Posts Tagged security

Iraq: Exxon Mobil Leads The Charge North, As The Shine Of The South Wears Off

Iraq has ambitious plans to develop its huge southern oilfields – potentially the world’s biggest source of new oil over the next few years – and few oil firms dare risk being barred from such a bonanza by angering Baghdad.
But increasingly, some executives say, Kurdistan’s potential is also coming up in boardroom discussions, as sluggish output, red tape and infrastructure bottlenecks in the south take some of the shine off the central government’s oil program.
Oil majors are now waiting on the sidelines, watching the outcome of Exxon’s balancing act between Baghdad and Arbil, the northern capital. France’s Total is the latest company to provoke Baghdad’s ire by acknowledging interest in Kurdistan.
“What companies are trying to do is get to the point where they are investing in the north and the south,” said one industry source working in Iraq……Firms have experienced problems getting visas for contractors and security staff, delays in bringing in armored vehicles and holdups securing operating licenses. Such hassles make Kurdistan’s offerings look more tempting by comparison.

“Every delay we face cuts off a significant part of the internal rate of return,” said one oil company source. “Sometimes I wonder if we picked the wrong region.”

This is some interesting business going on in Iraq. Oil companies are playing a risky game in Iraq, and yet they are the actors that will more than likely drive Iraq to ‘pull it together’. It also looks like Exxon Mobil is leading the charge in this game as well.

I say this, because the divisions in Iraqi parliament/central government, along with corruption, is causing oil companies to seek safer and more stable leadership/relationships to do business with in order to keep extracting and shipping oil. For example, Exxon has signed contracts both in the North and the South, and it looks like they are starting to lean more towards moving north with the hopes that this will send a message to parliament. Of course parliament reacted by saying they cannot bid on any more contracts in the south.

The other area of interest with this, are the contracts signed in the disputed areas. Specifically the area near Mosul, which is the second largest city in Iraq.  I could see Exxon having all sorts of problems in that region unless some serious deals were made, and I was curious as to what the motivation was?  Perhaps the clues are in the state of affairs within the city itself. Check this quote from an interview with Mosul’s governor?

Mosul is an agricultural and oil region. However, it cannot properly and sufficiently use Iraq’s oil revenues. Mosul is also uncomfortable with the recent agreements between foreign oil companies and Arbil to extract oil from Mosul’s soil. For instance, Exxon-Mobil signed a contract with the KRG despite the fact that the site it will explore for oil is in Mosul. Nujaifi is holding talks with Exxon-Mobil and the KRG to resolve this problem. In addition, under the Iraqi constitution, Mosul should get 11 percent of Iraq’s oil revenue. However, it receives only 2 percent. According to Nujaifi, if the oil bill is not adopted and the oil revenues are not distributed evenly by the provinces, a political crisis will erupt. The poverty rate in Mosul is 23 percent, whereas it is 3 percent in the KRG. Nujaifi notes that the rising tension along the borders of Mosul is creating tension for them as well. As the KRG becomes more popular, it is impossible to explain the recent state of backwardness in Mosul.

I highlighted the key parts in this quote, and I think that is most significant. With poverty as high as it is, and a neighbor like KRG enjoying the good life, who do you think Mosul will want to do business with?  Especially if Iraq is only giving Mosul 2 % of Iraq’s oil revenue.  They are definitely getting the short end stick in this deal, and either the South pays up, or Mosul will probably join the Exxon party.

Also, the news of Kurdistan signing a deal with Turkey for a new pipeline that would completely shut out Baghdad is definitely some news to talk about here. That would mean they would have a way to capitalize on oil extraction without paying Baghdad. They could possibly bring cities like Mosul into the mix with this pipeline, and especially if Mosul can capture a better deal.

On Sunday, Iraqi Kurdistan unveiled an agreement to sell oil through Turkey into the international markets, thereby leaving Baghdad completely out of the loop. The Kurdish oil minister Ashti Hawrami said Iraqi Kurdistan will construct a huge 1 million barrel per day pipeline over the next 12 months through which oil and gas will be carried through Turkey.
“We envisage the building of a new pipeline taking Kurdistan’s oil, particularly the heavier component part to Cihan,” Hawrami said at a conference with Taner Yildez, the Turkish energy minister.
Baghdad believes such an arrangement contravenes Iraqi laws, while Kurds assert they can sign any contract regarding their natural resources according to the terms of the constitution.

Oil fields like this also provide jobs to the locals and infuse money into the local economy. Security will be crucial–which means local security companies will be a huge player in this. (although if you look at how MEND operates in Nigeria, you could see the same thing happening in Mosul with insurgents) The question here is would Baghdad send the troops to protect these oil fields? lol Probably not, unless they are included in the oil deal. That is where this get’s interesting, and I am sure criminal groups and insurgents are looking at how they could use this to their advantage.

The other thing to look at is if Exxon and other oil companies have another pipeline they can use, that is being managed by a government that knows what it is doing and is stable, then I could totally see how this would be a better bet for those companies.  This is also another signal to Baghdad that ‘hey guys, if you come together and square away your house, then you too can enjoy the same prosperity as the Kurds’.

Or, the Iraqi government can try to exert influence or pull some military moves up north, but good luck there. lol The Peshmerga and terrain will dictate otherwise.

So we will see how it goes. My guess is that Exxon and others will continue to play the North against South in order to keep extracting. They will keep these two players of the country competing for these companies and their capability. That back and forth interaction, might be the kind of business that will force the country to square itself away in order to finally realize their oil extraction goals. The alternative is to be driven apart.

There is a lot of money in the ground, and if Iraq wants it, it will have to do business with the companies that know how to get it out and into the market. That takes compromise and leadership, and a divided parliament and corrupt government in the south will only force companies to take the path of least resistance. -Matt

 

map+of+kurd exxon+deal+ +IndependentIraq: Exxon Mobil Leads The Charge North, As The Shine Of The South Wears Off

 

Analysis: In Iraq, oil majors play north versus south
By Patrick Markey and Peg Mackey
Thu Apr 5, 2012
In the weeks before Iraqi Kurdistan revealed that Exxon Mobil had signed up to explore for oil there, executives at rival Shell faced a dilemma over whether or not to join the U.S. oil major in its foray north and risk angering Baghdad.
The fields in the autonomous region offered rich potential, an easier working environment, better security and attractive contracts. That seemed a winning combination for smaller oil companies already working there, such as Norway’s DNO, even though they struggled to collect profits.
But at the 11th hour, industry sources say, Royal Dutch Shell backed out and decided to focus on a $17 billion gas deal in the south rather than sign exploration contracts with the Kurdish Regional Government, which the central government could dismiss as illegal and could prompt reprisals.
Shell’s caution, Exxon’s silence on its deals and this week’s renewed dispute between Baghdad and Kurdistan over export payments reveal how delicate is the balance companies must manage between a central government and a Kurdish authority locked in a struggle over who controls Iraq’s vast oil wealth.
The dispute over oil is at the heart of a wider disagreement between Iraq’s central government in Baghdad and the Kurdish region, which are also increasingly at odds over regional autonomy, land and political influence.
Iraq has ambitious plans to develop its huge southern oilfields – potentially the world’s biggest source of new oil over the next few years – and few oil firms dare risk being barred from such a bonanza by angering Baghdad.

Read the rest of this entry »

Tags: , , , , ,

Maritime Security: BIMCO Publishes Much Anticipated GUARDCON Contract

This is great news. BIMCO is the largest shipping association out there, and with it’s large membership pool, it has some pull. So when they come up with a standard contract for armed guards on boats, then that helps to create a single standard that all of the companies, lawyers and insurance providers can work from. This is important, because with a standard like this there is no guess work. Either your company meets the standard, or it does not. A standardized contract also helps to mitigate the principal agent problem, and it is a means to protect the interest of both parties.

As to commentary on the GUARDCON Contract, I would head over to Close Protection World’s Maritime Security Forum. The guys are already discussing it and it’s possible impact on the industry.

On a side note, it is interesting to me that a NGO like BIMCO has the ability to determine the appropriate rules for the use of force, and basically guide all of their members to use those rules. I am used to countries and their military leaders dictating what the appropriate rules are, just because they have the monopoly on the use of force throughout the world. In this case, a NGO is now dictating that. What an odd set of circumstances… -Matt

Copies and Information about GUARDCON Contract here.

 

BIMCO publishes much anticipated GUARDCON Contract
March 28, 2012
BIMCO is pleased to announce the publication of the GUARDCON standard contract for the employment of security guards on vessels. This brand new contract has been developed to provide ship owners and private maritime security companies (PMSC) with a clearly worded and comprehensive standard contract to govern the employment and use of security guards, with or without firearms, on board merchant vessels. While BIMCO would not like to see the use of armed security guards on ships becoming institutionalised, it recognises that while the industry awaits a more permanent long term solution, armed guards currently provide an effective deterrent to piracy attacks.
BIMCO’s Chief Officer Legal and Contractual Affairs, Grant Hunter said “In response to ship owners’ increasing demand for security services, an ever growing number of private maritime security companies have entered the market to meet that demand. In the absence of a standard contract for these services, ship owners and their P&I Clubs are currently faced with the difficult and time consuming task of assessing large numbers of contracts from these security companies, all with varying terms and conditions.

Read the rest of this entry »

Tags: , , , , , ,

Iraq: The Oil Ministry Wants To Ban Security Firms On Oil Fields

How I read this is that the Oil Ministry wants to pull what Afghanistan is wanting to do, and get paid for Oil Police to protect these oil companies. So what they do is demonize these private security firms so they can justify this action.

Which is fine except Iraq is going to run into the same problems as Afghanistan with their APPF farce. The Oil Police are probably still corrupt, and honestly I could see them dropping the ball on quality of service or even allowing an infiltrator or two to make their way onto these oil drilling sites or arranging for kidnap type deals. Until Iraq is free and clear of this insurgency and Al Qaeda, or free of Quds forces/Iranian influence, I would have to say that trust of the Oil Police would be pretty low.

And speaking to that trust, usually a company has a buffer between it’s employees out in the field and a local guard force. A protective detail that provides some comfort to these companies so they can operate and know they have a trusted force watching their back. Most companies already operate like that now–with a local guard force running the perimeter and a PSD force watching over and managing the local guard force.  It works well, but to take that buffer out of the picture is a big mistake. Especially in an active war zone.

I am also wary of cost. How much more will companies have to pay for this Oil Police protection? What will these companies have in the way of checks and balances if this force steals from them or does something in violation of a contract? In other words, you can fire a private security company, but how can you fire a government force–and especially if it is criminal/corrupt or provides poor service?

Personally, Iraq should do all it can to accommodate these oil companies. Let them have their private security, but also encourage them to contract local guard forces–which they already do.  Focus the Oil Police on actual police duties that would further protect these oil assets. Believe me, they have plenty to do when it comes to preventing attacks and crime against oil infrastructure. Private security also does not patrol out in the towns and cities, nor do they have arresting authority.  So why use the police as body guards, when they would be far more useful just being police?

We will see how this turns out. I am sure Iraq will do whatever they want, and this is more of the same when it comes to hassling PSC’s there. I am also wondering if they are treating all PSC’s like this, or just the western PSC’s?  I say this because if you look at the graphic below, there are oil companies from all over the world operating in Iraq. If there is any discrimination here, I would like to hear about it and please feel free to post that in the comments below. I would also be curious if this new statement violates any prior contracts or memorandums signed between Iraq and these companies? -Matt

 

20111228132834721734 20Iraq: The Oil Ministry Wants To Ban Security Firms On Oil Fields

 

Iraq bans security firms on oil fields
March. 19, 2012
With U.S. forces gone from Iraq, Baghdad has banned foreign security contractors, long abhorred by Iraqis, from the 12 major oil fields being developed by international companies, mainly in the south.
But the government may find that hard to enforce.
Iraq’s military and security forces, still being trained by Americans, have shown themselves incapable of maintaining stability and protecting these vital and vulnerable facilities amid a surge in political violence since the U.S. withdrawal was completed Dec. 18.
The order by Iraq’s Oil Ministry was issued Feb. 29 and signed by Director General Faisal Walid. The contractors, the ministry declared, will be replaced by Iraq’s Oil Police who “will provide the necessary protection.”
Whether the 31,000-strong U.S.-trained force is capable of shielding Iraq’s vast oil and gas infrastructure, that includes 4,500 miles of pipelines which Baghdad is expanding under a $50 billion upgrade program, remains to be seen.
The ban reflects a wider drive by Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki’s Shiite-dominated government to impose tough restrictions on the tens of thousands of private security personnel who remain in Iraq, and eventually to throw them all out.

Read the rest of this entry »

Tags: , , , , , ,

Afghanistan: Government Extends Deadline For APPF Transition

Go figure? The APPF needs more time…. lol I imagine they will need a lot of things in the near future. Like more money, more training, more drugs, more guns and bullets to sell, and more sleep time on post, etc. For those companies signing contracts with them, enjoy your overpriced government security force/Karzai money machine.

The other hypocrisy about this is that it was foreign PSC’s that protected Karzai in his beginning years. So for him to criticize this industry and at the same time basically create another government raised army, is certainly telling. Karzai is purely focused on money, and the APPF is just another money making scheme that he can use to juice these western companies and agencies. Might I add that the APPF is more expensive and with the current arrangement, a western company will have no real buffer force to protect it’s people from any rogue guards or enemy infiltrators. How could any company trust this arrangement?

Of course this is also about money for these western companies as well. They know the situation, and the contractors that work for them know the situation. These companies and contractors are making their bets, and banking on the hope that nothing bad will come out of the arrangement. That the money is more important than their personal safety and security.

I guess you can tell that I am not that impressed by this force and arrangement? lol Yes, I am vocal against it, because you can just look at the arrangement and know how this will turn out. It’s like watching a car heading into a rioting crowd. You know that car is getting damaged or destroyed, and the driver might be killed or hurt in the process, and doom on that driver for making such a poor decision.

My other view on this is that I am a champion of private industry.  I am absolutely biased against government run programs like this, and especially governments that are corrupt and poorly run. And when lives are in the hands of such government programs….look out. This isn’t cutting grass (which government would probably suck at as well), this is the profession of arms and providing security in a war zone. This is not a matter that should be taken lightly. -Matt

 

DSC 0190 resized2 1Afghanistan: Government Extends Deadline For APPF Transition

A Blue Hackle security contractor handing over his weapon to an APPF guard during a ceremony.

 

Afghan government extends deadline for abolishing private security guards
March 18, 2012
The Afghan government is giving companies extensions ranging from a few weeks to 90 days to change from private security guards to a government-run force, officials said Sunday.
The reprieve comes just three days before the March 21 deadline that the Afghan government had set for the majority of companies to start using government-provided security.
Private development companies have said the move is threatening billions in U.S. aid to the country because companies would delay projects or leave altogether because they didn’t feel safe using strictly local security over whose training and procedures they have little control.
President Hamid Karzai has railed for years against the large number of guns-for-hire in Afghanistan, saying private security companies skirt the law and risk becoming militias.
It’s been part of Karzai’s larger push for more control over the way his international allies operate in Afghanistan, as seen most recently in his call for NATO troops to pull back from village outposts and to hand over security responsibilities to Afghans more quickly.

Read the rest of this entry »

Tags: , , , , ,

Afghanistan: Quran Burning, Shooting Incident, Afghans Killing Troops And Contractors……And Who Said The APPF Was A Good Idea?

I hope it is obvious to the readership here about my disdain for this APPF concept. It is a horrible idea and it will lead to folks getting killed or hurt. I would like to be wrong on this, but there are just too many factors building up to make it a really bad idea in this current environment.

Karzai is a corrupt leader and this force will be a tool to feed his corruption. Does anyone really think that the APPF will be the type of government sponsored security force that will really do a good job for the companies it is assigned too?  Does anyone really think that the APPF will do better than the police or military when it comes to competency or service? Does anyone think they will have any real recourse if a guard is caught using drugs or stealing from the company they are assigned to protect?  Think about it….because this force answers to Karzai and not to you the client and consumer of this forced service.

Also, why even create a separate force?  Just assign military and police to protect these companies, because at least they would have somewhat better training and competency than this force. But not much.

But the really big one here is that these companies will have Afghans with guns protecting them.  With the Quran burning incident and the latest shooting incident where a soldier went on a killing spree in a village, the environment for companies will not be that favorable. With these recent developments, Afghans have been killing western forces or enemy sympathizers have found their way into the system to make attacks. Politicians like Karzai are not helping things either with their outbursts against the west, and of course the Taliban is in the back just stirring the pot and loving it. That is the reality.

The other one that kills me is this fake re-assuring tone that some of these companies are communicating after signing these contracts with the APPF. Louis Berger-Black and Veatch made a classic statement.

“We welcome this security transition as a natural step for Afghanistan,” said Bill Haight, representing the Louis Berger – Black and Veatch joint venture.

Oh really?  lol And meanwhile companies are writing the New York Times and telling them how paranoid they are about this whole deal–and rightly so. Just read the article below. Here is another quote that says it all.

The executive also said he and others at his company’s Washington headquarters knew that some employees in Afghanistan were keeping weapons in their rooms in case their compounds were attacked, and that management had so far turned a blind eye to the practice, which goes against local law.

That stems from the idea that this company’s employees do not trust a force like the APPF to protect them, and they are probably paranoid about an APPF guard shooting them. That is what happens when you do not have a trusted force of western security that can come between you and your contracted local force.

That is the appropriate combination to have, and now with the APPF, it will be all local guards with very little insurance against them–if they decide to turn or had enemy combatants within their ranks.

On the brighter side, if you are wanting to track the progression of the APPF, then check out NATO’s website dedicated to training. They have posted quite a bit about the APPF, to include those companies signing contracts and gaining licenses to use this force.

If you have anything to add to this, definitely voice your concerns here because it will be read. I have yet to see any real comments posted at the NATO site with posts that discuss the APPF. But definitely comment there so they can read your concerns. Keep up the pressure with your company as well, and don’t let your safety become a non-issue. Also continue to communicate with the ISOA and with your elected officials in the US about your concerns. -Matt

 

Security Fears Lead Groups to Rethink Work in Afghanistan
By MATTHEW ROSENBERG and GRAHAM BOWLEY
March 10, 2012
WASHINGTON — The management at a company that does aid and development work for the American government knows that some of its employees in Afghanistan are keeping weapons in their rooms — and is choosing to look the other way. At another company in the same business, lawyers are examining whether the company can sue the United States Agency for International Development for material breach of contract, citing the deteriorating security in Afghanistan.
An Afghan government plan to abolish private security companies at the end of this month, along with the outbreak of anti-American demonstrations and attacks in the past month, has left the private groups that carry out most of the American-financed development work in Afghanistan scrambling to sort out their operations, imperiling billions of dollars in projects, officials say.

Read the rest of this entry »

Tags: , , , , ,

Industry Talk: East Africa Hits It Big In Oil, Gas Boom

Lately I have been on an energy security kick. There is a lot of money in oil and gas, and the demand is only going higher. Not to mention that things are not very stable in the middle east, so a diversification of sources is in high demand. So how does this impact our industry?

Well for one, security of these wild cat companies that are searching and drilling on land and sea for oil/gas need security partners. These companies are willing to take the risks because the money is there, and capable private security companies are there to help them get there. That last part is important to note, just because thanks to ten plus years of war, we now have companies in this industry who know how to protect people and things in war zones. And especially in war zones that are populated with jihadists….a particularly wicked type of adversary.

These jihadists are also targeting anything to do with the west, to include oil and gas exploration. I wrote about this in my prior post about oil companies being targeted by jihadists in Somalia. Today’s war veterans and contractor veterans know this enemy very well, and they also know how to set up the security of a site to deal with this type of threat.

I also wanted to bring up this quote as a clue to the potential in this industry.

Still, major oil companies are falling over themselves to grab a stake in East Africa, largely by buying out smaller wildcat outfits which made major strikes.
One of these is Cove Energy, a London-listed company. It put itself up for sale in January after reporting one of the world’s largest natural gas strikes in a decade, a field off Mozambique containing an estimated 15 trillion-30 trillion cubic feet of gas, more than Norway’s entire reserves.
On Feb. 22, Royal Dutch Shell offered $1.6 billion for Cove’s 8.5 percent stake in the highly promising Block 4. Four days later Thailand’s state-owned energy company PTT Exploration and Production stepped in with a $1.7 billion bid. On Sunday, India’s state-run Oil and Natural Gas Corp. offered $2 billion.

If you are a private security company that specializes in Africa, then partnering with one of these ‘smaller wild cat’ oil exploration companies could be quite profitable. Any contract with such a company should include a percentage of the profits for the operation, or when the company is sold to a larger oil company. More risk should equal more reward, and hopefully PSC’s are fully realizing the potential in these contracts.(and why not do a profit share with your security contractors doing the work and taking the risk out in the field as well? hint hint)

The other industry angle with this oil and gas boom in East Africa (and West Africa) is that piracy will be increasing as interest in Africa oil increases. There is just too much money floating around on the high seas for pirates or even jihadists to ignore. Hostage taking on land and sea will increase as well, and especially if it is oil executives or engineers crucial to the operation of these sites.

One tangent I would like to quickly expand upon is rare earth minerals. I have to imagine that Africa has sources of minerals not yet discovered, that will be vital for these growing and hungry economies of the west and east. All the stuff that goes into computers or phones, the magnets used in electric/hybrid vehicle motors or in weapons like guided missiles, or gold and silver, are all much needed by all of the industrialized nations of the world. The protection of these mining operations and the protection of the transport of this stuff, are all areas that this industry handles. Especially with mineral finds that pop up in war zones.

Interesting stuff and it is definitely an area of this industry that we should all be paying attention too. Keep your eyes peeled for energy security related work and for new discoveries. -Matt

 

East Africa hits it big in oil, gas boom
Feb. 29, 2012
East Africa is emerging as the new hot zone for oil and natural gas exploration, with major discoveries by Anadarko of the United States and Italy’s Eni in the Indian Ocean off Mozambique and by Norway’s Statoil off neighboring Tanzania.
Even war-wracked Somalia, further north in the Horn of Africa, is part of the drive for energy resources in the region, with a Canadian company, Africa Oil, expecting to start producing within the next couple of months in the northern autonomous enclave of Puntland.
But the big prize there is the offshore oil and gas fields that Somali officials say contain more than 100 billion barrels of oil, more than Kuwait. If that’s the case, Somalia, torn by war since 1991, would become the seventh largest oil nation.

Read the rest of this entry »

Tags: , , , ,

Industry Talk: Triple Canopy Awarded $159.9 Million For Afghanistan Security Services

Congrats to TC, but I have to say that I am not too interested in promoting their job for this. For the simple reason that the pay is too low and the leave schedule sucks. As it stands now, you have to work 344 days in order to get the bonus. That’s if the contract is still in place after a year. Who knows what will happen in Afghanistan a year out?

The other thing is burn out. Work is nice, but if you are working 12 hour days for 344 days out of the year, then that is a horrible schedule. For that reason, I think TC is going to have a tough time keeping this thing staffed. What I could see happening with this  is that guys use this contract as a ‘stepping stone’ contract in order to get into a better paying/better leave schedule job. Especially for those guys that have families.

In my opinion, I think this is a poorly constructed contract if these are the terms. The industry standard (in my opinion) for pay in a war zone like Afghanistan or Iraq should be more in the neighborhood $400 to $600 a day for static, to reflect the various management positions and seniority of contractors within the company. I should also note that such contracts like WPS is an excellent model for an ‘industry standard’ for pay. That is what this contract should have been modeled after, and DoS’s WPS program get’s it right in that department.

The industry standard for leave should be more around 2 to 3 months on, and about 1 month off. That is a great leave schedule, and the contract should allow some flexibility within that leave schedule to allow for emergencies and contractor personal choice. Requiring a contractor to work 344 days in a war zone is a recipe for disaster. Guys will burn out and their families will hate them for being away that long. I doubt that you will even see guys complete the contract to get the bonus, just because they will jump on the first gig that comes up with better pay and a better leave schedule. I know that is what I would do.

Even the hours worked is dumb. In my personal opinion, an 8 hour shift, working 6 days a week with one day ‘off’, is far better than a 12 hour shift 6 days a week. (especially if you are wearing kit all day long and working 344 days a year) I will also say that if this contract does lose guys because they burn out, that those left on the contract will be working a lot of hours without any days off. Just ask the AGNA guys what that is like when contractors bail ship because the company sucks or there are better gigs elsewhere. The guys that are left are the ones having to make up for a lack of manpower.

It is also a threat to the security readiness of a base, and could lead to a default on contract if there is a high attrition rate. Staffing a contract is serious business, and if folks are jumping ship because it sucks, then that has all sorts of consequence. Now imagine low staffing and low morale throughout a guard force because of being over worked, mixed with a high enemy threat or even enemy attacks?  We are not talking about security at some mall in Sandusky Ohio, we are talking about the protection of FOB’s filled with military and civilians in an active war zone, all depending upon that contracted guard force and it’s abilities.

In other words, this contract will have issues. That’s too bad, because I thought the Marines would have been smarter about this, and especially when they had more choice in the formation of this ‘best value’ contract. They should have asked this community what an appropriate contract would look like, and it just seems to me like they created another TWISS-like contract. Too bad…

The other thing I was curious about is if Triple Canopy gets paid for every guy they train?  Meaning when they train a contractor for this gig, they bill the government all the relevant costs. Why this matters is if the contract sucks and is set up to be a revolving door contract for guys, then TC will have to train up more contractors to keep it staffed. So what is TC’s incentive for training these guys and keeping them on the contract in Afghanistan? If anything, they benefit from a contract where contractors ‘don’t’ stick around so they can keep charging the government for training.

Which brings up another crucial point. When you set up a revolving door contract like this, then you lose something that is absolutely vital to organizations and security in war zones. Unit cohesion. Imagine being on a contract where no one sticks around? Where a new contractor shows up every week, or the management jumps ship every other week? Talk about instability. lol So basically you will have a contract where folks are constantly adjusting to new people, and all along you will have the security of a FOB to focus on. How can you trust the guy to the left and right of you, if A. you don’t know who they are and B.you don’t know if they will be there from week to week.

Unit cohesion is so hard to create in a company anyways, but if the contract itself does not lend itself towards making contractors happy and keeping them on the gig, then you can kiss any kind of unit cohesion good bye. And actually, that will be a cause of internal problems. I dare any military unit to try the same thing in a war zone, and see what the end result becomes. And this is what you want protecting these bases?

I sometimes wonder if the military should be setting up these contracts in the first place. How is it that the federal government understands how to set up these things (like WPS), but the military does not?  Could it be that the military purposely constructs poor contracts because contractors are the competition? What incentive does the Marines have in constructing a contract where a company that comes in to replace their Marine force, does a better job than that Marine force because the contract lends itself to success?  Why would they want that company to be successful, and show them up?  Food for thought when it comes to the public versus private discussion about this industry, and when it comes to the principal-agent problem.

Finally, it is very simple to understand the game here. You find the industry standard within that war zone, and you stick to that standard. If you want to lose people and could care less about the quality of the contract/services, then by all means set up your contract below that industry standard. Go cheap, pay peanuts, and get your monkey’s.

On the other hand, if you want to attract the best of the best within an industry, then you need to offer incentives that are ‘better’ than the industry standard. And if you want a best value contract that has some degree of stability, then match what the industry standard is, choose a good reputable company, and manage it well. That is my thoughts on the matter. -Matt

 

Triple Canopy Awarded $159.9m for Afghanistan Security Services
By DOD
Tuesday, February 14, 2012
Triple Canopy, Reston, Va., was awarded a $159,972,048 firm-fixed-price contract. The award will provide for the security services in Afghanistan. Work will be performed in Afghanistan, with an estimated completion date of Jan. 26, 2017. The bid was solicited through the Internet, with eight bids received.  The U.S. Army Contracting Command, Rock Island, Ill., is the contracting activity (W560MY-12-C-0002).
Link to news here.
—————————————————————
From thread at SOCNET Forum
@camp leatherneck
$200 daily
6-12 hr days a week with the possibility for more hours
(1) 21 day leave period
12k bonus for contract completion
2 week train up on TC site followed by deployment @camp lejune
—————————————————————
From Triple Canopy’s Career section–Afghan Guard, Afghanistan
Position Responsibilities
-Act as armed security officer
-Responsible for internal security shift
-Perform unarmed screener duties by searching visitors, their vehicles and their belongings. Screeners will be proficient utilizing hand-held metal detectors, walk-through metal detectors and High throughput personnel inspection systems.
-Possess the capacity to acquire a good working knowledge of all aspects of contract security
-Must satisfactorily complete all Government required (and supplied) training and certifications prior to employment
Essential Skills and Experience
-US Citizen
-Must have a valid US Driver’s License and US Tourist Passport
-Honorable discharge from the military (if applicable)
-Able and willing to DEPLOY for one (1) year with one (1) 21-day R&R rotation
-Posses or be able to obtain a DOD Secret Level Clearance.
-Be at least 25 years of age
-Posses one (1) year of Military/ Police experience to include the use of personnel and vehicle security screening devices.
-Preferred security experience in the Middle East region.
-Possess a certificate of successful completion of a basic or advanced security guard training and certification program administered or recognized by the Government or professional organizations
-Must have no felony or domestic violence conviction. Record of recent recurring misdemeanors may adversely impact candidate’s suitability rating
-Employment with Triple Canopy is contingent upon a favorable background check to Include no serious financial problems in the past seven (7) years
Physical Demands and Work Environment
Able to perform internal security guard services, at any potential internal security posting, for 12 hours, while donning all required personal protective gear.

Tags: , , , , , ,

Afghanistan: Private Security Transition To The APPF Looking Messy…. And Dangerous

Companies have long hired private guards precisely because they don’t trust the Afghan police to protect them in a crisis. The United Nations used Afghan police to guard its staff housing until an 2009 attack on a residential hotel in which Taliban assailants quickly made it past police guards and killed five U.N. staffers. The U.N. has since increased its security to include foreign guards.
Afghans working with APPF have gone so far as to urge the business licensing agency to “stop stalling the process,” according to a letter sent to U.S. government officials by a development company and obtained by the AP.

I posted two relevant stories below about Afghanistan and contractors. The first is this joke of a plan about replacing all PSC’s with the government force called the APPF.  Although according to the article below, it doesn’t look like it will happen on time, that the forces are not being properly trained and prepared, that the various clients they serve will have very little to say about the quality or conduct, and the best part, it will be more expensive. So some deal this APPF will be for those clients in Afghanistan that have to use them. lol

And as budgets for aid projects are decreasing, the APPF program is likely to increase security costs substantially.
An APPF guard will cost at least $770 a month, according to an AP analysis of official government figures, while private security providers contacted for this story say they usually charge $510-$630 a month per guard.
To avoid pay cuts for guards, individual companies will have to supplement salaries. And any costs for RMC managers will be on top of this. Once these expenses are figured in, security costs could easily double under the APPF.

The second article below is about all of the incidents over the years of Afghan troops, police or PSC’s that were either mentally insane or the enemy, and killed their western partners. The quote up top is from the first article, and the proof of how many incidents is in the second article.

Supposedly friendly Afghan security forces have attacked U.S. and coalition troops 45 times since May 2007, U.S. officials say, for the first time laying out details and analysis of attacks that have killed 70 and wounded 110.

Oh yeah, that is an assuring statistic. And this second article really didn’t get into all the attacks against contractors, but hey, I guess we don’t count?

All I know is that the APPF is going to be one hell of a money making machine for Karzai, and one hell of a headache for those clients being forced to use them. -Matt

 

Afghan private security handover looking messy
By HEIDI VOGT
February 10, 2012
The push by Afghanistan’s president to nationalize legions of private security guards before the end of March is encouraging corruption and jeopardizing multibillion-dollar aid projects, according to companies trying to make the switch.
President Hamid Karzai has railed for years against the large number of guns-for-hire in Afghanistan, saying private security companies skirt the law and risk becoming militias. He ordered them abolished in 2009 and eventually set March 20 of this year as the deadline for everyone except NATO and diplomatic missions to switch to government-provided security.
Afghan officials are rushing to meet the cutoff with the help of NATO advisers. But with fewer than six weeks to go, it’s likely that many components will still be missing on March 20. And even once everything falls into place, higher costs and issues of authority over the government guards will remain.
The change imperils billions of dollars of aid flowing into Afghanistan, particularly from the United States. In a country beset by insurgent attacks and suicide bombings, the private development companies that implement most of the U.S. aid agency’s programs employ private guards to protect compounds, serve as armed escorts and guard construction sites.
On March 21, approximately 11,000 guards now working for private security firms will become government employees as members of the Afghan Public Protection Force, or APPF. They will still be working in the same place with the same job. Except now they’ll answer to the Interior Ministry.
“We don’t want to have security gaps. This is really important to our customers and to us,” said the head of the APPF, Deputy Minister Jamal Abdul Naser Sidiqi. It will happen, he says, because the presidential order says it has to.

Read the rest of this entry »

Tags: , , , , , ,

Libya: The Swiss Contracted Aegis To Protect Their Embassy In Libya

The government had justified its choice to employ a private firm with local knowledge to guard the Tripoli embassy because it needed time to draw up an operational plan and reach a decision on whether to proceed.

This story has it all–from irony to hilarity. Here are the Swiss, whom for hundreds of years were known for having some of the best mercenary armies in the world, and they contract with a foreign firm called Aegis to protect their embassy in Libya? I guess the Swiss Guard is good enough for the Pope, but not good enough for the Swiss Embassy? lol It is also ironic because the Swiss wanted to ban the use of PMSC’s, but here they are contracting the services of one to protect their embassy. hmmm…..

All kidding aside, the way I look at this story is that it was an honor that Aegis was chosen and given such a contract. And the Swiss government has within it’s right to contract the services of such a company, if it makes sense for that particular situation. I would also be curious about this quote, because the article does not give enough information as to the real numbers here. Like what was the length of time for the Aegis contract? Was this just a three month contract, or what? Because if they are going to throw around a cost effectiveness statement like this, then we need to see the numbers.

The foreign ministry said on Thursday that the Aegis contract will have cost SFr960,000 altogether. The cost to deploy members of the Army Reconnaissance Detachment 10 should be around SFr600,000 for six months.

If anyone from the company has anything to say about the contract itself, please feel free to do so in the comments section. Because this particular article makes it sound like Swiss Commandos are having to storm in and save the day.

I suspect otherwise, and if anything, Aegis did exactly what they were asked to do. Provide security on the ground for the start up of this thing, and meanwhile the Swiss can figure out a plan for what they want to do. -Matt

 

Commandos ready to secure Tripoli embassy
Jan 26, 2012
Swiss special forces will officially take over security tasks at Switzerland’s embassy in Libya on Monday, replacing private firm Aegis.
The government’s decision to hire Aegis for over three months was widely criticised in Swiss political circles. Although the company is headquartered in Basel since 2010, it also employs 20,000 mercenaries who are deployed mainly in Iraq and Afghanistan, making it one of the world’s biggest private armies.
The government had justified its choice to employ a private firm with local knowledge to guard the Tripoli embassy because it needed time to draw up an operational plan and reach a decision on whether to proceed.
The cabinet has since drawn up legislation banning private security firms operating in conflict zones or holding companies in this sector from being based in Switzerland.
The foreign ministry said on Thursday that the Aegis contract will have cost SFr960,000 altogether. The cost to deploy members of the Army Reconnaissance Detachment 10 should be around SFr600,000 for six months.
The embassy in Tripoli is the only Swiss representation abroad where Swiss soldiers will be responsible for security.
Story here.

Tags: , , , , , ,

Industry Talk: Mexico Drug War Boosts Security Business

During the five years since President Felipe Calderon took power and declared war on drug cartels, Mexico has been shaken by 47,000 drug-related murders as well as rocketing levels of kidnapping and extortion.
In the same period, Mexico’s biggest security firm, Multisistemas de Seguridad Industrial, says it has grown by 70 percent.
It now has an army of more than 10,000 private security guards — including many former soldiers — who are licensed to carry guns to protect the company’s 2,500 Mexican clients.

Multisistemas is like the G4S of Mexico? I had no idea it was that big, and I have never even heard of this company before. So that is why I wanted to put this one up in the archives for reference. Also, Multisistemas might be a good company to throw a resume at if you would like to offer your services there. Especially for the high risk PSD type operations.

If anyone has anything else to add about Multisistemas, feel free to do so in the comments. -Matt

 

Mexico drug war boosts security business
Amid the violence, Mexico’s rich get ID chips, armored cars and gunmen on call.
Ioan Grillo
January 21, 2012
Mexico’s wealthy embed GPS chips under their skin, fatten their SUV’s with bullet proof armor, and hire trucks of gun-toting bodyguards to follow them to the shopping mall.
While Mexico’s merciless drug war has scared off tourists and investment dollars, it has fed one niche industry: private-security services.

Read the rest of this entry »

Tags: , , , ,