Aegis retains contract

[Silverbullet]

Word on the street is that Aegis retained the RSSS contract. My information is from a source who has been accurate in the past. I guess we'll know in the morning for sure.

This is the contract some refer to as the ROC contract.

If anyone has information that is different than what I posted, feel free to correct me.

[Silverbullet]

I've been told by representatives from a number of companies that they are going to appeal this decision.

I expected that.

I'm waiting to see a copy of the official award letter.

[Argyll 50]

How does such an appeal work?.....does the prime continues regardless, until it all goes through the process, an how long is that process likely to take?

I've not spoken to any of my buds on Matrix yet, and nobody on my contract is saying anything, pluse the office staff are not in either, as I've been trying to call them.

[SOTB]

I wonder if the appeal process can include requiring all Aegis-employed FFL deserters to raise their hands....

[bmbsqd]

Someone with more contracting experience than me please chime in if I am wrong.

When the RFP (request for proposal) goes out for companies to bid on a project there is already built in to the time frame the protest procedures and guidelines. It is not an infinite process and a contract this large and important definitely has a regimented protest or appeals process. As well the companies who have any shot at a successful protest will already have theirs prepared and only have to tweak it a little based on the debrief by the awarding agency on why they did not win it. Yes, they do normally get briefed on why they did not win.

This is all done precisely so the implementation of the mission is not ground to a halt by a company with deep enough pockets to lawyer up for months/years.

One example of alternative protest resolution is the Corps of Engineers CONUS/OCONUS UXO contract (not the actual title,but you get the picture). Typically 7 companies will win a seat on "the list" and for the next five years the COE can just finger point a company to do work instead of bidding out each and every project (could be in the 1000s or contracts). They will usually pick 2 large firms, 2 mediums, 2 smalls, and a disadvantaged. Of course there is also the 8(a) and other aspects, but there are normally 7 winners spread across the business spectrum. That is why, for example, from 2004 until now you have essentially seen the same UXO companies doing all the CEA/CMC work in Iraq...Zapata, Tetra Tech, EODT, USAE, etc. Parsons was one of them, but seem to have decided to stay in the infrastructure side of the house vice doing UXO/CEA/CMC work. There are actually about 15 other UXO companies in the US but few outside the EOD ranks know about them because they are not the "big boys" in Iraq. All other UXO cleanup is either non-COE or other companies will sub to the COE companies (RONCO, for example---a great company by the way).

In 2004 EODT did not win a seat on this group and protested. Rather than knocking another company off the list the COE simply increased it by one (when will they learn their lesson?)

So the protest process does have a purpose and does have an end, and usually cannot grind the work to a halt.

My prediction is that BWUSA will be the primary protester on the RSSS gig.

[Silverbullet]

My prediction is that BWUSA will be the primary protester on the RSSS gig.

I have a feeling that it will be more along the lines of 6 companies protesting. There were some big fish involved in this bid including a few very interesting teaming arrangements.

[Argyll 50]

Is that 6 including the pairings?......The only one I knew off was Dyncorp and Erinys.

My guess, BSC, Triple Canopy, Dyncorp, Erinys, EODT,and AG(NA)....

[Silverbullet]

Is that 6 including the pairings?......The only one I knew off was Dyncorp and Erinys.

My guess, BSC, Triple Canopy, Dyncorp, Erinys, EODT,and AG(NA)....

Yes it includes the paring since that is one bid.

You're close but there are few others who bid as well.

We'll have to wait and see how it plays out. Right now it's just speculation until they appeal. I don't think the appeal clock starts until the official letter comes out with the award.

[Silverbullet]

I'm aware that a number of UK based companies are stating they are still in the running for this. One specifically who also owns a company located in Fla who is buying property in Westmoreland County VA to build another training site states emphatically they are going to win this. If for some reason they turn out to get this contract vice Aegis then the thread will be modified. I like to keep an open mind but won't hold my breath.:D

It's interesting that UK based companies think they still are in the running since it plays into the idea that the original award was based on international politics since the US guys have been x'ed out already.

[SOTB]

It's interesting that UK based companies think they still are in the running since it plays into the idea that the original award was based on international politics since the US guys have been x'ed out already.Well yeah -- unless the Brit dudes teamed with a US company. Of course, that isn't likely....:D

[norts]

It's interesting that UK based companies think they still are in the running since it plays into the idea that the original award was based on international politics since the US guys have been x'ed out already.

That is interesting. I have also heard Aegis has it in the bag, though quite possibly I just have it 3rd(or 10th) hand from the same source that told you. Some companies have had guys at home "waiting to hear about the contract" well after the winner was up and running on the ground, but I am guessing your info about companies thinking they are still in the running is from higher up than a potential employee hoping for a job.

As far as contracts go I can see the RSSS being a nice political chess piece to give to the Brits, but at the same time I just as easily see Spicer getting it purely because he [drinks with, has dirt on, gives kick back's to etc] the right person to secure the deal.

[Argyll 50]

Lets be realistic here, the chances of these guys at home replacing a system that's been in place a few years is unpractical, and especially if these guys have been out of country "waiting" for a considerable time as well.

[Massgrunt]

I do not understand the practice of re-bidding, etc. I've personally been on a project where companies came and went all the time. It was chaos. I'm sure you 're all familiar with the negatives; what's the upside? Is it supposed to promote efficiency by paring down the budgets? I've seen first hand the whole "We can do the same job, only cheaper!" effect.

Someone please educate me on the positives of tossing a well-performing company out on it's ass. I used to deal with the ROC all the time, and we got good service from them, so I'm glad they're retained the contract.

[bundio]

I have pictures of the Second Under Secretary to the Assistant Deputy Director of Contract Frivality, and they are somewhat flattering for the sheep in the picture but not the bureaucrat. Norts- I like conspiracy and extortion theories with the best of them, but I find it hard to believe that Spicer has dirt on the people in DC who will make this decision.

Aegis seems to provide competent services to their clients. And to be honest it could easily throw the ROC process into disarray for a short period while a new providor gets up to speed.

I haven't heard that this contract has been formally awarded.

[norts]

Conspiracy theory? Hardly. Spicer has a colorful history and a knack for getting what he wants/out of trouble when his odds look low from the outside. I am not speculating as to how he does it, but if you think every contract in Iraq has been awarded purely on the merits of the company bidding then you are very, very, very naieve.

Argyll: While its very true that its unpractical to switch out a company I have seen it done before with other contracts and have no doubt it could happen again.

[Argyll 50]

I hear you Norts, but it won't happen on this type of contract, from what I can also gather, that ROC type experience was also a pre-requisite(sp?) for the bidding?......I'm sure I read that on some other forum, whether it's true or not, I don't know.......I know that Tetratech/AGI never kept any of the EODT Security guys at Wolf , just the EOD techs just a few weeks ago, well this is what my EOD mate who's there told me........so complete takeovers do happen.
One things for sure, if a new company comes in clean, without retaining Key personnel , it's going to be chaos for a considerable until it settles down, and the last thing teams on the ground need, is for the ROC to be in dissaray, I'm sure if Aegis retains it, there will be a lot of new conditions attached, and salaries will decrease for the guys on the ground....I'm a firm believer in the saying, "If it ain't broke, don't fix it".....and trying to re invent the wheel at this stage isn't clever either

[SOTB]

Someone please educate me on the positives of tossing a well-performing company out on it's ass....In any of these cases, it is not "tossing a well-performing company out on it's ass." Rather, it is the normal process by which RFPs are let and won. To ensure there is no undue worry and stress during periods of performance, contracts such as these are usually for more than just a year at a time. They are often 3-5 year contracts. The first year -- with follow-on option years. If the contractor is performing to standard, the client can simply elect to utilize the option to stay with the contractor. After the contract period is up (initial year and following option years), setting the contract out on the market is usually the case. All NORMAL and not a slam or complaint against the contractor at all.

Sole source contracts do occur -- but they are limited, and at least in terms of govt contracts, have certain requirements to be able to offer them. This is a GOOD thing. Its YOUR money that is used for these contracts, and the bidding process encourages healthy competition. Sure, the worries of the lowest bidder DO come into play -- but not always. I am currently writing for a proposal where 65% of the award has ZERO to do with the pricing. IMO, lowest cost contracts are often the result of lazy and incompetent contracting officers and even end users.

Whether or not Aegis keeps the contract, the contracting dept of the client should have written the RFP to ensure a smooth transition and guarantee of continued performance.

Bottom line, just because something works fine is NOT justification to not look at "fixing it." This is called evolution, and if you were buying a cable/digital TV service, termite control for your home, or even a cleaning of your car -- you would evaluate how to get the most value for your money.

If you guys think about it -- you don't want govt dollars to be locked into only a few providers. Just like we don't want political leaders who can remain in office for lifetimes. Think corruption, fellas....

[Massgrunt]

Thanks for the info. I just remember the uncertainty of being on a contract that seemed to be constantly up for a slooow re-bid process, and how that weighed on us while we ran the roads. It's hard to think of it from the taxpayer standpoint. :D

[10thvet]

Who's a taxpayer ????? (thats a joke... the IRS is one agency I will not mess with)

SOTB...

Great post and very informative...Thanks

[Argyll 50]

The Aegis lads on Matrix were told today, that they had a 6 month extention to the current contract, I'm summising this is to allow the appeals process to get underway, Erinys' name was mentioned in particular......Tim Spicer was briefing the lads up today....., this info came from my buddy on the Fallujah PSD team this afternoon, when I was talking to him on MSN.

[Inspector Cluseo]

Ditto from a SKYPE I just fini.
G

[glassiam]

The Aegis lads on Matrix were told today, that they had a 6 month extention to the current contract, I'm summising this is to allow the appeals process to get underway, Erinys' name was mentioned in particular......Tim Spicer was briefing the lads up today....., this info came from my buddy on the Fallujah PSD team this afternoon, when I was talking to him on MSN.

No award has been made, thus no appeals are underway. There is, however, gonna be some sort of extension. The award date has yet to be announced, and is not public info. None of the companies that have a bid in even know when it will be awarded for sure. Oh and there were a SHITLOAD of comapnies that bid.

By the way Pop, you're getting old. You can't trust everything those ears tell ya these days!:D --#1 Son

[Argyll 50]

How very true #1 son, it ain't over till the fat lady sings!!.....

[glassiam]

Argyll....check PM's.

[Silverbullet]

Argyll....check PM's.

I suspect he's talking about the same thing you and I did.

[Argyll 50]

Yeah, I don't associate much with the Matrix guys, we're a seperate self contained contract, client financed for the time being, what the Matrix guys say and do, is there business, they look down their noses at all of us, what they seem to forget is that we were doing PSD long before most of them, all the guys on my contract have been in Iraq 2 years minimum, most have been 3 years plus.
Interesting PM #1 son, seems the headshed of all the prospective companys have been telling their guys the same thing....It seems odd though to have an extension, instead of announcing a winner.....unless that winning company happen to have been Aegis themselves, hence why I made the comments about the appeals.....SB is this the norm, or are you reading something different in the award?.....6 months will take the contract to the end of the year, which would also be half way in between a Fiscal quarter, that is making the assumption they run from January, and not April?
It also places the contract itself in a precarious position due to the 2008 Presidential elections as well.....Och it's all horses for courses with me, it doesn't effect me in any shape or form.....

[Silverbullet]

While I was able to get some early info on the award, I honestly have no idea why it was made for the time period listed. I could speculate but wouldn't want to post something not factual on the board.

Sorry.

[SOTB]

An extension is not a bad thing at all. A company can often make as much money in a 3-month extension as they could have made over entire contract year....

[glassiam]

I suspect he's talking about the same thing you and I did.

Roger that. Just had some new info brought to my attention, good source to say the least.:D That's the only reason iI mentioned it hadn't been awarded yet.

[bmbsqd]

Spicer just wrote a good rebuttal to the new Vanity Fair article. In it he said:

"Aegis employees are selected, recruited and vetted before deployment to ensure their suitability for work as a Government Contractor...."

I guess this did not apply to Rick Blanchard?

[bellbottommarine]

As a guy on the ground, currently working on the COE gig, with a company that is NOT Aegis... perhaps I can shed a bit more "light" (or confusion, if you will) on the subject.
I am in no way "in the know" but have heard the following from our 'big boss' himself .... NO contract has been awarded yet.
There is a "protest" in the works that stems from the way the contracting office is handling things, NOT because someone else has won the contract and the others that were involved in the process are pissed off.
There is now a 2 month extention, with a possible 4 month extention to follow, to sort this all out. Then the "appeals process" following that if needed.
This contract differs from the previous in that it is an "all encompassing" contract, meaning... they have combined the ROC, PSD and other services into one contract.
There are 38 companies in the running.
Part of the problem is in the way the RFP was written by the COE in regards to the ROC. The COE and they're governing body (whoever that is) is requiring that the ROC now be staffed by American personnel ONLY, capable of obtaining Security clearances and NIPR/SIPR access that the Brits will probably never get. Hence the "partnering" of companies who have placed bids on this contract. The company I work for (UK) has partnered with a US Intel company, and is likely to win the award in the end by doing so.
There are other discrepancies that have been raised in regards to the time line in which the contracting office has taken to make a decision on this matter, ID badges are soon to be affected as well as leave plots, personnel numbers, etc.
Like I said, while I am in no way "in the know", I suspect that if anyone is going to protest the actual desicion of award, it will be Aegis.... BW? TC? EODT? getting the contract.... doubtful.
Worse case scenario for those of us affected by all of this.... a change of shirts and companies, most likely.

[Silverbullet]

bmbsqd,
None of that has anything to do with this thread. Thanks

[norts]

... Hence the "partnering" of companies who have placed bids on this contract. The company I work for (UK) has partnered with a US Intel company, and is likely to win the award in the end by doing so.

Like I said, while I am in no way "in the know", I suspect that if anyone is going to protest the actual desicion of award, it will be Aegis.... BW? TC? EODT? getting the contract.... doubtful.
Worse case scenario for those of us affected by all of this.... a change of shirts and companies, most likely.

In advance let me say that I am not questioning your info in any way. I don't know you or who you have heard what information from. BUT...

This would not be the first case that everyone thinks its up in the air but it has already been decided (if in fact it has been).

Every contract has a lot of companies claiming they have it in the bag. They all tell their guys why they are the best bet and how they have it over everyone else. I can't tell you how many times I have been waiting to hear my company (that was a 99% favourite) got the contract, only to hear from a buddy at BW that they got it. Some time later I would hear from my own company that it was true.

I certainly would not be counting on your company getting it. My bet is AEGIS will keep it. I would not give good odds for any other Brit company having a shot. Don't quote me as saying its "impossible" though, I am just saying if I was you then I would not uncork the champagne and post the "Got you" cards to Spicer just yet...

[Silverbullet]

The contract is decided. It's not going to another company. The only issue is length of award.

Appeals may change this but there is nothing up in the air about the award. Appeals can't be made until an award is issued.

No one should be talking about losing their job over this since nothing is changing. The present situation remains the same since it's an award of the same contract they already had. Some of you are mixing issues and contracts vice looking at what was actually awarded.

[PanaVet]

As a guy on the ground, currently working on the COE gig, with a company that is NOT Aegis... perhaps I can shed a bit more "light" (or confusion, if you will) on the subject.
I am in no way "in the know" but have heard the following from our 'big boss' himself .... NO contract has been awarded yet.
There is a "protest" in the works that stems from the way the contracting office is handling things, NOT because someone else has won the contract and the others that were involved in the process are pissed off.
There is now a 2 month extention, with a possible 4 month extention to follow, to sort this all out. Then the "appeals process" following that if needed.
This contract differs from the previous in that it is an "all encompassing" contract, meaning... they have combined the ROC, PSD and other services into one contract.
There are 38 companies in the running.
Part of the problem is in the way the RFP was written by the COE in regards to the ROC. The COE and they're governing body (whoever that is) is requiring that the ROC now be staffed by American personnel ONLY, capable of obtaining Security clearances and NIPR/SIPR access that the Brits will probably never get. Hence the "partnering" of companies who have placed bids on this contract. The company I work for (UK) has partnered with a US Intel company, and is likely to win the award in the end by doing so.
There are other discrepancies that have been raised in regards to the time line in which the contracting office has taken to make a decision on this matter, ID badges are soon to be affected as well as leave plots, personnel numbers, etc.
Like I said, while I am in no way "in the know", I suspect that if anyone is going to protest the actual desicion of award, it will be Aegis.... BW? TC? EODT? getting the contract.... doubtful.
Worse case scenario for those of us affected by all of this.... a change of shirts and companies, most likely.


Not trying to be a smartass here but, by reading your post.... you haven't been contracting a long time have you? For the record...I haven't either, but I have learned some very valuable lessons that I don't think you seem to have.

IMO...You've got it wrong about the worst case scenario. The best case is the company you work for keeps the contract and the 2nd best is you are able to change shirts and work for the new company. The worst case scenario is being out of a job and the new company brings in their own people. It's happened twice to me....LOL

[bellbottommarine]

All good points gentleman.

Certainly no "thin skinned" rookie here. I've been contracting longer than most, and have been thru several contract turnovers, some messy, some not.

Been a member and lurker on this board for years, altho' under a different call-sign, so please don't take my "join date" or "lack of posts" as someone who is new to all of this.

I never once mentioned that I thought the company I work for "had it in the bag", nor should anyone have taken that from the tone of my post.

I was simply putting out the word that was given to us, as there are a few guys who have posted on this thread that will be affected by the outcome.

Believe me, I've been around long enough to know there is NO company loyalty in this soap opera drama we call PMC.
We are simply numbers and bodies, used at the will of those we contract out to. I am happy with my role in that.
The best weapon I/we have against this, is having other employment options at the ready.

My motto... Believe nothing, Assume nothing, Expect nothing, and you won't be disappointed in the end result.

Whatever the outcome, this won't be the end of the world. There is plenty of opportunity out there.

Thanks guys, and Be Safe out there....

[glassiam]

Let the litigation begin....though I belive it's all formalities and won't change the status quo.

Firms Protest Exclusion From Iraq Security Bid

By Alec Klein and Steve Fainaru
Washington Post Staff Writers
Saturday, May 5, 2007; Page D01

Two private security contractors have lodged formal protests against the Army, claiming they have been unfairly excluded from competing for one of the largest security jobs in Iraq, according to government documents and sources familiar with the matter.

The contract, potentially worth $475 million, is for providing intelligence services to the Army and wide-ranging security for the Army Corps of Engineers during reconstruction work in Iraq. It will replace another agreement that was to expire by month's end but is now being extended for up to six months while the challenges are resolved.

Pentagon Procurement
The Defense Department's process for acquiring weapons and other equipment has been rocked by recent scandals and the scrutiny of the "revolving door" that can benefit former Pentagon officials.

House Approves Revised War BillHouse panel slashes Army modernization planBAE to buy Armor Holdings for $4.1 billionWar Costs Money. Why Can't Politicians Say So?Firms Protest Exclusion From Iraq Security Bid More News
Who's Blogging?
Read what bloggers are saying about this article.

The Green RibbonThe Green RibbonThe Green Ribbon
Full List of Blogs (12 links) �
Most Blogged About Articles On washingtonpost.com�|�On the web

Save & Share Article What's This?

DiggGoogle
del.icio.usYahoo!
RedditFacebook

The protests come at a time when members of Congress are demanding more scrutiny of private security contractors. Marcy Kaptur (D-Ohio), of the House defense appropriations subcommittee, said she has been frustrated in attempts to seek information about Aegis Defense Services, a British firm that holds the current security contract in Iraq. She has requested an audit of the firm by the Special Inspector General for Iraq Reconstruction.

"When [the Defense Department] refuses to provide information that should be public, I am -- what's the word? -- incensed," she said.

The special inspector general has agreed to launch an audit, said spokeswoman Denise Burgess. Three years ago, DynCorp International challenged the awarding of the first security contract, worth $293 million, to Aegis, a firm led by Tim Spicer, a former lieutenant colonel in the Scots Guards whose previous firm, Sandline International, had been hired by warring factions in Papua New Guinea and Sierra Leone in the 1990s.

Aegis is in the running for the new contract, but Blackwater Security Consulting is challenging the Army over the process. The Government Accountability Office, which is reviewing the protests, declined to provide a copy of Blackwater's written challenge, but in a copy obtained independently, Blackwater wrote that the Army's decision to exclude it was "defective" and "meaningless," in part because the military did not explain how it evaluated the contractor's offer.

Blackwater, which is based in North Carolina, also wrote that it "never had an opportunity to ask relevant questions" about how the Army eliminated its proposal. Blackwater provides security in Iraq under a State Department contract but does not participate in the Iraqi operations centers that fall under the new Army contract. Blackwater spokeswoman Anne Tyrrell declined comment.

Erinys Iraq is also challenging the Army's decision to exclude its offer; in its protest, the British contractor contends that the Army did not thoroughly review its proposal and failed to follow procurement rules, according to a source familiar with the protest. Erinys already provides security for some military personnel in Iraq under a separate contract. Robert Nichols, Erinys's outside counsel, declined comment.

Christopher Krafchek, an attorney for the Army assigned to the case, also declined to comment. Under the Army's bidding guidelines, it can exclude contractors from what it calls the "competitive range" because it is using a negotiated procurement process, meaning that it will base its decision not on the lowest bid price but on what it determines is the best value.

Several other firms are competing for the new Army contract, sources say, in addition to Aegis, which works side-by-side with Erinys in Baghdad's Green Zone on similar but separate contracts. Aegis came under fire two years ago when the special inspector general found that the firm could not prove that its armed employees received proper weapons training or that it had vetted Iraqi employees to ensure they did not pose a threat. Aegis said that the government's audit was done shortly after the firm arrived in Iraq, before proper procedures were in place.

While Aegis declined to discuss its bid, it defends its work in Iraq. "Aegis has a very good track record," said Kristi M. Clemens, the company's executive vice president. "We've served the U.S. government very well in our current capacity."

[Argyll 50]

You can add Armour Group to the list of objections, whilst some extensions are indeed money spinners, in this case Aegis are not making money, because of the objections, they cannot "borrow" collateral on the contract, if they has won it outright without objections, then they'd be able to get loans etc foe vehicles etc