Saturday, December 6, 2014

#2193: Marine Links Serco Obama Insider Trading Frauds To Malaysia Airlines Waypoint Bombs

Plum City - ( : United States Marine Field McConnell has linked Obama’s alleged use of the Small Business Administration networks in insider-trading frauds on Serco shareholders to the conversion of Malaysian Airlines Flight 370 and Flight 17 aircraft into ad hoc waypoint bombs apparently flown remotely by Serco operatives in the U.S. Air Force Space Command.

McConnell claims Obama tasked Marianne O'Brien Markowitz, the former Acting Administrator of the Small Business Administration (SBA) and the former Chief Financial Officer for Obama for America in 2008, with funding various SBA set-aside contracts (cf. Innoventor) so that Serco could convert the MH Boeings into waypoint bombs through the cesium clocks on the Air Force's E-4B Advanced Airborne Command Post and infiltrate clean-up crews with documents laundered through the National Visa Center to remove evidence of the conversion of the planes into waypoint bombs.

McConnell claims that his sister Kristine 'Con Air' Marcy, the former Chief Operating Officer of the Small Business Administration, set up selected Serco shareholders (HSBC?) to profit from 9/11 insider information after they had heard a presentation on the 47th Floor of WTC#1 by Chris Hyman, the former Chief Executive Officer of Serco, a few minutes before a Boeing 767-223ER, allegedly flying as the waypoint bomb of American Airlines Flight 11, hit the tower at 8:46 am.

McConnell challenges his sister and Rupert Soames, Serco's April Fool's Day Chief Executive Officer, to respond to his allegations while reminding them of the Jeffersonian dictum "I tremble for my country when I reflect that God is just; that his justice cannot sleep forever."

Prequel 1: #2192: Marine Links Sister And Serco's Darkest Hour To KSM Obama Visa Center, AF Stand Down Space Command

Marianne O'Brien Markowitz 

Innoventor is a favorite SBA supplier to Lockheed Martin
(JonBenet/Lynne Cheney/Norman Mineta) and Boeing (E4B, Shalikashvili,
Serco C4I2TSR waypoint hijacks).

E4B (Air Force One) on 9/11 Over
Washington DC; Bush Sr. Inside White House

WTC1 North Tower Plane Impact
on 9/11 – Naudet 

Serco... Would you like to know more?

Serco still not cheap at a third off 

 "Malaysian Airlines MH370 and MH17. A Criminologist Questions: What are the Probabilities? Is it a Mere Coincidence?
Vladimir Putin is to Blame, according to the Mainstream Media
Global Research, July 20, 2014
Region: Russia and FSU

In-depth Report: UKRAINE REPORT
Four months after the vanishing of Malaysia Airlines flight 370, Malaysian Airlines flight 17 was brought down by a surface-to-air missile.

Western Mainstream Media (MSM) hastened–on the basis of very thin evidence joined with the refusal to even mention other evidence–to attribute blame to the “appropriate” party, which in the case of flight 17 happens to be Vladimir Putin.
 Careful observers of the mainstream media processes are well aware that this sort of thing is what we are to expect, and undoubtedly helps explain the very low level of trust people place in MSM institutions.

Here, of course with the leave of figures such as Anderson Cooper and Barack Obama, we are going to do some of our own thinking about, and analysis of, certain key pieces of evidence.  In so doing, we should not be surprised if we arrive at conclusions different from that which our Ruling Class masters would have us believe.

First, let’s present the currently prevailing theory as to what happened.  K.T. McFarland, national security analyst at Fox, presents "three possible scenarios" pertaining to the attribution of responsibility.

Of the three "possible" scenarios McFarland presents (and one wonders exactly what scenarios are supposed to be impossible), McFarland (and many others) appears to favor the prospect that pro-Russian rebel separatists are responsible.  The theory is that motive and opportunity coincide in that group better than they do with respect to other potential malfeasants.

Maybe the separatists are responsible.  But the case is hardly closed, and plenty of evidence that people such as McFarland choose to ignore should be considered as objectively as possible.

First, similar to Malaysia Airlines flight 370, there is evidence that contact with Malaysia Airlines flight 17 was lost in advance of the wayward event. Next, and once more like flight 370,we have evidence that the pilot of Flight 17 actually diverted–purportedly on the basis of a vague sense of being “uncomfortable”–the craft into the dangerous warzone region where it was shot down.

Next, reflect that, on the same day, 55 planes flew over Donetsk just as flight 17 did and that these flight patterns have been in place for some time.

The Normal MH17 Flight Path vs. the Warzone flight path over Donesk Oblast on July 17th

And here is evidence reported by Zero Hedge that may be very important:

"While there are various questions that have already emerged from what was supposed to be Ukraine’s "slam dunk" proof confirming Russian rebel involvement in today's MH-17 tragedy, perhaps one just as gaping question emerges when one looks at what is clearly an outlier flight path in today’s final, and tragic, departure of the Malaysia Airlines Boeing 777.

Perhaps the best visualization of what the issue is, comes from Vagelis Karmiros who has collated all the recent MH-17 flight paths as tracked by Flightaware and shows that while all ten most recent paths pass safely well south of the Donetsk region, and cross the zone above the Sea of Azov, it was only today's tragic flight that passed straight overhead Donetsk.”
 The Karmiros evidence could of course be wrong, but can we prove that it is wrong now, and can we be 100% confident that what the MSM tells us is true?

And, if it's wrong, why hasn’t the Karmiros evidence been refuted?  The answer to that is that it's probably because it hasn’t received any discussion.  Why not?

Next, here are a few other curious tidbits.  The flight 17 crash shares an anniversary with the demise of TWA 800, which AT’s own Jack Cashill has compellingly argued was, in fact, brought down by a missile on July 17, 1996 and subsequently covered up by the US government.  And, the maiden flight of flight 17 occurred in 1997 on the date of, you guessed it, July 17.  [Moreover Russia's last ruling monarch of the Romanov family Tsar Nicholas II, together with his wife Tsarina Alexandra and their five children Olga, Tatiana, Maria, Anastasia, and Alexei were executed on 17 July 1918. Subliminal message to Putin? No doubt it's another "coincidence"]

So "17s" are everywhere.  To be sure, though, each of the items in the last paragraph is easily ranged under the heading "coincidence."

But before we do that, there is one more piece of evidence to consider.  Upon having done so, we will synthesize all of the evidence by thinking in terms of probabilities.

There is evidence at YouTube that seems to indicate that CNN recently used footage of a helicopter downing in Syria and represented it as depicting the downing of a helicopter, by pro-Russian forces, in the Ukraine (go to 2:39 for a photo comparison).

Now to the probabilistic summary.

Reasoning with probabilities is notoriously tricky, so we have to proceed carefully.  Fortunately, a simple coin flip analogy can be employed.  If you flip a fair 50/50 coin twice, four possible sequences can occur, and each has an equal likelihood of occurring {HH, HT, TH, TT}.  The equal likelihood of the possible sequences flows from the standard supposition that the coin flips are independent of one another, which is simply to say that an H on flip 1 says nothing about whether flip 2 will produce an H or a T.

The analogy with MH 17 is as follows.  If five months ago (before the vanishing of MH 370) you had contemplated the likelihood that the next two major airline disasters to receive massive global coverage would each involve Malaysia Airlines, you would have been justified in concluding that the likelihood was very low indeed.  By analogy, it would be like specifying onlyan {H, H} sequence as the outcome ahead of time (a {T, T} sequence would represent the same airline as having been involved, but not Malaysia Airlines).

Now what the Western mainstream media are implicitly arguing is that MH 370 and MH 17 have no real link and are only connected with massive airline disasters in recent months by chance; they’re saying that it could just as well have been any two flights so linked (by analogy, {H, H} or {H, T} or {T, H} or {T, T}).  If this argument is valid, nothing at all should be made at all of the fact that Malaysia Airlines was involved in both instances, since all possible sequences are accounted for and no sequence is much more likely than any other.

And yet, the evidence presented in this article suggests that MH 370 and MH 17 are linked in ways that might not be due to chance.  Both MH 370 and MH 17 appear to have lost communicative contact, and both appear to have veered off course on very unusual routes [allegedly as a result of the imputation of ad hoc waypoints by Serco operatives at U.S. Air Force Space Command].  How many aircraft of other airlines have done so in recent months, never mind how many of the 55 aircraft over Donetsk did so on July 17?  How many aircraft other than MH 17 had their inaugural voyage on the date of July 17?

These considerations suggest that, in fact, in the cases of MH 370 and MH 17 we might not be dealing with a "fair coin."
In turn, the following very reasonable question presents itself: was Malaysia Airlines in particular targeted on July 17, and, if so, what ragtag rebel would have even been in a position to do that (especially given the route alteration, if true), and, if so, how did they accomplish it?

One suspects that the MSM will completely ignore these considerations and will likely coalesce, for several reasons, around an account that blames the episode on an accidental discharge that Putin can nonetheless be blamed for given the hostilities in the region.

However that may be, one thing is almost certainly true: the likelihood that Western MSM would in any way, shape, or form discuss evidence implicating U.S. aligned interests in the demise of MH 17 is virtually nil, no matter how compelling such evidence might be.

Dr. Jason Kissner is Associate Professor of Criminology at California State University. Dr. Kissner's research on gangs and self-control has appeared in academic journals.  His current empirical research interests include active shootings.   

You can reach him at"
"Innoventor, Inc. recognized by U.S. Small Business Administration
By: By Linda H. Conway
Innoventor, Inc., which was founded by MechSE alumnus Kent Schien, has been named 'National Small Business Prime Contractor of the Year' by the U.S. Small Business Administration.

Schien's company was selected from among nine regional prime contractors to receive the award in recognition of the company's outstanding service as a prime contractor of goods and services to the federal government.

The award was announced last week as part of the National Small Business Week celebration in Washington, D.C.
"The federal government put nearly $100 billion in federal contracts in the hands of small businesses last year," said SBA Administrator Karen G. Mills. "Those small businesses–including the ones being honored today–are creating jobs and delivering innovative products and services to make America stronger. Today, we celebrate the achievements of small businesses as well as their partners and advocates in the federal contracting community."
Innoventor is a design/build engineering firm founded in the basement of Schien's home in 1996. The company, located in St. Louis, MO, is the recipient of numerous previous awards. Innoventor's core competency is combining cross-industry experience and cutting edge technology to provide innovative solutions for a variety of customer demands. Its customers include the government, aerospace, military, automotive, commercial, industrial, agriculture, food and beverage, medical, pharmaceutical and power industries. It has been a prime contractor at Warner Robbins Air Force Base in Georgia for the cesium-based master regulating clock, a precision instrument that regulates secondary clocks in complicated systems, for the E-4B Advanced Airborne Command Post for the U.S. Air Force.

Schien, who received a B.S. in Mechanical Engineering from the University of Illinois in 1981, has continued to be actively involved with the department and the university. He is a past president of the MechSE Alumni Board and has, for many years, partnered with the department in helping to prepare its students for the real world. His company provides co-op and extern programs, as well as a number of scholarships and awards."

"The financial and IT businesses were changing so rapidly, we had to make some changes to stay current with the private sector," [Kristine] Marcy said. Banks had been asking SBA to make faster decisions on loan guarantees. The agency decided to aim for a turnaround time of one hour. SBA needs small-business partners, not just Oracle —Kristine Marcy, SBA chief operating officer .. "We need to make sure we are appropriately sensitive to small businesses" and have small-business partners, not just Oracle Marcy said. .. In the final phase of the modernization, SBA will upgrade the computers in its 8(a) Business Development Program, which assists small businesses in competing for government contracts, Marcy said. The agency wants to be able to improve its tracking of clients' successes and [contrived] failures.

"American Airlines Flight 11 was a domestic passenger flight that was hijacked by five al-Qaeda members on September 11, 2001, as part of the September 11 attacks. They deliberately crashed it into the North Tower of the World Trade Center in New York City, killing all 92 people aboard and an unknown number in the building's impact zone. The aircraft involved, a Boeing 767-223ER, was flying American Airlines' daily scheduled morning transcontinental service from Logan International Airport, in Boston, Massachusetts, to Los Angeles International Airport, in Los Angeles, California."

"Marianne Markowitz
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Marianne O'Brien Markowitz serves as Acting Administrator of the Small Business Administration where she was appointed on February 8, 2014.

Before being named Acting Administrator, Markowitz served as Regional Administrator for SBA's Midwest Region, Region V, a position she had held since August 2009. As regional administrator, Markowitz was responsible for the delivery of the agency's financial assistance, technical assistance and government contracting activities throughout Illinois, Indiana, Michigan, Minnesota, Ohio and Wisconsin. As part of her work in the region, Chicago Mayor Rahm Emanuel appointed Markowitz to serve on the City of Chicago's Small Business Advisory Council in March 2013.

Prior to her time at SBA, Markowitz served as the Chief Financial Officer for Obama for America in 2008[1] and was previously a financial operations consultant for the launch of the Obama Exploratory Committee.[2] She served on the Obama for America Board of Directors from 2007 to 2009.
For more than 17 years, Markowitz provided finance and risk management expertise to a host of leading global institutions including Switzerland-based Syngenta, Inc., the world's largest agrochemical company, where she served as a lead international treasury/financial operations consultant. While at Syngenta, she was tasked with designing and implementing a global treasury operation and financing post demerger. Prior to that, she served as a treasury and risk manager for one of the largest pharmaceutical benefit management companies Express Scripts, Inc. Additionally, while at Mallinckrodt, Inc., a medical device firm, Markowitz worked to create the global treasury department after its divestiture from IMC Global.

In addition to designing and implementing financial operations departments, Markowitz has a deep background in running treasury and risk management departments, assessing insurable risks and evaluating insurance, treasury and financing alternatives.

In all her roles, Markowitz specialized in helping private sector companies successfully design and implement new systems or scale their existing processes, systems and staffing to meet the needs of a hyper-growth environment.

She received a B.S. from the University of Missouri and an M.B.A. from DePaul University. She sits on the board of the Lycee Francais de Chicago and is a member of the Chicago Economic Club."

"July 10, 2014, 09:00 am
SBA rolls out 'safe harbor' policy to protect fraudulent firms
By Lloyd Chapman

Over the last twenty-five years I have seen the federal government do some pretty slimy things but the latest proposed policy from the Small Business Administration (SBA) takes the cake.

The SBA is proposing a new policy to create a "safe harbor" from penalties for firms that have committed felony federal contracting fraud.

I don’t expect most people would believe that, so hit the above link to the actual policy and read it for yourself.

Section 16 (d) of the Small Business Act states that any firm that misrepresents it’s self as a small business to illegally receive federal small business contracts may “be punished by a fine of not more than $500,000 or by imprisonment for not more than 10 years, or both.” It seems very clear how Congress felt about large businesses masquerading as small business to hijack federal small business contracts.
Under the new proposed SBA "safe harbor" policy, any large business that misrepresents it’s self as a small business to illegally receive federal small business contracts can simply claim they "acted in good faith" and they are exempt from any jail time or penalties.

Does this sound like the SBA is encouraging large business to commit felony federal contracting fraud and misrepresent themselves as small business to steal federal small business contracts? Oh, you would have to be a conspiracy nut to believe that, wouldn’t you? Oh wait, that’s just what the conspiracy nuts over at the Government Accountability Office found after investigating the SBA.

The Government Accountability Office essentially accused the SBA of encouraging firms to commit fraud in Report 10-108. The report states, "By failing to hold firms accountable, SBA and contracting agencies have sent a message to the contracting community that there is no punishment or consequences for committing fraud."

Every year for the last decade, the SBA Office of Inspector General has named the diversion of federal small business contracts to corporate giants as the number one problem at the SBA. Since 2002, a long series of federal investigations and congressional hearings have uncovered rampant fraud in virtually all SBA managed programs.

Investigative reports from ABCCBCNBCCNN and some of the largest newspapers in America have all found wide spread fraud in federal government programs designed to help small businesses.

Here is the really funny part. For over 14 years the SBA has consistently denied that there is any fraud in federal small business programs. They have claimed for over a decade that many of the largest firms in the world have continued to receive hundreds of billions of dollars in federal small business contracts year after year as a result of miscoding, anomalies, computer glitches and simple human error.

So why do they need a new policy to protect fraudulent firms from penalties with a “safe harbor” if there is no fraud?
Apparently there is the wide spread and rampant fraud I have been talking about for over twelve years. I guess I’m not the conspiracy nut the SBA has spent so much time and energy trying to convince journalists I am.

So let's see what we have:

1.  Dozens of federal investigations, congressional hearings and investigative reports in the media all found rampant fraud in federal small business contracting programs.
2.  The SBA has claimed for over a decade that there is no fraud in federal small business programs.
3.  Now the SBA has proposed a new policy to protect fraudulent firms from any penalties with a "safe harbor".
Call me a conspiracy nut but it looks like there is fraud in SBA managed small business programs and the SBA is trying to legalize it.

Maybe instead of a new SBA policy that essentially legalizes fraud,  it’s time for the Justice Department and the FBI to step in and see how much fraud we're looking at, who is responsible, are there any federal employees involved and how quick can we get these slime balls in jail.

Chapman is president and founder of the American Small Business League."

"In common law, a writ of qui tam is a writ whereby a private individual who assists a prosecution can receive all or part of any penalty imposed. Its name is an abbreviation of the Latin phrase qui tam pro domino rege quam pro se ipso in hac parte sequitur, meaning "[he] who sues in this matter for the king as well as for himself."

The writ fell into disuse in England and Wales following the Common Informers Act 1951 but, as of 2010, remains current in the United States under the False Claims Act31 U.S.C. § 3729 et seq., which allows a private individual, or "whistleblower," with knowledge of past or present fraud committed against the federal governmentto bring suit on its behalf. There are also qui tam provisions in 18 U.S.C. § 962 regarding arming vessels against friendly nations, 25 U.S.C. § 201 regarding violating Indian protection laws, 46a U.S.C. 723 regarding the removal of undersea treasure from the Florida coast to foreign nations, and 35 U.S.C. § 292 regarding false marking. In February 2011, the qui tam provision regarding false marking was held to be unconstitutional by a U.S. District Court,[1] and in September of that year, the enactment of the Leahy-Smith America Invents Acteffectively removed qui tam remedies from § 292.[2]
The False Claims Act (31 U.S.C. §§ 37293733, also called the "Lincoln Law") is an American federal law which allows people who are not affiliated with the government to file actions against federal contractors claiming fraud against the government. The act of filing such actions is informally called "whistleblowing." Persons filing under the Act stand to receive a portion (usually about 15-25 percent) of any recovered damages. The Act provides a legal tool to counteract fraudulent billings turned in to the Federal Government. 

Claims under the law have been filed by persons with insider knowledge of false claims which have typically involved health care, military, or other government spending programs.
The provision allows a private person, known as a "relator," to bring a lawsuit on behalf of the United States, where the private detective or other person has information that the named defendant has knowingly submitted or caused the submission of false or fraudulent claims to the United States. The relator need not have been personally harmed by the defendant's conduct; instead, the relator is recognized as receiving legal standing to sue by way of a "partial assignment" to the relator of the injury to the government caused by the alleged fraud.[3]The information must not be public knowledge, unless the relator qualifies as an "original source."[4]

The American Civil War (1861–1865) was marked by fraud on all levels, especially with regard to Union War Department contracts. Some say the False Claims Act came about because of bad mules. During the Civil War, unscrupulous contractors sold the Union Army, among other things, decrepit horses and mules in ill health, faulty rifles and ammunition, and rancid rations and provisions.[5] The False Claims Act, passed by Congress on March 2, 1863, was an effort by the government to respond to entrenched fraud where the official Justice Department was reluctant to prosecute fraud cases. Importantly, a reward was offered in what is called the "qui tam" provision, which permits citizens to sue on behalf of the government and be paid a percentage of the recovery.
The False Claims Act provides incentive to relators by granting them between 15% and 25% of any award or settlement amount. In addition, the statute provides an award of the relator's attorneys' fees, making qui tamactions a popular topic for the plaintiff's bar. An individual bringing suit pro se—that is, without the representation of a lawyer—may not bring a qui tam action under the False Claims Act (see, for example, United States ex Rel. Lu v. Ou, 368 F.3d 773 [7th Cir. 2004]).

Once a relator brings suit on behalf of the government, the Department of Justice, in conjunction with a U.S. Attorney for the district in which the suit was filed, have the option to intervene in the suit. If the government does intervene, it will notify the company or person being sued that a claim has been filed. Qui tam actions are filed under seal, which has to be partially lifted by the court to allow this type of disclosure. The seal prohibits thedefendant from disclosing even the mere existence of the case to anyone, including its shareholders, a fact which may cause conflicts with the defendant's obligation under Securities & Exchange Commission or stock exchange regulations that require it to disclose lawsuits that could materially affect stock prices. The government may subsequently, without disclosing the identity of the plaintiff or any of the facts, begin taking discovery from the defendant.

If the government does not decide to participate in a qui tam action, the relator may proceed alone without the Department of Justice, though such cases historically have a much lower success rate. Relators who do prevail in such cases will get a higher relator's share, about 25% to 30%. It is conventionally thought that the government chooses legal matters it would prosecute because the government would only want to get involved in what it believes are winning cases.[citation needed]

Qui tam actions were first used in 13th century England as a way to enforce the King's laws. They existed in the United States in colonial times, and were embraced by the first U.S. Congress as a way to enforce the laws when the new federal government had virtually no law enforcement officers.

The case of Richard Marven and Samuel Shaw led the Continental Congress to pass the first whistleblower law in the new United States in 1778.[6] The Continental Congress was moved to act after an incident in 1777, when the two blew the whistle and suffered severe retaliation by Esek Hopkins, the commander-in-chief of the Continental Navy.[7] The Continental Congress enacted the whistleblower protection law on July 30, 1778 by a unanimous vote.[8] The Continental Congress declared it the duty of "all persons in the service of the United States, as well as all other the inhabitants thereof" to inform the Continental Congress or proper authorities of "misconduct, frauds or misdemeanors committed by any officers in the service of these states, which may come to their knowledge."[9][10]Congress declared that the United States would defend the two whistleblowers against a libel suit filed against them by Hopkins, resolving that "the reasonable expences of defending the said suit be defrayed by the United States" and terminated the employment of Hopkins, who had misconducted himself.[11]

The False Claims Act was passed in 1863 during the U.S. Civil War, but was substantially weakened in 1943 during World War II while the government rushed to sign large military procurement contracts. It was strengthened again in 1986 after a period of military expansion at a time when there were many stories of defense contractorprice gouging. Since then, qui tam provisions have helped recover more than $27 billion in taxpayer money.[12]

The practice fell into disrepute in England in the 19th century by which time it was principally used to enforce laws related to Christian Sunday observance. It was brought to an effective end by the Common Informers Act 1951but, in 2007, there were proposals to introduce legal provision on the U.S. model back to the United Kingdom.[13]

In the provinces of Canada that observed the English common law, the qui tam action has had limited scope, although as recently as 1933 the Exchequer Court Act, R.S.C. 1927, c. 34 had language to the effect that qui tam was permitted in "suits for penalties or forfeiture as where the suit is on behalf of the Crown alone." (Bank of Montreal v. Royal Bank of Canada, [1933] SCR 311; see sec 75(a) of RSC 1886 v2 c.135 "Supreme and Exchequer Courts"). Lawyers have used the qui tam action to prevent unwarranted intrusion into their domain by unqualified practitioners (1871: Allen Qui Tam v. Jarvis, 32 UCR 56). In cases like these, it would appear that the Crown is owed a bond from qualified practitioners, and the respondents—since they have not provided such a bond—are penalised by the courts. Allen in this case would seem to gain a fraction of the penalty exacted from Jarvis, the balance to the Crown.

Defense Criminal Investigative Service (DCIS)[edit]
From January 2006 to November 2011, DCIS conducted 115 investigations involving qui tam matters. Thesequi tam investigations did not necessarily arise from reprisal complaints. Nonetheless, the person filing the complaint contributes to the mission of the Inspector General and is considered a whistleblower in the person's own right.[14]
In 2006, qui tam whistleblowers provided DCIS 102 information reports resulting in 57 regular investigations. In the following two years, 79 information reports resulted in 68 regular investigations and 71 information reports resulted in 43 regular investigations, respectively. In 2009 and 2010, 86 information reports generated 65 regular investigations and 108 information reports generated 73 regular investigations. At the close of 2011, DCIS had 82 information reports resulting in 56 regular investigations.[14]


'Whistleblower' can mean any person who reveals misconduct by his or her employer or another business or entity. The misconduct may be in the form of breaking the law, committing fraud, or corruption. That type of fraud can be a violation of the False Claims Act, or similar state and local laws. And a whistleblower who exposes fraud on the government can bring a qui tam lawsuit on behalf of the government, and can receive a share of the recovery as his or her reward.

In order for a whistleblower (also known as a "relator" in the context of the FCA) to bring a qui tam action that is based upon publicly disclosed information, that person must legally qualify as an "original source." See Rockwell International Corp. v. United States.”

Serco is committed to providing an equitable opportunity for Small Business, Small Disadvantaged Business, Woman-Owned Small Business, HUBzone Small Business, and Veteran Owned Small Business and Service Disabled Veteran Owned Small Business Concerns to participate in subcontracting opportunities on our contracts. Serco is dedicated to the programs described in Federal Acquisition Regulation Part 19. We will continually seek diverse suppliers and subcontractors to increase our supplier base and to participate on our contracts as we strive to provide value-added services in support of Government objectives.

At Serco, we recognize that the Government's Small Business subcontracting programs require the promotion of equitable opportunities for all small businesses to compete for contracts. We recognize that small businesses are a vital part of our economy. We strive to promote the participation of Small Business, Small Disadvantaged Business, Woman-Owned Small Business, HUBzone Small Business, and Veteran Owned Small Business and Service Disabled Veteran Owned Small Business Concerns, in support of the delivery of products and services to the Government.

In support of our commitment to Small Business and supplier diversity, we will:

Give fair consideration and opportunity to Small Business, Small Disadvantaged Business, Woman-Owned Small Business, HUBzone Small Business, and Veteran Owned Small Business and Service Disabled Veteran Owned Small Business Concerns to participate, in Serco's subcontracting process.

Seek and develop relationships with Small Business, Small Disadvantaged Business, Woman-Owned Small Business, HUBzone Small Business, and Veteran Owned Small Business and Service Disabled Veteran Owned Small Business Concerns in order to develop a diverse supplier pool.

Attend workshops, seminars, trade fairs, and conferences designed to identify Small Business, Small Disadvantaged Business, Woman-Owned Small Business, HUBzone Small Business, and Veteran Owned Small Business and Service Disabled Veteran Owned Small Business Concerns with which to pursue business opportunities.

Publicize our interest in establishing relationships with Small Business, Small Disadvantaged Business, Woman-Owned Small Business, HUBzone Small Business, and Veteran Owned Small Business and Service Disabled Veteran Owned Small Business Concerns interested in Serco's subcontracting opportunities.

Provide information and training on how to do business with Serco's Small Disadvantaged Business, Woman-Owned Small Business, HUBzone Small Business, and Veteran Owned Small Business and Service Disabled Veteran Owned Small Business Concerns.

Ensure that Serco employees are informed of the Small Business/Supplier Diversity policies important to our business practices.”

 "Serco Services Inc. 10-K 2006  

Throughout this document, we occasionally distinguish between SI International, Inc., as a company separate from its subsidiaries, and SI International, Inc., as a company combined with its subsidiaries. In order to clarify which entity we are referring to in various discussions, we use the terms "SI International, Inc." and “SI International” to refer to SI International, Inc. without its subsidiaries. All other references, including "SI," "the Company," "we" and "us" refer to SI International and its subsidiaries.

NVC Contract Award. On January 31, 2006, in a recompetition for our expiring National Visa Center, or NVC, contract, we were awarded the successor contract for the NVC contract by the Department of State. Under the contract, we anticipate performing over 20 million immigrant visa transactions each year at the NVC in Portsmouth, New Hampshire and at the Kentucky Consular Center in Williamsburg, Kentucky. The prime contract has a one-year base period and four one-year options with an announced value of approximately $84 million, inclusive of the options.

We are a provider of mission critical information technology and network solutions primarily to the Federal Government. Our business is guided by our experienced team of eight executive officers and over twenty-five other corporate officers who manage and are responsible for successfully growing our business. As of the end of fiscal year 2005, we employed over 4,000 employees. Approximately 85% of our employees hold Federal Government security clearances or have passed National Agency Checks. Approximately 15% of our employees hold Top Secret security clearances. A significant portion of our employees who hold Top Secret security clearances also hold Sensitive Compartmental Information clearances, which permit us to bid on highly classified projects.

Our broad set of contract vehicles gives us extensive reach and enables us to deliver a full range of our services and solutions to the Federal Government. The strength of our service offerings and information technology expertise allows us to maintain substantial relationships with clients, some of whom have been clients of ours, or of one of our acquired businesses, for over 20 years. In fiscal 2005 and fiscal 2004, we derived approximately 75% and 81%, respectively, of our revenue from contracts on which we acted as prime contractor. Acting as a prime contractor provides us with stronger client relationships, as well as the visibility and access to new work that are not available when acting as a subcontractor. Our total backlog as of December 31, 2005 was approximately $854 million, of which approximately $191 million was funded. See "—Backlog" for a discussion of how we calculate backlog.
Risks Related to Our Industry

We depend on contracts with the Federal Government for most of our revenue, and our business would be seriously harmed if the government ceased doing business with us or significantly decreased the amount of business it does with us.

We derived 98.1% and 96.6% of our total revenue in fiscal 2005 and in fiscal 2004, respectively, from Federal Government contracts, either as a prime contractor or a subcontractor. This includes 46.9% and 52.8% of our total revenue in fiscal 2005 and in fiscal 2004, respectively, that we derived, either as a prime contractor or a subcontractor, from contracts with agencies of the DoD and Intelligence community. We expect that we will continue to derive most of our revenue for the foreseeable future from work performed under Federal Government contracts. If we were suspended or otherwise prohibited from contracting with the Federal Government generally, or with any significant agency of the DoD or the Intelligence community, or if our reputation or relationship with the Federal Government or any significant agency of the DoD or the Intelligence community were impaired, or if any of the foregoing otherwise ceased doing business with us or significantly decreased the amount of business it does with us, our business, prospects, financial condition and operating results would be materially adversely affected.

The following chart provides certain information regarding our four largest contracts for fiscal year 2005, in terms of revenues:

"Opened in 1994 as the successor to the Transitional Immigrant Visa Processing Center in Rosslyn, Va., the NVC centralizes all immigrant visa preprocessing and appointment scheduling for overseas posts. The NVC collects paperwork and fees before forwarding a case, ready for adjudication, to the responsible post.

The center also handles immigrant and fiancé visa petitions, and while it does not adjudicate visa applications, it provides technical assistance and support to visa-adjudicating consular officials overseas.

Only two Foreign Service officers, the director and deputy director, work at the center, along with just five Civil Service employees. They work with almost 500 contract employees doing preprocessing of visas, making the center one of the largest employers in the Portsmouth area.

The contractor, Serco, Inc., has worked with the NVC since its inception and with the Department for almost 18 years.

The NVC houses more than 2.6 million immigrant visa files, receives almost two million pieces of mail per year and received more than half a million petitions from the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Service (USCIS) in 2011. Its file rooms’ high-density shelves are stacked floor-to-ceiling with files, each a collection of someone’s hopes and dreams and each requiring proper handling.

The NVC also preprocesses the chief of mission (COM) application required for the fi ling of a petition for a Special Immigrant Visa (SIV). Such visas, for foreign nationals who have performed services for the U.S. government in Iraq and Afghanistan, require COM concurrence before the applicant can file a petition with USCIS. The NVC collects the requisite documents from such applicants and, when complete, forwards the package to the U.S. embassies in Baghdad or Kabul for COM approval"

"Update on Serco's Strategy Review including the Contract & Balance Sheet Reviews; capital structure and funding; latest trading and outlook 
Date : 10 November 2014 

… Strategy Review: Serco's future to be as an international B2G business. A successful, innovative and market-leading provider of services to Governments. Core sectors: Justice & Immigration, Defence, Transport, Citizen Services and Healthcare. 

In the Americas Division, our work for the US Affordable [Obama] Care Act (ACA) has begun an expanded first option year. Other awards in the period included: career transition services for US soldiers; health outreach services for the US Naval Reserve; deployable medical systems solutions also for the Navy; and two contracts for fleet maintenance services for commercial clients. In total, the ACA and all other awards in the period are valued at over $550m. Meanwhile, our contract supporting the Department of State's National Visa Center and Kentucky Consular Center (NVC/KCC) came to an end during the period, as did some Acquisition and Program Management support work for US intelligence agency customers. C4I2TSR services for the US Air Force and Naval installation task order work under the Sea Enterprise frameworks are also reducing. …

For further information please contact Serco:

Stuart Ford, Head of Investor Relations T +44 (0) 1256 386 227
Marcus De Ville, Head of Media Relations T +44 (0) 1256 386 226
Jonathan Glass, Brunswick T +44 (0) 207 404 5959 
Analyst and institutional investor meeting…….

Download PDF [PDF, 387 KB] (Please note: this link will open the page in a new browser window)"

Yours sincerely,

Field McConnell, United States Naval Academy, 1971; Forensic Economist; 30 year airline and 22 year military pilot; 23,000 hours of safety; Tel: 715 307 8222

David Hawkins Tel: 604 542-0891 Forensic Economist; former leader of oil-well blow-out teams; now sponsors Grand Juries in CSI Crime and Safety Investigation

No comments:

Post a Comment

Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.

Who's visiting Abel Danger
view a larger version of the map below at