Editing Keeper-class cutter (section)

== Origins and procurement ==
In 1991, the average age of the twelve Coast Guard coastal buoy tenders approached 40 years, and the oldest was 52 years old.  Maintenance costs on these vessels were growing quickly, and reliability was decreasing.  One {{sclass2|White|buoy tender|0}} ship underwent emergency dry-docking to replace hull plates that had nearly rusted through.<ref>{{Cite book |last= |first= |url=https://books.google.com/books?id=ZtgeAQAAMAAJ&q=wlm |title=Department of Transportation and Related Agencies Appropriations for Fiscal Year 1992: Hearings Before the Subcommittee of the Committee on Appropriations, United States Senate |last2= |first2= |date=1977 |publisher=U.S. Government Printing Office |isbn=978-0-16-037250-6 |pages=530–534 |language=en}}</ref>  The obsolescence of the coastal buoy tender fleet came as no surprise, since some had been built during [[World War II]], but it took several years for the Coast Guard, its parent agency at the time, the [[United States Department of Transportation|Department of Transportation]], Congress, and private shipyards to deliver a solution.   

The coastal buoy tender replacement project originated in the Operations Directorate of Coast Guard Headquarters.  The sponsor requirements documents generated there formed the basis for the work done by the Acquisitions Directorate.<ref name=":0">{{Cite journal |last=DiNicola |first=Commander Peter J. |date=July 1997 |title=The New Keeper Class WLM |url=https://books.google.com/books?id=a-o6AQAAMAAJ&dq=%22coast+guard%22+%22keeper+class%22&pg=RA2-PA19 |journal=Proceedings of the Marine Safety Council |volume=54 |issue=3 |pages=12–19}}</ref>  At this point, existing Federal Government regulations, notably [[Office of Management and Budget]] Circular A-109 dealing with major systems acquisition, specified much of the contracting process.<ref>{{Cite web |title=Effect of OMB Circular A-109 on Major Systems Acquisition and Use of Competitive Procurement in the Department of Defense {{!}} U.S. GAO |url=https://www.gao.gov/products/110830 |access-date=2023-08-10 |website=www.gao.gov |language=en}}</ref>   

The project was reviewed by the Transportation Systems Acquisition and Review Council and approved on 25 March 1992.  Congress enacted $23 million for the first stage of acquisition in the FY 1993 budget.<ref>{{Cite news |last=Faram |first=Mark D. |date=26 October 1992 |title=Coast Guard budget stays the course in '93 |pages=27 |work=Navy Times |url=https://www.genealogybank.com/doc/newspapers/image/v2%3A1590F5C3763F48A3%40GB3NEWS-1781E72A6FC6B21C%402448922-1781DD6FA919DF62%4026-1781DD6FA919DF62%40?h=8&fname=&mname=&lname=&kwinc=%22buoy%20tender%22&kwexc=&rgfromDate=1992&rgtoDate=1993&formDate=&formDateFlex=exact&dateType=range&processingtime=&addedFrom=&addedTo=&sid=hkyvkerrsnlqlojzjxzundvaiyintcvz_wma-gateway019_1691704316902}}</ref>  On 1 July 1992 a request for proposals was issued to the shipbuilding industry.  On 12 March 1993 the technical and cost evaluations of the proposals were completed.  On 17 May 1993 final contract negotiations were completed.  On 1 June 1993 the [[Commandant of the Coast Guard]] issued a document titled "WLM(R) Circular of Requirements", specifying major aspects of the ships' design.<ref>{{Cite book |last1=Sprague |first1=Chester M. |url=https://apps.dtic.mil/sti/pdfs/ADA321927.pdf |title=Fire Safety Analysis of the 175' WLM(R) Coastal Buoy Tender |last2=Holmstedt |first2=Herbert A. |last3=Romberg |first3=Betty H. |last4=Dolph |first4=Brian L. |date=November 1996 |publisher=CompuCon |pages=B-61}}</ref>  On 22 June 1993, a contract was awarded to [[Fincantieri Marinette Marine|Marinette Marine Corporation]] to build the ships.<ref>{{Cite book |last= |first= |url=https://books.google.com/books?id=eU9Bk8yaflwC&dq=%22coastal+buoy+tender%22+%22request+for+proposals%22&pg=RA2-PA577-IA1 |title=Department of Transportation and Related Agencies Appropriations for Fiscal Year 1995: Hearings Before a Subcommittee of the Committee on Appropriations, United States Senate, One Hundred Third Congress, Second Session, on H.R. 4556, an Act Making Appropriations for the Department of Transportation and Related Agencies for the Fiscal Year Ending September 30, 1995, and for Other Purposes |date=1995 |publisher=U.S. Government Printing Office |isbn=978-0-16-046724-0 |pages=576 |language=en}}</ref><ref name=":14">{{Cite news |date=24 June 1993 |title=Coast Guard Awards contract for construction of new buoy tender |work=US Department of Transportation News |url=https://books.google.com/books?id=xLIgAQAAMAAJ&dq=%22coast+guard%22+Keeper+%22marinette+marine%22+contract&pg=PP541}}</ref>  Aspects of the acquisition process were criticized by the [[Government Accountability Office|General Accounting Office]].<ref>{{Cite book |url=https://www.gao.gov/assets/rced-92-156.pdf |title=Coastal Buoy Tender Acquisition Project Did Not Follow Federal Guidelines |date=May 1992 |publisher=General Accounting Office}}</ref>   

The contract was a firm order for detailed design and the production of the lead vessel in the class, {{ship|USCGC|Ida Lewis}}, at a fixed cost of $22 million plus various performance incentives, with options for thirteen more ships, spare parts, and training.  If all options in the contract were exercised by the Coast Guard, the total value of the deal was $291 million.<ref>{{Cite news |date=25 June 1993 |title=Marintte fime wins $22 million contract |pages=14 |work=Daily Tribune |url=https://www.newspapers.com/image/244924962/?terms=Marinette%20%22coast%20guard%22&match=1}}</ref><ref>{{Cite book |url=https://www.oig.dot.gov/sites/default/files/r5cg7002.pdf |title=Monitoring of Seagoing and Coastal Buoy Tender Construction |date=24 January 1997 |publisher=Department of Transportation, Office of the Inspector General}}</ref>  The Coast Guard  exercised options for three additional ships on 7 February 1996,<ref name=":22">{{Cite journal |last1=O'Brien |first1=Christina T. |last2=Thornton |first2=Lt. Chris |date=January 1996 |title=New Life |url=https://books.google.com/books?id=2IHhu-STif0C&dq=%22coast+guard%22+%22keeper+class%22&pg=PA4 |journal=Commandant's Bulletin |pages=3–5}}</ref> six more ships in February 1997,<ref>{{Cite news |date=20 February 1997 |title=Marinette Marine gets big contract |pages=6 |work=Leader-Telegram |url=https://www.newspapers.com/image/361556503/?terms=Marinette%20Marine}}</ref> and the final four in September 1997.<ref>{{Cite news |date=6 September 1997 |title=Coast Guard Orders four more cutters from Marinette Marine |pages=7 |work=Green Bay Press-Gazette |url=https://www.newspapers.com/image/190672452/?terms=%22ida%20lewis%22%20%22coast%20guard%22&match=1}}</ref>   

At the time of the contract award, the Coast Guard announced its intentions to replace the eleven White-class and {{sclass2|Red|cutter|0}} cutters still in service with the fourteen keeper-class ships.  This saved maintenance expenses on the aging ships, and also significantly reduced personnel requirements through the introduction of advanced technology.<ref name=":14" /><ref name=":5">{{Cite book |last= |first= |url=https://books.google.com/books?id=JgpMAQAAIAAJ&dq=WLM(R)+%22coast+Guard%22&pg=PA398 |title=Department of Transportation and Related Agencies Appropriations for Fiscal Year 1993: Architectural and Transportation Barriers Compliance Board |date=1992 |publisher=U.S. Government Printing Office |isbn=978-0-16-039599-4 |pages=398–399 |language=en}}</ref>  While the Keeper class launched with a crew of 18, the Red and White-class buoy tenders they replaced had crews of 32 and 24, respectively.<ref>{{Cite news |last=Faram |first=Mark D. |date=22 November 1993 |title=New tender due in '96 |pages=32 |work=Navy Times |url=https://www.genealogybank.com/doc/newspapers/image/v2%3A1590F5C3763F48A3%40GB3NEWS-17815B371245709A%402449314-177F26F7142B5298%4031?fname=&mname=&lname=&rgfromDate=1993&rgtoDate=1993&formDate=&formDateFlex=exact&dateType=range&kwinc=%22Keeper%20class%22&kwexc=&sid=lrwjjoemoelibxccuoxcaqflbthqpjdk_wma-gateway012_1691703507086}}</ref>  

As the Coast Guard planned to replace its coastal buoy tender fleet, it also needed to replace its seagoing buoy tenders.  This fleet also consisted of World War II ships that had served beyond their original design life.  Thus, the history of the Keeper class is entwined with the seagoing ''Juniper'' class in a number of ways.  Since the Coast Guard was replacing almost all of its saltwater buoy tender fleet, it considered the mix between seagoing and coastal tenders.  This resulted in a buoy tender fleet with more of the smaller, cheaper Keeper-class ships, and fewer of the more expensive seagoing ships.<ref name=":5" />  Since both classes were designed in the same time period, they adopted similar technical solutions, such as [[Z-drive]] propulsion.  All ships of both classes were built by Marinette Marine, and the construction overlapped.  The Coast Guard placed a 60-person Project Resident Office on site at Marinette's shipyard to monitor and facilitate these two concurrent construction programs.<ref>{{Cite journal |last=DiNicola |first=Commander Peter J. |date=June 1997 |title=The New Keeper Class WLM: The Future Has Arrived |url=https://books.google.com/books?id=8RSpA1G35s4C&dq=%22coast+guard%22+Keeper+%22marinette+marine%22+contract&pg=RA1-PA32 |journal=The Bulletin |volume=59 |issue=3 |pages=32–34}}</ref><ref>{{Cite book |last= |first= |url=https://books.google.com/books?id=KTZOVuIJdT8C&dq=WLM+crew+%22Coast+guard%22&pg=PA569 |title=Department of Transportation and Related Agencies Appropriations for Fiscal Year 1995: Department of Transportation, Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority |date=1994 |publisher=U.S. Government Printing Office |isbn=978-0-16-046724-0 |pages=569 |language=en}}</ref>