Navy Fires Another CO, 11th CO Fired This Year

The Navy has fired a commanding officer for the 11th time this year:

The commanding officer of Norfolk Naval Shipyard has been temporarily removed from command while a formal investigation into the command environment at the yard is completed, Navy officials said.

Capt. Greg Thomas, who has commanded the Portsmouth, Va., shipyard since September 2010, was assigned to temporary duty at Naval Sea Systems Command in Washington, D.C., pending the outcome of the investigation, being conducted by the Naval Inspector General, according to NAVSEA spokeswoman Pat Dolan. She described Thomas as being “temporarily reassigned.”

A Navy statement said only that the investigation involved the command environment.

Capt. Gregory Thomas had assumed command in September of last year after the Navy fired Capt. William Kiestler for command issues related to submarine maintenance. Also noteworthy Capt. Gregory Thomas was on the flag officer promotion list last year.

It is becoming more and more clear that Navy leadership is taking the responsibilities of command in NAVSEA more seriously. In the long run the fleet will be much better for it.

NAVSEA Cancels LPD-17 Maintenance Contract

The last time the Navy terminated a contract, it was related to LCS. Hardly surprising this time it is related to LPD-17. This is the NAVSEA Press Release (PDF).

WASHINGTON D.C.— Today NAVSEA terminated for convenience the LPD 17 Class multi-ship, multi-option (MSMO) maintenance contract with prime contractor Earl Industries, LLC (Earl) of Norfolk, Va. The termination is a complete termination of all work in process as well as options for future work over a five-year period. Work under this contract included options for performance of all scheduled Chief of Naval Operations availabilities as well as all necessary Emergent Maintenance/Continuous Maintenance work on these ships during the contract's five-year period of performance.

The decision to terminate was based on Navy findings of improper work performed and concern regarding Earl Industries’ quality assurance program and the company’s ability to control the quality and documentation of work it performs. These concerns were triggered by the number and severity of corrective action reports issued under the Norfolk Ship Support Activity contract issued last year for USS San Antonio (LPD 17) repairs.

“The company’s performance on this contract was not in keeping with the type of quality work the Navy expects from our industry partners,” said NAVSEA Commander Vice Adm. Kevin McCoy. “These failures are unacceptable, and we have lost confidence in Earl’s ability to continue successfully performing this same type of work on the rest of the LPD-Class ships under the MSMO contract.”

Ship maintenance contractors are accountable to perform first time quality work in accordance with specifications. They are also accountable for maintaining records, including supporting documentation, adequate to demonstrate the extent of work that has been performed and in compliance with applicable procurement regulations and the terms and conditions of maintenance contracts. The Navy relies on accurate documentation to enable the ship's force to resolve any issues that arise during mission execution, as well as to accurately assess a ship's future maintenance needs.

“Based on recent reviews of the work conducted by Earl Industries, NAVSEA believes the company has not met these standards, and, as a result, must be held accountable,” said McCoy.

Contractors must also demonstrate, in addition to a record of integrity, the organizational controls and quality assurance measures necessary to provide quality materials or services, or to manage the work of subcontractors selected for this purpose.

The Navy plans to compete contracts on an individual basis for the scheduled Chief of Naval Operations availabilities as well as all necessary Emergent Maintenance/ Continuous Maintenance work for the LPD 17 class ships homeported in Norfolk among all eligible contractors in the Norfolk area.

This is the fallout from the NAVSEA investigation that has already led to the Norfolk Ship Support Activity oversight authority suspension, and the replacement of Thomas J. Murphy as the command's executive director.

Worth noting, the NAVSEA took care of business in house before moving against the contractor. Also worth noting, the contract revoked is not the same as the contract that deals specifically with the repair of the LPD-17 engines, although the contract is for continuing maintenance of LPD-17 class vessels.

I think there are two things to watch for. First, will the termination of the Earl Industries contract end up in court? If it does, it will be Northrop Grumman (who is now Huntington-Ingalls) that ends up getting thrown in the mud. Second, which shipyard in Norfolk is crazy enough to take on the maintenance of the LPD-17 class given the track record to date? My advice - overestimate the contract by 50%, at least.

I tend to think Vice Adm. McCoy from the NAVSEA side and Admiral Harvey from the fleet side are both doing everything they can the right way in dealing with what we all recognize as continuing fallout from an enormous PMS-317 clusterfuck, and it is very much unclear if that shop has been sorted out. I say that while noting the schedule for PCU San Diego (LPD 22) continues to slip...

There are currently two LPD-17 class ships on deployment, USS Mesa Verde (LPD 19) and USS Green Bay (LPD 20). USS Mesa Verde (LPD 19) is on her third deployment despite being commissioned into service in December 2007. Also noteworthy, USS Mesa Verde (LPD 19) was built at Ingalls, while the other four LPD-17 class ships in service were built at Avondale.