US Embassy Beijing Air Monitoring, Pollution Hype? Oh Yeah, the Smog Fogs the Brain, and Closes Beijing's Airport ...

Last month, environmental authorities in Beijing have accused the US embassy of "hype" after its widely-publicized measurements of air quality in the Chinese capital sparked concern.

"I'm not clear about their way and methods of monitoring or how they ensure the accuracy," said Du Shaozhong, spokesman for the Beijing Municipal Environmental Protection Bureau, according to the Beijing Times.

"But I feel their way of releasing (the data) is more like hype, and not a very serious attitude toward research."

The last 48 hours, the air quality in Beijing according to the US Embassy's reading has see-sawed between Very Unhealthy to Hazardous, with one Crazy Bad (Beyond Index) reading on Sunday. See  http://twitter.com/#!/BeijingAir. 

Melissa Chan of Al Jazeera illustrated the current air quality in Beijing and Vermont with a photographic comparison on Twitter last month.

Greenpeace East Asia has put together real-time apps, Twitter tracking air quality levels in different Chinese cities to "help you closely monitor the skies (and know to stay indoors on those 'crazy bad' days)." Check them out here.

Today, we saw the amateur video of what Beijing’s streets looked like yesterday morning, December 4 via WSJ's China Real Time Report:



WSJ China Real Time Report notes that authorities in Beijing and most other Chinese cities measure air pollution by counting only particles between 2.5 and 10 micrometers in diameter. The US embassy counts particles smaller than 2.5 micrometers (PM2.5), which experts say make up the most of the city’s air pollution and cause more damage to the lungs.

Continue reading, Victory for U.S. Embassy as Beijing Chokes on 'Heavy Fog'

A few hours ago, BBC reports that Beijing airport has cancelled hundreds of flights after a dense smog reduced visibility in the Chinese capital.

Also this piece from PRNewswire touting that the global residential air treatment systems market as highly dynamic and expected to show steady growth should be helpful:

Verify Markets estimates the global residential air treatment systems market to be over $2 billion in revenues in 2010. China was the largest market, followed by Japan and the United States.  The key drivers in most countries globally are poor indoor quality and rising awareness about poor air quality.  In China, purchasing power, steady increase in income levels and poor indoor quality are major market drivers.

The smog fogs the brain, that is all. Don't believe what you see or hear or breath ... it's all a hype, of course.  But just in case, get ready with your 3M masks!

Related articles

• Authorities cancel flights as haze shrouds Beijing (cnn.com)
• Heavy Beijing smog stops flights (bbc.co.uk)
• Smog Closes Beijing Airport (nytimes.com)
• China Air-Quality Catastrophe - It's Back (theatlantic.com)
• Authorities cancel flights as haze shrouds Beijing (news.blogs.cnn.com)
• U.S. readings challenge China's smog claims (cnn.com)

Iraq Transition: The Civilian Medical Support Services on Paper

I have posted previously about the transition to a civilian-led mission in Iraq. The planned 17,000 civilian personnel (including personal security contractors) will be a lot less than what DOD has in country right now, but it is larger than the entire Foreign Service which has approximately 6,500 Foreign Service Officers and 5,000 Foreign Service Specialists.

Think about it, a workforce larger than the entire Foreign Service, deployed to one country alone.

I've posted previously about the transition and the medical support function here, here, here and here.

U/S Patrick Kennedy during his appearance at the Commission on Wartime Contracting last June 6 states that "a medical contract was awarded to Medical Support Services – Iraq on May 15, 2011 for $132 million for five years."


I don't know why there is a discrepancy in the amount and the name of the contractor but according to FedBiz the medical support services contact number: SAQMMA11D0073 is in the amount of $61,427,699.00 and has been awarded to CHS Middle East LLC, a company based in Reston, Virginia on May 19, 2011.


I went digging for the solicitation in FedBiz to see what to expect. Excerpts below on what the medical support services look like on paper. Excerpted from the publicly available statement of work:


C.1 Purpose and Objectives

This is a non-personal services contract to provide for Health Service Support to U.S. personnel and authorized foreign nationals serving for the United States in Iraq. The Contractor will provide trained and certified health care professionals and administrative service support to U.S. and U.S. sponsored beneficiaries working and residing in Iraq. The Contractor will staff, operate, equip, and supply health care facilities in locations prescribed by the Department of State to meet operational requirements as identified in this Performance Work Statement. Mission capable status (all sites listed in table C.1) is 1 December 2011. Mission capable means able to perform all requirements under this PWS.

C.2 Background

The health care support mission will transition from the U. S. Department of Defense to the U. S. Department of State over a period of time as denoted in Attachment A. Transition Timeline, beginning on or about June 2011 with complete transfer completed by December 2011 coinciding with majority of the U.S. forces' departure.

After the U.S. military forces withdraw from Iraq, the U.S. Embassy and constituent posts and sites will be comprised of approximately 14,000 to 17,000 U.S. Government personnel under the U.S. Ambassador which includes U.S.G. civilians, military and local national employees; and supporting Contractors (U.S. third country, and local national). All U.S. and third country personnel will require medical care (local nationals only in emergencies or work related injuries).

The Department of State will establish a network of Contractor operated facilities in three regional support areas (see Attachment B for map of the facility locations and support regions) consisting of seven Health Units (HU), one large Diplomatic Support Hospital (DSH), and three small DSHs that provide patient care. A description of the capabilities required of each of the three types of facilities may be found in the Scope of Work of this PWS.

Health care facilities will be in secure compounds within each of the three geographical support regions with general logistics, utilities, and housing support provided by separate contracts.

The Contractor will be responsible establishing facilities as indicated in Table C.1 below:
Table C.1 Facility Type, Locations, and Population Supported

C.3.2 Health Unit (HU) Capabilities.

The Contractor shall provide on-site primary, urgent and initial emergency care for general medical, surgical, orthopedic, gynecologic (GYN) and mental health conditions; triage, stabilize and evacuate patients to the next level of medical care; and keep up to two patients in the HU for up to 24 hours until stabilized or medically evacuated. Staffing shall be continuous and uninterrupted; coverage for illness and vacations shall be the
responsibility of the Contractor.

The Contractor shall designate a medical director for appropriate medical oversight at each facility. This medical director shall be named in the resultant task orders. Routine care shall be provided during regular working hours, and on an emergency basis after normal working hours based on COM requirements. At least one physician with expertise in all aspects of emergency care shall be available 24 hours daily. All providers shall be licensed to US or equivalent standards and physicians shall be qualified by US or  equivalent specialty boards. All primary care providers (Physician(s), Physician Assistants, Nurse Practitioners) shall hold current credentials in trauma care (e.g. ATLS, CALS or equivalent) and cardiac care (ACLS or equivalent).

The Contractor shall also provide the following supplies and services at each HU facility:

• Medical and medical emergency equipment.
• Basic formulary and vaccines to include, but not limited to:
• Thrombolytic therapy.
• Medical supplies.
• Laboratory equipment and supplies and maintenance thereof,
• Clinical Laboratory Improvement Act (CLIA) waived lab capabilities to include, but not limited to: basic hematology, blood chemistries, urine analysis, cardiac enzymes, d-dimer testing.

C.3.3 Small Diplomatic Support Hospital DSH Capabilities.

In addition to the capabilities outlined above for a HU facility, the Contractor shall establish a medical/trauma care hospital with the following capabilities:

• Basic x-ray, diagnostic ultrasound (to include Focused Abdominal Sonogram for Trauma (FAST) Right Upper Quadrant (RUQ), renal, OB (tubal pregnancy), GYN, testicular, and Deep Vein Thrombosis (DVT) evaluations).
• Appropriate number of trauma bays in the emergency medical and trauma unit for care and stabilization.
• Overnight bed capabilities for up to four patients (8 beds total ( 4 ICU beds + 4 regular beds))
• Post operative / intensive care capabilities for up to four patients to be stabilized until medically evacuated
• One operating room table with anesthesia and supplies.
• Laboratory with blood bank.
• Computerized Tomography (CT) Scanner with the capability to conduct non-contrast, contrast (oral and IV), and the ability to do PA-grams (ideally with venous run-off).

Staffing shall reflect that necessary to manage a single surgical patient with the required operating room (OR) techs, nurses, anesthetists and the possibility of multiple injured or ill patients. The professional staff, when time permits, shall be integral to all aspects of the facility. Physicians, surgeons, anesthetists, OR tech, EMTs, laboratory technologist and nurses shall meet the requirements outlined below in the Staffing section.

C.3.4 Large Diplomatic Support Hospital (DSH) Capabilities.

Sather Air Base will have the same common items as the Small DSH facilities and Health Units, but will have:

• staffing that reflects the requirements to manage two surgical patients and the possibility of multiple injured or ill patients
• staffing to include competency in performing and interpreting ECG stress tests
• possess a total of 2 OR tables with anesthesia and supplies
• overnight bed capabilities for up to six patients (12 beds total (6 ICU beds + 6 regular beds))
• post operative / intensive care capabilities for up to six patients to be stabilized until medically evacuated
• It is anticipated that full occupancy would be a rare occurrence.

According to the solicitation, which has now been awarded, the US Government estimates the following staffing: Health Units-5, Small District Support Hospitals-16, Large District Support Hospitals -31.

If I got my math right, and I'm atrocious at math -- this comes out to 1 medical support provider for every 326 of the deployed population.



Related info:

1-21-2011 PRE-SOLICITATION CONFERENCE final.pptx (1,054.90 Kb)
January 21, 2011 slides from Presolicitation Conference(FedBiz)

Related articles

• DOD Works Toward Successful Transition in Iraq (waronterrornews.typepad.com)
• Landstuhl Provides Advanced Care for Wounded Warriors (waronterrornews.typepad.com)
• What line between civilian and military authority? (salon.com)
• Spokane-area woman injured as war contractor (thenewstribune.com)
• 9 dead in attack on Iraq government compound (seattletimes.nwsource.com)

 

 

 

Iraq Transition: One of the Biggest Risks? Contractor-Led and Run Medical Supply Chain

In March, during the telconference with prospective bidders for the medical support services in Iraq, prospective bidders and DOD/State representatives had a Q&A. The transcript of that telcon was posted at FedBiz as part of the solicitation package.  The excerpts I selected below includes what the Army considers one of the biggest risks during the transition (medical supply chain), right of refusal by the contractor (DOD-left equipment), credentialing and vetting of personnel, and the challenges of the blood supply chain from the transhipment site in Qatar to various sites in Iraq.

As to how many DOD medical providers/medical support staff is currently in theater, apparently, according to the govt reps in this telcon, "There is not a way to answer that."

INDUSTRY:  [...] In the Army’s mind, what are the biggest risks that the contractor will face during transition?
      
GOVERNMENT:  Lieutenant Colonel [...], CENTCOM.  I think one of the biggest risks are the transition to a contractor-led and run medical supply chain.  With that, I think they need to do a comprehensive study or analysis, if you will, of the transportation piece, and we will have to -- and issues, and things like that that are involved with that.

INDUSTRY:  Question number six.  How many medical providers -- physicians' assistance, nurse practitioners, medical doctors, medics, and corpsmen -- does the Department of Defense currently have at each site?
       
GOVERNMENT:  Yes.  Each of those sites, at this moment in time, serves a different purpose, and will not be analogous to our population at risk and the size of our missions. 
       
There is not a way to answer that.  There are some sites that have a troop medical clinic with one mid-level provider, and there are, of course, hospitals that, of course, have full staff.  So there is not really an answer that is suitable for this question.  It just can’t be compared to what we will have standing up.

INDUSTRY:  [...] Question 11, does the awarded contractor have the right of refusal on all items left behind by the Department of Defense?  For example, medical equipment.

GOVERNMENT:  [...] I think it would be the contractor’s call, whether to accept the equipment or not.  And if not, then the contractor would have to provide replacement equipment that we would have to agree to.  So
       
GOVERNMENT:  And this is [snip] in Baghdad.  I would agree.  There should be a compelling reason that the contractor would decline the use of equipment offered under this arrangement, and incur further expense to the U.S. Government.

INDUSTRY:  Question 16, will the transition period allow for proper credentialing, security vetting, redeployment training, and administrative processing?

GOVERNMENT:  Yes, I can.  The short answer is we are really uncertain at this point in time of the time frame that is going to be required for credentialing, security vetting, predeployment training, and the administrative processing.
       
The contractor, however, will not be penalized for delays due to the Department of State processes.

INDUSTRY:  Okay.  Question number 12.  What kind of support will DoD provide during the transition and full operating status of the following:  A, equipment, i.e. size, weight, and transportation issues; B, blood, critical resupply time, governing body for access, space to acquire blood supplies, transportation to Qatar; C, pharmaceuticals and vaccines, ministry of health regulations at each country; D, medical gases, hazmat issues, anesthesia and transportation?

GOVERNMENT:  This is [snip].  For A, USF-I will -- we will go ahead and set up each of the locations’ equipment -- medical supplies, minus pharmaceuticals.  And basically, we will set up each location ready for them to come in and go to work.  And that is portion A.

INDUSTRY:  Okay.  Major [....], on the blood?
       
GOVERNMENT:  All right, Major [...] on blood.  I know blood will be supplied through the Armed Services Blood Program System, and this will be done via coordination through the blood program officer forward, and the blood transshipment center at Qatar.

Inventory levels will be communicated via an Excel spreadsheet, and this is going to be submitted daily to the blood transshipment center, just with general inventory numbers for the blood products, so that the BTC can generate the orders required to fill the inventory levels.

There should be a centralized person from the civilian locations that will consolidate the Department of State blood inventory information from the multiple facilities, and then this will be submitted in the report.  This individual will work directly with the blood program officer forward, and the transshipment center office or staff, for ordering the inventory to include the critical resupply need.
       
The blood transshipment center keeps the red cell products and the frozen products on hand for re-order and any re-supply that is needed.
       
As far as critical resupply times, this is going to vary.  From experience, this is usually dependent on the transportation available.  And for those, it’s my understanding that there will not be military transportation, that this will have to be a civilian-provided transport.
       
From our experience, you know, we can usually get blood products out to theater within a day.  If there is transport delays or storms or anything, it could get up to 48 to 72 hours.
       
Let’s see.  Once the actual transportation method has been chosen and coordinated, I recommend working directly with the transshipment center officer and staff for any final coordination details. 
       
Pick-up, if it should occur directly from the BTC location, that civilian transportation will need to gain access to the base.  I have communicated with our transshipment center officer, and she has the initial contact information for the POC at Qatar who would arrange any base access, be it via flight or ground transport to get there.  It’s just recommended that documentation for access to the base has to be started as soon as possible, due to the time of processing.  Over.

Active links added above. Almost all the moving parts above will now be taken over by different contractors - medical support, air transport, site access, security, etc. And that's what worries me, frankly.

Read the MSSI transcript, edited 3-15-11.docx (35.38 Kb)

Also below is a diagram that represents how blood (red solid lines), pre-positioned frozen blood (red dotted lines), and reports (blue dotted lines) flow within the Armed Services system and demonstrates areas where efforts are coordinated (gray dashed lines).

Does the State Department or its contractors even have half a comparable system to this by end of 2011?

 

 

 

 

Iraq Transition: Horrible Deadline, Rough Schedule, But -- The Army Is Leaving! Really. Really?

Giant Aspirin - Have One
Image by duncan via FlickrI do not think replacing DOD's gigantic footprint in Iraq with a smaller footprint by the Department of State (smaller compared to DOD but the largest in State's universe) would transform that country into a democracy that our then leaders imagined in la-la land.

That said, what I think obviously, does not make a difference in the scheme of things. Our Iraq project is a runaway train that has ran out of brake fluid; and who will put a stop to it?

The notion out there that we should pour more resources into that country even as we withdraw our troops so that the deaths we suffered in that foreign land would not be in vain is understandable.   But it also borders on emotional blackmail and is code blue depressing.  If the dead could speak up, would they really tell us -- if you love me, go off some more people over there? Would they? If the answer is "yes" -- this is going to be a war with no end, because as more deaths are avenged, more deaths will occur .... and we'll be in Iraq for 20 years more, 50 years, who knows -- a hundred years? There will be no basing rights, of course, so we'll be doing this on one-year TDYs for the next several decades.

But combat is over; we'll be doing our reconstruction there! Of course, we are; the real question is -- why are we doing it there instead of here? And let's not kid ourselves. The body bags will not stop coming home just because combat operation is over.

How many more of our young men and women must pay the price because we are too stupid to recognize when to stop?

But like  I said, what I think obviously, does not make a difference in the scheme of things. I expect that the State Department will take over the Iraq headache as planned whether the giant aspirin is handy or not.

Not much I can do about this; but blogging about this, I sure can do. I figure good preparation is half the battle. If the civilians must now take over this mission, I'd like to know that State has won that part of the battle, or has it?

U/S Patrick Kennedy during his appearance at the Commission on Wartime Contracting last June 6 states that "a medical contract was awarded to Medical Support Services – Iraq on May 15, 2011 for $132 million for five years."

But according to FedBiz the medical support services contact (Number:SAQMMA11D0073) in the amount of $61,427,699.00 has been awarded to CHS Middle East LLC, a company based in Reston, Virginia on May 19, 2011.

So I went digging for the contract solicitation for the med services at FedBiz. I wanted to know what work can we expect from this medical support contract in Iraq. I have seen the statement of work posted online and will post that separately because the following distracted me.

During the pre-solicitation period,  the Defense and State Departments did answer some questions about the work required from the prospective bidders.  I've highlighted some of the questions and answers below extracted from materials publicly posted in FedBiz. This will give you an idea what the bidders were interested in and what the medical services might look like after contractors take over the function:

Third Country Nationals in Their Minds

Q: “Any U.S. citizen prime or subcontractor employee who will deploy to Iraq in conjunction with this contract, regardless of purpose of visit or duration of stay, must have a favorable investigation, no older than 2 years, resulting in issuance of a Final Secret or Top Secret personnel security clearance from Defense Security Service (DSS) or must have a favorable Moderate Risk Public Trust (MRPT) investigation conducted by the Department of State, Bureau of Diplomatic Security. Only employees with current clearances or whose MRPT’s are favorably adjudicated will be allowed to travel to Iraq.”  Will the Government accept non-US citizen Third Country Nationals as employees on this contract?

A: If they can be cleared and will be acceptable to the Government of Iraq.  

Q: H.1.1 lists countries from which no person may work on the contract in any capacity.  Does the tem “any capacity” preclude the contractor from assigning work to any person from these countries who have the legal right to work in the U.S. performing “back office” (e.g., Accounting & Finance, Human Resources)?  Does this clause only prohibit the contractor from assigning work in Iraq to persons from these countries?

A: The Government of Iraq is setting restriction regarding country of origin.  This requirement restates that requirement/restriction.  To the extent that we can determine the intent of the GOI, working in Iraq means any employee or person performing more than 30 days in Iraq.  Experience shows that interpretation is often performed by the individual by the inspector on site on the given day.  Therefore, until more specific definition is provided. it would be wise for the contractor to not incur cost to provide an employee that may not be acceptable to the GOI.

At this point, I must note that the private security contractors and static guards at our posts in Iraq are already made up of U.S. citizens and a host of third country nationals. We probably should not be surprised if the health units turn up with a medical crew made up of third country nationals.

The Fitness Question with a Troubling Answer

Then there is that fitness question and the troubling answer. I don't know how often military personnel must now do a drug test; at one point, it was twice a year, they all pee in a cup and get checked. The USG seems to be saying, we don't care, it's up to you. Remember the contractors here will be working for the health units and the diplomatic support hospitals; there will be drugs/controlled substance/pharmaceuticals.

Q: “The Contractor shall provide technically competent Health Care Providers (HCPs) that are “medically and dentally fit” in the time frame stated in the task order award notice.”  Will candidates be undergoing a Pre-Medical screening?  Does the Pre-Medical screening include a drug test? If so, who will pay the cost and are the requirements similar to those deploying to the CRC at Ft. Benning, GA?

A: (We are not familiar with the CRC at Ft. Benning.)  Contractor is responsible for providing personnel who are medically fit and able to perform their duties.  If they are unable to perform due to drug impairment, either because they are not physically and mentally competent or because they are unable to receive and maintain an MRPT clearance, they will be found unacceptable.  

If you're thinking about DOD residual support, there will be NONE

Q: Will the military have no residual support in Iraq to provide for service members?  Evacuation of service members?  And only until December 2011?

A: USF-I will provide support, in some areas only, until the end of 2011.  Where support is not available, active duty military will be deemed to fall under the DoS eligible population and will be supported by the Contractor. Beyond 12-2011, all military will fall under the Chief of Mission authority as applicable to eligibility.

How about medical malpractice insurance?

Q: The cited clause does not contain the minimum malpractice insurance required.  Will the government specify the minimum amount of malpractice insurance?

A: The RFP has been amended to include the following:  a) Malpractice Insurance—for non-surgeon doctors, nurse practitioners, and physicians assistants, $1 million/ $3 million (per occurrence/total).  

There will be blood...will there be blood?

Q: For these blood and blood products, will the Government also provide transportation support through the TOC?

A: The contractor will be responsible for procuring blood and blood products from Qatar; Transportation to Baghdad will be made available from Kuwait and Amman via Embassy supported flights.  Within Iraq, Embassy Air Operations will support further movement.

I'm sorry I can't help myself -- must point out that the Q&A include an item indicating that 84 binders are NOT/NOT required for the proposal:

Q: Please confirm that the Government’s intent is for offerors to submit a total of 12 binders for each of the five Task Order Proposals. The total number of binders each offeror would be submitting is 84. Would the Government change the requirement to have all task order Technical Proposals in a single binder and task order Price Proposals in a single binder? The total number of binders would be reduced to 30.

A: No, it was not the Government's intent to require 84 binders.  The language has been clarified, both in L.10 and in the attachments.  

I must note that this Q&A is dated months ago. Recent news report seems to indicate that Iraq will request our troops to stay past December 2011.

I have posted previously about Embassy Baghdad General Hospital based on the OIG report which reviewed the embassy's transition preparation. I will have a related post to follow on this subject.

Related articles

• Iraq 'to request' US troops stay (bbc.co.uk)
• Iraq likely to ask US to stay past 2011: Panetta (alternet.org)
• Commission Questions State Dept's "Logically Dubious" Opposition to Contract Oversight Recommendations (pogoblog.typepad.com)
• What withdrawal from Iraq? (salon.com)
• Occupying Iraq, State Department-style (cbsnews.com)

 

 

 

State Dept eMED data breach: info not disclosed to others but advises employees to get credit reports

We've posted previously about the data breach at the State Department relating to approximately 250,000  medical records of its employees and other USG employees working at other agencies (see Alleged Fake Amcits Had Contract Jobs at State Dept, Held Security Clearances)

We sent off the following questions to the State Department Medical Director (got an out of office response), the Medical Records Office (got a canned response thanking us for our medical clearance submission), and a couple of other offices:

• What type of information was obtained?
• What happened to the information illegally obtained by the contractor?
• When and how was the breach discovered?
• If the defendant was not discovered to have committed the alleged immigration fraud, would the State Dept Office of Medical Services have discovered the breach in its medical database?
• Now that eMed had been breached how do employees and family members protect themselves?

The following is the response we got from a State Department official:

During the course of an unrelated investigation, Federal investigators informed the Office of Medical Services (MED) that a long-term IT contractor employed in MED had improperly retained personally identifiable information (PII) from a State Department medical database.  The contractor's employment had been terminated by his company last year.

The information retained by the contractor includes personally identifiable information (PII) associated with our medical clearance database,  such as name, address, and in some, but not all, cases, social security numbers and employing agency.  In some instances, the status of medical clearance - worldwide, limited, pending or not cleared for overseas - was included.  In addition, some entries included medical clearance blood test results.

The data that was in the possession of the contractor has been reviewed by the Department.  From information received to date, there is no indication that this information was disclosed to others.  The investigation is ongoing, and we are monitoring the situation closely.   MED's review to date shows that the information retained by the contractor did not include physician notes, treatment records, emails, scanned documents, or financial information.

The Department has provided guidance to its employees on this situation.  We have sent letters to other agencies of those employees who may be affected by this incident.  We are advising them to obtain a credit report (www.annualcreditreport.com) and be alert to any unusual activity in credit card or bank accounts.  State and non-State staff can send specific inquiries to a specially designated email address.  We are also working to inform retirees who may be affected.

Because this incident is still under investigation, we cannot comment further at this time.

The response we got did not include the specifically designated email address, presumably that and the guidance to employees are available in the intranet. If you are an eligible family member with a deployed spouse and no access to the intranet, check with your Health Unit or your admin officer.

Note that you are entitled to receive one free credit report every 12 months from each of the nationwide consumer credit reporting companies (TransUnion, Equifax, Experian). You can order all three credit reports at the same time and compare them but won't be able to request the free credit reports for another 12 months.  You can also request one credit report every four months so that you can keep track of any changes or new information that may appear on your credit report. Read more here.

Related articles

• Quiz: How Well Do You Know Your Credit Rights? (mint.com)
• Why Aren't We Claiming Our Free Credit Reports? (mint.com)
• Back to Basics: What You Will And Won't See In Your Credit Reports (mint.com)
• Who Else Is Reporting Your Credit? The "Other" Three Bureaus (mint.com)
• The Epsilon data breach affected millions - so what happens next? (thetechherald.com)

Alleged Fake Amcits Had Contract Jobs at State Dept, Held Security Clearances

Image by alancleaver_2000 via FlickrAlso alleged to have accessed and obtained information relating to approx 250,000  medical records of State Department and other USG employees  


Criminal Case 1:11CR144 is between the United States of America vs. KUANG HAO CHOU, Also known as Edwin Chou, LING YU HSIEH, Also known as Erica Hsieh.

The Grand Jury Indictment dated March 17, 2011 includes six counts of conspiracy to commit immigration fraud, bribery of a public official and (aiding and abetting), fraud and misuse of immigration documents) and (aiding and abetting), procurement of citizenship or naturalization unlawfully and (aiding and abetting), fraud and related activity with computers, false statement in a security clearance application.

Below are excepts from the indictment:

1. Robert Schofield was a federal employee with the title of Supervisory District Adjudications Officer responsible for processing applications submitted by immigrants requesting adjustments to their United States immigration status. Prior to early 2003, Schofield worked for the Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS). After early 2003, Schofield worked for the newly formed Department of Homeland Security (DHS) Citizenship and Immigration Services (CIS).

6. On November 30,2006, Schofield pled guilty in the Eastern District of Virginia to Bribery of a Public Official and Procurement of Citizenship or Naturalization Unlawfully. As part of his plea agreement, Schofield admitted to fraudulently providing United States immigration documents, including naturalization certificates; Temporary I-551 stamps, which are evidence of LPR ("green card") status; and Advance Parole documents, to ineligible aliens in return for bribes. Schofield admitted that he utilized various brokers to bring the aliens to him who were willing to pay for falsely made United States immigration documents.

7. KUANG HAO CHOU a/k/a Edwin Chou is a Taiwanese national who entered the United States on or about August 21,1996, as a nonimmigrant B-2 visitor for pleasure. CHOU obtained unlawfully issued immigration benefits from Schofield in return for money. CHOU used his unlawful immigration benefits to obtain a United States Passport and to obtain jobs as a contract employee of the United States
Department of State(DOS) and United States government security clearances. CHOU also brought and referred other foreign nationals to Schofield in order to obtain unlawful immigration benefits for these other aliens.

8. LING YU HSIEH a/k/a Erica Hsieh is a Taiwanese national who entered the United States on or about April 11,1998, as a nonimmigrant B-2 visitor. HSIEH obtained unlawfully issued immigration benefits from Schofield in return for money. HSIEH used her unlawful immigration benefits to obtain a United States Passport and a position as a contract employee of the DOS and United States government security clearances. HSIEH also brought and referred other foreign nationals to Schofield in order to obtain unlawful immigration benefits.

9. KUANG HAO CHOU and LING YU HSIEH are married and have been married since 1991. They have resided in Herndon, Virginia, within the Eastern District of Virginia since 2001.

11. KUANG HAO CHOU and LING YU HSIEH used their fraudulently obtained United States Naturalization Certificates to obtain United States security clearances and jobs working as contract employees with the United States Department of State. On or about September 9,2005, CHOU submitted to the Office of Personnel Management (OPM) an Electronic Questionnaire for Investigations Processing (e-QIP) request number 165787, which contained a Questionnaire for National Security Positions (SF86) in connection with his employment as a contractor to the United States Department of State. On or about September 14,2005, HSIEH submitted to the Office of Personnel Management (OPM) an Electronic Questionnaire for Investigations Processing (e-QIP) request number 172495, which contained a Questionnaire for National Security Positions (SF86) in connection with her employment as a contractor to the United States Department of State.

Count Five:

Between on or about April 8,2010 and November 16, 2010, in Herndon, Virginia, within the Eastern District of Virginia, and elsewhere, the defendant, KUANG HAOCHOU, knowingly and intentionally accessed a computer without authorization and exceeded his authorized access and thereafter obtained information from a department and agency of the United States, to wit: CHOU accessed the United States Department of State eMED database without authorization and exceeding his authorized access and obtained information relating to approximately 250,000 or more United States Department of State and other United States government employees. (In violation of Title 18 United States Code 1030(a)(2)(B).)

Count 6

On or about August 5,2010, in Herndon,Virginia, within the Eastern District of Virginia, and elsewhere, the defendant, KUANG HAO CHOU, in a matter within the jurisdiction of the Executive Branch of the Government of the United States, that is the Social Security Administration and the Department of State, did knowingly, unlawfully and willfully make a materially false, fictitious and fraudulent statement and representation, to wit: CHOU claimed to be lawfully naturalized United States citizens when CHOU sought to renew his security clearance he originally obtained to work as a contractor for the United States Department of State,in order to work with the Social Security Administration, when in truth and in fact, as CHOU then and there well knew he had paid a bribe for his immigration benefits and was not eligible to obtain or use a security clearance in September 9,2005, nor to renew it on August 5, 2010. On or about August 5,2010, CHOU submitted a Questionnaire for Non-Sensitive Positions and a Declaration for Federal Employment submitted to the United States Office of Personnel Management to maintain his security clearance and reaffirming his false statement and representation concerning his immigration status. (In violation of Title 18, United States Code, Section 1001.)

The full copy of the indictment is here (h/t to Emily Babay| Washington Examiner for a copy of the indictment posted in ScribD).

If one of the defendants "obtained" a quarter million information from the medical database, how was that information disposed of? Or perhaps the question might be, how compromised is that information right now? Med records normally include not only names, but also SSNs, blood types, medical clearances, test results (and who knows what else - papsmear and colonoscopy results, physicians' notes, allergies?). 

If the allegations are true, one has to wonder at the motive for accessing personally identifiable information (PII) of State Department and other USG employees.  What was the intent here?  Was the information sold? Was the information hoarded for later disposal? Was it done for much darker reasons? 

But more importantly, how was the data breach discovered? The breach happened in a span of seven months.  Was it also downloaded and copied to a Lady Gaga CD? Did MED discover this breach due to a system warning when a large amount of data was accessed and obtained?  Or was the discovery of the data breach only happened after a collateral investigation of the alleged immigration fraud? 

To be blunt, if the defendant was not discovered to have committed the alleged immigration fraud, would the State Dept Office of Medical Services have discovered the breach in its medical database?

And now that eMed had been eBreached, what do you do to protect yourself?


We have asked this and other questions to Med, we'll post any response we get. 

US Embassy Beijing: Air quality goes 'crazy bad'

We have written previously about the US Embassy Beijing's air monitor in China's capital city (see U.S Embassy Beijing’s Air Monitor Tracks the Particulates in Your Lungs | March 22, 2010). The embassy  does emphasized that "This monitor is a resource for the health of the Mission community.  Citywide analysis cannot be done, however, on data from a lone machine."

Now, Beijing's bad air is in the news again.  When it went off the charts yesterday, the US Embassy folks ran out of "conventional adjectives" and went for "crazy bad" -- later deleted, of course, and replaced with the more sober and boring term "beyond index:"

 

More below via Jonathan Watts of guardian.co.uk:

Since the US embassy in Beijing began tweeting hourly pollution reports last year, I – along with many other smog watchers – have been horrified at the frequency of "bad" and "hazardous" readings.

But this week, the depth and murkiness of the haze was so appalling that the automated system briefly entered the realm of black comedy with a "crazy bad" analysis of our air.

The outlandish description appeared on the @beijingair Twitter account late yesterday when levels of PM2.5 tiny particulate matter surged past 500, about 20 times higher than the guideline issued by the World Health Organisation.

The "crazy bad" terminology – which was at odds with the normally sober and scientific language of the Twitter account – appeared to have been a joke embedded in the embassy's monitoring program and triggered by a reading that was off the normal scale.

US officials quickly deleted "crazy bad" and replaced it with the term "beyond index", but not before the original message was widely retweeted by shocked Beijingers.
[...]
One of my colleagues has taken to wearing a facemask on his commute through the streets. The Guardian's research assistant, Cui Zheng, prefers not to think about the air we all have to breathe. "I had to stop following the @Beijingair tweets. They were too depressing," she explained.
[...]As I write, the air quality reading has improved to a mere "hazardous" but with the world outside grey and the lungs aching inside, "crazy bad" still feels entirely appropriate.

Read the whole thing here.

On a side note, Beijing became a 15% hardship differential post for the State Department in January this year. An allowance -- "established for any place when, and only when, the place involves extraordinarily difficult living conditions, excessive physical hardship, or notably unhealthful conditions affecting the majority of employees officially stationed or detailed at that place."

At 15%, Beijing and Shanghai have the lowest post differential among the US posts in China.  The highest is 30% for Nanjing, Shenyang, Wuhan and Others, then 25% for Guangzhou and 20% for Chengdu. Makes one wonder what is worse than the crazy bad particulates in your lungs.

Related articles

• 'Crazy bad' is accurate for Beijing's air but not protocol (chron.com)
• Twittering Bad Air Particles in Beijing (time.com)
• China's Pollution Woes (abcnews.go.com)
• Diesels are Beijing's biggest polluters (holykaw.alltop.com)
• Which state has the worst air quality? (greenanswers.com)

EEOC certifies class action against State Dept on behalf of disabled Foreign Service applicants

WaPo's Joe Davidson has a recent piece asking "Should medical conditions prevent State Department applicants from joining the Foreign Service if they can't serve in every single post in the world?" (For a Foreign Service officer with MS, what is 'around the world'? | WaPo | Tuesday, October 19, 2010; 10:29 PM):

Doering Meyer is functional in Turkish, speaks some Arabic and has lived abroad, where she bolstered a strong interest in Islam and foreign affairs.

Despite that background, when she applied to be a Foreign Service officer, State said no because she has a history of multiple sclerosis. Meyer was able to secure a waiver that allows her to work in some places.

Waiver or not, Meyer says she thinks State's practice results in an unfair bias against people with certain ailments and violates federal anti-discrimination laws that require employers to make reasonable accommodations for people with disabilities. That word alone exaggerates Meyer's condition.

"The impact of the State Department's failure to provide the required individualized consideration is profound," said Bryan J. Schwartz, her Oakland, Calif., lawyer. "The State Department, virtually, without exception, does not hire FSOs with disabilities, records of disabilities and perceived disabilities."
[...]
The State Department said it does hire people with disabilities into the Foreign Service and "has been doing so for years. In addition, the Department provides reasonable accommodations. When persons can serve worldwide with reasonable accommodation, they are eligible to be hired into the Foreign Service."

For Meyer, her MS is more of a label than a reality. She said that she has had no symptoms for about 10 years and that her doctor gave her the green light to live abroad.

"I do not, at this point, see any reason why the patient could not work overseas," Craig L. Hyser, a Saint Paul, Minn., neurologist wrote in a 2006 letter. "She has had a benign course of multiple sclerosis to date and does not have any significant disability."

But that benign course was enough to block her application. With Schwartz's help, Meyer was able to secure a waiver that allowed her to join the Foreign Service. The waiver, however, grants her a more restrictive Class 2 designation rather than a Class 1, which would allow her to be posted anywhere in the world.

In papers filed with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, the department said Foreign Service officers must be available to serve everywhere. Against State's wishes, the EEOC certified the case as a class action this month.

"The Agency has 267 diplomatic posts around the world," State said in documents supplied by Schwartz. "Many of those posts lack U.S. quality medical resources and facilities. . . . Statutes mandate that Foreign Service personnel must be able to serve around the world."
[...]
"What the State Department did was to discriminate against her based on her record of MS and their perceptions of her disability by making certain assumptions about her condition and then, based on those assumptions, ruling out certain State Department posts," Schwartz said. "For example, even in a place that is humid, and even assuming Ms. Meyer was sensitive to humidity, she could likely be accommodated with air conditioning - but the State Department did not factor this into their decision."

The important question, Schwartz said, is "why should Ms. Meyer be rejected from employment altogether just because there were certain posts which would not be a good fit for her? Under the Rehabilitation Act, people with disabilities are required to be given individualized consideration, which, in this case, required the State Department to look at particular posts where they wish to station Ms. Meyer and decide whether she could be stationed there, with or without a reasonable accommodation."

Read the whole thing here.

Active links added above.  This case is not going away soon.  The EEOC certified the case as a class action this month in late September. See below:

"Meyer, et al. v. Clinton (Department of State), The United States Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) has certified a class action brought on behalf of all disabled Foreign Service applicants against the U.S. State Department by San Francisco Bay Area attorney Bryan Schwartz. The Class Agent in the matter, Doering Meyer, is a woman with multiple sclerosis (MS) who qualified for a Foreign Service Officer position after a rigorous screening process – only to be denied employment because her multiple sclerosis automatically disqualified her, under the State Department guidelines challenged in the suit."

The decision defined the class as:

"All applicants for career Foreign Service employment with a disability who have been or will be denied employment from October 7, 2006 untilt he present because the State Department's Office of Medical Services denied them "Class 1 - Unlimited Clearance for Worldwide Assignment" type clearance."

The September 30, 2010 certification decision by Administrative Judge, Mary Elizabeth Palmer is here.

Turning Pink for Breast Cancer Awareness Month

Image via WikipediaWe are turning pink for the rest of October to support Jen and Isabel, and Suzanne and almost 200,000 other women.  

Please pass this long to your wife, sister, daughter, niece, partner, friend --

The best way to fight breast cancer is to have a plan that helps you detect the disease in its early stages. According to the National Cancer Institute:

• Nearly 200,000 women will be diagnosed with breast cancer this year.

• 1 in 8 women will be diagnosed with breast cancer during their lifetime.

• Over 30% of women are diagnosed after breast cancer has spread beyond the localized stage.

• When breast cancer is detected early (localized stage), the 5-year survival rate is 98%.
  

The White House seen from the North Lawn is bathed in pink light in honor of
Breast Cancer Awareness Month Oct. 14, 2010.
(Official White House Photo by Lawrence Jackson)

Click here to create an Early Detection Plan, an interactive tool to help remind you to schedule:

    * Self Breast Exams | * Clinical Breast Exams | * Mammograms

Decide how you want to be reminded. An EDP includes a flexible reminder system using:

    * Email |   * Calendar |  * Text Messages |  * RSS Feeds

Related articles

• Breast Cancer and the Environment - a new report on Prevention. (switchboard.nrdc.org)
• "#ClickIt4BC - October is Breast Cancer Awareness Month + Giveaway" and related posts (commonsensewithmoney.com)
• Researchers advocate for more education and attention regarding rare breast cancer (scienceblog.com)
• Soy intake may reduce breast cancer recurrence (msnbc.msn.com)
• Special Series: You've Got Cancer. Now What? (ctv.ca)

U.S Embassy Beijing’s Air Monitor Tracks the Particulates in Your Lungs

Time.com has an item today on the dust storms in Beijing: “Beijing residents awakened Monday to skies the eerie yellow color of a street lamp. It was the second time in three days that the Chinese capital had been scoured by sandstorms that have hit 16 provinces across west, central and north China, affecting nearly one-fifth of the country's 1.3 billion people, according to the state-run Xinhua News Service.” (Read Beijing and the Onslaught of the “Mongolian Cyclone).

You probably know this already, but in case you don’t – the US Embassy in Beijing has an Air Quality Monitor located at the Chaoyang District in Beijing (MetOne BAM 1020 and Echotech EC9810 monitors, reporting PM2.5 and ozone readings). 

According to the embassy its air quality monitors measure PM 2.5 particulates on the Embassy compound as an indication of the air quality.   This monitor is a resource for the health of the Mission community.  The website emphasized that “Citywide analysis cannot be done, however, on data from a lone machine.” 

It further explains that “Particulates lest than 2.5 micrometers in diameter (PM 2.5) are referred to as “fine” particulates and are believed to pose the largest health risks.  PM 2.5 is a standard recognized by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and allows us to compare against U.S. standard measures.  PM 2.5 particulates are of concern since they are small enough to get into the lungs and even the blood stream.  For more information, please visit the EPA site http://www.epa.gov/ttn/naaqs/pm/pm25_index.html.”
 

click image to enlarge

EPA has assigned a specific color to each AQI category to make it easier for people to understand quickly whether air pollution is reaching unhealthy levels in their communities. For example, the color orange means that conditions are "unhealthy for sensitive groups," while red means that conditions may be "unhealthy for everyone," and so on.

The AQI is an index for reporting daily air quality. It tells you how clean or polluted your air is, and what associated health effects might be a concern for you. The AQI focuses on health effects you may experience within a few hours or days after breathing polluted air. EPA calculates the AQI for five major air pollutants regulated by the Clean Air Act: ground-level ozone, particle pollution (also known as particulate matter), carbon monoxide, sulfur dioxide, and nitrogen dioxide.

Read more on the Air Quality Guide Index here.

Below are just the last several updates in the previous 24 hours from the monitor’s air measurements in Beijing. 

BeijingAir
Format for each: pollutant type; concentration; AQI; definition.
Click Twitter / BeijingAir here to get the most current data.

#1. 03-23-2010; 01:00; PM2.5; 16.0; 52;

Moderate // Ozone; 30.2; 25;
Good about 1 hours ago via API

#2.  03-23-2010; 00:15; Past 24hr: PM2.5 avg;

160.5; 211; Very Unhealthy//Ozone 8hr

high; 38.2; 32; Good about 2 hours ago via API

#3. 03-23-2010; 00:00; PM2.5; 28.0; 82;

Moderate // Ozone; 31.7; 27;
Good about 2 hours ago via API

#4. 03-22-2010; 23:00; PM2.5; no data //

Ozone; 33.3; 28; Good about 3 hours ago via API

#5. 03-22-2010; 22:00; PM2.5; 18.0; 57;

Moderate // Ozone; 36.5; 31;
Good about 4 hours ago via API

#6. 03-22-2010; 21:00; PM2.5; 27.0; 79;

Moderate // Ozone; 36.9; 31;
Good about 5 hours ago via API

#7. 03-22-2010; 20:00; PM2.5; 25.0; 74;

Moderate // Ozone; 37.9; 32;
Good about 6 hours ago via API

#8. 03-22-2010; 19:00; PM2.5; 27.0; 79;

Moderate // Ozone; 38.2; 32;
Good about 7 hours ago via API

#9. 03-22-2010; 18:00; PM2.5; 47.0; 120;

Unhealthy for Sensitive Groups // Ozone;

37.4; 31; Good about 8 hours ago via API

#10. 03-22-2010; 17:00; PM2.5; 49.0; 123;

Unhealthy for Sensitive Groups // Ozone;

34.9; 30; Good about 9 hours ago via API

#11. 03-22-2010; 16:00; PM2.5; 128.0; 187;

Unhealthy // Ozone; 29.8; 25;
Good about 10 hours ago via API

#12. 03-22-2010; 15:00; PM2.5; 226.0; 276;

Very Unhealthy // Ozone; 25.1; 21;
Good about 11 hours ago via API

#13. 03-22-2010; 14:00; PM2.5; 158.0; 208;

Very Unhealthy // Ozone; 20.6; 18; Good

about 12 hours ago via API

#14. 03-22-2010; 13:00; PM2.5; 122.0; 184;

Unhealthy // Ozone; 16.1; 14;

Good about 13 hours ago via API

#15. 03-22-2010; 12:15; Past 24hr: PM2.5 avg;

163.3; 214; Very Unhealthy//Ozone 8hr high;
23.9; 20; Good about 14 hours ago via API

#16. 03-22-2010; 12:00; PM2.5; 204.0; 254;

Very Unhealthy // Ozone; 11.4; 9; Good

about 14 hours ago via API

#17. 03-22-2010; 11:00; PM2.5; 761.0; 500;

Hazardous // Ozone; 6.9; 6; Good about 15

hours ago via API

#18. 03-22-2010; 10:00; PM2.5; 784.0; 500;

Hazardous // Ozone; 3.0; 3; Good about 16

hours ago via API

#19. 03-22-2010; 09:00; PM2.5; 315.0; 365;

Hazardous // Ozone; 0.6; 1; Good about 17

hours ago via API

Related articles by Zemanta

• Air pollution 'early deaths link' (news.bbc.co.uk)
• Hazardous sandstorms sweep across China (msnbc.msn.com)
• China sandstorms prompt health warnings (cbc.ca)
• Sandstorms across China prompt health warnings (seattletimes.nwsource.com)