Ms Sparky

KBR’s contracts are classified? What is the DoD hiding?

September 1, 2010 — Ms Sparky

Army Secretary says KBR contract still classified

Published: Tuesday, September 01, 2010, 6:41 PM
Julie Sullivan, The Oregonian Julie Sullivan, The Oregonian

The Army’s combat mission in Iraq has ended, but details of the no-bid contract it signed with Kellogg, Brown and Root before the war started remain classified.

On Tuesday, Sec. of the Army John McHugh said he would not release the contract’s specifics that holds taxpayers — and not KBR — responsible for any harm to a soldier or civilian as it worked restoring Iraqi oil flows in 2003.

But in a two-page response to U. S. Rep. Earl Blumenauer’s demand for details, McHugh reveals how unusual the Army’s arrangement with the former Halliburton subsidiary was.

“Apart from the Restore Iraqi Oil contract with KBR, no other Army contracts awarded since 2001….contain indemnification provisions,” McHugh wrote. “The Army has made no payments as a result of indemnification provisions with contractors supporting contingency operations in Iraq. Afghanistan or anywhere else.”

In July, Blumenauer demanded the Army produce the contract after KBR’s claims of immunity emerged in a U.S. District Court case in Portland. Chris Heinrich, a KBR attorney, said in a sworn deposition that after KBR signed its Restore Iraqi Oil contract and as the March 2003 invasion was taking place, he went to the Pentagon himself to demand immunity for KBR.

He told Army officials that KBR refused to do the restoration without “broad coverage.” KBR required that taxpayers — not the war contractor — pay for any property damage, injury or death at any KBR site. That applies even if the harm resulted from KBR negligence. KBR eventually billed the government $2.5 billion for the work.

But it could cost taxpayers millions more. Dozens of National Guard soldiers from four states have sued KBR since 2008 claiming the contractor knowingly or negligently exposed them to a cancer-causing chemical at the Qarmat Ali water treatment plant. Among them: 26 Oregon Army National Guard soldiers who arrived at the Iraq plant in late May 2003. They claim breathing, stomach and skin issues result from their exposure to hexavalent chromium.

Blumenauer expressed disbelief that the specifics would remain classified — even after combat operations ceased.

“Who is it precisely we’re keeping information from?” he asked. “It appears the only reason to invoke this classification at this point is to keep information from the American public.”

Blumenauer said he is drafting a bill requiring such an arrangement be reported to Congress in the future. “There ought to be someone looking over their shoulders.”

Meanwhile, the National Guard soldiers’ case is moving forward in Portland. Monday, U.S. District Magistrate Judge Paul Papak denied a KBR motion to dismiss.

Spokeswoman Heather Browne said KRB disagrees with the judge and may appeal. She restated KBR’s stand that the Army was responsible for safety at the plant. (click HERE for original article)

Posted in CHEMICAL AND OTHER EXPOSURES, GOV. CONTRACTORS, KBR Contract, LAWSUITS, LOGCAP III - KBR, LOGCAP IV - KBR, Politics, Qarmat Ali Lawsuits, RIO-KBR, Sodium Dichromate @ Qarmat Ali. Tags: John McHugh, KBR Contract, Qarmat Ali, Rep. Earl Blumenauer. 11 Comments »

The LTC Rocky Baragona Act (Part II)

August 30, 2010 — Pam Baragona

LTC Rocky Baragona, age 42, was killed on 19 May 2003 when his vehicle collided with a tractor trailer driven by a foreign national working for KGL Transportation Company. Baragona died at the scene. (photo courtesy of Baragona Family)

This is Part II of The Rocky Baragona Act continued from The LTC Rocky Baragona Act (Part 1)

Foreign Contracting and Human Trafficking

Working to uncover the truth behind Rocky’s death, we learned that KGL truck drivers often complained of being trafficked; forced to deliver goods, against their will, to US troops in Iraq. Some had been kidnapped, others arrested for smuggling on the black market. A former KGL employee spoke of insurance fraud and falsification of documents in order to win Army contracts; however, fear has kept him silent. Through our own investigating we learned that KGL had been banned in India for recruiting scams. These scams included bringing in untrained drivers to drive trucks on a promise that the driving would be in country, only to find out that they would be driving into Iraqi war zones. With no passport, no money, and the threat of breach of contract, these drivers were forced to drive into Iraq with little to no experience. The US Army looked the other way when a contractor like KGL used questionable hiring practices. There was simply no oversight. I was appalled by the apathy of our military to do nothing about it.

Allowing foreign contractors to perform contracts in violation of the Fars and International Law to support a war fought for democracy was everything my brother was against. It was clear however, forced labor in defense contracting is an acceptable way of doing business and we were not going to get any support.

Getting In The Ring

Undeterred with the “behind the scenes” of foreign contracting, Rocky’s Justice moved us back to the Hill to use diplomatic measures through Senator DeWine, the Kuwait Ambassador and the Prime Minister…The answer- KGL is untouchable.

Them were some fighting words!!

So we jumped in the ring and hit them in the jaw with a wrongful death suit in the U.S. Northern Georgia Courts. (Read the rest of the story here…)

Posted in A Soldiers Story, GOV. CONTRACTORS, LAWSUITS, Senate & House Committee Hearings. Tags: Ali Dashti, Dominic Baragona, H.R. 2349, IRISL, KGL, LTC Rocky Baragona, LTC Rocky Baragona Act, Pam Baragona, Rep. Brad Sherman, Rep. Ron Klein, Rep. Steve Driehaus, S. 2782, Valfajre. 15 Comments »

Oregon National Guard wins round 2 against KBR

August 30, 2010 — Ms Sparky

Oregon Guard suit against KBR goes forward on hexavalent chromium exposure
Published: Monday, August 30, 2010, 7:30 PM
Julie Sullivan, The Oregonian Julie Sullivan, The Oregonian

A federal judge ruled Monday that a lawsuit by Oregon Army National Guard veterans against war contractor Kellogg, Brown & Root can proceed.

The decision makes the federal court in Portland the apex of a legal battle that stretches from Oregon to West Virginia, and from Indiana to Texas, over who is responsible for exposing American soldiers to a known cancer-causing chemical early in the Iraq war.

Already, the Oregon case has opened a window into the government’s unprecedented use of private companies in Iraq and the lucrative contracts that have remained secret until now.

Beginning in May 2003, hundreds of U.S. and British troops guarded KBR workers as they worked to restore Iraqi oil flows. At a decrepit Qarmat Ali water treatment plant, piles of a toxic orange-yellow powder stained the soil, water and walls.

The powder was a rust-fighter, sodium dichormate, which contains hexavalent chromium. Exposure to 40 micrograms of hexavalent chromium per cubic meter — about the size of a grain of salt in about a cubic yard — has shown a high increase in lung, stomach, brain, renal, bladder and bone cancers.

In 2009, 26 Oregon Guard veterans sued KBR, claiming its managers downplayed or dismissed the presence of the chemical.

U.S. District Magistrate Paul Papak denied KBR’s second motion to dismiss the suit. His fact-finding refutes three of KBR’s long-time assertions. He found:

KBR brought additional sodium dichromate to Qarmat Ali in June 2003, stored and worked with it. KBR has consistently claimed the chemical was left by Iraqis after Saddam Hussein’s overthrow.
KBR knew of the sodium dichromate before most of the soldiers ever arrived, warning a subcontractor — but not the U.S. military or soldiers — that areas of the water plant were contaminated. The Oregon Guard weren’t notified of the chemical until August 2003, two months after they had guarded employees at the plant.
KBR was contractually obligated to provide an environmental assessment at Qarmat Ali and report hazards. KBR says the army was responsible for the assessment.

David Sugerman, the Portland consumer attorney representing the veterans, said, “We are very pleased.”

KBR spokewoman Heather Browne said in an email, “We are disappointed with the ruling and we are in the process of reviewing the decision.”

Troops from four states and Britain claim they suffer health problems as a result of the exposure. At least two soldiers who were exposed to the chemical have died of cancer.

Earlier this summer, KBR attorneys moved to dismiss the Oregon case for lack of jurisdiction. They argued that the contractor was “merely executing the will of the United State.” They also claimed that KBR was acting as a combatant during wartime, and should receive the same legal protection the military.

But in a 29-page opinion, Judge Papak found that KBR’s work restoring Iraqi oil was a foreign policy goal rather than a combatant activity.

“The defendents operations were more akin to restoring the battlefield to productive use after the battle has ended than to aiding warriors to swing the sword,” Papak wrote, citing another case law in denying KBR’s claim.

Details of the 2003 Restore Iraqi Oil contract have already raised congressional concern. Earl Blumenhauer, D-Ore., has written the Secretary of the Army demanding details of the agreement because American taxpayers — and not KBR — could pay if the war contractor is found to have harmed Oregon veterans. (click HERE for the original article)

Posted in CHEMICAL AND OTHER EXPOSURES, GOV. CONTRACTORS, LAWSUITS, Lawsuits Against KBR, Qarmat Ali Lawsuits, RIO-KBR, Sodium Dichromate @ Qarmat Ali. Tags: David Sugarman, hexavalent chromium, Judge Paul Papak, Julie Sullivan, Lawsuits Against KBR, Oregon National Guard, Qarmat Ali, Rep. Earl Blumenauer. No Comments »

Contractors resist US disclosure effort

August 30, 2010 — Forseti

Database lists fraud and shoddy work

Bryan Bender, Globe Staff - August 30, 2010 – WASHINGTON — Defense companies and other major industries are hoping to block disclosure of their own fraudulent or substandard performance in federal contracts, despite a mandate this year by Congress that such potentially embarrassing information be released to the public.

Sensitive to concerns raised by the companies, the White House has delayed enacting the little-known disclosure provision while it studies the issue, officials said.

The controversy highlights the extent to which efforts to make the government more transparent often garner bipartisan support but then stall in the face of powerful interests seeking to limit public disclosure.

The White House, in a statement, acknowledged that “there will be legal and practical issues’’ that have to be addressed before the new law can be implemented.

“But we intend to do that as quickly as possible, in keeping with the administration’s commitment to increasing transparency in government contracting,’’ said Meg Reilly, a spokeswoman for the White House Office of Management and Budget.

At issue is a database that is currently kept secret, called the Federal Awardee Performance and Integrity Information System. Companies are required to fill the database with information about their failures on federal contracts, including civil, criminal, and administrative findings against them.

The database was established in 2008 for the private use of government officials who oversee contracts, but was not intended to be made public.

Contractors complain that disclosing all that information could lead to the unfair use of damaging information by watchdog groups, the media, and their rivals.

But Senator Bernard Sanders of Vermont, an independent who managed this summer to win a disclosure provision in a war spending bill that was signed by President Obama, said the public has a right to know when taxpayer dollars are improperly used or criminally misspent.

“We hand out over $500 billion a year to federal contractors, many of which have well-established histories of systemic illegal, fraudulent, and incompetent behavior,’’ Sanders said in a statement. “We cannot let these corporations continue to rip off American taxpayers. I strongly expect that this new public awareness will go a long way toward putting an end to handing out taxpayer-financed contracts to corporations with a history of fraud.’’

(Read the rest of the story here…)

Posted in GOV. CONTRACTORS, Politics, Reports & Investigations, Senate & House Committee Hearings. Tags: FAPIIS, Professional Services Council, Project on Government Oversight, Senator Bernard Sanders. 1 Comment »

DoD awards Agility $25M contract extension after suspension

August 30, 2010 — Ms Sparky

The USG is clearly Agility's cash and they appear to be milking it for all its worth.

First of all I find it interesting this award was posted on a Saturday. Was the DoD/DLA hoping no one would notice??

Here is the official FBO (FedBizOps.com) notice of Agility’s 6-month contract extension for Defense Distribution Depot Kuwait, Southwest Asia (DDKS). Although it clearly states the extension is for the sole purpose of transitioning to the new awardee (award scheduled for 31AUG), it still amazes me and others familiar with this situation, that nearly 11 months after their suspension Agility still has this contract. The extension value is estimated at $25M. Jean Howds a regular MsSparky.com reader who’s close to this issue says, “I think it’s suspicious and down right wrong the USG has moved so slowly to extricate themselves from Agility’s grasp!” My opinion and that of others is: the USG was banking on their strong arm tactics forcing Agility to pay a fine and/or settle the indictments. This would have allowed them to keep their contract. Evidently the USG was too optimistic and underestimated the arrogance of Tarek Sultan.