« November 2006 | Main | January 2007 »
December 26, 2006
Pentagon Ponders Expanding Foreign Recruitment
Want US citizenship? Join the US Globar War on Terrorism today!
That's what the Pentagon is now considering: expanding the existing program of trading citizenship to those foreign nationals willing to pick up arms on behalf of US foreign policy and military operations.
Insiders at the Pentagon reveal discussions about opening recruiting stations overseas and putting more immigrants on a faster track to US citizenship if they volunteer, The Boston Globe reports:
The idea of signing up foreigners who are seeking US citizenship is gaining traction as a way to address a critical need for the Pentagon, while fully absorbing some of the roughly one million immigrants that enter the United States legally each year.
Supporters include the American Enterprise Institute:
"It works as a military idea and it works in the context of American immigration," said Thomas Donnelly , a military scholar at the conservative American Enterprise Institute in Washington and a leading proponent of recruiting more foreigners to serve in the military.
Posted by davidphinney at 03:04 PM | Comments (1) | TrackBack
December 21, 2006
Civilian Footprint
KBR Press release:
The work that KBR is doing in the Middle East could not be accomplished without a dedicated workforce, and the company is proud of its 50,000 employees and subcontractors who daily face danger to support the troops serving there. Sadly, 95 KBR employees and subcontractors have lost their lives and more than 420 personnel have been injured while performing services under KBR's U.S. government contracts in Afghanistan, Iraq and Kuwait.
Add in the division of private security contractors, estimated at 25,000 and the US now has at least 75,000 civilians doing work that was performed by the military 10 years ago.The Pentagon estimates the total to be 100,000. If these civilians were wearing uniforms today, the military presence in the threater of war would be well over 200,000. Add in the contractor deaths in Iraq and casualties would be more than 3,600 -- not 3,000 as the Pentagon prefers to count.
Posted by davidphinney at 09:54 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack
December 20, 2006
Skinned Doberman, Two Beers and Jingle Bells
Season's greetings! This just came in from Iraq. I like it.
Hey Everybody,
I hope you all are well and happy. Christmas time can be fun and cheerful if you do it right.
I went looking for some christmas lights at the nearest FOB (forward operating base) but the PX there didn't have any. I found some low voltage lights here, so I'm going to try painting them different colors and hang them outside my caravan (caravan is Iraqi for trailer).
I had planned to have a little Christmas party with some South Africans and Brits at a nearby camp, but four of their people were kidnapped at a fake Iraqi military checkpoint recently, so I don't think the mood will be very festive. We'll see.
I once asked them if they like barbeque. They said the last time they bought fresh meat it looked like a skinned doberman. I told them I might have better local contacts and could buy a fat little sheep for 40 dollars, maybe a little more because the local Iraqis know about Christmas and will try a little holiday price gouging.
One way or another I'm going to try and have a little fun on Christmas Eve, even if it's just me and the Iwackies. Most of them here will believe in any holiday you want if you give them a beer, so maybe I'll give them 2 beers each and teach them one or two Christmas songs. "Silent Night" might be too complicated, but "We Wish You a Merry Christmas" and "Jingle Bells" might be good candidates. If they are any good I'll try to get it on tape.
Anyway, I hope you all have a Very Merry Christmas
Yours Truly,
(Somewhere in Iraq)
Posted by davidphinney at 08:44 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack
December 19, 2006
Happy Birthday, CIA
Someone just sent me this link: from Fairness & Accuracy in Reporting:
Extra! November/December 1997
One of the most evenhanded examples of mainstream coverage of the CIA's anniversary was on ABC News' website, where the report opens on a note of caution: "No doubt the nation's leading band of spies prefers to forget about the disastrous Bay of Pigs, bumbling plots to knock off political leaders and an abject failure to predict the fall of the Berlin Wall," writes ABC's David Phinney. "During the 1960s, the CIA experimented with LSD on unsuspecting subjects and spied on citizens protesting the Vietnam War. In the 1980s, it associated with groups found to be involved in torture and executions, and became mixed up in trading drugs for arms during the Iran/Contra era." Unlike most features on the CIA's anniversary, Phinney's story includes a quote from a CIA critic, a representative of Human Rights Watch.
Posted by davidphinney at 05:45 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack
December 17, 2006
'Among Other Things'
The Pentagon announced last spring that contractors in Iraq were taking and holding civilian employee passports.
Why?
To prevent employees from "jumping" to other firms.... "among other things."
Did the "other things" include discouraging laborers from escaping harsh treatment, non-payment of salaries, poor food, lousy housing, and just one too many incoming mortar rounds when an employer failed to issue proper, but expensive body armor? Those conditions have been all to common as I reported in Blood, Sweat and Tears.
The Pentagon won't offer any comment other than note in its announcement that "the right of freedom of movement" is a serious issue.
One would hope so.
Passports are not just a grown-up version of hall passes. In the Pentagon's words about taking away passports: "This practice violates the law under Title 18 U.S. Code."
The Pentagon claimed the practice of taking passports was "widespread." Subcontractors working under the Halliburton/KBR $16-billion-and-counting military logistics contract (LogCAP) were among the worst offenders.
Largely headquartered in Kuwait, Saudi Arabia, Jordan and the UAE, these subcontractors are called "body shops." They employ thousands of low-paid laborers recruited from south Asian countries and ship them to Iraq.
This Pentagon's discovery of taking passports led to a on April 21, 2006, order to contractors demanding that all passports be returned by May 1.
I am hearing that at least one company failed to return all the passports it was holding at military camps.
I am also told that First Kuwaiti Trading and Contracting was withholding passports of hundreds, if not thousands of workers, at the US embassy site in Baghdad until late October. One reason, allege more and more former employees, is because First Kuwaiti was busy smuggling workers in from Kuwait. That would be another no no.
What penalties does the Pentagon lay out if contractors are found to be withholding passports?
They include withholding payments, contract termination, negative performance evaluation, suspension, and/or debarment. Contractors also may be prohibited access to any government installation.
What are the penalties to First Kuwaiti, if, in fact, it did not return passports until late October? Maybe none. The $592-million embassy project is a State Department contract -- and not under the Pentagon.
Did anyone get busted?
Oh, by the way, the State Department is the flagship of US foreign policy. Passports are considered government property by the country that issues them, not that of the individual.
Now..... back to "among other things."
Right, now, the Pentagon isn't saying what those "other things" are -- at least as far as my inquiries have found. And if you notice in the following statement, the Pentagon cleaned up its "among other things" but mentions an unidentified "trafficking incident."
Okay, I'm splitting hairs... But here it is:
Mr. Phinney,This is all we will say about the trafficking incident.
During an inspection by the MNF-I Inspector General (IG) that was completed in late March, evidence indicated a wide spread practice of holding and withholding employee passports to prevent employees "jumping" to other employers. It is the position of Multi-National Forces-Iraq (MNF-I) that this practice violates the law under Title 18 U.S. Code.
An added note: First Kuwaiti competitors tell me that the State Department awarded three new embassy projects in Africa this fall to First Kuwaiti and a renovation in India. Unlike the Baghdad embassy, these projects needed classified clearance so First Kuwaiti teamed up with a US firm, Grunley-Walsh of Rockville, Md.
12/29/06: I just found this Aug. 22, 2005, document in my old emails. The letter lays out the position of five leading Washington, DC, contractor associations about proposed labor trafficking regulations. Apparently, the Pentagon was already concerned about the issue in Iraq as early as June 2005.
01/03/07: I just found this Halliburton email response to inquiry about the Pentagon investigation of labor trafficking.
If KBR became aware of an allegation of unlawful activity, the company would initiate an investigation. If there was evidence to support the allegation, KBR would take appropriate action, up to and including terminating the subcontractor and/or reporting the actions of the subcontractor to KBR's client, the U.S. Army. The Army has the authority to debar contractors.As a matter of policy, KBR does not disclose to the media the results of the company's investigations into personnel and contractual matters.
Melissa Norcross
Halliburton
04/26/06
Posted by davidphinney at 09:23 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack
KBR Gives a Pass to Costly Insurance Requirements in Iraq
I have a curious one-page memo, "Blanket Insurance Waiver," which apparently allows Halliburton/KBR to waive insurance requirements -- read cut "costs" -- to potential subcontractors working under Halliburton's sweeping military logistics contract, known as LOGCAP.
Four top-level KRR managers approved this internal memo November 26, 2002, while the Bush administration's Global War on Terror was in full swing in Afghanistan and poised to expand in Iraq.
The memo grants sweeping discretion to KBR contract officers in the field, i.e., Iraq. Among them is the freedom to ignore insurance requirements when subcontractors claim they can't find a suitable insurance carrier. That insurance requirement covers general liability, automobile liability, and the stautory amount for worker's compensation and employer's liability.
One contracting insider believes that KBR's contracting officers routinely used the waiver to help non-US businesses be more competitive when bidding on multi-million-dollar contracts under the logistics deal. (In other words, KBR personnel allegedly lowered the threshold on costs during the bidding process for select firms in Kuwait, Saudi Arabia, Jordan and other countries, says the source.)
"It appears that waivers were routinely handed out, but only to non-US businesses, " he asserts.
This insider claims that because insurance coverage for workers is mandatory on Pentagon contracts, the waiver grants a very liberal license to a contracting officer who waives the requirement.
"In 2004-2005, coverage was running from $27 to $35 per $100 of wages. Essentially, providing a waiver to foreign firms gives them an automatic 27-35% price advantage on Labor Contracts over honest American entities," the insider says.
Halliburton/KBR spokesperson Kathy Mann explains the waiver this way:
"KBR's standard commercial terms and conditions for subcontracts include a requirement to demonstrate that the vendor maintains appropriate commercial insurance. Understandably, most standard insurance policies contain war risk exclusions. Accordingly, due to the war-zone conditions in Iraq at the time, most insurance carriers would not extend coverage under their insurance policies to cover the work of the subcontractors in Iraq. In accordance with our established procurement procedures, KBR needed to waive this requirement to award the subcontracts to support the troops. "(Update 12.20.06)
According to the US Labor Department, which oversees Defense Base Act insurance requirements, there are four major insurance carriers currently providing DBA coverage in Iraq: AIG, ACE-USA,
CNA, and Chubb. And there are others. There's more on DBA requirements in Iraq here. (Update: 12.21.06)
So does this waiver affect DBA requirements by the Labor Department? I am still checking.
This is what Labor has to say about DBA, which is related to the Longshore and Harbor Workers' Compensation Act (LHWCA):
"The insurance requirements under the DBA are identical to those found in the LHWCA (Longshore and Harbor Workers' Compensation Act). The Longshore Act requires every employer (including contractors and subcontractors) either to secure insurance for the payment of workers' compensation benefits provided under the Act or to be permissibly self-insured. If a subcontractor fails to secure the payment of compensation, the contractor will be liable and will be required to secure the payment of such benefits."
The real question, though, is whether LogCAP requires subcontractor insurance, not whether KBR's "standard commercial terms" do.
A prominent attorney working on Iraq contract fraud tells me that this memorandum may be cause for crying foul on perhaps hundreds of contracts.
"There is a potential False Claims Act claim here. It's would be a little difficult to pin down the Government's damages, but clearly, if KBR must require subcontractors to obtain insurance, and it's not doing so, then every invoice certifying contract compliance is a false claim." (See qualifying analysis below.)
Another prominent government attorney tells me he's not so sure, but regardless of the blanket legal interpretations, allowing a private contract officer the personal discretion to waive insurance requirements opens the door for some handy favoritism that could potentially be rewarded with generous kickbacks.
That's one reason why the special inspector general charged with investigating Iraq contracting is looking hard at the hidden layers of subcontractors working underneath Halliburton/KBR, according to a number of sources talking to me.
Halliburton/KBR has now billed $16 billion since the war on terror began largely from its business in coordinating camp construction and maintenance, food services and supply convoys in Iraq and Afghanistan. (That's my rough estimate on the Pentagon's tab.)
Much of that work has been handed out to subcontractors, while KBR tacks on a percentage surcharge for awarding and coordinating the contracts. (Imagine a pyramid of contractors with Houston-based KBR sitting at the top.)
The four KBR managers who signed the memo are:
-- Tod E. Nickels, senior procurement and materials manager
-- John Downey, project general manager (LOGCAP) project
-- Bob Herndon, vice president, operations maintenance and logistics
-- Tom Crum, chief operating officer.
As far as the waiver is concerned, read on:
Here's what the attorney says about the insurance memo:
"This raises several legal issues. The main ones are: (1) what one has to do to waive a requirement like this, and (2) who has to do it.
The insurance requirements for federal subcontractors are rather heavily regulated. This is particularly in the area of construction (which is supposed to be KBR's specialty). It's not simply a function of what the LogCAP contract says, but also a function of regulations and statutes. Some of these requirements simply cannot be waived. Others can be waived only by a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) in the Federal Register. Still others require approval at a level higher than the contracting officer, e.g., the head of the contracting activity. I sincerely doubt that the only insurance requirement is whatever requirement that KBR chooses to impose in its form subcontract.
As to the first issue, i.e., how to waive a requirement like this, I don't have enough information to know in which category the LogCAP subcontractor insurance requirement falls, but it's very, very unlikely that a one-paragraph memorandum is sufficient. The minimum conceivable requirement is a formal contract modification, and this memorandum just isn't one. As I said, it's quite possible that even a formal contract modification wouldn't suffice. For instance, a modification can't waive a mandatory statutory requirement.
Then there is the issue of who has the authority to do something like this. Again, the minimum conceivable requirement is something signed by the administrative contracting officer for the contracting activity in question. (In the case of LogCAP, that's an Army Command at Rock Island, IL.) I don't see anyone signing this memorandum who fits the description. Conveniently for KBR, it's not on any stationery, and the signatories' employer is not identified. It looks to me, however, that all of the signatories might be KBR employees. The idea that KBR itself would have the authority to waive its own insurance requirements under the LogCAP prime contract is almost laughable, but with KBR, anything is possible.
If one wanted to know exactly what provisions were being violated here, one would have to review the LogCAP Request for Proposals, and possibly (but not necessarily) the task orders and formal contract mods. As you know, the task orders are notoriously difficult to obtain through FOIA.
There is a potential False Claims Act claim here. It's would be a little difficult to pin down the Government's damages, but clearly, if KBR must require subcontractors to obtain insurance, and it's not doing so, then every invoice certifying contract compliance is a false claim."
Update 12/29/06: One informed observer notes in an email,
bastards ...
take my word for it, they are required to carry DBA, are criminally liable if they don't AND KBR's responsibility for it flows -- even criminally -- down to the lowest sub of a sub of a sub. They can get a waiver from the Labor Dept., but they did not get any waivers for Iraq. Don't have those files anymore, but I believe the guy you want is Jack Martone of the Labor Department (he was about to retire 1.5+ years ago, but was pretty helpful). You can also look at GAOs attempt to look at the DBA question, which was really, really lame. Their interest, of course, was not in whether benefits were being illegally denied to workers, but how much DBA was costing taxpayers given the extensive use of contractors in Iraq. My recollection is they basically threw up their hands and said, "We have no fucking clue, since no one even knows how many contractors there."
Posted by davidphinney at 12:55 PM | Comments (3) | TrackBack