Feral Jundi

Wednesday, July 14, 2010

Industry Talk: DoS Doubling Their Security Contractor Force In Iraq?

     But according to a joint statement issued by commission co-chairs Michael Thibault and Christopher Shays, the State Department may also need to more than double its private security force, from around 2,700 today to 6,000 or 7,000 personnel. 

*****

     All I have to say, is wow!  That is a lot of jobs for the industry.  I posted awhile back about the DoS’s coming requirements in Iraq as troops draw down, and it is amazing to me that congress or anyone covering this would be surprised by what will be required of this contractor force. Rescuing downed air crewmen or diplomats won’t be the only jobs for these types of forces, now that the troops will be gone.  Other scenarios might present themselves as well, and taking care of these problems was usually the task of troops.

     With the troops in Iraq, the mission of searching for and destroying mortar teams or rocket teams was their task.  (even counter sniper missions, but DoS and others have always had their own contractor designated marksmen)  But now that the troops will be leaving, who will take over these jobs?  The Iraqis?  Well I hope for the sake of the DoS and their various camps throughout Iraq, that they trust the Iraqis enough to take care of these kinds of attacks. Because as the troops leave, I think attacks will surge, and the insurgency or others will be focusing on making the phased withdrawal look like a bloody retreat.  That means an increase in attacks, and it is what I would do if I was the enemy.

     With that said, it does not surprise me that DoS would want this kind of hardware and manpower.  It would also not surprise me that the missions of contractors will include a lot more responsibilities.  Rescuing downed crewmen in aircraft or sending quick reaction forces to aid convoys and motorcades in trouble will require equipment and capability that mimics what the military had for such operations.  Anything less, and now you are putting those crews at risk, as well as putting the lives of folks doing work in the field at risk.  Congress must know that if DoS does not have dedicated reserves, either military or contractors, that it cannot safely do what it has to do.

      I will take it a step further.  Contractor QRF’s will be the ones responding to these indirect and direct attacks on the bases, and these QRF’s must have all the tools necessary to do the job.  Whatever a platoon in the military has, a contractor force should have, and I see no reason for limited that QRF or hamstringing them by only allowing them small caliber weapons with limited range or capability.  I say contractor QRF’s, because what happens when the Iraqis refuse to do the job?  It’s either use that contractor QRF, or sit in your base and take fire indefinitely, and watch as your casualties grow and your compound gets reduced to ashes and rubble?  Or you could send up a Blackhawk with weapons mounted on it, and that contractor crew will have to take care of the problem from the air.

     My point with all of this, is that in order for us to achieve this troop draw down, as well as maintain a civilian presence in Iraq so we can continue to help that government stay on track, congress is going to have to face some realities. I think that is the overall message that DoS was sending to congress, and it is the message I got out of all of this.  The way I see it, security contractors are all they have….. unless congress wants to implement the draft or halts the troop drawdown. But then of course you have Afghanistan and all their troop requirements.  So yet again, we are presented by a scenario where contractors are the best thing we got in order to fill a manpower/security vacuum, during a crucial phase of a war…..  Your welcome. lol –Matt

——————————————————————

U.S. Contractor Use in Iraq Expected To Rise

By WILLIAM MATTHEWS

12 Jul 2010

As the U.S. military pulls troops and equipment out of Iraq, the State Department will have to rely increasingly on contractors to perform such services as flying rescue helicopters and disarming roadside bombs, a congressional commission warned.

That is not an ideal solution but none other seems available, members of the Commission on Wartime Contracting in Iraq and Afghanistan said during a July 12 hearing.

While the Defense Department works to reduce its dependence on contractors, the State Department will have to greatly increase its use of hired help.

“Boy, that really troubles me,” said Dov Zakheim, a commission member and former Pentagon budget chief. “You’re going to be getting contractors not only doing what they’re doing today, but doing things that are inherently governmental.”

(more…)

Friday, May 7, 2010

Jobs: Project Manager/Site Manager/PSS/DM-WPS, OCONUS

Filed under: Jobs — Tags: , , , , , , , — Matt @ 1:20 AM

   I am not the POC or recruiter and please use the email provided below in order to submit your resume. Now if this is another ‘notional opportunity’ thing, who knows, but it doesn’t hurt to get in the ring and submit anyways.  I noticed that Wakenhut was advertising as well for WPS guys. (I am sure all of the big companies are in on the bid) So we will see.

   A couple of things about this.  First, I mentioned yesterday that the requirements for security is pretty high right now in Afghanistan, and this drive to up the numbers of WPS folks is a part of that process.  The worldwide requirements for securing government employees out there is tremendous. So the WPS program will need some folks, and it will be interesting to watch that evolve and grow.  Although the one thing I continue to hear from contractors on this program, is that the rules and policies can get pretty ridiculous, and it is filled with typical government bureaucracy. But work is work.

   The other thing I wanted to mention, is that EODT has a great company website.  What makes it so cool is the RSS it has for company news.  Now if they could do the same for jobs, and if all the companies could set up RSS for their jobs and news, well then all of us would be happy.  I might have to do a post on this. –Matt

—————————————————————–

Project Manager/Site Manager/PSS/DM

EOD Technology, Inc. (EODT), a global provider of professional support services to a broad range of Federal markets, is presently seeking qualified candidates for the Worldwide Protective Services (WPS) Program. This Department of State program will satisfy anticipated and unanticipated personal protective, static guard, and emergency response team security service requirements worldwide.

Some general requirements and information for these positions are:

• Projected start dates commence in the Summer/Fall of 2010

• 12 month contracts with various rotation schedules

• Must be at least 21 years of age

• Must have valid, current driver’s license and passport

• In the case of military service, all military discharges must have been under honorable conditions

• No impediments to traveling overseas to and within countries that are considered dangerous or unhealthy

• Must pass detailed medical evaluation and physical fitness test

• Must be able to qualify and remain current in weapons normally carried by law enforcement officers, e.g., semi-automatic pistol, rifles, sub-machine guns, and shotguns

• Must be able to obtain and maintain a Personnel Security Clearance and/or Public Trust Certification

Some of the positions we are seeking are:

Project Manager

·         Must have a Bachelor’s degree by an accredited institution

·         Fifteen (15) years of experience

·         Ten (10) years of the fifteen years must have been working on or overseeing personal protective, static guard and emergency response team assignments

·         At least three (3) of the ten years must have been in a management or in-charge capacity

·         The remaining five (5) years of experience shall be generalized experience

Complex/Site Manager

·         Ten (10) years of military service as an Officer or Senior NCO, or similar police/local guard force supervisory experience

·         Experience and/or service shall include physical security, access control and force protection, and must be similar in complexity and scope to the specific requirements of the Task Order

Protective Security Specialist (PSS)

·         Three (3) years of experience

·         One (1) year of the three, shall include experience in protective security assignments

PSS/Designated Defensive Marksman

·         Three (3) years experience as a military sniper or police sharpshooter

·         Completed or served at least three (3) years in military, law enforcement, or executive commercial protection

(more…)

Thursday, March 4, 2010

Publications: GAO Concludes That Contractors Are More Cost Effective Than Employees!

    Well duh. lol You guys don’t have to pay the pensions of contractors when their contract is done and the war is over. Of course the government loves to use this ‘disposable workforce’ called contractors.

     Thanks to David Isenberg who brought this to everyone’s attention through his blog, and you can read his assessment here.

     I do have an issue with the way GAO reworded the one instance that federal employees were more cost effective.  Why training, vetting and recruiting costs were not included in this last one, is interesting.  Is this because politically speaking, they are wanting to promote phasing out security contractors, and the GAO was pressured to write it that way? So instead of adding 240 million with the 162 million dollars to make the ‘grand total cost’ to the government for federal employee security specialists of 402 million dollars, they instead decided to stick with just the 240 million dollar figure? So in order to support their statement that security was not cost effective, they decided to split up the figure…(raised eyebrow) So with my simple math here, I show that private industry is more cost effective than the government for security work.

   Also, I wonder if legal fees and lawsuits were tacked into the costs, because private industry is definitely eating that bill with this war.  Just ask companies like Xe or DynCorp.  And as more legislation is passed, which allows more people to easily sue private industry, and/or makes it more difficult to sue the government, I think this is another area that needs some attention in the accounting process here. A company has to have it’s own costly legal apparatus. The government has a massive legal apparatus already and oodles of laws to protect itself from litigation.

     Just look at the dismal example of how many ‘few successful’ whistleblower cases there have been against government?  Office of Special Counsel should be changed to the Office of Protect the Government. Not to mention all the lawyers assigned to protect the various agencies and departments out there.  The government has a legal shield around it like you can’t believe, and all of it is funded by the tax payer.

   Overall, this is a good publication to show folks as proof that we are more cost effective and we do make sense to the government. So if you are ever in an argument with some dork about the nuts and bolts of contractor efficiency, just pull this sucker up and let the GAO do your talking. –Matt

——————————————————————-

Warfighter Support: A Cost Comparison of Using State Department Employees versus Contractors for Security Services in Iraq

GAO-10-266R March 4, 2010

Full Report (PDF, 20 pages)

Summary

In Process

Our comparison of likely State Department costs versus contractor costs for four task orders and one contract awarded by the State Department for security services in Iraq showed that for three of the task orders and the contract, the cost of using State Department employees would be greater than using contractors, while the State Department’s estimated cost to use federal employees was less for the other task order. For example, using State Department employees to provide static security for the embassy in Baghdad would have cost the department approximately $858 million for 1 year compared to the approximately $78 million charged by the contractor for the same time period. In contrast, our cost comparison of the task order for providing personal security for State Department employees while in the Baghdad region–which required personnel that have security clearances–showed that for this task order, the State Department’s estimated annual cost would have been about $240 million, whereas the contractor charged approximately $380 million for 1 year. However, because the State Department does not currently have a sufficient number of trained personnel to provide security in Iraq, the department would need to recruit, hire, and train additional employees at an additional cost of $162 million. Contract requirements are a major factor in determining whether contractors or government personnel are less expensive–especially factors such as whether personnel need security clearances. However, there are other factors that may play a role in the decision of whether to perform security services with federal employees or enough federal employees than to acquire contractors. Additionally, the government could potentially be faced with incurring some administrative costs from having to take actions to reduce government personnel if they are no longer needed. When using contractors, the department also incurs administrative costs for awarding the task orders and contract and providing oversight; however, the State Department was unable to estimate these costs. Finally, some costs associated with providing Iraq security services using federal employees–such as developing new career fields, providing additional overhead, and building new housing–are difficult to quantify.

Link to publication here.

Saturday, February 27, 2010

Industry Talk: DoD Takes Over Afghan Police Training After IG Cites DoS Failures

   Late last year, I brought this story up during the time that DynCorp was protesting the whole deal.  Now it is official that DoD is taking over the project. Which is probably good, because of how much infantry related activities are involved with war time policing. That, and getting the training standardized so that police forces could be more utilitarian.  The standardization process will also allow for more accurate assessments of the program, and more input from folks who are all implementing the same training.  That means a more efficient learning organization, which is good. –Matt

——————————————————————

DoD takes over Afghan Police training after IG cites State Dept. failures

By Lisa M. NovakThursday, February 25, 2010

NAPLES, Italy — The Defense Department is taking over training of the Afghan National Police because State Department-hired trainers failed to keep pace with the growing instability in Afghanistan or address the security needs of the civilian population, according to a joint State and DOD Inspector General report released late last week.

“The ANP training program that is in place does not provide the ANP with the necessary skills to successfully fight the insurgency, and therefore, hampers the ability of DOD to fulfill its role in the emerging national strategy,” according to the report.

The report, initiated by members of the Senate Appropriations Committee last year, said the State Department failed on a number of fronts, mainly in its ability to provide training that adequately reflected the security needs of the country.

A Clinton administration-era directive gave the State Department responsibility for training civilian police forces around the world. Under that directive, the DOD transferred $1.04 billion to the State Department’s Bureau of International Narcotics and Law Enforcement Affairs to support training programs for the ANP.

(more…)

Friday, October 2, 2009

Legal News: Law Restricting U.S. State Department Security Hiring

Filed under: Afghanistan,Legal News — Tags: , , , , — Matt @ 9:06 AM

   All I have to say on this one is you pay peanuts, you get monkeys. Add this to the long list about ‘what not to do, when deciding to use contract security’. –Matt

——————————————————————

Law restricting US State Department security hiring

10/02/2009

WASHINGTON — A congressionally mandated panel warned that existing US law prevents the State Department from hiring the best contractors to provide security at diplomatic installations worldwide.

According to a report by the independent Commission on Wartime Contracting, a law dating back to February 1990 requires the State Department to “award contracts to the technically acceptable firm offering the lowest evaluated price.”

But other government agencies can choose their contractors on the basis of “best value,” the commission said.

The report called for an end to the legislative requirement and for new rules freeing the State Department to use different evaluation methods.

(more…)

« Newer PostsOlder Posts »

Powered by WordPress