Afghanistan Summary

• The distribution of contractors in Afghanistan by mission category are:

Base Support: 12,962 (12%)
Commo Support: 3,212 ( 3%)
Construction: 9,714 ( 9%)
Logistics/Maintenance: 23,723 (22%)
Security: 17,993 (18%)
Training: 3,253 ( 3%)
Translator/Interpreter: 7,540 ( 7%)
Transportation: 6,450 ( 6%)
Other* 22,949 (20%)

Total: 107,796 still in Afghanistan 

*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 107.8K DoD contractors in Afghanistan. The overall contractor footprint in Afghanistan decreased by 2.4% from 1st quarter FY13.
• The contractor to military ratio in Afghanistan is 1.43 to 1 (based on 75.5K military as of March 6, 2013). While the military footprint was reduced over the last quarter, the contractor footprint remained relatively constant due to temporary and time-limited increases in transportation, translators and support services. There will be substantial contractor reductions over this fiscal year, as a result of base closures, the return to expeditionary standards, and transition of security to the APPF.
• Local Nationals currently make up 37.4% 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 12.1K. There will be substantial contractor reductions in 2013 reflecting consolidation of sites, completion of ongoing activity, and increased utilization of host country service and labor.
• 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

• Private security contractors perform personal security, convoy security, and static security missions. Not all private security contractor personnel are armed.
• USCENTCOM reports, as of 2nd quarter FY 2013, the following distribution of private security contractors in Afghanistan and Iraq:

• In Afghanistan, training of guards for the Afghan Public Protection Force is ongoing.  The transition from PSCs to the use of the APPF continues in accordance with Presidential Decree 62.  The original intent was for all convoy and development contracts to transition by 20 March 2012 however, this timeline has been extended to enable the APPF to come to full operational  capability.  The extended bridging strategy sequences the implementation of APPF provided security through the end of December 2014.

General Conditions Regarding Contracts and Contractor Personnel 

• The Combatant Commander has provided specific guidance on arming contractor personnel and private security contractors in the USCENTCOM AOR through a series of Fragmentary Orders (FRAGOs) and other authoritative guidance, including the following:

• Private security contractor personnel are not authorized to participate in offensive operations and must comply with specific USCENTCOM Rules for the Use of Force (RUF).  Under these RUF, private security contractor personnel are authorized to use deadly force only when necessary in:  self-defense, defense of facilities / persons as specified in their contract; prevention of life-threatening acts directed against civilians; or defense of Coalition-approved property specified within their contract.

• Private security contractor personnel in Afghanistan and Iraq must be properly licensed to carry arms in accordance with host nation law and must receive USCENTCOM / Coalition Forces’ approval of their operations.  DoD contractor personnel armed by DoD authority must report any use of force, including the firing of a weapon.  This requirement and the required information to be submitted are identified within the terms of the contract,  USFOR-A OPLAN 09-01, and Office of Security Cooperation-Iraq (OSC-I) policy.

Improvements to Management and Oversight of DoD Contractors 

• Operational Contract Support Drawdown Cell (OCSDC). The United States Forces-Afghanistan Operational Contract Support Drawdown Cell (OCSDC) was stood up in August 2012 with a mission to manage the programmatic drawdown of contracts, the contractor workforce and associated equipment in the Combined Joint Operations Area-Afghanistan.  This includes synchronizing and aligning the contractor drawdown in coordination with base closures.  Since August 2012, the OCSDC has published a Concept of Operations (CONOPS) and executed the first phase of contractor drawdown, which focuses on reducing the footprint of Afghanistan's largest DoD contract, the Logistics Civil Augmentation Program (LOGCAP).  Working in partnership with Army Materiel Command and the 1st Theater Sustainment Command (1st TSC), the Cell expects to achieve a 25% reduction in LOGCAP personnel and 30% reduction in LOGCAP equipment by 1 May 2013.

• CENTCOM Joint Theater Support Contracting Command (C-JTSCC).  C-JTSCC has centralized oversight and authority to ensure all contracts executed in Afghanistan are visible and in compliance with contracting policy and procedures. C-JTSCC headquarters has been re-located to Afghanistan with a small support staff remaining in Qatar and facilitates broader theater contracting oversight functions.  The command transitioned from two to one general officer.  In coordination with the OCSDC, C-JTSCC is evaluating local vendor capability to perform critically needed services previously provided by LOGCAP, but on a much smaller scale.  This will ensure support to the warfighter continues while simultaneously reducing the number of US and other country national contractors.

• JP 4-10 (Operational Contract Support).  The Joint Staff J4 is revising JP 4-10 (Operational Contract Support) which serves as the doctrine for planning, conducting, and assessing operational contract support integration and contractor management functions in support of joint operations.  The second draft review package is currently being prepared for review.  The original version was published in October, 2008.

• Defense Standards for Security Services. 
  • Business and operational standards for private security contractors (which were required by Section 833 of the FY2011 NDAA) are now complete and were validated by the American National Standards Institute (ANSI) in early March 2012.  The associated conformity assessment to enable third party certification was published in April 2012. A maturity model, allowing companies and contract management to assess the degree of conformity with the standard, was approved by ANSI in January 2012.
  • On May 22, 2012, DoD issued instructions (PGI) to the DFARS requiring compliance with the ANSI PSC standard for combat operations and other contingency operations. 149 contracts for security functions now include language requiring conformity with this standard.
  • Standards and provision for third party certification in Section 833 of the FY 2011 NDAA will facilitate identifying technically acceptable contractors and best value which: enables expedited contract award; mitigates risk of delay of services due to contract award protests; and, mitigates risk of contractor non-performance or misconduct in critical early phases of contingency operations. Conformity assessment standards and the associated maturity model also provide valuable tools for DoD contract oversight.
  • The United Kingdom has adopted the PSC ANSI standards as their national standard ensuring continuity between the key allies.

• Operational Contract Support (OCS) Functional Capabilities Integration Board (FCIB).

This senior executive-level governance forum was chartered by the Under Secretary of Defense (Acquisition, Technology & Logistics), in March 2010 to provide strategic leadership to multiple stakeholders working to institutionalize OCS.  Co-chaired by the Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense (Program Support) [DASD(PS)] and Joint Staff, Vice Director J-4, the FCIB convenes quarterly (or as required) to address strategic issues directly impacting current and future contingency operations.  During the 2^nd quarter FY13 meeting (February 26, 2013), the Board received updates on Contingency Program Management (CPM), Civilian Expeditionary Workforce (CEW), Joint Concept [Limited Objective Experiment], OCS Phase 0 Authorities, House Armed Services Committee (HASC) Lessons Learned Report, revision of Joint Publication (JP) 4-10, and a proposal to create an OCS Executive Agent.  The next quarterly OCS FCIB Principals’ meeting will be held on May 21, 2013 in the Army Conference Center.  Contact the Board Secretariat at [email protected] for additional information.

• Joint Contingency Acquisition Support Office (JCASO).  DASD (Program Support) has institutionalized this organization to perform program management of Operational Contract Support (OCS) and to provide a pre-planned approach for planning and implementing OCS policy and doctrine.  JCASO provides a joint enabling capability to integrate, coordinate and synchronize OCS during peacetime, contingency operations, and post-conflict operations.  Planning, implementation, and oversight of OCS are Commander's responsibilities and are essential to establishing a strategy for managing contractors on the battlefield as part of the DoD Total Force.  JCASO has a deployable capability known as the Mission Support Teams and may be requested to provide OCS planning and PgM during peacetime, contingency and post-conflict operations.  JCASO is also an essential part of DLA's combat support agency (CSA) role to support the mission objectives of the combatant commands, the Chairman, Joint Chiefs of Staff Title 10 responsibilities, as well as the Office of the Secretary of Defense for OCS policy and joint doctrine development and implementation.  Examples of  JCASO engagements include: a) deploying teams for 6-month rotations to support the OCSDC and provide expertise in the drawdown efforts;  b) leading and managing the economic development initiative (i.e., local procurements) in the Central Asian States  in support of the Northern Distribution Network (NDN) strategy in the USCENTCOM AOR; c) leading and managing the Afghanistan Contract Transition Workgroup (ACTW) to facilitate the interagency coordination for planning and transitioning OCS from DoD to DoS; and d) participating in joint exercises in 2012 (e.g., PANAMAX, Ulchi Freedom Guardian) to integrate OCS in training and validate the effectiveness of OCS plans. 

• Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Notice (CJCSN) 4130.01, "Guidance for Combatant Commander Employment of Operational Contract Support Enabler-Joint Contingency Acquisition Support Office (JCASO)" was signed on December 20, 2011 and remains in effect through 2014.  It recognizes the role of JCASO as providing Geographic Combatant Commands and their subordinate commands with a capability to integrate, implement, manage, and execute OCS activities to improve DoD efficiency and effectiveness across the Total Force. 

• JCASO Concept of Operations (CONOPS).  A detailed CONOPS was signed on 27 June 2012, which further conveys JCASO's mission, role, and responsibility in OCS, to satisfy Combat Support Agency Review Team findings, and to complement the CJCSN 4130.01.  It will detail how JCASO engagement can help improve effectiveness and efficiency in managing OCS across DoD and whole of government. 

• JCASO Contingency Contracting Office (CCO):  JCASO is establishing a joint contingency contracting capability that responds to demand signals from Combatant Commands and deployed forces; complements Services’ contracting capabilities; extends and leverages existing DLA/JCASO capabilities; takes a programmatic approach to contracting, supporting OCS planning and synchronization, requirements development, market research, and contracting; focuses on humanitarian assistance, disaster recovery (HA/DR) and counter-insurgency (COIN) support; and supports SECDEF OCS and budget initiatives.  CCO Initial Operating Capability is planned in October 2013. 

• JCASO Planners.  Seventeen (17) JCASO planners are allocated among the Geographic Combatant Commands to assist the commander in identifying gaps where contractor support capability may be required.  They help to integrate required contractor support into operational plans and synchronize requirements with subordinate commands, the Military Departments, Defense Agencies, other USG Agencies, and coalition partners.  The Secretary further directed an additional 146 planners / analysts to be integrated into the total force.  The planners have been instrumental in integrating OCS into Combatant Command plans.  In USCENTCOM alone, the planners were fundamental in the establishment of the JTSCC, planning the DoD to DoS transition in Iraq, Pakistan humanitarian efforts, increased operations in Afghanistan, as well as other critical operations supporting USCENTCOM’s theater engagement strategy.  Based on demonstrated need for additional OCS planning capability in USPACOM, JCASO recently established new planners at forward locations in USFK and USFJ. 

• Synchronized Predeployment and Operational Tracker Enterprise Suite (SPOT-ES).  It is the joint enterprise suite of systems employed for the management, tracking and visibility of contracted capability and contractors authorized to accompany the US forces during contingency operations.  SPOT-ES is comprised of four systems that collectively provide leadership with awareness of the contractor footprint and contracted capability in the Area of Operations.  SPOT (NIPRNet and SIPRNet) is the authoritative system of record personnel accountability database.  SPOT automatically generates a Letter-of Authorization (LOA) which identifies government furnished services authorized under the contract.  JAMMS captures movement and location information via an automated scan at key life support collection points.  JAMMS can read a variety of formats, such as a Common Access Card (CAC), LOA, biometric credentials, driver’s license and passport.  TOPSS is the business intelligence and reporting tool that integrates data from SPOT, JAMMS, and various other systems.  It has the ability to accept and convert manual files to full web services.  TOPSS currently includes 28 pre-generated standard reports as well as an ad hoc reporting capability.  It includes customizable geospatial mapping of data points and trend analysis.  SPOT-ES capability is continually evaluated to identify enhancements that will improve functionality and ease of user interface.  DoS is utilizing SPOT as the primary automated program management tool for all USG contractors in Iraq.

• SPOT Configuration Control Board (CCB). ODASD(PS), as the functional sponsor for SPOT, chairs a quarterly CCB.  This Board evaluates proposed enhancements to SPOT and prioritizes implementation to ensure consistency within funding parameters.  Membership includes participants from across the DoD OCS community, Department of State, and U.S. Agency for International Development.  TheCCB held on 24 January validated and prioritized enhancements for version 8.2.  The next CCB is scheduled for 25 April.
• Transition of Responsibility for SPOT Operational Execution.  In January 2012 the USD(P&R) assumed operational control, responsibility, support, custody and management of SPOT, specifically within the Defense Manpower Data Center (DMDC) under the Defense Human Resources Activity (DHRA).  This creates synergies between SPOT and the Joint Personnel Accountability Reconciliation and Reporting (JPARR) tool.

• Operational Contract Support (OCS) Learning Framework.  The requirement to educate, train and sustain a deployable contingency acquisition workforce and senior leaders to manage this force has long been recognized by DoD. Ongoing contingencies have stressed the military and civilian acquisition workforce, necessitating the deployment of personnel with limited experience in the execution of contracts in a contingency environment. Similarly, senior planners, program managers, and operational leaders deployed to the area of responsibility have limited experience in managing the large number of contractors accompanying the force. To correct this deficiency, the Department is striving to effectively educate and train operational military leaders, both officer and enlisted personnel across all grades, on operational contract support to include the management of contractors deploying with forces.

The focus of the CDG and JKO courses are on the professional military education and individual training components of the larger OCS learning framework.  Going forward, the other components of the OCS Learning Framework, to include adaption and creation of collective OCS training courses and injection of OCS into joint exercises, are being pursued in 2013.

• DoD Directive (DoDD) 3020.49 on Orchestrating, Synchronizing, and Integrating Program Management of Contingency Acquisition Planning and its Operational Execution was signed on March 24, 2009.  It establishes policy and assigns responsibilities for program management for the preparation and execution of acquisitions for contingency operations, and for the accountability, integration and management of all contractors supporting the DoD and all USG PSCs operating in an area of contingency operations.

• DoD Instruction (DoDI) 3020.41.  A revised version of DoDI 3020.41, “Operational Contract Support,” formerly entitled “Contractor Personnel Authorized to Accompany the U.S. Armed Forces,” was signed on December 20^th, 2011. It was also published as 32 CFR Part 158.  This version contains significant changes to the previous instruction including:  (1) incorporation of lessons learned from current operations; (2) requirements for the development of contractor oversight plans; (3) requirements for adequate military personnel necessary to execute contract oversight; and, (4) standards of medical care for deployed contractors.  Further, it reiterates the importance of the use of a common database for the accountability and visibility of contractors supporting DoD contingency operations.

• DoDI 3020.50, “Private Security Contractors (PSCs) Operating in Contingency Operations, Humanitarian or Peace Operations, or Other Military Operations or Exercises” was signed on August 1, 2011.  On August 11, 2011, a final rule entitled “U.S. Government Private Security Contractors Operating in a Contingency Operations, Combat Operations or Other Significant Military Operations,” applying to all US Agencies, was published in the Federal Register (32 CFR Part 159).  This Rule / DoDI prescribes the selection, accountability, training, equipping, and conduct of personnel performing private security functions under a covered contract in a designated area of combat operations for both DoD and other agency PSCs.  It also prescribes incident reporting, use of and accountability for equipment, RUF, and a process for the discipline or removal, as appropriate, of USG PSC personnel.  The DoDI responds to requirements of section 862 of the FY 2008 NDAA as amended.

• Operational Contract Support Concept of Operations (CONOPS).  The CONOPs, signed on March 31, 2010, outlines how the operational and acquisition communities plan and execute OCS during complex operations involving support, not just to the joint force, but to our multinational, other government agency and interagency partners as well.  The Joint Requirements Oversight Council (JROC) has endorsed the CONOPS.

Even though “the process followed was inconsistent with Corps policy, there was sufficient information” to “believe that the final negotiated modification was the best course of action,” Colonel John Hurley, deputy commander of the Corps’ Transatlantic Division, said.

Sopko, who heads an independent agency created by Congress to oversee U.S. spending in Afghanistan, rejected that conclusion in an e-mailed statement.

“The Corps’ own internal review says they didn’t make DynCorp pay to fix their shoddy construction, they didn’t collect the liquidated damages that DynCorp owed them, and they violated their own settlement policies,” he said. “But they still think the settlement was ’proper and reasonable.’” Sopko said. “That wasn’t a settlement, it was a mugging.” “We want to make sure that someone is held accountable and taxpayers are made whole,” Sopko said.