:

Operation Inherent Resolve (Iraq) Summary

The distribution of contractors in Iraq by mission category are:

• Logistics/Maintenance 957 (32%)
• Base Support 463 (15.5%)
• Commo Support 150 (5%)
• Construction 329 (11%)
• Security 239 (8%)
• Training 21 (.7%)
• Translator/Interpreter 418 (14%)
• Transportation 194 (6.5%)
• Management/Administrative 151 (5%)
• Other 60 (2%)

Total: 2,992

Operation Inherent Resolve Contractor Posture.

o As of 4th quarter FY 2016, there were approximately 7,700 contractors supporting US government operations in Iraq. About 2,992 of those contractors are in support of DoDfunded contracts.

Operation Freedom’s Sentinel (Afghanistan) Summary*

The distribution of contractors in Afghanistan by mission category are:

• Logistics/Maintenance 11,018 (46.6%)
• Base Support 2,302 (9.2%)
• Commo Support 942 (3.7%)
• Construction 1,607 (6.4%)
• Security 3,053** (12.1%)
• Training 889 (3.5%)
• Translator/Interpreter 1,643 (6.5%)
• Transportation 1,461 (5.8%)
• Medical/Dental/Social Services 105 (.4%)
• Management/Administrative 1,824 (7.3%)
• Other 397 (1.5%)

Total: 25,197

Operation Freedom’s Sentinel Contractor Posture:

o In 4th quarter FY16 there were 25,197 DoD contractors in Afghanistan. The overall contractor footprint in Afghanistan decreased by 4.9% from 3rd quarter FY16.

o Local nationals comprise 40.6% of total contractor force; 14,958 US/TCN remain to redeploy.

o A constant Force Management Level (FML) is leading to a relatively stable number of contractors. Contractor footprint may increase with pending drawdown of FML if requirements are not reduced.

As of 4th quarter FY 2016, USCENTCOM reports the following distribution of PSCs in Afghanistan:

In Afghanistan, the Afghanistan Public Protection Force (APPF) has primary responsibility for security functions outside of U.S. and NATO facilities and static security functions at some shared military facilities. The APPF is an organization under the Ministry of Interior and the US Government engages APPF support through Allied Cross Servicing Agreements. Since August 2015, U.S. and NATO forces are permitted to contract with Private Security Companies to safeguard their Military, Civilians and Contractors that conduct official and contracted tasks both on and outside of US and NATO agreed installations. U.S. Forces-Afghanistan and Operation Resolute Support staff are developing contract vehicles to enable use of these PSCs while remaining in strict adherence to Afghan law. No contracts have been let under this new authorization.

---

USCENTCOM OCS Integration Cell (OCSIC) (FORWARD) assisted with the Services Acquisition Workshop (SAW) and in designating a Functional Services Manager (FSM) for the AOR-wide Security Support Services acquisition. The OCSIC hosted a team from OSD to discuss data and how the current systems and associated policy could be adjusted to provide more actionable information to decision makers. Other significant accomplishments include: ensured acquisition portfolio continuity throughout the CJTF Relief In Place between the Army's III and XVIII Airborne Corps; established goals and objectives to give component OCSICs a clear path to success; completed a theater Contractor Management Plan; provided input to Whole of Government working group; and collected data for OCS posture planning exercise.

CJTF OPERATION INHERENT RESOLVE (OIR). The CJTF headquarters has rotated from III Corps to XVIII Airborne Corps (ABC). Extensive OCS training was conducted for the XVIII ABN Corps team prior to their deployment in order to prepare them to assume their OCS synchronization responsibilities. RIP/TOA occurred between incoming and outgoing CJTF OIR OCSIC, with JCASO Mission Support Team representatives confirming the XVIII ABC OCSIC was prepared to assume its OCS mission. The 408th CSB continues to acts as Lead Service for Contracting (LSC) for this CJOA on behalf of ARCENT.

OPERATION FREEDOM'S SENTINEL (OFS). The USFOR-A OCSIC continues to be sourced primarily through the Civilian Expeditionary Workforce (CEW) program in support of its mission of synchronizing contract support on behalf of the JTF. The use of civilians has provided continuity to USFOR-A as the National Support Element has transitioned between the 10th MTN DIV and 1st CAV DIV. Expeditionary Contracting Command-AFG (ECC-A) on behalf of USARCENT continues to provide direct theater support contracting to USFOR-A through the Lead Service for Contracting (LSC) construct. Through different iterations of downsizing, ECC-A has downsized commensurate to the mission. ECC-A continues to be sourced by a US Army Contracting Support Brigade (CSB) with the latest RIP/TOA occurring between the 410th and the 419th CSB. The 419th will continue to act as the LSC until the next CSB is identified and deployed.

---

IMPROVEMENTS TO MANAGEMENT AND OVERSIGHT OF DOD CONTRACTORS

Operational Contract Support (OCS) Functional Capabilities Integration Board (FCIB). This senior executive-level governance forum, chartered by the Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition, Technology, and Logistics in March 2010, provides strategic leadership to multiple stakeholders working to institutionalize OCS. Co-Chaired by the Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense for Program Support and Vice Director for Logistics, Joint Staff J4, the FCIB convenes quarterly or as required. Key initiatives reviewed by the Board in 4th quarter FY16 include: DLA Joint Contingency Acquisition Support Office (JCASO) Capability, DoD OCS policy and Joint doctrine planned revisions and status of efforts to develop a Joint OCS Doctrine, Organization Training, Materiel, Leadership, Personnel, Facilities (DOTMLPF) Change Recommendation Request (DCR). This joint OCS DCR, currently under development, will be submitted for Joint Requirements Oversight Council (JROC) review and approval in FY17. It will define DoD solutions address critical OCS capability gaps. The next quarterly OCS FCIB meeting will be held on November 22, 2016.

FY17-20 DoD OCS Action Plan. On September 27, 2016, the Office of the Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense (Program Support), published the DoD FY17-20 OCS Action Plan. This updated plan, endorsed by the OCS FCIB, includes 36 key strategic tasks; outlines 14 key tasks to be realigned and addressed in the new Joint OCS DCR; a new Joint Staff J4 sponsored annex with 64 sub-tasks across three capability gaps and new tasks to close a “requirements development” gap based on feedback from the 2015 OCS Senior Leader Summit. This is the third iteration of the Department’s roadmap for OCS capability integration.

U.S. Marine Corps OCS Update. During 4th quarter FY16, Headquarters U.S. Marine Corps completed 3 significant actions to institutionalize OCS: 1) Defined OCS as an essential Warfighting capability by adding it onto the Marine Corps Task list (MCTL). The addition of OCS to the MCTL provides Marine Corps units the foundation and ability to establish mission essential tasks (METs) to measure and report OCS mission readiness. 2) Published a Marine Corps Order on the manning, equipping and training of the OCS capability. 3) Developed an OCS career progression plan and reclassified two existing Military Occupational Specialties to establish an OCS Specialist and OCS Officer as a new professional job series with OCS specific responsibilities to include education and training requirements.

Defense Standards for Security Services.

o Pursuant to Section 833 of the FY2011 NDAA, compliance with American National Standard ANSI PSC.1-2012, “Quality Management Standard for Private Security Company Operations” is required in all DoD contracts for private security services. The requirements and guidance of this standard implement all PSC relevant provisions of US law, Defense Directives and instructions, and promote consistency with international agreements. Evidence of compliance with this standard will facilitate identifying technically acceptable/best value contractors; expedite contract award; mitigate risk of delay of services due to contract award protests; and mitigate risk of contractor non-performance or misconduct in critical early phases of contingency operations. The United Kingdom also requires compliance with this ANSI PSC standard. This standard is not beginning its ANSI required 5-year review and revision.

o An international (ISO) version of this standard was published by ISO in September 2015 as ISO 18788-2015. This standard enables acceptance of the standards in use by the United States and the United Kingdom, in countries where the use of an American National Standard is not feasible. The ISO version of the standard improves competition and manages risk in operational environments which will include PSCs not under the direct control of US or coalition forces. PSCs achieving independent certification to the ISO standard are being given concurrent certification to the ANSI PSC standard. DFARS 52.225-7039 recognized the ISO standard as an acceptable alternative to the ANSI standard.

o 32 PSCs from 8 different countries have achieved independent third party certification to one or both of these standards. Another 19 PSCs from 11 countries are known to have begun the certification process.

Joint Contingency Acquisition Support Office (JCASO). Planning, implementation, and oversight of OCS are Commanders' responsibilities and are essential to establishing a strategy for managing contractors on the battlefield as part of the DoD Total Force. JCASO provides the Combatant Commands a joint enabling capability to integrate, coordinate and synchronize OCS during peacetime, contingency operations, and post-conflict operations. JCASO is an essential part of DLA's combat support agency (CSA) role to support the mission objectives of the combatant commands, the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Title 10 responsibilities, as well as the Office of the Secretary of Defense for OCS policy development and implementation. 4QFY16 JCASO engagements include:

Deployments:

o Deployed 2-member team during the CJTF OIR RIP/TOA for three weeks in August 2016 to provide OCS guidance, assistance, and training as the XVIII Airborne Corps assumed responsibilities from III Corps.

Exercises:

o Provided OCS support for nine (9) joint exercises (OCSJX-17, AUSTERE CHALLENGE, INTERNAL LOOK, VIGILANT SHIELD, INTEGRATED ADVANCE, KEY RESOLVE, PANAMAX, ULCHI FREEDOM GUARDIAN and JUDICIOUS RESPONSE). Support includes: participation in planning events, development of training objectives & MSELs, academic instruction and exercise execution.

JCASO OCS Planners. Sixteen (16) JCASO OCS planners are allocated among the Geographic Combatant Commands and USSOCOM to assist commanders in identifying gaps where a contracted support capability may be required. Planners integrate contracted support into operational plans and synchronize requirements with subordinate commands, the Military Departments, Defense Agencies, other USG Agencies, and coalition partners. The planners have been instrumental in integrating OCS into Combatant Command plans as well as training and exercises. Based on demonstrated need for additional OCS planning capability in USPACOM, JCASO also established OCS planners at forward locations in USFK and USFJ.

Operational Contract Support (OCS) Learning Framework. The Department continues to make progress on the Secretary’s and the Chairman's vision for OCS education and training. Several parallel efforts are integrating OCS into a holistic learning framework (education, individual and collective training, exercises, and lessons learned) that leverages the Chairman’s joint training system and is aimed primarily at non-acquisition personnel.

o U.S. Army. The new TRADOC Capability Manager office for PCS (TCM-OCS) achieved initial operational capability on 1 August 2016.

o OCS in Joint Professional Military Education (JPME). The Joint Staff (J7) revised CJCSI 1800.01E, “Officer Professional Military Education Policy (OPMEP)” on 29 May 2015 to include 11 specific OCS learning areas for three of the five PME/JPME levels (IAW 10 USC § 2151) which reach officers in the grades of O-4 to O-9. Joint Staff (J4) OCS Division (OCSD) is completing work on Version 3.0 of the OCS Curriculum Development Guide (CDG), which offers JPME institutions guidance and suggested content based on the OPMEP learning areas. The Joint Staff (J4) participates annually in the Joint Faculty Education Conference and engages with the Joint Logistics Faculty Development Working Group to highlight OCS developments. Efforts are also underway with the Naval PostGraduate School to develop OCS case studies as additional teaching tools.

o Lessons Learned. The Joint Staff (J4), in collaboration with DLA JCASO, developed a Joint OCS Lessons Learned (JOLL) guide to integrate OCS lessons learned efforts across DoD components. The JOLL guide leverages the Joint Lessons Learned Information System (JLLIS) and the Chairman’s Joint Lessons Learned Program (JLLP). The JOLL includes procedures for collecting, analyzing, and processing OCS lessons and best practices; and defines relationships and responsibilities of stakeholders to act upon validated lessons. In October 2015, the Joint Staff (J4) established OCS Communities of Practice (COPs) in JLLIS to share and manage OCS lessons and best practices. In February 2016, the FCIB approved the draft JOLL guide and designated the Joint Staff (J4) as the OCS Enterprise Lesson Manager. The JOLL guide will be completed and distributed in October.

o Exercises. OCS Joint Exercise-16, 13 March – 8 April 2016 at Fort Bliss, Texas, brought together 500 trainees from the Active and Reserve forces, the National Guard, all Services, U.S. Army South, the 1st Armored Division, the United Kingdom, Chile and Brazil as multinational partner observers. It trained and assessed individual skills and unit OCS capabilities based on a decisive action and stability operations scenario in support U.S. Southern Command. The Joint Staff (J-4) is providing OCS training expertise to U.S. Africa Command to assist with incorporating OCS training objectives and content into JUDICIOUS RESPONSE 17 (JR-17) in late Fall 2016. JR-17 is a command post exercise that integrates the capabilities and functions of its Army Service component, Combined/Joint Task Forces formed by the 82nd AB and 2nd MEB, the Interagency, and multi-national partners to address selected U.S. Africa Command (USAFRICOM) missions. The J-4 developed and deployed a collective training module, a four-day “OCS Equities during Crisis Action Planning (CAP)” to more than 40 individuals in support of JR-17. The J4 is also incorporating OCS into AGILE-17, a biennial, J4-led, logistics-focused wargame series held in CONUS to operationalize and refine logistics concepts in support of leadership and strategy development.

o Collective and Staff Training. The Chairman’s Joint Training Guidance Notice (CJCSN 3500.01) provides annual guidance to all DOD Components for planning, executing, and assessing joint training. It includes High Interest Training Issues (HITIs), which are specialinterest items that CCDRs should consider for emphasis in their training and exercise programs. OCS requirements are specifically included in the logistics HITI of the 2017- 2020 Guidance on the Chairman’s desk for signature.

o Universal Joint Tasks & Joint OCS Training and Assessment Guide. The Joint Staff (J4) published the Joint OCS Training and Assessments (JOTA) Guide v. 1.0 on 3 May 2016. It recommends tasks, standards, and measures aligned to the four primary OCS UJTs and assists planners in integrating OCS into joint training and exercises to help ensure realistic readiness assessments for OCS.

o Individual Training. In May 2015, the Joint OCS Essentials for Commanders & Staff (JOECS) course was established on the Joint Knowledge Online (JKO) web portal. The course reflects doctrinal changes in Joint Publication (JP) 4-10 and will be redesigned in FY17 as a two part introductory level online course. The Joint Staff (J4) OCSD sponsored Joint OCS Planning and Execution Course (JOPEC) is taught at every geographic combatant commands (GCCs) via mobile training teams (MTTs). During FY16 total of 741 students completed the joint certified course. In FY17, due to demand, the Joint Staff (J4) is forecasting 10 course offerings with a total capacity of 300 students. Feedback continues to be outstanding and interactions resulting from the JOPEC MTTs provide critical feedback for all OCS joint capability development efforts. The Joint Staff J4 continues to explore courses of action to for institutionalize or integrate JOPEC into an existing DoD professional military education institution. In FY16 the Army Logistics University (ALU) trained more than 840 students on contract support integration and contractor management functions, marking the most productive year to date. In addition, the Army's Command and General Staff College updated its curriculum to establish OCS as a double elective course. ALU also trains approximately 1,200 contracting officer representatives annually via resident and MTT courses.

OCS Planning. Using the Chairman of Joint Chiefs of Staff Manual (CJCSM) 3130.03, Adaptive Planning and Execution (APEX) Planning Formats and Guidance, the Combatant Commands continue to document and expand their OCS planning efforts. The Joint Staff (J4) has developed a separate manual, CJCSM 4301.01A, Planning OCS, to assist OCS planners by providing tools, techniques, and guidance for integrating OCS into established planning processes. Staffing is complete. The Joint Staff J4 also reviews combatant command contingency and operational plans as a member of the Joint Planning Execution Community (JPEC). The most recent Logistics Supplement to the Joint Strategic Capabilities Plan increases the level of planning detail associated with OCS.

OCS Reporting. The Joint Staff J4-led OCS reporting working group (RWG)—with members from OSD, Services, Agencies, and CCMDs—has identified best practices to improve OCS reporting. Benchmarks include identifying CCMD requirements and sources for OCS capabilities, integrating OCS into Service Universal Task Lists, informing Service and Agency development and reporting on OCS Enablers, and synchronizing collaboration. Implementation of best practices will enable visibility of OCS capabilities, improve OCS Readiness and Risk reporting, and facilitate global integration in planning and reporting OCS.

OCS Human Capital Strategy. OCS Human Capital study recommendations are under development by the RAND Corporation. Final report out briefs to DoD Senior Leaders and stake holder engagement sessions are planned and the final report completion date is 2nd Qtr FY17.

OCS Mission Integrator (OMI) Demonstration. The JS J4 partnered with U.S Pacific Command (USPACOM) to conduct a three-year demonstration to assess the OMI's performance under operational conditions. The OMI is an advanced integration cell described in the OCS Joint Concept and informs current and future OCS force development. Based on the OMI's success and contributions, the USPACOM J4 is working to secure resources in the FY 18 Program Objective Memorandum process to establish an enduring OMI capability.

---

“Through constantly shifting theories, McBride has dragged this languishing case along long after discovery — including the deposition testimony of the U.S. Army’s own Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 30(b)(6) witnesses — made clear that KBR’s recreation-center headcounts were immaterial,” the brief said.

The companies urged the court to reject McBride’s appeal without oral argument, citing years of litigation and high cost of its defense. In addition, the companies pointed out that only KBR Services is the proper defendant in the case, and the litigation has put a substantial burden on the other companies involved.

“The time has come to finally close the book on this costly litigation, which, as the district court noted, has forced KBR to spend ‘a king’s ransom’ defending against baseless claims,” the brief said.

McBride’s appeal argued that the judge did not apply a two-prong test, laid out in U.S. v. Science Applications International Corp., in which a court weighs whether adherence to contractual requirements was either a precondition for payment or material to payment.

Had U.S. District Judge Frederick J. Scullin Jr. used this test, he would have found that contract clauses made clear that contract adherence was a condition for KBR’s payment, she said. In addition, a government contracting officer has said officials “may not have paid” had they known KBR violated its contractual obligations, McBride said.

KBR did not meet a contractual obligation related to keeping sufficient records of its staffing levels at a morale, welfare and recreation center for Marines in Iraq, and therefore filed false claims by not disclosing this when it billed the government for payment, according to McBride.

An attorney for KBR has said that the contractor did not inflate its staffing numbers and did not use these figures as a basis for its billing. Thursday’s brief built on that argument, saying that contracting officials based their staffing for billing on the overall population of the base, not any measure of the use of the facility.

In a statement from counsel John Elwood, KBR defended its record in Iraq, saying it was proud of the work that it had done on behalf of the military and that it hoped the DC Circuit would affirm Judge Scullin’s decision.

“The district court correctly held that the alleged inflation of headcounts at KBR-run recreation centers in Iraq was immaterial to government payment decisions and thus cannot give rise to False Claims Act liability. Relator Julie McBride’s appeal seeks to set aside that well-reasoned decision,” the statement said.

McBride, along with two former KBR employees, had filed a qui tam suit against KBR, then-parent Halliburton Co. and several units of the companies in April 2005, alleging violations of the FCA, retaliation, and breach of employment contract.

In 2001, KBR had been awarded a contract to carry out the third round of the U.S. Department of Defense’s Logistics Civil Augmentation Program in support of the global war on terror. According to the suit, the defendants overbilled the government on one of the task orders under the multibillion-dollar contract, which allowed KBR to bill the government for a base fee, plus a potential performance fee and costs.

In October 2015, Judge Scullin declined to reconsider his summary judgment grant to KBR, saying he already wrestled with the case law and was unconvinced by McBride’s arguments there was sufficient evidence to support claims against the contractor.