The Cost of Being the Best Supplied Troops

11/24/2010 11:45 pm ET | Updated May 25, 2011
  • David Isenberg Author, 'Shadow Force: Private Security Contractors in Iraq'

If you have heard it once, you have heard it a million times. Thanks to private military contractors U.S. troops are some of the best supported, best supplied military force in history.

So just how well is that splendiferous private sector logistics operation working out? Not so well it seems. And what lily livered pinko leftist is making such a claim? None other than the Pentagon, well known for its vehement dislike of huge corporations. Note: As Foghorn Leghorn used to say, "I say, that's a joke, son.

But, in all seriousness, don't take my word for it. Here is what KBR in its most recently quarterly 10-Q report says:

We provide substantial work under our government contracts to the United States Department of Defense and other governmental agencies. These contracts include our worldwide United States Army logistics contracts, known as LogCAP, and the U.S. Army Europe ("USAREUR") contract.


Dining facilities. In 2006, the DCAA raised questions regarding our billings and price reasonableness of costs related to dining facilities in Iraq. We responded to the DCMA that our costs are reasonable. As of September 30, 2010, we have outstanding Form 1 notices from the DCAA disapproving $178 million in costs related to these dining facilities until such time we provide documentation to support the price reasonableness of the rates negotiated with our subcontractor and demonstrate that the amounts billed were in accordance with the contract terms. We believe the prices obtained for these services were reasonable and intend to vigorously defend ourselves on this matter. We filed claims in the U.S. Court of Federal Claims to recover $57 million of the $80 million withheld from us by the customer. With respect to questions raised regarding billing in accordance with contract terms, as of September 30, 2010, we believe it is reasonably possible that we could incur losses in excess of the amount accrued for possible subcontractor costs billed to the customer that were possibly not in accordance with contract terms. However, we are unable to estimate an amount of possible loss or range of possible loss in excess of the amount accrued related to any costs billed to the customer that were not in accordance with the contract terms. We believe the prices obtained for these services were reasonable, we intend to vigorously defend ourselves in this matter and we do not believe we face a risk of significant loss from any disallowance of these costs in excess of amounts withheld from subcontractors. As of September 30, 2010, we had withheld $79 million in payments from our subcontractors pending the resolution of these matters with our customer.

You might also find this part, dealing with private security issues, of interest:

Private Security. In February 2007, we received a Form 1 notice from the Department of the Army informing us of their intent to adjust payments under the LogCAP III contract associated with the cost incurred for the years 2003 through 2006 by certain of our subcontractors to provide security to their employees. Based on that notice, the Army withheld its initial assessment of $20 million. The Army based its initial assessment on one subcontract wherein, based on communications with the subcontractor, the Army estimated 6% of the total subcontract cost related to the private security costs. The Army previously indicated that not all task orders and subcontracts have been reviewed and that they may make additional adjustments. In August 2009, we received a Form 1 notice from the DCAA disapproving an additional $83 million of costs incurred by us and our subcontractors to provide security during the same periods. Since that time, the Army withheld an additional $24 million in payments from us bringing the total payments withheld to approximately $44 million as of September 30, 2010 out of the Form 1 notices issued to date of $103 million.

The Army indicated that they believe our LogCAP III contract prohibits us and our subcontractors from billing costs of privately acquired security. We believe that, while the LogCAP III contract anticipates that the Army will provide force protection to KBR employees, it does not prohibit us or any of our subcontractors from using private security services to provide force protection to KBR or subcontractor personnel. In addition, a significant portion of our subcontracts are competitively bid fixed price subcontracts. As a result, we do not receive details of the subcontractors' cost estimate nor are we legally entitled to it. Further, we have not paid our subcontractors any additional compensation for security services. Accordingly, we believe that we are entitled to reimbursement by the Army for the cost of services provided by us or our subcontractors, even if they incurred costs for private force protection services. Therefore, we believe that the Army's position that such costs are unallowable and that they are entitled to withhold amounts incurred for such costs is wrong as a matter of law.

In 2007, we provided at the Army's request information that addresses the use of armed security either directly or indirectly charged to LogCAP III. In October 2007, we filed a claim to recover the original $20 million that was withheld which was deemed denied as a result of no response from the contracting officer. To date, we have filed appeals to the Armed Services Board of Contract Appeals ("ASBCA") to recover $44 million of the amounts withheld from us. We believe these sums were properly billed under our contract with the Army. At this time, we believe the likelihood that a loss related to this matter has been incurred is remote. We have not adjusted our revenues or accrued any amounts related to this matter. This matter is also the subject of a separate claim filed by the Department of Justice ("DOJ") for alleged violation of the False Claims Act as discussed further below under the heading "Investigations, Qui Tams and Litigation." Our appeal to the ASBCA is effectively stayed pending the resolution of the separate claim filed by the DOJ.