yet complete or may very well be changed during the life of the project or where delivery time and quality of the work are of larger concern than cost.

In some cases a cost-plus contract can be cheaper than a fixed price one because the builder does not have to inflate or mark-up his material and labour costs in the bidding process in order to generate a profit margin.

:cheers:

 

[Cloud Cover]

I have a feeling Irving is doing all of the above, but I just can’t see any government signing a contract that guarantees a profit of $X per ship.

Cost plus is more lucrative if a contractor or supplier knows how to game the system. That’s what happened in Sweden when TK tried to push costs too high. They were kicked off the A26 submarine project and the Swedish government had to resort to use force to repossess confidential material from TK.

You’re right about cost plus being a viable way of doing some business but there must be checks, balances and accountability and a way to fire the bastards cleanly if they do not perform. Example: We once retained a software development entity to help with OS development compiling and all they did was milk the cost plus arrangement and never delivered anything useful. Achievement unlocked or total foul up, either way the most and the least we could do was fire them and they could not sue for breach. Try firing Irving lol!!

 

[Ping Monkey]

Article:  How GE Powers Royal Canadian Navy’s Harry DeWolf-Class Arctic Patrol Vessels


An interesting article (that was definitely authored by GE's Business Development group), giving some insight into AOPS power plants.


https://www.navalnews.com/naval-news/2020/08/how-ge-powers-royal-canadian-navys-harry-dewolf-class-arctic-patrol-vessels/

 

[FJAG]

I have a feeling Irving is doing all of the above, but I just can’t see any government signing a contract that guarantees a profit of $X per ship.

Cost plus is more lucrative if a contractor or supplier knows how to game the system. That’s what happened in Sweden when TK tried to push costs too high. They were kicked off the A26 submarine project and the Swedish government had to resort to use force to repossess confidential material from TK.

You’re right about cost plus being a viable way of doing some business but there must be checks, balances and accountability and a way to fire the bastards cleanly if they do not perform. Example: We once retained a software development entity to help with OS development compiling and all they did was milk the cost plus arrangement and never delivered anything useful. Achievement unlocked or total foul up, either way the most and the least we could do was fire them and they could not sue for breach. Try firing Irving lol!!

You're bang on about controls. There needs to be rigorous auditing of both materiel costs as well as labour expenditures.

My biggest involvement in a cost-plus contract was the dismantling of an ammonia plant in Italy, refurbishing it in Texas and then installing it in Canada. There was a major time to completion requirement to the contract which the contractor was failing to meet and labour cost were skyrocketing as they struggled to complete. It got to the point that the independent plant start-up group came on site to do their prestart-up inspection and their punch list of deficiencies showed that the plant was still months away from completion.

For me the lesson was that you need more and much earlier inspections by independent third parties to review the contractor's progress to confirm that the contractor's progress reports are in fact accurate and that the billed materiel and services have in fact been incorporated as alleged. While owners generally have their own inspectors, they often loose the objectivity that an independent third party expert brings to the table.

Just as an aside, many cost plus contracts base the "plus" as a percentage of the "cost". That becomes frustrating when costs balloon above expectations as most owners tend to blame that on inefficiencies by the contractor and to make matters more galling, the ballooning costs also increase the percentage-based profit.

:cheers: