Judge Halts Award Of Iraq Contract (AEGIS gig)

[bmbsqd]

Judge Halts Award Of Iraq Contract

By Alec Klein and Steve Fainaru
Washington Post Staff Writers
Saturday, June 2, 2007; Page D01

A federal judge yesterday ordered the military to temporarily refrain
from awarding the largest security contract in Iraq. The order
followed an unusual series of events set off when a U.S. Army veteran
filed a protest against the government practice of hiring what he
calls mercenaries, according to sources familiar with the matter.

The contract, worth about $475 million, calls for a private company
to provide intelligence services to the U.S. Army and security for
the Army Corps of Engineers on reconstruction work in Iraq. The case,
which is being heard by the U.S. Court of Federal Claims, puts on
trial one of the most controversial and least understood aspects of
the Iraq war: the outsourcing of military security to an estimated
20,000 armed contractors who operate with little oversight.

Brian X. Scott, a 53-year-old Colorado man, filed the complaint in
early April. He argues that the military's use of private security
contractors is "against America's core values" and violates an 1893
law that prohibits the government from hiring quasi-military forces.

Scott's challenge set off a domino effect, prompting the Government
Accountability Office to dismiss protests brought by two major
private security contractors the Army had removed as potential
bidders -- Erinys Iraq, a British firm, and Blackwater USA of North
Carolina.

Michael Golden, the GAO's managing associate general counsel for
procurement law, said the agency dropped the matter because Scott's
court complaint may force the Army to revise the lucrative contract.

The GAO's dismissal of the two protests on Thursday freed the Army to
award the contract at any time. Erinys moved quickly yesterday to
seek a temporary restraining order to prevent the Army from awarding
the contract.

Erinys already provides security for some military personnel in Iraq
under a separate contract. The company's temporary restraining order
is under seal. But sources, who spoke on condition of anonymity
because of the sensitivity of the matter, said the firm claims that
the government is about to award the contract, that Erinys would be
irreparably harmed and that there is a strong factual basis for it to
be reconsidered as a bidder. Erinys declined to comment.

Anne Tyrrell, a spokeswoman for Blackwater, said the company does not
intend to join Erinys's efforts to obtain a restraining order. "We're
leaving it to the process, and we're not going to take it any
further," she said.

In his court protest, Scott relied on the Anti-Pinkerton Act, which
Congress passed more than a century ago to thwart businesses that had
hired mercenaries to disrupt labor groups.

Scott said he served nearly 13 years on active duty in the U.S. Army
and worked six years at the Interior Department on contracting
issues. He now works full time trying to obtain government contracts
and protesting the use of private security contractors. He has filed
about a dozen protests against the use of the contractors in Iraq.
All were filed with the GAO, and all were dismissed.

The Army has been narrowing the field of candidates for the Iraq
security contract. One is Aegis Defence Services, a British security
firm. Aegis won the initial Iraqi security contract in 2004. That
contract, worth $293 million, was set to expire in May but has been
extended as others have filed protests. Scott said he was indifferent
that his court claim had complicated the Erinys and Blackwater
protests. "They're just trying to get a piece of the mercenary
action," he said.

[10thvet]

Well this is kind of a delima now isnt it... If the restraining order is upheld and then all "security contractors" are now called "mercenaries" and therefore it would be unlawful to be hired, how will the military fill all the slots that the 20,000 contractors are filling now..I know its not going to be done by troop increase.

One can even start to argue that the KBR dishwasher/truck driver and could be called a mercenary..

Sounds to me like he has a hard on for security contractors

[BKK]

Throwing darts, stirring the pot, and not offering any realistic solutions. Typical.

[RAT]

Well this is kind of a delima now isnt it... If the restraining order is upheld and then all "security contractors" are now called "mercenaries" and therefore it would be unlawful to be hired, how will the military fill all the slots that the 20,000 contractors are filling now..I know its not going to be done by troop increase.


We have been discussing this for yrs now here. If you take up a weapon in a forigen land for pay many ways you can be labeled. Hell South Africa at one time was putting contractors in jail when they went back home from Iraq. Or there was a threat at one time I know.

One can even start to argue that the KBR dishwasher/truck driver and could be called a mercenary..

That would very hard to do since they are not allowed to carry any type of weapon. No, weapon. No arms for pay.



Sounds to me like he has a hard on for security contractors

I agree. But to me it sounds more like he has a 400+ million dollar hard on. And he wants it. Lot of money at stake here and people in the US are going to start to want it back.

RAT OUT!!!

[Spinner]

He argues that the military's use of private security contractors is "against America's core values" and violates an 1893 law that prohibits the government from hiring quasi-military forces.

Can anybody cite the actual law on the books that prohibits these types of forces from being employed?

[10thvet]

RAT:
I was stating that it could be argued that KBR could be called mercenary... Not that I would call them that... I was using a very liberal defination of the term...

A mercenary is a person who takes part in an armed conflict who is not a national of a Party to the conflict and "is motivated to take part in the hostilities essentially by the desire for private gain"

And KBR does take part by feeding the military and delivering supplies....

Once again I know this is WAY STRETCHING of the term and using the liberal logic /uneducated guesses to connect the dots

[bmbsqd]

Can anybody cite the actual law on the books that prohibits these types of forces from being employed?

This is from Wikipedia, so it MUST be true! ;) But of course....you also have to scroll down to see who posted this on Wikipedia.

"The Anti-Pinkerton Act of 1893 (5 USC 3108) prohibited the US Government from using employees of the Pinkerton Detective Agency or similar companies as strikebreakers. In 1977, the US Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals interpreted this statute to prohibit the U.S. Government's employment of companies that offer "mercenary, quasi-military forces as strikebreakers and armed guards" for hire. United States ex rel. Weinberger v. Equifax, 557 F.2d 456, 462 (5th Cir. 1977), cert. denied, 434 U.S. 1035 (1978). A DoD interim rule effective 16 June 2006 revises DoD Instruction 3020.41 to authorize contractor personnel other than private security contractor personnel to use deadly force against enemy armed forces only in self-defense. 71 Fed. Reg. 34826. According to the interim rule, private security contractor personnel are also authorized to use deadly force when necessary to execute their security mission to protect assets/persons, consistent with the mission statement contained in their contract. It is the responsibility of the combatant commander to ensure that private security contract mission statements do not authorize the performance of any inherently Governmental military functions, such as preemptive attacks, or any other types of attacks. Otherwise, civilians who accompany the U.S. Armed Forces lose their law of war protection from direct attack if and for such time as they take a direct part in hostilities. On August 18, 2006, the U.S. Comptroller General rejected bid protest arguments that U.S. Army contracts violated the Anti-Pinkerton Act by calling for the contractor to provide armed convoy escort vehicles and labor, weapons, and equipment for internal security operations at Victory Base Complex, Iraq. The Comptroller General reasoned that the act was not violated because the contracts did not require the contractor to provide "quasi-military forces as strikebreakers.[7]

Footnote #7: ^ Brian X. Scott B-298370; B-298490, August 18, 2006,

[Al Haak]

Mr. Scott has been doing this on every large contract that has been put up for bid since 2005. He has finally found a judge to listen to him. His previous attemtps were successfully rebuffed. Not sure why the GAO backed away from standing up to this clown in the same manner they did previously.

[RAT]

RAT:
I was stating that it could be argued that KBR could be called mercenary... Not that I would call them that... I was using a very liberal defination of the term...

A mercenary is a person who takes part in an armed conflict who is not a national of a Party to the conflict and "is motivated to take part in the hostilities essentially by the desire for private gain"

And KBR does take part by feeding the military and delivering supplies....

Once again I know this is WAY STRETCHING of the term and using the liberal logic /uneducated guesses to connect the dots

I am with you on this. I did not mean the post to come off the way it did I should have added a :D or two.

KBR from what I know made sure that they had spefic language in the contracts to make sure one by law could not be construed as Merc's.

As for this Mr. Scott getting a judge to back him. Well that goes because people are going against the Pres. IMHO.

RAT OUT!!!

[PanaVet]

Thinking out loud here....
I wonder when the Brits pull out of Iraq if British companies will still be allowed to bid on contracts. It's my understanding only coalition countries may bid on contracts.

[Massgrunt]

That's an interesting thought. Probably since they'll still be in A-stan, they'll still be considered coalition, or some other justification will be made.

[10thvet]

Hey RAT
No Problem...I should have explained my position better :) :)


Mass is right(shudder at the thought) :)
I think some justification will me made and buisness will go on as "usual"

[RAT]

That's an interesting thought. Probably since they'll still be in A-stan, they'll still be considered coalition, or some other justification will be made.

IMHO Only the judge knows... ;)

RAT OUT!!!

[norts]

Trying to get the US Gov to pull every security contract and replace them with military must be a pretty depressing pastime. Mr Scott's chances are about level with the environmentalists attemps to get the world down to zero emmisions.

As I see it, all he can do is delay the awarding, which is a big old favour for AEGIS. So Brian X Scott's desire to keep money from going to "mercenaries" is just making sure the money keeps going across the Atlantic to England, where foriegn "mercenaries" can spend it.

I somehow doubt lining British pockets with US taxpayers money was part of "America's core values" back in 1893, which Mr Scott claims to be so intent in upholding.

[PanaVet]

Some more background on Mr. Scott. In the article it says he posed as contractor in order to bid on contracts w/ no intention of fulfilling it if awarded. Sounds like fraud to me. This guy is a nut case....

http://csindy.com/csindy/2006-09-07/news4.html

Mercenary watch
Local Army vet seeks to end use of private armed guards in war on terror
by Michael de Yoanna

Brian X. Scott, armed with reams of paper to battle federal policy, says private security contractors have become rampant in Iraq, with little public debate.
Photo by Michael de Yoanna
From his humble Colorado Springs living room, Brian X. Scott, a former federal bureaucrat and proud Army veteran, is mired in a momentous, paper-strewn battle with the government.

He's trying to stop the feds from using private armed guards in the war on terror.

"The use of these contractors is bad for the country," he says. "It's bad for the Army. We're disconnecting the citizen part from the solider part. These security contractors are really mercenaries for hire."

Should he triumph, perhaps thousands of armed security contractors in Iraq would need to be replaced by allied troops, which some critics say are already too thinly spread.

But, referencing incidents in which security contractors were implicated in civilian deaths in the war, Scott adds that the military push to win the trust of average Iraqis is at stake.

So last spring, when Scott saw listings for two contracts that required private security, he posed as a contractor and submitted bids.

"I have no intention of carrying out a contract," he explains. "To protest, I needed to be seeking a contract."

One contract solicited private guards for cargo transports. The other called for guards at gates and gun towers at Camp Victory, a U.S. base in Baghdad.

"Just the fact that the private security guards are placed where there could be an attack — that is a combat role and not allowed," Scott says. "They're replacing troops with mercenaries."

Hearts and minds

The war on terror has given rise to thousands of private security contractors in Iraq, says journalist Robert Young Pelton in Licensed to Kill: Hired Guns in the War on Terror.

He dubs them "neo-mercenaries" — working for the highest bidders and killing if necessary.

The contractors, who earn hundreds of dollars more a day than troops, have become essential in Iraq, he says.

"You can't take a crap without them," Pelton says.

Yet the contractors — many Americans — aren't connected to U.S. efforts to win the hearts and minds of Iraqis.

"They are working for their clients," he says.

In March, the News & Observer in Raleigh, N.C., provided a rare overview of incidents involving security contractors.

Reviewing 400 voluntary incident reports spanning nine months of 2004-2005, the newspaper found that contractors shot at 61 vehicles. Yet in just seven instances were Iraqis clearly attacking.

In most cases, contractors drove away. None were prosecuted.

Erich Langer, a spokesman for the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Gulf Region Division in Iraq, which is overseeing $18 billion in U.S. reconstruction projects, says companies are required to protect their own workers and equipment.

"Everybody needs security in this country," he says via telephone from base in Baghdad. "You've got to go out and hire it."

Asked why troops aren't providing security for the reconstruction projects, Langer says: "It's reducing the number of soldiers who have to serve in Iraq."

A history of battle

This is not the first time Scott has scrapped with the federal government.

In the early 1980s, as a captain in the Army, Scott was moved from the infantry to an Army social services office after sending a letter to the Soviet government in support of a nuclear freeze.

He got busted when he told other soldiers he sent the letter, and for five years fought to be reinstated. In 1989, he was honorably discharged; Army records note his "misconduct."

He is also one of three local write-in candidates to replace U.S. Congressman Joel Hefley, viewing his campaign as a chance to "whine about the war."

So far his challenge of the use of security contractors is bombing.

On June 27, Maj. Peter G. Hartman, an Arlington, Va.-based Army trial lawyer, wrote that Scott was advancing an apparent "political agenda." Hartman also concluded that private contractors in the two contracts that Scott challenged are strictly guards.

The Government Accountability Office on Aug. 18 backed Hartman, denying Scott's protest, including his core contention that security contractors amount to "quasi-military" armed forces that should be prohibited under the country's Anti-Pinkerton Act. The act banned the use of mercenaries by federal contractors in 1893, after big businesses hired Pinkerton Detective Agency guards to crush labor unions.

The GAO's Gary L. Kepplinger wrote that subsequent court and other "precedents clearly identified services that are not prohibited by the act, namely "guard or protective services ... even if the individual guards are armed.'"

Scott has asked the GAO to reconsider its decision. He also may take the issue to federal court — if he can find a lawyer to help him.

"The line between defense and offense is thin," he says. "One minute a guard is standing there, the next minute he's fighting. Then maybe he's giving chase. Sounds to me like we're using mercenaries."

— deyoanna@csindy.com

[Massgrunt]

It's just wonderful that a crackpot like this is being taken seriously. One nutjob is holding up a major US government project so he can stand up in court and read from post-it notes.

[Argyll 50]

The Brits are not leaving Iraq entirely, they're downsizing their manpower, the SF units will still be active in theatre, as will other support arms.

If the case for contracts was solely for Coalition partners, then how can all these South African companies be awarded contracts in Iraq?

As for this being in Aegis's favour.......not necessary, as Aegis cannot "borrow" money based on the award, to step up other projects, financially it can have the opposite effect.

But the bottom line, no company out there in Iraq should be awarded such contracts, as they're all in line with the Pinkerton act, so Erinys and Blackwater also fall into the same category as Aegis....

[usacivpol]

The international statute.

http://www.icrc.org/ihl.nsf/FULL/530?OpenDocument

International Convention against the Recruitment, Use, Financing and Training of Mercenaries, 4 December 1989.

The States Parties to the present Convention,
Reaffirming the purposes and principles enshrined in the Charter of the United Nations and in the Declaration on Principles of International Law concerning Friendly Relations and Co-operation among States in accordance with the Charter of the United Nations,

Being aware of the recruitment, use, financing and training of mercenaries for activities which violate principles of international law, such as those of sovereign equality, political independence, territorial integrity of States and self-determination of peoples,

Affirming that the recruitment, use, financing and training of mercenaries should be considered as offences of grave concern to all States and that any person committing any of these-offences should be either prosecuted or extradited,

Convinced of the necessity to develop and enhance international co-operation among States for the prevention, prosecution and punishment of such offences,

Expressing concern at new unlawful international activities linking drug traffickers and mercenaries in the perpetration of violent actions which undermine the constitutional order of States,

Also convinced that the adoption of a convention against the recruitment, use, financing and training of mercenaries would contribute to the eradication of these nefarious activities and thereby to the observance of the purposes and principles enshrined in the Charter,

Cognizant that matters not regulated by such a convention continue to be governed by the rules and principles of international law,

Have agreed as follows :


Article 1

For the purposes of the present Convention,

1.A mercenary is any person who:

(a) Is specially recruited locally or abroad in order to fight in an armed conflict;

(b) Is motivated to take part in the hostilities essentially by the desire for private gain and, in fact, is promised, by or on behalf of a party to the conflict, material compensation substantially in excess of that promised or paid to combatants of similar rank and functions in the armed forces of that party;

(c) Is neither a national of a party to the conflict nor a resident of territory controlled by a party to the conflict;

(d) Is not a member of the armed forces of a party to the conflict; and

(e) Has not been sent by a State which is not a party to the conflict on official duty as a member of its armed forces.

2.A mercenary is also any person who, in any other situation:

(a) Is specially recruited locally or abroad for the purpose of participating in a concerted act of violence
aimed at :

(i) Overthrowing a Government or otherwise undermining the constitutional order of a State; or

(ii) Undermining the territorial integrity of a State;

(b) Is motivated to take part therein essentially by the desire for significant private gain and is prompted by the promise or payment of material compensation;

(c) Is neither a national nor a resident of the State against which such an act is directed;

(d) Has not been sent by a State on official duty; and

(e) Is not a member of the armed forces of the State on whose territory the act is undertaken.


Article 2

Any person who recruits, uses, finances or trains mercenaries, as defined in article 1 of the present Convention, commits an offence for the purposes of the Convention.


Article 3

1.A mercenary, as defined in article 1 of the present Convention, who participates directly in hostilities or in a concerted act of violence, as the case may be, commits an offence for the purposes of the Convention.

2.Nothing in this article limits the scope of application of article 4 of the present Convention.


Article 4

An offence is committed by any person who:

(a) Attempts to commit one of the offences set forth in the present Convention;

(b) Is the accomplice of a person who commits or attempts to commit any of the offences set forth in the present Convention.


Article 5

1.States Parties shall note recruit, use, finance or train mercenaries and shall prohibit such activities in accordance with the provisions of the present Convention.

2.States Parties shall not recruit, use, finance or train mercenaries for the purpose of opposing the legitimate exercise of the inalienable right of peoples to self-determination, as recognized by international law, and shall take, in conformity with international law, the appropriate measures to prevent the recruitment, use, financing or training of mercenaries for that purpose.

3.They shall make the offences set forth in the present Convention punishable by appropriate penalties which take into account the grave nature of those offences.


Article 6

States Parties shall co-operate in the prevention of the offences set forth in the present Convention, particularly
by :

(a) Taking all practicable measures to prevent preparations in their respective territories for the commission of those offences within or outside their territories, including the prohibition of illegal activities of persons, groups and organizations that encourage, instigate, organize or engage in the perpetration of such offences;

(b) Co-ordinating the taking of administrative and other measures as appropriate to prevent the commission of those offences.


Article 7

States Parties shall co-operate in taking the necessary measures for the implementation of the present Convention.


Article 8

Any State Party having reason to believe that one of the offences set forth in the present Convention has been, is being or will be committed shall, in accordance with its national law, communicate the relevant information, as soon as it comes to its knowledge, directly or through the Secretary-General of the United Nations, to the States Parties affected.


Article 9

1.Each State Party shall take such measures as may be necessary to establish its jurisdiction over any of the offences set forth in the present Convention which are
committed :

(a) In its territory or on board a ship or aircraft registered in that State;

(b) By any of its nationals or, if that State considers it appropriate, by those stateless persons who have their habitual residence in that territory.

2.Each State Party shall likewise take such measures as may be necessary to establish its jurisdiction over the offences set forth in articles 2, 3 and 4 of the present Convention in cases where the alleged offender is present in its territory and it does note extradite him to any of the States mentioned in paragraph 1 of this article.

3.The present Convention does not exclude any criminal jurisdiction exercised in accordance with national law.


Article 10

1.Upon being satisfied that the circumstances so warrant, any State Party in whose territory the alleged offender is present shall, in accordance with its laws, take him into custody or take such other measures to ensure his presence for such time as is necessary to enable any criminal or extradition proceedings to be instituted. The State Party shall immediately make a preliminary inquiry into the facts.

2.When a State Party, pursuant to this article, has taken a person into custody or has taken such other measures referred to in paragraph 1 of this article, it shall notify without delay either directly or through the
Secretary-General of the United Nations:

(a) The State Party where the offence was committed;

(b) The State Party against which the offence has been directed or attempted;

(c) The State Party of which the natural or juridical person against whom the offence has been directed or attempted is a national;

(d) The State Party of which the alleged offender is a national or, if he is a stateless person, in whose territory he has his habitual residence;

(e) Any other interested State Party which it considers it appropriate to notify.

3. Any person regarding whom the measures referred to in paragraph 1 of this article are being taken shall be
entitled:

(a) To communicate without delay with the nearest appropriate representative of the State of which he is a national or which is otherwise entitled to protect his rights or, if he is a stateless person, the State in whose territory he has his habitual residence;

(b) To be visited by a representative of that State.

4.The provisions of paragraph 3 of this article shall be without prejudice to the right of any State Party having a claim to jurisdiction in accordance with article 9, paragraph 1 (b), to invite the International Committee of the Red Cross to communicate with and visit the alleged offender.

5.The State which makes the preliminary inquiry contemplated in paragraph 1 of this article shall promptly report its findings to the States referred to in paragraph 2 of this article and indicate whether it intends to exercise jurisdiction.


Article 11

Any person regarding whom proceedings are being carried out in connection with any of the offences set forth in the present Convention shall be guaranteed at all stages of the proceedings fair treatment and all the rights and guarantees provided for in the law of the State in question. Applicable norms of international law should be taken into account.


Article 12

The State Party in whose territory the alleged offender is found shall, if it does not extradite him, be obliged, without exception whatsoever and whether or not the offence was committed in its territory, to submit the case to its competent authorities for the purpose of prosecution through proceedings in accordance with the laws of that State. Those authorities shall take their decision in the same manner as in the case of any other offence of a grave nature under the law of that State.


Article 13

1.States Parties shall afford one another the greatest measure of assistance in connection with criminal proceedings brought in respect of the offences set forth in the present Convention, including the supply of all evidence at their disposal necessary for the proceedings. The law of the State whose assistance is requested shall apply in all cases.

2. The provisions of paragraph 1 of this article shall not affect obligations concerning mutual judicial assistance embodied in any other treaty.


Article 14

The State Party where the alleged offender is prosecuted shall in accordance with its laws communicate the final outcome of the proceedings to the Secretary-General of the United Nations, who shall transmit the information to the other States concerned.


Article 15

1.The offences set forth in articles 2,3 and 4 of the present Convention shall be deemed to be included as extraditable offences in any extradition treaty existing between States Parties. States Parties undertake to include such offences as extraditable offences in every extradition treaty to be concluded between them.

2.If a State Party which makes extradition conditional on the existence of a treaty receives a request for extradition from another State Party with which it has no extradition treaty, it may at its option consider the present Convention as the legal basis for extradition in respect of those offences. Extradition shall be subject to the other conditions provided by the law of the requested State.

3.States Parties which do not make extradition conditional on the existence of a treaty shall recognize those offences as extraditable offences between themselves, subject to the conditions provided by the law of the requested State.

4.The offences shall be treated, for the purpose of extradition between States Parties, as if they had been committed not only in the place in which they occurred but also in the territories of the State required to establish their jurisdiction in accordance with article 9 of the present Convention.


Article 16

The present Convention shall be applied without prejudice to:

(a) The rules relating to the international responsibility of States;

(b) The law of armed conflict and international humanitarian law, including the provisions relating to the status of combatant or of prisoner of war.


Article 17

1.Any dispute between two or more States Parties concerning the interpretation or application of the present Convention which is not settled by negotiation shall, at the request of one of them, be submitted to arbitration. If, within six months from the date of the request for arbitration, the parties are unable to agree on the organization of the arbitration, any one of those parties may refer the dispute to the International Court of Justice by a request in conformity with the Statute of the Court.

2.Each State may, at the time of signature or ratification of the present Convention or accession thereto, declare that it does not consider itself bound by paragraph 1 of this article. The other States Parties shall not be bound by paragraph 1 of this article with respect to any State party which has made such a reservation.

3.Any State Party which has made a reservation in accordance with paragraph 2 of this article may at any time withdraw that reservation by notification to the Secretary-General of the United Nations.


Article 18

1.The present Convention shall be open for signature by all States until 31 December 1990 at United Nations Headquarters in New York.

2.The present Convention shall be subject to ratification. The instruments of ratification shall be deposited with the Secretary-General of the United Nations.

3.The present Convention shall remain open for accession by any State. The instruments of accession shall be deposited with the Secretary-General of the United Nations.


Article 19

1.The present Convention shall enter into force on the thirtieth day following the date of deposit of the twenty-second instrument of ratification or accession with the Secretary-General of the United Nations.

2.For each State ratifying or acceding to the Convention after the deposit of the twenty-second instrument of ratification or accession, the Convention shall enter into force on the thirtieth day after deposit by such State of its instrument of ratification or accession.


Article 20

1.Any State Party may denounce the present Convention by written notification to the Secretary-General of the United Nations.

2.Denunciation shall take effect one year after the date on which the notification is received by the Secretary-General of the United Nations.


Article 21

The original of the present Convention, of which the Arabic, Chinese, English, French, Russian and Spanish texts are equally authentic, shall be deposited with the Secretary-General of the United Nations, who shall send certified copies thereof to all States.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF the undersigned, being duly authorized thereto by their respective Governments, have signed the present Convention.




NOI

[Silverbullet]

As for this being in Aegis's favour.......not necessary, as Aegis cannot "borrow" money based on the award, to step up other projects, financially it can have the opposite effect.

I have to agree with Norts on this. It is in Aegis favor since they got an extension on the current contract and will continue to get extensions as long as the award is held up. I don't think they need to borrow money based on this award, either. As long as they are filling the contract as stipulated, they will continue to get paid. They won't be hurting for funds working the most lucrative contract in Iraq. While a 6 month extension isn't the same as a 2 yr award, it sure beats being like Eriny's and having your submission not even considered.

[Argyll 50]

That's not the view of the people in the London office

Don't forget that Erinys are also getting paid even though they've had their submission thrown out as well.

Aegis need to borrow based on the contract if they're wanting to start up other projects within Iraq, especially large ones !!

[KevinB]

Given
1)that we dont fight in the conflict - we defend our clients; and
2)we are here to support the elected gov't and coalition reconstruction efforts.

It is clear (and has been ruled several times) that we as security contractors in this respect (OEF/OIF) are not mercenaries. This bozo needs a shrink -- let the gov't waste money treating him in a hospital -- rather than waste $ on legal proceedings based on his (previously ruled) flawed premise.

[norts]

That's not the view of the people in the London office

Don't forget that Erinys are also getting paid even though they've had their submission thrown out as well.

Aegis need to borrow based on the contract if they're wanting to start up other projects within Iraq, especially large ones !!

Like SB said: AEGIS is still gettting paid for a contract. If AEGIS was counting on getting the new contract then they should remember that (officially at least) they were not guaranteed to get it. Keeping what they have for an indefinate period is better than losing it today.

You yourself have complained when companies string guys out because they are counting on getting another contract. If AEGIS head office just strung themselves out I have very little sympathy. That company (and others) completely, 100 percent owe their very existance to the US taxpayer. If Spcier had a drug deal going that was delayed then that is just too bad. Its AEGIS's own fault for counting their chickens and having expectations too high. Certainly its the first I have ever heard of a company complaining about getting an extension on a lucrative contract.

Edited for punctuation

[SOTB]

While a 6 month extension isn't the same as a 2 yr award....And the cool thing about extensions, is that they can be as economically fulfilling -- even short extensions -- as what would have been the entire contract. I do not see this being unfavorable to Aegis at all -- although I would not be surprised if they acted a bit like a victim -- no reason to gloat over the unforeseen cashcow....

[bmbsqd]

As I see it, all he can do is delay the awarding, which is a big old favour for AEGIS.

That's a good point. AEGIS' extension is on a Cost Plus basis, rather than Firm Fixed Price. That gives them an opportunity to do many things financially they may not have done under a new FFP contract. If they buy a weapon under FFP, they only get reimbursed the cost of the weapon. Under Cost Plus, they get the cost of that weapon plus an average of 12-16% on top of that. Their recruiting, training, travel and per diem becomes much more lucrative immediately, as well. Essentially all of their costs are covered by an extension under Cost Plus provisions, with the profit (the "Plus") added in.

And if AEGIS did not make enough profit on their previous contract to either directly fund the extension, or to guarantee credit...they NEED to be replaced.

[Silverbullet]

Don't forget that Erinys are also getting paid even though they've had their submission thrown out as well.

Aegis need to borrow based on the contract if they're wanting to start up other projects within Iraq, especially large ones !!

Sure and the contract Eriny's has is small potatoes next to the one Aegis is on. Additionally, Eriny's was counting on winning this and now does not have that revenue. Aegis still does and they aren't hurting for financial backing, either. Starting up large projects in Iraq is not a result of having money, it's a result of being in the right place/right time and/or having investors who understand international business and risk.

[Argyll 50]

I never said Aegis were "complaining" Norts, I said that the people in London see this extension as both a positive and a negative, the positive being is that it keeps them in place, and in the driving seat.

The ROC contract has no bearing what so ever on mine, we're a self contained and financially generated project......I could care less if Aegis lost the RSSS contract, in the grand scheme of things, it changes nothing on my project.......there are several Aegis employees who feel the best thing that can happen to Aegis is for them to lose this one......go figure?

[PanaVet]

Aegis need to borrow based on the contract if they're wanting to start up other projects within Iraq, especially large ones !!

WOW....475 million isn't enough:D What are they planning?..... buying out the competition....LOL

[BKK]

I love how this Scott guy cites "Army Values".

I wonder what part of the Old Army values fell in line with trying to communicate with the Enemy as a CPT.

Once again.....Only in America can this stuff happen.

[RGR_Dan]

IMO

Although the legal debate is interesting, It will all come down to dollars and cents.

Here shortly, I suspect the appropriate people will be paid off and things will continue to move forward and this will be soon forgotten.

[Massgrunt]

I love how this Scott guy cites "Army Values".

I wonder what part of the Old Army values fell in line with trying to communicate with the Enemy as a CPT.

Once again.....Only in America can this stuff happen.
That little tidbit really says all you need to know about this guy.

[Argyll 50]

WOW....475 million isn't enough:D What are they planning?..... buying out the competition....LOL

Old Tim has an extravagant lifestyle!! :D , nah who know's, all I know is that because this contract wasn't awarded outright, then our project has been put on the back burner, or had it's wings clipped, despite the revenue we generate, we asked for funding to purchase more vehicles, and teams, but London is dragging it's heels, citing the funding not being available.....I've asked the same questions everyone here asked , where did all that money go, well I'm no accountant, so I leave that up to the experts, but standing up projects with up to 300+ blokes, with weapons, vehicles and PPE isn't pennies, and as every contract I've been told of, the first 30 days or something like that, is all down to the company covering the costs, in order to prove they can fulfil a longer one.......

It's all kind of moot, because if Aegis doesn't win it, I'm sure they'll protest as well, and that again will delay the award a further 90 days, and the whole process will repeat it's self.

[Massgrunt]

Old Tim has an extravagant lifestyle!! :D
Gotta keep up with the Manns. ;)

[Silverbullet]

I've asked the same questions everyone here asked , where did all that money go, well I'm no accountant, so I leave that up to the experts, but standing up projects with up to 300+ blokes, with weapons, vehicles and PPE isn't pennies,

1. Technically the money for the kit, etc..doesn't come out of the providers pocket on a contract like this. It's not like they put out the funds and didn't get them back.

2. Who says they don't have the money? You've worked for enough company's to know that the headshed always blames the shortage of material on the client not providing the money.

3. Business 101 says they made money hand over fist and don't want to use their profits to fund new stuff and don't feel they have an obligation to tell employees where their money is spent or what they did with it. It's also reality.

[bmbsqd]

There's always the potential that if Aegis ultimately loses the contract to another company they will do the change-over inventory and the Golden Connex will be located! :D

[Guy]

1. Technically the money for the kit, etc..doesn't come out of the providers pocket on a contract like this. It's not like they put out the funds and didn't get them back.

2. Who says they don't have the money? You've worked for enough company's to know that the headshed always blames the shortage of material on the client not providing the money.

3. Business 101 says they made money hand over fist and don't want to use their profits to fund new stuff and don't feel they have an obligation to tell employees where their money is spent or what they did with it. It's also reality.Stay safe.

[iraqgunz]

So since we are now Mercenaries and that of course is illegal, I better take that Walmart job and get the fuck out of Iraq. I guess with these crackpots it's just a matter of time before they find a sympathetic ear.

[oncewasargr]

any updates relating to this action?

[Corsair]

Since this jackass doesn't like "hired guns" may be we shold re-institute the draft to fill the 20,000 billets fill by private contractors. ' '

[Broadway]

Another crackpot gets his 15 minutes while we wait to see how long the non thinkers can drag this out.

[oncewasargr]

Has there been any new devlopments on the awarding of the contract?

[Argyll 50]

None that our end know of, mind you I have been on R&R on the Costa del Sol

[oncewasargr]

hope your leave was fun dad, thanks for the info

son 2

[Argyll 50]

Aye it was damn good #2, how's #1 ?, he just got married I believe?

[oncewasargr]

PM inbound dad