Feral Jundi

Wednesday, January 20, 2010

Industry Talk: The Cost Of Compliance Is About To Increase

Filed under: Industry Talk — Tags: , , , , , , — Matt @ 7:02 AM

   Excellent.  The government/customer has every right in the world to demand accountability from the people they are contracting with.  This is like a large scale version of my Three Strikes Principle.  First you give them a warning to clean up their act, then if they don’t do that, then take a days pay or fine them, and if they still can’t get it right, then fire them.  Just pull the trigger and end the contract, because obviously the company could care less about providing a quality service. If the government does not have the courage to at least exercise their right as the customer in this deal, then of course they are going to continue to get screwed over. It’s the tax payer’s money you are playing with, the least you can do is actually care that it is wisely spent. –Matt

—————————————————————–

The Cost of Compliance is About to Increase

Tuesday, January 19, 2010

The Defense Department has proposed a new regulation that they say is designed to improve the effectiveness of DoD oversight of contractor business systems – Defense is going to withhold funds on cost reimbursable (and other flexibly priced) contracts until contractors fix their inadequate business systems. The withholds begins at 10 percent and could go as high as 100 percent under certain circumstances (though the higher figure seems highly unlikely). Withholds affect cash flow and disrupting cash flow will certainly get contractors’ attention.

Over the next few days, we will provide analysis and comment on what this regulation portends for Defense contractors. To state that it will represent a very significant change in the way the Government does business is a huge understatement.

Currently, contractors bear no direct consequences for inadequate business systems. When deficiencies are identified, contractors are allowed time to fix those deficiencies. There is no perscribed timetable for effecting corrections nor does the Government withhold any billings until changes are made. After corrective actions are implemented, the Government (usually the auditor) has no prescribed timeframe for determining whether the actions have been effective in correcting the deficiencies. Many times, these deficiencies are “on the books” for years without any permanent resolution. Under the proposed regulations, there are very tight timetables for implementing corrective actions.

The propsed regulations set forth certain criteria for adequate business systems. Some are very objective while others are highly subjective. For example, there are 17 criteria for an adequate accounting system. One criteria is the system must be capable of segregating preproduction costs from production costs. This functionality is built in to most moden accounting software and is easy ot audit. It is basically a yes/no answer. However, other requirements are very subjective. One such subjective requirement is the contractor must conduct periodic monitoring of the system, as appropriate. What does that mean? How often is “periodic”? What is entailed in the term “monitoring”? What does the term “as appropriate” mean? These are very subjective elements and contractors are going to experience the vagaries of auditor judgement when the auditors come in to test for compliance with this standard.

The ten business systems covered by this new regulation include

• Accounting systems

• Estimating systems

• Purchasing systems

• Earned Value Management Systems (EVMS)

• Material Management and Accounting Systems (MMAS)

• Property management systems (Government property held by contractors)

Story here.

Full text of new regulations here.

China: The Cyberwar Between Google and China

Filed under: China,Technology — Tags: , , , , , — Matt @ 5:59 AM

   Interesting deal between Google and China.  Although the real winner here will be China’s search engine called Baidu.  You can bet that any telecom stuff that Google was planning on doing in China, will probably suffer as well.

   The real story though, is the whole concept of a mega corporation like Google, taking on a super power like China?  Thomas Ricks was pretty intrigued by the concept as well.  Time to break out the pre-Westphalia rule book, and start implementing cyber privateer hacking to go after these state sponsored hackers. –Matt

—————————————————————–

Security specialist ‘has evidence of Chinese attack on Google’

A US computer expert says he has found the ‘digital fingerprints’ of Chinese authors on the tools used to launch recent attacks against Google

By Claudine Beaumont, Technology Editor20 Jan 2010

Joe Stewart, a security specialist with SecureWorks in the US, told the New York Times that he had analysed the software used to attack Google, and found that the main program used by the hackers contained a module based on an algorithm that appeared in a Chinese technical document that has been published exclusively on Chinese-language websites.

Google last week announced that the accounts of human rights activists and political dissidents had been hacked, and that it believed the attacks had originated from China. However, details about the precise nature of the attacks were not revealed, although security experts broadly agreed that Google was probably correct in its suspicions.

It is thought that a Trojan virus, known as Hydraq, was responsible for opening a “back door” in to compromised computers, which could then be used by hackers to access and take control of a machine without the owner’s permission or knowledge.

Stewart uses a method known as a “reverse engineering” to unravel malicious software, viruses and Trojans to identify how and where they originated. He looks for patterns in the code, and for unusual algorithms used by hackers to error-check transmitted data.

However, Stewart said that he could not rule out the possibility that the programmers behind the Google hack had laid a false trail that pointed to Chinese involvement in order to disguise the fact they originated from another country or government.

“But Occam’s Razor suggests that the simplest explanation is probably the best one,” he told the New York Times.

Story here.

——————————————————————

Hackers create opportunity for military firms

Attacks on Google boost the market for cyber-security just as government weapons spending is expected to slow. Military firms are retooling for rising demand by corporations as well as government.

By W.J. Hennigan

January 19, 2010

For U.S. military firms, the latest revelations of highly sophisticated hacker attacks on Google Inc. are highlighting a new reality, and a potentially lucrative business: The battlefield is shifting to cyberspace.

(more…)

Tuesday, January 19, 2010

Afghanistan: U.N. Embraces Private Military Contractors

Filed under: Afghanistan,Industry Talk,Nepal — Tags: , , , , , — Matt @ 8:33 AM

   Oh say it isn’t so? An actual article about the U.N. embracing Private Military Contractors? lol.  All I have to say is that I am flabbergasted.

   Now the rule of thumb here, is don’t be the typical customer and not care about what goes on with your contract or how it is written.  If you actually care about the quality of the product, then hold the company you are contracting with to the standard written in the contract.  It takes leadership, and I highly suggest using your powers of firing people or defaulting the contract, and get the service you want.  Don’t do like the State Department, and look the other way while a company does a completely crappy job or embarrasses them.  And don’t go cheap, because you get what you pay for in this industry–learn from everyone else’s mistakes and you will do well.

   As to the companies involved with providing these security services to the U.N., all eyes are on you. The media and myself will be all over you, if you screw it up.  If you apply Jundism to your contract, and just ensure that the U.N. gets good quality customer service and satisfaction, then you will do just fine.

  By the way, I hope the author of this article, and the U.N. for that matter, understands that more than likely they are not getting all Royal Gurkha Rifles.  They are probably getting Nepalese guards(former army and police), with maybe a few RGR’s mixed in. It would be like calling a bunch of U.S. mall guards, Green Berets. The Gurkha or RGR’s are Nepalese/British special forces, and it is disrespectful to those who really are Gurkha to confuse them with the regular guards. It’s a pet peeve of mine, because everyone that talks about the Gurkha usually have in mind the kick ass dudes that protect Madonna or the Sultan of Brunei, and that just isn’t the case. –Matt

——————————————————————

Lil John

U.N. embraces private military contractors

By Colum Lynch

Sunday, January 17, 2010

For years, the U.N.’s top peacekeepers have been among the world’s staunchest critics of private security contractors, often portraying them as unaccountable mercenaries.

Now they are clients.

As the U.N. prepares to expand its operations in Afghanistan, it is in talks with a British security firm to send in scores of additional Nepalese Gurkhas to the country to protect them.

The U.N.’s top security official, Gregory Starr, the former head of U.S. State Department Security, has also been advocating an increase in the use of private security firms in Pakistan, where U.N. relief workers have been the target of kidnappings and killings, according to U.N. officials.

The embrace of a private security contractor marks a shift for the United Nations, which has relied on governments to supply peacekeepers to protect U.N. staff. In Iraq, the U.N. used a contingent of Fijian peacekeepers for protection. But it has accelerated its move toward hired guns in Pakistan since the Taliban launched an October attack against a U.N. residence, killing five U.N. employees, including two Afghan security guards, and triggered the withdrawal of U.N. personnel from the country.

(more…)

Saturday, January 16, 2010

Jobs: Protective Security Specialist (WPPS), OCONUS

Filed under: Iraq,Jobs — Tags: , , , , , , — Matt @ 3:49 AM

   Interesting.  I didn’t know that Aegis was in the game of providing WPPS folks to DoS? Aegis is a good company, and I am sure they will do a great job with this. I am not the POC or Recruiter for this, and please go through the link I provided below in order to apply.

   By the way, if you follow that link below, there are other WPPS positions they are offering, so be sure to check them all out to find what would work for you.  Good luck and let me know how it goes. –Matt

——————————————————————

PROTECTIVE SECURITY SPECIALIST (WPPS)

Posted date: 2010-Jan-15

(ID: 3257)

Aegis is currently recruiting for a Protective Security Specialist.  The Protective Security Specialist Reports directly to the Detail Leader or Shift Leader.  He/she is responsible for the day to day protective security functions as specified in the daily post and detail orders.  Responsible for driving the lead vehicle or follow vehicle or act as the response agent during operations or advanced security preparations.  Maintains protective formation position during the Principal’s walking movements and provides security at the Principal’s residence r Command Post as required.

Required Minimum Qualifications:

    * Secret Clearance

    * U.S. Citizen

    * Level III English

    * 5 Years minimum military experience reflecting a discharge on a valid DD214 as Honorable

    * Successfully complete The Basic WPPS III PSS training

    * Three (3) years of experience in which One (1) year, of the three, shall include experience in protective security assignments. Experience can be gained in the employ of any national. State/Province, Local or commercial entities that provide high threat protective services

    * Maintain weapons qualifications for the Glock, M4, Shotgun, M240, M249, M203 and familiarization for the AK 47

    * Combat Life Saver or Combat Medic Qualified preferred but not required

    * Approved Background check

    * Physically Fit

Protective Security Specialist’s must possess the highest quality of professionalism, attention to detail and leadership skill which requires minimum to no supervision. They must be highly motivated and be able to work extremely well under stress and react effectively and efficiently to emergency situations

Please select ‘LLC’ when applying for the position.

Apply here.

Thursday, January 14, 2010

Publications: Is The Privatization Of Force Organic To Western Liberal Democracy?, By Matthew C. Armstrong

Filed under: Letter Of Marque,Publications — Tags: , , , , — Matt @ 12:23 PM

   Ok folks, this is cool.  Sometimes I stumble upon stuff that really gets the juices flowing, and this is one of those deals.  Matt has written a very interesting paper that basically talks about using the Letter of Marque as a mechanism to control and manage PMC’s.  That with our current system, there is not an efficient means of putting checks and balances on what PMC’s do in the name of the country, and that a direct link with congress, via the LoM, would be far more efficient. It would help to alleviate many of the problems that we are bumping up against now.

   This was written back in 2007, but I still think the ideas are spot on, and something to rally around. I also have Matt’s permission to post this. Be sure to check out Matt’s excellent blog called Mountain Runner.  It is a fascinating look at strategic communications with tons of conversations about power and influence.

   By the way, I have also started a Letter of Marque category, just to add another means of easily finding information about the concept. You can also use the Feral Jundi search box, or hit one of the tags. The search box would be the best to retrieve other past discussions about the LoM. –Matt

—————————————————————-

Is The Privatization Of Force Organic To Western Liberal Democracy?

By Matthew C. Armstrong

Abstract:

     Popular wisdom maintains that the State holds a monopoly on the use of force and that private military forces are usurpers of this monopoly. Popular wisdom also suggests the use of private military forces is antithetical to the idea of liberal democracy. A review of history shows neither of these are true. By bringing history back into the discussion it is clear the use of private military forces results from decisions based on political economy independent of liberal democratic theories.

     This paper reviews the reality of private military forces and suggests the marginalization and disfavor of mercenaries on land and sea was the result of a political economy and not liberal democratic theories. Reaching back four millennia before Westphalia gives witness to much the same. Sealing off the present from the past leads to false assumptions of the factors that led to the marginalization, but not disappearance, of private force in the nineteenth century. This bracketing of historic events and processes blinds us and prevents seeing and understanding engines of change. Investigating history and it is apparent the history of mercenaries on land and sea begins with the history of war and was subject to changing infrastructural power of the state. The evolution and introduction of liberal democratic principles had little impact on the wholesale removal of mercenaries from the battlefield.

     The return of mercenaries today is marked by systemic changes similar to those of the nineteenth century that pushed private military forces out of mainstream use. However, the return is not complete as the institutional and theoritical structures of before have not been adopted, especially in the central example of the paper, the United States. Whereas the US Congress explicitly authorized and licensed private military force in the past it has implicitly done so now. Before, it explicitly controlled the contracts and monitoring. Today, it does nothing. Through public law and investigative powers, Congress has the power restrict the use of PMCs. These powers were exercised before in the interest of the state to protect the national execution of US foreign policy. The failure to act today is an abrogation of the responsibility intended through words and deeds of the Founding Fathers in striking parallel to the culpability at the root of Machiavelli’s misdirected warning. As war is a continuation of politics and military force is central to this, it is understandable private military companies are an increasingly important solution tool in the toolbox of US foreign policy in an era of accountability. However, unlike the past, oversight is absent and the agent may represent the principal in distasteful ways without repercussion or acknowledgement.

     The return to mercenaries has not been complete in that the rules governing their use by the employer have not been resurrected. This is not a failure of democracy, liberal or not, but a failure of the hiring client. In fact, in many ways private military companies today have re-democraticized war by allowing almost anyone to participate as they did in the past. It might also be said that instead of outsourcing, we have temporarily “in-sourced” war for the past one hundred and fifty years. Perhaps with that in mind, we can get beyond the hyperbole and discuss privatization in terms of real impact while acknowledging that many of the faults today are rooted in the use and not existence of private forces.

View paper here.

Link to Mountain Runner blog here.

From the author:

“Go ahead and post the paper, but please include the caveat that the author understands it is still a draft, at least in presentation. The arguments are sound but there are likely errors in grammar and punctuation. I do not have any updates nor do I plan to make any.”

« Newer Posts — Older Posts »

Powered by WordPress