CNTPO

[Marina]

Clash of the Titans!!

USG to migrate Afghan police training from State CIVPOL to DoD CNTPO . . . Dyn crys foul.

This week Dyn filed a pre-award protest with GAO to stop planned procurement of training and mentoring of police and government personnel in Afghanistan through task orders issued under DoD Counter-Narcoterrorism Technology Program Office (CNTPO). The work is currently performed by Dyn through State’s CIVPOL contract. Dyn argues police training is outside the scope of the CNTPO, which covers development / deployment of technologies related to counter-drug and counter-narco efforts.

http://www.dyn-intl.com/press-releases.aspx

Dyn’s current civilian police training task order in Afghanistan ends in February.

Through CIVPOL, State’s Bureau of International Narcotics and Law Enforcement (INL) funds about 900 civilian police advisors in Afghanistan who work in conjunction with DoD to assist Karzai’s government in building capacity for a democratic police force capable of enforcing the rule of law. (ha!) CIVPOL mentors advise ANP as well as senior officials in the MoI.

Issued in 2007, CNTPO is a $15 billion multiple award IDIQ with five pre-qualified contractors competing for task orders:

Lockheed
NG
Raytheon
BW/Xe
ARINC

CNTPO is not just a DoD contract for technology to counter/interdict narcos. It is a rapid response government-wide contract vehicle for CN/CT training, operations and logistical support, anywhere in the world, domestic included. CNTPO contractors will pick up training, mentoring, PSD, and static security - looks like anything now under CIVPOL.

The protested CNTPO task order award would exclude Dyn as the incumbent and other potential qualified bidders from participation because they are not existing CNTPO contract holders. Dyn wants the contested services to be obtained through new full and open competition, which they believe will result in better pricing / best value for the USG, not through an existing set of pre-competed contractors.

These types of protests are successful only about 25% of the time. If GAO decides to hear the protest, USG must suspend its actions and State will likely extend existing CIVPOL task. GAO has 100 days to issue a ruling. However, DoD can override the stay and make award if SecDef argues urgent and compelling circumstances. My view is that Dyn doesn’t have a leg to stand on. Do they think they can compel the USG to use one contracting mechanism over another one? Fail. Maybe an attempt by Dyn to get negotiated settlement during arbitration.

More broadly, my two cents.

-- Shift in foreign assistance. Could be perceived as “militarizing” foreign aid. Traditionally, DoD does mil-mil training / JCET; State does civ-civ foreign police/LE training; mil-civ is controversial and sensitive, usually falls under CT or AT. Due to long history of abuse (see LATAM), US laws prohibit, with exceptions, most US military training to foreign civilian police. But really, internal defense is a gray area, especially in countries with endemic corruption like Afghanistan, or where the police fall under the MoD or the MoI paramilitaries represent “evil secret police.” There has been a general shift to DoD since 9/11 and a lot of blurring of bright lines between military and police in the war on terror. Obama continues the trend.

UPDATE: Yes, this is the intent. USG wants to “harden” ANP training, i.e. more tactical, more unity with DoD counterinsurgency effort. See testimony at today’s hearing – representatives from Dyn, Xe, L3 and various USG officials.

http://www.wartimecontracting.gov/in...ssreleases/115

-- DoD apparently successful in arguing that US security assistance in overseas contingency operations, regardless whether it is mil or civ, must fall within military taskings. It only makes sense to put security contractors under DoD in a war zone. Unity of effort, MEJA, etc.

-- State’s being punished. Dyn’s being pushed aside. Hmmm, many GAO reports on State’s epic failure in overseeing contracts in war zones – BW, AGNA, even Dyn. I’m sure Dyn will get a quid pro quo in Iraq or Mexico (sorry Jax). Dyn’s a big boy, they can take a small hit.

Could be just a resource allocation. Military drawing down in Iraq, State INL CIVPOL standing up. Military surging in Afghanistan, State standing down.

This is a major shift. It will be interesting to see how it plays out on the ground.

Maybe this is old news. A search did not come up with anything for CNTPO. CNTPO contractors are competing now for the ANP task order. Anyone on the Dyn contract is likely to get mixed signals until the thing is sorted.

[rotorohead]

Guess Dyn forgot that the WPPSII contract in which there are only three bidders (Dyn TC BWakaXE) excludes everyone else. So I guess as long as they are in the inner circle it doesn't matter
it is hell when it is on the other foot! Quid pro quo, i say

[nofear]

I'm on the fence with this one.

Dyn has the "experience" with CivPol training, but at the end of the day it is not the company providing the training, but the trainers on the ground. Does it really affect them, (the trainers), if it's DoD forking out the money instead of DoS?

The upper Management, (of the company), were not focused on the mission, but only the profit margin, so again I don't really see what the difference would be.

DoS had very minor influence on the day to day ops, so I do not see this proposed takeover being much of an issue.

I'm happy to hear a counter-arguement though.

[Marina]

Not really that much different except for two things that may or may not be significant.

1. Compensation and staffing (the latter meaning US vs TCN which drives cost)

2. POI - military will likely take the police training curriculum and turn it into something a little, ah, sharper.

[5831lvn]

Originally Posted by nofear

I'm on the fence with this one.

Dyn has the "experience" with CivPol training, but at the end of the day it is not the company providing the training, but the trainers on the ground. Does it really affect them, (the trainers), if it's DoD forking out the money instead of DoS?

It would all depend on the company that is awarded the contract. Will they do a shirt change...or bring in their own ppl ?


I know this is old, but could also be part of the reasoning behind the change ?

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB2000...050882150.html

[hardknocks]

DoS through its INL reps had major influence on the day to day operations and delivery of the POI. The INL reps are/were former Dyn who new exactly what was happening and why things were not getting done. They were responsible to ensure the DoS approved lesson plans were being put out to standard.

Dyn's problems were self created by losing track of what they were to be doing, delivering a product who ends users are the Afghans. All was fine when DoS drove because Dyn is their sweetheart. This is not the case with the DoD. There were major issues when the DoD took operational control in the fall of 2006. Dyn refused to see the writing on the wall.

If it is anything like a DoD I've worked recently, you can count on compliance with the contract in content, delivery, and exact lesson plans to train by. There was no room allowed for deviation. The POI was presented the same or as close to possible given exclusions due to special circumstances regardless of location.

What does that mean? Uniform training standards across the board. What difference does that make? A better assessment of problem areaas once X number officers trained and put in the field, instead of every 30 days have a new focus and scrap all that has been previously done.

[5831lvn]

Here's a link to the Commison on Wartime Contracting hearing on 12/18/09.....I found the statements on the use of contractors interesting.

http://www.wartimecontracting.gov/in...earing20091218

[hardknocks]

Xe's statement reflects what has been in place and in my opinion made it very successful. Compliance has been the key word.

[5831lvn]

Originally Posted by hardknocks

Xe's statement reflects what has been in place and in my opinion made it very successful. Compliance has been the key word.

I thought Dyn's comments were interesting

[stanpunjabTrini]

It is a way to control the PMCs unter the CNTPO label.
With all the funny events recently taking place, (AGNA, Blackwater, Aegis and others), the best mitigation strategy is to wrest control and institute a government seal of approval!! on business, whether it is authentic or not is a different matter.
A recent DOS Diplomatic Security Bureau report found it hard to recruit supervisors to oversee their juniors in the field because of the better pay/compensation of contractor entities. It would b einterestin gto see how this pans out in the future.

If the US policy is to penalize Afghans institutions through better police training with hardening the divide between enforcement and tolerance, there will be ramifications that will reverberate within the local economy with a sour note. On one hand, the US will attempt to punish those who participate in opium trade while the other hands is paying off Taliban sympathizers not to attack convoys. It's like s*itting in one hand and wishing in the next and seeing which one fills up first!!!

[hardknocks]

Originally Posted by 5831lvn

I thought Dyn's comments were interesting

Agree. The "train the trainer" was a big hoax from what I personally observed in 2006. It was nothing more than a way for the Amercian trainers to dodge work. Hopefully it has changed.

I'd disagree with their 15 year claim because I saw more guys with 5-8 than what the required 10 or years was. At 5-8 years, as a LE, you are just starting to see the bigger picture and maturing as an LE. So the experience they say they have, isn't really there.

Dyn had some good things going but the implementation (in my opinion) was flawed. Too many shifts in focus and no eye on the goal. They had people and material they could bring to bear on a problem but they in the end they blew it because of the "I can't, you can't, we can't" mantra. Too worried about the bottom line. Too many people worried about keeping their jobs than doing their jobs.

Either way, it will be an interesting ride to see what shakes out.

[Blackjack78]

[QUOTE=hardknocks;1239157]Agree. The "train the trainer" was a big hoax from what I personally observed in 2006. It was nothing more than a way for the Amercian trainers to dodge work. Hopefully it has changed.

I'd disagree with their 15 year claim because I saw more guys with 5-8 than what the required 10 or years was. At 5-8 years, as a LE, you are just starting to see the bigger picture and maturing as an LE. So the experience they say they have, isn't really there.

QUOTE]

I sometimes think the recruiting for the Civpol program is a joke. I have over 30years experience. The experience is in Patrol, Investigations, Organized Crime, Narcotics, Intelligence, Tech/Electronic/physical surveillance, CT and other areas. I have a TS/SCI clearance.

If I understand the requirements, I don’t qualify for the position because I’m not an FTO or a supervisor. Forget the fact that we don’t have FTO’s per say and supervisors get there by passing a test not by actually doing the job. The FTO in Mayberry is more qualified for this position. Now, I’m not knocking Mayberry but I would think 30yrs in Mayberry may be a little different then 30 yrs in NYC.

[GoG-Man]

I think its much simpler, before the ANP can:
"Patrol, Investigations, Organized Crime, Narcotics, Intelligence, Tech/Electronic/physical surveillance, CT and other areas"

They have to be able to survive... They are not writing traffic tickets, they are getting ambushed and killed.

They will never take the initiative when they cannot stand strong and fight back. They will continue to do one of the two things, they are doing now: (1) Work with the Insurgents and survive; or (2) fight back and get killed.

I had an LE advisor ask me straight faced, "Why are you training them on PKM's and RPGs ?" He had no clue...

If you give these guys the capability to fight and win, then the rest can follow. Now I am not trying to pick a fight, but what does all that LE experience have anything to do with surviving in the current battle they are fighting? I hope DOD will push for more MILITARY training. Its not time for LE in the sense that we do it in the US yet. That time will come, but not yet IMHO.

[nofear]

Although I don't dispute the requirement to teach the ANP how to fight, they also need to learn and apply the basics of Policing, such as gathering and analyzing evidence, rights of detained persons, and not basing their arrests on tribal feelings and rumours.

Training people to be a soldier is easy, (relatively speaking). Training them to be a cop is a lot harder. Is the Military the right organisation to control this?

But then...was DoS the right organisation?

[Blackjack78]

Originally Posted by GoG-Man

I think its much simpler, before the ANP can:
"Patrol, Investigations, Organized Crime, Narcotics, Intelligence, Tech/Electronic/physical surveillance, CT and other areas"

They have to be able to survive... They are not writing traffic tickets, they are getting ambushed and killed.

They will never take the initiative when they cannot stand strong and fight back. They will continue to do one of the two things, they are doing now: (1) Work with the Insurgents and survive; or (2) fight back and get killed.

I had an LE advisor ask me straight faced, "Why are you training them on PKM's and RPGs ?" He had no clue...

If you give these guys the capability to fight and win, then the rest can follow. Now I am not trying to pick a fight, but what does all that LE experience have anything to do with surviving in the current battle they are fighting? I hope DOD will push for more MILITARY training. Its not time for LE in the sense that we do it in the US yet. That time will come, but not yet IMHO.

No argument there.

[5831lvn]

Originally Posted by GoG-Man

I think its much simpler, before the ANP can:
"Patrol, Investigations, Organized Crime, Narcotics, Intelligence, Tech/Electronic/physical surveillance, CT and other areas"

They have to be able to survive... They are not writing traffic tickets, they are getting ambushed and killed.

They will never take the initiative when they cannot stand strong and fight back. They will continue to do one of the two things, they are doing now: (1) Work with the Insurgents and survive; or (2) fight back and get killed.

I had an LE advisor ask me straight faced, "Why are you training them on PKM's and RPGs ?" He had no clue...

If you give these guys the capability to fight and win, then the rest can follow. Now I am not trying to pick a fight, but what does all that LE experience have anything to do with surviving in the current battle they are fighting? I hope DOD will push for more MILITARY training. Its not time for LE in the sense that we do it in the US yet. That time will come, but not yet IMHO.

Says alot abt the Advisor in question and his common sense or lack of....I had teammates who saw no reason to carry their sidearms or why wearing flip flops was a problem when they went to check on an ECP....

[Silverbullet]

Originally Posted by nofear

Training people to be a soldier is easy, (relatively speaking). Training them to be a cop is a lot harder.

I think this statement is way off the mark unless you think training to become soldier is only how to put a uniform on and stand in formation.

Is the Military the right organisation to control this?

Why wouldn't it be? They turn out well trained MP's, CID and other police type members year in year out.

[hardknocks]

The balance is to first train them to survive an attack, take the attack to the enemy, then to be able perform a law enforcement function. Once again where we blew it, in my opinion, was to take a western style law enforcement model and try to apply to there culture.

I taught an ethics and professionalism class to higher ranking ANP officers once. They argued that taking a bribe was their way of life and part of their culture. They felt insulted that western views see bribery as corruption and not business. Needless to say that was time I wasted and I won't get back.

I've also been witness to higher ranking officers defend the practice of taking a cut of the soldiers'(what police officers are referred to) pay every month. Their reasoning was the soldier was too irresponsible to have that much money at one time and would squander it. By the higher ranking officers "keeping it" for them, the soldier could "borrow" during the month after he spent his initial salary.

Blackjack- don't get to worried about Dyn, you aren't missing anything. Wait thought for the change and for Dyn to get out of it. I saw more more qualified people chased away by there backwards thinking and promotional procedures. Anyone with verified credentials was a threat to the system. At PAST, I met more Sniper/SWAT guys than at a full blown NTOA conference. Of course they counted kicking a door in as SWAT and in one case ol' boy was his department's Sniper, because he and the chief went deer huntiing, ol' boy bagged one and the chief didn't, so he had what it takes to be a sniper.

[roadraje]

I've been in Iraq for over a year and a half "training, mentoring and advising" the Iraqi Police. I have also worked with three different Army units (MP's). The first unit was active-duty, young privates and specialists with little or no "road-time". Very professional, squared away and motivated. The second and third were reservists, also MP's but the difference was that most of the Sgt's and above had 5 or more years of law enforcement experience. Did this make them better trainers? Not necessarily because unless you have attempted to conduct a block of instruction over there then you have no idea what it's like. Their attention span is non-existent, even if you prepare a simple power-point presentation the station doesn't have consistent electric power. Try some practical application, you won't get a volunteer and if you do it's like dealing with a class of 3rd graders. I have been to a half dozen LPS's and have been down at the Port since May. I am so close with most of the IP's they call me on my cell even when I am home on ATO. It is still a challenge to get anything productive accomplished. The MP's just want to get their "numbers", drink tea and go back the FOB, I don't have a problem with that. If I have a complaint it is simply this. It is not my responsibility to "train" the IP's, The DOS wants me to "train the trainer" to ensure that when we pull out of there, the training officer will be able to train his IP's. I realize I just went on a little rant there but here's my point. Shouldn't you have some experience in a specific field before you attempt to train others? Now I know A-Stan is completely different from Iraq. A-Stan now is what Iraq was in 2003. These guy's don't patrol, they don't conduct investigations, they don't manage crime scenes and the don't collect evidence. But we continue to try to train them on these skills and in my opinion, they simply don't care. I will be heading to A-Stan soon and would appreciate any comments relative to this topic and the situation over there.

[Blackjack78]

Originally Posted by GoG-Man

I think its much simpler, before the ANP can:
"Patrol, Investigations, Organized Crime, Narcotics, Intelligence, Tech/Electronic/physical surveillance, CT and other areas"

They have to be able to survive... They are not writing traffic tickets, they are getting ambushed and killed.

They will never take the initiative when they cannot stand strong and fight back. They will continue to do one of the two things, they are doing now: (1) Work with the Insurgents and survive; or (2) fight back and get killed.

I had an LE advisor ask me straight faced, "Why are you training them on PKM's and RPGs ?" He had no clue...

If you give these guys the capability to fight and win, then the rest can follow. Now I am not trying to pick a fight, but what does all that LE experience have anything to do with surviving in the current battle they are fighting? I hope DOD will push for more MILITARY training. Its not time for LE in the sense that we do it in the US yet. That time will come, but not yet IMHO.

Just to clarify, in my earlier response, my “no argument response” was to your statement that they have to survive and they are not yet ready for policing as done in a democratic society. As far as your question to “what does all that LE experience have anything to do with surviving in the current battle they are fighting?’’ It has nothing to do w/it. My response was directed at the fact that Dyncorp has the Civpol mission and they have certain requirements for that position and that I thought at times the recruitment was a joke, as it relates to police experience. Nothing more, nothing less. The mission being in part, to teach modern policing methods etc. So all my LE has nothing to do w/teaching the Police, military tactics. I don’t see where I said that it did and I don’t know why you thought you had to ask.