mr. harrington. do you agree that if you have a contract with the taurus contracts, and each had -- and each task order is competitively awarded, that past performance might be a consideration for smart >> yes, sir, i do. >> because it was not. i was there and that commander and i had a testy discussion. it is something that we will consider in the future or ought to. and that is not good enough. mr. motsek, can you talk about the policy? sometimes it is difficult to understand it but i know you are the key player on much of the policy direction and regulatory action associated with past performance, especially private security contractors. can you elaborate greshem mark >> it should be considered. there is no doubt abouttit. you brought three issues in this discussion. number one, the good news is there was a trained cor out there who actually did his job properly. i would hazard a guess that 1.5 years ago, we would not have had the same out, as this time. there are two challenges regards to this. o

mr. harrington. do you agree that if you have a contract a torres contract, that the multi-award, each task for competitively awarded, that past performance might be a consideration? >> yes, sir, i do. >> because it was not. i was there and the commander turn to the contract after an almost a testy discussion, she turned and said, while it is something that we will consider in the future. and that is not good enough. mr. motsek, can

mr. ed harrington who works for dr. emil, the army acquisition executive. i am not in that chain of command. >> let me talk to you in another capacity. under the homes of the host nation contract, there are eight contractors and their required to provide security. the security provisions specify about six security vehicles and 24 guards for every 20 trucks. the host nation trucking companies run 8000 truck emissions per month. -- trucking emissions per month. do you believe that it is appropriate to have trucking contractors that have only two or three of their employees in theater? the believe it is logical to have them in a war zone? >> under the host nation contract that we have with those eight vendors, part of that is that they provide their own private security. they go out and subcontract for that. that is allowable under the terms and conditions of the contract and we put into place. >> howell pro for it? -- how appropriate is it for them to be there if they have never been out on the road? is that correct oversight and management? >> when we visite

mr. ed harrington, the army acquisition executive, i'm not under the terms of the host nation contract, there are eight contractors required to provide security for their trucks and the supplies carried in those trucks. the security provisions in the contract specify about six securrty vehicles and 20 guards as armed security for every 20 trucks. the host nation trucking company went on about 8,000 trucking missions per month that require the oversight of a small earp of afghan security guides. whimy question to you, do you believe it's appropriate to have trucking contractors, many of their employees in theater, and they've never been ohed the road, do you believe it's appropriate to have them managing in a war zone? >> under the host nation contract that we have with those eight vendors. part of that is that they provvde their own private security and then they go out is allowable under the terms and conditions of the contract we put in place. >> my question is, how appropriate is once you do that, i know there's -- all right, that's done, give it to them, it's on their shoulders now. when