Bargain Time


#21

Kind of like the MPSV situation in the GOM you just have someone say it out loud and it’s true.


#22

just go and look at MSC’s solicitations for voyage charters at the FBO. Unless it is a Jones Act run they solicit for US or foreign flag vessels. I go there daily to check for new solicitations I might bid on so know full well how MSC operates

here is a current one being advertised

Synopsis:
Added: May 05, 2017 3:32 pm
(1) Action Code: Presolicitation
(2) Date: 05 May 2017
(3) Fiscal Year: 2017
(4) Contracting Office Zip Code: 23511
(5) Classification Code: V- Transportation, Travel, & Relocation services
(6) Contracting Office Address: 471 East C Street, Naval Station Norfolk, Norfolk, VA 23511
(7) Subject: Tanker Voyage Charter
(8) Proposed Solicitation Number: N32205-17-R-3212
(9) Closing Response Date: 09 May 2017
(10) Contract Point of Contact or Contracting Officer: Robbin Jefferson; 757-443-5886; robbin.jefferson@navy.mil
(11) Contract Award and Solicitation Number: TBD
(12) Contract Award Dollar Amount: TBD
(13) Contract Line Item Number: N/A
(14) Contract Award Date: TBA
(15) Contractor: TBD
(16) This requirement is for one clean, approved, U.S. or foreign flag, double-hull tanker with Inert Gas System and Segregated Ballast Tanks that is capable of carrying a minimum of 240,000 bbls of JA1 within the vessel’s natural segregation in designated cargo tanks with double valve isolation. Laydays commence 19 May and cancel 21 May 2017. The period of performance will be one voyage.
(17) Place of Contract Performance: Intended loading port/place: Vopak, Singapore; Intended discharge port/place: Cocoguam, Guam.
(18) Set-aside status: Unrestricted. All responsible sources may submit a bid, proposal, or quotation, which shall be considered by the agency.
(19) The decision to release this solicitation on an “Unrestricted” basis is based on knowledge of the market and recent spot charter awards.

forget any notion you might have the our government protects American maritime interests ANYWHERE! They simply don’t anymore nor have for many decades. Blame Ronnie Raygun for this sad and painful reality…


#23

Unless no US flag vessel that is capable and available places a bid they cannot accept a bid from a foreign flag vessel. If they could do you really think Gudmundur would have his Chinese built ship American flagged and crewed?


#24

Apparently they have changed tack and become Owners, not Cruise Operators under the name SunStone Ships.(Or totally different companies??) From the second link:

[quote] They will be part of the SunStone fleet and chartered to new and existing clients, according to president/ceo Niels-Erik Lund, who declined to disclose the charterers, saying that it’s up to them to announce their new ships.
SunStone’s current fleet numbers 10 small cruise vessels on charter to companies within the expedition market, and this order positions the firm as the leading tonnage provider in the segment.[/quote]


#25

How many US-flag Clean Tankers meeting the specs would be able and willing to position to Singapore by 19. May.?


#26

The Mainland to Puerto Rico run? Give Tote some competition and drive their jacked up prices down. I know my Puerto Rican friends would appreciate that.


#27

You think they’d even notice the $0.01 savings they’d see if Tote letter their prices? You’re hilarious!


#28

This is not entirely true. I’ve seen a lot of military cargo go on every thing from U.K. Flag to Polish to your regular FOC. MRAPS, for example, were delivered to Kuwait on FOC ships then flown to Afghanistan on Russian Cargo planes. MSC awarded a charter to haul a mix of NATO gear (mostly US) to a Latvian company. During the early days of the War RRF ships were a huge fail (according to the Army Folk that I worked with), hence all the Car ships with MSP slots.

There’s some politics that’s plAyed with the coalition partners so every body gets a piece. Just my observation.


#29

I’m talking about normal day to day operations not during a massive sea lift operation. Were there enough US ships then with immediate availability to handle it all? For some reason I doubt that.


#30

you’re wrong…many military cargoes go in foreign bottoms even during peacetime. I might even go so far as to say that MOST are going in foreign ships.


#31

well if the DoD insisted that the cargo go in a US ship then some operator would get a US ship there to move it even if that meant reflagging a foreign built tanker. This cost would be huge but compared to one F35 Joint Strike Fighter it would be a pittance and if the DoD did this across the board there would be a big incentive for some company to do this to several ships of their’s and as a result there would be jobs for many US citizen mariners. Instead bean counters at the Pentagon saw they didn’t have to incur those increased costs and thus look for lower cost all foreign carriers to move worldwide cargoes for the military.


#32

Your statement doesn’t disprove mine.

They can use foreign vessels but only if there aren’t US ships available. Just because any military cargoes are sent on foreign ships doesn’t make that untrue, it just means there weren’t US ships available.


#33

if what you are saying is true then I can show up with a US ship to carry a cargo and if there is no other US ship competing with me then I win even if I bid $50B for the one voyage. sign me up for some of that sweet cash!

no, the DoD specifically seeks foreign ships otherwise there would be a sizable number of US ships in the military trade if the DoD wanted and was willing to pay the added cost for them


#34

There are actually quite a few US ships in the military trade.

I know you hate the way the US government works but it is seriously messing with your thought process. I’ll ask you again, if US flag ships didn’t have preference for military cargo why would the Transatlantic be US flag? (Hint, it’s so they can be eligible to carry government cargo.)


#35

O[quote=“Capt_Phoenix, post:32, topic:44937”]
you’re wrong…many military cargoes go in foreign bottoms even during peacetime.

Your statement doesn’t disprove mine.

They can use foreign vessels but only if there aren’t US ships available. Just because any military cargoes are sent on foreign ships doesn’t make that untrue, it just means there weren’t US ships available.
[/quote]

But his statement is partially correct and yours is partially incorrect. I watched several Foriegn ships carry cargo well after the sealift was over. Sometimes it was a special ship for a special purpose or just a special purpose, sometimes it was to kick business to a coalition partner. Some instances the vessel came from CONUS where a plethora of RRF ships were on ROS 5 status and sometimes they came from Europe. I’m sure the preference is to find a US ship (and I do remember there is a cargo preference law) and most of the time I’m sure they do, but some times there are other factors that might play into these decisions. Sometimes MSC is responsible to haul Coalition cargo and those bids will go to foriegn operators. The resulting cargo hauled might only be 100 pieces of coalition cargo and the balance is US gear. I met a Miss Polands father on one of these ships.

Remember there are also US owners of FOC ships that are big donors and they need to be appeased too.


#36

Since I never worked in the government office that awards contracts I don’t know the detailed workings of the system. I have worked on civilian US ships moving military contract cargo so I have a little insight into the system.

Remember that this whole discussion started because I took exception to his below comment, which is completely false.


#37

Ive been told that US vessels within the requested specifications and time slot should receive preference. However often times games are played if the broker or cargo agent wants to go as low as possible. If they have a wide time frame in which to ship the cargo, they will wait to issue the proposed charter request until they know that only ships with the rate they want will be available.

Ex. If the US flag vessel can’t tender an NOR by the requested date, then the broker will use that as a reasoning for selecting foreign. Apparently there is a process to file grievances but politics and the ability to prove intent is almost impossible.


#38

To the Bargain threads point. We should just buy an old 240’, cover the back deck in sand and turn the galley into a bar.


#39

The real injury to American taxpayers and American mariners is that a fleet of American ships is available. RRF vessels are rotting at docks because lobbyists, MARAD ring knockers, and brass bound “heroes” have other objectives.

If the RRF fleet was used as it should be we would have more jobs for American mariners and the ships would not break down on the way to the next trumped up war because they were allowed to rot.

The only reason any American government or military cargo is carried on a FoC ships is because a politician is paid to make that happen.


#40

Again, your dislike for the governmental system is clouding your perception of reality. Trying to get all military cargo on military owned ships would be a massive boondoggle. They would require too many ships that would sit empty too much of the time for it to be practical.