Feral Jundi

Friday, March 2, 2012

Legal News: McCaskill, Webb Introduce Comprehensive Contracting Reform Legislation

Filed under: Legal News — Tags: , , , , , , , , — Matt @ 12:27 PM

Thanks to POGO for posting this news and I would love to hear some feedback from our community on this. As an American and as a tax payer, I am all about contracting reform that leads to savings and minimizing waste and fraud. As a contractor, I am also enthused because I want to see good companies rewarded, and poor companies punished in this industry. Any tools that help make this process called contingency contracting more efficient, an asset to national interest and security, and rewards good behavior/punishes bad when doing business with private industry, is a good thing.

Below I have posted two videos made by the Senators that describe this legislation and all of the work that went into it. POGO provided a basic summary of some of the key points in this legislation on their website and here is a PDF of the legislation.

I guess the only reservation I have is the secondary effects of legislation like this. It is very hard to tell how some of this stuff will impact the guy on the ground. Will it increase the quality of contracts out there?  Will it hinder my ability to provide security services on these contracts?  Will this legislation hamstring national security, or enhance it?

Another fear is that now that the wars are winding down, that the lessons learned about contracting during war time will disappear or be marginalized. They mentioned this fear in the videos below, and it is food for thought.

My final point is that bravo to both Senators for recognizing the value of contractors. We are the other ‘All Volunteer’ force that makes our current volunteer military system work. These wars would have been radically different if the forces and support forces were raised by a draft. I personally think that a military supported by a contractor force is far more effective than a ‘slave army’.

A slave army is one where many of the participants are there because they are forced to be there. There is quite the difference between a military and contractor force filled with folks who want to be there or want to fight, and a conscripted military partially filled with folks who do not want anything to do with fighting or being in a war.

This system makes all the difference for war planners and political leaders who need time and flexibility when fighting an enemy and/or country that is not easily defeated within a short period of time. They need that flexibility for the politics of war, and they need that flexibility when situations change dramatically in a war–like losing partners in a coalition.

Does it make it easier for a country to go to war?  Maybe. Or maybe we have developed a way of warfare that fits well within the mindset and fabric of a modern liberal democracy? It also fits well within the plans of strategists and leaders tasked with protecting this country and supporting national interest. –Matt


McCaskill, Webb Introduce Comprehensive Contracting Reform Legislation

Wednesday, February 29, 2012
On Wednesday, February 29, 2012, Senators Claire McCaskill and Jim Webb introduced legislation to overhaul the federal government’s planning, management, and oversight of wartime contracting.  The Senators’ comprehensive reform legislation (S. 2139) builds on the recommendations of the U.S. Commission on Wartime Contracting in Iraq and Afghanistan – an independent, bipartisan panel that Senators McCaskill and Webb created through legislation they introduced in 2007.
Press release here.

 

 

Wednesday, August 31, 2011

Publications: CWC Final Report To Congress–Transforming Wartime Contracting, August 2011

Filed under: Industry Talk,Publications — Tags: , , , , — Matt @ 3:25 PM

Here it is. If you want some light reading, this is the report for you. lol Actually, the more folks that can read this thing, the more input I can get about it. If you find anything wrong with the report, or disagree with one of the findings, then definitely let the viewing public know about it in the comments below.

I would also like to commend the members of this commission for taking on such a daunting task and coming up with a product. Now the key is to learn from it, and make the necessary adjustments. We have enough reports and information to build an excellent contingency contracting program. Now it just takes leadership and resolve to act on those lessons learned.

I also wanted to comment on something that I think is pretty telling. At no time did the commission ever make an effort to contact me or this blog. Although I know that a good portion of my readership comes from the beltway and I have to assume that the various researchers tasked with helping the CWC have come across this blog. But no one has come forward to talk, and that is really too bad. What are you scared of?

For that matter, I haven’t seen any CWC folks reach out on the various forums that this industry congregates on, and that is odd to me as well. Although I am sure the CWC has reached out to the various companies and associations, it just seems that they have completely avoided talking to the very group that their report would impact.

Contractors have been killed and wounded in this war in great numbers, and they will continue to make that sacrifice. Contractors also have a huge presence in today’s war zones, and thousands have served over the years. Arguably, this highly flexible civilian army is a strategic asset to this nation. If it isn’t, then implement the draft or spend the money on recruitment to bring everything under military control.

I highly doubt that politicians will ever have the political will to implement a draft, or to convince tax payers to raise a standing army of such size and nature. The point is, is that contractors are here to stay and this nation cannot go to war without us. So to not reach out to this industry and acknowledge this sacrifice and contribution, is just wrong.-Matt

 

CWC Final Report To Congress–Transforming Wartime Contracting, Controlling Costs, Reducing Risk, August 2011

Thursday, April 1, 2010

Industry Talk: Wartime Contractors Need More Federal Guidance

Filed under: Industry Talk,Iraq — Tags: , , , , , , — Matt @ 1:04 AM

     Not the point, said Thibault. “There are two parties that sign the contract: the government, and they have an obligation to keep track of what they’re doing; and the company, and they have an obligation to perform the contract in the most efficient and effective manner. And that’s why I say there’s ample remedial work for both.” 

*****

   The government is being somewhat unfair and kind of stupid about this. I put all of the blame on the feds for any issues that arise with this drawdown.  We have had plenty of time to plan and modify contracts, and there are plenty of reports that spell out exactly what the government should do in order to manage this stuff–but they continue to not do it.

    If folks would get off their butts and see for themselves what the companies are doing, then the government–who are the ones ‘writing the check’, should exercise the right to call BS on anything that is in direct conflict with the contract.  But if there is nothing in the contract about the drawdown, nor has there been any renegotiations with the companies about that drawdown, well then of course companies are going to continue doing what they are doing. So with that quote up top, I think it is backwards. It is the government who should have an obligation to perform contract oversight in the most efficient and effective manner.  The companies are just working off that current contract, and it is on the government to enforce it or modify it if there are issues. Or is this where companies are supposed to be doing their own thing now?  Pfffft.

   My other point with this, is that the government should be very careful in how they go about doing this.  Contractors have families back home, and they also vote.  If you screw over a contractor who signed an agreement/contract with their company, because of your poor planning and managment, well then you have just lost one more constituent. Especially during a time of extreme unemployment back home.

   Everyone working in Iraq knows that things are winding down. But there is a right way to cut away people, and a wrong way.  The right way, is for the government to effectively and quickly communicate to the companies exactly what it wants as the situation develops–and modify the contract to deal with that reality. Communicate, communicate, and communicate!!! The government should have lots of folks out there, looking at the operations of all the companies and work, and continually assessing how things are going.  There should not be any surprises, and it just takes leadership and getting off your ass and doing it, to make sure it is properly managed.

    And in turn, the companies should be honest with their contractors when they get any kind of contract news, and give them sufficient warning when they are to be let go. We just need a heads up, so we know when to start looking for another job. That is the descent thing to do, but somehow I just don’t see it happening that way. –Matt

—————————————————————–

Wartime contractors need more federal guidance

March 30, 2010

By Suzanne Kubota

While the military is “aggressively accomplishing its drawdown” in Iraq, industry “is lagging in their efforts” to do so, according to the Commission on Wartime Contracting.

“In fact,” Commission co-chair Michael Thibault told Federal News Radio, “there are come very noticeable examples that were brought out (in a hearing yesterday) where there are a lot of people sitting around waiting to work.”

The problem, said Thibault, involves a lot of finger pointing.

This is one of those deals that’s kind of like “Where’s Waldo?” The military would tell you that they’re communicating reasonably effectively and that the contractor has a responsibility, when they see very substantial numbers of staff idle, to notify them and that it’s not occuring. And the companies will… play the other side out, which is they just weren’t getting the guidance (from Defense) and the only way they can work… I mean if they’re over-staffed, that’s unfortunate, but if the only way they can react is to get guidance from their contracting officer and absent that they’re obligated to keep that staff there.

(more…)

Monday, September 14, 2009

Video: CSPAN–Wartime Contracting in Afghanistan and Iraq: DoS and the Kabul Fiasco

Filed under: Afghanistan,Video — Tags: , , , , , — Matt @ 8:38 AM

   I am watching this right now, and it is fascinating.  They talk about ‘Snack Pack’ (dressing like Afghans and going outside the wire to do a recon) and the hazing stuff.  Lots of interesting little tidbits being covered in this deal.

    The overall impression that I get, is that this hearing is bashing the crap out of State for not doing anything about this stuff when it was brought up, time and time again over the years.  This contract has been a joke for awhile, and State could care less about squaring it away. –Matt

Edit:

     The most profound thing in this whole deal was Samuel Brinkley alluding to the idea that the Snack Pack was condoned by the State Department. (Snack Pack was the group that did the recon outside the wire–big no, no, and definitely not in the contract)

   I will applaud him for the apologies to the industry, and that is the least he could do. Although I am not too convinced that he is the right guy for that VP job with Wackenhut.  He didn’t even know what a Gurkha was, and he actually thought that all of his Nepalese guards on the contract at the Embassy were Gurkhas.  LOL

     Oh, and the AGNA supervisor that put together that Rat Poster (friends do not rat on friends…..), is an idiot. You know who you are, and guys like you do not deserve to be in management or even in this industry. –Matt

(more…)

Monday, August 24, 2009

Afghanistan: U.S. Panel on Wartime Contracting to Return to Afghanistan

Filed under: Afghanistan,Industry Talk — Tags: , , , — Matt @ 11:42 PM

The commission’s visit to Afghanistan comes as US commanders weigh cutting back on desk jobs and other support staff to free up troops for combat, a move that could require more private contractors to fill the gap.

   I know, why don’t we send the cooks to the frontli….. oh, my bad, the cooks are all KBR contractors.  lol (I had to say it) 

   Outstanding news, and I hope the team is able to collect some good scoop on how things are going.  One thing this group might want to consider though, is the massive dog and pony show that will go on as soon as these folks hit the deck.  Now will they get an accurate assessment of how things are really going, who knows?  But I guess it is the thought that counts.       If you are one of the folks that this group visits, please do not be vocal in any issues you might have.  How can anything be fixed, if no one says anything about it? I am sure the latest Program Support report is floating around in the team’s heads right now, as is the enormous pressure from the administration to not have any more embarrassments that could impede the war effort, so now is a perfect opportunity to get this right because folks actually care.

   The other part of this article that I wanted to point out, was the latest troop shuffling game that General McChrystal and gang has been throwing around. The article mentioned briefly the idea, and I thought it was important to mention it again seeing how the MSM kind of glanced over it.  All joking aside, that is scraping the barrel if the goal is to use support personnel to throw to the front lines.

    The MSM is missing the big story on this as well.  We have more contractors in Afghanistan than troops, we have a massive surge of security contractors in Iraq and Afghanistan, yet the MSM is fixated on the idea that we are evil and not worth the attention because of a company called Xe.  Really?  It seems to me that it is contractors that are saving the day when it comes to man power issues for these wars, and yet the media and the public continues to ignore that fact.  Yet again, if you read the reports, the dirty little secret seems to be that contracting is a good idea to the Obama administration and the Generals of this war.  Losing the war in Afghanistan or Iraq tends to weigh pretty heavily on the minds of our leaders, and obviously contractors have become an important part of that strategy of not losing. –Matt

——————————————————————

US panel on wartime contracting to return to Afghanistan

August 22, 2009

WASHINGTON — A US commission investigating wartime contracting said it plans to return to Afghanistan on Sunday as part its effort to stem fraud and waste by private defense contractors.

(more…)

Powered by WordPress