Feral Jundi

Friday, April 30, 2010

Afghanistan: Taliban Shadow Government Benefits From Reckless Afghan Private Security

     Local power brokers in Kandahar have worked to maintain this revenue stream by keeping the police force weak, forcing coalition forces to rely on private security companies for protection, the Institute of the Study of War report said.

     That is precisely the type of behavior by local officials that has alienated residents and provided an opening for the Taliban to establish effective control over much of the province.

     Abrahams said he has tried to tell locals that he understands their plight, but he is consistently undermined by the wild shooting.

     “Actions speak louder than words, and the locals see these drugged-out thugs with guns and trucks with ‘The United States’ painted on the side,” said Abrahams. 

*****

   That is how I would have wrote this title for the story below.  It’s kind of funny how the Afghan government was soooo adamant about pulling all the security companies under their control, complete with only issuing licenses to Afghan companies, yet at the same time, these private security companies they control are doing a lot of harm to their government and to the war effort.

   It is also doing a lot of harm to the US and Coalition strategy for the war, all because the Afghans don’t have control over something they said they wanted to control. I guess making money off of the licenses and taxes is all they really cared about?  Meanwhile, we have Afghan companies running through communities and using poor fire discipline, thus causing civilian casualties.

   The final point I want to make, is the ‘shadow government’ that the Taliban are running in places like Kandahar, are totally benefiting from reckless Afghan security companies.  If the government pays the cops crap wages, they moonlight as security contractors. Then they go out with the companies, and when their convoys receive a little fire from a Taliban shooter, and the convoys fire up entire communities with everything they got, that cop is now attached to that incident. Or that convoy forces people off of roads or robs other people or contractors on the roads, and now the Shadow Government has succeeded in making the police and government look weak because they can’t control the companies.   And because the goods on the trucks of the convoys all say ‘Made In The USA’, well then that ties in the actions of these companies to the coalition.

   My advice to General McChrystal and company is to get a handle on this quick. Because the enemy will only continue to exploit this angle.(they have actually been doing this for awhile)  They will also conduct pseudo operations, and pretend to be Afghan police or army, and further attack the people, all with the idea of pinning it on the real government.  This tactic is nothing new, but now that there is such a huge demand for logistics in country to support the surge of troops and contractors, it would be kind of important to take care of this now.

   One solution is to make it mandatory that Afghan companies are bonded.  Hell, nothing motivates a boss more to do things right, than the possibility of losing a lot of money because of poor performance or because of breaking the law/contract. And to ensure they are doing things right, I think there should be a  monitor attached to these convoys.  Be it expats or soldiers, it doesn’t matter.  Just some kind of adult supervision to say ‘yes, these guys are doing it right’ or ‘no, they violated the contract/law and they lose the bond’. That would be a quick down and dirty way of making sure these guys are not negatively impacting the war strategy, and ensuring they are doing a good job. –Matt

————————————————————

Reckless private security companies anger Afghans

By SEBASTIAN ABBOT

April 30, 2010

HUTAL, Afghanistan — Private Afghan security guards protecting NATO supply convoys in southern Kandahar province regularly fire wildly into villages they pass, hindering coalition efforts to build local support ahead of this summer’s planned offensive in the area, U.S. and Afghan officials say.

The guards shoot into the villages to intimidate any potential militants, the officials say, but also cause the kind of civilian casualties that the top U.S. commander in Afghanistan has tried repeatedly to stop.

“Especially as they go through the populated areas, they tend to squeeze the trigger first and ask questions later,” said Capt. Matt Quiggle, a member of the U.S. Army’s 5th Stryker brigade tasked with patrolling Highway One, which connects Afghanistan’s major cities.

The troops say they have complained to senior coalition officials and have even detained some guards to lecture them about their conduct, but the problem has continued.

(more…)

Maritime Security: Piracy Rattles Japan To Open First Foreign Military Base In Djibouti

Filed under: Africa,Japan,Maritime Security — Tags: , , , , , — Matt @ 2:24 AM

   Interesting move, but as the last sentence in the article specifies, the pirates are completely going off the hunting reservation.  Now if the Japanese built a prison on their base to keep all of these pirates, now that would be something.  Then we can end this catch and release program once and for all.  I kind of doubt they would do that, but you never know? –Matt

——————————————————————

Piracy rattles Japan to open first foreign military base

By Emmanuel Goujon

April 24, 2010

DJIBOUTI — Japan is opening its first overseas army base in Djibouti, a small African state strategically located at the southern end of the Red Sea on the Gulf of Aden, to counter rising piracy in the region.

The 40-million-dollar base expected to be completed by early next year will strengthen international efforts to curb hijackings and vessel attacks by hordes of gunmen from the lawless Somalia.

The Djibouti base breaks new ground for Japan, which has had no standing army since World War II and cannot wage war. It however has armed forces — the Japan Self-Defence Forces — which were formed at the end of US occupation in 1952.

(more…)

Military News: Military Pay Competitive With Private Sector

   I tend to agree that the total compensation package that the military offers these days, is pretty damn good.  I have yet to work for a company that has offered the same benefits that the military has to offer.  If anything, the only reason why salary is more for contractors, is because of this fact.  Not to mention that many companies that use independent contractors do not offer retirement plans or medical plans.  Nope, when you cut away from the military umbilical cord, you are on your own.  That is why I tell guys to save your pennies, because you never know how long your contract will last or even how long your company will be around.

   And to add further to this article, I know of some contractors that have gone back to the military.  One of the reasons for that is stability for their family, or to get certifications that are tough to get anywhere else (like clearances).  Some guys join up in Guard units so they can serve and be a contractor at the same time.  That is an optimum set up, but you don’t have much of a personal life with that one.

   Finally, there are the tax incentives of military versus contractor.  If a contractor does not get their 330 days overseas, or is not able to claim residency in a foreign country, they will be taking a huge hit in taxes.  Some guys are able to get their 330 days, but many are not able to enjoy the foreign earned income tax credit.  The reason for that is a family emergency or the company just doesn’t have enough work for you to stay overseas for that long.  Or your contract could end. There is a number of things that could happen to you last minute, that could screw up your plans for taxes, and it pays to be prepared. –Matt

———————————————————————

Military pay competitive with private sector

April 30, 2010WASHINGTON: Military compensation is competing well against the private sector, as evidenced by the high rate of recruitment and retention, a Defense Department official told a Senate subcommittee today.

Therefore, the department is focusing on targeted special pays and bonuses as an efficient means to give incentives for people to sign up for hard-to-fill and hard-to-retain specialties, William J. Carr, deputy undersecretary of defense for personnel policy, told the Senate Armed Services Committee’s personnel subcommittee.

Using regular military compensation – basic pay combined with housing and food allowances and federal tax advantages – as a comparison, military members are paid higher than 70 percent of their private-sector peers of similar education and experience, Carr said.

(more…)

Thursday, April 29, 2010

Strategy: Van Creveld, Nagl, Bacevich, Hammes, Echevarria–All Star Strategy Conference

Filed under: Cool Stuff,Strategy,Video — Tags: , , , , , , , , — Matt @ 2:26 AM

Industry Talk: Best Value Versus Lowest Price Technically Acceptable

Brooks further noted that IPOA believes it is unwise to require cost to be considered the ultimate driver in federal procurement, for doing so simply creates a “race to the bottom” where other qualifications are not given due consideration. “We believe that the proposed amendment will result in more contract defaults, poor performance and an overall decrease in the quality of goods and services provided to the services.”

*****

Interesting debate. Doug took the side of the Commission on Wartime Contracting, and POGO is doing their own thing. My thoughts on it all is who wants the lowest bidder protecting them in a war zone? I mean if you were to look at what happened with AGNA in Kabul, or what I call the Kabul Fiasco, that is a prime example of how lowest bidder contracting does not work. In that ‘race to the bottom’, AGNA sure did win that contract, but they also created an impossible environment for their guard force to operate in.( I will spare you the party photos)

I also put in this post, what POGO thought about best value, and why they support the LPTAO(Lowest-Price Technically Acceptable Offer). They think that if the government would have specified what they thought was technically acceptable in the contract, that the Kabul Fiasco could have been avoided in the first place. I think they make an excellent point as well, but yet again, I refer to the common saying ‘you get what you pay for’. I would ask Danielle over at POGO if she would like to be protected by the lowest bidder in a war zone? Would you want the best protecting you, or would you want what was technically acceptable? Do you want the best doctor for the money, or do you want a doctor who is cheap and barely got through medical school-but can still practice medicine?

Plus, when you put the responsibility of deciding what is technically acceptable in the hands of individuals who are being pressured by their management or politics, to reduce cost, what is the limit to what is technically acceptable in their view? Of course you don’t want to overspend for a task, but when there is an environment/culture in government to only seek the cheapest price for a task and not consider other factors, I think that could lead to some serious problems.

Another example of how LPTAO sucks, is the TWISS contracts. Someone in the chain of contracting command, determined what is technically acceptable in regards to the guard force protecting troops under TWISS. What that process has produced is Ugandans or Kenyans standing guard at the gates of FOBs, who are getting paid peanuts and receive minimum training or vetting. All because the government has deemed that the companies supplying these troops are authorized to do so. If you talk to contractors who have worked this contract, they will tell you how incredibly screwed up it is.(the management will tell you it is a glowing success, go figure. lol) But it is all technically acceptable to the powers that be to allow the companies to run the TWISS stuff that way, and the companies keep ‘racing to the bottom’ to win that contract. (I get more emails from guys and gals who are just pissed off about how poor of a contract TWISS is–more than the Kabul embassy contract)

Overall, we should contract these services with a number of factors in mind. Past performance should count, as does cost. Experience in protecting people, and having the technical ability to do so is another. We should pick the best value companies for dangerous war zone duty, much like a patient would pick a doctor for their life saving diagnosis and care. I do think lowest bidder works for some contracts, like leaf raking or sweeping up a garage–stuff where lives are not on the line. But for protecting people in highly complex and dangerous war zones, where lives and government reputation is on the line, you probably want a system of contracting in place in which the government gets the best forces they can get for the money. That’s if they care about the protection of their reputation and people out there?

The government should also focus on getting plenty of competent contracting officers who can managing these contracts, to ensure that the government continues to get a good deal. Unfortunately, the government has been applying lowest bidder mindset to their contracting officer corps, in the form of not paying enough for that job, and not doing the things necessary to build up and strengthen that essential tool of government contracting. –Matt

—————————————————————–

IPOA Opposes IMPROVE Act Amendment to End Best Value Competitions

Stability Operations Trade Association Advocates For Use of “Best Value” in Defense Procurement

WASHINGTON-On April 27, 2010, IPOA, the Association of the Stability Operations Industry, sent a letter to the Chairman and Ranking Members of the House Armed Services Committee urging them to oppose a proposed amendment to H.R. 5013 – Implementing Management for Performance and Related Reforms to Obtain Value in Every Acquisition Act of 2010 (IMPROVE Act of 2010). The association asked the congressional leaders to reject an amendment entitled “Requirement that Cost or Price to the Federal Government Be Given at Least Equal Importance as Technical or Other Criteria in Evaluating Competitive Proposals for Defense Contracts.” IPOA fully supports the IMPROVE Act’s goal of more efficiently procuring services to support the Department of Defense. However, the amendment would effectively hamstring the ability of contracting officers to use discretion in awarding contracts and sets the stage for compulsory acceptance of the cheapest offer, minimizing other factors such as experience, quality or past performance.

“Lowest-price security not good enough for war-zone embassies”

IPOA cited an October 1, 2009 report from the Commission on Wartime Contracting entitled “Lowest-price security not good enough for war-zone embassies,” in which the Commission noted the dangers of focusing on price as the determinative factor when selecting contractors for the Department of State. The Commission noted that statutory requirements to select the lowest price can do more harm than good. In fact, the Commission recommended that the provision be eliminated and that the Department of State be given the flexibility to use a best value award process. The House amendment currently under consideration would move the Department of Defense closer to a statutory “low price” award scheme and would go against the clear recommendation of the Commission.

“Forcing the government to contract essential services on the cheap is not a recipe for success,” said Doug Brooks, IPOA President, “if we’ve learned anything over the past nine years it is that cutting corners on oversight or quality in contracting can have dire consequences.” Brooks noted that IPOA supports the concept of “best value” in federal procurements and believes the amendment’s “one size fits all” approach is ill advised.

Brooks further noted that IPOA believes it is unwise to require cost to be considered the ultimate driver in federal procurement, for doing so simply creates a “race to the bottom” where other qualifications are not given due consideration. “We believe that the proposed amendment will result in more contract defaults, poor performance and an overall decrease in the quality of goods and services provided to the services.”

IPOA was founded in 2001 to reflect a clear recognition that the private sector can play a larger, more cost-effective role in fundamentally improving peace and stability operations worldwide. With more than 60 members, IPOA is the leading voice of the stability operations industry.

Story here.

——————————————————————

CWC Findings on Embassy Guards Fiasco Amount to “Blame Shifting”

Oct 06, 2009

On October 1st, the Commission on War Time Contracting in Iraq and Afghanistan (CWC) issued a Special Report. Entitled “Lowest-priced security not good enough for war-zone embassies,” the report places most of the blame for the recent fiasco involving the work of ArmorGroup North America at the U.S. embassy in Kabul, Afghanistan, on the use of a negotiated procurement source selection technique known as “lowest-price technically acceptable offer” (LPTAO).

Older Posts »

Powered by WordPress