Triple Canopy, Hiring Guards in Iraq Who Couldn't Shoot

[JJ_BPK]

Not good for business..

Firm Pays $2.6M After Hiring Guards in Iraq Who Couldn't Shoot

Stars and Stripes | 18 Oct 2017 | by Chad Garland

A security firm accused of billing the Defense Department millions of dollars for guards at a U.S. air base in Iraq has agreed to pay $2.6 million in a settlement with the government, after allegations that the guards couldn't shoot easy targets.

Triple Canopy, a Virginia-based security contractor, agreed Monday to settle allegations that the company submitted false claims for payment to the Defense Department for unqualified security guards at Al Asad Airbase, the second-largest air base in Iraq, in 2009 and 2010.

Triple Canopy admitted no wrongdoing as part of the settlement.

The settlement stems from a whistleblower suit accusing the company of violating the False Claims Act when it billed DoD for the guards, who were hired to protect U.S. and allied personnel but who could not pass an Army firearms proficiency test.

The company provided the guards under a one-year contract for perimeter security at Al Asad that began in 2009. It billed the government more than $10.4 million under that contract, of which more than $4.35 million was for the guards.

"Contractors must be held accountable for their actions," said Dana J. Boente, U.S. Attorney for the Eastern District of Virginia, where the suit was filed, in a statement. "This settlement should remind contractors of the high value we place on safeguarding our personnel abroad."

The suit alleged that Triple Canopy officials created false test score cards it was required to keep for government review to conceal the guards' inability to pass the contractually required tests.

The government's claims were based on a suit filed by a former Triple Canopy employee -- Omar Badr, a medic and Army veteran -- in 2011. The False Claims Act allows private citizens to file suit on behalf of the government. The government may then investigate the claims and choose to intervene in the suit.

Not one of the initial 300 Ugandan guards could pass the firearms proficiency tests, nor could several replacement guards, claimed Badr, who served with the Rangers until 2007 and joined Triple Canopy around February 2008.

To qualify on the firearms tests, given at a 27-yard distance but using paper printed with targets simulating distances from 50 to 300 yards, the guards had to score hits with 23 of 40 rounds fired. The test also involved changing magazines on the weapon -- an AK-47 style assault rifle chambered for 5.56 mm ammunition.

The first group of guards who were supposed to have qualified on the course in Uganda could not load or unload their weapons when they were taken to a range in Iraq to zero their weapons a few weeks later in June 2009, the suit alleged. Most could hit the paper but not the printed targets, Badr claimed.

The suit alleged that when the Al Asad contract was awarded to another firm in 2010, Triple Canopy relocated the unqualified guards to other bases.

Triple Canopy officials instructed American personnel to falsify score cards to give male guards scores in the 30-31 range and female guards scores in the 24-26 range, the complaint stated.

The government intervened in Badr's suit in 2012. Assistant U.S. attorneys Richard Sponseller and Christine Roushdy investigated, along with the Defense Criminal Investigative Service and Army Criminal Investigation Command.

Triple Canopy denied that the guards were unqualified or that its employees falsified their scores. The company later agreed to settle the civil claims, which was not a determination of civil liability.

Under the terms of the False Claims Act, Badr will receive a share of the recovery -- about $500,000.

Triple Canopy is facing a separate whistleblower suit, also filed under the False Claims Act, which alleges it failed to properly inspect weapons it provided as part of a contract for its teams protecting personnel from the U.S. Embassy in Baghdad.

That suit, which the government did not join after it was filed by a former employee last year, alleges company officials falsified inspection procedures and records and then fired the employee who brought the problems to company officials' attention. The government may choose to join the suit at a later date.

Founded in 2003 by veteran U.S. Army Special Forces and Delta operators, Triple Canopy contracted with U.S. government agencies to provide security services overseas. The company merged with Academi, formerly Blackwater, to form its parent company Constellis Group in 2014.

http://www.military.com/daily-news/2...C=eb_171019.nl

[Pete]

Sounds like the 25 meter alternate qualification target the Army has been using for a long time.

Easy - If your weapon is properly zeroed.

From reading the article it appears they were almost handed the weapons before shooting.

"...an AK-47 style assault rifle chambered for 5.56 mm ammunition...." Now most of the guys here understand the question I'm going to ask - you others will need to look it up. We know why this target is set at 25 meters for the M16 series. Does this "AK-47 style assault rifle" have the same sight picture and bullet trajectory as the M16 family? I would assume yes as it's 5.56 mm.

[Box]

Wait just a gosh darned moment...


Am I to believe that we are working under the assumption that our partnered forces in Iraq and Afghanistan are not able to shoot to US marksmanship standards using their issued AK's?


If these are AK variants chambered to shoot NATO spec 5.56 then shooting an Alt-C Qualification target wont have any impact on the score. I am not familiar with the ballistics trajectory of the 5.45 so if these are standard AK rifles chambered in 5.45 then there might be a small difference but not so much that you cant hit at least 23 out of 40.


Triple Canopy must have fucked someone over that was just sitting back waiting for a chance to stick it to them. You could barely fill the back seat of a VW Beetle with the amount of 3rd world troops that could shoot their issued AK-47 to US standards and pretty much EVERYBODY knows it.

[JJ_BPK]

Originally Posted by Box

Wait just a gosh darned moment...


Am I to believe that we are working under the assumption that our partnered forces in Iraq and Afghanistan are not able to shoot to US marksmanship standards using their issued AK's?


If these are AK variants chambered to shoot NATO spec 5.56 then shooting an Alt-C Qualification target wont have any impact on the score.

Polish Arms company FB Beryl has been making an AK variant in 5.56x45 for 20 years..

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FB_Beryl

Atlantic Firearms is one of several US distributors

http://www.atlanticfirearms.com/comp....html?Itemid=0

One improvement was the development of a rail system that fits over the dust cover, allowing modern optics..

[frostfire]

Originally Posted by Pete

Sounds like the 25 meter alternate qualification target the Army has been using for a long time.

Easy - If your weapon is properly zeroed.

From reading the article it appears they were almost handed the weapons before shooting.

"...an AK-47 style assault rifle chambered for 5.56 mm ammunition...." Now most of the guys here understand the question I'm going to ask - you others will need to look it up. We know why this target is set at 25 meters for the M16 series. Does this "AK-47 style assault rifle" have the same sight picture and bullet trajectory as the M16 family? I would assume yes as it's 5.56 mm.

Hmmm, ak variant but 5.56? Serbians or the Israeli’s galil series?
Not sure w trajectory depending on the barrel length, twist and ultimately muzzle velocity but sight pic should be the same for a zeroed rifle.

But with that itty bitty sight radius, the alt c at 25 may not be a walk in the park esp w kneeling stage and ak ergonomics

However, any competent rifleman would have adjust poa/poi with as little as 3 rounds to hit the rest. So yes, 23 should be more than doable

Oh, I highly doubt our standard force protection troops can do better w the same equipment

[WarriorDiplomat]

Originally Posted by Pete

Sounds like the 25 meter alternate qualification target the Army has been using for a long time.

Easy - If your weapon is properly zeroed.

From reading the article it appears they were almost handed the weapons before shooting.

"...an AK-47 style assault rifle chambered for 5.56 mm ammunition...." Now most of the guys here understand the question I'm going to ask - you others will need to look it up. We know why this target is set at 25 meters for the M16 series. Does this "AK-47 style assault rifle" have the same sight picture and bullet trajectory as the M16 family? I would assume yes as it's 5.56 mm.

I smell an opportunity for a squared away Green Beret to fix this to save the contract.....it was once about a time the bread and butter of a good 18B

As far as the trajectory of the chambered round for this set up I am curious to know how it differs

Weight, grain, rifling, barrel length, where the sight sets on the weapon compared to the front sight post all factor in not the mention the shooter being training on how a weapon shoots or what a 50/300 zero means

[PRB]

Did anyone eye test them to check if they could even see? You never see them in glasses aye....everyone had perfect vision lol.

[Team Sergeant]

Blackwater 2.0



Nothing to see here, money is the prime directive.

And if not shooting straight was a crime then erik princess would be in jail for the murder of 17.

[275RLTW]

Originally Posted by WarriorDiplomat

I smell an opportunity for a squared away Green Beret to fix this to save the contract.....it was once about a time the bread and butter of a good 18B

As far as the trajectory of the chambered round for this set up I am curious to know how it differs

Weight, grain, rifling, barrel length, where the sight sets on the weapon compared to the front sight post all factor in not the mention the shooter being training on how a weapon shoots or what a 50/300 zero means

There have been 18Bs on those quals for quite a few years. While I wasn’t there for the incident in question, I have worked with the Ugandans quite a bit. Their memory is about as long as their hair. You can teach them the same basic task every day for a week and they still won’t remember it the next day. Them not knowing how to zero a weapon is not a good indicator of whether or not documents were falsified. Not to mention that the Ugandans don’t usually make any sight corrections themselves. Instructors do that for them as basic math for sight adjustments is way beyond their comprehension

[WarriorDiplomat]

Originally Posted by 275RLTW

There have been 18Bs on those quals for quite a few years. While I wasn’t there for the incident in question, I have worked with the Ugandans quite a bit. Their memory is about as long as their hair. You can teach them the same basic task every day for a week and they still won’t remember it the next day. Them not knowing how to zero a weapon is not a good indicator of whether or not documents were falsified. Not to mention that the Ugandans don’t usually make any sight corrections themselves. Instructors do that for them as basic math for sight adjustments is way beyond their comprehension

I have worked with many Ugandans before and can't say I have had that issue we have been training their forces for years in Uganda hunting the LRA.....the point is not whether or not they falsified documents or whether the Ugandans can shoot it is the fact that the company would follow through providing security with low quality security knowing they have falsified docs to meet requirements....because a guy was an 18B and now is a soldier for profit doesn't mean they was a good one I have seen PFC's who had a better grasp of teaching across cultural differences than some 18B's.

[WarriorDiplomat]

Originally Posted by PRB

Did anyone eye test them to check if they could even see? You never see them in glasses aye....everyone had perfect vision lol.

Thats a good question one thing I have found from this generation is really good instructors are rare so rare the SWTG has changed its instruction philosophy IOT avoid another embarrassment like the team in Afghanistan cadre are to be examples of how we teach so another SSG is NOT using profanity and humiliation to correct foreign soldiers on NATGEO....teaching foreign armies is an art...knowing your target audience is paramount to success

Relationship is as critical to trust more so than technical expertise
How is their vision
Shooter experience
left eye/right eye dominance?
left or right handed shooters
weapon quality
Always shoot the weapon your self to verify the weapon if the shooter is struggling(is it the shooter or the weapon?)
The 8 fundamentals
dime and washer drills
Sometimes religious beliefs such as the West African "Gods Will" the black snake belts etc.....are a factor you have to navigate and overcome....
Cross cultural communication and learning styles
Shooting guns are priority no smoke sessions or fitness for relative beginners these aren't well fed Americans who grew up watching war movies, hunting or playing aggressive sports
Demonstration (BE,KNOW,DO)

The key is patience and mental stamina and a deep knowledge of techniques....once trained as a trainer/adviser its time to hunt bad guys this should motivate every one in the train advise mission.

I can say that in nearly 16yrs as a GB I have never met a man/woman I cannot figure out how to effectively train.....I have never not yet been able to get to the train the trainer force multiplication phase

[35NCO]

There are a lot of AK's in 5.56

It has been a trend for some time. No idea what "AK style assault weapon" is.

Kalashnikov Concern EXPORT AK102:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AK-102

Arsenal Bulgaria makes a lot of export weapons in 5.56 we have most of them here in he US:

http://www.arsenalinc.com/usa/5.56_NATO/

MOLOT Vepr (Really high quality guns, RPK receivers):

http://www.k-var.com/shop/Vepr-rifles

Norinco 5.56 AKs Type 56-4 (Worth a lot on GB):

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Type_56_assault_rifle

I own a few of the Arsenal Weapons. They work pretty good. Not tack drivers, but general combat weapons. Really depends on ammo.

I highly doubt 25 meter simulated would be difficult with any of them. Setting the sights correctly requires someone that knows what they are doing. Also depends on how new the weapon is as I have dealt with front sight drift before.

Would be interesting to see what they bought.

[275RLTW]

Originally Posted by WarriorDiplomat

I have worked with many Ugandans before and can't say I have had that issue we have been training their forces for years in Uganda hunting the LRA.....the point is not whether or not they falsified documents or whether the Ugandans can shoot it is the fact that the company would follow through providing security with low quality security knowing they have falsified docs to meet requirements....because a guy was an 18B and now is a soldier for profit doesn't mean they was a good one I have seen PFC's who had a better grasp of teaching across cultural differences than some 18B's.

The Ugandans are still there and used on several contracts and all are approved by the clients. Given the time constraints for training, who knows what happened. TC didn’t admit to falsifying scores nor were they given a Loss or Confidence from the client. Basically they paid 2.6 mil to make it go away. Given that Constellis runs TC now it was solely a business decision.

Just because an 18 works with a contracting company doesn’t automatically make them a shit bag either. Lots and lots of retirees there who just want to keep training people. I agree there’s good and bad in every arena.

[WarriorDiplomat]

Originally Posted by 275RLTW

The Ugandans are still there and used on several contracts and all are approved by the clients. Given the time constraints for training, who knows what happened. TC didn’t admit to falsifying scores nor were they given a Loss or Confidence from the client. Basically they paid 2.6 mil to make it go away. Given that Constellis runs TC now it was solely a business decision.

Just because an 18 works with a contracting company doesn’t automatically make them a shit bag either. Lots and lots of retirees there who just want to keep training people. I agree there’s good and bad in every arena.

Like I said being an 18 series does not mean he is going to be good at teaching.....I never alluded to being a soldier for profit means they are a shit bag......being as your profile says you were a 2/75 Ranger I am aware you don't know what the last 16 yrs have done to SF not being one......kinda curious how a non SF guy would know what a good SF guy is?...many of those skills(credentials) were gotten by guys who came in just for the credentials and then got out to contract.....I know some great GB's who are training indig as contractors but alot more that I would say just have the credentials for the purpose of profit....so again as I jokingly said in my original post it smells like an opportunity for an 18B and since this is a SF board that seemed an appropriate comment.

[275RLTW]

Originally Posted by WarriorDiplomat

Like I said being an 18 series does not mean he is going to be good at teaching.....I never alluded to being a soldier for profit means they are a shit bag......being as your profile says you were a 2/75 Ranger I am aware you don't know what the last 16 yrs have done to SF not being one......kinda curious how a non SF guy would know what a good SF guy is?...many of those skills(credentials) were gotten by guys who came in just for the credentials and then got out to contract.....I know some great GB's who are training indig as contractors but alot more that I would say just have the credentials for the purpose of profit....so again as I jokingly said in my original post it smells like an opportunity for an 18B and since this is a SF board that seemed an appropriate comment.

So my opinions on SF are about as valid as yours on contractors since neither of us have any experience in those areas?