Front Page |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| By MICHAEL R. McKAY | |
|
Keystone cops T-5 tankers? Not yet.
In the April 15 edition of its online weekly Telex Times, the Marine Engineers Beneficial Association reported that Keystone Shipping had been notified of its imminent Military Sealift Command charter to operate four government-owned T-5 tankers--the USNS Paul Buck, USNS Samuel Cobb, USNS Richard Matthiesen and USNS Lawrence Giannella--with MEBA members aboard in all licensed positions. But the deal was far from firm. Ocean Ships Inc., the tankers' current operator and an employer of engine and deck officers represented by American Maritime Officers, protested MSC's selection of Keystone immediately. Ocean Ships--which also operates a fifth T-5, the privately owned USNS Gus Warren Darnell, under MSC charter and AMO contract--argued that Keystone had not qualified as a small business as required by MSC's T-5 request for proposals, or RFP. The protest was filed with the Small Business Administration. On May 26, the SBA advised Ocean Ships that Keystone had indeed failed to measure up--or measure down--to small business criteria. In a message to each vessel in the T-5 fleet, Ocean Ships fleet captain Bob Sheen explained: "This determination means that Keystone was not qualified to bid on the T-5s." The SBA's conclusion was "good news," but Sheen cautioned quickly: "This is not over yet. Keystone has the right to appeal this decision to the SBA's Office of Hearings and Appeals. This process could last approximately 30 days." Sheen also warned that, even if Keystone's appeal is denied, Ocean Ships could lose the four tankers. Ocean Ships "still does not know where we stood in the final outcome of the bidding," he explained. "This means that another bidder could actually be next in line to receive the award. Because of the SBA protest, which occurs prior to the debriefing provided to 'losing' bidders by MSC, OSI was never debriefed and, therefore, we are not able to say how we stood in the final determination of the bids." Sheen's point was plain enough. Keystone could be denied the T-5 charter because of the SBA's determination, but other factors could cost Ocean Ships the T-5 business it has held for more than 20 years. That would leave the third and final bidder--Metson Marine, which has a collective bargaining agreement with AMO--with the four T-5 tankers. Meanwhile, our union was following another MSC charter issue--the court contest between MSC and Patriot Contract Services over the operation and maintenance of nine large, medium-sized roll-on/roll-off defense cargo ships. This dispute began in September 2004, when MSC selected American Overseas Marine Corp. (AMSEA) over Patriot and three other U.S.-flagged shipping companies to manage the LMSRs. AMSEA has collective bargaining agreements with AMO; Patriot has collective bargaining agreements with MEBA and the International Organization of Masters, Mates and Pilots. On May 23, Judge Martin Jenkins of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California in San Francisco--acting in a suit brought against MSC by Patriot-- issued a limited and temporary order barring the further turnover of the LMSRs from Patriot to AMSEA while an appeals court considered Patriot's emergency motion for a permanent injunction. AMSEA had already assumed management of--and AMO had already manned--three of the vessels: USNS Shughart, USNS Seay and USNS Mendonca. Next on MSC's schedule were the USNS Yano, USNS Bob Hope, USNS Fisher, USNS Brittin, USNS Benavidez and USNS Pililaau. All were expected to join the AMSEA fleet by June 30. This timetable apparently will hold. Late on June 3, AMO learned that the appeals court had denied Patriot's emergency request for an injunction. AMSEA, an intervenor defendant in the case, has not commented publicly on the controversy--a sound strategy because legal issues are rarely if ever settled fairly in the media. In that spirit, AMO has reported on developments as they have occurred, but has refrained from extensive discussion of specific legal aspects. But, as in interested observer--an interested observer with a direct responsibility to the men and women I am privileged to represent--I can speak generally. In court, and through on-the-record statements from MEBA and the MM&P, Patriot has argued that AMSEA has no LMSR experience. But AMSEA has operated eight fast sealift roll-on/roll-off ships and the USNS Gunnery Sgt. Fred W. Stockham under MSC charter for several years--and both are precursors to the LMSR program. More importantly, Patriot had no LMSR experience when it was awarded the five-year MSC charter for the nine ships now at issue and two other LMSRs in 1999. Patriot, MEBA and the MM&P have argued similarly that AMO members have no practical LMSR experience, and that our union cannot man the vessels. But AMO members were aboard many of the disputed LMSRs during their initial charter period, they have thus far made the transition from Patriot to AMSEA an easy one, and they are standing by to complete the turnover under MSC's timetable. By June 1, only one issue remained at the core of the LMSR court case: "key personnel." The specific question seemed to be whether the port engineers to be provided by AMSEA in six U.S. locations are or will be the same as those specified by AMSEA in its LMSR operating bid nearly two years ago--which must seem a minor consideration to U.S. merchant marine officers in all three unions accustomed to employment schedules, job markets and ship delivery dates changing every day. With Patriot and MEBA making much of a May 11 advisory opinion from the Government Accountability Office--an opinion critical of AMSEA on the port engineer issue--it is worth noting this passage from the GAO finding for honest perspective: "Our opinion does not address, in detail, (Patriot's) additional bases for protest. In summary, we found no merit in (Patriot's) other protest allegations." We will have more to say about the T-5 and LMSR charter issues as each situation warrants. For now, both cases confirm the volatile and fluid nature of competitive bidding for U.S. government shipping charters. |
|
|
|
Front Page
|
|