Feral Jundi

Sunday, May 13, 2012

Quote: Hammurabi’s Code And Contracting

Filed under: History,Industry Talk,Quotes — Tags: , , — Matt @ 12:19 PM

This is a great quote and a pretty effective rule. lol It is a reminder that there was a time some 4,000 plus years ago, when kings actually understood the concept of creating ‘effective’ rules that held contractors responsible for their work.

It is also why I keep hounding on this idea that SAMI, the ICoC, and associations like the ISOA should all have enforcement mechanism or effective grievance processes in place to keep their members in line and to allow contractors and clients a way to get justice.

If there is a violation of the code/rules that these companies signed onto within these organizations, then there must be effective punishments for those violations. If there isn’t, then how could any client or contractor respect the company’s association with these groups? Where is the value of such an arrangement, other than some kind of perceived value to somehow attract more business for members with ‘the stamp’?

I say make that membership worth something, and enforce the codes and rules with fair and effective punishments. To actually kick out members or fine them, as opposed to looking the other way because of the money that those companies pay to be a member. (which right there shows the conflict of interest that can happen with these groups)

Because there is another problem associated with not enforcing codes and rules. If one member violates the organization’s rules/codes, and nothing is done about it, then what will the other members think?  Better yet, why would the other members even follow these rules/codes, if the organization has not effectively dealt with those companies that violated them? Food for thought…  –Matt

 

“If a builder builds a house for a man and does not make its construction firm, and the house which he has built collapses and causes the death of the owner of the house, that builder shall be put to death.” –Hammurabi

Link to code here.

 

 

Publications: Contractor Support Of USCENTCOM AOR, 2nd Quarter FY 2012

Filed under: Afghanistan,Industry Talk,Iraq,Publications — Tags: , , , — Matt @ 10:08 AM

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

 

Contractor Support Of USCENTCOM AOR, 2nd Quarter FY 2012

Friday, May 11, 2012

Afghanistan: EU To Spend €50mn On Private Security In Afghanistan For The Next 4 Years

Filed under: Afghanistan,Industry Talk — Tags: , , , , , — Matt @ 2:22 PM

Now this is some interesting news with the EU and their EEAS.  I posted earlier this year about another contract they were flying for security, and this one is targeted towards Afghanistan.

Hopefully they can navigate this whole APPF and Decree 62 deal, because they could easily kiss their beloved Page Group security partner (or whomever wins the contract) goodbye if Karzai has his way. Maybe the EU has made some deals to allow them to keep their own security?

I also thought it was interesting that they have narrowed down what companies qualify. Here is the quote:

It is aiming to sign up a big company with prior experience in Afghanistan – the winning bidder must have an annual turnover of at least €20 million and 400 staff. Five companies are eligible to compete – the Hungarian-based Argus, Canada’s Gardaworld, British firms G4S and Page Group, and French company Geos – after getting on an EEAS private security shortlist last year.

My one heartache about this is why aren’t American companies qualified to bid? (like US companies with offices in Europe) I know the US is not a member of the EU, but that doesn’t mean it’s companies are not capable. Because I can think of several who fit the the bill of having ‘annual turnover of at least €20 million and 400 staff‘. The EU is really missing out in my opinion by not contracting with US companies, and it’s not like the US hasn’t contracted with European PMSC’s for DoD or DoS related contracts in the war.

Aegis comes to mind as one current example, and they are actually being contracted to replace AGNA on the KESF contract! lol Either way, we will see how the bidding goes and how they navigate the complexities of Afghanistan security contracting. –Matt

 

EU to spend €50mn on private security in Afghanistan
05/11/2012
By Andrew Rettman
The EU’s external action service (EEAS) plans to spend up to €50 million on private security guards for its Afghanistan mission over the next four years.
The EEAS unveiled the tender on Thursday (10 May), saying the money would be spent on “protection of staff, their families in the country, visitors from headquarters or other EU institutions, the premises and the goods of the EU delegation in Afghanistan.”
The contract – valued at between €30 million and €50 million plus VAT – is to cover at least 100 security guards, as well as “mobile patrol teams, equipment [and] armoured cars.”
It is aiming to sign up a big company with prior experience in Afghanistan – the winning bidder must have an annual turnover of at least €20 million and 400 staff.

(more…)

Publications: Journal Of International Peace Operations, May-June 2012

Filed under: Industry Talk,Publications — Tags: , , , — Matt @ 12:43 PM

These are great publications and in order to read them, just put your cursor over the ‘expand’ button in the center and it will expand the whole thing into a readable format. Definitely play around with it, and check it out. –Matt

 

Wednesday, May 9, 2012

Industry Talk: Congress Takes Important Step To Stop Afghan Taxation Of US Aid Dollars

Filed under: Afghanistan,Industry Talk,Legal News — Tags: , , , , , , — Matt @ 11:24 AM

This is good news and I sincerely hope that Congress has taken care of this. I know Doug Brooks and the ISOA have been working hard to overturn this practice, and it is amazing to me that we have allowed Afghanistan to do this. How much money has been lost to this corrupt practice? And what an insult?

Here is a quote from ISOA’s website on what exactly the Afghan government has been doing all of these years.

The Afghanistan Ministry of Finance (MoF) has adopted the practice of taxing foreign organizations hired by the U.S. government to support reconstruction and development in Afghanistan. Despite tax exemptions negotiated by the U.S. Department of State (DoS) and the U.S. Department of Defense (DoD) that are applicable to U.S. government (USG) contracts, “tax exempt” companies and organizations continue to receive tax bills from the Afghan government.  Given that the Afghan government can withhold necessary work permits in the absence of tax payments, companies and organizations have little recourse but to attempt direct negotiations with Afghan officials or to pay the tax bills.

Yeah, so that is one of the methods used to harass companies and it is pathetic. If you don’t pay the tax, you don’t get the permit. And really what is being requested by the ISOA and others, is to have Afghanistan live up to their agreements. I mean it is US taxpayer dollars that are going towards aid to help stabilize this country–and this is how Afghanistan honors that?  Here is the ISOA position on this deal.

This tax situation undermines international efforts to stabilize Afghanistan, creates barriers to effective implementation of much-needed aid programs, creates significant new opportunities for corruption within the host government and among companies, and unnecessarily penalizes American taxpayers – costing them millions of dollars – for offering assistance to a foreign nation.
USG contractors in Afghanistan are caught between USG regulations that require valid business licenses and the demands of the Afghan MoF that disputed taxes be paid in order to receive these permits.  Because DoS discourages companies and organizations from negotiating the tax issue with the Afghan government directly, USG assistance is critical. There is an urgent need for clear direction from the U.S. Congress in opposing this unacceptable tax situation.
So after all of this pressure, finally Congress does the right thing. We will see if it works. A big thanks to the ISOA for bringing attention to this matter and keeping up the pressure over the years. –Matt

Congress Takes Important Step to Stop?? Afghan Taxation of U.S. Aid Dollars
07 May 2012
The International Stability Operations Association is pleased to note that the House Armed Services Committee Chairman’s Mark for the Fiscal Year 2013 National Defense Authorization Act contains a provision that aims to end unlawful  taxation of U.S. foreign assistance by the Afghan Ministry of Finance (MOF).  The provision requires the Secretary of Defense to determine that the MOF is not violating bilateral agreements with the U.S. before the Department may use a contracting preference for Afghan goods and services, as required under the “Afghan First” policy. ISOA has worked the Afghan Tax issue as an advocacy priority and is committed to ending this inappropriate taxation.

(more…)

« Newer Posts — Older Posts »

Powered by WordPress