Awarding agency: Department of Homeland Security
Who got paid, how much, for what, and whether it is defensible. Citizen opinion on the record, not a mandate.
Status and record
THE UNITED STATES COAST GUARD HAS A REQUIREMENT TO PROCURE UP TO TWENTY-SIX (26) FAST RESPONSE CUTTERS (FRCS) ON A FIRM FIXED PRICE (FFP) BASIS WITH AN ECONOMIC PRICE ADJUSTMENT (EPA). PHASE II OF THE FRC PROGRAM WILL COMPLETE THE FLEET FOR A TOTAL OF 58 CUTTERS.
$2.1B · DEFINITIVE CONTRACT · Department of Homeland Security · LA
FEDERAL SPENDING · CITIZEN OPINION
Was this federal payment to BOLLINGER SHIPYARDS LOCKPORT, L.L.C. worth it?
$2.1B · Department of Homeland Security to BOLLINGER SHIPYARDS LOCKPORT, L.L.C.
Be the first to put your opinion on the record.
What this award is
AI analysis
This is a contract worth up to $2.1 billion between the U.S. Coast Guard (part of the Department of Homeland Security) and Bollinger Shipyards Lockport, a Louisiana-based shipbuilding company. The company will build up to 26 Fast Response Cutters (FRCs), which are medium-sized patrol boats for the Coast Guard.
DEEPER CONTEXTAnalysis · Risks · Arguments
WHY THIS MONEY IS BEING SPENT
WHY WAS THIS FUNDED?
The U.S. Coast Guard is authorized by Congress to maintain a fleet of vessels to carry out its missions. This contract is Phase II of a larger FRC (Fast Response Cutter) program designed to bring the total Coast Guard FRC fleet to 58 ships.
WHAT PUBLIC PROBLEM IS IT TRYING TO SOLVE?
The Coast Guard needs modern, capable patrol boats to protect U.S. waters, enforce laws, intercept drug smugglers, respond to emergencies at sea, and protect national borders. Older vessels in the fleet needed to be replaced with updated ships that can perform these duties more effectively.
WHO BENEFITS?
American workers at Bollinger Shipyards in Louisiana benefit through jobs in shipbuilding and manufacturing. The broader American public benefits through improved Coast Guard capacity for law enforcement, border security, search and rescue, and maritime safety.
Plain-language reading generated from the USASpending award record. Not legal or financial advice.
RISKS AND TRADEOFFS
WHAT ARE THE RISKS?
Large, long-term shipbuilding contracts can face cost overruns, construction delays, or changes in requirements that drive up the final price. The Economic Price Adjustment (EPA) clause means the contract price can shift over time, which adds some financial uncertainty for taxpayers.
WHAT HAPPENS IF FUNDING IS REMOVED?
If this contract were cancelled, the Coast Guard would be unable to complete its planned fleet of 58 Fast Response Cutters, leaving gaps in its ability to patrol U.S. waters and respond to maritime threats and emergencies. The shipyard and its workers in Louisiana would also lose a significant source of employment.
FOR AND AGAINST
ARGUMENTS FOR
- •Completing the FRC fleet gives the Coast Guard the modern vessels it needs to effectively protect U.S. coasts, stop drug trafficking, and conduct search and rescue operations.
- •Building ships domestically supports American manufacturing jobs, particularly in Louisiana, and strengthens the U.S. shipbuilding industry.
- •A firm fixed price (FFP) contract structure helps protect taxpayers by locking in costs upfront rather than allowing unlimited spending.
ARGUMENTS AGAINST
- •At $2.1 billion for up to 26 ships, the cost per vessel is very high, and critics may question whether the government is getting the best value for taxpayer money.
- •The Economic Price Adjustment (EPA) clause means the final cost could rise above the initial agreement, reducing the cost certainty that a fixed-price contract is supposed to provide.
- •A ten-year contract with a single shipyard reduces competition, which some argue can lead to less innovation and higher prices over time.
SPENDING TIMELINE
Add a tag
Written opinion on whether this spending is appropriate · not a duplicate of the Worth It / Wasteful vote or spending record. Similar opinions on this spending record can open a solution poll.
3 similar opinions open a solution poll
Loading opinions
Your stance is citizen opinion; it does not form a citizen mandate. Mandate accountability applies when Congress votes on tracked legislation.