All Issue Summary Doc
Deepwater Issue – these issues are the ones I am aware of. There may be more
First Hand Issues
-
FLIR and other external equipment not meeting environmental specs. Some or most of the
equipment may not meet requirements.
- FLIR external video cable - wrong type. is RG-58 - should be RG-179. RG-58 does not meet
environmental spec. this will cause the FLIR to fail - most likely in bad weather
- Camera blind spots
- TEMPEST - shielded cables missing
- PCA/Cable labels on boat #1 - LM QA determined that 80% of the labels were wrong. this will
affect repair and maintenance
- SIPRNET accreditation - this one was just brought to my attention today by someone in LM. He
believes the classified data communications system was not up to spec and should not have been
accredited or accepted.
- SRP VHF radio issue - One more item. The Navy Times decided not to print this part of the story
because the issue had actually been resolved. Originally the plan was to outfit the SRPs with VHF
radios that were not meant for outdoor use. (Yes that's right). Even after I, several other engineers
and the vendor said this was a mistake - management pressed on. Several months after this issue
was raised - and I had been fighting it for some time - the CG asked to have the radios tested in the
rain - just before delivery. Several of them failed. In the end we wound up using the radio that
came with the Zodiacs. Had it not been raining we would have delivered that radio on the first
boat - then every one after that. LM and the CG intended on delivering non-weather proof radios
on all of the SRPs - well over 49 of them (they were intended to be used beyond the 123s). As
everyone knows these Zodiacs are exposed to the weather. Given that several failed during the
tests it's obvious that they would have failed immediately in the fleet. This issue more than any
other shows what lengths leadership was willing to go to deliver these boats. As those radios were
the prime mode of communication for the SRPs it should be more than obvious that a failed radio
could lead to a catastrophic situation. This put the crew and public in extreme risk. I believe this
is willful negligence on the part of Lockheed Martin.
Second Hand Issues
-
-
Old Parts being put back on refurbished engines – Bollinger shipyard strongly urged the CG to
allow them to replace all the worn parts they took off the motor before they were refurbished. CG
denied this request. This meant that old ancillary parts– just like on a car – items like hoses, belts,
alternators etc – were not replaced. Bollinger was very insistent that this be done. They felt it was
a crew safety issue and that these worn parts, if not replaced, could cause the refurbished engines
to fail. (It is possible the Cg had another plan for this. However – given the condition of the
engines it appeared normal maintenance wasn’t being done the crews of the boats believed the
refurb period would take care of this)
Hull buckling – Several of the first boats hulls buckled soon after delivery. This has been written
about. If the proper stress analysis and engineering were done and the boats 13’ extensions were
done properly – why did the hulls buckle?
DHS IG and the whistle blowing investigation – the DHS IG – after their preliminary investigation of all 3
LM ethics issues found them to have enough merit to warrant further investigation – gave the investigation
to the CGIS per their request. I have informed them on many occasions this is unacceptable. First – it
creates a conflict of interest. This would mean the CG is investigating itself. Second – it diminishes if not
terminates my ability to secure a fair investigation. The CG and the CGIS have already publicly stated that
my Deepwater allegations are without merit – as the issues do not exist or were handled contractually.
With this being the case how could the whistle blowing investigation be thorough and fair if one of its main
points involves the Deepwater issue. Also- why would the CGIS investigate the two other issues (which
the DHS IG informed me they would be doing) if they were not Deepwater related?
3 Issues during 12 year LM career
Information Systems – appraisal period 1998/99
- Currently Simulation Systems
- First I would like to say that 5 of the 8 years I was with this organization I enjoyed working there and
found the experience to be a positive one.
- I would like to note that the majority of the management personnel that I dealt with during the period are
now part of a lawsuit that Lockheed Martin has filed against L-3 and MediaTech.
(http://www.orlandosentinel.com/business/orl-lockheed0506apr05,0,4596716.story). These
individuals are Kevin Speed (formerly LM site manager) Lance McMichael (formerly LM PM), Kevin
Curley (MediaTech – previously LM PM) and Fran Markette (MediaTech – Previously LM MTSS
Program Director)
Not participating in wrongful sole source and refusing to purchase equipment from MediaTech that we did
not need. (Grouped because they both involve MediaTech)
- Wrongful Equipment Purchase
 MediaTech wanted to supply video switches for the effort. These switches cost roughly
$40k.
 Due to the stoppage of a separate effort prior to this one we had 4 video switches in
DRMO that I wanted to resurrect for the effort. These other switches cost $400k and
while their capabilities far exceeded what the effort needed I saw this as an excellent
opportunity to save the customer money.
 MediaTech made the case to my site manager (who later became a part owner of
MediaTech) that the switches I wanted to use would not work – as they had been
modified for the previous effort. MediaTech went so far as to tell me and my
management they had talked to the vendor and they had confirmed that the switches
would not work.
 At that point I stared receiving pressure to drop the issue and buy the switches from
MediaTech.
 I called my switch vendor who told me they have never been called by MediaTech and
the switches would work as is.
 After this I performed a test on the devices and demonstrated to management and the
customer they worked as I expected.
 At that point I was permitted to use these switches.
- Wrongful sole source – black mail
 In parallel with the previous issue MediaTech began pressuring my management (again
my site manager Kevin Speed) to remove me as lead of the effort.
 The reason given was that MediaTech began hearing that there was work on the effort
they expected to receive but would not because I believed their service to be inadequate.
 MediaTech demanded I be removed and that they be given the sole source contract,
because I was verbally and maliciously damaging MediaTech reputation. This is black
mail.
 I informed management that as an engineer that it was my job to judge their previous
performance and that 2 other engineers agreed with my assessment. One of which was
the lead in charge of maintenance for the system/room under modification.
 My engineering manager (Jeff Lombardi) then informed me that Fran Markette had
suggested that all of this would go away if they were given sole source of the effort.
 Point of note – MediaTech was in no way shut out of the effort at that point. I had taken
steps to given them a contract to supply furniture and help with installation of most of the
equipment.
 At that point the issue was raised to Dave Walker (who had replaced Fran Markette).
The issue was discussed, several other engineers’ opinions were given – including the site
Chief Engineer, and it was found that I had acted properly. We then continued as I had
planned.
 This effort finished on time and on budget. The customer deemed the room to be a huge
success. I have personally seen the room several times on cable TV being highlighted
during documentaries on simulation.
Subcontractor over billing on TOC Upgrade
 At the end of the same effort the contractor we had used for room construction over billed us
for roughly $70k.







My contention, as well as that of the architect that had designed the room, was that we were
not only being over billed but that the subcontractor was purposefully distorting events.
When I asked site management for assistance (I believe Kevin Speed moved on to another
project at this point and the site manager was Jim McFarland) they refused to get involved
and chastised me for causing problems.
When I asked the site buyer to start the process to file a formal complaint she told me that
would be a hassle and asked me why I cared so much since “it wasn’t my money”. A that
point I demanded she take the steps necessary to handle the situation properly.
The buyer then filed a harassment charge against me and the ethics group out of Cherry Hill
performed an investigation.
The findings (which were not made aware to me for several months. By this time I had
moved to MS2 in NJ) were that the sub had indeed over charged, that site management had
not done due diligence and that I should not have raised my voice with the buyer.
My next appraisal was again lower than deserved and I received no raise. I was told it was
lowered based on the events that had transpired during the TH-53A and TOC efforts
described above. I was deemed difficult to work with.
Due to this situation I decided to move my family and myself to a new job.
- Personality conflict with Program Manager on the TH-53A Upgrade effort
 I was the project lead of a three year effort to upgrade the TH-53A simulator
 The effort was the largest and most complicated modification project that group had taken on
since its inception.
 We finished 2 weeks late of the original schedule, $300k under budget and received the first
green CPAR rating for a mod since the program’s inception.
 The team was submitted for a Galaxy Award (but only if I agreed not participate)
 3 Months before the end of the effort the program manager asked the organization to have me
removed from the effort – due to a personality conflict between the PM and me.
 Site management complied with the request – with no investigation or solicitation of my side
– and removed me.
 I approached HR in Orlando asking for a written set of complaints.
 The very first complaint was that I had removed equipment from the device without customer
approval.
 I submitted a copy of an email I had sent PM that the customer had sent us – months earlierthat demonstrated I had permission.
 My position as project lead was immediately reinstated.
 My next appraisal was lowered from previous periods and I was given a 0% raise. Reflection
of the project’s success and contribution to the company was over shadowed by negative
comments.
MS2 (NE&SS) Moorestown, NJ – appraisal period 2004
-Deepwater Safety and Security Issues
 First I would like to state that the first 2 years I spent in that organization and on the Aegis
effort were enjoyable and professionally fulfilling. The Aegis team was extremely
professional and it was an honor to work with that team.
 In my third year with MS2 I moved to the deepwater effort as Lead System Engineer for the
123 effort.
 During this time I raised several significant safety and security issues.
 I have spent the past 3 years dealing with these issues. There have been 3 levels of ethics
investigations and an investigation by cooperate legal. While corporate legal maintains all of
my issues are baseless the Inspector General, from the Department of Homeland Security, has
informed me recently that all of my allegations are indeed accurate, the US Coast Guard is
undertaking a complete review and the NSA is reviewing whether or not the vessels in
question should be sanctioned for participating in illegal communications practices. I am
unable to go in to more detail on this subject because corporate legal has directed me to not
discuss the issues, any longer, with any LM personnel other than themselves. Should Mr.
MacKay release me to provide the details I will be glad to do so.
 As I was unable to convince the MS2 organization to make the right ethical choices I was
removed from the deepwater effort. Soon after that my appraisal was lowered from the
previous 2, I was given work far below my capabilities and my manager informed me this was
all the result of conflicts on Deepwater.


At this point I posted and accepted a job with IS&S in Colorado Springs.
Before I move on I would like to state that this issue followed me to my new organization. I
was informed by my new program director that senior MS2 management was not happy with
my pursuit of the deepwater issue with ethics and began to denigrate my performance,
suggesting to my director that my pursuit was fruitless and each of my allegations was
baseless. I consider these conversations to be inappropriate and career damaging.
IS&S – ISC2 Colorado Springs – appraisal period 2006
Refused to participate in action to purposefully mislead contract teammates about the state of the contract
- In the spring of 05 I was asked, by program management, to tell my SE engineering staff (the
majority of the engineering staff in the organization) that a contract cut and subsequent distaff
situation, planned for that June, had been contractually avoided and was settled. At the time
the issue had actually not been remedied officially. There was no contract change, no letter of
intent and no corporate commitment money to cover the cut. Management told me they
wanted me to go with that story to keep people from looking for other work. When I refused
to do this they said I was not being a team player (During this period a key subcontract
manager came to me and said she knew what they were doing was wrong, she believed what I
was doing was right and that this episode was a significant reason for her looking for
employment elsewhere. Soon after this she left).
- I believe that this episode as well as several personality conflicts with the Engineering
Manager (who has had several harassment complaints filed against her) are the reasons why
management conspired to give me a low review/appraisal rating which lead to their ability to
utilize contract cuts to force me out of a job.
Cumulative Effect
- When trying to interview for other jobs I was specifically told that the reason I would not be
hired was because of 2 out of my last 3 appraisals/reviews being so low and the comments so damaging.
These were the Deepwater and IS&S appraisals/reviews.