Feral Jundi

Monday, August 29, 2011

Industry Talk: FBO News–USSOCOM Looking For More Afghan Guards

Filed under: Afghanistan,Industry Talk — Tags: , , , , , — Matt @ 12:41 PM

Thanks to Danger Room for the heads up on this FBO solicitation. This sounds like a continuation of what USSOCOM has already been doing in Afghanistan. (I posted in the past about other contract guard force solicitations that USSOCOM made)

Now one thing that kills me here is that I still haven’t a clue as to what the deal is with PSC licenses in Afghanistan? The solicitation says that it will only do business with companies that are licensed by the Ministry of Interior, and registered with the Ministry of Transportation. Well on the MOI website, there is nothing linked at all about what companies are licensed?

So my suggestion to whomever is helping the Afghans run their website, or assisting the MOI, is to get them to set up a section on PSC’s and post what companies are authorized. Then the public and media will know exactly what companies to watch, and what companies the government supports through a license. It’s called transparency.

It would also be cool to see a blog set up on this, and then the government can actually introduce new companies that are licensed, or discuss where the government is at with the licensing process. Because from what I have heard, this licensing deal has been a huge pain in the neck for companies out there–both foreign and domestic.

I would also set up a tip line run by a third party, so that folks who have information about licensed companies can communicate those concerns. That third party could be a US inspector general or similar federal official that is tasked with helping the MOI. Using a contractor for that could be a conflict of interest. Either way, making the list and process open would help out big time. –Matt

Private Security Contract
Solicitation Number: H92237-11-R-1324_PSC_Gizab
Agency: Other Defense Agencies
Office: U.S. Special Operations Command
Location: Headquarters Field Assistance Division
Notice Type: Combined Synopsis/Solicitation
Posted Date: August 29, 2011
Response Date: Sep 10, 2011 2:30 am Eastern
Archiving Policy: Automatic, 15 days after response date
Archive Date: September 25, 2011
Original Set Aside: N/A
Set Aside: N/A
Classification Code: R — Professional, administrative, and management support services
NAICS Code: 561 — Administrative and Support Services/561612 — Security Guards and Patrol Services
Synopsis:
Added: Aug 29, 2011 7:07 am
***ONLY CONTRACTORS THAT HOLD A CURRENT AFGHANISTAN MINISTRY OF INTERIOR PERSONAL SECURITY LICENSE AND ARE LICENSED / REGISTERED WITH THE AFGHANISTAN MINISTRY OF TRADE WILL BE CONSIDERED FOR AWARD, OFFERORS WHO DO NOT POSSESS THESE QUALIFICATIONS ARE RESPECTFULLY ASKED TO NOT RESPOND TO THIS REQUEST FOR PROPOSAL***

(more…)

Tuesday, August 23, 2011

Legal News: Philip Young To Be Released!

Filed under: Afghanistan,Legal News,South Africa — Tags: , , , , — Matt @ 5:47 PM

This is fantastic news and I really hope this turns out to be true.  Philip Young is a South African security contractor that has been detained unlawfully, and has been a prisoner of Afghanistan’s legal system. His case was clearly a self defense shooting against an armed combatant. To imprison him was wrong, pure and simple. Here is a quote from the Justice 4 Philip Young page on Facebook.

Imminent release Confirmed. May be out of here as early as next week. Just waiting for the admin to get done.

So we will see and thanks to Debbie at Facebook for giving me the heads up on this. There are a lot of people out there that will be happy to hear this. As more information comes up, I will make the edit. –Matt

Tuesday, August 16, 2011

Industry Talk: Four Guards At Supreme Are Killed In Suicide Assaulter Attack Near Kandahar Airfield

Filed under: Afghanistan,Industry Talk — Tags: , , , , , — Matt @ 12:08 PM

Rest in peace to these fallen guards. Afghan security contractors have definitely paid a high price in Afghanistan.

Although this attack is interesting in that it came out right after this bit of news about the Host Nation Trucking contracts. Was this an attack designed to take out the competition? Who knows, but maybe someone out there has a better idea?

The other thing I wanted to point out is that they stopped the attackers at the front gate. The two bombers may have blown up that front gate and killed four guards, but the other security forces were able to neutralize the third bomber in a firefight and stop them at the breach. A tragic loss of life, but they definitely stopped the attack from reaching the client. That is awesome and Til Valhall. –Matt

 

Four die in Taliban attack near Afghan NATO base
By Mamoon Durrani
8/15/2011
Four security guards died Monday as suicide bombers targeted a fuel depot for NATO-led forces close to one of Afghanistan’s biggest bases, where thousands of foreign troops are stationed.
The attack happened at a facility belonging to logistics company Supreme, near the sprawling Kandahar airfield, which acts as a hub for troop operations across south Afghanistan, the Taliban’s heartland and focus of the war.
The police commander for southern Afghanistan, General Salem Ihsas, said four Afghan guards working for a private security firm were killed in the assault, which happened at around 9:00 pm (1630 GMT).
He said eight other guards — three from Nepal and five from Afghanistan — were also wounded.
Taliban spokesman Qari Yousuf Ahmadi said the militant group was behind the attack in a telephone call from an undisclosed location.
The insurgents frequently target organisations, both foreign and Afghan, which work with the 140,000-strong foreign military in Afghanistan as well as fuel convoys and tankers supplying the international force.
The NATO-led International Security Assistance Force (ISAF) relies on contractors to provide a wide range of services in Afghanistan, particularly at large hub bases such as Kandahar airfield.
Ihsas said three suicide bombers were behind the attack, with two blowing themselves up at the compound gates and a third shot dead by security forces in a gun battle.
The fighting is now over and “we are in control,” Ihsas said, adding the suicide bombers had not managed to get inside the compound.

(more…)

Monday, August 15, 2011

Publications: 32 CFR Part 159 Private Security Contractors Operating In Contingency Operations

Filed under: Industry Talk,Publications — Tags: , , , , , , — Matt @ 11:31 AM

This is important to put out there just because there might be some little tweaks to the way things were usually done. So what I would like to do is put this out there, and if anyone has any commentary on the document, you can say so in the comments section. And because FJ gets top search in Google for stuff like this, I guarantee that folks will read what you have to say if they are interested in the document. Here is a snippet of the Summary:

This Rule establishes policy, assigns responsibilities and provides procedures for the regulation of the selection, accountability, training, equipping, and conduct of personnel performing private security functions under a covered contract during contingency operations, combat operations or other significant military operations. It also assigns responsibilities and establishes procedures for incident reporting, use of and accountability for equipment, rules for the use of force, and a process for administrative action or the removal, as appropriate, of PSCs and PSC personnel. For the Department of Defense, this Rule supplements DoD Instruction 3020.41, “Contractor Personnel Authorized to Accompany the U.S. Armed Forces,” which provides guidance for all DoD contractors operating in contingency operations.Show citation box

This Rule was published as an Interim Final Rule on July 17, 2009 because there was insufficient policy and guidance regulating the actions of DoD and other governmental PSCs and their movements in operational areas. This Rule ensures compliance with laws and regulations pertaining to Inherently Governmental functions, and ensures proper performance by armed contractors.

Check it out and let me know what you think? I thought the comments and answers in this document were interesting. Although my first critique here is that I had no idea about the comments process, and that they would actually answer them in the document? I could have given a heads up here and on Facebook about this document and encouraged them to ask for clarification about rules. After all, it is our industry this thing impacts. As other articles and posts come up about this publication, I will make the edit. –Matt

Edit: 8/11/2011– DOD finalizes requirements for use of private security firms, by Jill Aitoro

 

32 CFR Part 159 Private Security Contractors (PSCs) Operating in Contingency Operations, Combat Operations …

Monday, August 8, 2011

Military News: 38 Killed In Helicopter Crash In Afghanistan

Filed under: Afghanistan,Aviation,Military News — Tags: , , , — Matt @ 3:19 PM

Til Valhall to those who perished in this incident. You will not be forgotten, and your contribution to the cause in Afghanistan was profound and honorable. My heart also goes out to the friends and family of the fallen, both in Afghanistan and in the US.

As far as what exactly happened is up to the military investigators to reveal. So I will not get into any speculation as to the weapons used by the Taliban, or who to blame for any operational screw ups. It could be that this shot was the Golden BB, or the lucky shot. Or it could be something that was planned and well coordinated using advanced weapons. Who knows, and it is all speculation until the final reports come out as to what exactly happened. –Matt

 

« Newer Posts — Older Posts »

Powered by WordPress