Bill May Take Away Naval Repairs From Long Beach Facility

A little-noticed provision in the federal appropriations bill would put the Long Beach Naval Shipyard in competition with private shipyards for major warship renovation projects, a move that could cause layoffs and work delays, officials said Thursday.

Naval shipyard and union officials said the huge Terminal Island facility, which employs 5,600, could even be forced to close if it fails to win the contracts to renovate four warships in the coming fiscal year, jobs that were expected to comprise about 75% of its workload.

The potential problem is a clause in the appropriations bill, signed by President Reagan Dec. 22, requiring “full and open competition among public and private shipyards qualified for (naval) overhaul work.”

Shipyard officials said they learned only last week that the wording had been changed from an earlier version of the bill, which would not have placed the naval facility in competition with private shipyards. They said that private shipyards, which are starved for work, would have a good chance of winning the lucrative contracts.

U.S. Reps. Glenn M. Anderson (D-Harbor City) and Daniel E. Lungren (R-Long Beach), both of whom represent harbor districts, said they would send a letter today to the Navy asking that the four ships receive their overhauls at the naval shipyard. About 20 other congressmen were also being asked to sign, a Lungren aide said.

Naval shipyard workers are distributing a form letter that urges Congress to forestall bidding, which the letter says could “cause a drastic reduction in (work) force in the 1988 fiscal year and ultimate closure in fiscal year 1989.”

“This year, it looked like we were doing perfectly good, at least enough to appease our people,” said Frank Rodriguez, president of the local Federal Employees Metal Trades Council, which represents 13 shipyard unions. “Then they come along with this and it’s closure time.”

The naval shipyard, which boasted of a work force of more than 7,000 in 1984 and 1985 when the battleship Missouri was being readied for recommissioning, is second only to McDonnell Douglas as an employer in Long Beach.

In a speech to shipyard managers Thursday, Gil Bond, the shipyard’s director of industrial relations, warned that even if the yard wins the contract to renovate the warships, the time it takes to complete the bidding would leave a “big void” in the work schedule between January and March, 1989, possibly resulting in layoffs.

Although the Navy operates eight shipyards around the country, the problem is limited to Long Beach because it specializes in the only work covered by the appropriations provision--the outfitting of warships with the latest electronic and battle gear under what is called the New Threat Upgrade program.

The open bidding is welcomed by West Coast private shipyards, which have little work to do because commercial shipbuilding has come to a halt in the United States, said John Stocker, president of the Shipbuilders Council of America in Washington. He said the overhauls of the four ships, jobs that he estimated would be worth $100 million each, would give the industry a much needed boost.

One in Bankruptcy

One private yard in need of business is Todd Shipyards, which filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy last August and has its largest and most modern facility in San Pedro. The work force there has fallen to 1,500, from 5,200 four years ago.

Shipyard officials and union leaders said the key language in the appropriations bill was substantially changed from when it passed the House, whose version required open bidding only between private shipyards, without mention of naval shipyards.

The wording was modified to call for competition among “public and private shipyards” when the measure emerged from a conference committee. Lungren and Anderson aides said they are not sure whether the change was accidental or deliberate.

“We do not believe it was the intent of Congress,” states the letter from Lungren and Anderson, “to have one word added--public--to the report language and then have the Congress vote on the entire bill without sufficient notice of the provision being changed.”