Feral Jundi

Wednesday, December 28, 2011

Industry Talk: Civilians To Guard Marine Base In Afghanistan

This is fantastic news. Check this out. In the solicitation below, they are going to use ‘Best Value Criteria’ for the selection of what company they will go with. So that means they will not be selecting companies by who is the ‘lowest priced and technically acceptable’, or what I call the lowest bidder. Outstanding news and this is exactly what I and others have been harping on for awhile now.

You don’t pick your doctor based on who is the ‘lowest priced, technically acceptable’ and it does not make sense to pick a security company like that either. In both cases, lives are at risk and at Camp Leatherneck, our Marines deserve better.

Now of course this also requires the government to do their due diligence and actually find a good company to do business with. And if they can implement key components into the contract to either keep that company in check, or have the means to get rid of them and go with a better partner, then they should exercise that option. They should also work hard and really understand the dynamics of the company and how they treat their people, once they are hiring and fielding folks. A company can talk a great game, but the proof is in the pudding. And the test is if the base security is sound and the services delivered are exactly what the contract stipulates.

The thing the government should also focus on is the happiness of the guards themselves. Are they getting paid what they were promised, is the company treating them fairly, are they paying their people on time, are they pleased with the living conditions, are they happy with their leadership, is the company giving them good weapons and kit, and is the company doing all they can to take care of their people. Because if you have a happy guard force, then they will work that much harder to keep their job and do well on that contract. Sure it is a war zone and there will be some discomfort with the assigned duties and the environment itself, but there are still a lot of areas that a company can control and do well at in order to keep their folks happy.

The government should also focus on the leadership out in the field and ask them if they are getting the support necessary from headquarters? You get some of these companies that could care less about their managers out in the field, and are horrible at supporting them when for example they are trying to discipline a contractor or get certain equipment that is vital to the mission. Like I said, headquarters should be purely focused on making sure their people on the ground in that war zone are happy and taken care of. If not, then that is when you get the high attrition rate or you have leaders and workers that slack off and could care less about doing a good job. You also have a hard time properly managing these contracts if you have folks that are constantly leaving because they hate working for the company.

The other thing about this contract that perked me up is that they will be fielding 166 guards, and those guards are all to be vetted with a secret security clearance and come from the US or Commonwealth nations. That is great, and that means you will not see a TWISS deal for this contract where Ugandans or similar contractors are guarding the facility.

This is the first such requirement recognized at a Marine Corps installation that requires a higher force-protection standard; therefore, this procurement will be restricted to the citizens of the United States, United Kingdom, Australia, New Zealand, or Canada (FVEY EXPAT). This procurement will contain Classified Information. Therefore, Offerors must also have a current facility clearance, have the appropriate business licenses to carry arms, and operate as a business in Afghanistan.

The other element of this contract that is interesting to me is the weapons. For this deal, contractors will be operating some serious firepower. Which is great, and that is the way it should be. It also explains why there is more of a focus on a ‘higher force-protection standard’.

Personnel will be expected to wear body armor, man security towers and be familiar with the M16A4 rifle, M4 carbine and M9 pistol, plus crew-served weapons such as the M240B heavy machine gun and M2 .50-caliber machine gun. A typical workweek will last up to 72 hours, military documents said.

I wouldn’t mind seeing some mortars or even a Carl Gustav or two thrown in there? Why not some Mk 19’s as well? I mean if you are going to give contractors M 240B’s and M2’s, then why not give them as many tools as necessary to get the job done? But if the Marines feel this appropriate for the base defense, or that maybe a military unit will be manning the bigger more lethal stuff, then that is fine.

Oh, and one more thing. I personally like the guard shift system of three shifts of eight hours. The 12 hour shift is too long and I question how sharp guards can actually be after doing 12 hour shifts for multiple months? Having worked both types of shifts, it is my opinion that the 8 hour shift is the optimum schedule for keeping a guard force happy and sharp. It also helps to have one day off a week, just so guards can disconnect from the job and just relax. It is little things like that, that will make all the difference in the world on these contracts. Either way, I am glad to see that someone is listening to reason when it comes to these contracts. –Matt

 

Civilians to guard Marine base in Afghanistan
By Dan Lamothe
Wednesday Dec 28, 2011
U.S. commanders want civilian contractors to provide military security at the Marine Corps’ largest base in Afghanistan as a planned withdrawal of U.S. forces from the war-torn country expands.
The contracted security personnel will guard Camp Leatherneck, the sprawling, 1,500-acre-plus installation that serves as the Corps’ main hub of operations in Helmand province and home to II Marine Expeditionary Force (Forward), commanded by Maj. Gen. John Toolan. To date, coalition forces have handled security at Leatherneck, but commanders have discussed using contractors for months in anticipation of a smaller Marine footprint, said Lt. Col. Riccoh Player, a Marine spokesman at Leatherneck.

(more…)

Thursday, December 22, 2011

Legal News: A Former Security Guard Files A Class Action Against SOC

Filed under: Legal News — Tags: , , , , , — Matt @ 10:55 PM

This is interesting because it details a little bit of the recruiting practices of this company. I have heard about the 65,000 a year dollar number thrown around before, but I did not know that SOC was playing around with the numbers like this. Here is the quote:

Risinger, a California resident, says he was hired in 2010 to work as an armed guard at a Baghdad military base , on a 1-year assignment for a flat salary of $65,000. But when he and others arrived in Iraq, he says they were told that the salary was “calculated based upon a $17.36 hourly rate, which hourly rate would dictate class members’ actual pay based upon ‘the number of hours on your time sheet.’ At that hourly rate, without overtime, an employee would earn $36,108 a year. A worker would have to work 72 hours a week at straight time to earn $65,000 a year.

That sounds a lot like the whole ‘bait and switch game’. Meaning they recruit folks with the idea that they would get a specific amount, and then once in the war zone, they would clarify what the individual would really make. Which usually would be less money than originally offered. The IC has the option to suck it up and take the pay cut, or get on a plane and go back home. The companies usually bank on the idea that the IC will just suck it up and stay.

Although the problem with this is that usually this practice creates disgruntled workers, and with good reason. So then you have guys working the contract that could care less about doing a good job, who do not trust the company, and are doing all they can to secure another job somewhere else.

That is a horrible way to do business, and any company that thinks this is an acceptable practice is wrong. You might save a little money in the short term, but you will lose money because you have to keep hiring new guys and fly them over all of the time to deal with high attrition. Not only that, but you are in constant threat of default on contract because you have IC’s that could at any time just leave because they do not want to work for the company. You also lose out on company reputation, and you lose the most valuable asset a company could have–experienced good leaders.

Experienced good leaders are the ones that believe in the company and contract, and have stayed around long enough to know the job really well and know how to manage it. They are also good at leading people, and making sure everyone is happy and doing the job. Any company that has set up a system that does not grow and keep experienced good leaders, will certainly suffer the consequences of such poor practices.

Also, if the government was focused more on best value contracting, and stopped this practice of lowest priced technically acceptable contracting, then they could actually pick companies based on how they treat their people. A contracting officer should be able to take a look at the attrition rate of any company and ask, is this the kind of company we want protecting our camps in the war zones?  And what causes such a high attrition rate within this company?  Or even ask if the IC’s of that company are happy to be there and like the company they are working for?  If the contracting officer is getting some intense negative feedback from a multitude of disgruntled IC’s who do not trust the company, then that might be a sign that the company is not exactly the best folks to do business with. –Matt

Edit: 01/01/2012 By the way folks, the lawyer for this particular class action is reaching out to all former or current SOC contractors and employees listed within a specific time frame. If the case is successful, then expect to get a piece of the settlement or award if you are within that group. Here is the email he was sending out.

We have brought a class action lawsuit on behalf of all SOC employees (former and current) who worked for the Company between December 19, 2009 and December 19, 2011 for unpaid wages, including overtime, rest breaks, meal breaks and possible other items like medical expenses. While the class action process can be slow, we expect to be obtaining from SOC within the next 6 months the names of all individuals that would make up the class of employees. In the meantime, I am also keeping record of all persons, like yourself, who have experienced the labor code violations we allege in the complaint so that I can cross-check the list we get from SOC with the names of the people we have been contacted by to make sure that you are included in the class and any settlement unless you choose not to be a part of it. There may come a time when I do need to get declarations from persons like you to support the case and when that happens, I will certainly reach out to you.

Best, Scott

Scott E. Gizer- Partner Early Sullivan Wright Gizer & McRae LLP,  sgizer@earlysullivan.com www.earlysullivan.com phone: 702 990 3629

 

Ripped Off in Iraq, Class of Guards Claims
By NICK DIVITO
Wednesday, December 21, 2011

A private security guard in Iraq says in a class action that his employer SOC Nevada made its employees work up to 12 hours a day, seven days a week, in “ultrahazardous conditions” without overtime pay or breaks.    “SOC’s core mission changed from ‘Securing Our Country’ to ‘Lining Its Pockets’ when it began to recruit employees … under false promises of a fixed salary and scheduled with time off,” lead plaintiff Karl Risinger says in the complaint in Clark County Court.     “[D]ue to a lack of adequate staffing driven by corporate greed,” SOC subjected its armed guards to “undue risk by jeopardizing the physical and psychological condition of the class members in the course of ultra-hazardous activities,” the complaint states.

(more…)

Powered by WordPress