Feral Jundi

Monday, August 29, 2011

Industry Talk: FBO News–USSOCOM Looking For More Afghan Guards

Filed under: Afghanistan,Industry Talk — Tags: , , , , , — Matt @ 12:41 PM

Thanks to Danger Room for the heads up on this FBO solicitation. This sounds like a continuation of what USSOCOM has already been doing in Afghanistan. (I posted in the past about other contract guard force solicitations that USSOCOM made)

Now one thing that kills me here is that I still haven’t a clue as to what the deal is with PSC licenses in Afghanistan? The solicitation says that it will only do business with companies that are licensed by the Ministry of Interior, and registered with the Ministry of Transportation. Well on the MOI website, there is nothing linked at all about what companies are licensed?

So my suggestion to whomever is helping the Afghans run their website, or assisting the MOI, is to get them to set up a section on PSC’s and post what companies are authorized. Then the public and media will know exactly what companies to watch, and what companies the government supports through a license. It’s called transparency.

It would also be cool to see a blog set up on this, and then the government can actually introduce new companies that are licensed, or discuss where the government is at with the licensing process. Because from what I have heard, this licensing deal has been a huge pain in the neck for companies out there–both foreign and domestic.

I would also set up a tip line run by a third party, so that folks who have information about licensed companies can communicate those concerns. That third party could be a US inspector general or similar federal official that is tasked with helping the MOI. Using a contractor for that could be a conflict of interest. Either way, making the list and process open would help out big time. –Matt

Private Security Contract
Solicitation Number: H92237-11-R-1324_PSC_Gizab
Agency: Other Defense Agencies
Office: U.S. Special Operations Command
Location: Headquarters Field Assistance Division
Notice Type: Combined Synopsis/Solicitation
Posted Date: August 29, 2011
Response Date: Sep 10, 2011 2:30 am Eastern
Archiving Policy: Automatic, 15 days after response date
Archive Date: September 25, 2011
Original Set Aside: N/A
Set Aside: N/A
Classification Code: R — Professional, administrative, and management support services
NAICS Code: 561 — Administrative and Support Services/561612 — Security Guards and Patrol Services
Synopsis:
Added: Aug 29, 2011 7:07 am
***ONLY CONTRACTORS THAT HOLD A CURRENT AFGHANISTAN MINISTRY OF INTERIOR PERSONAL SECURITY LICENSE AND ARE LICENSED / REGISTERED WITH THE AFGHANISTAN MINISTRY OF TRADE WILL BE CONSIDERED FOR AWARD, OFFERORS WHO DO NOT POSSESS THESE QUALIFICATIONS ARE RESPECTFULLY ASKED TO NOT RESPOND TO THIS REQUEST FOR PROPOSAL***

(more…)

Thursday, April 7, 2011

Industry Talk: FBO News–USSOCOM Looking To Contract With PSC’s For Guard Services In Afghanistan

This is cool, and a hit tip to Wired’s Danger Room for finding this one. Sometimes I forget to check FBO every now and then, but I can always depend upon the the thousands of readers/bloggers/news groups  out there to find the good stuff and get the story out there.

On the flip side, I do not share the same concern as Noah does on this contract. These SF troopers will not stand by for any funny business on their compounds, and will manage these contracts in their own little way.  Meaning, many SF guys have connections within the companies already, because the companies are filled with SF types. If a company plays games, the SF network/mafia will certainly come down hard. Hell, many contractors who were SF, are still playing the military game in the National Guard.

The other reason why I am not worried about their ability to manage this stuff, is because of how small of a contract it will be, and the level of cultural expertise inherent within the SF community. They will know exactly how to properly motivate their contracted guard force–be it expats or local nationals.

If anything, that would be a cool camp to work at for all the possible networking potential and cross training. I just hope that USSOCOM does not fall into the trap of ‘lowest priced, technically acceptable’ contracting vehicle, because that is certainly a recipe for disaster. Give them the flexibility to choose the guard force that is the ‘best value’ for the money. Also put into the contract all the necessary quality control mechanisms needed to keep this stuff in line. Pretty typical really, and all the past lessons apply.

Who knows who will get the contract, but as the solicitation stated, this is a quick one.  So we should know who they picked before summer at least–hopefully. If any readers or the contracting officers of this solicitation have anything to add, feel free to do so in the comments. –Matt

Edit: 05/27/2011 Wired posted this update.

“The Combined Joint Special Operations Task Force-Afghanistan put 10 contracts for “perimeter security“ up for bid on Friday morning. Hired guards, mostly Afghans, will keep watch over anyone who approaches the elite commandos’ remote outposts. The bases on which they’ll work range in size from tiny “village support platforms” staffed by a mere 12-man “A Team” to one near Kabul’s infamous Pol-e-Charkhi prison, but there are uniform expectations for would-be guards. Some of them read more like baseline conditions for membership in civilized humanity.”

Private Security Contract
Solicitation Number: H92237-11-R-0870
Agency: Other Defense Agencies
Office: U.S. Special Operations Command
Location: Headquarters Field Assistance Division
Notice Type: Combined Synopsis/Solicitation
Posted Date: April 6, 2011
Response Date: Apr 15, 2011 12:00 pm Eastern
Archiving Policy: Automatic, 15 days after response date
Archive Date: April 30, 2011
Original Set Aside: N/A
Set Aside: N/A
Classification Code: R — Professional, administrative, and management support services
NAICS Code: 561 — Administrative and Support Services/561612 — Security Guards and Patrol Services
Solicitation Number: H92237-11-R-0870
Notice Type: Combined Synopsis/Solicitation
Synopsis:
Added: Apr 06, 2011 12:51 pm
***ONLY CONTRACTORS THAT HOLD A CURRENT AFGHANISTAN MINISTRY OF INTERIOR PERSONAL SECURITY LICENSE AND ARE LICENSED / REGISTERED WITH THE AFGHANISTAN MINISTRY OF TRADE WILL BE CONSIDERED FOR AWARD, OFFERORS WHO DO NOT POSSESS THESE QUALIFICATIONS ARE RESPECTFULLY ASKED TO NOT RESPOND TO THIS REQUEST FOR PROPOSAL*** (more…)

Saturday, June 6, 2009

Military News: The Current State of USSOCOM, by Admiral Eric Olson

     In testimony the other day before the House Armed Services Committee, Adm. Eric Olson, the head of U.S. Special Operations Command had a lot of interesting things to say about the current state of USSOCOM.  I thought this particular section was the most eye catching.  Is anyone else thinking what I am thinking? lol –Matt

—————————————————————— 

ADMIRAL ERIC T. OLSON 

COMMANDER 

UNITED STATES SPECIAL OPERATIONS COMMAND 

Introduction and History 

 Mr. Chairman and distinguished Members of the Committee, thank you for this opportunity to report on the state of the United States Special Operations Command (USSOCOM)…….  

Service Enabling Capabilities 

    Demand for special operations forces is on the increase; yet, by their very nature, Special Operations Forces are limited in size and scope. I am already on record as stating that SOF cannot grow more than three-to-five percent per year in those key units and capabilities that must be developed within our own organizational structures and training pipelines. This growth rate will not meet the already obvious appetite for the effects of SOF in forward operating areas. 

(more…)

Powered by WordPress