Posted on 12/11/2014 2:37:27 PM PST by jazusamo
Full title: Judicial Watch: State Department Documents Show Its Security Contractor Operating without a License in Benghazi on Day of Terrorist Attack
(Washington, DC) – Judicial Watch has obtained andreleased internal Department of State documentsdetailing the department’s $783,284.79 contract with U.K.-based Blue Mountain Group (BMG) to provide security at the diplomatic outpost in Benghazi, Libya. The documents show that BMG did not have a license to operate in Libya at the time of the attack due to a business dispute with its partner in Libya, XPAND Corporation, and quote a State official describing the Benghazi security issue as an “emergency situation.” Judicial Watch obtained the documents through a court order in a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) lawsuit ( Judicial Watch v U.S. Department of State (No. 13-00243)).
BMG notified State Department Contracting Officer Jan Visintainer of the dispute on June 6, 2012. On July 10, 2012, Visintainer advised the company that the department, “is not required to mediate any disagreements between the two parties of the Blue Mountain Libya partnership.” The letter further suggested that “it is in the best interests of both of the 50/50 partners to resolve their differences and successfully complete this contract.”
Despite that urging, the documents obtained by Judicial Watch include an agreement, dated August 20, 2012, between Blue Mountain Group and XPAND Corporation to dissolve their partnership. On September 9, 2012 – just two days before the terrorist attack – an unidentified partner at Nabulsi & Associates (the law firm representing XPAND) wrote to Visintainer advising the department that XPAND, which owned the security license under which BMG was operating, “hereby bar and prohibit BMUK [Blue Mountain U.K.] from utilizing such license.” The letter continues:
Accordingly, we kindly inform you that any use of such license by BMUK in Libya shall be illegal and a clear violation of Libyan laws. We therefore request that the US mission ceases any dealings with BMUK if such dealings are based on any form of reliance on such security license.
In response to XPAND’s letter, an unidentified BMG official wrote to Visintainer on September 11, 2012:
I have never experienced anything like this in business before. The agreement was signed and we were to operate under the [Blue Mountain Libya] license and confirmation of this was due through from [sic] the partners. However, they have had a change of mind and now this. I will call you very shortly.
The documents indicate that the dispute and licensing issue led the State Department to immediately plan to terminate their contract with BMG. On the morning of September 11, 2012, David Sparrowgrove, a State Department regional security officer, wrote to Visintainer and others, “The dissolution of the partnership leaves BMG without a security license to operate in Libya and the Libyan partner has no capacity to manage the guards or the contract. As a result, we feel the best course of action is to terminate the contract in short order.” Sparrowgrove also writes, “I’ve CC’d OPO Branch Chief Ricki Travers who has had the unfortunate pleasure of dealing with these types of emergency situations in the past.”
In an email from Deputy Assistant Secretary of the Bureau of European and Eurasian Affairs Mark Toner dated October 17, 2012, the fact that the dispute between BMG and XPAND meant the company was operating without a license is glossed over, any reference to the September 11, 2012, emergency Benghazi security situation is specifically omitted, and he describes Visintainer’s response in July as “invoking collaborative resolution to the said dispute.” The misleading responses are significant because they were also shared with Congress.
The day after the attack, the Nabulsi law partner wrote again to Visintainer on behalf of XPAND to express their condolences and to advise the State Department that in light of the attack, “XPAND shall put its differences with the security operators, Blue Mountain UK, to the side for the moment, and shall allow the use of its security license by BMUK to meet your full needs until a suitable alternative has been arranged.”
The records reveal that Blue Mountain Group was not the only security contractor to bid on the Benghazi contract. A February 1, 2012, email from State Department contractor Neil Kern identifies two other bidders, including Torres Advanced Enterprise Solutions. According to federal contracting records, Torres, a Service Disabled Veteran Owned Small Business based in Virginia, has won nearly $70 million in contracts with the department (including those to provide guard services in Pakistan, Iraq, and Jordan).
It’s unclear from the documents why the Benghazi contract was instead awarded to BMG, which apparently had never previously provided security for a U.S. government agency.
The documents also disclose a previously unknown “Benghazi Group supporting the Secretary” that evidently was managing responses to press and Congressional inquiries.
As previously reported, Judicial Watch has obtained records revealing significant and ongoing problems with BMG’s security operations in Benghazi. These included several guards walking off the job out of fear for their safety and an altercation between the BMG guard force commander and a member of the 17thFebruary Martyrs Brigade that led to the commander’s dismissal.
The role BMG played in protecting the security of the Benghazi Consulate first came to light shortly after the September 2012 terrorist attack when State Department spokesperson Victoria Nuland emphatically denied on September 18, 2012, that State had hired any private firm to provide security at the American mission in Benghazi. The department later retracted that claim.
“These documents took years to see the light of day and show the Obama administration had a security emergency on the day of the Benghazi terrorist attack. And the documents indicate the administration specifically withheld this pertinent information from both Congress and the American people. It seems an odd coincidence the Middle East firm providing security for the Benghazi facility desperately wanted out two days before the terrorist attack,” stated Judicial Watch president Tom Fitton.
The full production of documents can be found here,here and here.
Licenses are just for the 8 year old down the block who wants to sell lemonade to donate the profits to some worthy cause.
“Operating without a licence” —I think that’s what the cops said about the Oath Keepers near Ferguson, right?
They were providing security, putting out fires, cleaning up, and being nice to people.
Sounds like BMG are fly-by-nighters and useless due to security running away.
The crux of the situation is who in the State Department is responsible for the contract and whose palms got greased.
Yep, but I don’t recall hearing that the Oath Keepers ran away.
If it seemed I advanced a claim the Oath Keepers ran away, then that impression would be mistaken.
I like the Oath Keepers a lot.
No, you did not and I understood that. I was making the point that guards from this BMG did run away on a couple of occasions and I believe there was payola involved in them getting the contract.
I share your suspicion.
bkmk
The State Department is filled with civilian bureaucrats who are CIA wannabees, without the required level of vetting, training and the threat of certain death if they screw it up.
BTW, I also have little love for the CIA, since the late 1970s, which is when I came first into contact with them on direct working levels.
Granted, they were justifiably pissed off that Carter had just succeeded in kicking them in the nuts and stabbing them in the back.
But still...
Blow-by-Blow: How Obama & Hillary Left Americans to Die"Nordstrom further testified in writing that Hillary Clinton waived security requirements for the Benghazi consulate despite high and critical threat levels in the six categories of security standards established under the Overseas Security Policy Board and the Secure Embassy Construction and Counterterrorism Act of 1999. The waiver can only be authorized by the Secretary of State, who cannot delegate that responsibility to someone else. ”If the Secretary of State did not waive these requirements, who did so by ordering occupancy of the facilities in Benghazi and Tripoli?” Nordstrom wrote."
BUMP
Benghazi ping.
Let Republicanprofessor know if you want on or off this ping list.
Mrs. Roby Q & A (At 2 hours 6 min 56 seconds to 2:18:08) reveals that to this day (according to state dept) local security contractors are not vetted and fail to provide documentation.
Select Committee on Benghazi Holds Second Hearing
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/3236325/posts
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gu_3kOZQtuc
That is just amazing!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.