Hot off the presses. Below is the much anticipated Agility indictment. I haven’t read the whole document with all the attached exhibits, but I wanted to get it out there for all those watching this ridiculous Agility fiasco unfold.
USA vs PWC/Agility Indictment
I have also uploaded the Indictment with the 31 exhibits. This is a 7.7MB zip file. Feel free to download it HERE.
I think Tarek Sultan would look great in an orange jumpsuit. What about you?
Ms Sparky
I’m in Kuwait.
Just tried to download the indictment. I love a juicy legal proceeding with my coffee in the morning…
For some strange reason, the link is being blocked by DoD servers (which happen to route through the Kuwaiti network).
Coincidence?
Well that didn’t take long. I will try to email you the indictment. You might try to find a non DoD system to download the exhibits.
Agility/GCC/Taos is attempting to force employees on their way out (due to their contracts not being renewed by the USG) to sign a document promising not to speak disparagingly against the company, REVEAL THE TRUTH, etc. I love how Agility is so worried about their image……NOW. A little too late don’t you think.
Maybe someone can FEDEX an orange jumpsuit to Tarek Sultan. I’d pay serious cash to see him in that ensemble.
I hope that the DoD and the DoJ remember that most of these contractors that have been or will be indicted hired retired US Military officers as executives within their organizations. These retirees are subject to the UCMJ and have a lot to lose if they don’t cooperate with authorities:
http://usmilitary.about.com/od/justicelawlegislation/a/ucmjart2.htm
Forseti,
Some of the PWC/Agility individuals wanted for questioning by the USG (i.e. Toby Switzer) are retired US Military. They are aware they would be immediately picked up at Immigration as they entered the states and purposely haven’t returned for 2-3 years. Still subject to UCMJ? Maybe, but if they’re in Kuwait, good look with jurisdiction and enforcement. I guess they plan on never returning to the US or waiting until the case has been dismissed and/or blown over.
Perhaps the USG could put a little pressure on them by impacting their bottom line aka retirement benefits. Seems these individuals will do almost anything for money.
Toby Switzer’s salary was over $350K annually, so I doubt his Navy retirement, even if completely withdrawn, would be of a much penalty. Jail time is what the USG wants!
This comment came in anonymously, but appears to be a communication from Tarek Sultan to employees/shareholders etc. I do not normally allow anonymous comments quoting someone else. But these same statements appeared in various media. If someone can authenticate this communication and possibly even send me the original email that would be appreciated. ~ Ms Sparky
What is amazing is that DLA’s Director, James Washington, James.Washington@dla.mil, must be not reading Ms. Sparky. Neither are 2 of DLAs Contracting Officers, medard.kowalski@dla.mil, or Brenda.Delawder@dla.mil, because they are trying to tell us that they are going to award a Single Sole Source to Agility and not even post a J & A that is signed or approved by their legal department. This is not the first time I have found Mr. Kowalski doing this. The last time he was going to give Agility’s DDKS contract to KGL without a J & A. That has been competed now.
Read it for yourself on http://www.fbo.gov
Warehouse Distribution Operations
Solicitation Number: SP310005C0020ext
Agency: Defense Logistics Agency
Office: DLA Acquisition Locations
Location: Defense Distribution Center
Solicitation Number:
SP310005C0020ext
Notice Type:
Special Notice
Synopsis:
Added: Jun 03, 2010 8:59 am
The Defense Logistics Agency, Defense Distribution Center (DDC) intends to issue a modification to Contract SP3100-05-C-0020 with Agility/PWC for the extension of distribution services at the Defense Distribution Depot Kuwait, Southwest Asia in support the Central Command Area of Operation. This is a modification to the existing competitively awarded contract and is an interim effort to provide distribution support services for an estimated period of performance of 1 September 2010 through 28 February 2011. The contract modification will extend the current contract for a contractor owned contractor operated distribution facility. The estimated six month extension is required to ensure sufficient time for transition and movement of DLA managed material from the current contractor (Agility/PWC) owned facility to a new location to be determined under the competitive solicitation SP330010R0020. This contract effort will allow for continuous service while the solicitation (SP330010R0020) for a new contract is negotiated, reviewed, approved, and awarded, and while DLA managed material is transitioned from the current facility to a new facility. This announcement is for a sole source procurement to Agility/PWC under FAR 6.302-1, “only one responsible source and no other supplies or services will satisfy agency requirements.” This notice of intent is not a request for competitive proposals and no solicitation is available. Interested persons may identify their interest and capability to respond to the requirement. Information received, if any, will normally be considered solely for the purpose of determining whether to conduct a competitive procurement. Responses are due no later than the 2:00 PM, Eastern Standard Time, on the fifteenth day after publication of this synopsis. Email responses to Brenda Delawder, Contract Specialist, at Brenda.Delawder@dla.mil.
Contracting Office Address:
J Avenue
DDC J7-AB, Bldg 404
New Cumberland, Pennsylvania 17070-5001
United States
Place of Performance:
PWC
Safat, Kuwait
Kuwait
Primary Point of Contact.:
Brenda S. Delawder,
Contract Specialist
Brenda.Delawder@dla.mil
Phone: 717-770-7373
Fax: 717-7707244
Secondary Point of Contact:
MEDARD R KOWALSKI,
CONTRACTING OFFICER
medard.kowalski@dla.mil
Phone: 717 770-5979
Fax: 717 770-5689
Thanks for the heads up! Agility and it’s subs are suspended. How can they even legally get a modification? At this rate Sultan can drag this out for every milking this cash cow until she’s dry!
Mr. Barnes. Before you make allegations, you should make sure your facts are accurate. Mr. Washington is not the director of DLA and a J&A is not required to be posted until after the contract/mod has been awarded. Research the FAR before you loosely make comments about DLA and government acquisition in a public forum.
Is Tarek Sultan actually trying to pull a KGL and say they were not served? Tarek is way past being served. The best news is that although Agility was looking like they could buy their way out, that just probably isn’t going to happen this time. Did Tarek sign a contract that said Agility was subject to the laws of Kuwait or to the U.S. Government’s Federal laws and the Rules of the Federal Acquisition Regulations? Luckily for the U.S. Government, they can start withholding Agility’s monthly payments in order to start getting paid for the Qui Tam suit which is going to triple the damages of the Agility fraud.
Keven,
Until the USG awards the new DDKS they are forced to extend Agility depsite their suspension. The USG was prepared to move to KGL by the end of August based on the Sole Source Notice, but political pressure forced the USG to open it up to full and open competition. The new award is scheduled for 31AUG. Crazy enough, Agility and KGl are most likely the only bidders. Um, hello USG, but Agility is not eligble for consideration. I wonder who the other party(ies) possibly competing is(are). Can anyone out there provide the other competitors’ names?
The U.S. Government has several military organizations that could be mobilized to take over the DDKS on a moments notice. Agility’s contracts could be terminated for convenience (Yep, Agility would have to look that up in our U.S. law books and the FAR as their contract has nothing what-so-ever to do with Kuwait law) and then send them packing. Is Congress going to allow DLA to continue to rewarding Agility (a foreign corporation ) by paying them hundreds of millions of dollars with illegal contract extensions in the face of the latest DOJ filing while publically firing a 4-Star General?
DLA needs a leadership change for that to happen ( if Congress is reading) and send DLA Director Washington out the door. Contracting Officers who dream up J & A’s and either don’t post, or post unsigned J & As thinking that the U.S. Taxpayer is not watching needs to come to an end. Mobilize those Logistics troops who would love to come to Kuwait and take over the DDKS contract. What is better, to continue paying a company labeled a “Fugitive” by DOJ or mobilize a Guard unit that will perform the job and send their pay back to their families in the States.
The DLA and the Army has hoodwinked the Taxpayer into believing that there is no alternative. What is the motivation is something we will be reading about in future Ms Sparky editions. How many Army officers have we seen indicted from Arifjan?
Come on Congress – that is why we have a Subcommittee for Contracting Oversight and Senator Clair McCaskill to lead it – to look at the fraud and do something about it.
I don’t see KGL or Agility on the Interested bidders list. I see:
TRANSPORTERS INTERNATIONAL LLC
Afkar General Trading & Contracting Co
AMERICAN UNITED GROUP
ASIA LOGISTICS GENERAL TRADING COMPANY
INTERMARKETS GLOBAL
LATVIAN CONNECTION GENERAL TRADING AND CONSTRUCTION LLC
ALPHA MULTIMODAL LOGISTICS CO.W.L.L
BLANCHARD’S CONTRACTING
MCNEIL TECHNOLOGIES, INC.
AMERICAN LOGISTICS MANAGEMENT COMPANY
CAROLINA LINKAGES, INC
ENGAZ GENERAL TRADING & CONTRACTING COMPANY
PROJECTS MANAGEMENT COMPANY
SOLUTION MANAGERS INTERNATIONAL
LAKESHORE ENGINEERING SERVICES, INC.
AMERICAN GENERAL TRADING AND CONTRACTING CO
MANTECH INFORMATION SYSTEMS & TECHNOLOGY CORPORATION
AVIATION TRAINING CONSULTING, LLC
AMERICAN GENERAL TRADING AND CONTRACTING US INCORPORATED
MARAFIE KUWAITIA GEN. TRADING & CONT. CO. W L L
AL TAHA INTERNATIONAL
AL HOKOOK INTERNATIONAL GENERAL TRADING & CONTRACTING
KANOOS GROUP OF COMPANIES
MC KINLEY GROUP INTERNATIONAL WLL
WILLIAMS, W W COMPANY, THE (INC)
POTOMAC FALLS CONSULTING GROUP
AL QABANDI UNITED COMPANY
U. S. LOGISTICS, INC.
AL JAMEH GROUP TRADING AND CONTRACTING EST
TAHA INTERNATIONAL COMPANY
Industrial Construction & Trading company For General Trading & Contracting.
Stanley Associates
GEN4 SERVICES
AL-ALAMEEN AL-ARABIA GEN. TRADING CO.
GLOBAL INTEGRATED GROUP EST GEN TRD & CONT
NODYCE GLOBAL LLC
SHAW ENVIRONMENTAL & INFRASTRUCTURE, INC.
TRADE LINKS LOGISTICS GENERAL TRADING & CONTRACTING CO.
M & E GROUP LTD
CBM35
Mobilizing a company of military/USG civilian logisticians is an option, but not a likely one. They still need the facilities from a Kuwaiti company as Camp Arifjan doesn’t have the facilities available. The USG is trying to extricate themselves from OIF and OEF, not send more troops. I agree about the “fugitive” statement. How can the USG honestly extend a “fugitive” contractor and continue to pay them to run DDKS while they look for another provider? Scandalous! Kuwait is extremely limited in terms of expansive, combined indoor/outdoor storage, so their options are few.
Agility and many contractors purposely DON’T post their names of the interested parties list. If a company can provide all of the goods/services themselves, there’s little updside in announcing their candidacy. The USG revealed recently that the DDKS site visit(s) will be conducted next week, but not who they will be visiting. Maybe someone can follow the USG officials around and see who they visit.
After all the delay (the USG cancelling the solicitation last fall, cancelling the SSN, then taking their time to release and award the new DDKS) Agility has pocketed MILLIONS more in revenue/profit from the USG all while suspended. Am I the only one that has a problem with that?
SP3300-10-R-0014 was the SSN to KGL for 1-year and (5) 1-year options + a 5% Award fee.
And that was for 1/2 the space requirement of SP310009R0004
After DLA was caught giving a gift-horse, they scrapped the 5% Award fee (2% better than KBRs LOGCAP Award fee) and knocked the contract down to 1-year and (3) 1-year options.
What is it with DLA and their 2 favorite Kuwaitis Agility and KGL ?
I am sure we will be reading about DLA CO’s in the future on Ms. Sparkey.
Synopsis:
Added: Jan 29, 2010 2:37 pm
The Defense Logistics Agency/ Defense Distribution Center (DLA/DDC)
has identified a continued need for storage and distribution services in
Kuwait to support the Central Command Area of Responsibility (CENTCOM
AOR). The requiring agency requires both existing indoor and outdoor
storage space; labor and supporting material(s) to provide distribution
services. More specifically, the indoor storage space shall provide for 1)
perimeter-secured and collocated facilities; 2) a minimum of 700,000
square feet of adjacent indoor storage space configured for secure rack,
bin, bulk and open storage and; 3) a minimum of 800,000 square feet of
adjacent outdoor storage space capable of accommodating forklift, truck
and trailer vehicles and static loads of full 20 and 40 foot MILVANs. The
labor requirement shall include performance of distribution operations
during adverse situations involving disruption of normal workload and
include the ability to meet an increased or accelerated performance to
support Department of Defense (DoD) contingencies and workload surges
dictated by CENTCOM AOR requirements. The material to be provided
includes but is not limited to: distribution materials; Material Handling
Equipment (MHE) and; transportation assets. The services above will be
provided under a resultant contract for a period of two years consisting of
one base year and one, one-year option year.
A contract will be awarded pursuant to 10 U.S.C. 2304(c)(1), only one or a
limited number of responsible sources and no other type of supplies or
services will satisfy agency requirements. The proposed contract action is
for services for which the Government intends to solicit and negotiate with
only one source under authority of FAR 6.302-1. The DDC intends to issue
Solicitation SP3300-10-R-0014 to KGL Logistics located at Al Jahra Road
and Ghazali Bridge; Shuwaikh, KWT 13106 to meet the requirements
description above. KGL currently provides similar services in the
CENTCOM and has been identified as the only source with existing
facilities to meet the agency’s requirement. This notice of intent is not a
request for competitive proposals; however, all responsible sources may
submit a capability statement, proposal, or quotation, which shall be
considered by the agency. Any response must be received within seven
days after the date of the publication of this synopsis. A determination by
the Government not to compete this proposed contract based upon
responses to this notice is solely within the discretion of the Government.
This synopsis is for informational purposes only and for the benefit of
potential subcontractors. Companies interested in subcontracting
opportunities should contact KGL directly.
Contracting Office
Primary Point of Contact.:
Shane M Crusey,
Contract Specialist
Shane.Crusey@dla.mil
Phone: (717) 770-4425
Secondary Point of Contact:
MEDARD R KOWALSKI,
CONTRACTING OFFICER
medard.kowalski@dla.mil
Phone: 717 770-5979
Fax: 717 770-5689
June 25th 2010 at 9:12 am
I would say I have the right guy since we have several emails going back and forth.
Washington, James (DRMS)
James.Washington@dla.mil
Dear Mr. Barnes,
Reference ……………….
Respectfully,
James Washington
Director, Acquisition
That does appear to be the word “Director” in his signature block.
When DLA couldn’t get their attorney to sign a Justification (dreamed up reason for a sole source) and Approval (Signature of a competent or willing authority) KGLs Single Sole Source evaporated.
All single sole sources need a signed J & A. Especially when it involves $ 500 + million per year contract!! Like I say, through a couple of FOIAs, we will see who said to SSN KGL and who was the exact person who directed that the perks be removed from the COCO contract.
If DLA thought they didn’t need a J & A, they would have carried on, but you are just flat wrong on this one which is why we saw R-0020 canceled and now competed.
Keven,
It appears from the above info that Mr. Washington may be the Director of Acquisition at DRMS, and not the Director of DLA. That’s a big difference.
Anyways, yes, a General Officer must sign off on the Sole Source justification and I never saw one posted, but the award had not been made last January/February. With all of the shenanigans that occur with defense contractors, I can understand competing virtually everything. DDKS may be one exception though now that Agility is suspended.
A general officer is not required to sign a J&A. Again, check the FAR, DFARS, and DLAD. Also, check FAR Part 9 that addresses contract awards to suspended contractors. Once you read the regulations, things may become clear to you and Mr. Barnes. With clarity you will find that the comments you have made will embarrass you.
If you read closely it shows that John Sensen said a General Officer must sign off.
Firstly, what the heck would a General Officer be doing any Contract Writing for? I didn’t say that at all, but if you read it quick, I suppose you will see what you want to see.
Well, bogus J & A’s are a problem in Kuwait. In fact there is another GAO Protest about another Single Sole Source filed today. Another lame excuse that there is no competition in Kuwait for the most common services.
This is why we at least saw some competition for the DDKS. Let’s hope that effort didn’t go to waste and we see that URS takes the contract.
———————————————-
please re-read &&&&&&&&&&&
john.sensen says:
June 25th 2010 at 10:41 pm
Keven,
It appears from the above info that Mr. Washington may be the Director of Acquisition at DRMS, and not the Director of DLA. That’s a big difference.
Anyways, yes, a General Officer must sign off on the Sole Source justification and I never saw one posted, but the award had not been made last January/February. With all of the shenanigans that occur with defense contractors, I can understand competing virtually everything. DDKS may be one exception though now that Agility is suspended.
Let me clarify, a General Officer CAN (sometimes must) sign the proclamation to the acquisition body that a sole source is “required”. The General Officer doesn’t technically authorize it.
Sorry John Doe, not a FAR expert as I have stated previously. I’ll be careful what I claim in the future.
Didn’t hurt that Congressman Issa’s office called DLA about the no bid contract either.
And what date was that. The email that I sent to the 2 friends of KGL, the DLA contracting officers that were going to deliver the gift horse were asked the question all contractors here should ask when they see Single Sole Source.
1. Where is your Justification (fabrication by the contracting officer ) and
2. Approval. A legal authority who is responsible for the irresponsible.
And in the case of KGL – they didn’t even have a J & A, let alone anyone who risked going to jail about giving the gift horse.
Right now there is a FOIA to retrieve the gift-horse contract and find out who was the exact individual who was going to put the bow on the horse.
That is how you get transparency in Kuwait where, thanks to the current contracting officers at Camp Arifjan who cannot and will not follow the FAR and to the PARC who responsible, Colonel Dietrich, you get answers to the apparent fraud that still is going on as far as I can see.
So, you do a little hunting with FOIAs and publish your findings to document these contracting officers actions.
We are now in the process of finding out why there are not contracting officers being listed on solicitations and seeking a copy of CACI employee warrants to perform contracting actions.
Confirmed the USG completed their DDKS site visits on June 28-29 in Kuwait. Still no word as to the number of visits (bidders), but my understanding from a previous comment is that only two bids were received. I think it’s safe to assume Agility submitted, but they remain ineligible. I think it’s also safe to assume KGL submitted a bid too. Are there any other potential bidders? After all the politics of sole sourcing, then competing, I simply hope the best provider is awarded the contract. Shame on the USG for delaying this acquisition by 6+ months.
WOW – seriously they have contractor employess (CACI) performing and signing binding contract actions. Well – then again they can’t possibly be binding as the Government can not WARRENT a contractor personnel. All these actions should be at least signed by some government employee who actually does have a warrent.
Also John – I bileve your assumption that Agility actually bid on the DDKS recompete is not realistic. No company is going to invest the tens of thousands of dollars it takes to prepare a proposal when they know that they are not eligible for the award.
I have my sources.
They did prepare a proposal with the idea that they would be off suspension by the time the solicitation was due. They have also developed and submitted proposals and submitted them under non-Agility companies.
Hmm….interesting. Well, obviously the Agility DDKS incumbent company would have submitted. Are you suggesting Agility submitted a second bid under/via a pseudonym (non-Agility) company for DDKS or any other expiring contract they possess? I think the USG would see through that without fail.
Of Course,
If Agility spent the time and money writing the DDKS proposal, they definitely would have submitted it. They have nothing to lose by doing so. If they come off the EPLS during the evaluation period, the USG must open it and review it.
John,
You are correct. Only two bids were received for the current DDKS solicitation. The USG released this information to an online USG contract tracking service. Shall we wager who the two bids were?
QuickSand,
I’d go “all in” that the two bids are Agility and KGL. I heard rumblings in March and April that URS and Anham might bid with a Kuwaiti company providing the warehousing, but have been unable to confirm either rumor. Anham will have their hands full with Prime Vendor, IF the three protests are dismissed. Why wouldn’t Agility or KGL bid? They have the space and experience and focus on USG contracts. Award is due next month. I guess we just have to wait.
Are there any Agility moles out there that can confirm/deny Agility submitted a proposal? Any KGL moles?
John,
You are correct. Only two bids were received for the current DDKS solicitation. The USG released this information to an online USG contract tracking service. Shall we wager who the two bids were?
Mr. Barnes:
No FOIA needed. Once the sole source contract is awarded, the J&A will be posted at fedbizopps, for you and the entire world to see. Now that’s transparency.
Contracting Officers that say there is no competition when there is will be called out when seen. GAO Protests when needed and when I see a J & A not posted – expect a protest Major.
Arifjan is a corrupt place still. I think that the Army need to be completely removed from Contracting. The track record or convictions, indictments and suicides is easily available.
Unjustified Single Sole Sources are just another Army, DLA and Air Force form of corruption.
Post your J & A as required by FAR
Here is the GAO protest with Exhibits. Other Agencies seem to post the J & A as required PRIOR. But fraudulently telling the Contractors there simply is no competition will get my direct attention.
http://www.scribd.com/full/33785669?access_key=key-1gobf3wbm3qo5xqcg9an
So, you want to not post your awards. Fine – Answer a FOIA.
The Pentagon lying to get out of a GAO Protest just may not work this time. The GAO will only be made fools of so many times.
http://www.scribd.com/full/33864639?access_key=key-1xj5bj5ax5boa07py61u
How long before the Contracting Officers show up in the Arifjan Hall of Fame.
http://www.scribd.com/full/33953478?access_key=key-250gl3omse79dgvrq9pe
How many years is it from the crime to conviction. How many base commanders are involved. How didn’t put in the debarment recommendation because they were on the take.
But the bottom line is – the
The highest Integrity of the U.S. Army Contracting Officer. Is it they are all trained this way or is it something that is passed on within the Base. The ranks and articles speak for themselves.
CAMP ARIFJAN HALL OF FAME
U.S. Army Lt Marcus McClain
Terry Hall
U.S. Army Major Eddie Pressley
U.S. Army Major James Momon Jr.
William Rondell Collins
Tijani Ahmed Saani
U.S. Army Major Christopher H. Murray
U.S. Army Colonel Kevin A. Davis
U.S. Army Sergeant Ray Scott Chase
U.S. Army Major John Cockerham
U.S. Army Colonel Curtis G. Whiteford
U.S. Army Lt Col Debra M. Harrison
U.S. Army Lt Col Michael Wheeler
U.S. Army Lt. Col Levonda J. Selph
U.S. Army Lt. Col Marshall Gutierrez
Honestly, I don’t think it’s a fascination the USG has with Agility and or KGL. Even with the reduced requirement of 800,000 sqft outdoor and 700,000 indoor sqft combined, I know of only 2-3 Kuwaiti companies with the amount of space needed. Options are very limited. Unfortunately, the Kuwait Government is exceedingly stingy with their provisions of land leases. Even with the vast empty areas and desert landscapes, the Kuwaitis like to maintain control. Imagine that. Now that Agility is suspended, KGL was/is the easy choice. Come August we’ll know if there truly are other legitimate competitors that can fulfill the solicitation requirements.
I wonder if Agility was present in court ?
Agility Evidence Points to Continued Fraud, U.S. Tells Judge in Atlanta
By David Beasley and William McQuillen – Jun 25, 2010
Agility may still be overbilling the U.S. on military supplies, federal prosecutors said in a pretrial hearing in a criminal case against the Middle East’s largest storage and logistics company.
“We feel very strongly and have evidence that the fraud has continued,” Assistant U.S. Attorney Barbara Nelan told U.S. Magistrate Judge Alan Baverman today in Atlanta. Agility is accused of overcharging the U.S. government on a multibillion- dollar contract to supply food for troops in Kuwait and Iraq. The Kuwaiti company is “war-profiting,” she said.
The U.S.’s contract with Agility, formerly known as Public Warehousing Co., runs until December, Nelan said.
In a filing earlier this week, prosecutors accused the company of being a “fugitive from American justice” that is trying to evade a trial on charges of overbilling on military supplies. Agility, based in Safat, Kuwait, claims it has not been properly served in the case.
Richard Deane, attorney for Agility, declined to comment on Nelan’s statements in today’s hearing.
Tom Bever, attorney for Agility DGS Holdings, an Agility unit also named in the indictment, told the court that the case is a contract dispute over whether Agility should have kept discounts it received from vendors or refunded them to the government.
The company was indicted in November on allegations it overcharged the U.S. government on a multibillion-dollar contract to supply food for troops in Kuwait and Iraq. The company said April 28 it was negotiating with the U.S. Justice Department on a possible settlement of the case.
The case is U.S. v. Public Warehousing Co., 09-cr-490, U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Georgia (Atlanta).
By definition Agility must return all rebates and volume discounts to the USG. The “prompt payment discount” may be different, but if you have read through the indictments it’s clear Agility/PWC attempted to influence the classification of volume discounts to read “prompt payment discount” in order to avoid payment to the USG. Damn! Agility/PWC’s own internal documents reveal this fact and Tom Bever, attorney for Agility DGS Holdings, is claiming it’s a contract dispute. My apologies Mr. Bever (LOL – love the last name), but you are an asshat and are defending criminals.
Talk about bending the rules…….several companies are ignoring the letter of the FAR law by continuing to do business with TMG (an Agility owned company). Although the FAR clearly states no subcontracts $30,000 and over AND a compelling reason must exist to use a company suspended, several organizations with USG contracts utilize TMG to secure their convoys in Iraq. Yes, the subcontract(s) may have a value of less than $30K, but there’s no way they can argue they are “compelled” to use TMG. There are several other convoy security companies capable of providing this service in Kuwait and Iraq. Why has the USG allowed this to continue?
Here’s a question for all you out there. When Tarek Sultan removed Steve Lubrano from the Subsistence Prime Vendor contract, where did he relocate him within Agility? That’s right, to the position of CEO of TMG. How is this not flying in face of FAR? The USG and DoD are asleep at the wheel! Senator McCaskill, where are you when we need you?
Cost (yes Agility, that means the actual cost) plus I think didn’t register when Agility got the contract. How can the USG sit there and say they are “still” getting overcharged and not just terminate the contract?
If the FAA said that Alaska Airlines was still flying with stripped out jack-screws for the elevator trim, would Alaska still be flying planes after the defect was identified that caused an aircrash (California coast – remember)? No. Would the HCA at the FAA still have a job if he didn’t ground the airline I doubt it. But the incompetents at the Army and DLA are still there and the DOJ are saying the Jackscrew is still broken and the Agility plane is still flying and scooping up money as she goes !!!! You gotta smile at the DOJ. The are wire-tapping the wrong folks. Try wire tapping and investigating the Army and the DLA – or better yet, just read FBO to see the incompetents flaunting the FAR.
What Agency Contracting Officer did Agility solicit to get the volume discounts? Our Goverment seems to NOT be paying attention to the branch of service that have gone to jail from Camp Arifjan (Army) and yet they still let that Branch of Service conduct contracting? 2 Agency’s Contracting Officers have to be relieved of duty. DLA and the Army.
Why would the Army not strongarm Agility to continue the lease and use the monies coming in to backpay the US taxpayers. This way the award can go to a US contractor, use Agility workers, and cut out any future foreign contracting company.
This way it stays American,with US jurisdiction,and money coming back in to America.
It seems alittle anti American to give the DDKS to a Kuwaiti company when DOD has Agility by the balls and can use their lease as a bargaining tool to give the contract to a US company.
Must be alot of under the table monies going around
Based on FAR, due to Agility’s suspension the USG MUST transfer to another vendor if they are deemed competitive and capable of providing the same service/product. The USG is attempting to extricate themselves from the mess that is Agility/PWC. The USG has few options in Kuwait with a Kuwaiti company. Seriously, and they know it.
Pam
I am some what confused as to how you think that the Government can use there lease as a barganing tool to give this contact to a US Company.
This is a contract for Contractor Owned/Contractor Operated facilities in Kuwait. US Companies can not own property in Kuwait nor can they register as business without a majority Kuwaiti owner.
Also contracting is business and governed by law (FAR) – suggesting that the US Government ‘strongarm’ anyone is reducing our government to nothing more than a bunch of thugs – just like the mafia.
A couple of questions
Can a foreign company bid on a contract and no one is able to see they are bidding?
If this is true, what can be done to create transparency since American taxpayers are footing the bill?
Only the Acquisition Entitiy can see who is bidding on a soliciatation as they receive the proposals. Sometimes DCAA receives a copy of the costing information to review the numbers for realism and compliance prior to award. Bidders are kept private. This is standard practice in the commercial world as well. American citizens are provided the awardee information and contract value regardless of nationality, but not before award.
QuickSand is absolutely correct. Again the FAR prohibits the release of the names of bidders other than the winning bidder.
Even when the contract is awarded and the losing bidders are debriefed – they are not give and under the law not entitled to know the names of the other bidders. The comparisons are done showing the contractor being debriefed by name and all others identified as Offeror A-B-C or 1-2-3.
You can however often time determine who is bidding by checking sites like monster or career buileder where these companies will be advertising for personnel with specific requirements for positions that are ‘contingent on award of contract.’
Also, often times for work in a foreign country, the US Government will constuct a solicitation or contract in such a way that it is evident that they intend to award the work to a local company (generally the solicitation inlcudes a statement to the effect that a company must be licensed to perform the work in the country). In most foreign countries, and certianly in the countires of the Middle East, this means that the company must at the very least have a partner (business representative) that is a native of that country. This is done for multiple reasons, some of which have to do with risk and some of which have to do with SOFA (Status of Forces Agreements) or FMS (Foreign Military Sales) agreements.
The risk makes sense in sensitive areas of security.
But it seems this has turned into a way for many companies to hide under the radar from anyone watching a company that may be in question. Example the new Iran Sanctions…
How can US the Treasury match for questionable bidders against the SDN list If only the Acquistion people get the info.
Seems the risk is running in reverse.
You file Freedom of Information Act Requests and then you can track down what Contracting Officers like Major Christopher Dake (Army) and in this case Michael Diettel who put out his own private solicitation to a select few. Mr. Diettel was removed from Camp Arifjan within 1 week of this FOIA. Any person, Foreign or U.S. may ask whatever they like about whoever they like or whatever contract and details of that contract they like. The more of you that do that and Contracting Officers like Major Dake who believe they do not need to disclose anything will have all their activities that they have been entrusted to exposed.
Another FOIA will find out if Diettle has another job as a Contracting Officer in the States or did he return to Kuwait. Certainly Colonel Dietrich, who should be overseeing procurement integrity in the Theater is not doing his job.
Here is your FOIA template. Ask away and good luck. Publish your request and the Agencies Answers on the Net. That is how you expose the corrupt practices of Camp Arifjan, because you cannot expect the PARC to do anything about procurement integrity – only you can.
VIA E-MAIL
Attn.: hq-foia@dla.mil
Freedom of Information Act Office
VIA FEDERAL EXPRESS
Ms. Judith Mansfield
Defense Reutilization & Marketing Service
74 Washington Avenue North
Battle Creek, MI 49037-3084
RE: Request Under the Freedom of Information Act
In accordance with the Freedom of Information Act, 5 U.S.C. § 552, I am writing to request a copy of certain records pertaining to a private $ 5.7M solicitation SP4510-10-R-1004 (Not Posted on http://www.fbo.gov ) and conducted from Camp Arifjan, Kuwait, by a DLA Contracting Officer, Michael Diettel. I only received the solicitation after our company filed a GAO Protest. Considering that FAR 5.202 (a) (12) cited by the Defense Logistics Agency and “and only local sources will be solicited” I would like to request:
1. The Company Name, the CCR Registered Office Location of each of following email addresses that he solicited responses to the $ 5.7 Million solicitation, SP4510-10-R-1004 and he sent out to the attached email with the following email addresses that delivered Amendment 0001 to:
Contractor’s Email
Address Company Name CCR registered in KUWAIT
Yes or No KUWAIT
DUNS
CODE
execassistant@configuration-dc.com
whstokes@virginian32.com
jamal@aman.com.kw
ford@kulaib-int.com
nmevans@heston.net
hnjaber@yahoo.com
nedal@asialogistics.biz
chahnaz@alzoba.com
mdimuzio@safe-ports.com
jeff62young@yahoo.com
Molly.Harris@ittmeo.com
wilson@tlinksme.com
mryaay@yahoo.com
Continued Next Page
Contractor’s Email
Address Company Name CCR registered in KUWAIT
Yes or No KUWAIT
DUNS
CODE
lutfi@apexgroupofcompanies.com
hisham@mngtc.com
hussq8@yahoo.com
fouad@bridgekuwait.com
big.applekw@hotmail.com
gm@defconsupport.com
gcjr1@aol.com
hisham@mngtc.com
j.harrell@dh-avlogistics.com
imad@gzone-kw.com
mike_gomes001@yahoo.com
sales@neetointl.com
beniraqgravel@yahoo.com
roy@kuwaitultra.com
cedar500@hotmail.com
ceo@aslaa.com
pillairpkwt@gmail.com
aljamehgroupco@gmail.com
operations@aljameh.com
phn.lama@kamsecurityservices.com
toney.haskett@dyn-intl.com
gkumar@supplysolutions-intl.com
Debora@kmsco.com
orlando@oklogistics.us
nmevans@heston.net
matt.rayford@bridgekuwait.com
anixon@primesolutions-intl.com
charles@handlen.com
lulu.figueroa@arulogisitics.com
vcp@alalamiah.com
david.laverty@lynsack.com
Dave.Howe@umckuwait.com
jai.ganesh@smi-me.com
sales@safcokuwait.com
bawa@mutawasahni.com
keven.barnes@latvianconnectionllc.com
Latvian Connection LLC YES 534749622
2. What is the DUNS CODE of ITT MEO ?
3. As an Offeror to the DLA, is I.T.T. International Defence America in reality ITTMEO ?
4. Does the DLA adhere to the PARC Acquisition Instruction (Attached ) that governs procurement in the in the Iraq Theater of Operations which Kuwait is part of?
5. ITT International Defence America is not a subsidiary of ITT Corporation – were they offered this solicitation?
6. Regarding solicitation SP4510-10-R-1004, what is the name of the person who is the Contracting Branch Chief in charge of Mr. Michael Diettel’s solicitation SP4510-10-R-1004 and what is their contact information?
7. Regarding solicitation SP4510-10-R-1004, what date did the DLA’s SSAC (Source Selection Advisory Council) decide which Contractors were going to be given the solicitation and please identify the names and positions of those who are on that Council?
8. Regarding solicitation SP4510-10-R-1004, who is the DLAs Source Selection Advisory Council Chair Person and what is their contact information?
9. Regarding solicitation SP4510-10-R-1004, was there a SSA (Source Selection Authority)? Who is that person and their contact information?
10. Does the DLA recognize the PARC (Principle Assistant Responsible for Contracting) rule 1.9 and Source Selection Review requirements and thresholds?
11. Is the DLA aware of MG Darryl A. Scott’s Ethics Letter on PARC 3.1 (Attached)
12. Provide any emails from the DLA Director concerning SP4510-10-R-1004?
13. Does the DLA recognize the PARCs AI (Acqusition Instruction), Section 5.1, Publicizing, and the requirement that “if you solicit from any sources outside Iraq or Afghanistan the requirement must be published on the Government-wide Point of Entry, http://www.fedbizopps.gov.”
14. Regarding PARC Section 5.4, Public Announcement of Award, was the final awarded value of SP4510-10-R-1004 greater than $ 5.5 Million and was it awarded to a firm that has an address in the United States?
15. Regarding PARC Section 6.1, Other than Full and Open Competition for a competition greater than $ 1M, did the Judge Advocate review the Justification & Approval?
16. Was there a J & A to restrict competition on SP4510-10-R-1004 to only some Local sources with some non-Local sources invited?
17. Did the Contracting Officer notify the PARC and the Competition Advocate based on PARC Section 6.2 J & A, Table 4 as required for a solicitation $1M through 11.5M?
18. Considering that FAR 5.202(a)(12) is the exception to FAR 5.201which is:
5.201 General.
(a) As required by the Small Business Act (15 U.S.C. 637(e)) and the Office of Federal Procurement Policy Act (41 U.S.C. 416), agencies must make notices of proposed contract actions available as specified in paragraph (b) of this section.
(b)(1) For acquisitions of supplies and services, other than those covered by the exceptions in 5.202 and the special situations in 5.205, the contracting officer must transmit a notice to the GPE, for each proposed—
(i) Contract action meeting the threshold in 5.101(a)(1);
(ii) Modification to an existing contract for additional supplies or services that meets the threshold in 5.101(a)(1); or
(iii) Contract action in any amount when advantageous to the Government.
(2) When transmitting notices using electronic commerce, contracting officers must ensure the notice is forwarded to the GPE.
(c) The primary purposes of the notice are to improve small business access to acquisition information and enhance competition by identifying contracting and subcontracting opportunities.
(d) The GPE may be accessed via the Internet at http://www.fedbizopps.gov.
5.202 Exceptions.
The contracting officer need not submit the notice required by 5.201 when—
(a) The contracting officer determines that—
(12) The proposed contract action is by a Defense agency and the proposed contract action will be made and performed outside the United States and its outlying areas, and only local sources will be solicited. This exception does not apply to proposed contract actions covered by the World Trade Organization Government Procurement Agreement or a Free Trade Agreement (see Subpart 25.4);
Question 18 is:
Did all invited sources have Kuwait DUNS and CAGE Codes? If not, please identify those NON-Local Sources.
As you know, FOIA provides that if any part of parts of a record are exempt from disclosure, “ reasonably segregable” portions must be released. Therefore, we request that if you determine that any portions of the above requested records are exempt from disclosure, we be provided any records, or portions thereof, that are not exempt; and further that we be provided with a list of exempt records along with an explanation for the basis of withholding. See Vaughn v Rosen 484 F.2nd 820 (D.C. Cir 1973).
In addition, we ask that you provide us with requested records as soon as they are available, and that you not await the collection of the entire set of records covered by this request. We are prepared to pay up to $ 300 without further authorization by us, but ask you that you waive any such fees. If there is a fee, the please provide that estimated cost to keven.barnes@LatvianConnectionLLC.com.
We would be happy to receive the records and lists in electronic form at the below e-mail address. If you encounter any difficulties with this request, please contact me. We will make every effort to accommodate you.
Sincerely,
___________________________________
Keven L. Barnes
CEO, Latvian Connection LLC
keven.barnes@latvianconnectionLLC.com
United States citizen
CC: United States Senate Subcommittee
Contracting Oversight
Senator Sherrad Brown
Senator Clair McCaskill
Senator Susan Collins
Senator Carl Levin
Senator Thomas Carper
Senator Jon Tester
Senator Ted Kaufman
Senator Tom Coburn
Senator John McCain
Senator Lindsey Graham
Continued on Page 5
Office of Management and Budget
Deputy Administrator Lesley A. Field
Senator Barbara Boxer
Senator Diane Feinstein
Senator Robert P. Casey
Senator Bob Bennett
Congressman Henry Waxman
Congressman Mike Thompson
I was thinking about something. First, Ms Sparky: You have to get orange shirts made with “Gotbusted Penitentiary” on the back! LMAO when I saw that picture. I have got to get one of those!
Second, I would not put it past Tarek Sultan to try something here. Agility can’t get the contract, however that will not stop Tarek from partnering up with a Kuwaiti company — if one wins the bidding. Agility has a huge warehouse complex here in Kuwait. It sits next to Nestle’s warehouses, actually. Agility has a very large fleet of trucks, trailers, etc. At their high-point, PWC (aka Agility) trucks were all you would see on the roads.
If a Kuwaiti company gets the contract, look for Tarek to buddy up with them. The Kuwaiti company — whoever they may be — wins the bid and handles the admin side, while Tarek “loans” them his “rebranded” fleet of trucks for a cut as a “subcontractor”.
It’s possible…
“Gotbusted Penitentiary” — Love it!
If this is watched as closely as it should be after this mess the “Permission to subcontract” required should prevent this from happening.
Not only the permission to subcontract – but it is a Government requirement that all subcontractors be vetted through the EPLS – Excluded Parties Listing Service http://www.epls.gov. and that the print out of this verification be included in the procurement file.
You can all easily check for yourselves that Agility as well as all of its associated companies 121 in all come up as being baned from receiving either prime or subcontracts.
As absurd as this may sound, I’ve heard from three separate contacts that claim Tarek Sultan is preparing to sell off most of the Agility/PWC assets, pay out the remaining cash on the balance books to the shareholders and close the doors to the business offices for good. Considering the FACT that Agility recently sold close to 1,500 of its Heavy Lift VI trucks and is looking to sell off all of their Prime Vendor assets, there may be some merit to the rumors. If Agility/PWC goes out of business, the USG will have no method to collect funds from a judgment. The Kuwait Government owns the land and warehouses Agility/PWC currently occupies and operates, so that’s safe. If Agility/PWC liquidates and pays out all remaining cash in dividends, the US taxpayer is screwed! How crazy is that scenario?!
The USG better start setting withholding Agility/PWC’s monthly payments. There are still 120 companies that will forever be associated with Agility and there is a DOJ who may want to keep them on the suspended list for much longer than otherwise may have happened. Of course who knows what deals the U.S. Army has cooked up with Agility where they all sail off into the sunset counting their winnings. Fugitive or not, billions is billions and right now, they are laughing at the U.S. – all the way to the bank.
The USG could withhold payments for ongoing operations, but then Agility would simply cease providing subsistence to the troops. The troops going back to eating MREs and canned food like they did in 2003 (OIF I)? Never happen! We had General officers whining and demanding Gatorade instead of Powerade. That the two were absolutely not interchangeable. Also, that saving money and providing powdered gatorade packets to mix in water bottles instead of the regular pre-mixed bottles was “unacceptable”. Wake up General Ass, you are deployed to Iraq and Afghanistan!
More general knowledge – Agility can not by law cease providing the subsistence under the contract.
The law (FAR) requires that a company, even if suspended or debarred continue to perform under a contract until it is terminated.
If Agility ceased their performance they would be subject to further prosecution – I don’t think that even Mr. Sultan is that lacking in business savey.
Cease delivery for nonpayment or withholding as suggested above. If the USG refuses to pay Agility for services rendered, then it would make sense if a vendor could withhold their goods/services.
I think it makes no sense since USG did not commit a fraud against Agility. The company appears to owe multi millions of dollars to taxpayers. Withholding pay seems reasonable. If this is not in the FAR it should be amended.
LOL it might make sense in the commercial world, unfortunatly by law withholding goods or services is not one of the legal remedies afforded to a PRIME Contractor on a government contract.
Regardless of whether the Government is promptly paying the contractor or not if the funding is approved on the contract and the contract has been awarded a vendor can not refuse to peform.
If there were a CHANGE to the SCOPE of what was being required the contractor can refuse to perform the part of the work that represents a change – but only until the contract has been modified to authorize the funding for the change.
The Government does have the right to withhold up to 15% on invoices on cost reimbursable contracts – as a withhold against potential invoicing errors pending audit of the invoices.
Under the law however, until the Court determines that there has been a crime committed and established the amount of the recovery – or the Government and a contractor reach a settlement with a specified amount – the Government can not arbitrairly stop paying a vendor.
Remember in this situation, despite what everyone wants to believe – Agility – and other contractors in this situation – have only been ACCUSED of a wrong doing. There has been no formal finding of actual GUILT by a court of law. And in the US the last time I looked the tenant of the law was Innocent until PROVEN guilty.
It would be the same thing as your employer refusing to pay you – while continuing to make you do your job – because the THOUGHT that you had done something wrong.
Just for general information for all.
Keven states
“There are still 120 companies that will forever be associated with Agility and there is a DOJ who may want to keep them on the suspended list for much longer than otherwise may have happened”
The Goverment does not have that ability. The period of time for suspension – not to exceed 18 monts without a criminal case being filed – is set by Federal Law in the FAR.
Additionally, just so that we are all clear – the maximum length of a debarment is also set by law at 3 years.
As much as anyone would like to think that the DOJ or any other agency can keep companies from doing business with the Government – the law is what applies.
Just for clarity on the debarment periods
I attached the FAR
Seems ambiguous…not as clear cut as 3 years..but I do think DOD hates to debar anyone..and has created a way to have it both ways..
9.406-4 Period of debarment.
(a)(1) Debarment shall be for a period commensurate with the seriousness of the cause(s). Generally, debarment should not exceed 3 years, except that—
(i) Debarment for violation of the provisions of the Drug-Free Workplace Act of 1988 (see 23.506) may be for a period not to exceed 5 years; and
(ii) Debarments under 9.406-2(b)(2) shall be for one year unless extended pursuant to paragraph (b) of this subsection.
(2) If suspension precedes a debarment, the suspension period shall be considered in determining the debarment period.
(b) The debarring official may extend the debarment for an additional period, if that official determines that an extension is necessary to protect the Government’s interest. However, a debarment may not be extended solely on the basis of the facts and circumstances upon which the initial debarment action was based. Debarments under 9.406-2(b)(2) may be extended for additional periods of one year if the Secretary of Homeland Security or the Attorney General determines that the contractor continues to be in violation of the employment provisions of the Immigration and Nationality Act. If debarment for an additional period is determined to be necessary, the procedures of 9.406-3 shall be followed to extend the debarment.
(c) The debarring official may reduce the period or extent of debarment, upon the contractor’s request, supported by documentation, for reasons such as—
(1) Newly discovered material evidence;
(2) Reversal of the conviction or civil judgment upon which the debarment was based;
(3) Bona fide change in ownership or management;
(4) Elimination of other causes for which the debarment was imposed; or
(5) Other reasons the debarring official deems appropriate.
Considering:
(1) Newly discovered material evidence;
The USG has recently expressed that they have obtained evidence that Agility/PWC continues to defraud/overcharge the USG. Therefore, I think it’s safe to assume that (1) would apply.
The USG referred to Agility/PWC as “fugitives” just last week.
Actually (1) above has nothing at all to do with this situation and does not apply in any way. Agility has not been DEBARED – they are SUSPENDED. Before you make a determination that something in the FAR backs up your argument – please make sure you understand the FAR and apply the correct sections.
Please note that FAR 9.406 deals with entities that have actually been DEBARED and is not applicable in this instance. Agility has not been debard – they are suspended. The applicable section is FAR 9.407 not FAR 9.406. There are significant differences.
My apologies. I mixed the terms debar and suspend erroneously. A FAR expert I am not.
John – not really your fault. The FAR is an easy document to become confused over. And frankly unless one deals with the Contracting side of Government business on a daily basis and even if they do, the nuances based on specific terms can very confussing.
No one wants to see fraud or wrong doing and it is easy to automatically jump to the conclusion that because someone in the Government makes a statement that it is automatically so and was done with criminal intent.
Unfortunately, there are 1000′s of cases brought by Government Auditors to IG’s or the DOJ for contract invoicing inaccuracies. These inaccuracies range from outright over billing, unintentional errors, arguments over actual contract terms and miss billing (costs for one contract billed to another). Also the majority of these instances are years old when they are determined to be potentially false billings – as DCAA is auditing anywhere from three to five years after the fact.
In a large number of these instances – if the contractor also agrees that it was actually just an accounting error – the funds are repaid to the Government and it is over.
If however, the contractor contends that the billing was in fact correct based on their interpretation of the contract terms or their financial records – the situation is elevated. The majority of these end in a negotiated settlement were the contractor does not actually admit to any wrong doing and ‘promises’ never to make THE SAME mistake again (note that it has to be THE SAME EXACT mistake or in the case of Criminal Activity the same criminal activity for them to get in trouble over it). Once a settlement is reached the contractor is free to continue to do business with the Government.
It might be of interest to you to know that in 2008-2009 Boeing was the largest violator with over 432 individual cases settled followed closely by Lockheed Martin.
Well, it is sad, it is bad, it is awfull … but we can sit here and talk about it forever … whatever happens out of this thing, one is certain, lot of people will walk out of it with pockets full of cash, to include Tarek, lots of generals, majors, accountants, managers.
You want to tell me that the government was retarded for so many years and didnt know sh**t???? C’mon, they were playing a game, the game in which they dont want Agility anymore … C’mon people we dont live on Mars so we dont know what is going on and what will happen. It is in human nature to love money more than anything else … its all about the benjamins anyway … they had to finance somehow people who were giving them these contracts …you think bribery money grows on trees???… there is a zillion of logistics companies in Kuwait and the region, Agility was getting those contracts for a reason … now they dont need them anymore, and this is a surgical way to cut out the tumor …
What are you talking about. Kuwait was my favorite place to make money. My Army buddies are the best accomplices. That is why we have the best (easiest to dupe) contracting officers to work with. First. We don’t have a contracting school. We just throw the word Contracting in front of Officer and, well, you can see our Kamp Arifjan Koruption Hall of fame. We are number one. What other branch of service has us beat for taking kickbacks and bribes. We can count on our base commanders to not investigate most of us and, well, we are like a trade union. The Lt’s seem a bit sharper because they don’t get caught as much as us Majors, Light Colonels and Colonels.
Man, can someone dip into one of my bank accounts for me – I need some cash here in ICA -Intellectual Center of the Army – Fort Leavenworth. Say hello to my buddies at Camp Arifjan and tell them I will be seeing them soon. Keep up the good work.
Sir,
It would be funny if so many people didn’t die at the hands of corrupt systems and the good ole boy club.
I wonder if being kicked out of the club can be considered a better choice for other officers in your place. Dishonorable discharge may have been a better option.
And who cares if you are thrown out of the Army if the Army you are in is turning you into a criminal…
Get out…
People make choices..
Victims blood is on all of your and other corrupt contracting officers hands.
The sarcasm would be better appreciated if it wasn’t a horrible nightmare.
For me..when I hear about kickbacks…I think It wasn’t just stealing, it was killing US soldiers from so called accidents caused by DOD contractors who threw money at officer’s like you to let them play in the Army contracting club.
And for letting them play in the club..and win contracts , it meant; you could fly first class, get rich quick, turn your own head to files being destroyed, live the high life.!!!!!
However in my world…that made you a partner of human trafficking and a partner in the death of many soldiers, not just a thief.
This blog is an example of the many victims paying the price from that wonderful “Good ole boy contracting club”.
If you want to fix it…
Spell out the names, the companies and show us the evidence..from not just your case, but ones that you probably don’t know have them… Give up the players…Tell the real story…so some TCN or soldier doesn’t have to die by non combat causes.
Tell us …who played the game…specifically and how it was done…
If it was KGL…how did they cheat…Or Agility or DynaCorp…or whoever
You are in a unique position to change the game since you have been thrown out of the club…
Win back some of that honor you lost and stand up for American citizens…
Unless maybe…you want to jump back in the game, and on some level…the blog gives you some claim to fame.
I can’t tell which way you are going.
Are you calling people out
or are
You still wanting to play with the “New Hitlers” in the war profiteer club.
It’s your call.
Is Levinsworth going to be your legacy?
Cause I can promise you…alot of victims family’s are looking for answers and you are holding some of the Ace Cards…
I am sure they would like to know what you know..
Wow,
It is all a little overwhelming to know the best cheat system in the world is DOD domestic and foreign contracting.
The operational rules seem to favor greatly a way of not being held responsible.
A breeding ground for corruption.
No wonder Sen. McCaskill is breathing down the necks of the contractor oversight personnel.
The rules need to be rewritten if we want to have an army of contractors with an army of soldiers.
I am concerned USG will wait until something horrific takes place before bureaucracy can move out of the way.
It seems as if Burn Pits, Rape, Murder, human trafficking in addition to procurement fraud are just small potato’s.
What next will move us all to change if not the above.
Will our continued business ventures in the name of democracy through contracting be our demise?
When I read these kind of rules….It is very troubling…..
Where are the solutions for contractors who do play by the rules and where are the lines drawn when the rules are crushed by corruption power and greed.
Thanks for the contracting history lesson…I think
Since we are all on the FAR bandwagon I ask this question. Fluor requires copies of employees itineraries. Since it is a USG contract do not the US employees have to use a US or code sharing carrier when flying back to the US? Many are using Emirates Air and others. Yet Fluor gives then their $3600 after they return from R and R. I thought FAR 400 applies since Fluor travel requires copies of this.
There is a Preference for US Flag Cariers – but just like everything else there are a whole host of exceptions. For example – one exception that would be applicable is that the flight schedule conflicts with the travelers schedule. The Joint Federal Travel Regulation (JTR) is where one would look for all of these – but you probably don’t want to go there because it is two volumes of about 500 pages each.
However in this case, since the company is not paying for the tickets directly but is actually paying the employees this amount as a Taxable benefit – the only thing that applies here is the choice of the person purchasing the ticket.
And let’s be honest – given the choice wouldn’t you rather be in a nice comfy seat on Emirates with real food – than stuck in the back of a United flight for that long?
Suspension needs to read FAR 400 when not imbibing in a alcoholic beverage. “However in this case, since the company is not paying for the tickets directly but is actually paying the employees this amount as a Taxable benefit – the only thing that applies here is the choice of the person purchasing the ticket.” If one is on a US Federal contract one must use a US airline or a code sharing one when flying back to the US. If the company as in KBR and Fluor require a plane itinerary then this kicks it in and is not as black and white as suspension makes it out to be. I would agree that a Airbus is superior to Boeing in comfort and food. The JTR do not apply to contracts but the FAR does because it points out that this pertains to contractors to the US government. JTR are mostly for the military and US civilian workers.
Here is the list of codeshare partners for some of the Airlines:
Emirates
Singapore Airlines
Codeshare Partners for US Carriers
I was going to pick on United Airlines for having seats that only recline 2 degrees and to say the extra cost of a foreign carrier is offset by not paying for a week of chiropractor visits to the employee. But me, I fly first class and my buddies in the Kuwait airport write it up that I was in coach. It was great to be me. I especially liked how Colonel Alexander located the pallet shredder behind the Camp Arifjan Contracting Office so I could get rid of all the contract folders I wanted to. Now that us Contracting Officers are getting located in the ICA together, we are able to extend our Camp Arifjan “best” practices into Afghanistan through our network. Of course Karzi is my kindred spirit because I didn’t think anyone could be more corrupt than me !!
Very funny! Do they have internet in Military prison?
LOL Deb – love it – was just thinking myself that this prankster may want to watch his comments before the really Mr. Cockerham decides to um maybe press charges against him.
Here is the first in a series of FOIAs regarding Arifjan’s Hall of Fame list.
http://www.scribd.com/full/33953478?access_key=key-250gl3omse79dgvrq9pe
The responses from the Army will be posted when they arrive.
You can read that the debarment of the Kuwait company’s paying the bribes depends upon the actions and due diligence of the Contracting Officer that was reported to at Arifjan by the DOJ. Well, what a cast of characters and who of the names below could have been in charge of writing the IG as required, writing the General Officer in charge of Arifjan and the Base Commander and also recommending to the Head of Agencies for the Air Force, Army, Marines and DLA that the company is suspended and not allowed to compete for Government contracts.
Senator McCaskill, something is wrong with the system of investigations when recommendation for debarment is left in the hands of those, by the record, to be mostly to have a conflict of interest.
Recommend that DoD Contracting be performed centrally in the United States by DCMA.
CAMP ARIFJAN HALL OF FAME
U.S. Army Lt Marcus McClain
Terry Hall
U.S. Army Major Eddie Pressley
U.S. Army Major James Momon Jr.
William Rondell Collins
Tijani Ahmed Saani
U.S. Army Major Christopher H. Murray
U.S. Army Colonel Kevin A. Davis
U.S. Army Sergeant Ray Scott Chase
U.S. Army Major John Cockerham
U.S. Army Colonel Curtis G. Whiteford
U.S. Army Lt Col Debra M. Harrison
U.S. Army Lt Col Michael Wheeler
FOIA for Major Eddie Pressley to find out and to publish. Base Commander, General Officer in charge of the corrupt U.S. Army Contracting Officers at Camp Arifjan.
Answers will be published.
http://www.scribd.com/full/34157032?access_key=key-1iq4w29zo3hqs8q6ars5
Contracting Questions to the Experts
What are the requirements for Insurance in a contracting bid if you are a foreign or US contractor? For both the employment labor and 3rd person liability insurance.
How is this factored into a bid?
How is it enforced in the event of claim?
How can a person make a claim if they are overseas working for a foreign contractor?
It is stated in the solicitation and generally Defense Base Act insurance is required and now since the Director of the Department of Labor is aware that ITT Corporation and CSA were trafficking Americans to KRH to avoid DBA insurance premiums and to leave the unsuspecting Expats at the whim of Kuwait Workers Compensation system (10,000 KD maximum if you were to die), you will see that the solicitations demand that you provide the insurance certificate. Construction $ 5.50 per $100 of payroll. CNA Insurance. They will even tell you where to get it. The only way to get a waiver out is to be self insured and to go through a process with DOL or to get the DOL to issue a waiver. DBA is a comprehensive insurance system that provides long-term medical coverage overseas and falls under the Longshoreman’s Act. It makes Kuwait’s medical insurance coverage look like what it is – 18th century and uhmmmm, who is going to act on your behalf to protect your interests. KRH is an Arabic owned company and they will then deny you are their employer. Then in the case of ITT, you will find out that ITT Federal Services is a Cayman Island shell.
Of course you can imagine the profits you can keep if you don’t have to have Defense Base Act insurance. We call that a False Claim. I recommend a few more ITT and CSA people go and get a copy of their contract and find a Qui Tam attorney who will take the case.
http://www.scribd.com/full/33651401?access_key=key-47t9zbq5plls0y0iarx
Download the request for the contract that KRH filed on you and your will have your start. You know what contract is the legal one. So ask yourself why would they fabricate one with the wrong salary and say you have no insurance benefits.
If there is an injury under DBA, you fill out an LS-202 and file a claim with your DBA carrier. There are 4 large ones and 700 others American companies. Non-U.S. companies cannot write this insurance. On the DOL website, under the Longshoreman’s section, you will find a link to all the companies.
What about Kuwait Insurance Company?
Heard KGL and Agility used them. With all the fraud going around, wonder if the USG people looked into the insurance?
I heard employees of certain foreign companies were asked to falsely certify insurance for contracts. If refused, an employee could expect to be deported.?
It would be hard to prove in a Qui Tam if no one wants to testify or everyone is afraid to make a claim.
You cannot falsify the DBA insurance certificate and the Contracting Officer has the due diligence to validate it. If they don’t have it and it was required and they submitted invoices (which is in effect saying they are abiding by the terms and conditions) THAT is a False Claim and under the False Claim Act, a Qui Tam attorney can pursue.
“if refused, an employee could expect to be deported.” – this doesn’t make sense. One, the Kuwaitis don’t know what DBA is and an employee has nothing to do with the Prime’s responsibilities.
Google Qui Tam lawyers or FCA and take the evidence to them. Oh, and the stupid Kuwaiti reporters have it wrong. Damages are TRIPLE the fraud – NOT double.
This is from the DOL website.
http://www.dol.gov/owcp/dlhwc/lsdba.htm
All your answers are here. No foreign companies that I know of have been approved to sell DBA insurance.
FAR 52.228-3, -4, and -5 spell it out pretty clear.
ITT’s case has over 40 witnesses. How many employees has Agility and KGL fired. They are great witnesses. Now to get the DOJ to tell the Army to cancel the contracts immediately and there is plenty of competition – that is unless you ask an Army or Air Force Contracting Officer. So, a contracting officer with 1/2 a brain could get this switched in a week. DCMA DCMA Senator McCaskill – fire the Army and DLA contracting officers and centralize contracting to DCMA inside the United States.
52.228-3 Workers’ Compensation Insurance (Defense Base Act).
As prescribed in 28.309(a), insert the following clause:
Workers’ Compensation Insurance (Defense Base Act) (Apr 1984)
The Contractor shall (a) provide, before commencing performance under this contract, such workers’ compensation insurance or security as the Defense Base Act (42 U.S.C. 1651, et seq.) requires and (b) continue to maintain it until performance is completed. The Contractor shall insert, in all subcontracts under this contract to which the Defense Base Act applies, a clause similar to this clause (including this sentence) imposing upon those subcontractors this requirement to comply with the Defense Base Act.
(End of clause)
52.228-4 Workers’ Compensation and War-Hazard Insurance Overseas.
As prescribed in 28.309(b), insert the following clause:
Workers’ Compensation and War-Hazard Insurance Overseas (Apr 1984)
(a) This paragraph applies if the Contractor employs any person who, but for a waiver granted by the Secretary of Labor, would be subject to workers’ compensation insurance under the Defense Base Act (42 U.S.C. 1651, et seq.). On behalf of employees for whom the applicability of the Defense Base Act has been waived, the Contractor shall (1) provide, before commencing performance under this contract, at least that workers’ compensation insurance or the equivalent as the laws of the country of which these employees are nationals may require, and (2) continue to maintain it until performance is completed. The Contractor shall insert, in all subcontracts under this contract to which the Defense Base Act would apply but for the waiver, a clause similar to this paragraph (a) (including this sentence) imposing upon those subcontractors this requirement to provide such workers’ compensation insurance coverage.
(b) This paragraph applies if the Contractor or any subcontractor under this contract employs any person who, but for a waiver granted by the Secretary of Labor, would be subject to the War Hazards Compensation Act (42 U.S.C. 1701, et seq.). On behalf of employees for whom the applicability of the Defense Base Act (and hence that of the War Hazards Compensation Act) has been waived, the Contractor shall, subject to reimbursement as provided elsewhere in this contract, afford the same protection as that provided in the War Hazards Compensation Act, except that the level of benefits shall conform to any law or international agreement controlling the benefits to which the employees may be entitled. In all other respects, the standards of the War Hazards Compensation Act shall apply; e.g., the definition of war-hazard risks (injury, death, capture, or detention as the result of a war hazard as defined in the Act), proof of loss, and exclusion of benefits otherwise covered by workers’ compensation insurance or the equivalent. Unless the Contractor elects to assume directly the liability to subcontractor employees created by this clause, the Contractor shall insert, in all subcontracts under this contract to which the War Hazards Compensation Act would apply but for the waiver, a clause similar to this paragraph (b) (including this sentence) imposing upon those subcontractors this requirement to provide war-hazard benefits.
(End of clause)
Here is the rumor
The employee quit the company after they refused and eventually went to another place of employment. But when the company heard through the grapevine the employee was going to testify in a case, there was alot of off the records threats of deportation.
This was not DBA but for liability insurance.
I have been confused by this, so please help me better understand.
If I had an accident on the job that caused me injury but also killed another person overseas.
What insurance am I required to carry as a foreign contractor for my employee while working for USG
I assume it is liability and sometype of workers compensation
Which to me meant the DBA.
Are a list of claims public if it is a foreign contractor for USG?
http://www.scribd.com/full/34157217?access_key=key-mwgcvh0v56svnlomneo
is what you will see in current solicitations. Probably due in part to ITT being caught without DBA and the Army needing all the help they can to correspond the FARs they insert with an actionable item that they need to account for. Less likely for a corrupt contracting officer to skip a CLIN that is pretty clear about DBA.
The rest is on the DOL link.
All of your questions are answered on the link.
Thanks for the education. Looks like I have alot of homework to do.
I had one bright spark from AICI-SP ask me “What is this FAR thing you keep talking about and why does it matter.” Well, FAR is not opposite of NEAR, but it does show that there are many uninformed people who are trying to get around the rules of the contract in order to add profits. That is why Abraham Lincoln’s Congress enacted the False Claim Act.
Statute of Limitations for Filing a False Claim Action.
Your friend should Google Qui Tam attorneys. File a Freedom of Information Act request to get a copy of the contract and all modifications. It is not that hard to prove the U.S. Army Contracting Officer wasn’t doing there job. There are many examples already of their character flaws in the Arifjan Hall of Fame. We are working on an Afghanistan Hall of Fame list now and it has a lot more Air Force in the ranks.
The case may still be brought in light of the DOJ and the U.S. Army covering up for the corporation, and in the case of ITT Corporation that are on a 5-year probation that suspended their debarment, there is still plenty of time.
Interesting enough, even while on probation, ITT admitted paying bribes to get contracts.
http://www.scribd.com/full/33652195?access_key=key-3imvmuu2p0bvcbn6crm
False Claims Actions Statutes.
4/24/2006
http://www.arentfox.com/publications/index.cfm?content_id=875&fa=legalUpdateDisp
One of the most frequently overlooked defenses to a qui tam action under the False Claims Act, 31 U.S.C. §§ 3729 et seq. (“FCA”), is the differing statute of limitations provisions that apply when the government is a party and when only the relator is litigating the case. Defense counsel should not assume that both provisions of § 3731(b) are applicable in a qui tam situation. In actuality, defense counsel should assert, should a statute of limitations issue arise, that application of § 3731(b)(2)’s more generous provision is foreclosed when the government has declined intervention.
In any action alleging violations of the FCA, the statute of limitations provision contained within the FCA controls. See 31 U.S.C. § 3731(b). Under § 3731(b)(1), a six year statute of limitations provision is mandated.1 For FCA purposes, the statute of limitations begins to run once the claim for payment is submitted to the government. SeeUnited States v. Entin, 750 F. Supp. 512, 517-18 (S.D. Fla. 1990).
In 1986, the FCA was amended to include a second statute of limitations provision, § 3731(b)(2). 2 It is this second provision which has generated the confusion that relators have attempted to exploit by arguing that this alternative provision, including the 10 year maximum, is equally applicable to them as well.
The FCA’s statute of limitations, however, does not allow relators to extend the six year period specified by § (b)(1). By its very language (“by an official of the United States”), it is evident that this provision is not meant to be applicable in qui tam cases where the government has declined to intervene. The clear majority of district courts that have considered the issue of whether § (b)(2) is applicable to relators have rejected its applicability to qui tam law suits where the government has declined to intervene. See, e.g., United States ex rel. Capella v. Norden Systems, Inc., No. 3:94-cv-2063 (EBB), 2000 U.S. Dist LEXIS 13352 at *35 (D. Conn. August 24, 2000); United States ex rel. El-Amin v. George Washington Univ., 26 F. Supp. 2d 162, 170 (D.D.C. 1998)3; United States ex rel. Thistlethwaite v. Dowty Woodville Polymer, Ltd., 6 F. Supp. 2d 263, 265 (S.D.N.Y. 1998).4 The Second Circuit has concurred in this interpretation. Manning v. Utilities Mutual Insurance Co., 254 F.3d 387, 397 (2d Cir. 2001) (six year limit is applicable “to private claims brought pursuant to the FCA”).
The limited contrary decisions applying this section to cases where a relator alone is pursuing the action are highly unpersuasive, especially given the pertinent legislative history and the explicit language of the provision. For example, in United States ex rel. Hyatt v. Northrop Corp., 91 F.3d 1211, 1214-16 (9 th Cir. 1996), despite conceding that the legislative history, as exemplified in the House and Senate Judiciary Committee reports, exclusively refers to “the government” in discussing § (b)(2), the Ninth Circuit nonetheless concluded that the section was applicable to relators as well. The Circuit thus ignored the better reasoned district court decision which had reached far more accurate conclusions after its exhaustive review of the legislative history. Hyatt, Relator v. Northrop Corp., 883 F. Supp. 484, 486-88 (C.D. Cal. 1995). Similar deficiencies in analysis also afflict United States ex rel. Bidani v. Lewis, No. 97 C 6502, 1999 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 3530 (N.D. Ill. March 12, 1999); and United States ex rel. Downy v. Corning, 118 F. Supp. 2d 1160 (D.N.M. 2000).5
Moreover, there is authority holding that even if relators could place reliance upon § (b)(2), they would still be required to allege and prove that a defendant Afraudulently concealed a false claim. @ United States ex rel. Sanders v. East Alabama Healthcare Authority, 953 F. Supp. 1404, 1413 (M.D. Ala. 1996).
It is important to recognize that the Ninth Circuit held in Hyatt, under § (b)(2), the three year statute of limitations period begins to run once a relator has knowledge of the alleged false claims. “Once the qui tam plaintiff has the requisite information, he cannot sleep on his rights. He is charged with the responsibility to act under the circumstances. Thus, as to the qui tam plaintiff, the three-year extension of the statute of limitations begins to run once [the] qui tam plaintiff knows or reasonably should have known the facts material to his right of action.” 91 F.3d at 1216-17.
The Ninth Circuit specifically rejected the argument that relators, in effect, have a 10 year statute of limitations period which begins to run from the date the government learns of the alleged fraud through service of the complaint. As that Court recognized ( id. at 1218):
[Relator=s] interpretation of the tolling provision would permit qui tam relators to control the length of their own limitations period by withholding their allegations until they are prepared to sue. Under this theory, qui tam relators could wait a full ten years after learning of the deceit before suing. This would frustrate the purposes of the limitation period and the purposes of the Act. Granting qui tam relators the power to wait nearly ten years to sue would allow fraud to continue and losses to mount. Furthermore, allowing a qui tam plaintiff to wait ten years might interfere with law enforcement ….
Rather, stressed the Circuit, the three years begins to run when the relator, not the government, has knowledge of the purported false claims. Id. at 1218.
In conclusion, any effort by a relator to assert that its action is governed by § (b)(2)’s more expansive statute of limitations provision should be resisted vigorously. In this way, the potential liability of the defendant can be kept with the appropriate boundaries specified by Congress.