DOCSLIB.ORG

1 United States District Court for the District Of

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
1 United States District Court for the District Of Case 1:09-cv-01607-KBJ Document 69 Filed 03/26/14 Page 1 of 39 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA __________________________________ ) KHADIM ALKANANI, ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) v. ) Civil Action No. 09-CV-1607 (KBJ)(AK) ) AEGIS DEFENSE SERVICES, LLC, ) and AEGIS DEFENCE SERVICES ) LIMITED, ) ) Defendants. ) ) _________________________________ ) MEMORANDUM OPINION Plaintiff Khadim Alkanani (“Alkanani” or “Plaintiff”), a former United States soldier, filed the instant tort action after an employee of a private defense contractor shot him in the foot in Iraq. That defense contractor, Defendant Aegis Defence Services Limited (“Aegis UK”), filed a motion to dismiss the complaint, contending that this Court need not reach the merits of Alkanani’s claims because the court lacks personal jurisdiction over the company. (Def.’s Mot. to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction (“Def.’s Mot.”), ECF No. 48, at 1.) On August 7, 2013, Magistrate Judge Alan Kay filed a Report and Recommendation that concludes that this case should be dismissed for lack of personal jurisdiction over Aegis UK. (ECF No. 62, at 1.)1 Plaintiff has filed objections to that report (Pl.’s Mem. of P&A in Resp. to Magistrate’s Report and Recommendation, (“Pl.’s Objections”), ECF No. 63), and those objections 1 Page numbers throughout this opinion refer to the page numbers generated by the Court’s electronic filing system. 1 Case 1:09-cv-01607-KBJ Document 69 Filed 03/26/14 Page 2 of 39 are now before this Court. Because this Court concurs with Magistrate Judge Kay’s conclusions that it cannot exercise either specific or general personal jurisdiction over Aegis UK, the Court will overrule Alkanani’s objections and adopt Magistrate Judge Kay’s Report and Recommendation. Consequently, Aegis UK’s motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction is GRANTED, and this case is DISMISSED with prejudice. A separate order consistent with this opinion will follow. I. BACKGROUND A. Facts The parties do not dispute the facts giving rise to Alkanani’s allegations. On June 4, 2005, Alkanani, while on active duty as a U.S. soldier in Iraq, was a part of a vehicle convoy returning from an intelligence mission in the field to a U.S. military facility in Baghdad. (Compl., ECF No.1, ¶¶ 3-9.) Aegis UK, a private defense contractor, employed security guards to protect that facility. (Decl. of Jeffrey Day (“Day Decl.”), ECF No. 48-1, ¶¶ 7-8.) As Alkanani approached a guarded checkpoint near the facility’s main gate, at least one Aegis UK security guard overseeing the facility opened fire on Alkanani’s vehicle. (See Compl. ¶¶ 11-13 (alleging that three Aegis UK security guards shot at the vehicle); Def.’s Mot. at 8 (maintaining that a single Aegis UK security guard shot at the vehicle).) One bullet hit Alkanani in the foot, rendering him permanently disabled. (Compl. ¶¶ 14-17; Def.’s Mot. at 8.) After sustaining that injury, Alkanani brought suit against two defendants: Aegis UK and Aegis Defense Services, LLC (“Aegis LLC”). Aegis UK is a private defense contractor headquartered in London, England, and incorporated under the laws of England and Wales. (Day Decl. ¶ 1.) Aegis LLC—a company that recruits and runs 2 Case 1:09-cv-01607-KBJ Document 69 Filed 03/26/14 Page 3 of 39 background checks on Americans for Aegis UK to hire (Second Supp. Day Decl. ¶ 4)— is a nearly wholly-owned subsidiary of Aegis UK that is headquartered in the state of Virginia. (Id. ¶ 24; Second Supp. Decl. of Jeffrey Day (“Second Supp. Day Decl.”), ECF No. 60-1, ¶ 5.) At this stage of the litigation, the events surrounding the accident and the extent of Alkanani’s injury are not at issue. Rather, the question before this Court pertains to whether the Court has personal jurisdiction over Aegis UK, which depends in large part on the extent of the defendant’s business activity in the District of Columbia, as described in further detail below. With respect to nature and scope of Aegis UK’s business, the record evidence demonstrates that Aegis UK security guards were stationed in Baghdad to provide security-management and protective services to entities involved in reconstruction efforts in Iraq pursuant to a contract that the U.S. Department of the Army—a sub- division of the Department of Defense—had awarded to Aegis UK. (See Day Decl. ¶¶ 6-8 (referencing Contract No. W911SO-04-S-003 (the “Contract”)).). Further, the parties negotiated and executed the Contract outside of the District of Columbia: Aegis UK negotiated the Contract with government officials located in Virginia, and the company signed the Contract in the United Kingdom. (Id. ¶ 8.) It is also beyond dispute that Aegis UK does not maintain an office, base employees, or keep a bank account in the District of Columbia. (Id. ¶¶ 10-16, 23, 31-32.) Moreover, although Aegis UK owns approximately 99% of Virginia-based subsidiary Aegis LLC (Day Decl. ¶ 38), Aegis LLC manages its operations almost entirely separate from Aegis UK. (Day Decl. ¶¶ 26, 29-32.) The undisputed record evidence indicates that the two companies 3 Case 1:09-cv-01607-KBJ Document 69 Filed 03/26/14 Page 4 of 39 share two board members, but they do not share offices or business locations, and they maintain separate payrolls. (Id. ¶¶ 23, 28, 30-32.) B. Procedural Background Alkanani filed the instant complaint on August 24, 2009, and served the complaint on Aegis UK by having it delivered to the company’s offices in London. (See Return of Service/Aff., ECF No. 9.) The five-count complaint alleges that Aegis UK and Aegis LLC are liable for: (1) negligence, (2) negligence in hiring training and supervision, (3) intentional infliction of emotional distress, (4) negligent infliction of emotional distress, and (5) gross negligence. (Compl. ¶¶ 54-71.) In their required joint statement to the Court submitted under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 16, both Defendants represented an intent to file a dispositive motion in this matter: Aegis UK stated that it intended to seek dismissal for lack of personal jurisdiction, while Aegis LLC stated that it intended to file a motion for summary judgment on the grounds that it was an improper party. (Joint Report to the Court Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 16.3(c), ECF No. 8, at 2.) The Court permitted the parties to engage in limited discovery regarding these threshold issues. (See Scheduling Order, ECF No. 10, ¶ 1 (allowing for discovery “limited to issues raised in” the “motions mentioned in” the parties’ joint report).) At the close of that limited discovery period, Aegis LLC filed a motion for summary judgment, contending that there is no basis for holding Aegis LLC liable for the tort of its parent company, Aegis UK (Aegis LLC’s Mot. for Summ. J., ECF No. 47), and Aegis UK filed a motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction (see Def.’s Mot. at 1). 4 Case 1:09-cv-01607-KBJ Document 69 Filed 03/26/14 Page 5 of 39 The Court referred both motions directly to Magistrate Judge Kay (ECF No. 46), who ultimately recommended that this Court grant both motions. (See Report and Recommendation; Report and Recommendation Regarding Summ. J., ECF No. 61.) Neither party objected to Magistrate Judge Kay’s recommendation that the Court grant Aegis LLC’s motion for summary judgment, and this Court adopted that recommendation, agreeing with Magistrate Judge Kay’s conclusion that Alkanani had failed to establish that any theory—including alter ego theory, successor liability theory, or agency theory—supported Aegis LLC’s legal liability for the acts of its parent company, Aegis UK. Alkanani v. Aegis Def. Servs., LLC, No. 09-CV-1607, 2013 WL 5203613, at *1 (D.D.C. Sept. 16, 2013). Alkanani did object, however, to Magistrate Judge Kay’s recommendation that this Court grant Aegis UK’s motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction. (See Pl.’s Objections at 5-6.) On September 4, 2013, Aegis UK filed a response to Alkanani’s objection. (Def.’s Resp. to Pl.’s Objections, ECF No. 64.) In addition, on January 21, 2014, Aegis UK submitted a letter notifying this Court of the Supreme Court’s recent decision on general jurisdiction in Daimler AG v. Bauman, 134 S. Ct. 746 (2014), (see Def.’s Notice of Suppl. Auth., ECF No. 66), and Alkanani responded to that correspondence. (Pl.’s Resp. re Notice of Suppl. Auth., ECF No. 67.)2 Thus, before this Court at present is Aegis UK’s motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction, Magistrate Judge Kay’s Report recommending that this Court dismiss the 2 Notably, Defendant filed its notice of supplemental authority as a letter, and Alkanani responded in kind. (See Def.’s Notice of Suppl. Auth., ECF No. 66; Pl.’s Resp. re Notice of Suppl. Auth., ECF No. 67.) The Local Rules of this Court direct that “correspondence shall not be directed by the parties or their attorneys to a judge,” unless the judge requests otherwise, LCvR. 5.1(b), which means that the parties’ letters constitute a technical violation of the court’s rules. This Court has considered both filings despite this procedural error. 5 Case 1:09-cv-01607-KBJ Document 69 Filed 03/26/14 Page 6 of 39 case for lack of personal jurisdiction, Alkanani’s objections to the magistrate judge’s report, Aegis UK’s letter noting supplemental authority, and Alkanani’s response to Aegis UK’s correspondence. II. LEGAL FRAMEWORK A. Motions To Dismiss For Lack Of Personal Jurisdiction Pursuant To Rule 12(b)(2) Aegis UK seeks to dismiss this case pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(2) on the grounds that the court lacks personal jurisdiction over the company.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Private Military and Security Companies: Industry-Led Self-Regulatory Initiatives Versus State-Led Containment Strategies
    The Centre on Conflict, Development and Peacebuilding 11 CCDP Working Paper Role and Governance of Islamic Charitable Institutions: Private Military and Security Companies: Industry-Led Self-Regulatory Initiatives versus State-Led Containment Strategies Raymond Saner 1 Contents List of Acronyms ....................................................................................................................... 2 Preface ....................................................................................................................................... 3 Introduction ........................................................................................................4 Definitions and Use of Private Military and Security Companies ............................6 The PMSC Industry ..............................................................................................8 Self-Regulatory Initiatives by PMSCs ................................................................... 10 Countermoves by States and International Humanitarian Organizations ............... 14 Colliding Regulatory Initiatives .......................................................................... 16 Recommendations ............................................................................................. 20 Conclusion ........................................................................................................ 23 Annexes ..................................................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • B-400093.4,B-400093.5 Aegis Defence Services Limited
    Comptroller General of the United States United Stat es Government Accountability Office DOCUMENT FOR PUBLIC RELEASE Washington , DC 20548 The decision issued on the date below was subject to a GAO Protective Order. This redacted version has been approved for public release. Decision Matter of: Aegis Defence Services Limited File: B-400093.4; B-400093.5 Date: October 16, 2008 John S. Pachter, Esq., Jonathan D. Shaffer, Esq., Mary Pat Gregory, Esq., Matthew Lloyd Haws, Esq., and Richard C. Johnson, Esq., Smith Pachter McWhorter PLC, for the protester. David S. Black, Esq., Megan M. Mocho, Esq., and Jessica M. Madon, Esq., Holland & Knight LLP, for Global Strategies Group (Integrated Security), Inc., an intervenor. Roderick McCracken, Esq., Robert J. McKenney, Esq., and Derek B. Santos, Esq., Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, for the agency. Paul N. Wengert, Esq., and Ralph O. White, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision. DIGEST 1. Protest that agency misevaluated awardee and protester under experience and past performance factors by downgrading protester based on its limited experience in Afghanistan, and by giving awardee credit for experience of its subcontractors, including contracts performed in Afghanistan, is denied where agency judgments were reasonable and consistent with terms of solicitation. 2. Protest that agency improperly disregarded risk posed by awardee’s low price is denied where record demonstrated that agency had compared individual fixed price line items to government estimate and to prices offered by competitors, identified those where there were significant differences, and documented the agency’s basis for concluding that the awardee’s prices were reasonable.
    [Show full text]
  • Ex New Horizon
    Archived Content Information identified as archived on the Web is for reference, research or record-keeping purposes. It has not been altered or updated after the date of archiving. Web pages that are archived on the Web are not subject to the Government of Canada Web Standards. As per the Communications Policy of the Government of Canada, you can request alternate formats on the "Contact Us" page. Information archivée dans le Web Information archivée dans le Web à des fins de consultation, de recherche ou de tenue de documents. Cette dernière n’a aucunement été modifiée ni mise à jour depuis sa date de mise en archive. Les pages archivées dans le Web ne sont pas assujetties aux normes qui s’appliquent aux sites Web du gouvernement du Canada. Conformément à la Politique de communication du gouvernement du Canada, vous pouvez demander de recevoir cette information dans tout autre format de rechange à la page « Contactez-nous ». 1 CANADIAN FORCES COLLEGE / COLLÈGE DES FORCES CANADIENNES JCSP 33 / PCEMI 33 EXERCISE/EXERCICE NEW HORIZONS An Enduring Conflict: Specialist Retention in the British Army Versus Private Security Companies By /par Maj IS Warren This paper was written by a student La présente étude a été rédigée par un attending the Canadian Forces College stagiaire du Collège des Forces in fulfilment of one of the requirements canadiennes pour satisfaire à l'une des of the Course of Studies. The paper is exigences du cours. L'étude est un a scholastic document, and thus document qui se rapporte au cours et contains facts and opinions which the contient donc des faits et des opinions author alone considered appropriate que seul l'auteur considère appropriés and correct for the subject.
    [Show full text]
  • Companies Signing
    The International Code of Conduct for Private Security Service Providers Signatory Companies Complete List as of 1 August 2013 – Version with Company Details 1. 1Naval One Signed by: Alex Raptis, Operations Manager Date of becoming Signatory Company: 1 May 2013 (by letter) Headquarters: Panama, Panama City Website: www.naval1.com 1Naval One SA., provides specialized professional global security for the maritime industry. Our company offers services that cover the fields of training, consulting and maritime security. Our people are former members of elite and SF units of the armed forces with extensive operational experience in the maritime environment. Naval One S.A., operates to the highest international standards of the industry and in compliance of national and international laws. 2. 2D Security Signed by: Devrim Poyraz, Director Date of becoming Signatory Company: 1 February 2013 (by letter) Headquarters: Turkey, Istanbul Website: www.2d.com.tr We as 2D Security have been operating since 2001 on several different security fields such as ballistics cabin protection and consultancy. With our current company form, now we are entering sea security field. We just hired over 30 special trained navy seals which have employed by the Turkish Navy in the past. These personnel are ready to execute every mission that is needed in sea security. Most of our services will be assisting vessels passing through Suez Canal and Indian Ocean area protecting against piracy. Being part of your family would take us to the next level. One good thing about crew is having different missions in different countries as part of the NATO forces, this means having experience dealing with natives of those countries.
    [Show full text]
  • The Evolution of the Private Military Industry After the Cold War Joel AC
    Outsourcing War: The Evolution of the Private Military Industry after the Cold War Joel AC Baum Anita M McGahan Rotman School of Management, University of Toronto 105 St. George St. Toronto, Ontario M5S 3E6, Canada February 20, 2009 rev. October 5, 2009 Thanks to Xuesong Geng and Diederik van Liere for research assistance and to Rajshree Agarwal, Nick Argyres, Lyda Bigelow, Sandro Cabral, Ramon Cassadeus-Masanell, JP Eggers, Sarah Kaplan, Joe Mahoney, Costas Markides, Brian Silverman, Adrian Tschoegl, Marc Ventresca, Charlie Williams and seminar participants at the Academy of Management Meetings, Duke University, Erasmus University, New York University, London Business School, the NBER, the University of Arizona, the University of Illinois, the University of Michigan, the University of Toronto and the Wharton School for discussions related to this paper. Copyright © 2008, 2009 Joel AC Baum and Anita M McGahan. All rights reserved. Outsourcing War: The Evolution of the Private Military Industry after the Cold War Abstract In this paper, we study the evolution of private military corporations (PMCs), which are for-profit organizations that subcontract military field services to sovereign authorities as well as to others. Between Eisenhower’s famous “military-industrial complex” speech in 1961 and the post-9/11 war in Iraq, PMCs were transformed from relatively minor subcontractors to major companies with unique capabilities that made them strategically central to the sovereign military organizations from which they had grown. Throughout this period, PMCs exhibited a “hybrid organizational form” as delineated within organizational economics. Our purpose is grounded theorizing in which we derive insights about the evolution of PMCs as hybrid organizational forms.
    [Show full text]
  • Regulating Private Military Companies: What Role for the EU?
    CORE Metadata, citation and similar papers at core.ac.uk Provided by Brunel University Research Archive This is an Author's Accepted Manuscript of an article published in Contemporary Security Policy, Volume 26, Number 1, 2005, pp. (copyright Taylor & Francis), available online at: http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/pdf/10.1080/13523260500116091#.Uv4jr6OcYkA Regulating Private Military Companies: What Role for the EU? ELKE KRAHMANN Introduction Following allegations that private security guards were involved in the torture of Iraqi prisoners and in the wake an attempted coup by private mercenaries in Equatorial Guinea the proliferation of so-called ‘private military companies’ (PMCs) is again receiving considerable attention.1 Of particular concern in the public and academic debate is the continuing lack of effective national and international controls of the industry. Much of this debate criticizes that international regulation has so far focused almost exclusively on mercenaries and has been bogged down by problems related to defining PMCs. Moreover, it is suggested that national controls on PMCs are lacking in most countries with the exception of the United States and South Africa. This article seeks to show that this debate is systematically underestimat- ing the level of national and international regulation of the sector and thus the possibility of strengthening existing controls. It suggests that in particular in Europe since the mid-1990s there has been a growth of national and inter- national policies which directly or indirectly shape the provision and export of private military services. Moreover, this article argues that due to the specific dynamics of European integration these controls are not only increas- ing, but also converging within the European Union (EU).
    [Show full text]
  • Private Security Contractors in Iraq: Background, Legal Status, and Other Issues
    Order Code RL32419 Private Security Contractors in Iraq: Background, Legal Status, and Other Issues Updated August 25, 2008 Jennifer K. Elsea Legislative Attorney American Law Division Moshe Schwartz Analyst in Defense Acquisition Policy Foreign Affairs, Defense, and Trade Division Kennon H. Nakamura Analyst in Foreign Affairs Foreign Affairs, Defense, and Trade Division Private Security Contractors in Iraq: Background, Legal Status, and Other Issues Summary The United States is relying heavily on private firms to supply a wide variety of services in Iraq, including security. From publicly available information, this is apparently the first time that the United States has depended so extensively on contractors to provide security in a hostile environment, although it has previously contracted for more limited security services in Afghanistan, Bosnia, and elsewhere. In Iraq, private firms known as Private Security Contractors (PSCs) serve to protect individuals, transport convoys, forward operating bases, buildings, and other economic infrastructure, and are training Iraqi police and military personnel. By providing security for reconstruction and stabilization efforts, many analysts and policymakers say, private contractors contribute an essential service to U.S. and international efforts to bring peace to Iraq. Nonetheless, the use of armed contractors raises several concerns, including transparency and accountability. The lack of public information on the terms of the contracts, including their costs and the standards governing hiring and performance, make evaluating their efficiency difficult. The apparent lack of a practical means to hold contractors accountable under U.S. law for abuses and other transgressions, and the possibility that they could be prosecuted by foreign courts, is also a source of concern.
    [Show full text]
  • The African Union's Information War Against Al-Shabaab
    Williams, P D 2018 Strategic Communications for Peace Operations: stability The African Union’s Information War Against al-Shabaab. Stability: International Journal of Security & Development, 7(1): 3, pp. 1–17, DOI: https://doi.org/10.5334/sta.606 RESEARCH ARTICLE Strategic Communications for Peace Operations: The African Union’s Information War Against al-Shabaab Paul D. Williams Despite widespread agreement that effective strategic communications are a necessary part of complex peace operations, many missions struggle to generate relevant capabilities and implement effective campaigns. This article analyzes the experiences of the African Union Mission in Somalia (AMISOM) as a case study of this problem. Specifically, it examines how the United Nations (UN) tried to fill the gap by hiring a consortium of private firms known as the AU-UN Information Support Team (IST) to wage a strategic communications campaign against al-Shabaab. The IST’s goal was to drive, as well as communicate, AMISOM’s success, improve the mission’s media presence, and develop a communications strategy. The IST played an innovative and important function for AMISOM but suffered from several significant challenges that reduced its effectiveness. The conclusion therefore identifies four main lessons from AMISOM’s experiences that could improve strategic communications for peace operations. Introduction see also Duffey 2000). There have also been There is very little scholarly literature on how periodic calls for specific missions to improve to design and implement effective strategic their strategic communications capabilities communications for peace operations. The (e.g. Boutellis and Fink 2016: 24–25). few examples have focused on the need for The lack of scholarly attention is surpris- the United Nations (UN) to manage public ing given that several international organi- opinion in its mission areas and utilize new zations engaged in peace and security communications technologies through effec- activities have long recognized the impor- tive information strategies (e.g.
    [Show full text]
  • Private Military Companies
    ADVANTAGES AND DISADVANTAGES OF PRIVATE MILITARY COMPANIES Peter BENICSÁK Abstract: As a result of decreasing ability of various countries to counter internal violence in emerging states after the end of the Cold War, these states rely more and more on private military companies (PMC) to maintain security. These forces make profit as business enterprises offering military advice as well as providing fighting capabilities. This approach differs from the traditional method and requires attention from regular forces to learn and identify lessons from PMCs. There have been suggestions during the last few years that PMCs could provide services in peacekeeping missions for the UN to replace the fear and fatigue of member states to involve government forces in increasingly dangerous operations. What is the difference between a private military contractor and a trained regular soldier? Keywords: Private Military Companies (PMC), Outsourcing 1. Introduction illegal combatants. According to Private Military Companies (PMC) estimates this market has reached the provide security and military services level of 100 million US dollars by taking over certain tasks, usually annually. covered by regular forces based on 2. History governmental and/or private contracts. By the end of the Cold War, the old The picture is obviously more supporting/supported political and sophisticated, as we can see below. military relations transformed, Members of these organizations are therefore, more and more third world usually named as mercenaries, but at the countries were left alone without same time their companies call them reliable and effective military support, contractors and/or security experts; creating serious gaps in their defense meanwhile their business is considered and security systems.
    [Show full text]
  • Basra: Profiting from Their Destruction, the British
    Basra: Profiting from their Destruction, the British are Back By Felicity Arbuthnot Region: Middle East & North Africa Global Research, January 09, 2014 Theme: Oil and Energy In-depth Report: IRAQ REPORT “When will there be justice in Athens? There will be justice in Athens when those who are not injured are as outraged as those who are.” Thucydides (460 BC – 395 BC.) In December 2007, Major General Graham Binns, Commander of British Forces in Basra, handed illegally occupied Basra Province back to the Iraqis, with Basra city centre “festooned with flags, lights and banners to mark the occasion.” In fact, the whole nonsense was window dressing. British soldiers had been under siege in their bases between February and September that year and had withdrawn to Basra Airport, on the city’s outskirts, leaving just seven hundred soldiers in Basra, squatting in one of Saddam Hussein’s palaces. They too slunk out to the airport, under cover of darkness on 3rd September. At the hand over, Major General Binns said that Basra had been successfully wrested from its enemies and was now being handed back to its friends. However, at the time, a poll of 1,000 Basra residents for BBC’s Newsnight programme showed 85% saying British troops had been a negative effect on the Province for their five year occupation. Given the litany of claims of murder, torture, abuse, theft, against the British army being handled by lawyers in the UK, for Basra region residents, ”negative” seems a bit of an understatement. However, Major General Binns, who commanded the 7th Armoured Brigade when it led the siege of Basra in 2003, is back in Basra with a new hat on.
    [Show full text]
  • How Private Military Companies Challenge Global Governance, Erode Accountabilin and Exacerbate Conflict
    MARKETIZED SOLDIERING: HOW PRIVATE MILITARY COMPANIES CHALLENGE GLOBAL GOVERNANCE, ERODE ACCOUNTABILIN AND EXACERBATE CONFLICT by Gregg Blakely Hon. B.A., University of Toronto, 2002 PROJECT SUBMITTED IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF MASTER OF ARTS In the Department of Political Science O Gregg Blakely 2006 SIMON FRASER UNIVERSITY All rights reserved. This work may not be reproduced in whole or in part, by photocopy or other means, without permission of the author. APPROVAL Name: Gregg Blakely Degree: Master of Arts, Department of Political Science Title of Project: Marketized Soldiering: How private military companies challenge global governance, erode accountability and exacerbate conflict Examining Committee: Chair: Dr. Laurent Dobuzinskis, Associate Professor Department of Political Science Dr. Douglas A. Ross, Professor Senior Supervisor Department of Political Science Dr. Stuart Farson, Adjunct Professor Supervisor Department of Political Science Dr. Benjamin J. Muller, Limited Term Professor Internal Examiner Department of Political Science Date DefendedIApproved: December 4th. 2006 SIMON FRASER UNIVERSITY~ibra ry DECLARATION OF PARTIAL COPYRIGHT LICENCE The author, whose copyright is declared on the title page of this work, has granted to Simon Fraser University the right to lend this thesis, project or extended essay to users of the Simon Fraser University Library, and to make partial or single copies only for such users or in response to a request from the library of any other university, or other
    [Show full text]
  • Aegis Defence Services, Ltd
    Comptroller General of the United States United States Government Accountability Office DOCUMENT FOR PUBLIC RELEASE Washington, DC 20548 The decision issued on the date below was subject to a GAO Protective Order. This redacted version has been approved for public release. Decision Matter of: Aegis Defence Services, Ltd. File: B-403226; B-403226.2; B-403226.3 Date: October 1, 2010 Jonathan D. Shaffer, Esq., John S. Pachter, Esq., and Mary Pat Buckenmeyer, Esq., Smith Pachter McWhorter PLC, for the protester. Ron R. Hutchinson, Esq., Doyle & Bachman LLP, for TigerSwan, Inc., an intervenor. CPT Bridget E. Keenan, Department of the Army, for the agency. Edward Goldstein, Esq., and Christine S. Melody, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision. DIGEST Agency reasonably determined that awardee’s pricing was realistic, notwithstanding the fact that it was below that of the other technically acceptable offerors, where the agency determined that awardee’s lower pricing was due to its particular staffing approach, which allowed it to significantly reduce its costs. DECISION Aegis Defence Services, Ltd., of London, United Kingdom, protests the award of a contract to TigerSwan, Inc., of Apex, North Carolina, under request for proposals (RFP) No. W91GDW-10-R-6008, issued by the Department of Defense, CENTCOM Contracting Command, for personal security detail (PSD) services for the Task Force for Business and Stability Operations (TFBSO) in Iraq. Aegis challenges the agency’s technical evaluation, price realism evaluation, and best value selection decision. We deny the protest. BACKGROUND On June 7, 2010, CENTCOM issued the solicitation, which contemplates the award of a firm fixed-price contract to provide, for a 7-month period, personal security services needed for secure transportation and close proximity protection for designated officials throughout the country of Iraq.
    [Show full text]