Private Security Guarding US Military Bases ???

Status
Not open for further replies.

David

Member
Joined
Dec 25, 2002
Messages
804
Location
USA
I think this is not such a good idea, especially in our post 9/11 world.

Here is the link to the story:

Army Turns to Private Guards

Thu Aug 12, 7:55 AM ET

By T. Christian Miller Times Staff Writer

WASHINGTON — Stretched thin by troop deployments in Iraq (news - web sites) and Afghanistan (news - web sites) and security needs at home, the Army has resorted to hiring private security guards to help protect dozens of American military bases.

To date, more than 4,300 private security officers have been put to work at 50 Army installations in the United States, according to Army documents obtained by The Times.


The work was awarded to four firms — two of which got the contracts without having to bid competitively. The contracts are worth as much as $1.24 billion.


The Army says the maneuver lets it free up more soldiers for military duty while quickly putting private guards in place to meet the need for additional security since the Sept. 11 attacks.


But the Army's action has drawn criticism on two grounds: that it compromises domestic military security, and that it amounts to abuse of a law intended to aid impoverished Alaska Natives.


Two five-year contracts worth as much as $1 billion went to two small Alaska Native firms with little previous security experience. The firms, which operate under special contracting laws enabling them to avoid competitive bidding, subcontracted part of the work to two of the country's largest security firms: Wackenhut Services Inc. and Vance Federal Security Services.


Thirty-six bases are covered by the Alaska Native contracts — including three in California: Ft. Irwin, the Sierra Army Depot and the Presidio of Monterey.


"I'm concerned about the protection of our military facilities," said Rep. Lane Evans (news, bio, voting record), an Illinois Democrat who serves on the House Armed Services Committee and has called for hearings on the contracts.


"Some of these installations house chemical weapons and intelligence materials and should not be compromised with questionable contracting processes and poor security."


Democrats, watchdog groups and independent contracting experts said that the Army's contracting arrangement with the Alaska Native firms amounted to a back-door deal to send taxpayer dollars to Wackenhut and Vance, which lost out the only time they faced open competition against other companies for the security contracts.


"It's a total abuse of the intent of the law," said Danielle Brian, the executive director of the Program on Government Oversight, a watchdog group. "The law was designed to benefit companies that need a special boost. At the end of the day, if Wackenhut is benefiting, it's just a blatant abuse of the system."


The move is part of a larger trend of hiring private contractors to do many jobs previously done by the military. Since the war in Iraq, the shift toward private contractors has accelerated. Private companies now do everything from washing soldiers' laundry to protecting senior American officials from attack.


At Army bases in the United States, officials said that security requirements arising from the Sept. 11 attacks had forced them to use thousands of active duty and reserve units to set up additional patrols and guard posts.


Defense officials saw private security guards as a way to perform the additional security duties, free up more soldiers to fight in the field and make it possible for reserve units to return home when their service commitments expired.


Defense Department officials first had to lobby Congress to lift a nearly 2-decade-old federal ban on hiring private security guards at military bases. The ban was enacted after government unions said they feared losing nonmilitary Defense Department guard jobs to private companies.


Army officials said that by the time Congress acted, they didn't have enough time to mount a full and open bidding competition for the work.


The ability to award contracts to Alaska Native firms without any competition enabled the Army to quickly install private security guards. The Army decided in July 2003 to issue contracts to two firms, each with a cap of $500 million over five years.

Wackenhut's partner is the Alaska Native firm Alutiiq Security and Technology, based in Chesapeake, Va. The other Alaska native firm, Chenega Technical Products, based in Panama City, Fla., subcontracted to Vance.

At about the same time it awarded the Alaska Native contracts, the Army also decided to issue two more contracts to provide base security through typical open competition. The Army said it had more time for the second round of contracts, which were awarded in September 2003.

In that competition, Wackenhut and Vance entered the bidding but lost to other companies, the Army documents showed.

The two winning companies, Coastal International of South Carolina and Akal Security of New Mexico, were given $74 million worth of contracts to guard 12 bases.

The Army said that the private guards have performed well, and were trained to the same standards as Defense Department civilian guards, who work at Army bases along with military police officers.

"The overall performance of the [security guard program] has been excellent and to the standards of the contract," the Army said in a written response to questions from The Times.

The private security firms also dismissed the complaints.

Wackenhut said the criticisms were part of a labor battle against the company involving one of the country's largest service unions, Service Employees International Union, which wanted to unionize Wackenhut guards.

Alutiiq said its performance rating justified the Army's decision.

The firm's previous security experience consisted of fielding a 120-man private police force for Kwajalein Atoll, a missile test site in the South Pacific.

"We are paying [our guards] a little higher. But we're getting quality performance as a result. You get what you pay for," said Bruce Swagler, the head of Alutiiq's security program. "Quality-wise and performance-wise, as far as the government is concerned, we're doing a great job."

After hearing about the Army's interest in hiring private security guards, company officials said Alutiiq and Wackenhut pitched their partnership: Alutiiq provided the contracting speed, and Wackenhut provided the experience. The two firms jointly recruit the guards, 51% of whom become Alutiiq employees and 49% Wackenhut employees as set out in the contract.

Alutiiq said that as far as it knew, one of its guards was an Alaska Native.

"When it was clear that the Army needed to do something and do it quickly, we believed it was headed toward Alaska Native corporations,"' said James L. Long, the president and chief executive of Wackenhut Services, a subsidiary of Wackenhut. "We made it clear to the Army that we had a relationship with Alutiiq and Alutiiq made sure that the Army knew they had a relationship with Wackenhut."

Alaska Native corporations — sometimes called "Stevens Act" corporations because the firms were strongly supported by Sen. Ted Stevens (news, bio, voting record), the Alaska Republican who headed the chamber's Appropriations Committee — were created in 1971 as part of a settlement of land claims with Alaskan tribal groups.

Small businesses belonging to such corporations can receive no-bid contracts of unlimited value, an advantage not enjoyed by other types of businesses. And though Alaska Natives must own the company, tribal members do not have to do any of the work, meaning the firms can subcontract work to other companies.

The reasoning was that profit generated by the firms returned to impoverished Alaskan tribes, which could use the money to pay dividends or set up scholarship funds.

Although dividends in some years have been more than $50,000 per shareholder, they more typically amount to a few thousand dollars.

The military guard contracts awarded to Alutiiq and Wackenhut so far total $90.4 million to guard 16 bases, while Chenega and Vance have received contracts worth $89.9 million to guard 20 bases.

Because Wackenhut and Vance lost to other companies when faced with competitive bidding, contracting expert groups questioned whether the Army was paying too much for the no-bid contracts.

Steven Schooner, a contracting expert at George Washington University's Law School, said the Army's actions showed a lack of planning.

"If it's true that [Alaska Native corporations] are getting contracts of staggering volumes solely for the purpose of avoiding competition or being a funnel to the same firms that should be otherwise competing for the work … it's offensive," Schooner said. "It's ridiculous."

Unions and watchdog groups have raised concerns about Wackenhut's and Vance's performance on other contracts.

Unions have attacked Vance for acting aggressively against striking workers in situations where the company has been hired to protect factories and work sites.

Wackenhut has been accused by unions and government officials of allowing lapses in security at the nation's nuclear plants, many of which employ Wackenhut guards.

A Department of Energy (news - web sites) report this year by the inspector general said current and former security guards at Oak Ridge nuclear weapons complex had complained that Wackenhut manipulated the results of drills by altering testing equipment and passing information to low-ranking guards prior to simulated attacks.

"It seems really irresponsible to have Wackenhut, which was found to have cheated on government security tests, doing security work at U.S. military bases," said Stephen Lerner, the director of the security division at the Service Employees International Union, which maintains a website critical of Wackenhut.

"This isn't about mowing the lawn. This is about guarding places that are potential terrorist targets."

Wackenhut defended its performance, noting that it continued to receive work from the government. It also said that the inspector general's criticisms were directed more at the Department of Energy than at Wackenhut.

"We do what we're told to do. We do what we're contracted to do," Long said.
******
:what: :uhoh: :what:
 
There was an Ad in the Oklahoman Newspaper for a security company looking for people to possibly work at Tinker Air Force Base here near OKC. They were wanting people with past military, security, or law enforcement experiance.
 
Kings Bay Naval Base, in Georgia has private security all over.
 
Old news. Note the date on the story below.

Good idea? Well, they pay more attention than the MPs used to IMHO, and I see 'em every working day. And the MPs are still around if the contractors need backup. Worth the cost? Darned if I know.

Hey, the active Army is overextended, and hurting for bodies to fill jobs all over. Been a while since I've seen the numbers but in the first week of this month there were about 125,000 Army reserve component people on active duty to help fill in the gap.

It's the current reality, like it or not... .

lpl/nc

=============
http://www.wral.com/fayettevillenews/2535768/detail.html

Private Guards To Handle Checkpoint Security At Fort Bragg
Security Guards To Replace MPs At Checkpoints

POSTED: 6:25 p.m. EDT October 6, 2003
UPDATED: 6:27 p.m. EDT October 6, 2003

FORT BRAGG, N.C. -- By the end of the month, military police at Fort Bragg plan to have private security guards man the gates instead of soldiers.
FORT BRAGG, N.C. --


"They're trained in the searching of a vehicle, searching of an individual, detention and apprehension of an individual," said Richard McKinney, of Alutiiq Security & Technologies.

Fort Bragg is not the first Army post to make the switch. Forts Meyer, McNair and Sam Houston have all put security in the hands of security guards. But, some soldiers are still surprised.

"They're armed. They're trained. We're confident they'll provide the same level of security as the soldiers," said Lt. Don Connelly.

"If the Army says, 'Hey, you know, these guys are going to do the job,' then I believe it," soldier Spc. Brittany Newton said.

The security guards are scheduled to work alongside military police for another few weeks until MPs feel they are ready to be on their own.
 
Nothing at all new here

For almost 30 years, OMB Circular A-76 has REQUIRED the substitution of contract service personnel for civil servants and/or uniformed members. This has been frequently done for allegedly low-technology areas including janitorial services, security operations (gate guards), motor pools, and so forth. While there are some exceptions (for example, bases with special weapons capabilities), this is a proven way to reduce annual, taxpayer-borne Operations and Maintenance costs. Whether this is truly wise is open to your deliberation, however it certainly has saved billons of dollars. Incidentally, many of the contact employees in selected fields such as security and public works are retired Federal annuitants (both military and civil service).
 
ha ha ha

That's a laugh.
You only need any qualifications if you want some supervisory position. To be the guy at the gate you just need a heartbeat.
C-
 
Wackenhut's partner is the Alaska Native firm Alutiiq Security and Technology, based in Chesapeake, Va. The other Alaska native firm, Chenega Technical Products, based in Panama City, Fla., subcontracted to Vance.

:scrutiny: :scrutiny: :scrutiny:
 
On the plus side of the argument,
You don't have to worry as much about a fake "Officer" trying to intimidate or bully his way past a civilian guard.
If you give them attitude, you get attitude right back. :neener:

On the negative side,
With their low pay, they don't seem to give much of a rat's behind about much of anything except getting free stuff from every food and soda vendor trying to get on base. (Yup, I've watched 'em do it.):rolleyes:

We've had them on our base for the last few months.
They have good points and bad points.
 
They were doing it on some bases back during my military time in the 70s and 80s. They aren't necessarily worse or better than having some E1-E3 straight out of bootcamp playing gate guard with absolutely no training or interest in the task, which they also used to do at that time.
 
A fair number of military and other fed agencies have done this for quite a while. I'm not certain there is a whole lot of difference between a 20 year old enlisted man and a 20 year old wackenhut guard checking passes at a gate, or waiting to check passes at a gate, or at a gate where a long time ago people actually went through, and so forth. Frankly, putting cutting edge security at every single installation would be cost-prohibitive and a waste. Nukes are one thing, a warehouse full of tires for 2.5 ton trucks is another, though thinking about it a thief could probably sell those tires to a recapper a lot more easily than fissionable material.

I am sure there are folks from Wackenhut on the board, I thought they were working DOE and USAF installations out west since forever.
 
Thats been going on for quite a while.

Here in AZ we have Army National Guard doing gate duty since 9-11. Some guys have been here for over a year.

Heck, I remember when Ft. Lewis in WA was open post, ie no guards. That was back in 91. Wont ever see that again Im sure.
 
Ft. Hood, Tx.has had private security for several months now. I think the security firm is New Mexico based. Ft. Hood is a very large post and they have at least 10-15 guards with G23's at each checkpoint/gate and their are at least 10 of them. Most of the guards were hired from the local area and had very little security experiance prior to employment. I asked one of them what the starting pay was and she said that it started at $13.75hr DOE.

Thanks
Jason:cool:
 
Ft. Hood, Tx.has had private security for several months now. I think the security firm is New Mexico based. Ft. Hood is a very large post and they have at least 10-15 guards with G23's at each checkpoint/gate and their are at least 10 of them. Most of the guards were hired from the local area and had very little security experiance prior to employment. I asked one of them what the starting pay was and she said that it started at $13.75hr DOE.

Thanks
Jason:cool:
 
Due to lacking force strength and needed expertise, private security is often the only route left.

I mean BlackWater was sending out e-mails a half year prior to the Iraq invasion. I have a bit more of a problem with contract civilians in a war zone...but that's been going on forever too.

Remember those Navy Seal videos? The guy that did them was one of the guys that got hung on that bridge in Iraq.
 
I believe he's talking about the Red Cell videos, from the 80s. A special unit of SEALS who went around to various naval installations, and tried various ways of getting on base to cause simulated terrorist style havok. They were disbanded when it became painfully obvious how insecure our bases really were. To many politically connected pee-pees getting spanked.

As for contracted out gate guards, my current base doesn't have any. They are all MAs or ASF types. 32nd St. Naval Station used to have DoD civilian police manning the gates, with ASF in support. I dunno if they are still there. There was talk of letting them all go in 1998 or so, when I left for Japan.

Over in Japan, we had a combination of Japanese and US Military guys. The Japanese guys all had flap holsters on, without anything in them. I used to get such a kick out of that.
 
His name was Scott Helvenston.

He was on the show reality show Combat Missions and he made a few SEAL related physical fitness videos.

He was also Demi Moore's trainer and instructor for G.I. Jane.
 
Armed private secutity on US soil? Meh, no biggie.

When I was in Okinawa in 1994/5, there were Japanese nationals guarding the gates at several installations. They had holsters, but no pistol. If you had round eyes and some greenish card (American Express worked), you were in. Camp Gonzalves had no security of any kind (if you know where it is, you probably know why).
 
The regular gate guards at my Air Guard base in the late 80's (except for drill weekends) were civilian state employees, who also happened to be licensed as state peace officers.

I have no problem at all with doing this, or even contracting it out, if (A big "if") the contracts are awarded with strict requirements regarding background/training/pay, and final say over security procedures at the site be a civilian/military government employee.

For 15 or 16 dollars an hour (and I'm using Texas wages as an example) you can hire private security that is as competent as an Army PFC fresh out of MP school, and a heck of a lot more mature, and less likely to be working with a hangover - probably at a decent savings to Uncle Sam. The same fellow might not be able to keep up with the PFC on a battlefield, but guarding a facility is another matter altogether.

p.s. For the same amount of money you can also hire a bunch of jokers who'll sleep on the job and steal you blind, if you don't have someone there to put the proverbial boot in their backside.
 
Ha. Most roving watch standers I knew in the military took their 0000-0400 watch as an oportunity to snoop around and (sometimes) swipe stuff.
A real case of the fox guarding the henhouse.

I don't know that private guards would be any better... but they almost for sure couldn't be much worse.
 
things like this make me mad. not the private security gaurds, we had them at Fort Detrick along with DOD police and here in Korea its Koreans at the gates(ok that kind of scares me). But what makes me mad is the same people who want to cut military spending and reduce the size of the force are b!tching about having to hire gaurds.
 
Heck, I remember when Ft. Lewis in WA was open post, ie no guards. That was back in 91. Wont ever see that again Im sure.

They did that at NOB Norfolk for a while. It was really weird (and struck me as quite stupid) to be able to drive right through the main gate and down to the carrier piers.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top