Feral Jundi

   CSA Kuwait has always been one of those companies that provided the stepping stone to bigger and better contracts for guys.  In essence, it has been one of those gigs to cut your teeth on, in order to prepare for the war zone stuff.  I consider the Kosovo contract with ITT(or whoever owns that contract now) and the Qatar contract with DynCorp to be the same thing.  These are all static security posts, tasked with securing a large US base in these countries, and they can be used as experience for overseas security contracting in the war zones on a resume.

   Now on to this latest report on CSA and what the company’s response is. It isn’t that pretty, if you know what I mean.  I do not see customer satisfaction there.  I also hear on the circuit that contractors are not to happy with the way the company has treated them.

     If you read below, the company mission statement has Toyota and lean systems written all over it.  It has all the stuff you want in a company. The thing I want to emphasize though is that anyone can write a mission statement that looks impressive, but to me, actions speak louder than words.  Is the customer truly satisfied or happy and are your contractors and leaders truly satisfied or happy? How about the local populations or the public as a whole?  What is their impression of your company? That is all that matters, and results are what the company should be striving for.

   I would like to reiterate though that I really dig the mission statements and the language.  It is great, but does the CEO of the company really believe this stuff with his heart and soul?  Does the leadership in this company have this stuff ingrained into their soul? And does all of this impress and motivate their contractors/employees, and the customer?

   And for all I know, all of these mission statements and ISO 9001:2000 and Six Sigma stuff happened as a result of all of these issues listed below?  If so, that is great, and I really hope the company can achieve greatness in their little corner of the security contracting world. The proof is in the pudding, and until I start hearing glowing reviews of the company’s performance, then I will continue to remain skeptical.

   My suggestion to the company is to seek out feedback from the customer(s) and to seek out feedback from your workforce.  Actually listen to what they have to say, and get some shared reality.  You should also be doing performance evaluations, and constantly evaluating the health and vitality of your company.  How else are you to know how you are doing out there on these contracts? Be proactive about your performance, not reactive.

   Furthermore, performance evaluations, if done correctly, can certainly add to your company’s Kaizen. The sleeping guard  mentioned below could have shown a history of sleeping on post or poor performance elsewhere, and it should have been noted in performance evaluations and corrected early on.  If the guy sucks, then there should be documentation that he sucks, and the leadership should have a means to express to that contractor that it is unacceptable.

   The guard should know exactly what the company policies are, they should know what the chain of command is, and they should know the disciplinary process.  My suggestion for disciplinary stuff, is to have a three tiered system.  The first tier is the warning.  If the guard does the same thing a second time, then make a note on their performance evaluation and take one day’s pay.  If the guard does it a third time, then fire him.  Either way you do it, disciplinary programs should be clear, graduated, and the punishments should be fair.  Most of all, disciplinary actions should be consistent and there should be no favoritism.  If there is, it will kill your program.  Too many companies implement a disciplinary system that is either you do well, or we fire you for whatever reason.

   The question to ask with that, is how much money is a company losing by not doing all they can to hang on to guys?  To actually treat them well and listen to what they have to say, as opposed to not caring about them, and reacting with a knee jerk action like firing the guard. An evaluations system, coupled with a fair and effective disciplinary program, is the better way to go.  Taking a guys pay for the day, is money in the company’s pocket and a day of free work.  But when you fire a guy, you have to spend the money to recruit, train, equip, and deploy someone new.  Do the math on that, and turnover is not cost effective.  The three tier disciplinary system I am talking about makes sense and if coupled with a sound company mission statement and evaluations program, you can certainly do great thing to shape and manage your workforce.

   Likewise, a contractor or leader should be able to communicate up the chain of command what is going right and what is going wrong with the company, and that upper management should be responsive to that.  This contractor cares enough about your company, to let you know some deficiencies, the least you could do is listen to what they have to say and thank him or her for coming forward.  If you have a culture that does not allow for this, then how is your company to grow/evolve and continuously improve?  A performance evaluation system, that is properly conducted and gives both sides (contractor and manager) a voice, is vital. Most of all, a company that acts upon this information and really implements changes based on this information is even more important.  Other than that, it is all hot air and ISO-Bologny. –Matt

——————————————————————-

INSIDE WASHINGTON: Oversight lacking on war costs

By RICHARD LARDNER

10/07/2009

WASHINGTON — During a routine check of a watch tower at a U.S. military base in Kuwait, an Army sergeant found the guard leaning back in a chair, his sunglasses on, apparently sound asleep. When the soldier woke the guard, an employee of a defense contractor named Combat Support Associates, he denied he’d dozed off while on duty.

“It’s so weird that I can close my eyes for one second and then you appear out of nowhere,” the guard said, according to the sergeant’s March 2008 inspection report.

The episode illustrates the problems between the U.S. armed forces and the industrial army supporting military operations in Iraq and Afghanistan. Demand for contractor services is heavy, while oversight of their work isn’t. That means problems often aren’t discovered until long after the payments have been made.

A major trouble spot is the business systems and procedures that companies use to bill the government. The numbers are eye-popping. Defense auditors have found at least $6 billion in questionable charges generated by sloppy accounting or, worse, contractors trying to bilk the military.

Yet, the Pentagon has done a poor job of recovering the money and forcing companies to improve, according to the independent Commission on Wartime Contracting. The panel cites dysfunction among auditors and contract managers, a shortage of personnel and a failure to be more confrontational with contractors who don’t measure up.

Based in Orange, Calif., Combat Support Associates is a largely unknown enterprise that, since 1999, has held an Army contract worth $2.7 billion to support U.S. troops at bases in Kuwait as they move in and out of Iraq. The company’s responsibilities include vehicle maintenance, warehousing, computer repairs and post security.

Between 2003 and 2007, when the U.S. invaded Iraq and then became ensnared in a lengthy counterinsurgency, there was little government scrutiny of the company’s business systems, according to interviews and government records obtained by The Associated Press through the Freedom of Information Act.

In late 2007, the military belatedly began paying attention. Numerous contract violations were found, several of them serious, leading to a flood of what contracting officials call corrective action requests. Last fall, the Army Criminal Investigation Command opened an inquiry to determine if Combat Support Associates overbilled the government. The case is ongoing.

The records obtained through FOIA show money flowing to Combat Support Associates despite an alarming catalog of problems later uncovered by Army contracting officials.

In one case, the company signed a $48 million deal with a Kuwaiti company to provide food, lodging and transportation for employees, but it did no detailed study to justify such a large expense. A memorandum supporting the buy included a price analysis three sentences long, which an Army review team called a “major systemic weakness.”

The documents detail other deficiencies. The company failed to properly secure classified communications gear and weapons stored in warehouses. And it was written up for having no system in place to check the identification of contract employees — who are often not American citizens — at U.S. maintenance facilities in Kuwait.

In the past two years alone, Combat Support Associates received dozens of warnings from the government to improve performance, the records show. Several of those have been Level Three warnings, which are issued only in cases of serious noncompliance with the terms of a contract.

None of this appears to have dented the company’s bottom line, however. Over the past decade, its performance has been rated as excellent, very good or good, according to the Army Sustainment Command in Rock Island, Ill. With those marks, Combat Support Associates has earned close to $90 million.

Part of the problem is a type of government contract that critics say diminishes the incentive for companies to keep down costs. The government agrees to reimburse the contractor for expenses, such as costs for equipment, leasing space and hiring subcontractors, plus a prearranged amount for profit.

For the military, however, these so-called cost-plus contracts are useful in wartime, when it can’t precisely define all the work that needs to be done.

Gary Lewi, a spokesman for Combat Support Associates, said all of the corrective action warnings have been or are in the process of being resolved to the “satisfaction of the client.”

As for the sleeping guard? He resigned, said Lewi, who provided no further details.

How the company’s contract will fare is up in the air. It expires in March, and Army officials say they’re contemplating changes in how they handle the base support work.

Jeffrey Parsons, executive director of the Army Contracting Command at Fort Belvoir, Va., said he expects the arrangement to be broken up into smaller, more manageable pieces that will generate competition and improve performance.

Story here.

——————————————————————-

Mission & History of CSA Kuwait

In July 1999, the U.S. Army selected CSA as the contractor offering the best value to the government in providing services under the Combat Services Support Contract – Kuwait (CSSC-K). The current contract is a 10-year effort with a base year and nine option years that run through September 2009. On 8 May 2009 CSA signed a contract modification that extends the current contract by six months for a Period of Performance of 1 October 2009 to 31 March 2010.

Combat Support Associates and CSA, Ltd. brought together an experienced and cost-effective international workforce consisting of more than 24 nationalities, all working toward one goal: unlimited excellence. Employees at all levels have dedicated themselves to a wide range of assignments, including:

• maintaining tactical equipment, such as tanks

• supporting information systems

• conducting force-on-force and live-fire exercise and training programs

• providing security, environmental services and uniforms

• organizing recreational programs and special events for soldiers

The terrorist attacks in the United States on Sept. 11, 2001 significantly expanded the number of ground forces stationed in Kuwait. The dynamics of responding to the immediate increase in equipment, logistics and soldier needs were tests that Combat Support Associates and CSA, Ltd. passed with flying colors. That January and continuing through 2002, equipment from Europe and Qatar was shipped to Kuwait, and Combat Support Associates and CSA, Ltd. employees made all deadlines to prepare it for issue. From November 2002 to February 2003, Combat Support Associates and CSA, Ltd. responded flawlessly to soldier service and activity needs; the 3rd Infantry Division proceeded to the Kuwait/Iraqi border with equipment issued by the company. On March 19, 2003, U.S. ground military operations against Iraq began. The company was a tried and tested workforce that had responded to every need of its U.S. Army Central Command –Kuwait (ARCENT-KU) customer, and this commitment continued in war. CSSC-K workers braved more than 20 sounded alerts as missiles were inbound for Kuwait and U.S. Patriot missiles were fired in response. Whether doing office work, sitting behind a computer, working on a tank in the shops with temperatures in excess of 90 degrees, or working outside in dust storms, Combat Support Associates and CSA, Ltd. employees were characterized by their dedication and determination.

The company is in its ninth year of supporting the largest troop movement since WWII. Preceded by a strong eight-year track record, the company is moving ahead with ever-increasing responsibilities, distinguished by its reputation for delivering service that is “unlimited in quality.”

Our Strengths:

• Committed to our military customers

• Flexible and responsive

• Tested and proven during war with Iraq

• Certified ISO 9001:2000

7 Tenets of Excellence

The 7 Tenets are Combat Support Associate’s and CSA, Ltd.’s core beliefs, the business and moral codes to turn to whenever there’s a question of conduct or “the big picture.” This is who we are, what we’re here for, and our umbrella goals, in short order.

Code of Conduct

Always maintain the highest moral and ethical standards, on or off the job. There is no room for compromise.

Safety Always

Nothing we do warrants the risk of loss of life, limb or eyesight.

ASG-KU Customer Service

Be responsive, innovative, efficient and cost-effective without compromising the quality of service. Always treat the customer with the highest degree of respect.

Teamwork

Common goals are the building blocks of a strong company. Team with a reputation for excellence. Maintain a positive work environment and look out for one another.

Employee Accountability

Understand your individual duties and responsibilities as well as the important contribution you make to the Combat Support Associates and CSA, Ltd. Team. Execute your job to an excellent professional standard, with or without supervision.

Always Improving

Within the framework of the Statement of Work, look for ways to provide ever-better service to our customer.

Materiel/Property Accountability

Fully account for all property including supplies, equipment and facilities.

Website for CSA here.