PMC / Mercenaries in Iraq (catch all)

[Gnaeus]

Just wanted to see what anyone else thought about SOC-SMG, a company contracted to provide facility security at US posts in Iraq. The security guards are all African, and the actual contractors are American. Just for fun some of us would test their "defense" by using each others ID cards to gain access to facilities (they usually guard the chow hall, MWR, or gym). It worked everytime. Sometimes we would even use the same card for two people at the same time, one guy behind the other. They never caught us.

This may seem childish, but it served a useful purpose for me...what if I really was a individual who meant to do real harm and was able to get in there. These guys don't only guard the chow hall, but also the inner security perimiter of the base.

If the government is going to lay down millions of taxpayer dollars to a company to protect support facilities and free up more troop manpower from guard duty, at least they could use a better quality security company. Better yet, lets not waste anymore unnecessary taxpayer dollars and get rid of the contract.

[Stan]

Welcome to the SWC !
All things said and done, I recall that Namibian company shutting down in October this year. Seems they were just as displeased with their contract as you folks were with their performance.

Having lived and worked many years in Sub-Sahara and concluded countless contracts for the USG, your real gripe is with the USG (more than likely the State department).

Let’s face facts, people with a 6th grade education from Texas or Congo still have a sixth grade education and still work for far less than say you or I would be willing.

Contractual obligations however do not take this into account. You as the recipient needs to step up and indicate that services are not up to snuff.

Please take a moment and introduce yourself here.

To You and Yours a Safe and Happy Holiday Season !

Just wanted to see what anyone else thought about SOC-SMG, a company contracted to provide facility security at US posts in Iraq. The security guards are all African, and the actual contractors are American...

[Gnaeus]

I agree, although one may think SOC-SMG is at fault (and to an extent they are in my opinion), the reality is that the government is ultimately the one responsible for awarding the contract to the comapny.

[CT Medic]

I disagree...I would not fault SOC-SMG. In essense they are doing the best job they can with the money they are given. They are a private for profit company and as such need to show a profit. However, they are the lowest bidder, and therefore the government gives them the contract. They government cannot afford to pay expats 15,000/month to man internal security, so they have forced companies like SOC-SMG (EODT, Sabre and a couple other companies also do this work on other bases) to find ways of cutting their overhead...paying a TCN 1000/month is a way of doing that.

So the question is...who is at fault...the Private COmpany that was awarded the contract, or the governemnet for chosing the lowest bidder?

[Old Eagle]

Respectfully disagree.

Companies are in business to make a profit. Check
Companies do as much as possible to maximize that profit/pad the pockets of the executives.
Companies do as little as possible at the pointy end in order to accomplish the above.
Companies will perform to the standards which the gov't enforces.

Therefore -- gotta set the bar high and keep them honest. Means reporting discrepancies, etc.

[Penta]

Therefore -- gotta set the bar high and keep them honest. Means reporting discrepancies, etc.

Agree to an extent. However, define what the bar should be?

Not sure there should be a ban on hiring TCNs - but you need to make sure:

A. Training is up to snuff;
B. Proper screening is performed on potential hires;
C. Everybody on the job can speak at least passable English.

They don't need to all be former first world military at all, IMHO - if a bright kid from a goatherding village in Africa can do the job just as well at a lower cost, okay then! Let him!

In any case, it's probably going to be the case in a lot of these companies that the line folks come from wherever and the "officer" types are from the first world - not the best thing in the world, but that's life.

I begin to wonder at some point if there shouldn't just be a sort of "licensing board" for PMCs - to establish basic standards, like bar associations do for lawyers. A mercenaries' guild of sorts.

[Stan]

Agree to an extent. However, define what the bar should be?

...keep them honest. Means reporting discrepancies, etc.

Penta, Look at it this way for just a second: Piedmont Van Lines (most military remember them) picks up your HHG and delivers same to destination. You take receipt and discover something is now damaged (in transit). So, do you just blow it off, or do you file a claim and bitch like no tomorrow ?

Seems the majority of folks are OK with bitchin, but reporting contractors and Sierra service isn't worth the trouble. Too bad most don't consider that like they would as if it were their (own) stuff.

Not sure there should be a ban on hiring TCNs - but you need to make sure:

A. Training is up to snuff;
B. Proper screening is performed on potential hires;
C. Everybody on the job can speak at least passable English.

They don't need to all be former first world military at all, IMHO - if a bright kid from a goatherding village in Africa can do the job just as well at a lower cost, okay then! Let him!

There are many of us that have been around TCNs for more than a decade. Some fare well, but the majority of 'lowest bidder' contracts often have abysmal standards to keep things cheap. DoD may dictate standards, and the contractor may indicate concurrence, but ultimately you and I have to keep things in balance by reporting shoddy service.

[LawVol]

I disagree...I would not fault SOC-SMG. In essense they are doing the best job they can with the money they are given. They are a private for profit company and as such need to show a profit. However, they are the lowest bidder, and therefore the government gives them the contract. They government cannot afford to pay expats 15,000/month to man internal security, so they have forced companies like SOC-SMG (EODT, Sabre and a couple other companies also do this work on other bases) to find ways of cutting their overhead...paying a TCN 1000/month is a way of doing that.

So the question is...who is at fault...the Private COmpany that was awarded the contract, or the governemnet for chosing the lowest bidder?

This really isn't a proper view of the contracting process. The government isn't "forcing" anyone to do anything. The government identifies a need and puts out an invitation for bids (IFB) or request for proposals (RFP), depending on the need. Companies that can meet that need then review the requirements as set forth in the IFB or RFP and, if they can meet them, submit a bid or proposal. If they determine that they cannot make a profit, then they shouldn't bid. Indeed, I know of no companies that would bid if they didn;t see a profit. They may cut overhead by hiring TCNs or something like that, but they must still meet the requirements.

Now the rub is whether the government is properly overseeing the contract. This falls into the hands of the contracting officer or his representative. He is responsible for ensuring that the terms of the contract are satisfied. Hopefully, Gnaeus reported his findings up the chain.

Just because the government selects the lowest bidder does not mean it is at fault. Sure, the lowest bidder is usually selected for contract award, but price is never the only consideration. The bidder must be responsive and responsible. This basically means that the bidder must demonstrate an ability to perform the contract and to meet the terms of the contract. A term in use for some contracts is "lowest price technically acceptable." If you look at it in these terms then you see that the government is using the ocntracting process to ensure that any awardee is capable of meeting the contract requirements. Of course, capable and actually doing it are two different things and this is where the contracting officer comes in. As Stan and Old Eagle indicate, oversight is key.

[Gnaeus]

Hopefully, Gnaeus reported his findings up the chain.

Although I never did anything official, I did speak to a few of my senior officers about it. Partly, I was too busy to really focus my energy on griping about substandard security guards and partly becuase...I'm not sure who I would address this to. My command had no direct influence over these individuals or this organization. We were a unit that worked out of that FOB, but by no means "owned" it. I don't even know what government agency awarded the contract. I suspect it was either the DoD or DoS. Anyone have any advice to offer to help get this ball rolling? Now that I have some more free time (if you can call it that), I am interested in pursing this further.

Personally, I'm not too thrilled with their presence or the job they are doing. The guards were a little more than an annoyance and I fear that in a real attack they would do little good.

[LawVol]

Although I never did anything official, I did speak to a few of my senior officers about it. Partly, I was too busy to really focus my energy on griping about substandard security guards and partly becuase...I'm not sure who I would address this to. My command had no direct influence over these individuals or this organization. We were a unit that worked out of that FOB, but by no means "owned" it. I don't even know what government agency awarded the contract. I suspect it was either the DoD or DoS. Anyone have any advice to offer to help get this ball rolling? Now that I have some more free time (if you can call it that), I am interested in pursing this further.

Personally, I'm not too thrilled with their presence or the job they are doing. The guards were a little more than an annoyance and I fear that in a real attack they would do little good.

Everything runs through the contract, so the remedy is through that mechanism. There is likely a contracting office (or at least a contracting officer) at your FOB. That would be the first place I'd go. Even if they don't directly manage the contract, they can get in touch with the folks that do. If there isn't a contracting rep there, go talk to the JAG. They are likely involved in the contracting process (it's big business for us over there) and can get the ball rolling. If you run into a roadblock, PM me and I can might be able to inquire about other potential avenues. Stay safe.

Okay, I just noticed that you are now back at the Stumps. You can make your inquiries through the contracting office there. They should be able to track down who manages the contract. -john

[Cannoneer No. 4]

This may seem childish, but it served a useful purpose for me...what if I really was a individual who meant to do real harm and was able to get in there.

Yeah, it does.

Other than amusing yourself, what useful purpose did you serve?

If you have legitimate concerns you could have addressed them to the NCOIC of the facility, or to PMO, or to the Force Protection Officer. Or you could be real grown up and express your issues to the SOC-SMG Site Manager. Be sure to have your plausible explanation for how screwing with the Ugandans is within your lane.

[LawVol]

Yeah, it does.

Other than amusing yourself, what useful purpose did you serve?

If you have legitimate concerns you could have addressed them to the NCOIC of the facility, or to PMO, or to the Force Protection Officer. Or you could be real grown up and express your issues to the SOC-SMG Site Manager. Be sure to have your plausible explanation for how screwing with the Ugandans is within your lane.

Force protection is in everyone's lane. Whether he should have done what he did or not is now irrelevant. He identified a potential security breach and now it needs to be addressed; although it should have been done then.

Speaking as one who has performed security guard duties, using another's ID to gain access isn't screwing with someone if they're doing their job. If it had been me, rest assured he wouldn't have gotten in with another's ID. I would have turned him away and would have made him use another entrance just to show him that I'm master of my domain (General Order #12 is always in effect).

[Ken White]

...
Speaking as one who has performed security guard duties, using another's ID to gain access isn't screwing with someone if they're doing their job. If it had been me, rest assured he wouldn't have gotten in with another's ID. I would have turned him away and would have made him use another entrance just to show him that I'm master of my domain (General Order #12 is always in effect).

in that scenario 'cause I'd have had strip of hide. What if he went to another entrance and someone not as alert as you let him in? Depending on the local rules, he shoulda been detained -- at a minimum you should've confiscated the improper ID to turn in. Attempts and tricks like that just for fun may be tolerated nowadays but let me tell you, Mac, back in the Old Corps, we usedta ...

All hypotheticals (and in fun) of course but even as long as it's been I still remember both the 12th and the 11th GOs...

[Cannoneer No. 4]

Force protection is in everyone's lane.

Complying with FP regulations, cooperating with FP personnel, and reporting FP threats is in everybody's lane. Instigating controversy for ####s and grins just gets the Ugandan sent home and ends up making it a helluva lot harder to get everybody fed at lunch.

People want to play games, each and every uniformed service member can have their CAC card run through a Hand Held Terminal and recite their PIN every time they want to eat.

[LawVol]

People want to play games, each and every uniformed service member can have their CAC card run through a Hand Held Terminal and recite their PIN every time they want to eat.

If it can prevent this (Carnage in Mosul), I'm all for it.

Luckily for me, my chow hall was guarded by some fine soldiers from the 101st Airborne Division ("Balls of the Eagle," "No Slack;" see I speak Army ).

[Steve Blair]

Complying with FP regulations, cooperating with FP personnel, and reporting FP threats is in everybody's lane. Instigating controversy for ####s and grins just gets the Ugandan sent home and ends up making it a helluva lot harder to get everybody fed at lunch.

People want to play games, each and every uniformed service member can have their CAC card run through a Hand Held Terminal and recite their PIN every time they want to eat.

Well maybe they should. They do that at the residence hall dining facilities on my university. Any student who wants to eat has to have his or her ID with them and have it swiped before they can enter. No card, no food. And the gate folks are supposed to compare the picture with the bearer (and most do...not worth your job just to let some idiot eat on someone else's meal plan). They're even going over to a palmprint system within the next year or so. And that's just for dorm food.

And on a side note, I'd appreciate it if folks could keep this discussion civil. That includes basic things like refraining from posting responses in either ALL CAPS or all bold. Thanks.

[Gnaeus]

Other than amusing yourself, what useful purpose did you serve?

Did you mean what useful purpose did it serve or what useful purpose did I serve? I will assume you mean the former.

I will try to address your concerns the best I can. First, maybe childish and just for fun were bad choice phrases to use. There was necessity in doing this. First of all, we had a job to do and tasks to accomplish. Has one of my fellow Marines forgotten thier ID card and then when they returned to the FOB, only then did they realize that they did not have it. Sure...that thing could have possibly happened over the course of a deployment. So, now, we are posed with a delima. Do I try to explain for 15 minutes to a security guard that this Marine left his ID on the FOB, but verify to him...who has no authority over me or is not in my chain of command...that this is individual is in fact a United States Marine, even though this security guard can barely understand English. Or, do I make another choice. We're tired, hungry, and the sun is down. We may have returned to our FOB, but it will still be another serveral hours before we finally rack out. Do I really have time for this? By the mere fact that I could have pulled this off, shows the whole internal security situation to be a farce.

Second. There was no PMO. The first, MP unit to roll into our FOB arrived as we were preparing to leave. But, as you probably know, just being an MP unit doesn't make you PMO.

Third. I literally had about a hundred tasks to accomplish in a single day. What number do you think talking to the site manager was on my list?

After we were able to get through the first time this peaked my interest. So, we "tested" it a few more times. This was by no means a normal or everyday occurance. 99% of the time we went through the regular routine, all presenting our own valid cards, and proceeded about normally.

Maybe it would have been better to say it was an experiment born out of a situation that arose during a specific time period. I recall something similar to this happening in the news when agents smuggled bomb making materials through TSA checkpoints. Fortunately we had only ourselves and our equipment to bring through the gate.

Now that I'm back in the States I can address this issue. I assumed that taking it to a fourm for discussion would be a good starting point. Criticize the issue, but do not go into a personal attack.

[Cannoneer No. 4]

Did you mean what useful purpose did it serve or what useful purpose did I serve?

What useful purpose did your little Red Team exercise serve? What deficiency did you identify to anyone who could correct the deficiency?

I will assume you mean the former.

Ass U Me. Not out of me, Devil Dog.

First, maybe childish and just for fun were bad choice phrases to use.

Particularly bad if you consider any agreement with your own characterization a personal attack.

There was necessity in doing this. First of all, we had a job to do and tasks to accomplish. Has one of my fellow Marines forgotten thier ID card and then when they returned to the FOB, only then did they realize that they did not have it.

Your fellow Marine was in the wrong.

Sure...that thing could have possibly happened over the course of a deployment. So, now, we are posed with a delima. Do I try to explain for 15 minutes to a security guard that this Marine left his ID on the FOB, but verify to him...who has no authority over me

Does a security contractor manning an entry control point not have the same authority to challenge you or your CAC cardless buddy when you try to get into his DFAC as you have over him when he tries to get into your ASP?

even though this security guard can barely understand English.

Is this another assumption on your part, or did you attempt to explain? Most of the Ugandans speak some English. He wasn't in radio contact with his Supervisor?

Or, do I make another choice. We're tired, hungry, and the sun is down. We may have returned to our FOB, but it will still be another serveral hours before we finally rack out. Do I really have time for this? By the mere fact that I could have pulled this off, shows the whole internal security situation to be a farce.

Your buddy is running around without his CAC card, you are aiding and abetting unauthorized entry into the facility, and the whole internal security situation is a farce because both of you aren't face down in the gravel?


[QUOTE] Second. There was no PMO. The first, MP unit to roll into our FOB arrived as we were preparing to leave. But, as you probably know, just being an MP unit doesn't make you PMO.[/UNQUOTE]

No Facility NCOIC? No Force Protection Officer? No Guard Force Supervisor?

Third. I literally had about a hundred tasks to accomplish in a single day. What number do you think talking to the site manager was on my list?

Quite low, obviously. What has caused this incident to rise to the top of your priority list so many months later?

After we were able to get through the first time this peaked my interest. So, we "tested" it a few more times. This was by no means a normal or everyday occurance. 99% of the time we went through the regular routine, all presenting our own valid cards, and proceeded about normally.

Who did you report the results of your "test" to? What use was made of the information you obtained? What deficiencies were corrected through your diligence as a self-appointed Assistant Contracting Officer's Representative?

Maybe it would have been better to say it was an experiment born out of a situation that arose during a specific time period. I recall something similar to this happening in the news when agents smuggled bomb making materials through TSA checkpoints. Fortunately we had only ourselves and our equipment to bring through the gate.

What gate would this be?

Now that I'm back in the States I can address this issue.

Negative. The time to address the issue in a positive manner was when you discovered the deficiency. The people who should have been made aware of it at the time have been deprived of your input from then until now. And many of those people may well be gone by now.

I assumed that taking it to a fourm for discussion would be a good starting point.

See paragraph 4 above.

Criticize the issue, but do not go into a personal attack.

If you consider criticism a personal attack, perhaps you can understand how people who work for SOC-SMG or who have worked with them could consider your statements slanderous.

1-866-369-9100 is the toll free number to SOC-SMG.

ce_pao_watch_officer@mnf-wiraq.usmc.mil <ce_pao_watch_officer@mnf-wiraq.usmc.mil> can probably hook you up with AT/FP at the FOB in question.