By Walter Pincus
Washington Post Staff Writer
Monday, January 11, 2010
Christmas lunch is served at Camp Phoenix near Kabul. Much of the food delivered to the region comes from the United States. (Musadeq Sadeq/associated Press)
One of the least publicized elements of the cost of the fighting in Afghanistan and Iraq is the need to truck into Iraq and landlocked Afghanistan almost all the perishable and non-perishable food items consumed by U.S. forces and civilian personnel.
The Defense Logistics Agency is preparing to contract out delivery of more than $10 billion worth of food to U.S. troops and other government personnel serving in Iraq, Afghanistan, Kuwait and Jordan. The solicitation is broken into two contracts — one for Afghanistan for five years and another for Iraq, Kuwait and Jordan for four years.
The list of items is extensive. The prime vendor, according to the bid solicitation, “must be capable of supplying all chilled products, semi-perishable food stuffs, frozen fish, meat and poultry, other frozen foods (fruits, vegetables, prepared foods, etc.), dairy and ice cream products, fresh and frozen bakery products, beverage base & juices (for dispensers), beverages & juices (nondispenser), fresh fruits and vegetables, non-food items.”
In addition, the vendor will deliver government-furnished food products such as “Unitized Group Rations, Meals Ready to Eat, Health and Comfort packs and other operational rations items (either currently in existence or to be introduced during the term of this award).”
Some of the fresh food can be obtained locally, but much of it must come from the United States, according to the contract. Seventy-seven firms, in the United States and in the region, indicated interest in bidding on the Iraq, Kuwait and Jordan contract. The winner is expected to be named this spring.
A major element in the cost for these contracts is that the winning firms must pay for private security services that supply guards to their shipments.
The four-year contract proposal covering food supplies to be delivered beginning in 2011 to Iraq, Kuwait and Jordan, which could amount to $6.4 billion, warns bidders: “Travel in Iraq remains very dangerous. Various forms of terrorist and criminal elements remain active. Military operations continue. Attacks against military and civilian targets, including military convoys throughout Iraq continue.”
The contract proposal reads, “The prime vendor bears all risk and responsibility for personal injury or death of its employees or agents or subcontractor employees or agents or for any damage to, loss of or demurrage of equipment during the transportation of product into Iraq.”
The Kuwait-based Public Warehousing Company/Agility, which has had the Iraq contract from 2003 through this year, has said 30 of its employees have been killed, 200 injured, 300 trucks destroyed and 700 more damaged over the past six years.
In December 2008, Agility’s chief operating officer, retired Maj. Gen. Dan Mongeon, told Defense News he has hired security units from his company’s Threat Management Group to provide guards for their own trucks. With about 700 to 1,200 trucks moving every day on roads to and from Iraq, Mongeon said, “It was only in our best interest to have this kind of capability.”
However, Mongeon’s company has been barred from bidding on renewal of the new Iraq contract, or any other government contract, after its indictment in November by a federal grand jury in Atlanta for allegedly overcharging on prices delivered under this contract. Public Warehousing Company/Agility has denied the charges.
Negotiations between the company and Justice Department to settle the matter have been tied up because, according to a government official, Agility so far “has refused to recognize the jurisdiction of the U.S. District Court.” A hearing is scheduled for Jan. 29 in Atlanta.
The solicitation for the prime vendor contract to supply food for the Afghanistan area for the five years beginning in 2011 is in a preliminary phase. The Defense Logistics Agency (DLA) is seeking the names of firms interested in bidding on the contract, which will be put up in March. So far, 24 have shown interest in the Afghanistan contract, a job that could involve shipping nearly $800 million in provisions a year, according to DLA.
The current contractor, Supreme Foodservice, was founded in 1957 by a former U.S. Army food-service soldier and first focused on supplying military facilities in postwar West Germany. In the 1970s, it expanded to serve military forces internationally, “particularly in unsettled regions and areas with limited infrastructure,” according to the company’s Web site.
It began some operations in Afghanistan in 2002, and won the vendor contract in 2005.
“Supreme has used a combination of ground, helicopter, and air transportation to more than 65 military sites to ensure mission success,” according to an award citation presented to the company in 2007. (click HERE for the original article)
I’m sure the clarification of who is responsible for their own employees (which I highlighted above) is a direct result of KBR continuously blaming the Army for the deaths of their employees. “The Army is in control of the Mission.” “We do what the Army tells us.” blah blah blah….. Now the Army is saying….”No no no…..they are your employees, they are your responsibility.” And that is as it should be.
Civilian contractors are not soldiers!!! They have rights and the employer has a obligation to protect them.
Ms Sparky
Other Related Posts From Ms Sparky
- Samir Itani got rich sending expired food overseas to U.S. troops in the Middle East
- The Pentagon absolves contractors of responsibility in Middle East
- Blackwater/Xe smuggled weapons into Iraq in dog food containers and still gets USG contracts
- KBR forced to pay overtime to employees in Middle East
- KBR Employees Stranded In Middle East
Ms Sparky – The secret to Agility’s HUGE success is Maj. Gen. (ret.) Dan Mongeon…you’ll find him on their website and all over Google.com. Mongeon was the Director of the Defense Supply Center Philadelphia (DSCP) from 1998 – 2000 before he was promoted to Director of Contracting at the DLA HQ at Fort Belvoir, VA. He ran the contracting operations for all of DLA from 2002 – 2006. PWC (Agility) went from “0″ business in 2003 to $7 Billion from 2004 to date. This is a direct result of Mongeon fixing PWC’s “Prime Vendor” contract when he ran DLA contracting. Mongeon now lives in Kuwait and is President of Agility.
Anon,
Do you know if Maj. Gen (ret) Mongeon has any connections with Lt. Gen (ret) Cosumano or Cerjan other than working together at Agility?
I find it interesting that both Lt. Gen (ret) Cosumano and the current Progam Mgr. & Lt Gen (Ret) Guy LaBoa KBR LOGCAP III are alums from Northwestern State University (Louisiana).
NDR Leadership Team
Honorary Colonel of the Regiment
(HCOR): LTG Joseph Cosumano Jr.
Honorary Executive Officer of the Regiment
(HXOR): LTG Guy LaBoa
http://northwesternalumni.com/s/859/interior-right.aspx?sid=859&gid=1&pgid=406
Cusamano and Cerjan are both closely connected to Mongeon. Whether it’s from NSU I don’t know. Cerjan won’t discuss the current Agility problems. I’ve asked him and he clammed up right away.
T
Interesting to find that these (mentioned) former high ranking officers are from Louisiana, the PETTAWAY that I mentioned in one of Mssparky’s stories concerning the indictment and conviction of the Lt.Col. that received a 17+ year sentence and the others with him including a Nyree Pettaway – well, this particular PETTAWAY that I mentioned- is also from Louisiana.
Could this be a Ka-winky-dinky – or what?
Wasn’t it William S Burroughs who said….”There are no ka-winky-dinks!”
I think if you do a little research you will find that the military is the only thing going for the area that these men come from. I see a lot of posts concerning Louisiana – especially the Leesville bunch and now NSU. I am curious to know what is up with this.
A couple of comments:
I am concerned with one of the consequences of the Prime Vendor providing their own security. They will have to hire private military firms, such as Blackwater to perform this function. Having heavily armed, non-military forces traveling around Afghanistan will probably result in incidents of security forces killing Afghanistani civillians and possibly Taliban killing US civlian security forces. Both of these happened in Iraq and were extremely unhelpful to our goals.
Paul Cerjan is an interesting participant in the Agility story. He worked for KBR, managing LOGCAP from 2004-2005. I met him once in Washington, D.C. During this meeting I informed KBR that, due to failures of continuing business systems and the inability to provide auditable proposals, I was ready to unilaterally determine the cost base for their task orders. I then went to Iraq, Kuwait and Qatar for a month and when I returned was relieved of managing LOGCAP. Hmmmm.
Cerjan was, at one time, President of Regent University. This was the Bush Administration’s favorite source for dedicated conservative operatives. Remember Monica Goodling at DOJ. At least during the Bush Administration he was a very connected guy.
Ms. Sparky:
Again one must be cognizant of what is actually contained in the contract regarding specific items. I agree in the above situation where the contract clearly states that the contract is responsible for the risk to their employees including death and injury – that the contractor is responsible. Additionally, the contract does not require DBA as the pesonnel will not be considered to be actually WORKING on a military base – they will merely be delivering purchased products to the bases.
Please note however that the protection of contractor employees is placed squarely on the Governments shoulders. Under section H.
H-19 Force Protection
While performing duties IAW the terms and conditions of the contract, the Service Theater Commander will provide force protection to contractor employees commensurate with that given to Service/Agency (e.g. Army, Navy, Air Force, Marine, DLA) civilians in the operations area unless otherwise stated in each task order.
Definitions of exactly what this clause means and what is inlcuded can be found in Army FM 3-100.21.
Further the contract requires the Purchase of DBA insurance which is the Disablity and Life Insurance requirement.
Again, although it would be wonderful if the same interpretation could be applied across the board, however, the terms and conditions of the individual contract are what guides the individual application of a situation to a specific situation.
Also to correct a few other things from commentors.
Dan Mongeon is NOT the President of Agility. He is the President of Agility Defense and Government Services, which is a separate US Subsidiary of Agility and he resides in the US.
As far as being from Louisiana having anything to do with it – I doubt it. There are not that many really high ranking offices in the same age group running around. They ALL know each other and have probably for at least 20 to 30 years.
Also the Leesville group has been working contingency long before KBR even existed. Almost the entire town went work for Brown and Root way back in the mid 90′s on LC I, before Haliburton even bought the company.
I didn’t mention anything about Force Protection. I mentioned being responsible for the safety of their employees. KBR has made the claim over and over again especially in the Good Friday Massacre, Qarmat Ali and the Burn Pits that the Military was in charge. KBR employees work for KBR not the military. They are civilians not soldiers. The military is not responsible for them. It states that in the SOW’s of every LOGCAP III Task Order I’ve read. KBR employees are expendable pawns and that’s the way KBR has treated them. All for the Mission. I might take one for the team if the Mission was to protect our soldiers or the sovereignty of this Nation. But KBR mission was strictly financial. I find it hard to swallow that KBR would blame the Army for the death and illness of employees when they had the obligation to protect them. Not the Army.
Please note that in the above post – it should state that under the LOGCAP contract the responsiblity is placed squarely on the Governments shoulders.
This clause is specific to that contract.
The issue of who provides security for Contractors on the Battlefield is one the military must examine as they prepare for future conflicts. As DCAA Auditor notes, the Army decided to have military security for LOGCAP III and IV. This eliminates the problem I mentioned earlier, of the private military contractors (PMCs) sending their “cowboys” to Iraq and Afghanistan to protect the contractors. It does require a significant use of military resources to escort convoys and contractor movement of people and supplies within theater. Most other contracts require the contractor to provide security.
In Iraq it was generally unclear what the legal status of PMCs entailed. The recent dismissal of charges against Blackwater employees who shot a large number of Iraqi citizens has poisoned furture support for our actions in that country.
REP Waxman’s committee developed information that the Blackwater personnel who were shot, burned and hanged were actually supporting a KBR subcontract, which should have been an Army mission. KBR has since been assessed $19 million for costs incurred in private security for which the Government was not liable.
MsSparky,
It just might be a Ka-Winky-Dinky if William S. Borroughs said, “There is no Ka-Winky – Dinks”
.
Mr. Smith
Rep Waxman’s committee did determine that Blackwater did have a contract with A KBR Subcontractor. However, the persons who were the subject of this horrendous incident were actually working on a separate DOS contract not on LC III.
The costs you refer to were actually billed subcontractor costs that were, you are correct reimbursed to the Government. These costs were recouped from subcontractors who incurred them.
I agree – what to do about security for contractor personnel is a big concern. Blackwater is of particular concern based on their employment practices. Blackwater (now XE) does not HIRE anyone – all of their personnel are considered independent contractors and therefore do not receive any benefits including DBA unless they purchase their own. But then XE seems to have protection that others don’t based on the number of DOS contracts they have.
Remember when mercenary was a bad word.
You are correct that most of the contracts in Theater require the contractor to provide their own security. I beleive that you will also agree that this has caused considerable concern in Congress – not just because there is no real control over their actions but also because even back in 2006 it was determined that 46% of the costs of these contracts could be attributed to the contrators having to provide their own security. I remember the initial uproar. It seems the prudent thing to do would be to do an A76 type analysis and determne from a cost standpoint if the tax payer actually pays more of less overall if the contractor provides the security.
Of course if the current Administration follows through with reducing or eliminating contractors and replacing them with Government employees (based on current Government pay rates this is going to be a tough thing to do) then the question will be answered since Force Protection is an inherently Military function for the Government.
Correct me if I’m outdated…it’s been a few years since I’ve worked contingency. What a complex issue!
As I interpret things (or at least did while I was working in contingency), LOGCAP contractors are not classified as PSCs, and as such resultant contracts must follow the Army regulations on contractors on the battlefield. These regulations strictly prohibit non PSCs to provide their own security. In fact, I remember specifically reading that the Army considers security as an inherently governmental/military job. That is why sec H-19 is written the way it is. (I guess for PSCs, they conveniently don’t consider security inherently theirs.)
I believe the actions of KBR in Iraq were taken because senior management felt that if they didn’t adhere to the Army’s schedule and their synopsis of the security situation, even though they felt the were going into harm’s way, they would be held in non-compliance of the contract.
Ms. Sparky, while I agree that contractors are not soldiers, the law does not consider them noncombatants either….not when they are on the battlefield. They’re not considered combatants, rather they have their own unique classification. It is a very complex issue. I bet anything that the fine print on employment contracts address this issue. And I bet 0.01% of the employees truly understand it.
As I understand it, the regulations regarding contractors on the battlefield are currently under heavy scrutiny, and in the process of being revised. It seems to me, the army flip-flops on when and under what circumstances they consider security the same as force protection and thus inherently governmental. This should be something you should remain very interested in, because it will have a huge impact on how future theatre support contracts are written.
One thing is for sure, NOBODY involved ever realized that such a huge number of contractors would be accompanying our forces in Iraq and Afghanistan when these regs and contracts were initially written. LOGCAP has turned into something that the DoD, still to this day, lacks the appropriate manpower to provide oversight on regarding this and other issues.
Sevilleqtr:
You are correct and have pointed out very well where there is confussion and miss information all over. The LOGCAP contracts contain the H-19 clause and KBR has never directly contrated for PSC’s under that contract. They had some early subcontractors that did not understand the prohibition and did hire their own PSC’s. These were for the most part contractors that were not being housed within one of the secure base areas.
Many of the other contracts such as the CPA and AFCAP contracts did not contain this special clause but required the contractor to provide their own security. This was ture of the contracts that rebuilt the power and water plants as well as some of the other construction contracts.
In that case all of the contractors including KBR were responsible for procuring independent security services to protect personnel, property and the work site.
At this time there is not ONE govering regulation. “Contractors on the Battlefield” is an Army Regulation not a DOD regulation. Additionally, based on the location and type of contract – it may or may not make sense for the Government to expend the funds to provide security. For LC it made sense as the convoys were large and scheduled and the employees were all living and working in Army controlled areas. For other contracts like Prime Vendor and the reutilization and recovery contract (where the contractor is required to go out and recover equipment that is damaged in the field) where there were potentially only one or two vehicles involved – providing a full Government security contengent may be prohibitively expensive and a poor use of limited manpower.
The LCIV contact unlike LV III does allow for contractor personnel to be armed and ‘assist’ in security. This is only at the direction of the Theater Commander and the weapons and ammo must be furnished by the Army. Additionally, anyone who is armed under this condition must be certified by the Army.
You are also correct that prior to the current effort – carrying arms and providing security was always considered and inherently military function that could not be contracted. Unfortunately, as the number of Active Duty personnel declined and the requirement increased there were just not enough service members to perform the task.
I agree that not just LC but the entire effort in the Theater has turned into something that is now impossible to oversee and monitor. In previous efforts (Balkans, Somilia, Haiti) there was just one contract LOGCAP and only one LC contractor. There are over 130 major contracts in the Theater now only 4 of which are LOGCAP (1 LC III and 3 LCIV). It is so confussing that I have seen auditors assigned to do audits on a specific contract and contractor – only to discover that the contractor named is not even the one that has the contract they are suppose to be auditing.
I think if we had not tried to do everything at once, bring peace, rebuild the infrastructure, build new infrastructure, and a dozen other side projects it would have been more organized and easier to manage.