Contracts Archives

A Russian TOS-1A multiple rocket launcher (Photo: Reuters)

YEREVAN (RFE/RL)—Most of the contracts required for the upcoming delivery of large amounts of Russian weapons to Armenia have already been signed, according to the Russian ambassador in Yerevan, Ivan Volynkin.

Armenia is to pay for them with a $200 million loan which Russia pledged to allocate to in 2015. The Armenian government moved to speed up the implementation of the arms deal following the April 2 escalation of the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict.

The government instructed the Armenian Defense Ministry to negotiate supply contracts with relevant Russian government agencies. “We are now working on the signing of the contracts,” Defense Minister Seyran Ohanian said during his April 27 visit to Moscow.

“As far as I know, contracts relating to most of that [Russian-Armenian loan] agreement have already been signed,” Volynkin said on Monday. “The deliveries will be carried out within mutually acceptable time frames.”

The Russian envoy did not give any dates. “You can’t just pick a weapon somewhere and [immediately] get it,” he said. “It has to be produced, and that takes time.”

Meeting with Russian Prime Minister Dmitry Medvedev in Yerevan on April 7, Prime Minister Hovik Abrahamian complained about a “certain slowdown” in the implementation of the $200 million deal by Rosoboronexport, Russia’s state arms exporter. He asked Medvedev to help “conclude the contracts” with the Armenian side.

“You see, every country has bureaucratic methods that do not allow for immediate solutions,” Volynkin said in that regard. “You need to work out the list of weapons, terms for the delivery and the like.”

In February, Moscow disclosed the types of military hardware which Yerevan will be allowed to buy with the Russian credit. The deadliest of these weapons is the Smerch multiple-launch rocket system and TOS-1A heavy flamethrower designed to destroy defense fortifications and enemy personnel with thermobaric rockets.

Russia has reportedly sold 18 Smerch launchers and as many TOS-1A systems to Azerbaijan along with more than 90 T-90 tanks, over 30 combat helicopters and other offensive weapons. The Russian arms deliveries to Armenia’s arch-foe, reportedly worth about $5 billion, stemmed from contracts signed in 2009-2011.

Armenian leaders stepped up their criticism of those arms deals immediately after last month’s Azerbaijani military offensive in Karabakh. Medvedev effectively rejected the criticism, saying that Moscow sells weapons to both Armenia and Azerbaijan and thereby sustains the “military balance” in the Karabakh conflict.

Volynkin insisted that that balance has not been disrupted by the Russian-Azerbaijani defense contracts. Russia regards Armenia as a “strategic ally” and will continue to supply it with “the most advanced weapons,” he said.

“We will do everything in our power to preserve this allied relationship,” added the diplomat.

Ohanian similarly stated on April 27 that Yerevan will not reconsider its close military and political ties with Moscow. “I don’t see a single fact indicating that our strategic relations have been somehow disrupted or changed,” he said.

Armenia can also spend the Russian loan on buying, at discounted prices, Russian-made anti-tank weapons, shoulder-fired surface-to-air missiles, demining and communication equipment, armored personnel carriers and heavy military trucks.

The anti-tank systems include 9M133 guided missiles that first went into service with the Russian army in the late 1990s. The 135-milimeter rockets can supposedly destroy tanks within a 4-kilometer range.

In 2015, the two sides also negotiated on the delivery of Russian Iskander missiles to the Armenian army. With a firing range of up to 500 kilometers, the sophisticated systems would make Azerbaijan’s vital oil and gas infrastructure even more vulnerable to Armenian missile strikes in the event of a full-scale war for Karabakh.

An Armenian army general claimed in April that Armenia already has such missiles in its military arsenal. The Defense Ministry in Yerevan did not deny or confirm the claim.

By Christian Sorensen, is a U.S. military veteran

Hundreds of corporations profit directly from the Pentagon’s global wars. Understanding information about the Pentagon’s acquisition process is crucial to establishing and maintaining an informed citizenry. Using this guide, citizens can break down and decipher Department of Defense (DOD) contracts as an act of education, empowerment, or resistance.

The general format of a DOD contract involves:

NAME OF CORPORATION, City, State, has been awarded a $—,—,— [TYPE of] contract for PRODUCT. Contractor will provide … [further details, often quite obscure, esoteric, or cloudy]. Work will be performed in City, State. Work is expected to be completed by Month, Day, Year. These types of funds are being allocated. This unit is the contracting activity [a.k.a. what DOD authority arranged for the purchase].

The main corporations supporting DOD are: Boeing, Lockheed Martin, Northrop Grumman, Raytheon, Textron, and United Technologies. Other frequent contributors include: BAE Systems, CACI, Exelis, General Atomics, General Dynamics, General Electric, Honeywell, Huntington Ingalls, Jacobs Engineering, L3, Orbital ATK, Rockwell Collins, Rolls Royce, and SAIC. Hundreds of other corporations, big and small, cover the landscape.

DOD employs many different contract types. They have fancy names, which vary depending on: whether or how they can be adjusted at a later date; the quantity of the product involved; the product’s delivery schedule; and anticipated price fluctuations. Examples of contract types include: firm-fixed-price; firm-fixed-price with economic adjustment; firm-fixed-fee; cost-plus-fixed-fee; and indefinite-delivery/indefinite-quantity. For thorough elaboration, consult the Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR).

Exorbitant initial costs worry the taxpayer. Subsequent costs are tacked on later in the form of modifications. Modifications are adjustments and additions to existing contracts. Corporations make a lot of money from modifications. Corporations justify modifications by claiming need for frequent maintenance, upkeep, tweaking, and upgrading.

The product varies. The product can involve: so-called unmanned vehicles; advertising and recruitment; weaponry and materiel; aircraft and maintenance; payment to universities for academic collusion; extortionate weapons platforms, like Aegis, Littoral Combat Ships (LCS), or the X-Band radar; clothing and gear; fuel and energy; medical and dental services; environmental remediation; food services; base administration and logistics; domestic and overseas construction projects; river dredging; or many other goods and services.

Look at this example, which has been revised to highlight the important parts:

Airtec Inc.,* California, Maryland, is being awarded an $80,661,914 modification against a previously issued firm-fixed-price, indefinite-delivery/indefinite-quantity contract (N68335-14-D-0030) for intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance (ISR) services in support of the U.S. Southern Command. The contractor will provide ISR services utilizing a contractor-owned, contractor-operated Bombardier DHC-8/200 multi-sensor aircraft, with government-furnished property previously installed on the aircraft. Work will be performed in Bogota, Columbia (90 percent); and California, Maryland (10 percent), and is expected to be completed in September 2018. No funds will be obligated at time of award. Funds will be obligated on individual delivery orders as they are issued. The Naval Air Warfare Center Aircraft Division, Lakehurst, New Jersey, is the contracting activity.

The aforementioned contract now becomes:

Airtec Inc. received $80,661,914 to provide ISR services in support of USSOUTHCOM utilizing an Airtec owned/operated Bombardier DHC-8/200 multi-sensor aircraft, with government-furnished property previously installed. Work will be in Bogota, Colombia (90%); and California, MD (10%).

Those who compile DOD contracts often misspell the names of sovereign nations. In this case, they misspelled Colombia. We can begin to see the value of distilling these contracts. From this contract alone, we learn much regarding DOD’s overseas posture and bureaucratic competence.

Now analyze this concrete example:

Raytheon Missile Systems Co., Tucson, Arizona, has been awarded a $10,647,581 not-to-exceed letter contract for Small Diameter Bomb II. Contractor will provide Small Diameter Bomb II aircraft integration test assets, to include jettison test vehicles, and instrumented measurement vehicles on the F/A-18E/F aircraft. Work will be performed at Tucson, Arizona, and is expected to be complete by Aug. 10, 2016. This award is the result of a sole source acquisition. Fiscal 2015 research, development, test and evaluation funds in the amount of $5,000,000 are being obligated at the time of award. Air Force Life Cycle Management Center, Eglin Air Force Base, Florida, is the contracting activity.

Compare that contract to previous templates. Knowing what you’ve learned so far, try to distill the essential information.

Links help the public understand information clearly. Links can be provided regarding: type of weapons platform; corporate history; Combatant Command (UCC); and any other pertinent information one deems valuable. Over time, one will become acclimated to what is essential information and what is chaff. One also may decide to keep the chaff for personal notes, along with, of course, the meat of the contract. In one’s own notes, track the corporation’s branch location, the good or service they provide, where that good/service is provisioned, and any additional information that will help understand DOD’s domestic industrial base. After a few months of this hobby, a solid picture of DOD’s industrial footprint materializes.

A modification, as mentioned briefly before, is basically an extension of a contract. A contract is inked, and later a modification adds funding to the original contract, which permits more work to be done. Take the following Lockheed Martin contract from 8 August 2014, which involves an Aegis product:

Lockheed Martin Mission Systems and Training, Moorestown, New Jersey, has been awarded a $193,610,317 modification to previously awarded contract number HQ0276-10-C-0001 for procurement of necessary material, equipment, and supplies to conduct the technical engineering to define, develop, integrate and test Aegis Ballistic Missile Defense 4.1 and 5.0 Capability Upgrade baselines through their respective certifications. This modification brings the total cumulative face value of the contract to $2,002,542,722 from $1,808,932,405. Work will be performed at Moorestown, New Jersey, with an expected completion date of May 31, 2016. Fiscal 2014 research, development, test and evaluation funds in the amount of $19,500,000 are being obligated at time of award. The Missile Defense Agency, Dahlgren, Virginia, is the contracting activity.

What have we learned? We know that this modification adds almost $200 million to a previous contract involving the Aegis weapon system. We know where the product is crafted. We know the end user, in this case MDA. Googling the previously awarded contract number often yields relevant background information. Much can also be learned about this weapon platform from Lockheed Martin’s own website.

There is a surprising amount of public data available on the Internet. After all, war corporations have products they want to market and sell. Often their corporate websites display piecemeal information. When searching those locations fails, the public domain contains more information elsewhere, especially if the contract was bid on in a relatively open manner. Try consulting fbo.gov, clearancejobs.com, and LinkedIn.

Organization is key. Major corporations (Boeing, Raytheon, Lockheed Martin, Northrop Grumman, etc.) are large enough to each require their own word processing document. Other players can be grouped in a document based on function. For example: AM General, Caterpillar, Navistar and Oshkosh all provide vehicles to the U.S. military. Therefore, one might want to consider grouping them in a single word processing document. Other function-based groupings may include: A) major cyber-related contracts; B) space and satellite corporations; C) U.S. telecommunications providers; D) overseas base support; E) helicopter accessories; and F) Afghanistan profiteering, etc. Over time, experimentation is encouraged for arranging notes to best suite one’s personal organizational strengths.

Sometimes war corporations deliberately phrase contracts in a vague manner. Elusive phrasing results in contracts being awarded for “knowledge based service-type requirements”; “equipment related services”; and “R&D services for the purpose of creating and developing new processes or products.” While this lack of clarity can be frustrating, creative Google searches using combinations of corporate names and contract numbers often yield more information.

This guide is by no means exhaustive. Curators of the military-industrial complex (MIC) will inevitably develop individualized approaches to cataloguing MIC activities. This is both expected and encouraged. As long as citizens are engaged and diving into DOD contracts, then the public good is being served.

Concerted pursuit of this pastime requires a daily commitment of less than an hour. This includes research, organization, distillation, and frequent revision. Polishing the little pieces matters, like changing “and” to “&” when it is part of a single company’s name. That way, your reader isn’t confused as to whether the corporation in question is one entity or two.

For public consumption, attention to detail can distill this:

Parsons Government Services Inc., Huntsville, Alabama, is being awarded a ceiling $68,845,081 indefinite-delivery/indefinite-quantity contract with a five-year ordering period. The contract provides scientific and technical support to the Defense Intelligence Agency’s Missile and Space Intelligence Center. Work will be performed at Redstone Arsenal, Alabama, with an expected completion date of June 25, 2020. The acquisition was solicited on the basis of full and open competition, and two bids were received. Funding will be obligated on individual task orders with the initial task order scheduled to be awarded July 7, 2015, at an estimated ceiling price of $1,300,000. Virginia Contracting Activity, Washington, District of Columbia, is the contracting activity (HHM402-15-D-0007).

… into this:

Parsons Government Services received $68,845,081 to provide scientific and technical support to DIA’s Missile & Space Intelligence Center (MSIC) at Redstone Arsenal.

Christian Sorensen, a BFP Contributing Author & Analyst, is a U.S. military veteran. His writing has been featured in CounterPunch and Media Roots.

Source: boilingfrogspost.com

Russian-Armenian Arms Contracts ‘Mostly Signed’

Christian Sorensen: An Introduction to Pentagon corporate global wars Contracts