remote camps « Feral Jundi

Thursday, February 24, 2011

Industry Talk: FBO–USACE Looking For Interested Companies For Possible Security Support Contract, Afghanistan

Filed under: Afghanistan,Industry Talk,Iraq — Tags: Afghanistan, Aviation, CMC, contractors, Industry Talk, Iraq, Logistics, private security, remote camps, security, USACE — Matt @ 5:15 PM

Not that companies who are in the mix don’t already know about this FBO posting, but still I figured I would put it out there for the rest of the industry to check out. From the sounds of it, this contract would be similar to the remote bases that USACE used to run in Iraq for the CMC projects. Those were cool contracts because contractors did it all at those camps. From PSD missions to convoy security, and of course static security–security contractors were vital assets.

What would be different here is the increased use of aviation transport. In Iraq you could convoy everywhere and aviation was not used as much for these CMC camps. But in Afghanistan, air transport and the security that goes with it would be a big part of this contract.

The other difference is that USACE is probably doing a different mission with this contract than clearing munitions. Reconstruction could mean all sorts of things and who knows what they will be building? We will see if they fly this one or not, because this is still in the beginning research phase. –Matt

R–Afghanistan Reconstruction Security Support Services for the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers

Solicitation Number: W912ER11R0050

Agency: Department of the Army

Office: U.S. Army Corps of Engineers

Location: USACE Middle East District

Synopsis:

Added: Feb 02, 2011 11:04 pm

The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE), Middle East District, is publishing this sources sought notice to solicit responses from firms interested in and capable of providing the following services throughout Afghanistan: comprehensive security, operations, transportation, aircraft, and intelligence services to secure and account for Afghanistan Engineering District-North (AEN) and Afghanistan Engineering District-South (AES) personnel, provide all forms of transportation services, provide quality assurance activities to include construction, nationwide operational oversight, intelligence analysis, production of intelligence products, convoy transportation and security, fixed/rotary wing air-transportation services, personal protective services, static site security, community liaison activities, local atmospherics, supply and maintenance of armored vehicles, establishment, maintenance and management of a nationwide, visual map-based satellite tracking product, establishment, maintenance and management of a nationwide voice and text communication network, and vetting of third-party employees. The contemplated contract awarded from a solicitation for this work will constitute an Indefinite Delivery, Indefinite Quantity (ID/IQ) type contract as defined in FAR 16.504. Task orders will be Firm-Fixed Price (FFP).

(more…)

Comments Off

Sunday, February 1, 2009

Afghanistan: The Yellow, by Tim Lynch

Filed under: Afghanistan,Estate Security,Iraq — Tags: Afghanistan, nagl, remote camps, Tim Lynch — Matt @ 11:36 AM

So I have been hanging out the last couple of days over at Tim’s blog, Free Range International, and talking about the concept of hybrid remote camps in Afghanistan. It’s a very simple concept–use civilians to support these smaller outposts to free up the military to do their thing. Tim’s point was that contractors could totally defend a camp and assist in reconstruction efforts, all while being close to and working with the local populations in these camps for the long term. And because we are limited with troops, adding more contractors to the equation, if done right, could certainly be a force multiplier. Tim brought up a UN civilian contractor/ Special Forces hybrid remote camp in his post, and I brought up the various camp defense scenarios in Iraq with Blackwater in Najaf and Triple Canopy in Al Kut. The best point I brought up, in my opinion, were the remote camps that were completely supplied, operated and defended by civilians with the CMC (Coalition Munitions Clearance) program in Iraq.

What we are exploring with this idea, is how do you get the most bang for your buck in this war, and how do you make your combat troops more lethal and efficient? Our point in the discussion was using contractors to free up the war fighters even more, to get them out into the populations centers and do good things–like kill the enemy or protect and serve the local populations.

Civilians can set up man the defense, they can run camp services, they can run logistics operations to supply the camp, they can fix stuff, and do all the menial tasks that take troops away from the fight. We have already been doing this in Iraq, and to some degree in Afghanistan, but what we are talking about are the small combat outposts that are posted near the villages that we are trying to protect, do road construction and infrastructure projects for, and generally reduce the commute distance between the military and local populations. Tim was making the point that military units come and go, and the continuity of the operation is hindered. If there was a civilian component that was always there, and always manning the operation, that the local populations could recognize and constantly work with, then that would be good. All the military has to do is just keep moving in and out of these camps, and focus on bad guys, we can stay and ensure that the promises we made to the villages are being kept and constantly being worked on until finished.

(more…)

Comments (2)