Bob Brewin, of NextGov, reported yesterday that AF has “decided to pursue forming Cyber Command to defend Defense Department networks and to launch cyberattacks against foes after putting the project on hold in August,” as a result of some meetings in Colorado Springs, Colorado. But, the Air Force Times has drawn a decidedly different conclusion from those meetings. More on the flip side.

The Air Force Times wrote an article headlined: “Final word: One nuclear, but no cyber command.” They concluded, as did an AF press release, that “The Air Force will align its nuclear missions under a new nuclear command, and has canceled plans to stand up Cyber Command.”

They go on to say that a numbered Air Force, rather than a Command, would be the best course of action. Secretary Michael Donley said the decision was due to the complexities of cyberspace and the interdepartmental nature of protecting said cyberspace. “We will continue to do our part to increase Air Force cybercapabilities and institutionalize our cybermission,” he also mentioned. Which brings me to my last inquiry – If AF is not setting up a Command, but will still dedicate a number of service members and resources towards the development of cybercapabilities, just how much of role do they hope to play and what kind of turf war may be brewing?

Related: Washington Technology reported that the Air Force is looking for contractors to support their operations in cyberspace. “The Air Force tentatively plans a five-year indefinite-delivery, indefinite-quantity contract worth as much as $49.9 million,” according to Wash Tech. If you’d like to have a chance to win a multimillion dollar contract, visit my site, the Procurement Pub.

The Treasury Department released a rough outline of how the government plans to manage the $700 billion recovery plan yesterday, the New York Times reports. Among some of structure provisions is a timetable to have things ready in six weeks. They also formally announced that Neel Kashkari, 35, a former executive at Goldman Sachs who is an assistant secretary for international economics, will be in charge of the newly created Office of Financial Stability. Click on through to the other side…

The Associated Press did a little bit of homework on Kashkari, calling him the “New Bailout Chief.” Seems he’s been a top adviser for Treasury Secretary Paulson since his days at Goldman Sachs, and has worked in and out of government for years. What is not entirely clear is for how long Kashkari will be in power. Reports in the Wall Street Journal indicate that he’s being considered for “interim basis,” and that he’ll likely not be around after January. He, along with Treasury general counsel Robert Hoyt and head of legislative affairs Kevin Fromer put together the original bailout legislation, before it was roundly rejected by Republicans in the House.

From my point of view, all this appointment will mean is that if things turn south, Congress will have a name and a phone number to interrogate. The overall timing of this crisis will have Congressional hearings lined up well into the 2020′s because anything being set up now will undoubtedly take on a different form under the new administration in January 2009.

However, that being the case, we should find ourselves rather busy for the days and weeks to come, trying to figure out where and how this money is going to be used. According to the aforementioned New York Times story, the Treasury Department will plan “to outsource almost the entire project.” Treasury wants to hire one company as a “financial agent” to set up the basic system, and then “hire multiple investment managers that would each be responsible for different kinds of assets,” such as subprime mortgages, mortgage-backed securities and derivative instruments like collateralized debt obligations. For more fun rants and raves, please visit my very own blog, The Procurement Pub. Cheers!

The Washington Post story should be prerequisite for every voter casting a ballot – so please read before continuing…

Good. Now that you understand the dynamics of the old and aging justices, you can properly understand the urgency.

The Times editorial is comparatively weaker in its stance on this issue when compared to the USA editorial. The Times reiterates its belief that “Since several justices could depart in the next four years, this could be the most important election for the court in many decades.” Echoing their comments on September 20 that, “Under Mr. McCain, if a liberal justice or two or three steps down, we may see a very different America.” I think its fairly benign behavior for the NYT, personally.

However, the editorial board of USA Today has taken a surprisingly strong attitude towards who they see being the better steward for the Supreme Court. They take issue with two of McCain’s standards of nominating justices in the mold of President Bush’s appointees: 1) McCain said he would nominate those “who have a proven record of strict interpretation of the Constitution.” 2) And he’s on the record saying, “One of our greatest problems in America today is justices that legislate from the bench, activist judges.”

USA Today rebutted: “…those two mantras have served as conservative code for selecting judges who would favor their views on curbing access to abortion, protecting business against lawsuits and regulation, allowing government-prescribed prayer in school or limiting judicial review of the powers of the White House or the Defense Department.” They go on to advocate more debate time towards the issue and hope the two can get “beyond sloganeering and into substance.”

I can safely agree with these, and numerous editorials to come, that this election will be historic, if for no other reason than the Supreme Court. But I rather like the tinge of the USA Today editorial and would love to see this be a central topic during one of the next debates. T-minus 23 days…

L-3 Services of Reston won a $15.9 million contract from the Army to provide information technology support.

BAE Systems of Rockville won a $28.2 million contract from the Navy Air Systems Command to provide digital identification systems.

Lockheed Martin of Bethesda won a $125 million contract from the Navy to provide engineering and computer programming assistance to the Spanish government.

Alion Science and Technology of McLean won a $37.9 million contract from the Naval Air Warfare Center Training Systems Division to provide laptop computer-based, integrated anti-submarine warfare training systems.

ICx Technologies of Arlington won a $711 million contract from the Army to upgrade chemical sensors.

Cambridge Communication Systems of Alexandria won a $132.8 million contract from the Space and Naval Warfare Systems Command to provide host nations’ armed forces with situational awareness through sensor fusion, target detection and classification capabilities.

John C. Grimberg Co. of Rockville won a $17.2 million contract from the Navy for renovations.
Computing Technologies of Fairfax won an $11.1 million contract from the Marine Corps Systems Command to provide education support and other services.

AT&T Government Services of Vienna won a $75 million contract from the Navy to provide support to the U.S. special programs.

Booz Allen Hamilton of Herndon won a $38.3 million contract from the Air Force to provide survivability and vulnerability technical analysis.

Integral Systems of Lanham won a $7.5 million contract from the Air Force to provide support for satellite programs.

GAP Solutions of Reston won a $10.4 million contract from the National Guard Bureau to assist in executing soldier and family well-being programs.

Chenega Security & Protection Services of Ashburn won a $10.3 million contract from the U.S. Army Space & Missile Defense Command to provide security services for a radar system.

Pepco Energy Services of Arlington won a $25.3 million contract from the Defense Logistics Agency for electricity services.

Washington Gas Energy Services of Herndon won a $24.3 million contract from the Defense Logistics Agency for electricity services.

ACG Systems of Annapolis won a $10 million contract from the Navy for procurement of communication equipment.

Marshall Communications of Ashburn won a $7.6 million contract from the Navy for digital and production subscriber suites and spare parts.

Armor Group North America of McLean won a $5.8 million contract from the Naval Facilities Engineering Command for provision of security guard services.

Lear Siegler Services of Gaithersburg won a $46.4 million contract from the Air Force for aircraft support.

Booz Allen Hamilton of Herndon won a $24.9 million contract from the Air Force to provide planning, research and analysis for the U.S. Special Operations Command.

Booz Allen Hamilton of Herndon won an $18.3 million contract from the Air Force to provide intelligence analysis to U.S. Network Warfare and Critical Infrastructure Protection.

Northrop Grumman System of Linthicum Heights won a $16.1 million contract from the Air Force to provide repair services.

Booz Allen Hamilton of Herndon won a $7.7 million contract from the Air Force to implement Homeland Security operational planning.

Booz Allen Hamilton of Herndon won a $7.2 million contract from the Air Force to provide information support.

BAE Systems Technical Solutions & Services of Rockville won a $73.1 million contract from the Missile Defense Agency for specialized technical and advisory services.

Sodexho Management of Gaithersburg won a $71.1 million contract from the Navy to provide food services.

Chesapeake Sciences of Millersville won a $22.4 million contract from the Naval Sea Systems Command to provide listening devices for a submarine.

Coakley & Williams Construction of Gaithersburg won a $14.9 million contract from the Naval Facilities Engineering Command for renovations.

Advanced Engineering and Sciences of Annapolis Junction won a $10.9 million contract from the Navy for maintenance of current Counter Radio Controlled Improvised Explosive Device Electronic Warfare systems.

Progeny Systems of Manassas won a $9.7 million contract from the Navy for phase three of the Small Business Innovative Research program.

Computer Science of Falls Church won a $6.6 million contract from the Marine Corps System Command for technical support.

PAE Government Services of Arlington won a $6.1 million contract from the Naval Facilities Engineering Command for design and construction.

BAE Systems Technology Solutions & Services of Rockville won a $5.6 million contract from Marine Corps System Command to provide on-going technical, logistics and programmatic support.

SENSA Solutions of Herndon won a $9.6 million contract from the Army to provide organizational development support services.

Hensel Phelps Construction of Chantilly won a $6.7 million contract from the Army for renovations.

Contrack International of McLean won a $37.6 million contract from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers for bulk fuels storage.

Lockheed Martin Services of Gaithersburg won a $5.8 million contract from the Defense Logistics Agency for operational maintenance and development.

SY-Science and Technologies of Purcellville won a $20 million contract from the Defense Logistics Agency for pharmaceutical distribution.

Alenia North America of the District won a $287 million contract from the Air Force for the acquisition of 18 refurbished G222 aircraft.

Booz Allen Hamilton of Herndon won an $11.9 million contract from the Air Force for analytical support.

Booz Allen Hamilton of Herndon won a $9.8 million contract from the Air Force for safety engineering and technical analysis.

Booz Allen Hamilton of Herndon won a $6.9 million contract from the Air Force to provide survivability research, development, test, integration and technical analysis.

Northrop Grumman Systems of Linthicum Heights won a $73.1 million contract from the Air Force to provide a radar fire control system, electronic assembly set and individual components.

Marketing Assessment of Lansdowne won a $25.8 million contract from the Defense Logistics Agency for blanket warming systems.

3e Technologies International of Rockville won a $48.6 million contract from the Naval Surface Warfare Center for the design, test and implementation of a monitoring system.

EG&G Technical Services of Germantown won a $40.7 million contract from the Navy for repair and reutilization of electronic and sales equipment.

DRS C3 Systems of Gaithersburg won a $10.1 million contract from the Naval Surface Warfare Center for engineering and technical services.

John C. Grimberg Co. of Rockville won an $8.4 million contract from the Navy for the restoration of mechanical and interior systems.

Chenega Security & Protection Services of Ashburn won an $8 million contract from the Navy for regional armed security guard services.

John C. Grimberg Co. of Rockville won a $6.8 million contract from the Navy for the restoration of mechanical and interior systems.

Tompkins-Turner Grunley Kinsley of the District won a $127.8 million contract from the Army for a design, build, command, control, technical, intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance center of excellence.

TTFC Eagle of Alexandria won a $12.7 million contact from the Army for the design and construction of a readiness center.

Autometric of Springfield won a $5.3 million contract from the Army for full-motion video analysis.
Sodexho Management of Gaithersburg won a $78.8 million contract from the Marine Corps to provide food services.

Northrop Grumman Space & Mission Systems of Herndon won a $10.9 million contract from the Navy for engineering and other technical support.

HSU Development Co. of Rockville won a $21.6 million contract from the Army Corp of Engineers for design services.

TW of Lanham won a $20.6 million contract from the Air Force for certified armed security guard services.

NCI Information Systems of Reston won a $11.5 million contract from the U.S. Transportation Command for information technology support.

NCI Information Systems of Reston won a $6.8 million contract from the U.S. Transportation Command for information technology support.

Lockheed Martin of Manassas won a $14.1 million contract from the U.S. Transportation Command for maintenance.

Integrated Resource Technologies of Alexandria won a $29.2 million contract from the Defense Security Cooperation Agency for professional, administrative and management support services.

Vector Planning and Services of Chantilly won a $3.4 million contract from the Navy for support services.

American Infrastructure of Chantilly won an $11.9 million contract from the Department of Transportation for construction of structures and facilities.

SFA of Crofton won a $1.7 million contract from the Navy for research and development.

Nova Research won a $1.9 million contract from the Department of Health and Human Services for professional, administrative and management support services.

Scitor of Arlington won a $1.3 million contract from the Washington Headquarters Services for special studies and analysis.

Information Innovators of Springfield won an $86 million contract from the Department of Commerce for information technology services.

Avanti of Alexandria won a $1.2 million contract from the Environmental Protection Agency for natural resources and conservation services.

Science Applications International of Alexandria won an $8.4 million contract from the Army for information technology.

The Center for Clinical and Forensic Services won a $4.7 million contract from the Court Services and Offender Supervision Agency for social services.

PharmAthene of Annapolis won a $70.6 million contract from the Department of Health and Human Services for research and development.

Quantum Dynamics of McLean won a $30 million contract from the Army for professional, administrative and management support services.

SPADAC of McLean won a $1.2 million contract from the Navy for research and development.
Information Systems Laboratories of Rockville won an $11.5 million contract from the Nuclear Regulatory Commission for support services.

Fisher BioServices of Rockville won a $36.4 million contract from the Department of Health and Human Services for research and development.

Absolute Staffers of Landover won a $326.1 million contract from the Air Force for professional, administrative and management support services.

Lintrax of Laurel won a $1.6 million contract from the Department of Commerce for information technology and telecommunication services.

Ribeiro Construction of Clinton won a $2.3 million contract from the Army for maintenance, repair and alteration of real property.

Chemonics International of the District won a $6.5 million contract from the Department of State for professional, administrative and management support services.

Labat-Anderson of McLean won a $5.9 million contract from the Department of Justice for support services.

Nortel Government Solutions of Fairfax won a $2.8 million contract from the Department of Education for professional, administrative and management services.

Brican of Springfield won a $4 million contract from the Department of Veteran Affairs for construction of structures and facilities.

Progeny Systems of Manassas won a $13.2 million contract from the Navy for research and development.

IQ Solutions of Rockville won an $8.8 million contract from the Department of Health and Human Services for research and development.

Novascreen Biosciences of Hanover won a $5 million contract from the Department of Health and Human Services for research and development.

IMI of Gaithersburg won a $4.7 million contract from the Architect of the Capitol for maintenance, repair and alteration of real property.

Bridge Global Pharmaceutical Services of Gaithersburg won a $4.1 million contract from the Department of Health and Human Services for research and development.

URS Group of the District won a $12 million contract from the Army for architect and engineering services.

Lockheed Martin Services of Gaithersburg won a $4.9 million contract from the Air Force for information technology and telecommunication services.

Swanke Hayden Connell & Partners of the District won a $9.5 million contract from the U.S. Postal Service for architect and engineering services.

IronBrick of Vienna won a $2.1 million contract from the Navy for information technology equipment.

Force 3 of Crofton won a $1.2 million contract from the Department of State for technology equipment.

Science Applications International of McLean won a $17.4 million contract from the Navy for research and development.

Maximus Federal Services of Reston won a $10.3 million contract from the Social Security Administration for professional, administrative and management services.

Technical Solutions & Maintenance of Alexandria won a $1.7 million contract from the Department of Homeland Security for support services.

Digital Sandbox of McLean won a $25 million contract from the General Service Administration for professional, administrative and management support services.

Diverse Technologies of Upper Marlboro won a $3.7 million contract from the Defense Logistics Agency for support services.

Jemal’s Lazriv Water of the District won a $2.4 million contract from the Department of Homeland Security for lease or rental of facilities.

BAE Systems of the District won a $2.3 million contract from the Air Force for research and development.

EMCOR Government Services of Arlington won a $1.1 million contract from the Army for the operation of government-owned facilities.

Northrop Grumman Technical Services of Herndon won a $1 million contract from the Air Force for aircraft and airframe structural components.

Global Technologies Solutions of Richmond won a $4.2 million contract from the Army for supplies, equipment and material.

Computer Science of Alexandria won a $17.9 million contract from the Defense Threat Reduction Agency for professional, administrative and management support services.

SNAP of Chantilly won an $8.3 million contract from the Department of Treasury for information technology services.

Management Solutions Consulting of Lanham won a $3.3 million contract from the Department of Health and Human Services for technical representative services.

Forrester Construction of Rockville won a $63 million contract from the Navy for construction of structures and facilities.

Tuckman-Barbee Construction of Upper Marlboro won a $2.3 million contract from the Navy for architect and engineering services.

Vsquared of Silver Spring won a $9.4 million contract from the Army for construction of structures and facilities.

MORF 6 of Rockville won a $1.2 million contract from General Services Administration for lease or rental facilities.

Desbuild of Hyattsville won a $2.5 million contract from the Navy for architect and engineering services.

Grunley Construction of Rockville won a $4.8 million for construction.

Science Applications International of McLean won a $250 million contract from the National Ocean and Atmospheric Administration for surveying services.

Science Applications International of McLean won a $39 million contract from the U.S. Air Force Special Operations Command to support unmanned aerial vehicle operations at Cannon Air Force Base (AFB), N.M., and Nellis AFB, Nev.

The German Chancellor looks unimpressed by the growing unease in European markets

The New York Times and the Wall Street Journal are both reporting today on the effects of the American credit crisis on European soil. It seems as though Monopoly Europe has just been released. More on the flip side.

The Journal story does an excellent job of summarizing what individual countries like Ireland, Germany and the UK are doing to shore up what is seen as a massive gap in confidence – and rightly so. Many of the banks lack the comprehensive guarantees afforded by the United State’s FDIC, so they have either promised to guarantee deposits or raise the amount they are willing to guarantee (although those levels remain far below the $250,000 currently being covered by the US government. Britain raised guarantees up to $90,000 while Germany will insure the first $27,000).

Both the Journal and the Times have done a good job explaining the added complexities inherent in the European situation. Although sixteen countries have adopted the Euro, there exists no governmental or regulatory body to policy and monitor the currency that would have the same power as the United States Federal Bank. There is a European Central Bank (ECB), but it remains politically weak in its ability to convince member banks to lend to each other “beyond periods of a few days.”

Sylvester Eijffinger, a member of the monetary expert panel advising the European parliament, was interviewed by the Times as saying, “First we had economic integration, then we had monetary integration. But we never developed the parallel political and regulatory integration that would allow us to face a crisis like the one we are facing today.”

Past & Prologue will be on watch as these and other stories progress.

The story is this: Since the President issued his first call to action over the financial crisis – all three pages of it – many points of clarification and provisos have been added to the plan. One thing, however, that has not been changed, is the new-found authority of the Treasury Secretary.

Henry Paulson has stated that, “We need confidence, and this is about confidence.” But according to the Washington Post, there may be more to it, as far as the Treasury Department is concerned. The Post reports that, “[The] Treasury Department would decide what kind of assets to buy, and which financial firms could sell them. It would decide how much to pay. And it would hire firms to manage its acquisitions, without having to obey the normal rules for hiring contractors.”

This kind of management seems ominous.

The New York Times agrees: “Rarely if ever has one man had such broad authority to spend government money as he sees fit, with no rules requiring him to seek out the lowest possible price for assets being purchased.”

It seems to us that the Treasury Secretary has undertaken the new hat of Hedge Fund Manager and Chief. If the Secretary can unilaterally decide what assets or groups of assets to buy – be they bad mortgages or otherwise – with taxpayer monies, they are acting as a stockbroker or hedge fund manager for the entire country.

En lieu of these drastic times, we may well see restrictions added to these unfettered powers at a later point. Our question is, will those restrictions be put in place by a forward-thinking Congress or the General Accountancy Office, after misconduct and abuse has taken place?

Right now, it doesn’t seem like we’re any closer to increasing that “confidence” the Secretary spoke of.

There are Republicans who both favor and oppose the President’s plan, those who are against are wary of the tremendous $700 billion price tag. Newt Gingrich is leading that charge on the airwaves and Senator Richard C. Shelby of Alabama, the senior Republican on the banking committee, has said “I am concerned that Treasury’s proposal is neither workable nor comprehensive despite its enormous price tag.”

Meanwhile, Democrats are working to ensure more than a blank check is included in this package. They are pushing for equity share for taxpayers (should the plan work and actually make money), amendments to the bankruptcy laws, control over executive pay on those firms who use government funds, and oversight guarantees. It’s unclear if this legislation will be passed by Friday, when the session is supposed to adjourn for its election recess. But this humble observer things the only thing that will stick is the one thing that will warrant the most attention: Oversight.

The New York Times reports that, “Officials said that the administration was also prepared to adopt conflict-of-interest rules for any private firms that are hired to help the Treasury manage the bailout program.” And the Wall Street Journal article says, “One broad area of agreement involves congressional oversight. Rep. Frank said the Treasury agreed to an independent board to monitor the bailout and report on its progress to Congress and the public.” However the Journal goes on to say the proposed board wouldn’t have veto authority over Treasury investment decisions, and the bailout’s launch wouldn’t be delayed while a board was being put in place.

Does anyone know if Lockheed Martin has a vertical dedicated to stock market analysis so the Treasury can decide which “distressed assets” to buy? I bet Citi Group does. Stay tuned…

Related link: Editorial: Trust Me

One speaker, in particular, was admittedly “depressed” by the GOP’s recent bounce. Ronald Dworkin – American legal philosopher, current professor at University College London and the New York University School of Law – had pleaded for previous speaker Mark Danner to “cheer him up with some favorable numbers.” After summarily disregarding Obama’s current poll position with regards to the “symbol-based community,” Danner left Dworkin to dwell on the rank possibilities of the Supreme Court under John McCain’s stewardship.

Dworkin said the Constitution stands to be left far worse than “more of the same” if McCain wins the White House. He argued that given the current makeup of the Supreme Court, in terms of age and ideology, many long-standing precedents regarding women’s rights, free speech and Affirmative Action would be completely overhauled given another four years of a GOP-led presidency.He stressed the key role Justice Kennedy has played, citing Kennedy’s record as a lynch pin.

In a Sunday Editorial, the New York Times concurred. “Under Mr. McCain, if a liberal justice or two or three steps down, we may see a very different America.” The veracity with which Dworkin spoke, left the assembled crowd just as depressed as he was. But, on the bright side, Gallup currently has Obama at +4…

Pretty much everything else about this project is under lock and key. A few details have been forth coming over the last few months, but by and large, the initiative’s depth and breadth have yet to be released to the public.

Some have argued that we need not worry about the unknown quantities of this program – like cost, management parameters, and objectives – because it is, after all, about security. I for one have heard this argument way too many times for my own comfort, and anytime someone is so bold to suggest such a thing, it makes me all the more suspicious. Over the next few days, I’ll try to put a face to this phantom and we’ll see if the lines between the dots can become clearer. I’ll discuss what is known about CNCI, including the twelve programs that were outlined at a recent government cybersecurity symposium; I’ll outline what direction I think this wind is blowing, with regards to who’s steering this ship on Uncle Sam’s side of the family; and finally, we’ll do some number crunching and some contractor watching, to get a feel for how the procurement of this lovely directive can be bollixed.

Please stay tuned.  I am Edwin Constant and The Co-Op is just getting revved up.

– The Co-Op is a haphazardly updated column, focused on the mysterious and bewildering world of United States government procurement. The views and opinions of its author(s) are usually based in hard fact, but contradictory information is always welcome. Cheers.

So much for the numbers; it’s good to have a nice baseline – a clear understanding of just how many gold $500 bills you’ll need as the banker in this game. And make no mistake, as taxpayers, we are all the bankers in this game of Monopoly, we just happen to be playing against other bankers who’ve run out of money. Now, usually when someone runs out of money in the Parker Brothers’ game, they curse and run off or fetch some collateral from Grandma. But this is no game – this is real and Lehman Brother’s just lost their building on Boardwalk, in Midtown Manhattan, to British investment firm, Barclays.

For the vast majority of Americans who don’t deal directly with these Wall Street firms, life may very well carry on as usual – fluctuating fuel prices, increased unemployment, and a general feeling of malaise about the state of the world.

Why, then, is the government shelling out so much money: Implications?

According to the Bush Administration, the cost of inaction is far greater than the $1.1 trillion being thrown at the situation now. They’re right. If the government did nothing, total collapse of the world’s financial markets would be the likely outcome, and the Monopoly board would simply implode on itself. What inquiring, and relatively insulated, minds can now ask is, “Since when does this administration care about consequences and implications?”

Some will say deregulation is to blame for this crisis, others choose not to dwell, or don’t say – but one thing is clear: The Bush Administration has taken an “about face” on its non-interventionist fiscal policies with a likely, but still unheard explanation, that, “Desperate times call for drastic measures.” These are indeed desperate times, but this altruistic turn of events will be short-lived, there will be big business in helping the government help the markets.

According to the Sunday’s New York Times, “The administration’s plan would allow the Treasury to hire staff members and engage outside firms to help manage its purchases.” And there is the distinct possibility, being offered to taxpayers, that they may well come out ahead in the end. The Los Angeles Times pointed out Sunday that the U.S. Government actually made money in 1980 when they decided to extend $1.5 billion in bankruptcy insurance to Chrysler motor company.

Time will tell how this mess will unfold, but for the time being, Past & Prologue will keep its Eye on the Money, and keep its dibs on the thimble. This game of Monopoly has just started to get interesting.