Partnerships for Fulfilling Arctic Responsibilities
Post on 14-Apr-2017
107 Views
Preview:
Transcript
Partnerships for Fulfilling Arctic ResponsibilitiesPREPARED FOR THE ARTIC CIRCLE SHIPPING TASK FORCE AND THE UNIVERSITY OF ALASKA
Authors: Hon. Sean O’Keefe, Dr. David M. Van Slyke, Mr. Zachary S. Huitink – Syracuse University, and Dr. Trevor L. Brown – The Ohio State University
US Interests in the Arctic• Protecting and promoting US interests in the Arctic is a matter of national security
- President’s National Security Strategy, 2015
• US interests in the Arctic: - Sovereign
- Strategic
- Economic & Commercial - Environmental & Scientific
National Security Concerns• The President’s 2015 National Security Strategy emphasizes three key challenges relevant to the Arctic:
1. Access to Shared Spaces
2. Energy Security
3. Climate Change
* See the President’s National Security Strategy, 2015
Economic Imperatives• Economic imperatives in the Arctic:
- 30% of the world’s undiscovered natural gas- 13% of the world’s undiscovered oil- $1 trillion in minerals- 118 percent increase in maritime transit from 2008-2012- 1 million tons of cargo shipped in 2012
*Figures from the Coast Guard’s 2013 Arctic Strategy document
US Arctic Policy• US policy calls for a comprehensive national strategy toward the Arctic, along three lines of effort:
1. Advance US security interests
2. Pursue responsible Arctic region stewardship
3. Promote international cooperation
*See the US National Strategy for the Arctic Region, 2013
Need for Icebreaker Capabilities• Icebreaking capabilities are essential for fulfilling Arctic responsibilities • Icebreakers offer:
- Mobility- Interoperability- Resilience to harsh conditions
Icebreaker Capability Gap
Size of Icebreaker Fleet
*Source: US Coast Guard, Office of Waterways and Ocean Policy, 2014
Russia
Finland
Sweden
Canada
USA
Denmark
China
40
7
6
6
5
4
1
Size of Icebreaker Fleet(Currently Operational)
Current Acquisition Strategy• The current strategy involves a 10-year, $1B program to buy a new icebreaker with USCG appropriations
• Drawbacks to a “traditional procurement” strategy:- Considerable time for development and production - Unresponsive to changes in the operating environment- Cost prohibitive given demands on USCG acquisition budget- Potentially more expensive than an alternative approach, esp. if
USCG procured, crewed, and maintained
Alternative Acquisition Strategies
• Several examples demonstrate the feasibility and potential advantages of alternative strategies to acquire maritime assets
• Potential advantages of an alternative acquisition strategy:- Faster fielding time - More responsive to a changing operating environment- Potentially less expensive than a traditional procurement
Example Alternative StrategiesCanadian Coast Guard
The Canadian Coast Guard uses lease chartering to to acquire buoy tending and channel clearing services in the St. Lawrence Seaway.
National Science Foundation
NSF used a lease charter arrangement to acquire an ice-capable research vessel constructed to a detailed set of requirements and performance specifications.
Example Alternative StrategiesMilitary Sealift Command/OPDS
The Military Sealift Command (MSC) used a lease charter in to acquire a new offshore petroleum discharge system (OPDS) tanker built off a commercial platform.
SOCOM/Military Sealift Command
The US Special Operations Command (SOCOM) uses lease charters to acquire privately owned vessels that support highly demanding maritime security and defense missions.
Analysis of Alternatives Baseline Approach: Traditional Procurement Strategy Alternative #1: Retrofit Existing Asset Alternative #2: Lease Charter Alternative #3: Broader Intergovernmental Partnership Alternative #4: Bi-National Partnership
Analytical Framework
Acquisition Process
Asset Mix
Number of Acquirers
Evaluation Criteria- Technical feasibility - Agility- Mission scope/trade-offs - Life cycle cost- User efficacy - Budgetary considerations- Interoperability - Statutory permissibility- Value for money
Traditional Procurement
Potential Pros◦ - Mission scope and trade-offs◦ - User efficacy◦ - Interoperability◦ - Statutory permissibility◦ - Value for money
Potential Cons◦ - Technical feasibility◦ - Agility◦ - Life cycle cost◦ - Budgetary considerations
USCGC Polar Star
Number of Acquirers:One — USCG
Type of Process: Traditional – Buy New Asset
Asset Mix: Single Asset with Multi-Mission Functionality
Retrofit Existing Asset
Potential Pros◦ - Technical feasibility◦ - Life cycle cost◦ - Budgetary considerations◦ - Statutory permissibility
Potential Cons◦ - Mission scope and trade-offs ◦ - User efficacy◦ - Interoperability◦ - Agility◦ - Value for money
Offshore Patrol Cutter (OPC)
Fast Response Cutter (OPC)
Number of Acquirers:One — USCG
Type of Process: Traditional – Buy Retrofit Asset
Asset Mix: Single Asset with Multi-Mission Functionality (as permitted by a “parent craft” design) OR Multi-Asset Mix
Lease Charter Potential Pros
◦ - Technical feasibility◦ - User efficacy◦ - Agility◦ - Life cycle cost◦ - Value for money
Potential Cons◦ - Mission scope and trade-offs◦ - Interoperability◦ - Budgetary considerations
(OMB scoring rules?)◦ - Statutory permissibility
(restrictions on leasing?)
Nathaniel B. Palmer
Number of Acquirers:One – USCG
Type of Process: Non-Traditional –Lease Charter
Asset Mix:Single Asset with Multi-Mission Functionality OR Multi-Asset Mix
Bi-National Partnership Potential Pros
◦ - Technical feasibility◦ - User efficacy◦ - Budgetary considerations◦ - Statutory permissibility◦ - Value for money
Potential Cons◦ - Mission scope and trade-offs◦ - Interoperability ◦ - Agility◦ - Life cycle costCCGS John G.
Diefenbaker
Number of Acquirers:One –USCG
Type of Process:Traditional – Buy Asset based on Foreign Design
Asset Mix:Single Asset with Multi-Mission Functionality
Broader Intra-governmental Partnership
Potential Pros◦ - Mission scope and trade-
offs◦ - Interoperability◦ - Agility ◦ - Life cycle cost◦ - Value for money
Potential Cons◦ - Technical feasibility◦ - User efficacy◦ - Budgetary considerations◦ - Statutory permissibility
Number of Acquirers:One – USCGORMultiple –USCG, NSF, NOAA, USN, etc.
Type of Process:Non-traditional – Intra-Governmental PPP
Asset Mix: Single Asset with Multi-mission Functionality (as permitted by a “parent craft” design) OR Multi-Asset Mix
Analytical SummaryProcurement Retrofit Lease Charter Broader PPP Bi-National Partnership
Technical Feasibility X X
Mission Scope/Trade-Offs X X X
User Efficacy X X Interoperability X X X
Agility X X XLife Cycle Cost X X
Budgetary Considerations X X X
Statutory Permissibility X X
Value for Money X
Conclusion• Acquiring icebreakers to support US Arctic missions is increasingly a matter of national security
• Traditional procurement takes too long—alternative strategies are faster and may be less expensive (esp. given gov’t costs to crew, homeport, maintain, etc.)
• Not all Arctic missions—including ice operations—are inherently governmental
• Depending on mission priorities, there are several alternative ways to fulfill responsibilities in the Arctic
top related