3 ms·
The article seems to say that the anti-corrosion system was cut from the project for cost-saving reasons. If accurate, that's pretty astounding. Presumably this
by natch 13y ago
The article seems to say that the anti-corrosion system was cut from the project for cost-saving reasons. If accurate, that's pretty astounding. Presumably this would be a decision up to the customer so it's no wonder the contractor is blaming the Navy for the bad decision.
- pdonis 13y agoI'm not so sure this exonerates the contractor. Yes, someone on the Navy side certainly screwed up; but the contractor should have raised a red flag if they were technically competent. (If this should ever come to court, I have no doubt the government's lawyers will be able to point out multiple clauses in the contract that require the contractor to bring to the government's attention any technical issue that could impact the ship's performance.)