US Embassy Kenya’s Local Guards Stage a Demonstration Over “Poor Pay”

Posted: 2:21 am ET
[twitter-follow screen_name=’Diplopundit’]

 

Kenya’s local media reports that a couple hundred local guards contracted to guard the US Embassy in Nairobi, Kenya staged a demonstration on Thursday over “poor pay.”  The guards citing the high cost of living in the country reportedly refused to go home after their night duty and demanded that the Aegis/KK Security Kenya’s East Africa Managing Director Nick Arnold address their grievances. Capita FM News said that the guards are asking for a pay increase from their current basic salary of Sh17,000 to Sh38,000 (about $164 to $367 in online forex converter) which they say has not been reviewed for more than a decade.

We understand that the local guard force has between 900-1000 members, and that this dispute has been going on since last month. This contract #SAQMMA17C0012 for a local guard program at US Embassy Nairobi is valued at KES3,837,264,329.27 (or $37M USD) and was awarded on November 23, 2016 to Aegis-KK Security.

The Contractor shall provide the organizational structure, management, and qualified staff at levels adequate to meet or exceed the requirement contained in the Performance Work Statement. The Contractor shall be required to provide services in a manner that prevent loss or injury to U.S. personnel, dependents, property; destruction of assets; to prevent unauthorized access; and deter potential terrorist attacks. Anticipated period of performance is one base year and four one-year options (to be exercised at the sole discretion of the Government).

We should add that in 2016, Canadian security firm GardaWorld International acquired African based KK Security, and incorporated it into its global network. Via Business Daily Africa:

GardaWorld has appointed Nick Arnold as the MD for East Africa. He brings over 20 years experience in Africa and wider Emerging Markets and has held senior management positions in the security industry.  Mr Arnold said GardaWorld’s seeks to grow presence in Africa by extending “our world-class security and protective services to international clients with growing presence on the continent.”

GovConWire notes that Aegis holds positions on DoD’s Reconstruction Security Support Services and the State Department’s potential $10 billion Worldwide Protective Services contract vehicles.

We asked the State Department about the reported new contract with Aegis/Garda, as we were told that the guards think the salary offered them are “peanuts.” We requested the DS bureau for comment and asked what the bureau is doing to ensure security for the mission during the ongoing dispute.

The Bureau of Diplomatic Security politely acknowledged our inquiry but later responded with “Thank you for your query. We are unable to offer any additional comments on this.‎”

This is not the first time that the guards have staged a demonstration or threatened to strike over pay.

#

Advertisements

State/OIG Audits Local Guard Force Contractors at Critical/High-Threat Posts

Posted: 12:50  am ET
[twitter-follow screen_name=’Diplopundit’ ]

Via State/OIG:

OIG conducted an audit of Local Guard Force Contractors at Critical- and High-Threat Posts  to determine whether (1) local guard force (LGF) contractors at selected critical- and high-threat overseas posts are complying with general and post orders included in the contract; (2) LGF contractors at selected critical- and high- threat overseas posts provide invoices that comply with contract requirements; and (3) regional security officers at selected critical- and high-threat overseas posts perform oversight of the LGF contract in accordance with their Contracting Officer’s Representative (COR) delegation memoranda.

Screen Shot

Summary of Findings:

OIG found that the guards working for the four LGF contractors at eight overseas posts (in four missions) complied with, on average, greater than 90 percent of security-related guard post orders observed. However, OIG identified deficiencies that were common across two or more missions related to access control procedures, equipment, unofficial reassignment of post orders, delivery and mail screening procedures, and reporting and investigating procedures. OIG also found that some guards were not receiving a proper number of breaks. Deficiencies generally occurred due to human error, lack of refresher training, and unavailable equipment. These deficiencies, if not addressed, could negatively impact the performance of security procedures that are intended to maintain post security and are required by the LGF contract.

OIG also reviewed whether contractor invoices complied with contract terms and conditions and found that three of the four LGF contractors properly submitted invoices that included appropriate supporting documentation. However, the Mission REDACTED LGF contractor did not adhere to the contractually required invoice format or to the schedule for submitting invoices.

Finally, OIG found that assistant regional security officers (acting as CORs, alternate CORs, and Government Technical Monitors) generally conducted LGF oversight in accordance with requirements, which are to monitor, inspect, and document the contractor’s performance and, when necessary, apply negative incentives for not meeting performance standards. However, OIG found that not all assistant regional security officers (1) documented the contractors’ performance or (2) maintained complete COR files. As a result, oversight was not properly documented. Without a complete COR file, the Government may not have the necessary documentation to defend its position of contractor nonconformance with contract terms, potentially resulting in paying for services that do not meet contract requirements.

A few details:

Local guard force performance deficiencies, if not addressed, could negatively impact the performance of procedures that are intended to maintain post security and are required by the LGF contract. For example, the guards’ failure to conduct access control, delivery, and mail screening procedures in accordance with post orders may result in unauthorized personnel accessing the compound or visitors bringing prohibited items into the compound. Further, if guards do not carry equipment in accordance with post orders, REDACTED, leading to a delayed response to a possible threat. In addition, guards may not be able to react quickly to provide notice to the compound of imminent danger. Similarly, failure to investigate or report suspicious or unusual occurrences to all required parties could delay necessary officials from receiving proper warning, which in turn could delay post officials’ reaction time. Regarding the unofficial reassignment of post orders, guards who are assigned to perform the duties of others may be overwhelmed and unable to complete all reassigned duties. Finally, guards who do not receive regular breaks may be tired, which may lead to impaired judgment in the event a security situation occurs.
[…]
At the new consulate compound in REDACTED, guard post orders stated that guards should instruct contractors to have their irises scanned prior to receiving access badges. However, OIG observed that contractors were receiving badges before having their irises scanned. The LGF Commander stated that logistically, after employees pass through the WTMD [walk-through metal detector], the closest station is the badging station. Thus, it is understandable that guards may stop there first rather than at their scanning stations required.According to the Consulate General REDACTED Senior RSO, once a badge has been issued, contractors are granted official access to the new consulate compound. Thus, it is important that guards verify contractors via the iris scanner prior to issuing access badges.

Read the full report here (PDF).

#