Putting Our Resources Towards Security (PORTS) Act

Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 1665) to structure Coast Guard acquisition processes and policies, and for other purposes, as amended.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks and to include extraneous material on H.R. 1665.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, as chairman of the Subcommittee on Coast Guard and Maritime Transportation, ensuring that the Coast Guard can effectively manage its acquisition efforts and that it is fully accountable for its use of taxpayer hard-earned resources has been among my highest priorities.

In his memorandum on Federal contracting management issued on March 4, President Barack Obama argued that ``it is essential that the Federal Government have the capacity to carry out robust and thorough management of its contracts in order to achieve programmatic goals, avoid significant overcharges, and curb wasteful spending.''

I authored the Coast Guard Acquisition Reform Act of 2009, H.R. 1665, in an effort to institutionalize within the Coast Guard the processes and procedures that will help the service meet this standard.

I want to thank Congressman Oberstar, the chairman of the full Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, for his diligent work on this bill and for his unwavering focus on effective oversight. He has tirelessly led the Transportation Committee's efforts to ensure that we fully account for the expenditure of every single taxpayer dollar in the transportation realm, and the United States public is the true beneficiary of his dedication.

I also thank the ranking member of the full committee, Congressman Mica, and the ranking member of our subcommittee, Congressman LoBiondo, for working so closely and constructively with us on the drafting of this legislation.

Since becoming the subcommittee chairman in January, 2007, I have convened four subcommittee hearings that have focused partially or entirely on Coast Guard acquisition efforts. The major focus of these hearings has been the multibillion-dollar Deepwater program that is intended to replace or rehabilitate the Coast Guard's air and surface assets.

When the Coast Guard signed the initial Deepwater contract, the service lacked standardized acquisition processes. It lacked a proven process to guide the generation of asset requirements, designs, and acquisition strategies, and it had only limited acquisition management capability among its staff. Without the capacity to hold its contractors accountable for their performance, the consortium hired by the Coast Guard to implement the lead systems integration function for the Deepwater program essentially took the Coast Guard for a ride that wasted hundreds of millions of taxpayer dollars. Thus, the Government Accountability Office has detailed that of the more than $6 billion that has been appropriated for Deepwater since fiscal year 2002, nearly $300 million has been spent on projects that were canceled or subsequently restructured, including $95 million wasted in the failed effort to lengthen 110-foot patrol boats to 123 feet, a contract failure that the full Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure examined during an 11-hour investigative hearing convened by Chairman Oberstar; $119 million wasted on the first effort to develop a vertical unmanned aerial vehicle; and $66 million wasted on the first designs for the Offshore Patrol Cutter and the Fast Response Cutter. Mr. Speaker, I say we can do better.

The Coast Guard's need for the new assets to be produced under Deepwater is without question, but the Coast Guard will not obtain assets that fully meet its mission requirement if it cannot effectively manage its procurement Process.

In response to the extensive criticisms leveled at the service's acquisition management capabilities, the Coast Guard's Commandant, Admiral Thad Allen, has created a new Acquisition Directorate. Under his leadership, the service issued and is continuing to revise a ``Blueprint for Acquisition Reform.'' The service is also developing the process and capabilities that will enable it to assume the lead systems integration function.

During our subcommittee's most recent hearing on acquisition issues, the Coast Guard announced that under an agreement signed the morning of our hearing, all options for extending the Deepwater contract with the Lockheed Martin-Northrop Grumman team beyond the date of expiration of the current award, January 24, 2011, were eliminated. I, of course, applaud this move. That said, during the hearing we also learned that certain challenges remain.

Since 2007, the course of the acquisitions contained within the Deepwater program as currently envisioned have grown by more than $2 billion and are now projected to approach $27 billion. Cost overruns in Coast Guard acquisition efforts remain a very serious concern.

Further, this month the Government Accountability Office released a new report whose very title contains a serious warning. The title reads: ``As Deepwater Systems Integrator, Coast Guard is Reassessing Costs and Capabilities but Lags in Applying Its Disciplined Acquisition Approach.'' This report notes that the service has moved to procure the Fast Response Cutter, the first asset acquisition effort that the service is managing entirely in-house, without having in place all acquisition documentation required by its Major Systems Acquisition Manual. Even if the Coast Guard establishes the best possible management systems, they will be of no use if they are not followed.

Further, while the service is requiring that its largest programs be managed by individuals with professional acquisition management qualifications, the service recently designated as the Program Executive Officer for the Coast Guard Acquisition Directorate an Admiral-select who lacked the highest available acquisition management qualifications, despite having a dozen captains who have achieved a Level III program management certification.

Again, I say, we can do better. Through a bipartisan effort, we have crafted detailed legislation that responds directly to the challenges in the Coast Guard acquisition management that we have so thoroughly examined in the subcommittee and full committee, and that builds on the acquisition management reforms the Coast Guard has already implemented.

H.R. 1665, the Coast Guard Acquisition Reform Act of 2009, as amended, would strengthen specific acquisition processes and establish personnel-related standards and policies for individuals in the Coast Guard's acquisition workforce. The legislation would bar the Coast Guard from using a private-sector lead systems integrator beginning September 30th, 2011, the date on which the use of private-sector lead systems integrators will end at the Department of Defense.

The legislation would require the appointment of a Chief Acquisition Officer who, at the Commandant's choice, can be either a member of the military or a civilian member of the Senior Executive Service, but who must be a Level III Program Manager and who must have 10 years of professional experience in acquisition management.

Additionally, the legislation will require that the Coast Guard put in place systems to ensure that it effectively and efficiently defines operational requirements before initiating acquisition efforts, and that all acquired assets undergo thorough developmental and operational testing to ensure that they will meet mission needs and pose no safety risks or threats to Coast Guard personnel.

The legislation would also ensure that the service develops and critically maintains within its workforce the expertise that it will need to effectively and efficiently oversee acquisition efforts in the future by requiring the service to establish career paths in acquisition management. H.R. 1665 would also provide expedited hiring authority so that the service can quickly fill vacancies in its acquisition workforce.

I, again, thank Chairman Oberstar, Ranking Member Mica, Ranking Member LoBiondo for their work on this legislation, and for making this truly a bipartisan effort. I urge my colleagues to support H.R. 1665, as amended, and look forward to working with our Senate colleagues to enact a final version that can be presented to President Obama for his signature.

House of Representatives, Committee on Transportation and

Infrastructure,

Washington, DC, July 10, 2009.

Hon. Bennie G. Thompson,

Chairman, Committee on Homeland Security, Washington, DC

Dear Chairman Thompson: I write to you regarding H.R. 1665,

the ``Coast Guard Acquisition Reform Act of 2009''.

I agree that provisions in H.R. 1665 are of jurisdictional

interest to the Committee on Homeland Security. I acknowledge

that by forgoing a sequential referral, your Committee is not

relinquishing its jurisdiction and I will fully support your

request to be represented in a House-Senate conference on

those provisions over which the Committee on Homeland

Security has jurisdiction in H.R. 1665.

This exchange of letters will be inserted in the Committee

Report on H.R. 1665 and in the Congressional Record as part

of the consideration of this legislation in the House.

I look forward to working with you as we prepare to pass

this important legislation.

Sincerely,

James L. Oberstar, M.C.

Chairman.

Mr. Speaker, we have no additional speakers, so I would reserve.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I urge the Members of the House to vote for this very, very important bill. This is one that our committee and subcommittee have worked on for a long time. It is overdue, and it's an outstanding bipartisan effort.

Mr. Speaker, I yield back my time.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of H.R. 1665, the ``Coast Guard Acquisition Reform Act of 2009'', as amended.

This legislation, authored by the Chairman of the Subcommittee on Coast Guard and Maritime Transportation, Mr. Cummings, is a thorough, comprehensive response to the challenges that have confronted the Coast Guard as it has worked to manage large-scale acquisition efforts.

I also applaud the Ranking Member of the Full Committee, Congressman Mica, and the Ranking Member of the Coast Guard Subcommittee, Congressman LoBiondo, for their diligent work on this legislation.

H.R. 1665 incorporates the lessons that the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure has drawn from its extensive oversight of the Coast Guard's acquisition programs.

Much of that oversight has focused on the Coast Guard's Deepwater program, a 25-year program to repair or replace the service's surface and air assets that is now projected to cost nearly $27 billion--a figure that is more than a $2 billion increase over the cost projections developed just two years ago.

These oversight efforts have included a nearly 11-hour full Committee hearing that I convened in April 2007 to examine the results of an extensive Committee investigation that evaluated the multiple factors that contributed to the failure of the effort to lengthen 110-foot patrol boats to 123 feet.

The oversight efforts have also included four separate Coast Guard Subcommittee hearings that have examined different aspects of the Coast Guard's acquisition programs.

Through these tireless efforts, the Committee has developed a comprehensive picture of the challenges that have plagued the Coast Guard's acquisition efforts, including the use of personnel who had little experience managing a major systems acquisition, continued alteration of performance requirements even after major engineering milestones were passed, and failure to apply cost and performance measures to individual asset acquisitions within the Deepwater program. The Coast Guard has responded to these criticisms.

The service has moved to take control of the lead systems integration function that had been contracted to the Lockheed Martin-Northrop Grumman team. The service has established an Acquisition Directorate and assigned individuals with the highest available professional qualifications in acquisition management to oversee the service's largest acquisition efforts.

Further, the Coast Guard has expanded the role of the American Bureau of Shipping, and other qualified third parties, to ensure that procured assets meet the highest quality standards.

However, more remains to be done, and H.R. 1665 takes the steps necessary to institutionalize within the Coast Guard the kind of effective management practices that should, if fully implemented, enable the service to avoid the procurement failures it has had in the past.

Specifically, H.R. 1665 requires that all flag-level officers serving in the Acquisition Directorate have a Level III Program Management certification and 10 years of acquisition experience.

Despite the service's new emphasis on placing in management positions those individuals who have professional acquisition management qualifications, a Captain selected for promotion to Rear Admiral was recently named to be the Program Executive Officer for Deepwater even though he lacked a Level III program manager certification at the time of his selection. This choice is even more surprising given that, as of February 2009, the Coast Guard had 27 military officers who had achieved a Level III program manager certification, including 12 Captains.

H.R. 1665 requires the Coast Guard to develop life-cycle cost estimates for projects expected to cost more than $10 million. Independent life-cycle cost estimates will be required for major acquisitions. With these estimates in place, we will know what it will cost to operate and maintain new assets before we commit to acquiring them.

H.R. 1665 mandates that the Coast Guard firmly establish operational requirements before awarding production contracts--so that cost thresholds and testing and evaluation standards can, in turn, be firmly established.

Further, H.R. 1665 imposes a breach ceiling on Coast Guard acquisitions--something that has long been imposed on Department of Defense acquisitions and that is overdue in the Coast Guard. Specifically, H.R. 1665 specifies that for any major acquisition, the Coast Guard must report to Congress when a cost overrun of greater than 10 percent is likely to occur, a delay of more than 180 days is likely to occur, or a failure for a new asset or class of assets is anticipated. More stringent standards are required whenever higher cost over-runs or more extensive delays are anticipated.

I note that H.R. 1665 is based, in part, on legislation considered and passed twice by this House in the 110th Congress.

I urge my colleagues to support H.R. 1665.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to voice my support of H.R. 1665, the Coast Guard Acquisition Reform Act.

I have the unique pleasure of representing over 265 miles of pristine Florida coastline, and I will never forget that it is the Coast Guard that keeps these waters safe.

Two of the largest Coast Guard Sectors in the United States, Sector Miami and Sector Key West are located in my Congressional district.

This act will direct the Coast Guard in their Acquisition efforts and make for more of full and open competition contracts.

Overall, this act will be of benefit to the Coast Guard; however, being from a District heavily involved with the Coast Guard, I know that sections of the bill could use clarification and adjustment.

Firstly, in Section 210, the Coast Guard is required to report to the appropriate congressional committees about any cost overruns.

However, the reporting requirement is set a uniquely low threshold, a mere 10 percent.

It would be more appropriate to set this reporting requirement in line with other Department of Defense programs, ranging from 15 percent to 25 percent.

Also, in Section 302a, the act states that an individual may not be assigned as the acquisition program manager for a Level 1 or Level 2 acquisition unless the individual holds a Level III acquisition certification as a program manager.

In the interest of training Level III program manager's for Level 1 projects, this act should leave the Coast Guards current practice in place.

This would allow program managers to gain the experience they need before being assigned to the most important of acquisition projects.

In Sec 301d, the act states that within 45 days after any design or other dispute regarding a Level 1 or Level 2 acquisition, the Coast Guard would be required to provide Congress a detailed description of the dispute and the rationale underlying any decision made by the Chief Acquisition Officer.

In the interest of keeping burdensome reporting requirements to a minimum, the act should have added the word ``significant'' for any design dispute.

The Coast Guard will make many fact-based and timely decisions on projects that may be internally disputed.

Congress needs to be involved in significant problems that could affect results.

Still, I urge all Members to recognize the crucial need to protect our nation by strengthening the United States' oldest continuous seagoing service, the United States Coast Guard.

I urge my colleagues to vote ``yes'' on this act.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

I rise in support of H.R. 1665, the Coast Guard Acquisition Reform Act of 2009. I'd like to thank the chairman of the full committee, Mr. Oberstar. I'd like to thank Mr. Cummings and Mr. Mica for their help in moving and developing this important legislation. H.R. 1665 builds upon several provisions which passed the House during the 110th Congress and includes new language which I believe greatly improves the legislation.

Like those bills in the previous Congress, the bill would reform the service's acquisition programs and procedures, prohibit the continued use of private-sector lead systems integrators, and establish a Chief Acquisition Officer to oversee all the Coast Guard's acquisition projects.

H.R. 1665 would also require the Coast Guard to take several steps during the planning, production and acceptance period to enhance the Coast Guard's control over all parts of the process. Under the programmatic changes made by this bill, the Coast Guard will be able to use all of its many technical authorities to ensure that assets delivered meet the service's specifications and needs.

Lastly, the bill includes two new provisions which will improve the Coast Guard's ability to staff acquisition positions with the most qualified candidates. The first is limited direct hiring authority which is based on existing authority available to the other Armed Services. Under this language, the Coast Guard will be able to directly hire civilian personnel with the needed acquisition expertise. The second will allow Coast Guard promotion boards to consider the need for specialized skills and qualifications of Coast Guard officers in areas like acquisitions. This language will provide Coast Guardsmen with the opportunity to specialize in limited duty areas, such as acquisition, without negatively impacting their promotional potential in the future.

Mr. Speaker, I support this bill and urge other Members to do the same.

I reserve the balance of my time.

We have no additional speakers, Mr. Speaker, so I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I object to the vote on the ground that a quorum is not present and make the point of order that a quorum is not present.