In a recent email from Agility Senior Management(?) Agility stands firm that this whole thing is just a silly contract dispute and nothing criminal has gone on. See email below.
From: Management Update [mailto:mgmtupdate@agilitylogistics.com
Sent: Tuesday, July 06, 2010 11:02 AM
Subject: Find updated information about the legal case on Connections
This message was sent to Agility, DGS, GIL and Infrastructure leadership, to DGS-all, Kuwait-all, and to key communications contacts.
We recognize that employees, customers, and partners have ongoing questions related to the Prime Vendor legal case. Going forward, Connections will be the primary resource for providing updates related to the case.
In order to receive up to date information about the latest status, please continue to check the legal dispute dedicated resource page on Connections. You can access this site by clicking here, or from the front page of Connections. If you are unable to find the answer you are looking for, you can also email: contractdisputehotline@agilitylogistics.com.
For your reference, we are also attaching the latest Q+A about the case below. We hope that this document, along with the resources on the Connections legal dispute site, will help you engage stakeholders with accurate information that addresses their questions and concerns.
Questions and Answers Related to the US Government Legal Dispute (July 5, 2010)
What is the case about?
In November 2009, the Department of Justice announced an indictment of PWC for alleged overcharging the US government in connection with the PWC’s Prime Vendor contract to supply food for U.S. troops in Iraq and Kuwait.
What’s the Company’s position?
This is a contract dispute not a criminal matter. The Company’s prices, its choice of suppliers, and its business practices were all disclosed to and approved by the Defense Logistics Agency, which is the U.S. government customer for the Prime Vendor contract.
What about the Company’s performance on this contract?
PWC’s performance on this contract has never been in dispute. For seven years, PWC has provided exceptional service to troops and superior value to taxpayers. By key food-industry benchmarks, the Company’s performance in a warzone exceeds the performance of suppliers operating in the domestic U.S. market. The Company has repeatedly been recognized for excellence by its U.S. government customer. Gen. David Petraeus singled us out for praise, saying PWC had “performed a miracle across Iraq.”
Why try to settle if the Company has a strong legal case?
This case has badly damaged our defense and government contracting business. It has generated uncertainty among shareholders, employees and customers, in part because commercial competitors have spread rumors and false information. We would like to remove that uncertainty and rebuild our defense and government business.
What did the Company do after it learned of the Department of Justice investigation?
PWC cooperated over a two-year period by providing millions of pages of documents and detailed answers to specific questions that the Department of Justice posed about the food contract.
In addition, the Company tried to resolve the matter by taking it to a U.S. Army contract appeals board and proposing third-party mediation. The Department of Justice blocked or rejected those efforts.
What about the Department of Justice’s claim that the Company is a “fugitive”?
Fugitives flee. PWC is fighting. The Company is presenting its legal arguments in court, insisting on its rights and asking the court to make sure the Department of Justice follows U.S. law. The bottom line is that the Department of Justice is trying to criminalize a contract dispute.
Keep in mind that while all this is going on, we continue delivering for our customers. At the height of violence in Iraq, we kept going. Thirty-three of our colleagues were killed and hundreds injured when they put their lives on the line to deliver for U.S. forces. We did not abandon the mission then, and we aren’t abandoning it now. Our work has continued, uninterrupted by this case and undiminished in terms of the level of service we are providing. Troops and contractors in Iraq and Kuwait count on us every day. We have never let them down, and we won’t – regardless of what transpires in this case.
I have heard that some executives have also been suspended by the U.S. government. What impact does this have on the company or its customers?
There is no impact of these individual suspensions on existing U.S. government contracts or on our commercial business. The suspensions are an extension of the old allegations to certain people deemed “affiliates” of PWC. We view this action as one in a series of attempts to exert pressure on PWC and to shore up a weak legal case.
What does it mean that PWC and various affiliate companies are on the US government’s Excluded Parties List?
Any company that is on the Excluded Parties List is temporarily suspended from winning new US government business. This suspension does not apply to existing US government contracts. In other words, while PWC is unable to win new government business until this case is resolved, it can (and does) continue to perform on various contracts that it currently holds with the US government. This suspension has no implications for commercial business with commercial customers. This suspension applies only to US government contracts.
Does working with Agility cause any legal or compliance concerns for Global Integrated Logistics (GIL) customers in the United States?
No. There are no compliance concerns whatsoever for GIL customers in the United States or any other part of the world. Agility is suspended from winning new US government business. This suspension applies only to US government business. The legal dispute has no implications for commercial customers or commercial business.
Is there any possibility that the US government will impound or stop my freight in the United States if I use Agility?
Absolutely not. This legal dispute has no impact whatsoever on any type of business that is not directly funded by the US government
A Company lawyer was quoted as saying that the case has been damaging. What did he mean?
That lawyer represents a U.S. subsidiary of Agility Defense & Government Services – not PWC itself. He was referring to the DGS business group and the damage that DGS has suffered as a result of this case. The damage to DGS is serious and undeniable. This case prevents DGS from pursuing new U.S. government contracts, which were the biggest source of DGS revenue.
Agility’s GIL commercial business group and its infrastructure businesses are not involved in the legal process. They aren’t the subject of any allegations. They continue to perform for existing customers and pursue promising new opportunities.
Nothing about this case has diminished PWC’s unique competitive advantages: We offer a one-of-a-kind global footprint, highly specialized capabilities, extraordinary personal service, and innovative solutions. Those advantages bring us new customers and help us recruit the best talent in the industry.
Why do news articles and press releases identify the Company as PWC, instead of Agility?
The Department of Justice chose to refer to the Company as PWC in initial court papers, although it has sometimes used PWC and Agility interchangeably. The parent company of the various Agility subsidiaries has had the name “The Public Warehousing Company,” and it is the parent company that holds the Prime Vendor contract. The Justice Department has leveled allegations against three corporate entities. Those entities are the corporate parent (PWC); the Company’s Kuwait-based Agility DGS subsidiary; and a U.S. subsidiary of Agility DGS.
How has this dispute affected Agility GIL?
Agility GIL’s business is commercial. Its core customers are other businesses. GIL’s core commercial business and core business customers are unaffected by the case.
Outside of those core areas, GIL has benefitted from its teamwork with DGS. On some government contracts, DGS uses GIL as a subcontractor or teams with GIL as a joint venture partner. Because DGS has not been able to pursue new U.S. government work, there has been no new work for GIL in that limited area.
How does this dispute affect a GIL commercial customer?
The case has no effect at all on GIL commercial customers. There is no legal reason why a commercial customer cannot do business with Agility. The case prevents Agility from winning new U.S. government contracts. It doesn’t prevent Agility from working on its current U.S. government contracts. And most important, it does not prevent – or seek to prevent – Agility from doing any other kind of business with any party.
Other Related Posts From Ms Sparky
- Kuwait’s Agility denies winning Canadian military contract
- Suspended, indicted defense contractor Agility loses Kuwait warehouse to fire
- U.S. judge dismisses case against Agility subsidiary
- DoD awards Agility $25M contract extension after suspension
- Agility gets 6 month extension to ensure smooth transition to Anham LLC
I love how Agility’s own employees pass internal memos onto the media and Ms. Sparky. Shows where their loyalty lies. PWC/Agility is a joke! How can they continue to ignore CRIMINAL INDICTMENTS and claim it’s simply a “contract dispute”? Just like most of Kuwait, they ignore the obvious (driving responsibilities, littering, health, respect, common courtesy, importance of education, work ethic, etc.) until it’s excruciatingly painful. I can’t wait until the oil dries up.
I love it too!
Apparently indictments do not prevent a company from receiving awards for “Special Corporate Social Responsibility.”
“It feels great for Agility to be recognised for living our corporate culture and its commitment to good corporate citizenship. With our global presence, especially in emerging markets, we recognise that poverty, disasters, and global climate change affect us all and cannot be ignored,” said Tarek Sultan, CEO of Agility.
“We believe that good corporate citizenship is a long-term investment in the future of our business, our society and our planet. Our commitment to CSR is fuelled by the drive and passion of our employees that approach each initiative with personal ownership and a can do attitude,” he added.
Disgustingly comical!
Thursday, Jul 08, 2010
Public Warehousing Co., the Gulf region’s biggest logistics firm, Thursday said it has reelected Tarek Sultan Al Essa as chairman and managing director for a new term.
Considering the 6 criminal indictments, the 75% drop in Agility’s stock price, and the devastation of their DGS entity during Tarek Sultan’s watch, I find it hard to believe they wouldn’t have kicked his ass to the curb. Just shows us that the Board of Directors is in his back pocket. Shareholders should protest this decision immediately and vehemently!
Simzer, where are you when we need you most?
Here is the real contracts dispute HOTLINE
protests@gao.gov
The United States Air Force has been caught trying to single sole source to NAS – National Aviation Services, who Tareq Sultan is an owner of.
Here is the GAO Protest http://www.scribd.com/full/33829916?access_key=key-1hzj18ylyxo2lffcmija
and here is a response to the Air Force’s motion to dismiss. I think the GAO are forgetting who they are there to serve.
It is the U.S. Taxpayer, not covering up for Contracting Officers not following the Federal Acquisition Regulations and defying the Excluded Parties Listing System.
http://www.scribd.com/full/34418913?access_key=key-c0ukp98kspavcw1gn3j
The real thing that needs to be kicked to the curb is DSCP and Prime Vendor.
Again – with this outcome – all the PV “rats” are scurrying to make sure that their “criminal actions” are all cleaned up – since it is obvious as with most things, the USG knows nothing about business and when it thinks it was outmanuevered – all it knows how to do is cry “fraud”, toss the weight of the DOJ against it all and try to squeeze the small people (BTW – this does not hurt those with money and friends/lawyers in high or low places – as usual) into thier “world view” so that they can gain their own avarice of the kill and saying, “see what we did to protect you, Mr. and Mrs Taxpayer” (while DSCP takes 10%++ to “manage” (there’s a joke) a contract that in the private side would be done for 3%, or less….in effect…making more after expenses then the many US companies that have gone it alone out of patriotism to support the feeding of our brave forces – with no recourse should any private PV walk (don’t believe me – do you own damn research and look up the outcome of Pacific World in Guam – and how DSCP did the Vegas dealer “I”m clean and out”).
Disgusted with ALL parties in this – am I.
Too bad there’s not a DOJ for the DOJ and DSCP to be called on the carpet by.
Again – not so simple – unless you are the typical sitcom watching that wants it all done in 30 minutes with 8 mins of commercials for a beer, nuts and pee break.