Abstract
The United States is continually facing threats from state and non-state actors. Operating in and around the areas where these entities have influence poses unique threats to the ability to carry out the mission of sustained forward presence. Husbanding service providers (HSP) are the primary source of logistics support for U.S. Navy ships calling to foreign ports. The nature of HSP work necessitates access to sensitive information, which can provide clues to the nature of naval operations. Properly vetting third-party and contracted logistics support providers is crucial in maintaining security of operations. The purpose of this paper is to provide a general overview of operational security implications of contracting HSPs to serve the U.S. Navy abroad.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Burke, M (2013). Navy to review port contracts in light of bribery scandal. Stripes. Retrieved from https://www.stripes.com/news/navy-to-review- port-contracts-in-light-of-bribery-scandal-1.256885
Commander, Naval Supply Systems Command. (2015). Contracting officer’s representative (instruction 4205.3F). Mechanicsburg, PA: Author
Committee on Armed Services United States Senate. 107th Cong. (2001). Lessons Learned from the Attack on U.S.S. Cole, on the Report of the Crouch-Gehman Commission, and on the Navy's Judge Advocate General Manual Investigation into the Attack, Including a Review of Appropriate Standards of Accountability for U.S. Military Services. Retrieved from https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/CHRG-107shrg81231/html/CHRG-107shrg81231.htm
Committee on Homeland Security House of Representatives, 112th Cong. (2011). Jihadist use of social media—How to prevent terrorism and preserve innovation: Hearing before the Committee on Homeland Security, Retrieved from https://www.govinfo.gov/app/details/CHRG- 112hhrg74647/CHRG-112hhrg74647
Defense Biometric Identification System (DBIDS). (n.d.). Retrieved from http://dbids.dmdc.mil/#!/
Department of Defense. (2012a). DoD COR handbook. Washington, DC: Author. Retrieved from https://www.navsup.navy.mil/site/public/flcph/ documents/contracting/cor_tools/DoD_COR_Handbook.pdf
Department of Defense. (2012b). DoD Operations Security (OPSEC) Program (DoD directive 5205.02E). Washington, DC: Author. Retrieved from https://www.navy.mil/ah_online/OPSEC/docs/Policy/DoDDir_5205.02e.pdf
Department of Defense. (2018). Assessment on U.S. defense implications of China’s expanding global access. Retrieved from https://media.defense.gov/2019/ Jan/14/2002079292/−1/−1/1/EXPANDING-GLOBAL-ACCESS-REPORT- FINAL.PDF
Department of Defense. (2019). Contracts for Jan. 30, 2019. Retrieved from https://dod.defense.gov/News/Contracts/Contract-View/Article/ 1744377/#navybah013119
Department of Defense Inspector General. (2014). Approaches for establishing fraud risk assessment programs and conducting fraud audit risk assessments within the Department of Defense. Washington, DC: Author
Department of the Navy. (2018). policy Husbanding service provider program (COMUSFLTFORCOM/COMPACFLT instruction 4400.1). Norfolk, VA: Author
Dobbins, J, Shatz, HJ and Wyne, A (2018). Russia is a rogue, not a peer; China is a peer, not a rogue. Retrieved from https://www.rand.org/pubs/ perspectives/PE310.Html
Faundez-Zanuy M (2006, June) Biometric security technology. IEEE Aerosp Electron Syst Mag 21(6):15–26. https://doi.org/10.1109/MAES.2006.1662038
Fleming D, Baird A (1999) Comment: some reflections on port competition in the United States and western Europe. Marit Policy Manag 26(4):383–394. https://doi.org/10.1080/030888399286817
Geary PJ (2003) Operations security (OPSEC) in military logistics: What’s the risk? Logistics Spectrum 37(1):34–37 Retrieved from http://search.proquest.com/ docview/195306103/
Government Accountability Office. (2006). Contract management: DoD vulnerabilities to contracting fraud, waste, and abuse. Washington, DC: Author. Retrieved from https://www.gao.gov/assets/100/94319.pdf
Government Accountability Office. (2009). DoD needs to develop and finalize background screening and other standards for private security contractors. Washington, DC. Retrieved from https://www.gao.gov/assets/300/ 293487.pdf
Government Accountability Office. (2015). High-risk series: An update (GAO-15-290). Washington, DC: Author. Retrieved from https://www.gao.gov/assets/670/ 668415.pdf
Government Accountability Office. (2017a). Actions needed to enhance capabilities in the Pacific region. Washington, DC: Author. Retrieved from https://www.gao.gov/assets/690/685444.pdf
Government Accountability Office. (2017b). Progress made in establishing long-term deployable capabilities, but further actions are needed. Washington, DC: Author. Retrieved from https://www.gao.gov/assets/690/686416.pdf
Gundemir, M, Manalang, R, Metzger, P and Pitel, J (2007). Worldwide husbanding process improvement: Comparative analysis of contracting methodologies (NPS- CM-07-041). Retrieved from http://hdl.handle.net/10945/33742
Institute for Economics & Peace. (2018). Global Terrorism Index 2018: Measuring the impact of terrorism. Retrieved from http://visionofhumanity.org/ reports
Joint Chiefs of Staff. (2012). Joint operations security (CJCSI 3213.01D). Retrieved from https://www.navy.mil/ah_online/OPSEC/docs/Policy/ CJCS_INST_3213_01D.pdf
Joint Chiefs of Staff. (2014). Information operations (JP 3–13). Retrieved from http://www.jcs.mil/Portals/36/Documents/Doctrine/pubs/jp3_13.pdf
Kajtlin, K. (2017). Marine corps fields ‘game changer’ biometric data collection system. Retrieved from https://www.marines.mil/News/News-Display/ article/1394036/marine-corps-fields-game-changer-biometric-data-collection- system/
Mattis J (2018) Summary of the 2018 National Defense Strategy of the United States of America. Joint Chiefs of Staff, Washington, DC
National Security Agency (1993) Purple Dragon: The origin and development of the United States OPSEC Program (CCH-E32–93-04). Retrieved from https://www.nsa.gov/Portals/70/documents/news-features/declassified-documents/ cryptologic-histories/purple_dragon.pdf
Naval Audit Service (2011) Contractors accessing Department of the Navy information on non–Navy Marine Corps intranet networks (N2011–0056). Author, Washington, DC
Naval Audit Service (2014) Navy husbanding and port services contracts (N2014–0048). Author, Washington, DC
Naval Audit Service (2019) Department of the Navy husbanding and port services provider program (N2019–0013). Author, Washington, DC
NAVSUP Business Systems Center. (2018). Husbanding support portal. Retrieved from https://my.navsup.navy.mil/apps/ops$logssrv2.resources
Prine, C (2017). Has navy culture truly changed after fat Leonard corruption crisis? San Diego Union-Tribune. Retrieved from https://www.sandiegouniontribune.com/military/sd-me-navy-culture-20170729- story.Html
Secretary of the Navy (2016) SECNAV Instruction 3070.2A: operations security. Retrieved from https://www.secnav.navy.mil/doni/allinstructions.aspx. Accessed 15 Mar 2019
Sheffield M, Axinto M (2014) Ethics and husbanding services in 7th fleet (focus on ethics). Navy Supply Corps Newsletter 77(5):16–17
Spencer, RV (2017). Department of the Navy mission, vision, and priorities. Washington, DC: Department of the Navy. Retrieved from https://www.navy.mil/ strategic/SECNAV-Spencer-DoN-Vision-2017.Pdf
Thornton, A. (2018). NAVSUP husbanding service provider transformation. Retrieved from http://scnewsltr.dodlive.mil/2018/06/22/navsup-husbanding- service-provider-transformation/
Transparency International. (2019). Corruption perceptions index 2018. Retrieved from https://www.transparency.org/files/content/pages/ 2018_CPI_Executive_Summary.Pdf
Véronneau S, Roy J (2009) Global service supply chains: an empirical study of current practices and challenges of a cruise line corporation. Tour Manag 30(1):128–139
Véronneau S, Roy J (2012) Cruise lines’ purchasing and logistics management. The business and management of ocean cruises. CABI, Wallingford/Cambridge, pp 90–100
Véronneau S, Roy J, Beaulieu M (2015) Cruise ship suppliers: a field study of the supplier relationship characteristics in a service supply chain. Tour Manag Perspect 16:76–84. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tmp.2015.07.008
Verrastro, PJ (1996). Applying commercial practices to Navy husbanding services contracts (Master’s thesis). Retrieved from http://hdl.handle.net/10945/32046
White House. (1988). National Security Decision Directive 298. Washington, DC: author. Retrieved from https://www.navy.mil/ah_online/OPSEC/docs/ policy/NSDD298.Pdf
White House. (2017). National Security Strategy of the United States. Washington, DC: author. Retrieved from https://www.whitehouse.gov/wp- content/uploads/2017/12/NSS-Final-12-18-2017-0905.Pdf
Whiteley, J, Foster, J and Johnson, K (2017). Contracting for Navy husbanding services: An analysis of the Fat Leonard case (NPS-CM-18-016). Retrieved from http://hdl.handle.net/10945/58893
Whitlock, C (2015). Defense contractor pleads guilty in massive bribery case. Washington Post. Retrieved from https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/navy-captain-enters-guilty-plea-in-massive-bribery-case/2015/01/15/b09688ba-9ced-11e4-a7ee-526210d665b4_story.html
Wong, M (2006). Current problems with multiple award indefinite delivery/indefinite quantity contracts: a primer. The Army Lawyer, 17–30. Retrieved from http://search.proquest.com/docview/227908026/
Funding
This research was funded by the U.S. Navy Chief of Naval Operations through the Naval Research Program.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Additional information
Publisher’s note
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
The views expressed in this document are those of the authors and do not reflect the official policy or position of the Department of Defense or the U.S. Government.
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Elliott, M.L., Percival, S.E., Steele, J.M. et al. An overview of operational security considerations for husbanding service providers of the U.S. navy. J Transp Secur 13, 273–290 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1007/s12198-020-00221-3
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s12198-020-00221-3