The Evolving Contingency Contracting Market PKSOI Papers | Page 9

preparing to intervene in hybrid and non-state conflicts, it is not surprising to note that the surge of
contingency contracting in complex environments
was followed by numerous initiatives that aspired to
establish accountability within the industry. Given
the multilateral international profile of many of these
stability operations contracts, there is a necessity for
oversight of contracting firms’ use of foreign workers
in high-risk/complex environments. As the Government Accountability Office wrote in November of
2014, “Since the 1990s, there have been allegations
of abuse of foreign workers on U.S. government contracts overseas, including allegations of Trafficking in
Persons (TIP)5. In 2002, the United States adopted a
zero tolerance TIP policy regarding U.S. government
employees and contractors abroad, and began requiring the inclusion of this policy in all contracts in 2007.
According to U.S. State Department, implementation
of the TIP policy is important because the government
relies on contractors that employ foreign workers in
countries where they may be vulnerable to abuse.”6
While federal procurement policies and regulations
focus on meeting the mission needs of the contracting
entity or “customer”, the USG increasingly recognizes
that its buying power can be used to promote, if not
ensure, the responsible and ethical provision of goods
and services.7
In understanding the constantly evolving contingency contracting market, it is critical to understand
the different types of services that such companies
specialize in and how they might provide capability
specialization and service modularization to cater to
a variety of contract scopes of work, as well as how
contracting firms may offer institutional memory and
operational impartiality that might be difficult for
government employees to offer for a variety of rea2