base do not include the stern flap. Theadditional data can be added and markedas stern flap data. The stern profile displayof the hull form may have to be enhancedto make the presence of the flap readilynoticeable. The stern flap also raises aninteresting possibility for ship design. Onecould design a ship hull that is expected tobe very suitable for a stern flap with fea-tures such as a wide flat after body. Thewithout flap performance will suffer butone could expect the stern flap to morethan offset the wide transom performancepenalty.

The design curve shown on the paper(Figures 2-8) were drawn by hand, and thenfaired by computer. They represent “goodjudgement” and throw out the 30% of thepoorest designs. Perhaps in the future somemethod will be found to obtain the curvesmathematically, but it is believed that withthe same design guidance, the same curveswill be generated. Naval architecture isretaining some art and judgement in thisparticular case.

Once again we wish to thank the Society, andthe discussers for giving our paper the con-sideration given, and we hope the designcurves will prove useful for many years tocome.

Development of Shipbuilder and Supplier RelationshipsDr. John C. Daidola, P.E. and John

H. Higginbotham

ABSTRACTThe overseas experience has indicated that strongshipbuilder/supplier relationships serve tostrengthen the entire industrial base. The need forand approach to development of a framework ormodel for a world class shipbuilder/supplierinfrastructure for U.S. shipyards is considered inlight of this experience. In concert, a process forestablishing an internationally competitive suppli-er network for collaboration with U.S. shipyardsis identified. Success in this endeavor should con-tribute significantly to countering premiumscharged by foreign suppliers to U.S. shipbuilders.

COMMENTS BY ROY D. ARNOLD, IMECO, INC.First of all I would like to thank both Dr.Diadola and Mr. Higgenbotham for theexcellent work they have done in demon-strating the benefit to be gained throughshipbuilder and supplier relationships. It isto everybody’s best interest, especially forthe long term viability of U.S. shipbuilding,that the relationship be mutually beneficialas described in the paper.

I would like to make the following com-ments to the paper: the authors state that“Success in this endeavor should contributesignificantly to countering premiumscharged by foreign suppliers to U.S. ship-builders.” As a supplier of systems thatoften contain a significant foreign content,we are not able to charge a premium forequipment and are always subject to compe-tition. There are, we have found, differencesin pricing from foreign suppliers toward theU.S. market that can be traced mainly toscope, regulatory issues, and the small sizeof our market. However, supporting theauthors premise, the U.S. market is thoughtto be very difficult by foreign suppliers andbetter relationships could do nothing buthelp pricing overall.

Ingalls success in obtaining a shipbuildingcontract for the AMCV project can belargely attributed to the teaming arrange-ments that were in place with the majorvendors. Unfortunately this contract wasnot successfully completed, for reasonsunrelated to teaming, and yet it is ourunderstanding from conversations with asenior procurement manager at the yardthat they will not be using the teamingconcept on the new programs that they arepursuing. This may be a lesson learned thatis not being applied.

As a company that has successfully teamedwith shipyards which have ultimately wonthe contracts that they were seekingagainst competition from shipyards whowere only looking for the lowest commodi-ty price in the bid stage we believe thatsuccessful teaming agreements that sharerisk and reward are beneficial for all par-

NAVAL ENGINEERS JOURNAL SUMMER 2002 ■ 8 1

#4

ties The level of risk reduction that theshipyard obtains can be reflected in thecost model of the shipyard’s bid. They maynot need to reduce profit or challenge man-hours as aggressively if they have a thor-ough understanding of the complex sys-tems that they are proposing, becausethrough early teaming the design has pro-gressed beyond it’s preliminary stage.

One of the greatest benefits that can beobtained through an early collaborationbetween a shipbuilder and its suppliers isthe reduction in the time to design andbuild ships. Holding the design processopen through a design process of weightand space allocation adds iterations to boththe procurement and design processes andresults in an overly conservative design.

Foreign shipyards make a strong marketcommitment and the ensuing investmentrisk. They generally have selected a narrowlydefined vessel(s) type to produce and a simi-larly defined production rate. This amplifiesthe benefit of supplier relationships as thecriteria for selection of their suppliers is thesame from ship to ship. The resulting longterm relationship has an opportunity to opti-mize at both the supplier and shipbuilderlevels in order to meet an internationallycompetitive shipbuilding price.

All shipyard purchasing managers shouldread the authors discussion of purchasingtechniques. Generally shipyards tend to thinkthat there are very few ways for them to getthe best value in selecting a team memberand therefore opt for the old lowest priceafter multiple BAFOs approach. The authorshave identified at least 6 different methods ofdeveloping quantitative purchasing methods.Shipyard procurement managers may alsothink that their Navy approved procurementsystems are too inflexible to allow and evendiscourage teaming in place of “at least threecompetitive bids”.

I agree with the authors statement that stan-

dards and regulatory issues are very criticalto the success of a project. One of the majorcost drivers is that our standards in the U.S.are not consistent with the rest of the ship-building world. We invoke USCG, CFRs,SNAME, IEEE, ANSI, ASTM and a host ofother top-level standards that are not usedanywhere else in the world. When a supplierrealizes that he MUST COMPLY then hisequipment built to ISO and Class Societyrules is generally out of compliance and theshipyard must get a waiver or force thechange in equipment. Both of these actionscost time and money.

One of the methods of designing and build-ing ships in the U.S. typically involves theuse of “design agents” at concept designand during the early stages of the contract.They develop the top-level documents anddrawings that the shipyard or owner uses inthe first pricing analysis. Often these docu-ments do not allow for alternate standardsand invoke obsolete machinery and sys-tems. It is refreshing that the authors aredesign agents and they as well as their com-pany should be commended for seeking outnew processes. Typically, design agencyemployees must account by the houragainst customer job numbers and do nothave charge numbers available for keepingup with improvements in modern ship-building design, equipment, and systems.Generally, much can be gained through bet-ter relationships between design agents andsuppliers. If the authors care to furtherextend their study of relationships I wouldgladly volunteer.

Again I would like to thank the authors and Ihope that this is a catalyst for shipyards thattruly want to be world class to remove thetraditional barriers from their purchasing phi-losophy and create an environment that willencourage more ships to be built in the U.S.

Thank you for the opportunity to commenton this fine paper.

A S N E D A Y 2 0 0 2 : T E C H N I C A L P A P E R C O M M E N T S

8 2 ■ SUMMER 2002 NAVAL ENGINEERS JOURNAL