I was having an discussion today with a good friend who, like me has been forced into unplanned entrepreneurship, about where he could find some business for his social media consulting firm. I asked him if he was registered in the federal Central Contractor Registry or the Virginia commonwealth registry, eVA. He had not heard of them or realized there was any advantage to going through all the hassle to do so. I implored him to do it because I am a big believer that when you are fishing for business its best to cast as wide a net as possible when starting out and even more so when the net is free. The Central Contractor Registry (CCR) (https://www.bpn.gov/ccr/) is the federal governments one stop shop for all contractors. The regulations for doing business with the government state that according to the FAR 4.11, prospective vendors must be registered in CCR prior to the award of a contract; basic agreement, basic ordering agreement, or blanket purchase agreement. In addition, pursuant to FAR 52.204-7, to register in CCR, a firm must have a Data Universal Numbering System (DUNS) number. The DUNS Number is assigned by Dun & Bradstreet, Inc. (D&B) to identify unique business entities. So, the bottom line is that if you hope to do any business with the federal government you need to just go through the pain and agony of getting your DUNS Number and registering in CCR. There are some exceptions to the rule spelled out on the CCR site but for the average small business you should just do it. It really isn't terribly hard and the process is pretty self explanatory. I figured it out all by myself and if that's possible then anyone can do it. Its not without its challenges for a start up like mine. I had to really put my brain to work deciding what is the appropriate When I launched ScoutComms I made my way down to our county economic development office as soon as I registered my 'Doing Business As' (DBA) with the courthouse. The very helpful staff listened to my just made up pitch about what we would be doing then started rattling off things for me to do right away including registering in the electronic database for the commonwealth called eVA. As it turns out, here in Virginia to do business with both state and local offices you need to be in eVA just like the CCR for the feds. Fortunately, the registration required pretty much the same basic info. For both you are going to have spend some quality time figuring what your North American Industry Classification System (NAICS) codes are going to be for your business so that you can compete for the right opportunities and be found by agencies looking for your services. But, this is something you need to figure out anyway. Have I gone after a single opportunity offered by either of these databases yet? Nope. But if I seen one I like I am ready to go for it and if by some fluke of fate a deal falls in my lap I will be ready. I have already met with government officials in my travels and almost to a man the first thing they have asked me is "Are you in the CCR?" My recommendation to fellow entrepreneurs is its best to be able to say "yes" than say "What the hell is the CCR?" I am not much of a fisherman but I do know its a bad idea to leave your biggest nets on the dock because it was inconvenient to load them on the boat.
Wednesday, March 9, 2011
Friday, March 4, 2011
ROTC returns to Harvard...with class
I am truly proud of my second Alma Mater today as Harvard President Drew Faust today signed an agreement with Secretary of the Navy Ray Mabus returning the Navy Reserve Officer Training Corps program to the campus for the first time in nearly 40 years. While this is significant in itself, I have to say I am most proud of the way in which Harvard handled this transition with decorum and patriotism.
While other Ivy League campuses, like Columbia, have seen outrageous and embarrassing incidents as they haggle over the idea of returning ROTC to their campuses due to the repeal of "Don't Ask, Don't Tell", (see this story from the NY Post:http://nyp.st/fLizAE) Harvard kept its promise without major drama and while maintaining the patrician image of the nations oldest university. I admit I had my doubts about how it would be handled from my own experience as a student in 2006-2007. While the graduate schools are supporters of the military the college had a much more vocal resistance. You could always count on kids from the college picketing a visiting general or military themed event so the question of welcoming the military back to campus seemed in doubt. But by all accounts President Faust led this effort directly and viewed it as a simple matter of promises made and promises kept. Harvard has said officially for over a decade that until DADT is repealed they would not support ROTC and upon its shelving the campus would re-open to the U.S. military. She announced in December she was happy to speak with the military and the Navy immediately stepped up to do so. It is the perfect first organization as Harvard was one of the first universities in the nation to join Navy ROTC back in 1926. Midshipmen will still attend their ROTC classes at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology ROTC battalion but they are now welcome on campus to wear their uniforms, use offices, classes and athletic fields and a reserve officer professor has been tasked to oversee the program implementation. Will there be a rush of students wanting to join ROTC? Probably not. But no longer will the stain of resistance to military service blacken our nations premier institution of higher learning. A place that teaches students from freshman to graduate student that service is a higher calling, for 40 years has had to caveat those values with the exclusion of the military. Today, that is no longer the case and as a veteran of four combat tours, over 22 years of military service and a graduate of the Harvard Kennedy School of Government, I am thrilled to no longer have to caveat my attendance at the school either. For more on this announcement read the Harvard Gazette article published last night: http://bit.ly/ibfOfBTuesday, March 1, 2011
A failed Rolling Stone hit job on a good leader
Michael Hastings rolled out his latest story on a general officer in Afghanistan last week to great fanfare but its clear he and his editors really blew it this time. By taking the word of a single officer, then only loosely verifying pieces of the story from others, he has instead shown his own ignorance of Army doctrine, the nature of the Afghan training mission headquarters and a fundamental lack of understanding of military protocols.
As an amateur writer I have been chewing on my own expose of the many failings in the tale of Lieutenant Colonel Michael Holmes and his righteous battle against the forces of evil all weekend. Then today I came across an incredibly well researched post from fellow retired Lieutenant Colonel and blogger Bruce McQuain who lays out in great detail the fallacies in Hastings story and the real story of the charges leveled against LTC Holmes that led to his ouster from theater with a General Officer Memorandum of Reprimand. The facts are pretty clear even now when you look at Holmes' business Facebook page (here: https://www.facebook.com/notes/syzygylogos-llc-a-strategic-communications-firm/syzygy-the-alignment-of-experience-and-inspiration/110437152314114) that he and his subordinate conceived of and launched a business while in theater and then portrayed their duties in country as part of their business venture. They violated, and are still in violation, of numerous articles of the Uniform Code of Military Justice as well as the Joint Ethics Regulations dictating relationships between superiors and subordinates and using your official positions for personal gain. This is a poorly sourced, completely false story with incorrect accusations and the absolute smartest thing Rolling Stone should do is retract the story in total and issue an apology. I can't imagine a scenario where that will occur though. They will stick to their guns and roll out their defenders claiming the Army is trying to hide a secret from the public instead. I can honestly say from having served in the Iraq sister organization of NATO Training Mission-Afghanistan that there is no credibility to these accusations against LTG Caldwell. As a professional communicator I was suspicious of Hastings and Rolling Stone's goals from the beginning of this tempest. The fact that the article used the same "branding" as the one with McChrystal sent my BS radar to maximum. Titled "Another Runaway General: Army Deploys Psy-Ops on U.S. Senators" its obvious that they were trying to capture the magic of the last take down that generated the biggest circulation numbers for the magazine in decades along with an award for Hastings. The editors and Hastings saw dollar signs again so with only a weeks worth of research they took a story that had been turned down by the Tampa Tribune and ran with it. Now the facts are slowly trickling out and it just doesn't look good for them this go around. It is to be noted that the Army has the option to recall LTC Holmes and his side-kick MAJ Laurel Levine back to active duty to face criminal charges if the investigation currently being conducted at the direction of General Petraeus finds they violated the UCMJ. I haven't read it in a while but I am pretty sure slander and libel against a superior officer are in there somewhere. I will leave it to Bruce McQuain to lay things out much better than I possibly can. Click on the link to go to the Hot Air site for the rest of his post. If you have time going, over to 'This ain't Hell's take on it is a lot of fun too: http://thisainthell.us/blog/?p=22416Hot Air: Rolling Stone’s shot at General Caldwell misfires
posted at 8:48 am on February 28, 2011 by Bruce McQuain
Apparently, after the article he wrote about Gen. Stanley McChrystal was instrumental in seeing McChrystal relieved of command in Afghanistan, Michael Hastings of Rolling Stone believed he had carved out a niche for himself. Going after the brass in war zones.
However his latest attempt, in which he accuses LTG William Caldwell, the general in charge of the NATO training mission in Afghanistan, of an effort to use “PsyOps” (Psychological Operations) against visiting US Senators misfired badly. For anyone who read the piece and has spent any time at all in the services the picture that formed immediately in the mind, given Hasting’s source, was “disgruntled officer”. And, as it turns out, that’s pretty much on the mark.
Hastings apparently took the word of LTC Michael Holmes as the premise and theme of his article. In fact he sets it up with a quote from Holmes:
“My job in psy-ops is to play with people’s heads, to get the enemy to behave the way we want them to behave,” says Lt. Colonel Michael Holmes, the leader of the IO unit, who received an official reprimand after bucking orders. “I’m prohibited from doing that to our own people. When you ask me to try to use these skills on senators and congressman, you’re crossing a line.”
Except LTC Holmes job wasn’t “in psy-ops” (Psychological Operations) nor is LTC Holmes trained in PsyOps. That is a very specific Military Occupational Specialty (MOS) that requires school training. The place in which PsyOps is taught is the John F. Kennedy Special Warfare Center and School at Ft. Bragg, NC. According to Special Operations Command, the Special Warfare School has never heard of LTC Michael Holmes.
Hastings also implies that Holmes received an official reprimand for “bucking orders” associated with the claim he was to use “psy-ops” on Senators. In fact he was instead cited for numerous violations of the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ) that included ignoring orders not to go off post in civilian clothes, surrendering his weapon to civilians in civilian restaurants, conflict of interest and telling falsehoods to superiors, among others. The reprimand Holmes received had little if anything to do with the reason implied by Hastings.
When asked by his immediate supervisor, a Colonel, whether LTC Holmes had permission to leave post in civilian clothes, Holmes told his his boss that the former Chief of Staff of the US’s Afghan Training Mission had given he and MAJ Laural Levine permission to wear civilian clothes off post. However, when contacted by the officer who conducted the Command’s AR 15-6 investigation into the matter, the former Chief of Staff, in a sworn statement, denied ever giving anyone blanket permission to wear civilian clothes or dine off post. For one thing, he didn’t have the authority to do such a thing. The former Chief of Staff stated that any such permission would have to be given by a general officer as required by the two different command policies. In this case that permission would have had to come from LTG Caldwell. No such permission was ever given. By claiming that the Chief of Staff had given them permission when that wasn’t the case, Holmes and Levine were in violation of Article 107 of the UCMJ – making a false official statement.
Another officer who was invited to go out with LTC Holmes and his subordinate, MAJ Levine, gave a sworn statement that Holmes said that he and Levine routinely went off post to restaurants in civilian clothes for social purposes not official business, that they surrendered their weapons at the Afghan civilian establishments and that they drank alcohol. All of those activities are in direct contravention of standing orders and policies in Afghanistan. The officer who gave the sworn statement declined the invitation to go with them.
The conflict of interest charge came about when Holmes and Levine decided they could use their experience in strategic communications to start a civilian business. On its face, there’s nothing wrong with that if you wait until you’re in a civilian capacity to do so. But when you use duty time and DoD assets to promote your business, or misrepresent your duty as something other than it is, that raises definite ethical problems. Holmes and Levine did both of these things. And as such were in violation of numerous parts of the Joint Ethics Regulations.
For instance, they used their DoD positions for their own personal gain, namely to pass off their work in training Afghans from the Ministry of the Interior and Ministry of Defense as work done on behalf of their company SyzygyLogos LLC. On the company’s Facebook page, in an entery dated April 8th, 2010, you’ll see pictures of Holmes, in civilian dress, under a post title which says, “SyzygyLogos LLC, A Strategic Communications Firm – Images from our training sessions with the Afghan Government.”
That was clearly done with the intent to generate business for their private company. Additionally they listed either the US Government or the Afghan MoI and MoD as their “current clients”. All of this activity violated UCMJ article 92 (Failure to obey an order or regulation – i.e. the ethics regulation). Both the article 92 and 107 violations also lead to a third UCMJ charge for LTC Holmes, violation of article 133 (conduct unbecoming an officer and gentleman).
Read the rest of this post: http://hotair.com/archives/2011/02/28/rolling-stones-shot-at-general-caldwell-misfires/?print=1
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)