U.S. NAVY SALVAGE REPORT DEEPWATER HORIZON ... - ESSM

Chapter 3: Tasking and Funding
Picture documentation of the damage was also required to be submitted. The USCG Form
213RR was used to document the equipment BER and certify replacement costs. However, no
funding was provided for machinery depreciation. Although a case could be made that the
MARCO skimmers were substantially worn over the period of use, they were not unusable at the
end of the operation. USCG Form 213RR’s were used to replace key MARCO skimmer
components including 18 bunker belts and 54 suction and discharge hoses that had been
significantly worn and were beyond continued use. The Navy accepted this type of loss in
exchange for the replacement of the major items (i.e. booms and NOFI skimmers).
3-7 Replacement by SUPSALV vs Replacement in Kind
A second challenge SUPSALV faced was to get the Coast Guard to accept the concept of
providing funds to procure replacement equipment identified as BER. The suggested alternative,
was to let the responsible party (BP) provide or procure replacement material also known as
“replacement in kind”. SUPSALV was resistant to this alternative because the procured material
needed to meet very specific Navy and Military Specifications. The Navy specs require first
article testing, operational testing, and destructive testing. They include packaging requirements
(to simplify deployment), specialized fittings and configuration for integration into the ESSM
System. The logical means to ensure the replacement material met these requirements was to
allow SUPSALV to perform the procurement, conduct the testing to ensure the replacement
items met Navy specifications and could be integrated into the ESSM system. The Coast Guard
did accept the Navy position and authorized reimbursement for Navy procured replacement
material.
3-4