An unsettling amount of military outsourcing

[airdog07]

An unsettling amount of military outsourcing
By Walter Pincus
The Washington Post
Published: July 10, 2012

WASHINGTON — Six U.S. troops were killed in Afghanistan when an improvised explosive device hit their vehicle Sunday.

The IED is the Taliban’s most dangerous weapon. Combating those deadly devices remains a challenge that requires the best skills U.S. intelligence and military services can muster — and not just buy.

It’s not a job that’s easily outsourced.

But on June 29, the Army awarded a contract for counterinsurgency targeting, intelligence fusion and operations support in Afghanistan, Iraq and elsewhere. Over three years, that contract could be worth more than $176 million.

The contractor “will support and augment, not replace government military and civilian personnel … by integrating contract employees based on their skill sets, into military/civilian intelligence operations,” according to the work statement.

That means that some contracting personnel will work from the Army’s National Ground Intelligence Center (NGIC) in Charlottesville, Va., or from Central Command in Tampa, or from Iraq or Afghanistan.

The personnel will include “novice,” “senior,” and “senior principal” IED and insurgent-network analysts. Also requested are weapons technical intelligence analysts, a collection-requirements manager, logistics assistants, data-entry analysts and operations-support officers.

Harding Security Associates of McLean, Va., won the contract. Retired Maj. Gen. Robert A. Harding founded the company. He left the service in 2001 as the Army’s Deputy G2 (Intelligence), and earlier was head of operations at the Defense Intelligence Agency.
Advertisement

Harding sold the company in June 2009 to a new firm, Six3 Systems, which still uses the Harding Security Associates name.

The top two Six3 officers have government roots. President Robert Coleman served in the National Security Council’s Crisis Management Center in the Ronald Reagan and George H.W. Bush administrations. Michael Zembrzuski, executive vice president, is a 20-year Army intelligence veteran who as a lieutenant colonel in 2002 took over the Antiterrorism Operations Intelligence Cell at the Pentagon.

There’s another connection worth noting.

In March 2006, Harding Security signed a three-year mentor-protege agreement with SAIC, a $10 billion defense contractor.

Under this Pentagon program, the mentor firm is reimbursed for expenses used to help develop the smaller protege firm’s capabilities. The mentor firm can also directly award the protege subcontracts.

SAIC has held an Army NGIC contract similar to the one just awarded to Harding. On April 13, the Army announced its intention to “extend the period of [its] performance” for four more months. Then, apparently, Harding will take over.

In January, SAIC won a contract to support the Pentagon’s overall counter-IED agency, the Joint IED Defeat Organization (JIEDDO) and its Counter-IED Operations/Intelligence Integration Center (COIC). That potentially five-year contract could reach $900 million if all options are exercised, according to SAIC.

That is not SAIC’s only counter-IED contract. It also has one from the Marine Corps that could bring up to $500 million through 2014.

Bet your head is spinning right about now. There are so many deals and dollars flying about.

Congress has taken notice of this counter-IED, counterinsurgency contracting. It tried to rein in some of the spending in the fiscal 2013 defense authorization bill.

For example, Sen. Carl Levin, D-Mich., chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee, focused on JIEDDO’s “duplication of effort with the military services, excessive contractor support costs, and organizational inefficiencies.”

His committee reduced next year’s spending by $200 million, although that still left $1.4 billion for efforts to reduce the IED threat.

Congress should go further.

Why does the Army continue to hire contractors to carry out counterinsurgency intelligence and counter-IED work? Is it related to the reduction in troop levels?

It appears that prime contractors such as SAIC and Harding/Six3 are turning to subcontractors who are former military personnel. As subcontractors, they almost always do the same job they did while in the service, just at higher pay.

On its Web site, Six3 is seeking all-source analysts for its counter-IED targeting program. Applicants must have top secret/SCI (sensitive compartmented information) clearances, at least five years of military service and “especially” deployment in either Iraq or Afghanistan.

Vancro, a Washington-based company, notes on its Web website that it was “originally founded by veterans of Operations Enduring and Iraqi Freedom” in May 2009 and specializes in counter-IED work.

Vancro, too, is advertising for a senior IED and insurgent-network analyst with five years of military service and top secret/SCI clearances who will work in Charlottesville with the possibility of travel and the ability to coordinate with “other NGIC offices.”

There’s something unsettling about so much outsourcing — however necessary some of it may be.

When it comes to IEDs and the lives of our people, we need the best and brightest. Period.


An unsettling amount of military outsourcing - U.S. - Stripes

another EX-somebody making money from the war...

[Para_Frog]

The dudes I worked with - all spooks with CEXC (Combined Explosives Exploitation Cell) and JIEDDO were prior service. And they were badass. I have no problem with retirees/priors making big bank doing that shit.

CEXC contractors (like CSI for bombs) pulled a thumb print off a video camera that was set up to film two of our guys who got killed. Iraqi Special Forces balled them up 48 hours later. They were never seen again.

I'm cool wit it.

[airdog07]

Defense Contractors Vastly Outnumber Troops in Afghanistan
A U.S. contractor stands while a helicopter departs over the gatepost at Combat Outpost Terra Nova in Kandahar, Afghanistan.


For every U.S. service member serving in Afghanistan, there are 1.6 Defense contractors on the ground (and on the payroll) in supporting roles. Contractors make up 62 percent of the force there -- 108,000 versus 65,700 troops, watchdog agency reports reveal.

The Congressional Research Service, in a May 17 report obtained by Steven Aftergood of the Federation of American Scientists, said that the Pentagon spent $159.6 billion on contractor support in Afghanistan and Iraq from 2007 through 2012. A Government Accountability Office report released Wednesday said the Pentagon spent a total of $195 billion on contract services in 2010, double what it spent in 2001. Spending on contract services declined to $174 billion in 2012, GAO said.

Both reports faulted the Pentagon for its inability to provide accurate data on the total number of contractors employed by the Defense Department and the missions those contractors perform.

“Current databases are not sufficiently customized to track important contract data. Even when information is tracked, questions remain as to the reliability of the information,” CRS reported.

One problem is the military services use different methodologies to track contractors. “DOD components used various methods and data sources, including their inventories of contracted services, to estimate contractor [full time equivalents] for budget submissions,” GAO said.

Its analysis found that “the contractor FTE estimates have significant limitations and do not accurately reflect the number of contractors providing services to DOD.” Those limitations included estimating techniques based on potentially inaccurate inventory data, GAO said.

Contract personnel provide a wide range of services, including transportation, construction and base support functions as well as intelligence analysis and private security.

CRS noted that by using contractors on an as-needed basis, the Pentagon can save money and free uniformed personnel to focus on combat operations. The department also can use contractors with specialized skills, such as linguists or weapons maintenance experts, to quickly support specific battlefield needs.

But CRS noted that many analysts believe contractors undermined the military’s credibility and effectiveness in both Iraq and Afghanistan and it criticized Defense for poor planning in how it uses contractors in operational support roles.

“The ineffective use of contractors can prevent troops from receiving what they need, when they need it, and can lead to the wasteful spending of billions of dollars,” CRS said.

GAO said the Pentagon needs to develop a “strategic human capital management” plan that determines the appropriate mix of military, civilian, and contractor workforces and the functions of each.

In a response to the GAO report, Rick Robbins, the department’s director of force manning and requirements, said Defense officials recognized that the contractor FTE information provided in the department’s 2013 and 2014 budget submissions had significant limitations.

He said a reliable, current inventory of contractor FTEs is a fundamental building block for developing future contractor FTE estimates and noted that the department has initiated efforts to improve inventory data by collecting it directly from contractors, using the Army’s Contractor Manpower Reporting Application as a model.