| Back | crews and one, after being turned over to the British, was subsequently delivered to the U. S. Army for salvage work in the Red Sea area. | Next | ||||||
The Supervisor took over supervision of the two 102' Harbor Tugs, PYT1-2, constructed under General Motors' contract NObs-969, sub-contracted to Gulfport Boiler & Welding Works. One of these ships was delivered to the Peruvian Government and the other was taken by the U. S. Navy. Also, under General Motor's contract NObs-595, Levingston Shipbuilding Company, sub-contractor, delivered one 105' Yard Tug, YT242, to the Navy. This vessel was taken over by the Supervisor after it was partly constructed. The Navy also took over the Harbor Tug Minnchaha, constructed by Gulfport, and this vessel was delivered to the Navy. |
||||||||
YTB's - Contract NObs-1137: |
||||||||
Under General Motors' contract NObs-1137, sub-contracted to Gulfport Boiler & Welding Works, sixteen 102' Harbor Tugs were built and delivered to the U. S. Navy. The same procedure was followed on these harbor tugs as that in the construction of the ATA's, and all developments, as far as practical, were progressively accomplished on them so that the most useful tug possible was delivered in each case. |
||||||||
USS FOMALHAUT (AKA5, Ex-AK22) - Contract NOd-1920: |
||||||||
Contract NOd-1920 was awarded to Pennsylvania Shipyards, Inc., Beaumont, Texas, for the completion and conversion of the U. S. Maritime Commission's hull CAPE LOOKOUT as the cargo vessel USS FOMALHAUT (AKA5, Ex-AK22). |
||||||||
The USS FOMALHAUT, when taken over, was partially complete and Eads-Johnson Corporation was employed to develop necessary plans by which to convert her to a Navy cargo ship. The reason for employing Eads-Johnson was that Pennsylvania Shipyards did not have the necessary engineering force to accomplish this conversion. |
||||||||
There were many interesting incidents connected with this conversion, which was accomplished in 1941 and the early part of 1942. And to say that difficulties were experienced is putting the matter midly. The vessel was actually scheduled for completion in September 1941, but was not accepted by the Navy as complete until 4 March 1942. Part of this delay could be, of course, attributable to design changes, but basically it should be attributed to a delay in plans and to the confusion existing due to the fact that Pennsylvania Shipyards was primarily a Maritime Yard with the Maritime Commission demanding priority for contstruction of maritime vessels. |
||||||||
When the USS FOMALHAUT was finished the Supervisor had learned many things regarding having ship construction done for the Navy in a yard with other governmental agencies. In this case the situation was particularly bad due to the lack of sufficient personnel to properly execute the contract. |
||||||||
It is the Supervisor's firm conviction that, as far as practical, the Navy should award contracts to contractors who are not doing other governmental work, or to those contractors who are able to guarantee a minimum working force for the execution of their Navy contracts. |
||||||||
-14- |
||||||||
Back |
||||||||