Check it out. Contractor use has only increased in Afghanistan, and in Iraq we have seen a draw down from the last report. I thought what was equally interesting was the increase of contractor use in ‘other’ locations. 14,618 ‘other location’ contractors last quarter versus 24,765 for this quarter. It would be cool if they actually broke down these other locations? All said, the total amount of contractors are just a little more than last quarter, but not by much.(151,995 last quarter versus 152,959 this quarter)
What is also curious is the decrease in the use of local nationals from the last report, and the increase in the use of American and partner contractors in Afghanistan. I am wondering if that is a direct result of all of these incidents of green on blue attacks, or because of poor quality services performed by local Afghans? Who knows, and it is hard to say what is happening with the numbers there.
As to security contractors, we have seen a huge increase in use for Afghanistan. Last quarter we were at 20,375 folks, and now we are at 26,612. So we must be doing something right.
Although Iraq has seen a pretty sharp decline in security contractor use. Last quarter we were at 8,995 and this quarter we are at 3,577. But that is still a significant security contractor presence presence in post war Iraq. This might stabilize as well, after all of the ‘right size’ initiatives that DoS was working towards. But who knows and it might go lower.
The other cool deal in this publication was the mention of the new ANSI standard for security companies. Under Sec 833 of the FY2011 NDAA, the US government will use third party accreditation services to see what companies meet the ANSI standard. So it will help the government in picking companies for contracts that at least meet ANSI. And if companies want to play, they will have to live up the ANSI standard. Or that is the theory, and we will see how all of this translates out in the field.
This is still a great deal, and in this report they mentioned the concept of ‘best value’ and how this ANSI standard can help them find the best value companies out there. But hopefully this will not be the only metric. Reputation, and how they treat their contractors should be other areas of concern, as examples of how they should pick.
It was funny though that they threw in that other term ‘technically acceptable’. It sounds like some in government are still hanging on to LPTA as the way to go for contracts, and that is just dumb. Lowest Priced, Technically Acceptable contracting is how you get these ‘race to the bottom’ gigs like TWISS, and it is just a dumb tool for security contracts. LPTA might work for finding a contractor to mow your lawn and no one really cares if they screw up. No lives will be lost and the lawn will be cut regardless.
But for security, you want the best value for the dollar–just like you would choose a doctor or a lawyer. Because with these types of contracts, lives ‘are’ on the line…-Matt