Feral Jundi

Friday, December 17, 2010

Industry Talk: Army To Award 1.6 Billion Dollar Training Contract For Afghanistan Before New Year

     Wow, this contract is a big one. Also, thanks to Danger Room for posting an update on this contract. In the past I posted a deal about the transition of this contract from CIVPOL to CNTPO, and how DynCorp got edged out of the party when they were excluded under the new program. Then they protested and won the right to be a vendor, and this is where we are at now. It is a battle of the titans for a huge training contract.

     This is also important to the war effort because as I have reported in the past, NATO tends to make promises it cannot keep.  There are 900 training positions still open because of this lack of commitment. That is not good, and especially if the war strategy is highly dependent on getting the Afghan forces to a size and level of competency where they can take over the security of their country. Yet again, it will be contractors picking up the slack as NATO falters. –Matt

Edit: 12/21/2010- Here is the latest with this contract.  DynCorp just got hooked up. Here is the quote:

“Danger Room has confirmed that DynCorp, one of the leading private-security firms, has held on to a contract with the Army worth up to $1 billion for training Afghanistan’s police over the next three years. With corruption, incompetence and illiteracy within the police force a persistent obstacle to turning over security responsibilities to the cops by 2014, NATO has revamped much of its training efforts — except, apparently, the contractors paid lavishly to help them out.

The details: DynCorp will provide security personnel to train the Afghan cops at 14 different locations across the country. Those trainers will support the NATO training command run out of Kabul by Lt. Gen. William Caldwell in getting the police into an “independently functioning entity capable of providing for the national security of Afghanistan,” the Army’s Research Development and Engineering Command says in the award. The contract runs for two years and earns DynCorp $718.1 million, but an option to re-up for a third year brings the total price to $1.04 billion.”

Quote From Danger Room:

“Before the New Year, the Army will finally award a much-delayed $1.6 billion-with-a-b contract for a private security firm to supplement that NATO training command’s efforts to professionalize Afghan cops. That bid touched off a bureaucratic tempest between Blackwater/Xe Services and DynCorp, which held an old contract for the same job, as well as the State Department and the Army.

But not for much longer. The Army’s Contracting Command is in “the very final stages” of selecting the firm for the bid, Col. John Ferrari of the NATO training command tells Danger Room. “We’re expecting an announcement before the end of December, sometime in the next week or two.”

The contract is for “mentoring, training, and logistics services” to backstop Ferrari’s efforts, placing security contractors in embedded positions with the Afghan interior ministry and police units themselves, according to the terms of the bid. More than 80 firms have registered as “interested vendors” on the federal website announcing the contract. NATO is trying to build a 134,000-strong Afghan police force by October, and it’s short 900 trainers promised by U.S. allies.”

——————————————————————

R–NATO Training Mission Afghanistan/Combined Security Transition Command Afghanistan (NTM-A/CSTC-A) Afghanistan Ministry of Interior (MoI) & Afghan National Police (ANP) Support Requirement

Solicitation Number: W91CRB10R0059

Agency: Department of the Army

Office: Army Contracting Command

Location: RDECOM Contracting Center – Aberdeen (RDECOM-CC)

Monday, November 29, 2010

Industry Talk: AEGIS Defence Gets TFBSO Contract In Iraq, EODT Wins FOB Lindsey Deuce Contract In Afghanistan

    This is a quick update on some news with two companies and their contracts won.  If any readers have anything else to add to these two deals, feel free to comment below. –Matt

Contract Award Date: November 16, 2010

Contract Award Number: W91GDW-11-C-9000

Contract Award Dollar Amount: $3,037,880.14 (EST)

Contractor Awarded Name: AEGIS DEFENCE SERVICES LTD

Nov 26, 2010

The contract is to provide all resources, personnel, equipment and management necessary for the technical management, oversight, transportation of Task Force members, and security support of the TFBSO economic revitalization activities performed predominantly in the Baghdad region, or on request to other areas throughout Iraq as required. Security services include security program management, anti-terrorism support and analyses, movement/escort security, transportation support, and close personal protection. The Contractor will provide security advisors and planners to facilitate, coordinate and implement security requirements and contingency plans. The proposed period of performance for this contract will be 68 calendar days or 25 November 2010 – 31 January 2011. The estimated dollar value is $3,343,662.11

FBO link here.

—————————————————————–

EODT Awarded Security Contract at Forward Operating Base Lindsey Deuce, Afghanistan

LENOIR CITY, TN (November 29, 2010) – EOD Technology, Inc. (EODT) has been awarded a task order by the Kandahar Regional Contracting Center to perform security services at Forward Operating Base (FOB) Lindsey Deuce in Kandahar, Afghanistan.

Under this task order, EODT will conduct defensive security and surveillance operations designed to protect Coalition Forces. Security operations will be performed within the confines of FOB Lindsey Deuce.

This task order was awarded under the Area of Operations (AO) Mountain Warrior Indefinite Delivery/Indefinite Quantity (IDIQ) contract for providing security services in support of Coalition Force missions throughout the Mountain Warrior Area of Operation.

In addition to securing military installations in Afghanistan, EODT provides construction and mine action services, to include demining and battle area clearance, in Afghanistan and other locations worldwide.

Story here.

Monday, November 1, 2010

Job Tips: Navigating The FBO And Learning About Security Contracts OCONUS And CONUS

Vendor: Are individual guard weapons truly required to be fully automatic, as semi-auto weapons are shown to be safer and increase accuracy? 

Contracting Officer: YES, FULLY AUTO

-From a question on one of the solicitations from the FBO. 

     This is cool. I have been playing around with the FBO search features and figured out a way to identify all the armed security related solicitations that have come out over the last year, for Iraq and Afghanistan. This is how you can find out what is coming up for contracts, and who has won what. It is also a way to put rumors to rest and refer to a source that you can depend upon for clarification.

     For those contractors and businesses that are interested in tracking FBO, just use these NAICS codes ‘561612 — Security Guards and Patrol Services’ and ‘561613 — Armored Car Services‘ in the Advanced Search feature of the site. Then play around with locations and see what pops up. I have already searched Europe, Asia, South America, etc., and lots of interesting things pop up.

     What was really intriguing to me was to see how many documents came out this last year, both in the US and abroad in regards to the search input of security guards, patrol services, and armored car services. 328 pages of solicitations came up! That is remarkable and it sure doesn’t sound like the government is shying away from contracting security. If anything, that just shows how dependent the government really is on private industry to provide these services.

     Also, if you click on any of the Afghanistan solicitations below, you will find the questions and answers section under synopsis. This is where vendors ask the contracting officer about the particulars of the solicitation. This is very interesting to me, because a lot of the questioning revolves around Crazy Karzai’s decree and how it will impact these contracts.

     Along with these clarifications, might I also point out that two awards just came out in regards to armed security contracts in Afghanistan. There were also some solicitations that were cancelled, and probably because of the latest crap going on in Afghanistan. Maybe not, and I am not privy to the particulars of these contracts and the deciding factors.

     Either way, please check out the links below because you can learn a lot about these armed security contracts overseas. I also need more folks checking this stuff out so they can pick up on any little details that are of interest that is being missed by the industry or public discourse. The FBO is a wealth of information, and if you are a small business owner or independent contractor trying to get into the game, it is vital that you track and understand what is coming out on FBO so you can ‘be prepared’ and ‘know your stuff’. –Matt

Facility Protective Services

W91B4M-10-R-0037

99 — Miscellaneous

Department of the Army

CENTCOM – Joint Theater Support Contracting Command

KABUL RCC Award Oct 31, 2010

Facility Protective Services

W91B4M-10-R-0025

99 — Miscellaneous

Department of the Army

CENTCOM – Joint Theater Support Contracting Command

KABUL RCC Award Oct 31, 2010

ASG SERVICES, COP NAJIL

W91B4K-11-R-0002

R — Professional, administrative, and management support services

Department of the Army

Joint Contracting Command, Iraq/Afgahnistan

FENTY RCC (JALALABAD) Combined Synopsis/Solicitation / Cancelled Oct 25, 2010

ASG SERVICES, FOB SHINWAR

W91B4K-10-R-2129

R — Professional, administrative, and management support services

Department of the Army

Joint Contracting Command, Iraq/Afgahnistan

FENTY RCC (JALALABAD) Combined Synopsis/Solicitation / Cancelled Oct 19, 2010

(more…)

Wednesday, July 28, 2010

Industry Talk: BLISS Could Be State’s New LOGCAP, And More Clarification About WPPS

     Thanks to David Isenberg for posting this on his blog and bringing it to everyone’s attention.  I think this is some interesting information that came out of this letter between Richard Verma and Sen. Claire McCaskill. If in fact BLISS becomes the new LOGCAP for DoS, this could be a pretty sizable contract.  That’s ‘if’ they cannot bring State under the current LOGCAP.  We will see how it goes.

     But what I thought was most interesting in this letter was the clarification as to the fact that contractors will be operating this war equipment that DoD will be loaning to State. That is great, and it will be cool to see Blackhawks and MRAPs rolling out into the skies and roads of Iraq under the control of contractors.  I wonder if they will paint this equipment a different color? Like DoS blue/white/yellow? lol

    Also, will these MRAPS or Blackhawks be stripped of all the life saving electronics and communications stuff that our troops were able to use for the survival of their units?  Probably not, but who knows.  Today’s military hardware has a lot of useful stuff in it that could really come in handy for the contractors that have to operate it.

     One thing that is missing in this letter, is a question and response about the 14 security related functions that State identified, that might have to be done by contractors.  Stuff like EOD or counter mortar/rocket team operations. Or QRF/rescue stuff or other military type activities.  I say this because I have yet to see any answers as to how the DoS will treat contractors if they actually had to fire their weapons and kill enemy combatants while doing any of these 14 security related functions.  Or worse yet, what about firefights that unintentionally ended up in the deaths of civilians? Because the enemy loves to attack from population centers with the hopes of creating such an incident.

     Like I have said before, we might want the war to be over in Iraq, but the enemy could care less about our wishes. If anything, with a limited military presence and an Iraqi government and security forces still trying to establish itself, a lot can happen during the transition and drawdown. DoS must understand that the enemy has learned much from the propaganda value of such incidents like the Nisour Square incident. If they can recreate such an incident again they will gain much, and DoS and the US mission in Iraq will suffer yet again from the consequences.

     There are still many questions that come to mind, and that is will DoS support their contractors if involved in a firefight that accidently resulted in civilian deaths, or will they treat the contractor as if they were criminals?  Worse yet, will they hand these individuals over to the Iraqis, or will they insure these men are afforded the same protections and rights that the military or even diplomats would have received in similar situations? Will DoS implement rules for the use of force that are realistic and give contractors the best chance of success for the defense of personnel and property? Or will DoS even allow the proper weapons and tactics required for an effective defense (that could include borderline offensive operations), or even rescues? Stuff to think about and it will be interesting to see how this turns out. –Matt

Edit: 08/02/2011- Hat tip to Ms. Sparky on this news. Supposedly KBR was chosen for this. Check the comment below for the entire post.

——————————————————————

On July 9, 2010 this letter was sent to Sen. Claire McCaskill, from Richard D. Verma, Assistant Secretary for Legislative Affairs at DoS. (I posed the first question and answer, and the 5th question and answer. Follow the link to read the rest)

*****

1. Will private security contractors, including contractors under the State Department’s Worldwide Personal Protective Services contract, be operating the requested equipment, vehicles, and aircraft?

     The Department of State (DOS) does not presently maintain a cadre of qualified drivers/operators for some requested equipment, such as MRAPS, and, as such, would need to supplement current skill sets within its WPPS contract to ensure operational capability. If/when DoD provides the requested equipment, the Department will modify the relevant contracts to require that the equipment be operated and maintained by contractor personnel in accordance with manufacturer, DoD, or other applicable standards. Contract modifications will also require that contractor personnel possess the necessary qualifications and complete the requisite training to properly operate and maintain the equipment. An aircraft provided to the Department will be incorporated into an existing Department aviation support contract.

5. If the State Department’s request to use LOGCAP is denied, how does the Department plan to ensure that the next contract for life support services is as transparent, competitive, and accountable as possible?

     Should the LOGCAP [Logistics Civil Augmentation Program] be unavailable, the Department will follow Federal Acquisition Regulation competitive procedures in any separate procurement action. Due to long-acquisition lead-time involved, the Department has already initiated action to develop a competitive solicitation for the base life support requirements should it be unable to remain under the LOGCAP program. This solicitation is referred to as the Baghdad Life Support Services acquisition, or BLISS contract. If necessary, the Department could issue a Request for Proposals for the BLISS contract in a very short time.

—————————————————————–

Baghdad Life Support Services

Solicitation Number: SAQMMA10I0009

Agency: U.S. Department of State

Office: Office of Logistics Management

Location: Acquisition Management

(more…)

Wednesday, May 26, 2010

Industry Talk: U.S. Army Seeks Contractor To Transport Cargo Through Pakistan And Afghanistan

     The contractor must provide personnel capable of facilitating, coordinating, obtaining, and reporting critical movement control data and information from the appropriate US government personnel at qualifications in transportation movement control procedures and operations. They shall have the ability to obtain necessary identification (i.e. CAC) to gain access to base camps within Afghanistan without escort. Personnel must have a valid US Secret Security Clearance and speak and write in fluent English. The contractor provided personnel shall be able to respond to such request within a 72 hour period. 

*****

     I want to thank Cannoneer #4 for sending me this goody via Twitter.  With this contract, there are two key points to focus in on.  The first one is that using contractors is a way to bypass the whole ‘we will not deploy US military troops to Pakistan‘. The second point in which the first point is built on, is that this solicitation requires a US citizen to escort these convoys. That’s unless they plan on issuing CAC cards and Secret Clearances to non-citizens?(I doubt it)

     This is nothing new in the context of contracting in this war.  In Iraq and Afghanistan, expat contractors run teams of local nationals or third country nationals all the time.  What is interesting with this solicitation is the amount of work this thing could bring.  5,000 movements per month is a whole lot of road work.  I certainly hope that these convoys will be running with some heavy armaments and some decent vehicles.

    I also understand the reasoning behind having expats as escorts for these convoys.  They can effectively manage these convoys and insure there are no payments going out to warlords or tribes along the way. They can also insure the goods get from A to B in one piece without being ransacked.  With the amount of cargo being transported to support the thousands of troops surging into Afghanistan, every last bit of cargo needs to be accounted for.  Having some adult supervision on these convoys is a good thing.

     Finally, if the Pakistani Taliban and Afghan Taliban have a bounty system on NATO and US soldiers, I fully expect that contractors will be next.  If attacking forces know that there is a US citizen on some ‘5,000 movements a month’, well then I could see the potential interest in that by the enemy.  Which further emphasizes the idea that adequate protections should be given to these convoys.  Especially for the Pakistani side of things.  That’s unless the Pakistani military or drones will be used to provide overwatch and QRF’s? Other than that, these convoys have to be self sufficient. Here is the link to the solicitation here. –Matt

Edit: 5/27/2010 -One of my readers has pointed out that non-US contractors have received CAC cards and clearances in this war, so it is possible that the US Army could use non-US contractors for this stuff.  It is hard to say what the specifics are, and maybe someone from the team that put this solicitation together could confirm for us what is required?

——————————————————————

Here is a quote from the solicitation ‘Pakistan Third Party Logistics Support Services’ detailing what they require.

16 March 2010 Page 3

The 831 DDSB requires a large Third Party Logistics (3PL) contractor presence in the combined areas of Pakistan and Afghanistan in order to provide / perform the below services:

a) Cargo movement reporting at designated locations throughout both countries – to include the submission of daily operational reports

b) Sealing operations (bolt, cable, or other) at locations throughout both countries

c) Radio Frequency Identification (RFID) / Container Intrusion Detection Device (CIDD) operations at pre-determined locations where appropriate training and equipment has been provided by the US Government

d)  IBS-CMM (Integrated Booking System – Container Management Module) status updates

(more…)

« Newer PostsOlder Posts »

Powered by WordPress