Feral Jundi

Wednesday, September 26, 2012

Industry Talk: The Muscogee Nation Uses Native 8(a) To Win A Guard Contract In Afghanistan

Building on the Afghanistan contract, MNBE has sent representatives to security industry expos in Dubai and is preparing to attend a similar expo in Ethiopia, hoping to gin up similar contracts to the one in Afghanistan. “Where some of the same things that we’ve been doing [in Afghanistan], they’re going to be looking at some of those same opportunities in” the Middle East and Africa, said Anderson.

Very cool. Although we will see if they are able to deliver on this particular contract now that they are doing it all themselves. In the past, it sounds like they subcontracted this type of thing to Ronco. But it also sounds like most of the Ronco guys stayed on to work with MNBE.

According to the article, not all of the contractors they are using are tribal folks as well. They were also able to obtain this contract because of the Native 8(a) program that gives preference to tribal owned businesses. Here is a quote:

However, according to MNBE’s CEO, Woody Anderson, the small firm owned by the Muscogee Nation Indian tribe is indeed protecting U.S. military projects in Afghanistan. “The people that we have in this contract here are our employees; they’re not Ronco employees,” Anderson told FP during a Sept. 21 telephone interview.
While the actual bodyguards working for MNBE aren’t members of the Muscogee tribe, some of the technicians who install cameras and other security gear in Afghanistan are, according to Anderson, who says that, of MBNE’s hundred-plus employees, about a dozen are tribe members.
For the last two years, MBNE partnered with Ronco to provide security to the Pentagon’s Task Force for Business and Sustainability Operations in Afghanistan, learning what it takes to run a private security outfit in a war zone and recruiting former military commandos to staff its security teams.
“The 8(a) program was an opportunity to get our foot in the door,” said Anderson; now, MBNE is striking out on its own.

On their website I have not see any specific ads for their Afghanistan deal, but send them a resume and you never know? If anyone from the company would like to comment on the company or contract, feel free to do so in the comments. –Matt

Website for the Muscogee Nation Business Enterprise here.

 

 

Tribal Warfare
Why did the Pentagon award a $7 million Afghanistan security contract to this group of Native Americans in Oklahoma?
BY JOHN REED
SEPTEMBER 25, 2012
The Muscogee Nation, part of the Creek Indian tribe, which fought with Confederate troops against the U.S. military during the Civil War, is now guarding Americans stationed at U.S. bases in Herat and Helmand, Afghanistan, under a $7 million Pentagon contract. The Muscogee Nation Business Enterprise (MBNE) is a 100-person firm that has in the past used its status as a tribal-owned company to win government business, some of which it then subcontracted to a larger security company, but it says that its employees are fulfilling this contract, providing security in a war zone.
Neither MBNE nor the Pentagon would provide specifics about the deal, citing security concerns. But, according to the contract announcement, made August 9, MBNE is “to provide life support services to the Department of Defense Task Force for Business and Stability Operations in Afghanistan. These services will include basic necessities, complex security, and personnel security details for safe travel in the immediate region around the Herat and Helmand facilities.”
The task force is a U.S. military organization charged with building up Afghan industries, particularly mining, agribusiness, and IT in order to “help Afghanistan achieve economic sovereignty,” according to a Pentagon website.
Given its small size, at first glance the notion that MBNE is protecting U.S. efforts in Afghanistan — a business dominated by large private security firms — seems implausible. Experts contacted about the contract initially speculated that MBNE might be a so-called pass-through firm.

(more…)

Monday, July 9, 2012

Industry Talk: Concern Mounts Over Potential Shortage Of Security Guards For London Olympics

Filed under: Industry Talk,United Kingdom — Tags: , , , , — Matt @ 11:25 AM

“We have had some challenges on workforce scheduling this week, which we have discussed with Locog [the organising committee] and expect to resolve soon,” said the spokesman. “At no time was security at the Olympic Park or other venues under threat.”
G4S said the problems related to scheduling issues and getting people in the right place at the right time, but the firm said it was confident it would have sufficient trained and accredited guards by the time the games begin.
The company said it was always part of the contract that the security workforce would be in training until the last week of preparations. The Guardian understands that this was an issue that emerged during contract negotiations. It would have cost more to train the guards earlier. Under pressure not to further increase a security budget that has doubled to £533m, the government agreed to the “just-in-time” approach.

This is one of those classic cases where a company is approached to deliver a service that is right on the line of ‘possible/but difficult’. And of course the client wants to pay £284m and have the guards trained and delivered the last minute, versus paying the £533m and doing this right. Not a lot of room for error in this deal.

Now what has to happen is G4S has to deliver or they will be getting a black eye on this one. The client will be sweating this thing all the way up until the end, and will certainly get a black eye if this security is not delivered. I certainly hope it works out for all the parties involved, but usually when you compromise because of cost, you end up paying some kind of price in the end…. –Matt

 

London 2012: concern mounts over potential shortage of security guards
Private security firm G4S still needs to train and accredit 9,000 more guards, according to security sources.
Robert Booth
8 July 2012
G4S is contracted to supply 13,700 guards to protect Olympic venues.
The private security company being paid nearly £300m to guard the London 2012 Olympics has yet to fully train or accredit thousands of security guards needed to protect the games from terrorist attack, it has emerged.
Ministers are anxious that with three weeks left until the opening ceremony, only half the guards needed to guarantee fully staffed patrols of the entrances to venues and carry out other security duties are ready to start work.
The home secretary, Theresa May, has stepped in amid growing concern that additional military personnel may be needed to make up the shortfall. It is understood May called senior G4S executives on Friday after the firm failed to supply enough staff for patrols last week at venues in the Olympic park in east London.
G4S, the private security contractor hired to supply 13,700 guards, still needs to train and accredit about 9,000 guards, according to a security source familiar with preparations. Organisers believe G4S needs at least 19,000 security guards to fulfil its £284m contract, which requires 10,400 licenced guards and 3,300 students. The extra guards are needed as a buffer when staff fail to turn up or fail security screening. G4S will also manage 7,500 military personnel and 2,500 volunteers.

(more…)

Wednesday, May 23, 2012

Iraq: Exxon Mobil Leads The Charge North, As The Shine Of The South Wears Off

Filed under: Industry Talk,Iraq — Tags: , , , , , — Matt @ 1:49 PM

Iraq has ambitious plans to develop its huge southern oilfields – potentially the world’s biggest source of new oil over the next few years – and few oil firms dare risk being barred from such a bonanza by angering Baghdad.
But increasingly, some executives say, Kurdistan’s potential is also coming up in boardroom discussions, as sluggish output, red tape and infrastructure bottlenecks in the south take some of the shine off the central government’s oil program.
Oil majors are now waiting on the sidelines, watching the outcome of Exxon’s balancing act between Baghdad and Arbil, the northern capital. France’s Total is the latest company to provoke Baghdad’s ire by acknowledging interest in Kurdistan.
“What companies are trying to do is get to the point where they are investing in the north and the south,” said one industry source working in Iraq……Firms have experienced problems getting visas for contractors and security staff, delays in bringing in armored vehicles and holdups securing operating licenses. Such hassles make Kurdistan’s offerings look more tempting by comparison.

“Every delay we face cuts off a significant part of the internal rate of return,” said one oil company source. “Sometimes I wonder if we picked the wrong region.”

This is some interesting business going on in Iraq. Oil companies are playing a risky game in Iraq, and yet they are the actors that will more than likely drive Iraq to ‘pull it together’. It also looks like Exxon Mobil is leading the charge in this game as well.

I say this, because the divisions in Iraqi parliament/central government, along with corruption, is causing oil companies to seek safer and more stable leadership/relationships to do business with in order to keep extracting and shipping oil. For example, Exxon has signed contracts both in the North and the South, and it looks like they are starting to lean more towards moving north with the hopes that this will send a message to parliament. Of course parliament reacted by saying they cannot bid on any more contracts in the south.

The other area of interest with this, are the contracts signed in the disputed areas. Specifically the area near Mosul, which is the second largest city in Iraq.  I could see Exxon having all sorts of problems in that region unless some serious deals were made, and I was curious as to what the motivation was?  Perhaps the clues are in the state of affairs within the city itself. Check this quote from an interview with Mosul’s governor?

Mosul is an agricultural and oil region. However, it cannot properly and sufficiently use Iraq’s oil revenues. Mosul is also uncomfortable with the recent agreements between foreign oil companies and Arbil to extract oil from Mosul’s soil. For instance, Exxon-Mobil signed a contract with the KRG despite the fact that the site it will explore for oil is in Mosul. Nujaifi is holding talks with Exxon-Mobil and the KRG to resolve this problem. In addition, under the Iraqi constitution, Mosul should get 11 percent of Iraq’s oil revenue. However, it receives only 2 percent. According to Nujaifi, if the oil bill is not adopted and the oil revenues are not distributed evenly by the provinces, a political crisis will erupt. The poverty rate in Mosul is 23 percent, whereas it is 3 percent in the KRG. Nujaifi notes that the rising tension along the borders of Mosul is creating tension for them as well. As the KRG becomes more popular, it is impossible to explain the recent state of backwardness in Mosul.

I highlighted the key parts in this quote, and I think that is most significant. With poverty as high as it is, and a neighbor like KRG enjoying the good life, who do you think Mosul will want to do business with?  Especially if Iraq is only giving Mosul 2 % of Iraq’s oil revenue.  They are definitely getting the short end stick in this deal, and either the South pays up, or Mosul will probably join the Exxon party.

Also, the news of Kurdistan signing a deal with Turkey for a new pipeline that would completely shut out Baghdad is definitely some news to talk about here. That would mean they would have a way to capitalize on oil extraction without paying Baghdad. They could possibly bring cities like Mosul into the mix with this pipeline, and especially if Mosul can capture a better deal.

On Sunday, Iraqi Kurdistan unveiled an agreement to sell oil through Turkey into the international markets, thereby leaving Baghdad completely out of the loop. The Kurdish oil minister Ashti Hawrami said Iraqi Kurdistan will construct a huge 1 million barrel per day pipeline over the next 12 months through which oil and gas will be carried through Turkey.
“We envisage the building of a new pipeline taking Kurdistan’s oil, particularly the heavier component part to Cihan,” Hawrami said at a conference with Taner Yildez, the Turkish energy minister.
Baghdad believes such an arrangement contravenes Iraqi laws, while Kurds assert they can sign any contract regarding their natural resources according to the terms of the constitution.

Oil fields like this also provide jobs to the locals and infuse money into the local economy. Security will be crucial–which means local security companies will be a huge player in this. (although if you look at how MEND operates in Nigeria, you could see the same thing happening in Mosul with insurgents) The question here is would Baghdad send the troops to protect these oil fields? lol Probably not, unless they are included in the oil deal. That is where this get’s interesting, and I am sure criminal groups and insurgents are looking at how they could use this to their advantage.

The other thing to look at is if Exxon and other oil companies have another pipeline they can use, that is being managed by a government that knows what it is doing and is stable, then I could totally see how this would be a better bet for those companies.  This is also another signal to Baghdad that ‘hey guys, if you come together and square away your house, then you too can enjoy the same prosperity as the Kurds’.

Or, the Iraqi government can try to exert influence or pull some military moves up north, but good luck there. lol The Peshmerga and terrain will dictate otherwise.

So we will see how it goes. My guess is that Exxon and others will continue to play the North against South in order to keep extracting. They will keep these two players of the country competing for these companies and their capability. That back and forth interaction, might be the kind of business that will force the country to square itself away in order to finally realize their oil extraction goals. The alternative is to be driven apart.

There is a lot of money in the ground, and if Iraq wants it, it will have to do business with the companies that know how to get it out and into the market. That takes compromise and leadership, and a divided parliament and corrupt government in the south will only force companies to take the path of least resistance. –Matt

 

 

Analysis: In Iraq, oil majors play north versus south
By Patrick Markey and Peg Mackey
Thu Apr 5, 2012
In the weeks before Iraqi Kurdistan revealed that Exxon Mobil had signed up to explore for oil there, executives at rival Shell faced a dilemma over whether or not to join the U.S. oil major in its foray north and risk angering Baghdad.
The fields in the autonomous region offered rich potential, an easier working environment, better security and attractive contracts. That seemed a winning combination for smaller oil companies already working there, such as Norway’s DNO, even though they struggled to collect profits.
But at the 11th hour, industry sources say, Royal Dutch Shell backed out and decided to focus on a $17 billion gas deal in the south rather than sign exploration contracts with the Kurdish Regional Government, which the central government could dismiss as illegal and could prompt reprisals.
Shell’s caution, Exxon’s silence on its deals and this week’s renewed dispute between Baghdad and Kurdistan over export payments reveal how delicate is the balance companies must manage between a central government and a Kurdish authority locked in a struggle over who controls Iraq’s vast oil wealth.
The dispute over oil is at the heart of a wider disagreement between Iraq’s central government in Baghdad and the Kurdish region, which are also increasingly at odds over regional autonomy, land and political influence.
Iraq has ambitious plans to develop its huge southern oilfields – potentially the world’s biggest source of new oil over the next few years – and few oil firms dare risk being barred from such a bonanza by angering Baghdad.

(more…)

Friday, May 4, 2012

Industry Talk: KBR In Bidding To Privatize British Police Forces

Filed under: Industry Talk,Law Enforcement,United Kingdom — Tags: , , , , , — Matt @ 5:37 PM

This is an interesting one, just because of the shock that the British press is having about KBR getting involved with the bidding. But of course, this is the British office of KBR bidding on this, and that is why they are able to participate. But check out this title of an article written in the Guardian.

Guantánamo Bay contractor on shortlist to run UK police services

US firm KBR, which helped build detention camp, among consortiums bidding to run police services in West Midlands and Surrey

Now that is funny.  Really emphasize the fact that KBR built that prison…Dorks. From the same article, here is a statement from KBR.

“KBR is not involved in policing, our objective in the privatisation of the police force is to get more police doing actual police work while KBR brings operational efficiencies to the back office with the objective of achieving an overall lower cost of service while improving service levels,” said a spokesman. “We are an operational support company whose capabilities are transferable to critical, uniformed, command-led environments such as the police.”

Not only that, but I don’t see the US press having a fit when Aegis (the US branch) bids and gets US contracts. Hell, they won a massive contract in the early days of Iraq, funded by US tax dollars, and that is what put Aegis on the map.lol Or how about the Embassy in Afghanistan contract (KESF contract, and check out news about it at SOCNET), which is currently in the process of transitioning from AGNA to Aegis. Aegis of course is owned by Tim Spicer of Sandline fame, and that company had history too–just like KBR.

So with that said, I wish KBR luck and I certainly hope the bidding process and following contracts give these British police forces a good service. I also wish Aegis good luck with the US embassy contract. –Matt

 

US military-industrial giant KBR in bidding to privatize British police forces
May 02, 2012
Giant US military-industrial company Kellogg Brown & Root (KBR) is in the running to win a slice of a controversial £1.5 billion (US$2.43 billion) contract to transform the West Midlands and Surrey police forces in Britain, The (London) Times reported.

Hailed as the largest police privatization scheme in the UK, it has been suggested the private companies who win the contract will be tasked to perform several police functions — including patrols, detention and criminal investigation.

KBR, a former subsidiary of the Halliburton group, has attracted its share of criticism over the large contracts it won with the US government during the recent wars in Afghanistan and Iraq. The corporation also helped to build the Guantanamo Bay detention facility.

The Times reported that it was among four groups shortlisted to win the British police contract, a number whittled down from more than 200.

A KBR spokesman said its bid was the first time the corporation had attempted to get involved in regular policing.

(more…)

Thursday, March 29, 2012

Maritime Security: BIMCO Publishes Much Anticipated GUARDCON Contract

This is great news. BIMCO is the largest shipping association out there, and with it’s large membership pool, it has some pull. So when they come up with a standard contract for armed guards on boats, then that helps to create a single standard that all of the companies, lawyers and insurance providers can work from. This is important, because with a standard like this there is no guess work. Either your company meets the standard, or it does not. A standardized contract also helps to mitigate the principal agent problem, and it is a means to protect the interest of both parties.

As to commentary on the GUARDCON Contract, I would head over to Close Protection World’s Maritime Security Forum. The guys are already discussing it and it’s possible impact on the industry.

On a side note, it is interesting to me that a NGO like BIMCO has the ability to determine the appropriate rules for the use of force, and basically guide all of their members to use those rules. I am used to countries and their military leaders dictating what the appropriate rules are, just because they have the monopoly on the use of force throughout the world. In this case, a NGO is now dictating that. What an odd set of circumstances… –Matt

Copies and Information about GUARDCON Contract here.

 

BIMCO publishes much anticipated GUARDCON Contract
March 28, 2012
BIMCO is pleased to announce the publication of the GUARDCON standard contract for the employment of security guards on vessels. This brand new contract has been developed to provide ship owners and private maritime security companies (PMSC) with a clearly worded and comprehensive standard contract to govern the employment and use of security guards, with or without firearms, on board merchant vessels. While BIMCO would not like to see the use of armed security guards on ships becoming institutionalised, it recognises that while the industry awaits a more permanent long term solution, armed guards currently provide an effective deterrent to piracy attacks.
BIMCO’s Chief Officer Legal and Contractual Affairs, Grant Hunter said “In response to ship owners’ increasing demand for security services, an ever growing number of private maritime security companies have entered the market to meet that demand. In the absence of a standard contract for these services, ship owners and their P&I Clubs are currently faced with the difficult and time consuming task of assessing large numbers of contracts from these security companies, all with varying terms and conditions.

(more…)

« Newer PostsOlder Posts »

Powered by WordPress