AMO Currents - Help Wanted: Seeking a reasonable explanation as to how Patriot Contract Services could be expected to manage eight LMSRs in full operating status

AMO Currents - Posted: October 1, 2013

Help Wanted: Seeking a reasonable explanation as to how Patriot Contract Services could be expected to manage eight LMSRs in full operating status

By Tom Bethel
National President

Until very recently, I did not think it possible for the practices of Military Sealift Command's contracting department to appear more convoluted to those who are in one way or another affected by its decisions.

But this belief was again broken on September 30 by what turned out to be a surprising piece of good news from MSC - good news both for American Maritime Officers and for the Watson Class LMSR fleet. The contracting department would be extending the contract of Ocean Ships Inc., the incumbent operator of the eight LMSRs, for a period of up to six months. Delivered the same day was a request from MSC for all companies that had submitted bids on the Watson Class request for proposals to extend their offers to cover the same timeframe.

The positive outcome in this instance will be the continued manning of these ships - which are expected to serve continuously in full operating status - by officers and crews exceedingly qualified for their jobs under the management of an operating company with an established record of superior service to MSC.

The contract extension and request for extended offers were issued with no explanation. About one month earlier, MSC had notified these operating companies that Patriot Contract Services was the apparent successful bidder on the Watson Class RFP. At this point, the contract has technically not been awarded.

While the short-term extension and the prospect that a sensible selection may yet be made in the official award are welcome developments, the crest of respite rides a wave of consternation propelled by the prepositioning (PM3) division's initial designation of Patriot as the intended awardee.

I know there are those who will find it convenient to label this assessment as 'sour grapes' and attempt to sweep it aside without examination. However, the issues involved extend beyond a simple shift in operating companies, these observations have also been made by others in the industry and something clearly needs to be said for the record. Rather than being dismissive, let's instead look at the facts at hand.

The Watson Class LMSRs - the USNS Charlton, USNS Dahl, USNS Pomeroy, USNS Red Cloud, USNS Sisler, USNS Soderman, USNS Watkins and USNS Watson - have been manned since day one by AMO officers and have always been operated by AMO-contracted companies. Some of the officers working in the Watson Class brought these ships out of the yard and have been with them throughout an impeccable span of indispensable service to our Armed Forces.

The AMO officers onboard each LMSR know the ship and its equipment, every aspect and idiosyncrasy, as only mariners with their extensive experience could. The AMO officers in the Watson Class also have all of the training and certifications required for work aboard these ships.

By contrast, shortly after MSC notified Patriot of its status as the apparent successful bidder, the company and the International Organization of Masters, Mates & Pilots - one of the two officers' unions with which Patriot has contracts - began posting solicitations on their websites aimed at attracting officers qualified to man the LMSRs.

Patriot's other contracted officers' union, the Marine Engineers' Beneficial Association, soon followed. The Watson Class LMSRs are powered by gas turbines and it seems doubtful that MEBA would be able to quickly rustle up enough engineers from its membership with gas turbine training and experience, and an interest in working under what could prove to be a relatively unsavory labor package provided to Patriot by their union's leadership.

Week after week, as the clock ran down to the originally designated turnover date of October 1, the solicitations continued on the Web and in the electronic newsletters of both officers' unions - MSC resume templates and statements that seemed to become more emphatic and therefore more desperate with each iteration, like this one posted September 26 in the MEBA online newsletter (literally): "ALL MEMBERS INTERESTED IN APPLYING TO SERVE ON THE WATSON CLASS LSMR VESSELS SHOULD SEND A RESUME TO PATRIOT IMMEDIATELY."

In the employment section of Patriot's website, solicitations went up for every licensed position required for manning an LMSR. Patriot's help wanted section included the note: "Certain positions require Government Training."

This brings us to the next dent in PM3's potential selection of Patriot: under the terms of the RFP, the cost of providing training is reimbursable by MSC.

We don't know yet what Patriot bid on the Watson Class RFP. But we have seen that the company and the officers' unions it works with seem to be having a hard time finding qualified personnel for these jobs. The officers they do find would almost certainly require training for work aboard these ships. MSC would be paying for that training. They would be paying for it even though there are already trained and qualified officers and crews manning the LMSRs.

This leads to another lapse in PM3's initial selection.

Nearly a decade has passed since Patriot has operated an LMSR serving continuously in FOS. The company's previous performance was engulfed by a fire aboard the USNS Shughart in March of 2004 that seriously damaged the ship while cargo for the U.S. Army's 1st Cavalry Division was being offloaded in Kuwait.

Two other LMSRs also in port delivering military cargo for Operation Iraqi Freedom II - the USNS Red Cloud and USNS Sisler - were among four ships that provided firefighting assistance in response to the USNS Shughart's call for aid. Detailed reports on this incident remain publically available on the MSC website. At the time, the USNS Red Cloud and USNS Sisler were operated by Maersk Line, Limited and manned in all licensed positions by AMO. The USNS Shughart was operated by Patriot and manned in licensed positions by MEBA and MM&P.

Later in 2004, contracts covering the USNS Shughart and a total of ten other LMSRs were awarded by MSC to AMO-contracted companies and the ships were turned over in 2005.

In January of 2010, MSC awarded another contract to Patriot covering the USNS Shughart and the three other 'conversion' LMSRs, which the company has since been managing in reduced operating status.

During the countdown to October 1, we learned at least one of the officers' unions that Patriot works with had opened jobs on the conversion LMSRs in ROS to retirees, presumably to cull active members with any LMSR experience for the Watson Class, should the ships come under the management of Patriot.

The company is linked to another recent MSC contracting decision that defies reason.

In September of 2012, MSC awarded a contract covering the service of a shallow-draft tanker to Schuyler Line Navigation Company, which lists Dome Chartering as its commercial agent. The award was protested, and during the investigation, it was discovered that Schuyler Line did not even have a ship available with which to service the charter.

Rather than awarding the contract to the next eligible bidder on the RFP, MSC put it out for a new round of bidding. About a year later, the contract was again awarded to Schuyler Line - the same company that had lost the charter for failing to produce a ship.

The difference this time was the relationship Schuyler Line had developed with Patriot Contract Services. The companies would be bringing in a tanker supplied by a foreign branch so Schuyler Line would actually be able to fulfill the terms of the proposal it had submitted to MSC.

This brings us to the fundamental problem with contracting practices held together by duct tape and paint. We are not talking about contracts to repave parking lots. These charters provide for the delivery of essential cargo and vehicles to the U.S. Armed Forces abroad.

When the balloon goes up, would PM3 be able to depend upon a company with a distant and blemished record of managing LMSRs serving in full operating status? I think MSC would be forced to find a way to draw upon the resources of companies with established infrastructure, proven personnel and long records of exceptional service to the military.

If contracting practices such as these continue - issuing RFPs that accommodate companies unequipped to render service, allowing simple pass/fail scoring on technical evaluations, and awarding contracts based on the lowest bid - MSC will one day in the not too distant future be left only with operators that may not be prepared to answer the call the next time it goes out.

The service of the Watson Class LMSRs and the officers who man them must be impeccable, professional, ready and reliable - every time and anywhere. It always has been. I have yet to hear a reasonable explanation as to why PM3 seemed so eager to take a chance that it wouldn't.

As always, I welcome your comments and questions. Please feel free to call me on my cell phone at (202) 251-0349.