Comments on: Cancellation Costs http://www.neptunuslex.com/2009/05/20/cancellation-costs/ The unbearable lightness of Lex. Enjoy! Fri, 10 Feb 2012 06:48:26 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1 By: Casey http://www.neptunuslex.com/2009/05/20/cancellation-costs/comment-page-1/#comment-366669 Casey Thu, 21 May 2009 19:23:13 +0000 http://www.neptunuslex.com/?p=9642#comment-366669 Following up Curtis' comments, and at the risk of sounding dumb: isn't the Blackhawk production line still up? Why not just buy a few new VH-70s? Or is that too "20th-century?" Following up Curtis’ comments, and at the risk of sounding dumb: isn’t the Blackhawk production line still up? Why not just buy a few new VH-70s?

Or is that too “20th-century?”

]]> By: Curtis http://www.neptunuslex.com/2009/05/20/cancellation-costs/comment-page-1/#comment-366500 Curtis Thu, 21 May 2009 04:40:48 +0000 http://www.neptunuslex.com/?p=9642#comment-366500 Another example of perfect being the enemy of good enough. The mission of the VH-71 is unchanged or damned well should be, unchanged from the mission of the current Marine 1. What imbecile decided that we needed an all new revolutionary helo to transport a man to Camp David? If there was ever a case of just go out and buy something off the shelf, this was it. Just buy more of what you're already using.... Did nobody see the potentials for fiscal catastrophe in a new helo program? How could they? Every single one of the military's helo programs over the last 20 years has been an absolute fiscal disaster. How do we continue to get away with this charade? Well, every single dime spent on these dismal failures gets spent in some Congress critter's district and the smart contractors come up with a subcontracting plan that by golly has design, planning, fabrication, ILS and assembly going on for each project in 424 Congressional districts and we wonder why weapon systems are so expensive? Another example of perfect being the enemy of good enough.
The mission of the VH-71 is unchanged or damned well should be, unchanged from the mission of the current Marine 1. What imbecile decided that we needed an all new revolutionary helo to transport a man to Camp David? If there was ever a case of just go out and buy something off the shelf, this was it. Just buy more of what you’re already using…. Did nobody see the potentials for fiscal catastrophe in a new helo program? How could they? Every single one of the military’s helo programs over the last 20 years has been an absolute fiscal disaster.
How do we continue to get away with this charade? Well, every single dime spent on these dismal failures gets spent in some Congress critter’s district and the smart contractors come up with a subcontracting plan that by golly has design, planning, fabrication, ILS and assembly going on for each project in 424 Congressional districts and we wonder why weapon systems are so expensive?

]]> By: F4Jock http://www.neptunuslex.com/2009/05/20/cancellation-costs/comment-page-1/#comment-366491 F4Jock Thu, 21 May 2009 03:52:42 +0000 http://www.neptunuslex.com/?p=9642#comment-366491 I think you have to take two steps back and realize the huge costs of what is called "requirements creep" when new ideas pop into the governments head and are placed on a contractor, but are not fully funded or Rough Order of Magnitude (ROMed) out you get the spiraling costs of development, and then the costs of verifying all these requirements. If you took all the requirements for the VH-71 vs. the current presidential helicopter, you could see the difference. The new one was tasked to be much much more capable a platform with a price tag to match. If I recall Lockheed Martin is a FOR PROFIT company. I am sure they have done an excellent job, and now we must pay the piper if the decision is to terminate the program. You forget you have to disposition ALL of the development hardware, documentation, and on and on. This costs money as well. Just my two cents for free! You just can't put it on ebay to get rid of it, or that would be a separate issue! I think you have to take two steps back and realize the huge costs of what is called “requirements creep” when new ideas pop into the governments head and are placed on a contractor, but are not fully funded or Rough Order of Magnitude (ROMed) out you get the spiraling costs of development, and then the costs of verifying all these requirements. If you took all the requirements for the VH-71 vs. the current presidential helicopter, you could see the difference. The new one was tasked to be much much more capable a platform with a price tag to match. If I recall Lockheed Martin is a FOR PROFIT company. I am sure they have done an excellent job, and now we must pay the piper if the decision is to terminate the program. You forget you have to disposition ALL of the development hardware, documentation, and on and on. This costs money as well. Just my two cents for free! You just can’t put it on ebay to get rid of it, or that would be a separate issue!

]]> By: Brian http://www.neptunuslex.com/2009/05/20/cancellation-costs/comment-page-1/#comment-366482 Brian Thu, 21 May 2009 02:49:39 +0000 http://www.neptunuslex.com/?p=9642#comment-366482 I think it all comes down to lousy program management on the Navy's part. Figure out what you need it (in this case, the new helo) to do FIRST and then stick to it. Every time you go chasing after some new golden widget to stick in the thing you drive the hell out of the price. Also, look at the contract structure - you're going to have hi cancelation costs because the contractor's on a phased ffp-type contract with stage reviews, up front testing costs, etc. Hell yes it costs to cancel - that's why you're supposed to verify and properly scope the need before you sign the contract. That's what all those beltway bandits get paid so much to do - properly write the requirements. Saw the whole mess up close and personal in NAVAIR back in '93 time frame. Hasn't changed muc from what I can tell. I think it all comes down to lousy program management on the Navy’s part. Figure out what you need it (in this case, the new helo) to do FIRST and then stick to it. Every time you go chasing after some new golden widget to stick in the thing you drive the hell out of the price. Also, look at the contract structure – you’re going to have hi cancelation costs because the contractor’s on a phased ffp-type contract with stage reviews, up front testing costs, etc. Hell yes it costs to cancel – that’s why you’re supposed to verify and properly scope the need before you sign the contract. That’s what all those beltway bandits get paid so much to do – properly write the requirements.

Saw the whole mess up close and personal in NAVAIR back in ’93 time frame. Hasn’t changed muc from what I can tell.

]]> By: Scott http://www.neptunuslex.com/2009/05/20/cancellation-costs/comment-page-1/#comment-366462 Scott Thu, 21 May 2009 00:54:30 +0000 http://www.neptunuslex.com/?p=9642#comment-366462 What's <a href="//washingtontechnology.com/articles/2009/05/19/administration-to-cancel-fcs-program.aspx”" rel="nofollow">another $350,000,000</a>? What’s another $350,000,000?

]]> By: Frank in St. Louis http://www.neptunuslex.com/2009/05/20/cancellation-costs/comment-page-1/#comment-366432 Frank in St. Louis Wed, 20 May 2009 22:37:02 +0000 http://www.neptunuslex.com/?p=9642#comment-366432 Has that case been settled? The last I can find is from 2007 when the U.S. Court of Federal Claims found for the government, putting the companies on the hook to REPAY over $2 billion in progress payments and interest. The companies said they planned to appeal. Has that case been settled? The last I can find is from 2007 when the U.S. Court of Federal Claims found for the government, putting the companies on the hook to REPAY over $2 billion in progress payments and interest. The companies said they planned to appeal.

]]>