Overseas Contractor Count – 4th Quarter FY 2012

Thanks to Danger Zone Jobs for this Post

This update reports DoD contractor personnel numbers in theater and outlines DoD efforts to improve management of contractors accompanying U.S. forces. It covers DoD contractor personnel deployed in Afghanistan (Operation Enduring Freedom (OEF), Iraq, and the U.S. Central Command (USCENTCOM) area of responsibility (AOR).

In 4th quarter FY 2012, USCENTCOM reported approximately 137,000 contractor personnel working for the DoD in the USCENTCOM AOR. This total reflects no change from the previous quarter. The number of contractors outside of Afghanistan and Iraq make up about 13.7% of the total contractor population in the USCENTCOM AOR. A breakdown of DoD contractor personnel is provided below:

A breakdown of DoD contractor personnel is provided below:

DoD Contractor Personnel in the USCENTCOM AOR

	Total Contractors	U.S. Citizens	Third Country Nationals	Local & Host Country Nationals
Afghanistan Only	109, 564	31,814	39,480	38,270
Iraq Only*	9,000	2,314	4,621	2,065
Other USCENTCOM Locations	18,843	8,764	9,297	782
USCENTCOM AOR	137,407	42,892	53,398	41,117

*Includes DoD contractors supporting U.S. Mission Iraq and/or Office of Security Cooperation-Iraq

Afghanistan Summary

The distribution of contractors in Afghanistan by contracting activity are:

Theater Support – Afghanistan:	16,973	(15%)
LOGCAP:	40,551	(37%)
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers:	7,647	(7%)
Other:*	44,393	(41%)
Total:	113,736
*Includes Defense Logistics Agency, Army Materiel Command, Air Force External and Systems Support contracts, Special Operations Command and INSCOM.

OEF Contractor Posture Highlights:

There are currently approximately 109.5K DoD contractors in Afghanistan. The overall contractor footprint has decreased 3.7% from the 3rd quarter FY12.

The contractor to military ratio in Afghanistan is 1.13 to 1 (based on 84.2K military).

Local Nationals make up 34.9% of the DoD contracted workforce in Afghanistan.

Iraq Summary

Contractor Posture Highlights:

The total number of contractors supporting the U.S. Government in Iraq (DoD+DoS) is now approximately 13.5K, which meets the USG goal of reducing the contractor population at the end of FY 2012.

The Department of Defense and Department of State continue to refine the requirements for contract support. Some contractor personnel employed under DoD contracts are supporting State Department and other civilian activities under the Chief of Mission, Iraq. These DoD contractors are provided on a reimbursable basis.

General Data on DoD Private Security Contractor Personnel in Iraq and Afghanistan

USCENTCOM reports, as of 4th quarter FY 2012, the following distribution of private security contractors in Afghanistan and Iraq:

	Total*	U.S. Citizens	Third Country National	Local & Host Country National
DoD PSCs in Afghanistan	18,914	2,014	1,437	15,413
DoD PSCs in Iraq	2,116	102	1,873	191

*These numbers include most subcontractors and service contractors hired by prime contractors under DoD contracts. They include both armed and unarmed contractors. They do not include PSCs working under DoS and USAID contracts.

The Defense of Freedom Medal Held Hostage by The Defense Base Act

WHY HAVE I NOT RECEIVED THE DEFENSE OF FREEDOM MEDAL?

The Defense of Freedom Medal is an award held to be the equivalent of the Purple Heart and is awarded to Civilian Contractors injured in the war zones. 

One question we get here repeatedly is why have I not received the Defense of Freedom Medal?   The question comes from severely disabled Civilian Contractors wounded in horrific explosions and insurgent attacks.

WHO IS HOLDING YOUR MEDAL HOSTAGE?

The company you work for is responsible for requesting  that you receive the medal and providing the documentation that you have indeed suffered a qualifying injury.

As all Injured War Zone Contractors know the minute you must file a Defense Base Act Claim you are automatically placed in an adversarial relationship with your employer.   Your Employer and the Defense Base Act Insurance Company are considered equal entities in the battle you have entered for your medical care and indemnity.

Your Employer is required to assist the insurance company in denying your claim.  Under the War Hazards Act the Employer/Carrier must prove to the WHA Tribunal that they have diligently tried to deny your claim.

It appears that your Defense of Freedom Medals could be held hostage by your Employers due to the adversarial relationship the Defense Base Act has created.

When KBR, DynCorp, Blackwater, Xe, et al, provide documentation of your injuries to the DoD they have just admitted that you are indeed injured and to what extent.

Specific information regarding injury/death: Description of the situation causing the injury/death in detail to include the date, time, place, and scene of the incident, and official medical documentation of the employee’s injuries and treatment. The description must be well documented, including the names of witnesses and point of contact (POC) for additional medical information, if needed.

These admissions sure would make it hard for Administrative Law Judges like Paul C Johnson to name them as alleged.   ALJ Paul C Johnson has yet to award benefits to a DBA Claimant in a decision based on a hearing.

KBR who can never seem to find their injured employees medical records holds the key to the Defense of Freedom Medal.

Certainly there are other lawsuits outside of the DBA that the withholding of this information is vital too.

For those of you who still give a damn after being abused by so badly simply because you were injured-

The Defense of Freedom Medal may find you many years down the road once an Administrative Law Judge says you were injured.

We recommend that you contact your Congressional Representative or Senator and have them request this Medal if you qualify for it and would like to have it.

If you are still litigating your claim it SHOULD serve to legitimize your alleged injuries.

Civilian Contractor or Mercenary? Who do you work for, What is your job?

Guest  Commentary September 19, 2011

In response to Civilian Contractor or Mercenary?

Wow.. that pretty much proves everyone (Our Government and News Sources) have been misleading the public doesn’t it?

“(F) Hs not been sent by a State which is not a party to the conflict on official duty”

Well the US Govt sent most of the guys and most of the guys were in the military, active or reserve

“(D) is neither a national of a party to the conflict nor a resident of territory controlled by a party to the conflict”

Well, if you are working for your own Govt.. it is clear your not a Mercenary!!

A mercenary is someone who works for a “Foreign Govt”. Most had govt orders and some had Diplomatic Passports. Explain that one!!!

You need to ask yourself why our own Government would allow such a misconception to continue on for so long?

I will tell you why.. remember the Blackwater shooting in September 2007 they so widely publicized? Well if they admitted it was really a diplomatic mission from the State Department that was involved, how would that look diplomatically?? I will tell you.. not very good. So they blame it on an “Evil Private Company” that is scolded and is “Put out of business” so the other countries think we are being tough… then that company opens under another name and all the workers are seamlessly transferred over and continue working.. Hummm

Lets take a closer look.. really what is the difference between a US Soldier and a “Contractor”

1) Volunteered for service: US Soldier (YES) Contractor (YES)

2) Received payment for services: US Soldier (YES) Contractor (YES)
by the US govt directly or indirectly
(“did it for money, or Country”)

3) US Govt provided weapons and
equipment: US Soldier (YES) Contractor (YES)

4) Had to sign a contract to Join: US Soldier (YES) Contractor (YES)

5) Had to have a US Govt Security
Clearance: US Soldier (Not Required) Contractor (YES)

6) Took orders from the US Govt: US Soldier (YES) Contractor (YES)

7) Had to take an Oath and swear
allegiance to the US Govt: US Soldier (YES) Contractor (YES)
Was paid directly or indirectly
by US Tax payers: US Soldier (YES) Contractor (YES)

9) Had a term of enlistment or contract: US Soldier (YES) Contractor (YES)

10) If wounded in a war zone would be
medically evac’d by the US Govt: US Soldier (YES) Contractor (YES)

11) could carry a loaded firearm
anywhere including inside the
US Embassy: US Soldier (Some) Contractor (YES)

12) Provided medical care by the
Military Hospitals inside the
war zone: US Soldier (YES) Contractor (YES)

13) Have full access to Military
APO/AFO mail system: US Soldier (YES) Contractor (YES)

14) Traveled by US Military Aircraft: US Soldier (YES) Contractor (YES)

15) Officially conducted offensive
operations: US Soldier (YES) Contractor (NO)

16) Officially conducted defensive
operations: US Soldier (YES) Contractor (YES)

17) Had access to Military Commissary
PX/BX and health and welfare
privileges: US Soldier (YES) Contractor (YES)

18) Had the ability to detain anyone
suspected of committing a crime or
threat against US or coalition forces: US Soldier (YES) Contractor (YES)

19) Authorized by the US Govt the use
of deadly force: US Soldier (YES) Contractor (YES)

20) Authorized the use of Deadly force
against fellow Americans in the event
a dignitary (Diplomat, Congressman
Senator or Presidential figure) was
in imminent danger: US Soldier (YES) Contractor (YES)

I can go on and on… So can you please tell me the difference?? Most of you out there are probably now realizing that you have been in the ether, and now are beginning to realize it, someone didn’t tell us the truth!!!

Private Military Contract Facilities to Be Inspected

Courthouse News

WASHINGTON (CN) – Defense Department facilities, infrastructure and equipment provided by private military contractors such as KBR, DynCorp, and Fluor Corporation, overseas, are to be inspected for safety and habitability, under rules adopted under the National Defense Authorization Act.
According to the rules, prior to use, the facilities should be “brought into compliance with generally accepted standards for the safety and health of personnel to the maximum extent practicable consistent with the requirements of military operations and the best interests of the agency.”
Contracts will require compliance with the Unified Facilities Criteria 1-200-01 to meet generally accepted standards for fire protection, structural integrity, electrical systems, plumbing, water treatment, waste disposal, and telecommunications networks.
The rules apply to each contract, including task or delivery orders, entered into for the construction, installation, repair, maintenance, or operation of facilities, infrastructure, and equipment for use by Defense Department military or civilian personnel.
The rules were effective in 2010, in temporary form, and have now been adopted permanently.

Please see the original and document here

The DBA’s Exclusive Remedy-A License to Kill? KBR defends it’s actions

KBR is claiming that the DBA’s Exclusive Remedy excuses them from knowingly sending their employees into deadly danger.

And you know what……  legally,  IT DOES

The Exclusive Remedy was intended (Congressional Intent ?) to be a trade off to ensure the injured worker did not have to bring legal action against their employer in order to receive medical and disability benefits.  The employee would “forthwith” receive medical care and partial replacement of the their income, but they and their family members could not bring legal action against the employer, for any reason.

With absolutely no incentive to provide the safest possible working conditions, profit will usually win over the  lives put on the line.  Pleasing the customer, clearing ordnance from under the power lines asap, getting those supplies to the airport, no matter the danger, are the bottom line.

When a casualty occurs the company sends in another warm body.

On the other hand, the casualty normally has to retain an attorney and fight for their very lives  with AIG, CNA and others ( carrier/employer ) for the benefits that were intended to be their part of the trade off.

What happened to the casualties end of the trade off?

This is an ongoing injustice right in the face of Congress, the Department of Labor, the Department of Justice, the Department of State, the Department of Defense, the White House

and frankly it appears that no one gives a damn.

KBR defends its actions

The article entitled “KBR aware convoy in harm’s way” (Page A1, Thursday) does not address some of the paramount issues in the convoy cases. KBR would like to set the record straight.

The events of the April 2004 convoy attack were tragic. We remain mindful of those who lost their loved ones as they were members of the KBR family. However, the assertion that KBR deliberately placed these men in harm’s way or failed to warn of the dangers of working in Iraq is simply false. KBR takes great care in warning and in training employees about the dangers they will face working in a war zone before they depart for Iraq.

It is important to understand the framework in which KBR and other government contractors perform their work in Iraq and Afghanistan. The executive branch and Congress decided many years ago to use civilian contractors to support the military during wartime in order to save costs in peacetime and because they could not recruit enough soldiers to meet all of their logistical needs without resorting to a draft. The Defense Base Act (DBA) was established by Congress as the process to provide coverage to civilians who are injured while supporting the military during war time. Given this exclusive remedy under the DBA, in order for these lawsuits to proceed, the plaintiffs must prove that KBR specifically intended to have the insurgents injure or kill KBR’s employees on the April 2004 convoys. The evidence does not support this allegation.

The e-mails that were the basis of the article do not tell the whole story. In context, the internal communication between KBR and the military evidence the concern KBR had for its employees. Further, the U.S. military alone decided to deploy the military supply convoys at issue here; they decided when, where and how the convoys were to be conducted. These military decisions were made based on the intelligence about insurgent threats that the military compiled through its unique capabilities and resources. Under the Political Question Doctrine and other established principles of law, it is not appropriate for courts — as litigation in these cases would require — to second-guess such wartime decisions and actions by the military that are reserved by the U.S. Constitution to the elected branches of government.

The men and women who work for KBR in Iraq do so at great sacrifice to themselves and their families. It is on their behalf that we will continue to defend the company and its actions. In turn we would hope that the media and others remain mindful that a presentation by the plaintiffs’ lawyers does not accurately reflect all of the facts.

William C. Bodie, president, KBR North American Government and Defense

Labor Dept., Congress Plan Improvements to System to Care for Injured War Contractors

by T. Christian Miller, ProPublica – October 13, 2009 10:15 am EDT

The Labor Department has launched a series of changes to improve the controversial federal system designed to provide medical care and disability benefits to civilian contractors injured in war zones, department officials say.

The agency has stepped up enforcement, set new goals to speed delivery of benefits and begun tracking the performance of the insurance carriers that sell the highly lucrative policies for war zone workers, a senior official said.

The department is “reaching out to the carriers who are on the front lines to get them to perform at a higher level,” said the official, who declined to be named because he was discussing internal issues. The department will “start collecting data so we can show who’s doing well and who’s doing not so well.”

A joint investigation [1] we did with ABC News and the Los Angeles Times showed that civilian contractors’ claims for medical care and disability payments were routinely denied by insurers. Another investigation [2] by us showed that foreign workers often received no payments at all, though taxpayers had paid premiums to cover their injuries.

The Labor Department oversees the system, which requires defense contractors to purchase workers’ compensation insurance for employees in war zones. The insurance giant AIG dominates the market for such policies, which earn as much as 40 percent profit in some cases. Taxpayers have paid more than $1.6 billion for the policies, which are required by a law known as the Defense Base Act.

Labor officials plan to hold informal meetings to settle disputes between insurers and injured contractors  within 14 days of a request; it takes about 45 days now.  But it remains unclear whether speeding the process will quickly resolve disputes. The meetings hold no legal weight, and the insurers and the contractors  are free to ignore recommendations made by Labor Department examiners.

The department will also begin collecting data on how quickly insurers pay out claims. Without that information, the department has been unable to measure their  performance.

Labor and Defense Department officials also met late last month to discuss broader reforms to the system, the Labor official said. The discussions follow a Pentagon report [3] in September that suggested [4] the government provide its own insurance to cover contractors, at a potential annual savings of $250 million. The system has ballooned in size and cost as civilian contractors have flooded into Iraq and Afghanistan.

“We believe there’s a need for reform,” the official said. “DOD has indicated they believe so as well. Now it’s a matter of getting together and figuring out how to build something.”

The Labor Department’s efforts come as legislators consider new legislation to address flaws in the system.

Rep. Elijah Cummings, D-Md., held a hearing on the system this summer and had planned to introduce fixes in a bill this year. But he now plans a larger effort to include the Defense Department suggestions, a major legislative undertaking that will probably not take place until next year, according to a Hill staffer.

“I read the report from the Department of Defense with great interest, and I have directed my staff to alter the bill, taking into account this new information.” Cummings said. “The opportunity to keep our civilian contractors protected, while saving the government hundreds of millions of dollars, is one we cannot ignore.”