Overseas Civilian Contractors

News and issues relating to Civilian Contractors working Overseas

Ex-Blackwater president charged in firearms case

Five former employees of the U.S. defense contractor Blackwater Worldwide were indicted on Friday, including its former president Gary Jackson, on several weapons charges and making false statements.

They were accused of skirting federal firearms laws and misrepresenting the weapons they were buying and the identities of the purchasers. This included a case in which weapons were given to Jordanian officials in hopes of winning their business, while it was stated they were bought by employees.

Also charged in the 15-count indictment were the company’s former general counsel Andrew Howell, former executive vice president William Mathews, former vice president of logistics and procurement Ana Bundy, and former armorer Ronald Slezak.

Blackwater, which has changed its name to Xe Services, has faced intense scrutiny for its security work in Iraq and Afghanistan. Some of its guards were accused of wrongly killing Iraqi civilians in 2007 while protecting U.S. diplomats there.

In the Jordanian case, King Abdullah visited Blackwater’s training facility in North Carolina as the company tried to win a lucrative contract for building and running a training center, according to prosecutors and the indictment.

He and his entourage were presented with five firearms as gifts “to gain favor,” the indictment said.

When the company could not account for the weapons, Jackson allegedly directed employees to fill out the necessary forms to show that Blackwater employees had bought the guns for their own use.

The Justice Department said that there was no wrongdoing by the Jordanian government or its officials and said the country provided assistance in the investigation.

The group also was accused of amassing some 227 short barrels for M4 rifles for their work in Afghanistan and Iraq but U.S. law limits such weapons. Prosecutors said the group allegedly arranged straw purchases to evade detection.

It was not immediately clear whether the five individuals had retained lawyers.

A spokesman for Xe Services said it was aware of the charges and that the company has fully cooperated with the Justice Department’s investigation.

“Given the pending criminal charges, the company will not comment further,” said Mark Corallo, the spokesman for the company.

April 16, 2010 Posted by | Blackwater, Civilian Contractors, Contractor Corruption, Contractor Oversight, Wartime Contracting | , , , | Leave a comment

US Afghan Commander: “We have too many contractors”

The US Commander in Afghanistan, Mr. Cover Up Tillman’s friendly fire burn his clothes death McChrystal.……..    fine time to think about it

AFP PARIS The US commander in Afghanistan said Friday that the military is wasting money by employing too many private contractors to do jobs better done by soldiers or local Afghans.

“We have created in ourselves a dependency on contractors that is greater than it ought to be,” General Stanley McChrystal told an audience of French officers and military experts at France’s defence university in Paris.

“I think we’ve gone too far. I think that the use of contractors was done with good intentions so that we could limit the number of military. I think in some cases we thought it would save money. I think it doesn’t save money.”

The US operation in Afghanistan employs more civilian contractors than soldiers, carrying out jobs ranging from catering and logistics to — more controversially — armed escort duties and intelligence gathering.

According to a US Congressional report, citing figures from US Central Command, in September last year there were 104,100 Department of Defense contractors assigned to Afghanistan compared to only 63,950 troops.

Since then the United States has begun to pour in an additional 30,000 troops, but the report noted that last year the number of contractors was increasing faster than the number of troops.

The Pentagon’s use of contractors exploded during the Iraq war, and the programme has proved controversial both in terms of corruption scandals and alleged atrocities by private gunmen working alongside the military.

McChrystal said the numbers were too high and that more could be done to draw in Afghans and give them a bigger stake in the operation.

“I think it would be better to reduce the number of contractors involved, increase the number of military if necessary and, where we have contractors, in many cases, I believe we should stop using foreign contractors and use a greater number of Afghan contractors,” he said.

Last month, McChrystal reduced the number of civilians in military camps in at least one area, ordering the closure of western style burger joints and pizza parlours on US bases in Afghanistan.

April 16, 2010 Posted by | Civilian Contractors, Wartime Contracting | , , , | 1 Comment

Lost in Translation

David Isenberg at Huff Post

Stars and Stripes ran an important but, sadly, largely overlooked article on April 2. To quote from the lead:

As the Iraqi government pushes for more control over the tens of thousands of American contractors still in the country, some high-level U.S. interpreters say new visa regulations are pushing them to leave.
The interpreters, Arab-Americans who work in sensitive areas such as intelligence or as liaisons between senior American officers and Iraqi officials, worry that submitting the details of their identities to the Iraqi government could endanger themselves or family members living in Iraq or elsewhere in the region.

“Working for four years doing intel, pretty much I know how corrupt things are,” said one former Iraqi-American interpreter who quit her job and returned to the U.S. last month after her company notified employees they would need to apply for a visa. Like other interpreters interviewed for this story, she spoke on the condition of anonymity.

This is quite unfortunate as interpreters have some of the most high risk jobs in war zones. In November 2007 it was reported that nearly one-third of all U.S. contractor deaths in Iraq since the war began in 2003 have been employees of San Diego-based Titan and its parent L-3 Communications, which had a multibillion-dollar contract with the Pentagon to provide thousands of translators and interpreters to soldiers in the battlefield and elsewhere in the Middle East. At that time, it had 216 employees killed in the Iraq war, more than any other entity except the U.S. military.

That is far higher than the combined Blackwater/Xe Services total which, according to the Department of Labor Office of Workers’ Compensation Programs (OWCP) Defense Base Act Case Summary by Employer, was 56 from Sep. 1, 2001 to March 31, 2010.

The visa requirement is at least in part due to the blowback from the Nisoor Square shootings by Blackwater guards in 2007. According to Stars and Stripes:

Angry over a U.S. judge’s dismissal of criminal charges against five security contractors accused in the September 2007 shooting deaths of 17 people in Baghdad, Iraqi officials in February ordered any contractors who ever worked for the former Blackwater Worldwide out of the country and threatened to arrest on visa violations any who failed to leave – an apparent acknowledgement that many contractors arrive without a visa.
The day after that threat was issued, a site manager for Global Linguist Solutions sent interpreters an e-mail telling them a visa was “now required to enter and exit Iraq” and asking them to submit personal information including their father’s name and their country of birth.

I forwarded the Stars and Stripes article to Chris Taylor, Chief Executive Officer of Mission Essential Personnel, a company providing translators, interpreters and cultural advisors to the U.S. Department of Defense in Afghanistan, and supports missions in Africa, Asia and Europe, and asked him to comment on the article. He wrote in an email reply:

“Interpreters and translators go into harm’s way right next to the military professionals they serve. They provide an essential service and have sensitive affiliations that deserve special consideration with regard to visa regulations that could put them or their families at risk. The effects of these visa regulations, if they are enforced country-wide, create an unfair burden on interpreters and translators, especially those born and raised in the host nation, that other contractors will not experience. Without these brave professionals, the mission simply stops. While companies must comply with all laws, they should engage State and Defense Department officials, and host nation government decision-makers about the life-threatening effects of these new visa regulations and seek an exception to the visa requirements, at least for those born or with family in theater. If the decision to enforce the regulation country-wide is mainly about revenue generation for the Iraqi government, arrangements can be made to pay for “heads” without identifying specific people. Without a change, surely some translators will be driven away, thus increasing risk to mission; something the US cannot afford. ”  Original here

Follow David Isenberg on Twitter: www.twitter.com/vanidan

April 16, 2010 Posted by | Civilian Contractors, Legal Jurisdictions, Uncategorized, Wartime Contracting | , , , | Leave a comment

Four South African police advisors serving with UN-AU force in Darfur are missing

Update

Peacekeepers kidnapped in Darfur ‘in good health’

KHARTOUM — Four South African peacekeepers from the joint UN-African Union mission who were kidnapped this week in the western Sudanese region of Darfur are “in good health,” UNAMID told AFP on Friday.

“We were able to talk to them this morning. They are in good health,” UNAMID spokesman Nouredine Mezni said. “We are doing our outmost to secure their release.”

“The Sudanese authorities know the identity of the kidnappers but they want to make sure their release takes place in the best possible conditions,” Mezni said.

South African authorities said on Thursday, they were “confident” the issue would be resolved soon.

EDITH M. LEDERER at The LA Times

UNITED NATIONS (AP) — Four South African police advisors serving with the international peacekeeping force in Darfur are missing, the force said late Wednesday.

The unarmed advisors — two women and two men — have not been heard from since 4 p.m. local time on Sunday shortly after they left their team site outside Nyala, the capital of South Darfur, on a 4 mile (7 kilometer) trip back to their private quarters, the joint United Nations-African Union force known as UNAMID said in a statement.

“Despite an all-out effort on every front, the peacekeepers and their vehicle remain unaccounted for,” UNAMID’s Joint Special Representative Ibrahim Gambari said in a statement.

“Our concern is that that we are now facing a carjacking and abduction situation,” he said.

Gambari dismissed media reports that UNAMID had been contacted with any demands.

UNAMID said it has mobilized all its resources in the region and is working in close cooperation with the Sudanese government and local authorities in the search for the missing peacekeepers, who were not identified.

The Darfur conflict began in February 2003 when ethnic African rebels took up arms against the Arab-dominated Sudanese government in Khartoum, claiming discrimination and neglect. Khartoum is accused of retaliating by arming local nomadic Arab tribes and unleashing militias on civilian populations — a charge the government denies.

U.N. officials say at least 300,000 people have lost their lives from violence, disease and displacement, and 2.7 million have been driven from their homes.

While the number of people dying because of the Darfur conflict has diminished, crime has not.

Last year, two international staff members working for UNAMID, two international aid workers, and a staff member for an international aid organization were abducted.

In a report in late November, U.N. Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon called the incidents of hostage taking of international workers “a new and deeply troubling development in Darfur, with the potential to undermine the efforts of the international community.”

These incidents, as well as ambushes, carjackings and violent robberies of staff residences “underscore the extremely difficult and volatile conditions” in which UNAMID and humanitarian workers are working, Ban said.  Original Here

April 16, 2010 Posted by | Africa, Civilian Contractors, Civilian Police | , , , , | Leave a comment

Afghan suicide attack targets ISAF Contractors

Ten foreigners were injured and two Afghans killed when a suicide bomber detonated a vehicle full of explosives at the entrance to a compound housing international aid companies in Kandahar.

UPDATE:

Briton Injured in Deadly Carbomb attack in Afghanistan

A British man has been injured in a fatal car bomb explosion on a compound in Afghanistan, the Foreign Office has confirmed.

Three internationals and three Afghanis were killed in the explosion in Kandahar. It is understood they had been working as contractors for the Nato-led International Security Assistance Force (ISAF).

“The nationalities of all the casualties are not yet clear but one of those injured was British. We understand his injuries were not severe and that he did not require hospital treatment,” a spokesperson for the Foreign Office said.

Early reports suggest a car bomb detonated inside a compound housing foreign contractors, killing a number of people.

A spokesperson from ISAF said ten people were injured in the blast and are currently being treated at a nearby hospital.

The Foreign Office said it was in contact with officials in Afghanistan in an effort to establish whether any other British nationals were involved in the incident.

Local official Ahmed Wali Karzai, the brother of Afghan president Hamid Karzai, said a foreign contractor had been shipping fuel supplies in the area.

UPDATE at the Australian

KANDAHAR: British military officials are investigating reports that security contractors from Britain were among the victims of a suicide car bombing in southern Afghanistan.

By Ben Farmer in Kabul
Published: 8:18AM BST 16 Apr 2010

Original Here

Early reports had suggested Britons were killed in the attack on Thursday evening, but the provincial governor said 12 hours later on Friday morning that only Afghans had died.

Three Americans and one south African were injured and sources said a Briton had been wounded but was not in a serious condition. The wounded were being treated in the nearby Nato hospital at Kandahar airfield.

The 9pm blast struck a compound housing the offices of the international contracting company Louis Berger Group, the Afghanistan Stabilization Initiative and the aid contracting company Chemonics International.

Windows were blown out across the city and it followed hours after another attack against a Kandahar hotel which wounded eight.

Tooryalai Wesa, governor, said there had been no claim of responsibility for the bombing, which according to some reports involved a fuel tanker.

The vehicle got past a security gate, before detonating at a second in the high security compound.

Nato forces are preparing for a major operation this summer in Kandahar — the largest city in the Taliban-ridden south and the birthplace of the hardline Islamist movement.

April 16, 2010 Posted by | Civilian Contractors | , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

To Be, or Not to Be, Inherent: That is the Question

Inherently Governmental

By David Isenberg at Huff Post

There are two words which strike fear in the hearts of all those who follow the private contracting issue. And by private contractors I just don’t mean those carrying out security or military function. Rather I mean any task that at some point was considered the domain of someone in the public sector.

Those two words are inherently governmental. Far stronger men than I have cowered in fear when asked to define what an inherently governmental task is.

Trying to define the term is like trying to nail Jell-O to the wall; only nailing Jell-O is easier. Yet the stakes are enormous. Obviously private sector companies would like the definition to be crafted as narrowly as possible as it potentially means more work for them.

Years ago it was reported that the use of private contractors as interrogators at Abu Ghraib and other prisons in Iraq violated an Army policy that requires such jobs to be filled by government employees because of the “risk to national security.” An Army policy directive published in 2000 classifies any job that involves “the gathering and analysis” of tactical intelligence as “an inherently governmental function barred from private sector performance.”

The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) lists the following functions as inherently governmental: interpreting and executing laws; ordering military or diplomatic action on behalf of the United States; conducting civil or criminal judicial proceedings; performing actions that significantly affect the life, liberty, or property of private persons; and collecting, controlling, or disbursing appropriated and other federal funds.

One has to give credit to the Obama administration for daring to try and do some thing in this area, where angels fear to tread.

Last year the Administration issued a Presidential Memorandum on Government Contracting, issued on March 4, 2009, which directs OMB to clarify when governmental outsourcing of services is, and is not, appropriate, consistent with section 321 of the National Defense Authorization Act for FY 2009. Section 321 requires OMB to (i) create a single definition for the term “inherently governmental function” that addresses any deficiencies in the existing definitions and reasonably applies to all agencies; (ii) establish criteria to be used by agencies to identify “critical” functions and positions that should only be performed by federal employees; and (iii) provide guidance to improve internal agency management of functions that are inherently governmental or critic.

On March 31 the Office of Federal Procurement Policy at the Office of Management and Budget issued a proposed policy letter to provide guidance addressing when work must be reserved for performance by federal employees. The letter was intended to implement direction in the President’s Memorandum. The letter states:

A single definition of “inherently governmental function” built around the well-established statutory definition in the Federal Activities Inventory Reform Act (FAIR Act), Public Law 105-270, would replace existing definitions in regulation and policy. The FAIR Act defines an activity as inherently governmental when it is so intimately related to the public interest as to mandate performance by Federal employees. Examples and tests would be provided to help agencies identify inherently governmental functions.

Given the existing multiple definitions of “inherently governmental” it is understandable the government wants to use just one. The letter states:

There are three main sources for definitions and guidance addressing inherently governmental function: (1) The FAIR Act, (2) the FAR, and (3) OMB Circular A-76. a. Definition. The FAIR Act, FAR, and Circular A-76 each make clear that the term “inherently governmental function” addresses functions that are so intimately related to the public interest as to require performance by federal government employees. There are some variations in the language used by the three sources to describe the types of functions included in the definition. In particular, the FAIR Act states that the term includes activities that require the “exercise of discretion” in applying “Federal Government authority,” whereas the Circular speaks in terms of the exercise of “substantial discretion” in applying “sovereign” Federal government authority. It is unclear what the impact of this type of variation has been. This notwithstanding, these variations can create confusion and uncertainty.

The proposed policy letter retains an illustrative list of functions closely associated with inherently governmental functions. These include:

1. The direct conduct of criminal investigation.
2. The control of prosecutions and performance of adjudicatory functions (other than those relating to arbitration or other methods of alternative dispute resolution).
3. The command of military forces, especially the leadership of military personnel who are members of the combat, combat support or combat service support role.
4. The conduct of foreign relations and the determination of foreign policy.
5. The determination of agency policy, such as determining the content and application of regulations, among other things.
6. The determination of Federal program priorities or budget requests.
7. The direction and control of Federal employees.
8. The direction and control of intelligence and counter-intelligence operations.
9. The selection or non-selection of individuals for Federal Government employment.
10. The approval of position descriptions and performance standards for Federal employees.
11. The determination of what Government property is to be disposed of and on what terms (although an agency may give contractors authority to dispose of property at prices with specified ranges and subject to other reasonable conditions deemed appropriate by the agency).
12. In Federal procurement activities with respect to prime contracts:
(a) determining what supplies or services are to be acquired by the Government (although an agency may give contractors authority to acquire supplies at prices within specified ranges and subject to other reasonable conditions deemed appropriate by the agency);
(b) participating as a voting member on any source selection boards;
(c) approval of any contractual documents, to include documents defining requirements, incentive plans, and evaluation criteria;
(d) awarding contracts;
(e) administering contracts (including ordering changes in contract performance or contract quantities, taking action based on evaluations of contractor performance, and accepting or rejecting contractor products or services);
(f) terminating contracts;
(g) determining whether contract costs are reasonable, allocable, and allowable; and
(h) participating as a voting member on performance evaluation boards.
13. The approval of agency responses to Freedom of Information Act requests (other than routine responses that, because of statute, regulation, or agency policy, do not require the exercise of judgment in determining whether documents are to be released or
withheld), and the approval of agency responses to the administrative appeals of denials of Freedom of Information Act requests.
14. The conduct of administrative hearings to determine the eligibility of any person for a security clearance, or involving actions that affect matters of personal reputation or eligibility to participate in government programs.
15. The approval of federal licensing actions and inspections.
16. The determination of budget policy, guidance, and strategy.
17. The collection, control, and disbursement of fees, royalties, duties, fines, taxes and other public funds, unless authorized by statute, such as title 31 U.S.C. 952 (relating to
private collection contractors) and title 31 U.S.C. 3718 (relating to private attorney collection services), but not including:
(a) collection of fees, fines, penalties, costs or other charges from visitors to or patrons of mess halls, post or base exchange concessions, national parks, and similar entities or activities, or from other persons, where the amount to be collected is easily
calculated or predetermined and the funds collected can be easily controlled using standard cash management techniques, and
(b) routine voucher and invoice examination.
18. The control of the Treasury accounts.
19. The administration of public trusts.
20. The drafting of Congressional testimony, responses to Congressional correspondence, or agency responses to audit reports from the Inspector General, the Government Accountability Office, or other federal audit entity.

It will be interesting to see whether example three “The command of military forces, especially the leadership of military personnel who are members of the combat, combat support or combat service support role” will cause any problems for private military or security contractors. In theory it should not but reality on battlefields often has a way of throwing theory out the window.

For other functions that are not listed among the above twenty, OFPP says it will develop a test to analyze “whether a function is inherently governmental based on the nature of the function and the level of discretion to be exercised in performing the function.”

OFPP says agencies should look on a case-by-case basis at the nature of the function to determine if it’s uniquely governmental function and whether the job commits the government to decisions that deal with overall policy discretion or approval, or oversight by federal officials.

The policy also defines “closely associated” with inherently governmental functions and provides 19 examples. These include functions that involve or relate to budget preparation, including workforce modeling, fact finding, efficiency studies and cost analyses, involve or relate to development of regulations, in support of acquisition functions, such as assistance in contract management, technical evaluations and development of statements of work.

Finally the OFPP letter defines critical functions that are considered core capabilities of agency employees.

The proposed policy letter would define critical function to mean a function whose importance to the agency’s mission and operation requires that at least a portion of the function must be reserved to federal employees in order to ensure the agency has sufficient internal capability to effectively perform and maintain control of its mission and operations,” the letter states. “Agencies would be held responsible for ensuring a sufficient number of positions performing critical work are filled by federal employees with appropriate training, experience, and expertise to understand the agency’s requirements, formulate alternatives, manage the work product, and manage any contractors used to support the federal workforce.

This would mean the situation one often finds where contractors supervise contractors would have to end. Although given the current state of the acquisition workforce it won’t happen soon.

If you think the OFPP letter will finally clear things up all I can say is don’t hold your breath. As a marvelously detailed February 1 Congressional Research Service report notes:

The current debate over which functions are inherently governmental is part of a larger debate about the proper role of the federal government vis-à-vis the private sector. This debate is as old as the Constitution, which prohibits privatization of certain functions (e.g., Congress’s legislative function), a prohibition courts enforce under various judicial tests (e.g., nondelegation, functions “affected with the public interest,” etc.). Since the 1920s, federal contracting has been a primary arena for the public/private debate, with the executive and legislative branches contesting (1) which functions the government must perform because they are inherently governmental; (2) which functions the government should perform because they are closely related to inherently governmental functions or for some policy reason; and (3) which functions should be left to the private sector. DOD functions are often central to debates over which functions are inherently governmental because of the specific functions DOD performs; its prominent role in federal contracting; and its unique workforce, which blends military and civilian personnel.

Ironically, this is not the only other inherent debate. Back in 2005 the Pentagon amended the Defense Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement to address issues related to contract performance outside the United States. Many observers noted that the rule appeared to shift too much risk to contractors. One respondent noted that the use of the term inherently dangerous in paragraph (b) of the clause could jeopardize a contractor’s ability to obtain insurance coverage under the Defense Base Act and other provisions.

When the Pentagon was amending acquisition rules in 2004, it received many comments. One response raised was how much risk contractors must accept. The government’s proposed rule states that carrying out a contract for deployed forces is “inherently” dangerous. “The Contractor accepts the risks associated with required contract performance in such operations,” the proposed rule states. But the Professional Services Council, a group representing companies that perform communications, engineering, and scientific services, interpreted that to mean that the contractor must assume all the risk and said the government should share some responsibility.  Original Here

Follow David Isenberg on Twitter: www.twitter.com/vanidan

April 16, 2010 Posted by | Civilian Contractors, Contractor Oversight, Private Military Contractors, Wartime Contracting | , , , | Leave a comment

Afghan Police Training Bedeviled by Delays

By Christine Spolar
Huffington Post Investigative Fund

Original at Huff Post

A troubled multi-billion contract that has failed to create a reliable national police force in Afghanistan—key to the drawdown of U.S. troops—will be extended again.

During a Senate homeland security subcommittee hearing Thursday, a Pentagon official laid out plans for a new “full and open competition” for police training that likely could take until the end of the year. The new bidding could hamper an already delayed training process.

The decision also almost certainly means the government will pay millions of dollars more to the current police trainer, DynCorp International. Federal auditors have criticized poor government oversight of the DynCorp contract for years – although DynCorp’s training was not called into question.

The decision left Democrats and Republicans, gathered at a subcommittee on contracting oversight hearing, demanding better coordination and accountability.

“I don’t think DynCorp has always had the leadership or the plan in place to convey to the people who work for them what they should be doing and how,” Sen. Claire McCaskill (D-Mo) told the Huffington Post Investigative Fund after the hearing. “And there was a disconnect between the military, the State Department and the actual work product of DynCorp.”

DynCorp has consistently defended its work in Afghanistan.  Read Original here

April 16, 2010 Posted by | Civilian Contractors, Civilian Police, Contract Awards, Contractor Oversight, DynCorp | , , , , , | Leave a comment

New contractor picked to supply coalition troops in Mideast

By Walter Pincus

at the Washington Post

A new contractor has been selected to supply billions of dollars worth of food and beverages to U.S. and other coalition troops in Iraq, Kuwait and Jordan in coming years, replacing a Kuwait-based firm that was indicted in November on charges of overbilling the government for those services.

Agility, a multibillion-dollar, worldwide government contractor, has been fighting the charges in federal district court in Atlanta. Agility and all its subsidiaries are barred from bidding on U.S. government contracts while the legal case is unresolved.

Anham, a six-year-old Dubai-based firm, was chosen over three other bidders for the new contract, which could be worth between $2 billion and $6 billion in the next six years, said Dennis J. Gauci, a spokesman for the Defense Logistics Agency. Anham is a collaboration of three multi-national firms.

Anham’s chairman and chief operating officer is Abul Huda Farouki, a Northern Virginia resident and well-known social figure in Washington. His HII-Finance Corp., based in Fairfax County, joined with two giant Middle East conglomerates to form Anham. One is Saudi-based Arab Supply and Trading, and the other is the Munir Sukhtian Group of Companies, a Jordanian investment and operating entity. Since 2004, Anham has “continually grown and expanded its business operations to over 20 countries,” according to its Web site.

Another Farouki enterprise, Nour USA, is listed on the Anham Web site as an affiliate. Nour USA is a service company “that provides Anham with a strong interface connection with the U.S. Government, and American non-governmental and business organizations,” according to the site. “Nour has proven itself to have the experience and knowledge required to help clients acquire, manage, and execute contracts and projects; especially entities with an international focus.”

There will be a roughly six-month transition from Agility to Anham “to allow the new prime vendor sufficient time to take over the contract and the current contractor to diminish current stocks in the supply chain,” Gauci said Thursday.

April 16, 2010 Posted by | Contract Awards, Contractor Corruption, Contractor Oversight, Wartime Contracting | , , , , , , | Leave a comment