New Nationwide FEMA Camps Should Raise Eyebrows

American Thinker

Of  all the rumors flying around on the internet, one just refuses to die, and it  concerns America’s FEMA camps.

 

In  a nutshell, there seems to be a solicitation of bids occurring for the staffing  of FEMA camps within 72 hours of implementation by an order from either Homeland  Security or the president.  This situation begs to be investigated, with  special consideration paid to the motives of the present  administration.

 

I  went to the source, the FedBizOpps.gov,  and searched for the solicitation number HSFEHQ-10-R-0027, titled National  Responder Support Camp.

 

A  search of the history of the amendments to this Solicitation for Contract showed  that it had been modified several times, with the last modification — number  0008, with an original date of letting out to bid with a synopsis of May 13,  2011 — occurring on December 16, 2011.  This last modification rescinded  the solicitation, with said modification’s purpose noted as  follows:

 

1.  Cancel Solicitation HSFEHQ-10-R-0027.

2.  A new draft solicitation will be issued on January 2012 for industry comment.

3.  A Pre-Solicitation Conference will be held approximately two week post draft  solicitation.

 

Okay…score  one for the internet and the vigilant citizens who perform an invaluable service  to our nation by monitoring the actions of our government and its various  agencies.

 

I  began the laborious task of reading the Invitation to Bid — this tome is 116,  pages with many canned and boilerplate requirements for doing business with  Uncle Sam duly enshrined amongst the pages.  The Task Order Request (TOPR)  under Scenario I & II under Section J of the Appendix made for another 42  pages.  The required size of the camps was fluid, though they had the  required capacity of 301 to two thousand, including security and camp  cadre.

 

The  staffing requirements or cadre for FEMA personnel for these camps — which are  identified as being located in five (5) distinct regions throughout and within  the borders of the USA, with camps located in each and every state — was three  to fifteen each.  The size of these camps will vary around 5 acres per  1,000 inhabitants, though they will never be less than 3 acres for populations  of 500 or fewer inhabitants within the camps’ boundaries.

 

This  requirement also had a minimum square footage for each inhabitant: either the  camp’s cadre and first responders of 63 square feet, or approximately 8 feet on  each side.  This is slightly less than current Federal Court(s)  requirements for housing prisoners, which is approximately 72 square feet.   Perimeter fencing or barricades is required to be six feet high, enclosing the  camp, with all traffic in or out to be recorded on a daily log and with security  restricting all traffic and access.  The contractor shall also provide  fencing and barricades around areas which are “off limits” to  occupants.  ID Badges are required and are either blue or red, depending on  the carrier is temporary or considered an occupant of the  camp.

 

The  first of several anomalies in the solicitation for bid was in the contractor  staffing requirements, which puzzlingly required staff to be fully operational  within 72 hours.  Furthermore, “[w]henever practical, displaced citizens  will be given the first opportunities for employment within the camp, assuming  skills and capabilities are pertinent for the open positions.”

 

This  led me to question the stated purpose of these camps, considering that the  successful contractor would need to have personnel ready to go on such short  notice, with notification from FEMA, Homeland Security, or the president within  72 hours.  So the question arises: how could the camp utilize  “displaced citizens” in the initial staffing unless the contractor knew  where and when a disaster, man-made or otherwise would occur  beforehand?

 

Another  anomaly was the requirement that the “off limits” area was to be  enclosed before anything else:

 

The  contractor shall also provide fencing and barricades around areas which are “off  limits” to occupants. Fencing and barricades are required within 36 hours for  “phased” setup timeframes, and 72 hours for the rest of the initial setup  timeframe.

 

Next  question: just what is this “off limits” area to be used for, since the  bid proposal specified only two (2) classes of occupants of the camp —  temporary or occupant as first responder?  Furthermore, it indicates that  there may be a camp within the camp, or an area that is to be utilized by  another group that is not revealed in the bid solicitation…your guess is as  good as mine.  Most Americans would not like the ambiguity of this area’s  function!

 

Another  question arose on the Term of the Contract (F.3), which reads as  follows:

 

The  contract shall be effective as of the execution date of the base contract, and  shall continue up to five years if all four one-year options are exercised,  except that delivery orders placed prior to the expiration date shall remain in  full force and effect until deliveries have been completed and payments,  therefore, have been made. The final delivery order shall not exceed two  years.

 

The  nature of the duration seems to belie a long-term use for these camps, which is  also not fitting the transitory nature of natural disasters, with most communities being habitable  again after a relatively short period of time.  We’re talking months, not  years.

 

Under  the Principal Place of Performance (F.4), this solicitation implies that all of  the areas outlined below must be staffed:

 

The  effort required under this contract shall be performed in the United States.  Task Orders will designate the exact locations where services will be provided.  The five (5) areas of coverage are broken down as follows:

Area  1: Includes the states of CT, DC, DE, MA, MD, ME, NH, NJ, PA, VT, NY, WV, VA,  RI

Area  2: Includes the states of KY, TN, MS, AL, GA, SC, NC, FL

Area  3: Includes the states of CO, IA, IL, IN, KS, MI, MN, MO, MT, ND, NE, OH, SD,  UT, WI, WY

Area  4: Includes the states of AR, LA, NM, OK, TX

Area  5: Includes the states of AZ, CA, ID, NV, OR, WA

 

 

The  language is specific in that all requirements are performed in the United  States.  However, the language does not specify that it would be a phased  approach or even a localized area that experiences a natural  disaster — simply the entire nation.

 

In  the Task Order Proposal Request, there is a specific requirement for large  vehicle parking:

 

Special  Requirements:

–  Outsized Vehicle Parking within Security Area (> 2.5 ton vehicles): Estimate  required space and add to acreage requirement.

–  Outsized vehicle parking outside security area (> 2.5 ton vehicles): Estimate  required space and add to acreage requirement.

–  Mission Support Work Area(s): Minimum square footage,  Accessibility

 

These  requirements suggest that the type of vehicle(s) will be either solely  high-occupancy (i.e., buses) or large trucks or heavy equipment combined with  buses.  The interesting point about this section is that the authors allude  to a “Security Area” and an “Unsecured Area” with no specific  requirements coming forth.

 

To  sum up: the solicitation to bid for the staffing of FEMA camps within 72 hours  is a curious proposition, since it appears to predict a calamity that will  affect the entire nation simultaneously –completely unlike a location-specific  natural disaster.

 

This  may be nothing more than a preparedness exercise by Homeland Security to see if  anyone besides the military would be able to meet these stringent requirements  for rapid deployment.  However, what I found most striking was the “off  limits” areas within each camp and staffing with “displaced  persons” and the “Mission Support Work Area(s),” all  undefined.   As citizens, we need to know the exact purpose of these  camps, given President Obama’s propensity to bend our constitutional republic to  his own purposes!

 

(All  documents can be found at this  website for the GSA Federal Business Opportunities.)

Read more: http://www.americanthinker.com/2012/01/new_nationwide_fema_camps_should_raise_eyebrows.html#ixzz1iMkaxzRe