Feral Jundi

Monday, May 3, 2010

Logistics: Energy Islands And Biodiesel

Filed under: Afghanistan,Industry Talk,Logistics,Military News,Strategy,Technology — Matt @ 12:57 AM

     A significant step in reducing the length, complexity and cost of the US military supply chain for fuel.

     According to army-technology.com, “Every 55,702 barrels of fuel burned in Afghanistan by the US military forces corresponded to one casualty…a 10% reduction in fuel consumption over a five-year period could lead to a reduction of 35 fuel-related resupply casualties over the same period.”

     Also, the development of mobile energy systems allows military commanders options for avoiding a trade-off between lighter weapon systems that offer greater range, and heavier weapon or support systems that offer greater armor protection.

     A report by Deloitte calculated that fuel makes up 50 percent of all convoy activity in Iraq and Afghanistan.

*****

    Today’s discussion is about the military going green. I really like the idea of this, because as the articles below have stated, it takes a lot of fuel to power a military during time of war. Fuel is also a strategic asset, and without it, an army can be dead in the water and lose a war. So I like the idea of bringing in alternative sources of fuel, and diversify the fuel consumption process. And I really like the idea of manufacturing fuel locally, via micro processing plants. Better yet, if those micro processing plants focused on fuel, power and water for the operations of the local base as well as the local population center, well then that is a win win situation for everyone.

     Imagine having the local populations focused on growing fuel, for their use and for the local military base’s use? Plus, each processing plant that we cart into that area, could be a gift to the local population when that military base leaves? Better yet, we could teach the locals how to make biodiesel, and an entire industry could emerge. We keep looking at alternative crops for the farmers in Afghanistan? How about we have them grow fuel for the war effort. I have also talked about that here before, and I really like that concept because it makes sense. I also determined in my research that fuel producing plants like Jatropha could be grown in the south of Afghanistan.

     What’s cool about Camelina Sativa or wild flax seed is that it can be grown very easily in ditches or whatever, and does not require a lot nitrogen or water. Therefore, it does not compete with the local food growing or suck in a massive amount of water. It’s a weed more or less, and I like the idea of turning weeds into fuel. It is also native to Central Asia, so that means it could be grown in Afghanistan.

     The energy island concept is very cool. An all in one processing plant, that takes in the biomass and converts it to fuel, heat and power for the base and the local community. If these ARIES systems can do all of that, that is impressive and that is the kind of thing that could win over populations for COIN strategy. It would keep locals busy processing fuel, it would provide power to light homes and streets so they can see threats at night, and it would invigorate business and make people’s lives more comfortable. Lots of benefits from an energy island. Plus it defines the ‘small and many’ aspect of war. You want multiple power/fuel sources, not just one big one in which all of your cookies are in one basket. So I like having multiple energy islands scattered throughout a war zone, and that makes strategic sense.

     There is also another benefit of processing fuel locally, as opposed to shipping it in. Contractors and military personnel are both tasked with transporting fuel in war zones. If it cannot be flown in, it is convoyed in. And like the quote up top has mentioned, how many deaths can we attribute to this high demand for imported fuel for the war effort in Iraq and Afghanistan? How many contractors have died, trying to bring in fuel or water to some outpost? It is an interesting question, and my thoughts on the matter is that if we can minimize the amount of convoy operations it takes to supply an outpost or some FOB, the better. –Matt

—————————————————————-

The Green Side of War

Defense & Security News — By International Relations and Security Network

May 3, 2010

On Earth Day, 22 April, the US Navy conducted a test flight of an F/A-18 Super Hornet at Naval Air Station Patuxent River, Maryland, run on a 50-percent mixture of a fuel refined from the crushed seeds of the flowering Camelina sativa plant. The flight of the Green Hornet, as it was called, followed an Air Force test a month earlier of an A-10C Thunderbolt II at Eglin Air Force Base, Florida, fueled with a similar blend.

Both events had the purpose of testing the performance of biofuel/petroleum mixtures with an eye toward the eventual certification of the fuels for routine use. They also demonstrate the efforts of the Department of Defense to increase its use of renewable energy, not only for environmental reasons but also to protect the military from energy price fluctuations and dependence on overseas sources of petroleum.

Saturday, May 1, 2010

Executive Protection: Current Status Of Fortune 500 Security Expenditures

Filed under: Estate Security,Executive Protection,Industry Talk — Tags: , , , , , , , , , — Matt @ 1:59 AM

   This is one of the best articles I have come across in awhile, just because it is full of some very good info on the money side of executive protection. I have never seen such a complete compilation of this stuff, and bravo to Mr. Andrejczak for putting this together. Maybe he could do a report on the overseas contracting industry one of these days?

   A couple of highlights.  Obviously the recession is causing many companies to pinch pennies, to include security expenditures for CEO’s and management.  But like the article mentions, the report is not able to get a complete picture on expenditures. With that said, you can still get a lot out of this thing.

   It looks like the top companies are Starbucks, Dell, and Oracle (for disclosed expenditures).  I imagine Apple and Microsoft pay big as well, but that was not disclosed.

   I also thought the listing of companies who had interests in Mexico was telling.  The expenditures for security services for Coke and Citigroup has increased, which makes sense. I imagine many companies with offices and CEO’s located in Mexico, will be paying a premium for protection.

   The final point that made this article really cool, was the mention of security companies who were players in the fortune 500 protection game.  And most of them had blogs! lol  Although I don’t think they are blogging for the same reason I am. Blogs on websites are usually part of the SEO strategy of companies, so they can be more searchable to potential clients.

   Most corporate websites are stagnate, because they don’t get a lot of content coming into the site to make them highly searchable.  You attach a blog to a site and that increases a companies chances of being found in Google Search. That is also why they set up Facebook and Twitter accounts, so they rate high in search.  Either way, I put these companies up on my reader, and I look forward to what they have to say.  I have no clue if they are hiring, but it wouldn’t hurt to send them a cover letter and resume if you are looking for work CONUS. (As a disclosure, I do not work for any of these companies, nor am I endorsing them–just getting the word out) –Matt

Insite Security website here.

Insite Security blog here.

Sexton Executive Security website here.

Sexton Security’s Bullet Proof blog here.

Inter-Con Security Systems website here.

———————————————————————-

CEO security-tabs fall at Google, FedEx and Disney

Starbucks pays more to protect CEO Howard Schultz

By Matt Andrejczak

April 12, 2010

Executives at Kodak and Deere are now paying for their own home-security systems, a sign that executive-security is one perk corporate board’s are scrutinizing more closely.

Indeed, other companies cut back on security expenses, too — especially those known to spend big bucks on protecting their CEO, according to a MarketWatch review of proxy statements filed so far this year by Dow 30 components and larger S&P 500 companies.

The security tab for Google CEO Eric Schmidt fell 42% to $233,542 last year. The bill for FedEx CEO Fred Smith dropped 23% to $461,405, while the cost for Disney CEO Bob Iger dipped 9% to $589,102.

Since 2007, Google has paid $1.1 million in personal security expenses for Schmidt, FedEx has paid $1.5 million for Smith, and Disney has paid $1.9 million for Iger.

Compensation consultant Todd Gershkowitz of Farient Advisors said CEO security is not an egregious perk compared to goodies like country-club memberships, chauffeurs or taxes companies pay on super-sized severance packages for axed CEOs.

But company-provided security “becomes an invasion of privacy, some CEOs don’t want it, some accept it,” said Gershkowitz, who considers CEO security expenditures more of an issue about risk than one of executive perks handed out by directors.

He said he’d like to see more detailed disclosures about CEO security in proxies.

Deere and Kodak won’t pay the bill for residential security anymore, according to their yearly proxy statements filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission.

Starting this year, Deere said eight executives will have to reimburse the company for security services that had included “drive-by surveillance and response to security alarms” for certain executives by Deere’s corporate security staff.

CEO pay: Who made the big buck in 2009?

Median CEO pay declined for a second year in 2009, according to the Wall Street Journal’s annual CEO pay survey. WSJ’s Erin White talks with David Wise of Hay Group about the survey.

This perk cost Deere less than $19,000 last year, but the exact number is unknown since the tractor maker lumped the cost in with spouses attending company events.

(more…)

Thursday, April 29, 2010

Industry Talk: Best Value Versus Lowest Price Technically Acceptable

Filed under: Industry Talk — Tags: , , , , — Matt @ 1:07 AM

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).

Tuesday, April 27, 2010

Afghanistan: Did Afghan Police Kill U.N. Guard Louis Maxwell On Accident, Or On Purpose To Take His Gun?

Filed under: Afghanistan,Industry Talk,Weapons — Tags: , , , , , — Matt @ 1:36 AM

One official who had seen the video said “it looks like an execution”.

Mr Maxwell came down from the roof after the attack and was shot minutes later officials said.

The video shows Mr Maxwell wounded in a group of Afghan police when a single shot is fired, Stern reported.

He screams and collapses to the ground. None of the police reacts.

Three more shots are fired, then a policeman takes Mr Maxwell’s weapon from next to his corpse and leaves.

The motivation for the shooting is unclear from the video and an official said it was possible police had mistaken Mr Maxwell, an African American, for a foreign terrorist.

Stern reported another theory was that the Afghan police officer wanted to steal his sophisticated assault rifle.  

*****

   What I would like investigators to talk about is the video that was taken of the whole thing. If the video ‘looks like an execution’, then that should throw up some red flags.  Read the initial report based off of what was seen in the video, and this does not at all match up with what the UN briefing is talking about?  Where is this video and where is Louis’ HK G36 rifle? Someone please make sense of all of this, because this smells.

   I also want to direct the readership to a guy that was within 50 meters of this incident when it happened and has been writing about it in his blog called Knights of Afghanistan.  Both he and Tim Lynch have talked about the rifle and the possible motivation of the police to kill Louis for that rifle. Or how a convenient friendly fire accident could help put that rifle into an officer’s hands. I guess there could be confusion as well, but take a good look at the picture below and tell me that Louis looks like a Taliban or Al Qaeda operative.  I didn’t know the booger eaters were carrying high end 5.56 HK’s with ACOGs mounted these days? Who knows, but I do know that there is video that needs to be looked at by some independent media out there, or a third party investigator.

   Louis is a veteran (former Navy) and a contractor that laid down his life in the defense of others. The main stream media might not care about the sacrifice of this contractor, but we do.  It is the least we can do, to make sure the story gets straight and the truth gets out there.-Matt

Edit: 04/28/2010- Here is the cellphone video of the incident.  Louis looks like he was leaning against the hood of the Vehicle and possibly wounded already, and officers were walking away with his weapon.  Then he was shot at multiple times until he went down.  If you look at the police around him, they are not looking in the direction of the sniper or combatant shooting at Louis, they are looking at Louis as he is being killed.  The officer holding Louis’s gun is not running away or taking cover, nor are any of the other officers.  They are just standing around and watching Louis get killed.  Watch the video and let me know what you think?

   I also found the press briefing the UN secretary gave in regards to Maxwell’s death and his weapon.  They do have his weapon in their control.  Why this took so long to come out, I do not know.  They have been pressed about the location of the weapon in other briefings, without any clarification.

Edit: 04/29/2010- I made a mistake about the designation of G36, and I apologize.  Sometimes I miss this stuff.  It appears that the rifle is not a K version, but a C version. Thanks to my readership for catching this, and giving me the heads up.  Here is the definition of the C version from wikipedia:

G36C: This subcarbine (C—compact) model is a further development of the G36K. It has a shorter barrel (than the G36K), and a four-prong open-type flash hider. The extremely short barrel forced designers to move the gas block closer to the muzzle end and reduce the length of the gas piston operating rod. The handguard and stock were also shortened and the fixed carry handle (with optics) was replaced with a carrying handle with an integrated MIL-STD-1913 Picatinny rail. The dual optical sight found on the standard G36 and G36K models was replaced with a set of rail-mounted detachable iron sights that consist of a semi-shrouded front post and a flip-up rear sight with two apertures of different diameter. The short handguard has six accessory attachment points, one of which could be used for a vertical grip. 

Edit: 04/30/2010 – Louis Maxwell was not a Marine, and according to news out of Miami in his obituary, he was in the Navy.  I have no clue what his MOS was, and maybe he was attached to the Marines at one point or another.  Who knows.  Here is the report.

G36K up top, G36C on bottom.

Louis Maxwell, Navy.

——————————————————————

Louis Maxwell

HK G36C with ACOG scope…In the hands of hero Louis Maxwell. 

Afghan police likely killed U.N. staff by mistake: U.N.

By Louis CharbonneauMonday, April 26, 2010

United Nations investigators believe that Afghan police mistakenly shot and killed four U.N. employees during a Taliban attack in October 2009, U.N. officials said on Monday.

Susana Malcorra, a top U.N. peacekeeping official, made the remark in a briefing about a U.N. board of inquiry into an October 28 Taliban attack on a guest-house in Kabul that resulted in the deaths of five U.N. employees.

She described confusing circumstances in which Taliban attackers and Afghan security forces who responded were dressed in identical police uniforms.

It was a “very, very chaotic situation in the middle of the night,” she said.

Investigators believe three U.N. employees were shot and killed by the Afghan police while trying to escape from the guest-house, Malcorra said.

(more…)

Monday, April 26, 2010

Medical: Xe Contractor, Wounded In Iraq, Works To Help Others

Filed under: Idaho,Industry Talk,Iraq,Medical — Tags: , , , , , , — Matt @ 11:57 PM

   This is a great story about a wounded contractor giving back and helping out our wounded veterans.  If you would like to contact Ron, just follow the TBI link below.  On his profile page, you can also see pictures of him in the hospital and with his Mamba team in Iraq.

   The other thought that came to my mind, is the treatment of wounded contractors versus wounded soldiers.  The amount of resources available to the wounded soldier far surpasses the resources available to a wounded contractor.  What I mean by that, is family support networks and support from a soldier’s command is a given, and with the companies, it isn’t.  Some companies do a good job at supporting their guys, where others fall short.  That is the down side with contracting, and just expect that if you get wounded, that you will need all the help you can get from some kind of support network you can form.  That is why guys like Ron are so inspirational.

   You also need someone who knows how to navigate insurance and medical claims, while you are injured.  When I was injured with the smokejumpers, I was assigned a nurse/advocate who did exactly that.  She knew how to navigate OWCP and was there to insure I didn’t get screwed over while I was mentally ‘out of it’.  Because when you are seriously injured, and especially if you have a TBI, a nurse who can help you make sound decisions about your health will be vital.  If there is nothing but pain on your mind, or you can’t concentrate, a lot of stuff can get messed up unless you have someone who can watch your back. An advocate is necessary even if you don’t have TBI, just because some of the processes for getting care can be confusing at times.

   Even your family life needs a support mechanism, because when you are at that level, you are in no shape to be the guy that can watch out for your family.  TAPS , Special Operations Warrior Foundation or Wounded Warrior Project are networks to get a hold of, that can help contractors.  Lining up some trusted friends or family to help out is another.  Planning and being prepared is key, and you cannot expect the company to do this for you.

   Another idea is talk it up on your contracts about what the company did for injured contractors in the past, and formulate a plan from that information. Hell, some companies like in the case with Xe, have continued to employ their wounded contractors. That is awesome and those are the little things that make a world of difference in the life of a wounded warrior, so bravo to Xe and bravo to Ron Grigsby.-Matt

——————————————————————-

Idaho man, wounded in Iraq, works to help others

April 26, 2010

By BILL BULEY

Ron Grigsby didn’t know the man who bought him and his wife and sister drinks the night after an awards ceremony in which he was honored.

But when he went to thank him for the Coke, the man looked Grigsby in the eye and squeezed his hand.

“Bulldog, I was there that day. I watched you die,” he said.

The ever-tough Grigsby stopped, stood and stared. Then a big smile broke out and he gave the man a hug.

“He thought he’d never see me again,” Grigsby says.

The 48-year-old Hayden man did die that day in Iraq. Four times. Each time, they brought him back.

“I went down for the count that day. They had to keep jump-starting me,” he says with a little laugh. “That’s what I call it.”

Grigsby was nearly killed March 21, 2007, while working as an independent contractor for Blackwater in the Middle East. He was part of a convoy, assigned to protect a convoy, when it was hit by enemy fire. The blast threw him more than 40 feet. His helmet was caved in an inch and a half. He suffered multiple injuries that included a broken neck and a traumatic brain injury.

(more…)

« Newer Posts — Older Posts »

Powered by WordPress