US STATE DEPARTMENT MAKING ICoCA CERTIFICATION MANDATORY FOR SECURITY PROVIDERS

Background

The Worldwide Protective Services (WPS) programme comes under the US Department of State’s (DOS) Bureau of Diplomatic Security and is responsible for contracting armed bodyguards and security personnel to safeguard American diplomatic personnel globally. This includes a blend of personal protection (bodyguards), static guarding (facilities and checkpoints) and team-based emergency response security services.    

The rationale behind the use of private security companies by the US State Department in its missions abroad can be traced back to the bombing of the US Embassy in Beirut in 1983. This led to the passing of the Diplomatic Security and Anti-terrorism Act of 1986, under which private companies could compete for security contracts for US missions overseas. The first contracted private security by the US State Department was in 1994, during the period of unrest in Haiti. The first iteration of the Worldwide Personal Protective Service (WPPS) contract was in 2000 when DynCorp was contracted to provide services in former Yugoslavia. 

The war in Iraq witnessed an increase in the use of PMSCs by the US to handle what was once military tasks. What soon became apparent was the legal vacuum in holding these operators accountable for their criminal violations. As a result of cases of crimes committed by private security contractors (see Nisour square massacre in Baghdad and the DynCorp Bosnia case), attempts were made by Congress to ensure accountability for their actions.  

One change that came about was the establishment of the Security Protective Specialist (SPS) programme by the Diplomatic Security. This meant directly hiring experienced protection personnel responsible for contractors who conducted high threat protection assignments on the WPPS program. Thus, the contemporary WPS contract has some very stringent provisions. These include, Diplomatic Security Special Agents supervising the security contractors and ensuring that their training aligns with the specified standards and that it is conducted by trainers approved by the agents. Contractors must undergo 164 hours of instruction and training approved by the Diplomatic Security prior to deployment. Deployment is limited only to those contractors who have successfully completed the training and met the required qualifications. 

Good Practice

In 2013, the US State Department stated that the Bureau of Diplomatic Security (DS) would incorporate ICoCA membership as a requirement for the bidding process for the successor contract to the WPS programme provided that the ICoC process moves forward and attracts significant industry participation.   

Since 2013, contractors to the WPS are required to provide a letter from ICoCA indicating that the applicant is a member or transitional member in good standing and has not been either suspended or terminated from the ICoCA. A tender placed in 2020 by the DOS for the WPS III contract (PSCs contracted for the third time under WPS programme between December 2021-2031) includes that if the bidding entity is acting as the prime contractor in a contractor team arrangement, then the letter should verify that all team members are active members of ICoCA, in good standing and compliant with the requirements of the American National Standards Institute , PSC-1-2012. If subcontractors are going to be engaged to deliver any security services under the contract, they too must be members in good standing of ICoCA. Furthermore, in 2014, during ICoCA’s General Assembly, the US Department of Defence informed it will recognise ICoCA membership as an indicator that companies comply with the Code during its procurement decisions.  

Corporate Ethics

Prior to the 2013 ICoCA certification or affiliation requirement put in place by the US State Department, 2010-2017 WPS awardees included Triple Canopy Inc, Torres International, SOC LLC, International Development Solutions, Global Integrated Security, Acuity-Janus, Dyncorp International and Gardaworld Federal Services. Pursuant to not being ICoCA certified Members or Affiliates, Torres International, International Development Solutions, Global Integrated Security and Dyncorp International were not awarded renewed contracts. 

For the 2016-2021 WPS II period, contractors included Aegis Defence Services LLC, Chenega Patriot Group LLC, Sallyport Global Holdings Inc., Triple Canopy Inc., SOC LLC, Gardaworld Federal Services LLC and Acuity-Janus Global LLC. Both Gardaworld, Aegis Defence Services LLC, SOC LLC, and Triple Canopy have been ICoCA members for more than five years and the certification was underway in 2017/18.  

Acuity and Sallyport Global Holdings, however, have been ICoCA certified Members since 2022. Acuity halted its commercial services, selling off the profitable ones to Janus Global Operations Somalia which has been an ICoCA member since 2023 and includes more broadly Janus Global. Chenega Patriot Group LLC, although previously a member, is now no longer providing security services. Again, for WPS III, the same companies were contracted for the period starting from December 2021-2031. The listed PSCs were not ICoCA members when they were contracted under WPS II and beginning of III. Nevertheless, it is likely that the companies joined ICoCA to fulfil their contractual obligations. Thus, requiring ICoCA certification as part of State contracts encourages PSCs to become Certified members of Affiliate members of ICoCA.  

The International Code of Conduct

Member and Affiliate companies of the International Code of Conduct Association (ICoCA) commit to the responsible provision of Security Services to support the rule of law, respect the human rights of all persons, and protect the interests of their clients.  

By joining ICoCA, the Member and Affiliate Companies affirm that they have a responsibility to respect the human rights of, and fulfil humanitarian responsibilities towards, all those affected by their business activities, including personnel, clients, suppliers, shareholders, and the population of the area in which services are provided. Furthermore, clients could also require that their security providers are ICoCA certified.  

 

Association of Member Companies 

Disclaimer 

The case map intends to promote conversations on the responsible provision of private security services, by providing a selection that shows on the one hand cases of abuses by private security companies, and on the other, cases of good practice. The case map exists to inform and provide a representation of selected incidents as well as good practices in the field of private security.  

The descriptions of the cases reproduced here are not intended to represent opinions or advertisements of the ICoCA or the authors. In cases where the practices of private security providers are presented as responsible, this should not be interpreted as legitimising any potential human rights violations that may have occurred. Similarly, the inclusion of certain cases does not imply that the ICoCA or authors endorse the conduct of any private security companies that have engaged in human rights abuses or violations. 

Sources

 

 

This case was prepared by Anyssa Boyer, Graduate Institute of International and Development Studies. 

DISCRIMINATION AGAINST PRIVATE SECURITY PERSONNEL

Background

AlliedBarton is a large private security company with locations across North America and the United Kingdom, based in Pennsylvania, United States. In 2016, AlliedBarton merged with Universal Services of America, creating a new brand called Allied Universal. As a federal contractor, AlliedBarton is covered by Executive Order 11246, which prohibits federal contractors from practising discrimination against certain protected classes.

The Incident

A routine OFCCP compliance evaluation revealed that AlliedBarton allegedly discriminated against 2,263 female, Black, and American Indian employees over a two-year period at a federal contractor’s New York City location. In particular, the evaluation showed that the company allegedly paid employees identifying as female, Black, and American Indian less than other security guards by assigning them to lower-paying job sites.

Legal Aspects

OFCCP determined that AlliedBarton´s practices violated Executive Order 11246, which prohibits federal contractors from discriminating in employment based on race, colour, religion, sex, sexual orientation, gender identity, or national origin.

The International Code of Conduct

The International Code of Conduct prohibits Member and Affiliate Companies, in addition to their personnel, from discriminating on the grounds of race, colour, sex, religion, social origin, social status, indigenous status, disability, or sexual orientation when hiring security personnel (section 42).

Resources on discrimination

Impact      

Ultimately, AlliedBarton entered into a conciliation agreement with OFCCP. In the conciliation agreement, AlliedBarton agreed to pay $1,175,000 in back wages and interest reflecting the late payment of these wages to the 2,263 affected employees.

AlliedBarton also agreed to take corrective action to address the discriminatory compensation and job-site placement policies, conduct training, and monitor compensation and job-site placement. Specifically, AlliedBarton agreed to transition from a “tap on the shoulder” job-site placement to a method informing all security personnel of openings at job sites.

The company agreed to submit annual reports following compensation analyses for three years.

Discussion

How can private security companies ensure that non-explicitly discriminatory policies do not result in discrimination?

What kinds of formal policies, training and monitoring can private security companies put in place to prevent discriminatory outcomes for employees?

Sources

 

 

Case prepared by: Madison Zeeman

TRANSPORT OF MIGRANTS IN INHUMANE CONDITIONS

Background

In regions throughout the United States, Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) contracts with G4S to transport immigrants in its custody. Prior to this incident, G4S had received hundreds of complaints annually from immigration detainees. In one incident in Australia, a coroner deemed the death of a detained immigrant that resulted from extreme temperatures in the back of a G4S van to be “wholly unnecessary and avoidable.” In a 2014 incident, days before a transportee was beaten to death by another transportee during a transport conducted by G4S, deputies in Florida stated that they had informed G4S supervisors that their workers needed more training, noting the personnel had “awful” handcuffing techniques.

The Incident

In July 2017, nine immigrant women detained by ICE were transported from the West County Detention Facility in Richmond, California to Mesa Verde Detention Facility in Bakersfield, California. Allegedly, the women were shackled by their hands and feet in suffocating heat, causing the women to struggle for breath. The journey between the two facilities took over 24 hours, despite the cities being typically around a five hour’s drive away from each other.  It was also alleged that the women were denied access to food, water, medication, and restroom facilities for periods of time, while G4S personnel ignored their cries for help.

Legal Aspects

Court cases

On May 21, 2019, the American Civil Liberties Union Foundation (ACLU) filed a lawsuit on behalf of the four women who were detained and transported by G4S. The suit sought damages for suffering and injuries the women sustained during the journey.

In February 2022, the parties dismissed the lawsuit due to a confidential settlement that was reached between the parties.

The International Code of Conduct

The International Code of Conduct states that Member and Affiliate Companies will require their personnel to treat all detained persons humanely (section 28).

Paragraph 33 of the Code (Detention) requires that Security Personnel “will only, guard, transport, or question detainees if: (a) the Company has been specifically contracted to do so by a state; and (b) its Personnel are trained in the applicable national and international law. Member and Affiliate Companies will, and will require that their Personnel, treat all detained persons humanely and consistent with their status and protections under applicable human rights law or international humanitarian law, including in particular prohibitions on torture or other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment.”

Resources on Apprehending Persons

Resources on Detention

Further, the International Code of Conduct requires stringent selection and vetting of personnel, assessment of performance and duties (paragraphs 45 to 49), and training of personnel of the Code and relevant international law, including human rights and international criminal law (paragraph 55). Meeting the requirements of the Code of Conduct, can help private security companies and their clients ensure that private security personnel are qualified, trained, supported, informed, and responsible.

Meeting the requirements of the Code of Conduct can help private security companies and their clients ensure that private security personnel are qualified, trained, supported, informed, and responsible.

The ICoCA’s Procurement Guide for Contracting Responsible Security can help clients select responsible security providers and prevent abuses.

Discussion

How can authorities ensure that they contract responsible private security providers?

What are the specific responsibilities of private security companies when they are contracted to handle people in vulnerable situations?

How can training and vetting of private security personnel ensure the humane treatment of vulnerable detainees?

Related Incidents

Sources

 

 

Case prepared by: Madison Zeeman

PULSE NIGHTCLUB: THE SECURITY GUARD KILLER

Background

Omar Mateen had allegedly previously been interviewed by the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) in 2013 and 2014 after reports of extremist behaviour and connections to terrorism. Mateen had falsely claimed to be associated with the Boston marathon bombers, in addition to claiming connection to both Al Qaeda and Hezbollah. However, these allegations were determined to be insubstantial. Throughout these FBI investigations, Mateen was still allowed to work at G4S.

Mateen was allegedly only psychologically evaluated once at the start of his employment with G4S, and not again once the company was put on notice that he had been interviewed by the FBI.

One of Mateen´s former co-workers alleged that he “saw it coming” based on Mateen´s behaviour, which involved talking about killing people “all the time,” and always being angry. Allegedly, Mateen made it clear he did not like “blacks, women, lesbians, and jews.” The former co-worker allegedly complained multiple times to G4S about these comments, and ultimately quit his job due to harassment from Mateen. G4S continued to employ Mateen, who obtained a “security officer” licence to buy firearms in addition to his state licence and concealed carry permit.

Prior to this incident, G4S had previously been accused of improperly vetting its employees. One incident involved a former paratrooper who killed two colleagues in Iraq, allegedly claiming to be the “antichrist.” An official investigation revealed that G4S did not properly vet his psychological health.

The Incident

On June 12, 2016, Pulse Nightclub, an LGBTQ nightclub, was hosting its popular Latin Night. Just after 2:00 AM that night, more than 300 people were inside the nightclub when Mateen opened fire near the entrance. After an off-duty police officer engaged in gunfire with Mateen, and several police officers with SWAT training exchanged gunfire with Mateen, Mateen was allegedly able to continue to move through the club. At 2:35 in the morning, Mateen allegedly called 911 and professed his “allegiance to Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi of the Islamic State.” After police had cornered Mateen in a bathroom area, the situation became a hostage situation, and Mateen spoke to negotiators three times. At 5:02 in the morning, Orlando police triggered a controlled detonation and smashed through the wall of the club with an armoured vehicle. Mateen was killed after engaging in a gun battle with about a dozen officers. At the time of the shooting, the Pulse attack was the deadliest mass shooting in United States history, with 49 fatalities.

Legal Aspects

Court cases

A lawsuit was filed by victims, survivors, and representatives alleging that G4S, the security company that provided firearms training to Mateen, should be held liable for damages resulting from the attack. The lawsuit alleged that the security firm ignored his comments supporting violence prior to the mass shooting, and failed to remove his service weapon and recommend his firearms licence be removed when they should have.

However, a judge threw out the lawsuit in April 2019, writing that G4S did not have civil liability for the attack because Mateen was not working for the firm at the time of the attack.

The International Code of Conduct

Further, the International Code of Conduct requires stringent selection and vetting of personnel, assessment of performance and duties (paragraphs 45 to 49), and training of personnel of the Code and relevant international law, including human rights and international criminal law (paragraph 55). Meeting the requirements of the Code of Conduct, can help private security companies and their clients ensure that private security personnel are qualified, trained, supported, informed, and responsible.

Meeting the requirements of the Code of Conduct can help private security companies and their clients ensure that private security personnel are qualified, trained, supported, informed, and responsible.

Impact

Settlements and Fines

G4S, who employed Mateen, was fined $151,400 by the Florida Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services for allegedly  providing inaccurate psychological testing information on forms that allowed employees to carry guns. The Department discovered that G4S had listed the name of a psychologist who no longer practised as the screener on Mateen´s form, in addition to more than 1,500 other employees over a 10 year period.

The amount was the largest on record under the specific state law.

Stock Prices

Once it was revealed that Omar Mateen, the shooter at Pulse Nightclub, was a G4S employee, shares in G4S fell dramatically. The G4S shares dropped by as much as 7.5%. When G4S´s shares dropped, it wiped out about $280 million in company value.

Discussion

What role does continuous psychological evaluation play in the vetting of security personnel?

Related incidents

Sources

 

 

Case prepared by Madison Zeeman