The heads of a Senate panel called on government auditors yesterday to review the Littoral Combat Ship (LCS) program because of concerns regarding the cost, schedule, and performance of the sea frames and mission modules.
Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) announced yesterday that he and Sen. Carl Levin (D-Mich.) requested the investigation by the Government Accountability Office (GAO), saying he “remain(s) skeptical” about the Navy shipbuilding program he has monitored for years. The Navy changed its acquisition plan for the LCS program two years ago. It dropped plans to buy 10 LCSs from either Lockheed Martin [LMT]-Marinette Marine, which built USS Freedom (LCS-1), or Austal USA, which partnered with General Dynamics [GD] on USS Independence (LCS-2), and decided to buy 10 copies of each design.
The Navy is committed to making the LCS program a success and is confident it is on the right path, a Navy spokesman said yesterday when asked about the request for the GAO review.
McCain and Levin, the ranking member and chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee (SASC), told the GAO in a letter that even though the cost of building the seaframes appears to be stabilizing, they believe “continuing oversight of this program’s cost, schedule and performance remains warranted.”
“With this mind, we ask you to please examine: (1) how executable are the current fixed price contracts to build each of the variants under the dual-award block buy strategy; and (2) how likely is the program to demonstrate desired combined combat capability to justify buying 20 more seaframes under this strategy,” they said in an April 27 missive to Comptroller Gene Dodaro at the GAO.
The SASC leaders also raised concerns about the plug-and-play mission modules the Navy is developing for the seaframes, which are intended to outfit the ships for mine countermeasures, anti-surface warfare, and anti-submarine warfare. Levin and McCain said the mission-module program–which is nearing a so-called Milestone B decision on entering the Engineering and Manufacturing Development Phase–has “demonstrated instability.”
“Specifically, the configuration and design of some of the modules are still to be determined in testing, as the Navy has dropped some sensors, vehicles, and weapons that the Navy previously planned to include in the modules because they did not demonstrate the required capability or were too costly,” they said.
The senators added that “despite recent performance that would indicate improved adherence to contract production schedules,” the program experienced schedule delays and cost growth earlier on.
“If the Navy were to experience new delays or cost increases in the LCS program, such problems could ripple through the Navy investment and operating programs,” warned the senators, whose panel soon will craft their version of the fiscal year 2003 defense authorization bill.
Levin and McCain thus asked the GAO to “examine the Navy’s efforts to procure the LCS seaframes and its mission modules” by assessing nine specific issues. Those matters include the extent to which design changes spurred by structural deficiencies in the lead ships have been integrated into the follow-on ships’ designs; how well the mission module and seaframe programs are aligned; and how executable the acquisition strategy, technology-development strategy, acquisition plan, and systems-engineering plan for both the seaframe and mission-module programs are.
McCain said in a statement yesterday the Navy has successfully addressed structural and survivability issues with the LCS since he raised concerns about them last year.
He said that while he remains “concerned about whether the Navy will be able to execute its overall plan to build the remaining seaframes at planned costs,” he believes “the issue associated with the program that will require the closest scrutiny relates to the mission modules–the successful development and integration of which is vital for these ships to become fully combat-capable.”
Navy spokesman Lt. Myers Vasquez, when asked about Levin and McCain’s request to the GAO, said it would be “inappropriate to comment on correspondence between members of Congress and other government agencies.”
“The LCS program is vital to the future of our Navy and we are committed to its success,” Vasquez added. “We are confident that we are on a path of success in the LCS program and that it will provide our Navy the war fighting capabilities we need.”
The LCS program continually has been dogged by bad press, including last week when the Project on Government Oversight released a report on structural problems with USS Freedom. The Navy, though, said the issues raised in the report are old ones that it has addressed.
Lawmakers’ concerns about the ship program also are expressed in the FY ’13 defense authorization bill the House Armed Services Committee (HASC) is in the process of writing.
Rep. Duncan Hunter (R-Calif.) added a successful amendment to the HASC Seapower and Projection Forces subcommittee’s bill last Thursday calling for a “comprehensive briefing” on the LCS program from the Navy secretary.
“While the Navy has briefed the congressional defense committees on problems involving the LCS program, the committee believes that the Navy has not adequately informed Congress to the full extent possible on program deficiencies, including mechanical and structural failures,” Hunter’s amendment states. It adds the HASC is “concerned with the lack of transparency” regarding LCS issues raised in the annual report by the Pentagon’s director of operational test and evaluation.
The full HASC will markup the Pentagon policy legislation next week.