Feral Jundi

     Nothing too radical or exciting about this one.  I mean all of these issues have been talked about and mulled over for quite awhile now, and I am quite frankly pretty tired of discussing it. The problems have been identified and now all that is needed is leadership and action.

     What is more important is for Petraeus to actually punish those within his command that do not deliver.  We are going into nine years of contracting in this war zone, and it is pretty pathetic that it has taken this long for today’s war time leaders to finally recognize how important it is to square away this aspect of the war. That’s government for you.

     As for tips on how to insure you are getting the best bang for the buck, I would implement as many mentorship programs as possible.  Just as long as there is a responsible and trustworthy partner that is attached to all of these contracts, then at least you will have someone you can deal with and give guidance too. Either assign a military unit with these local companies, or find a company with expats that can watch over this stuff. In either case, you must have an eye on the project so you can control it or shut it down if it hurts the war effort.

    Another thing to think about is the Mystery Shopper concept I have talked about in the past.  It is such a simple method of checking up on projects, and I still don’t know why we don’t implement more of this kind of thing?  It is especially important if you do not have eyes on the project at all times due to manpower issues or whatever.  A simple visit by someone that no one knows is an inspector or observer, will give you a good dose of feedback and shared reality as to what is really going on with that project.

    The other thing that will help for accounting purposes is to use payment systems for contracting that make it easy for transparency.  Things like mobile cash can really help out in this department. This area requires innovation and a dedication to continuos improvement or Kaizen.

    Well written contracts and having plenty of manpower to watch over these contracts is also a basic one that really needs good leadership to ensure it happens.  Now that Petraeus has issued guidance, perhaps he will do what is necessary to assign sufficient manpower to these contracts.  And not just soldiers without a clue, but individuals that will take everything into account, and actually look at the secondary and third effects of each and every contract they sign.  They should be applying OODA to every contract, and win the war of contracting.

    Finally, I wonder if the Taliban have issues with managing their contractors?  They have to pay for bounties, mercenaries, equipment, weapons, explosives and everything else an insurgency requires.  I tend to view their operations and logistics as one that is simpler, smaller and more flexible–kind of like business, and less like government. There is also the fear of pissing off their command and fellow Taliban if you steal from the organization, so that probably keeps the organization in check.  I could be wrong and I am just thinking out loud here. It would be extremely interesting to read a report on the Taliban and their contracting issues. I certainly have plenty of information about our own contracting practices, or lack there of. pffft –Matt

——————————————————————-

Petraeus issues guidance for Afghan contracting

By DEB RIECHMANN

Sep 12, 2010

The NATO command has issued new guidelines for awarding billions of dollars worth of international contracts in Afghanistan, saying that without proper oversight the money could end up in the hands of insurgents and criminals, deepen corruption and undermine efforts to win the loyalty of the Afghan people at a critical juncture in the war.

The guidance, issued last week by Gen. David Petraeus and obtained Sunday by The Associated Press, was issued in response to concern that the military’s own contracting procedures could be, in some cases, running counter to efforts on the battlefield.

The changes are aimed, in large part, at addressing complaints that ordinary Afghans have seen little change in their daily lives despite billions poured into their country since 2001.

“With proper oversight, contracting can spur economic development and support the Afghan government and NATO’s campaign objectives,” Petraeus wrote in a two-page memorandum. “If, however, we spend large quantities of international contracting funds quickly and with insufficient oversight, it is likely that some of those funds will unintentionally fuel corruption, finance insurgent organizations, strengthen criminal patronage networks and undermine our efforts in Afghanistan.”

Private contractors, both Afghans and foreigners, provide a range of services to U.S. and NATO forces, including transportation, security, running dining facilities and sanitation at military bases, training and construction.

Precise figures on the amount of money paid to contractors were unavailable, though most estimates put the figure at about $14 billion a year. Admiral Kathleen Dussault, head of the Joint Contracting Command, was quoted as recently as July saying that the amount of money being spent in Afghanistan had tripled since 2008.

But President Hamid Karzai has long criticized the international contracting process, saying that war-weary Afghans have not reaped the full benefits because so much of the money goes to high-priced contractors, subcontractors and powerbrokers.

Afghans also complain that too many contracts are awarded to the same contractors.

“Contracts with a broader range of Afghan companies will help break monopolies and weaken patronage networks that breed resentment” among the Afghan people, Petraeus wrote. “In situations where there is no alternative to powerbrokers with links to criminal networks, it may be preferable to forgo the project.”

The new guidance said that contracts should go to Afghans first and if the military cannot contract with an Afghan company, the company that is awarded the contract should be encouraged to hire Afghan workers and subcontractors. Petraeus referenced a Kabul company that is making boots for Afghan police and soldiers as a success story of NATO’s “Afghan First” program.

“Focus efforts on promoting industries with immediate and long-term growth potential, such as agriculture, food processing, beverages and construction,” Petraeus wrote. “Guard against ‘front businesses’ that fraudulently claim to be Afghan-owned.”

Commanders must use intelligence resources to learn a lot about the companies they are dealing with and determine the effect of each contract on “security, local power dynamics and the enemy.”

The effort to award contracts to Afghan firms, however, is not always the fastest way to build military bases or Afghan police stations, according to the Army Corps of Engineers. The Corps has complained that the effort has led to delays at the very time that NATO has been rushing to accommodate tens of thousands more international troops dispatched to the war.

While supportive of the project, Col. Kevin Wilson, the head of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers in the south and west, said the trade-off is that construction can either be done on time, or contracted to the Afghans.

Petraeus’ guidance also noted the pitfalls of too many subcontractors.

“Excessive subcontracting tiers provide opportunities for criminal networks and insurgents to divert contract money from its intended purpose,” he said, adding that prime contractors should be held responsible for the behavior and performance of their subcontractors.

The Pentagon’s new “contractor’s transparency clause” requires lead contractors to list subcontractors on a project to improve oversight. Anyone who bids on U.S. military contracts has to provide a list of all their subcontractors, provide licensing, personnel and banking information, according to Brig. Gen. Camille Nichols, head of the contracting authority for both Afghanistan and Iraq, who recently briefed reporters on the new clause.

Still, the transparency campaign might prove difficult in an impoverished country where corruption has become widespread, leaving Afghans disgruntled with their government and the international community. With little oversight, it’s unclear where most of the contract corruption occurs.

Story here.