Feral Jundi

Wednesday, July 11, 2012

Publications: GPF Report On Private Military And Security Companies And The UN

Filed under: Industry Talk — Tags: , , , , , , , , — Matt @ 3:03 AM

This one is a hard read, just because it is filled with bias against this industry. lol But if you can look beyond that junk and check out some of the details in the back of paper, they list some interesting stuff. Especially what companies the UN has used and currently uses, and how much money all of the UN programs have been spending on private security. Each year, it has been going up.

Now I agree with the authors that the UN should do everything in it’s power to hire quality companies that are vetted, and that these companies have appropriate rules and regulations guiding their use of force and whatnot. All of that is very important.

But I disagree with the authors view that companies are questionable in their ability to ‘help the U.N. promote democracy, the rule of law and human rights’. Especially when some of the military units that the UN has used has only hurt their image and their ability to promote democracy, the rule of law and human rights. It is disgraceful how poorly some of the military units that the UN has used in the past have acted–or not acted.

Either way, I believe private industry can and will do a far more superior job for the UN, and the UN will continue to contract the services of these companies. The amount of money they have spent on security has only increased from year to year, and the world is not getting any more safer. The UN does have a duty to responsibly contract these services–and god forbid, learn from their mistakes and the mistakes of others. lol It is all about actually caring about getting a good value for the money given to them by donor nations, and exercising their right as the client to actually fire bad companies. Pure principal-agent problem stuff here.

Also, I think as ISO standards come onto the scene, this will only help the UN in determining qualified vendors. We have had 10 plus years of war time contracting, and these companies are pretty experienced in providing a service in poor and unstable environments throughout the world. These companies are willing and able to enter into these risky jobs and that says a lot as well. I think the UN would be dumb to not tap into this resource, and especially as money becomes tighter and the world continues to have conflict. –Matt

 

Dangerous Partnership – Private Military and Security Companies and the UN
( GPF Policy Papers, Articles and Statements )
GPF’s report on the use of Private Military and Security Companies by the United Nations is out! This investigative report reveals that the UN has dramatically increased its use of these companies in recent years, hiring them for a wide array of “security services” and giving them considerable influence over its security policies. It also reveals that the UN has no process to vet these companies and that UN leadership has been closing its eyes to company misconduct for more than twenty years. GPF calls on the UN to reform this out-of-control system and to critically examine whether these companies really make the UN safer, or whether they might achieve the opposite effect. You can read the executive summary and the full report.

—————————————————————

UN criticized for using private security companies
July 11, 2012
By EDITH M. LEDERER
A non-profit organization that monitors the United Nations published a report Tuesday criticizing the U.N.’s growing use of private military and security companies.
The Global Policy Forum said the U.N.’s increasing use of these companies is “dangerous,” may increase rather than reduce threats and attacks on U.N. buildings and personnel, and suggests a system that is “unaccountable and out of control.”

(more…)

Thursday, February 9, 2012

Publications: The Oil And Gas Infrastructure Security Market 2012-2022

Filed under: Industry Talk,Publications — Tags: , , , , , — Matt @ 4:30 AM

Visiongain calculates the global oil and gas infrastructure security market will reach $29.16bn in 2012.

Boy, I would love to get my hands on this thing. But at $2,633, I will have to pass. lol As you can see, this type of information is extremely valuable to those companies that specialize and compete in this market. Oil and Gas security is a huge market for security contractors, and as the demand for energy increases and more instability threatens the oil producing regions of the world, then guys and gals like us who protect the infrastructure and the people building and supporting that infrastructure will become increasingly important and necessary. It’s nice to be wanted.

Just look at piracy and it’s impact on oil shipments? An entire tanker taken off the market because of a couple of hijackers, can send ripples in the market. Numerous tankers taken can send shock waves.

Look at the attacks on pipelines all throughout the world and try to calculate the impact on those markets that depend on that gas or oil. Especially during winter time. Energy security is big business, and until some ‘black swan’ type energy invention comes on to the scene that makes oil and gas obsolete, then I don’t see much change in the current direction of the market.

Interesting stuff and if any of the companies that bought this thing, or anyone that has actually looked at the report would like to give us some juicy tidbits, we are all ears. –Matt

 

The Oil & Gas Infrastructure Security Market 2012-2022
Report Details

Over the next decade, global demand for oil and gas is set to rapidly increase as rising populations and economic growth help to drive the industry. This will create a need for additional oil and gas infrastructure to be constructed. At the same time, many countries around the world are currently facing a number of security challenges stemming from civil unrest, terrorist activities, and a competitive global market. Together, these factors will create substantial opportunities for companies involved in the oil & gas infrastructure security market as a range of products and services will be needed to protect both existing and future assets. Visiongain calculates the global oil and gas infrastructure security market will reach $29.16bn in 2012.

This report offers an examination of the oil and gas infrastructure security market over the next decade, providing detailed market forecasts for each of the leading 15 national markets, as well as forecasts for the four sub-markets: perimeter security and surveillance, maritime security, access control, and cyber security. The various drivers and restraints of the market are evaluated in order to provide readers with specific insights into the future direction of the industry and where the greatest opportunities are likely to be found. How much are the leading national oil and gas infrastructure security markets planning to spend on acquiring new technologies and services between 2012 and 2022? How will each of the sub-markets perform over the next ten years? Who are the leading companies in the oil and gas infrastructure security industry? What factors will drive growth opportunities over the next decade?

(more…)

Tuesday, February 7, 2012

Industry Talk: Security Contracting On Both Sides Of The US-Mexican Border

Filed under: Industry Talk,Mexico — Tags: , , , — Matt @ 11:35 AM

Armed private security is a booming business in many parts of Latin America, and demand for personal protection services in Mexico is growing at least 20 percent a year, driven by foreign and local business executives looking to safeguard their families and employees, according to Robert Munks, a senior Americas analyst with London-based IHS-Jane’s, which tracks global security trends.

Here are two great articles that cover the current situation of security contracting both in Mexico, and on the US side of the border. The bottom line is that business is good for US executive protection providers in places like Texas, and business is good for Mexican security companies on their side of the border.

The first article talks about business on the US side and mentions a few companies that folks can check out if they are interested. The companies listed are Texas Professional Bodyguards LLC, BlackStone Group Security, Reynolds Protection and Sentry Security and Investigations LP. These are all Texas companies and it sounds like all of them have seen an increase in business.

The reason for the increase is pretty simple. Affluent Mexicans that come to the US fear getting attacked by sicarios hired by the cartels. Here is the quote that perked me up.

In Texas, crimes linked to cartels include 25 homicides since 2009 and 120 kidnappings and extortions reported since 2004 that have involved drugs and immigrants unlawfully in the country, according to the Texas Department of Public Safety. At least one Austin homicide in the past five years has been cartel-related, police have said.

The second article is a Washington Post article and it describes the private security market on the other side of the border. They basically cover what is already known and that is Mexican security companies are doing well, but US companies are limited because of the firearms restrictions. Although there is a lot of money for training and support related stuff, the reality is that you just won’t see many armed US (or other) security contractors down there because of Mexico’s Article 27 firearms codes.

On the other hand, they do mention a few companies that are operating across the border. They are DynCorp International, Kroll, Spectre Group International LLC, SECFOR, and Robert Oatman.

Personally I think Mexico is foolish for not tapping into this wartime security contracting industry. If the laws were changed and there were provisions that allowed security contractors to be armed and operate in Mexico under some type of SOFA, then you would see this side of the industry getting more involved. I mean if you have entire towns in Mexico that have become vacant because of drug violence, then that might indicate that they do not have enough competent security folks to meet then need. Just saying….

Of course training and logistical support will be there and I expect to see more of that as time goes by. Just look how much money has already been spent according to this quote?

American security aid pays for some of those programs, while other contractors are paid by the Mexican government, whose spending on security jumped from $1.7 billion in 2005 to more than $12 billion in 2011, according to the think tank Mexico Evalua.
There are no precise figures on the number of U.S. security contractors working in Mexico, but the Pentagon and the State Department spent $635.8 million on counternarcotics contracts in Latin America in 2009, a 32 percent increase from 2005, according to an analysis prepared by the office of Sen. Claire McCaskill (D-Mo.) in June.

That is a lot of cash being dedicated to the cause and the companies will certainly provide whatever services that are needed. –Matt

 

Private security for Mexican citizens a growing business in Austin, state
By Jazmine Ulloa
Wednesday, Jan. 18, 2012
Some private security companies in Austin and across Texas have begun tapping into a burgeoning demand: personal protection services for wealthy Mexican citizens visiting the United States.
The increase over the past two years correlates with a wave of Mexican citizens, typically well-off business owners and entrepreneurs, looking to relocate to Texas in the wake of the bloodshed seething south of the U.S.-Mexico border, and some security businesses have noted the rising need statewide, agents said.
“There is a growing niche for personal protection (among Mexican citizens), but it is a very low-key niche,” said Philip Klein , CEO of Klein Investigations and Consulting and founder of Texas Professional Bodyguards L L C, which has offices in Houston, Dallas and San Antonio. “There are very few of us who can provide these high-end services, and a lot of us don’t talk about it.”
An example of the security trend was revealed this month when the American-Statesman reported that several Austin police officers were paid cash by an affluent Mexican citizen to watch over his daughter while she attends college. Two officers have left the Austin Police Department since federal and local authorities started criminal and administrative investigations into the off-duty employment, police have said.
But an increasing number of Mexican clients are opting for private security companies, which must meet licensing, registration and insurance mandates, private security professionals said.

(more…)

Thursday, February 2, 2012

Jobs: Olympic Security Jobs With G4S, United Kingdom

Filed under: Jobs,United Kingdom — Tags: , , , , , — Matt @ 8:06 AM

I thought I would put this out there for the guys across the pond. Although I am sure many have already heard about this and have acted accordingly. What is cool is that over at Close Protection World, it looks like representatives are looking for some security pros who can fill out management positions that pay a little better. The first post below describes what they are looking for and the pay. Use the email provided to send a CV or go to the forum itself to find out more information.

The other articles I posted below describe the enormity of the event. They have to fill 10,000 positions and get background checks on all of them. So lots of work is required to make sure that just the security force is squared away and actually ‘secure’. –Matt

 

Olympic Roles with G4S £12 – £17 Per Hour
3 Main roles are as follows:
Supervisor/Team Leader – £12 Per Hour
1 years security supervisor experience can be as a JNCO in the military.
This has been recruited for on this site and has had an amazing response.
Group Leader – £14 Per Hour
1 Years Management experience can be as a SNCO in the military.
Duty Manager – £17 Per Hour
1 Years Management experience, must have managed over 50 staff, can be SNCO in the military.
If any of these roles interest you please forward your CV to olympics@uk.g4s.com .

(more…)

Wednesday, December 28, 2011

Industry Talk: Civilians To Guard Marine Base In Afghanistan

Filed under: Afghanistan,Industry Talk — Tags: , , , , — Matt @ 6:11 AM

This is fantastic news. Check this out. In the solicitation below, they are going to use ‘Best Value Criteria’ for the selection of what company they will go with. So that means they will not be selecting companies by who is the ‘lowest priced and technically acceptable’, or what I call the lowest bidder. Outstanding news and this is exactly what I and others have been harping on for awhile now.

You don’t pick your doctor based on who is the ‘lowest priced, technically acceptable’ and it does not make sense to pick a security company like that either. In both cases, lives are at risk and at Camp Leatherneck, our Marines deserve better.

Now of course this also requires the government to do their due diligence and actually find a good company to do business with. And if they can implement key components into the contract to either keep that company in check, or have the means to get rid of them and go with a better partner, then they should exercise that option. They should also work hard and really understand the dynamics of the company and how they treat their people, once they are hiring and fielding folks. A company can talk a great game, but the proof is in the pudding. And the test is if the base security is sound and the services delivered are exactly what the contract stipulates.

The thing the government should also focus on is the happiness of the guards themselves. Are they getting paid what they were promised, is the company treating them fairly, are they paying their people on time, are they pleased with the living conditions, are they happy with their leadership, is the company giving them good weapons and kit, and is the company doing all they can to take care of their people. Because if you have a happy guard force, then they will work that much harder to keep their job and do well on that contract. Sure it is a war zone and there will be some discomfort with the assigned duties and the environment itself, but there are still a lot of areas that a company can control and do well at in order to keep their folks happy.

The government should also focus on the leadership out in the field and ask them if they are getting the support necessary from headquarters? You get some of these companies that could care less about their managers out in the field, and are horrible at supporting them when for example they are trying to discipline a contractor or get certain equipment that is vital to the mission. Like I said, headquarters should be purely focused on making sure their people on the ground in that war zone are happy and taken care of. If not, then that is when you get the high attrition rate or you have leaders and workers that slack off and could care less about doing a good job. You also have a hard time properly managing these contracts if you have folks that are constantly leaving because they hate working for the company.

The other thing about this contract that perked me up is that they will be fielding 166 guards, and those guards are all to be vetted with a secret security clearance and come from the US or Commonwealth nations. That is great, and that means you will not see a TWISS deal for this contract where Ugandans or similar contractors are guarding the facility.

This is the first such requirement recognized at a Marine Corps installation that requires a higher force-protection standard; therefore, this procurement will be restricted to the citizens of the United States, United Kingdom, Australia, New Zealand, or Canada (FVEY EXPAT). This procurement will contain Classified Information. Therefore, Offerors must also have a current facility clearance, have the appropriate business licenses to carry arms, and operate as a business in Afghanistan.

The other element of this contract that is interesting to me is the weapons. For this deal, contractors will be operating some serious firepower. Which is great, and that is the way it should be. It also explains why there is more of a focus on a ‘higher force-protection standard’.

Personnel will be expected to wear body armor, man security towers and be familiar with the M16A4 rifle, M4 carbine and M9 pistol, plus crew-served weapons such as the M240B heavy machine gun and M2 .50-caliber machine gun. A typical workweek will last up to 72 hours, military documents said.

I wouldn’t mind seeing some mortars or even a Carl Gustav or two thrown in there? Why not some Mk 19’s as well? I mean if you are going to give contractors M 240B’s and M2’s, then why not give them as many tools as necessary to get the job done? But if the Marines feel this appropriate for the base defense, or that maybe a military unit will be manning the bigger more lethal stuff, then that is fine.

Oh, and one more thing. I personally like the guard shift system of three shifts of eight hours. The 12 hour shift is too long and I question how sharp guards can actually be after doing 12 hour shifts for multiple months? Having worked both types of shifts, it is my opinion that the 8 hour shift is the optimum schedule for keeping a guard force happy and sharp. It also helps to have one day off a week, just so guards can disconnect from the job and just relax. It is little things like that, that will make all the difference in the world on these contracts. Either way, I am glad to see that someone is listening to reason when it comes to these contracts. –Matt

 

Civilians to guard Marine base in Afghanistan
By Dan Lamothe
Wednesday Dec 28, 2011
U.S. commanders want civilian contractors to provide military security at the Marine Corps’ largest base in Afghanistan as a planned withdrawal of U.S. forces from the war-torn country expands.
The contracted security personnel will guard Camp Leatherneck, the sprawling, 1,500-acre-plus installation that serves as the Corps’ main hub of operations in Helmand province and home to II Marine Expeditionary Force (Forward), commanded by Maj. Gen. John Toolan. To date, coalition forces have handled security at Leatherneck, but commanders have discussed using contractors for months in anticipation of a smaller Marine footprint, said Lt. Col. Riccoh Player, a Marine spokesman at Leatherneck.

(more…)

« Newer Posts — Older Posts »

Powered by WordPress