Two new principals from government and industry expand Catalyst offerings in domestic and international markets

Defense and security consulting firm Catalyst Partners announced today that Akmal Ali and Steven Krause joined the company as principals in January 2012. These additions represent the latest moves in the firm’s continued expansion of its defense and homeland security business development, government relations and public affairs offerings for clients around the world.

“Catalyst has established a uniquely powerful position as a leading public affairs and advocacy firm in the U.S. homeland security business,” said David Olive, Catalyst Partners founder and managing partner. “Today’s huge public sector budget dislocations and dramatic shifts in the security environment make this exactly the right time to strengthen our ability to help our clients profit in a period of disruptive change. Akmal Ali and Steven Krause bring impressive new experience in defense and homeland security, and they will be invaluable to Catalyst’s clients.”

Ali will help domestic and international clients engage with the federal government, with an emphasis on technology growth. He brings extensive knowledge of public-private partnerships, private sector preparedness and resiliency and risk management. Ali most recently served the role of deputy director at the Department of Homeland Security Office of SAFETY Act Implementation, and earlier worked with the research and development-focused Institute for Defense Analyses where he concentrated on economic and insurance models used for recipients of SAFETY Act protections.

“I was deeply impressed with Catalyst Partners’ commitment to client service, unparalleled level of expertise, and their clear vision for the firm’s growth,” said Ali. “I look forward to working with such a dedicated and knowledgeable team.”

Krause brings 35 years of experience in domestic and international aerospace, defense and security business development, new ventures and government relations. He formerly worked for The Boeing Company and McDonnell Douglas Corporation and will provide strategic counsel to clients on business design and capture strategy. Krause has extensive experience in U.S. Arms Export Control Act, Missile Technology Control Regime and Foreign Corrupt Practices Act compliance.

In a recent post on Security Debrief, a blog on homeland and national security, Krause discusses how growing public sector budget pressures can yield new opportunities for small and medium defense and security firms in both the U.S. and international markets, noting that “this new normal can spell terrific opportunity for firms that are willing to shed comfortable habits and plunge into the maelstrom with courage.”

The latest edition of the Year in Homeland Security magazine covers a range of homeland issues, offering expert voices that include Catalyst Partner principals Randy Beardsworth, Vance Taylor and Rich Cooper.

In “The Homeland Security Professional,” Beardsworth and Taylor lent their perspective on the development of homeland as a profession.

In the early days of the department, there was no such thing as a homeland security professional, said Beardsworth.

“The closest you got to it were people who had expertise in more than one area,” such as Beardsworth himself, who helped stand up DHS and served as Acting Under Secretary for the Border and Transportation Security Directorate. “The people who were managing the departments had a very strong operational background and generally used the same language in terms of missions and operations.”

From Taylor’s perspective, homeland security education is helping make homeland security a true profession. Taylor earned his Master’s in Homeland Security Leadership from the University of Connecticut online while also working as a director for security policy at the Association of Metropolitan Water Agencies.

“I was able to take what I was learning, apply it to my job, and craft the discussion about what homeland security meant for infrastructure protection and waste water,” he said.

For his part, Cooper wrote several articles, offering interviews with FEMA Administrator W. Craig Fugate and William J. “Bill” Bratton, one of the United States’ smartest cops, as well as an analysis of the natural disasters that made 2011 a “year from hell.”

Check out these and other stories in the 2011′s Year in Homeland Security.

In the 2013 budget requests, states, localities and the Science and Technology (S&T) directorate of the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) are expected to see a “buzz cut” in funding, Rich Cooper, a principal in Catalyst Partners, told Homeland Security Today.

“I think the fiscal realities are starting to hit home with this administration,” he said. “Cyber may be the only place that doesn’t get a cut because of the new authorities the White House is seeking to give it.”

Cooper added: “Border and aviation security are very visible and people see that and [the administration is] going to preserve those kinds of things…Border Patrol may be trimmed a bit but it’s not going to be a buzz cut.”

Check out more quotes from Cooper and other experts in the Homeland Security Today article.

If you mention the word “piracy” to someone, chances are images of Johnny Depp’s character Capt. Jack Sparrow might come to mind. That’s a fair assumption given the successful film franchise that Disney’s Pirates of the Caribbean has produced for nearly a decade, but the sobering facts are that savagery on the high seas is very real and becoming a costly circumstance that deserves more attention.

The waters around the Horn of Africa are growing more dangerous, with pirates from Somalia continuing attacks on commercial ships. In 2011, Somali pirates attacked 439 vessels, fired on 113 of them, hijacked 45 and took 802 hostages (and are currently holding 200 people captive in Somalia). These attacks contribute to the $7 billion-$12 billion that maritime piracy costs the international economy each year. Though various international warships patrol the trade lanes around Somalia, the challenge is steep as to the capacity to imprison or otherwise “dispatch” captured pirates.

Each year, 21,000 commercial ships pass through international shipping lanes near Somali waters. These ships carry more than 10 percent of the global oil supply and 7 percent of the world’s maritime commerce. It is perhaps not surprising then that, as the International Maritime Bureau (IMB) reported, Somali pirate attacks are concentrated at the intersection of the Arabian Sea and Gulf of Aden, where thousands of ships pass on their way to markets in Asia and Europe.

While most of the world thinks of Somalia as an arid, famine-riddled, ungoverned landscape, the country’s 1,800 mile-long coastline gives pirates multiple access points to valuable waterways. With the country’s weak (if not absent) central government, piracy can easily flourish in this region. After all, crimes at sea originate on land. Despite the collapse of the Somali state government in 1991 and more than a dozen attempts at establishing a central government over the last two decades, there has been no true authority or lasting rule of law in the country.

Given the lawlessness in Somalia and access to busy shipping lanes, piracy is not only possible but highly profitable. While Somali pirates lack the land infrastructure to unload and fence plundered cargo, they receive ever-greater ransoms for the lives of their hostages – $135 million in 2011 alone. This only encourages more and bolder attacks, up to 1,000 nautical miles from land, helped in part by pirate “mother ships” – captured ships converted into floating bases that allow pirates to attack ever farther from land.

To counter these ongoing assaults, the U.S. Navy is sending its own mother ship to the region – the aging warship the USS Ponce, which has been converted into an amphibious assault ship to serve as a base from which U.S. Special Operations Forces can launch high-speed boats and helicopters. U.S. forces have found some victory in the region, with Navy SEAL snipers rescuing an American cargo ship captain in 2009 and, more recently, the rescue of an American and a Dane held hostage on the Somali mainland. There have, however, been failures. In February 2011, the U.S. Navy attempted to intercept a hijacked yacht with four Americans held hostage, but they were unsuccessful – the pirates killed all four Americans.

The “Catch and Release” Problem

To be sure, naval action has had an impact. While the total number of Somali pirate incidents was higher in 2011 than in 2010, the number of successful hijackings fell dramatically, from 49 to 28. IMB reported pre-emptive strikes disrupted at least 20 pirate groups before they could attack commercial ships. Yet, the multitude of international naval forces patrolling the waters around the Horn of Africa is also pushing pirates into waters where there are fewer or no patrols, expanding the areas where they can potentially launch attacks.

Despite the naval presence, military action alone seems insufficient to stem the growing threat. This is in part because about 60 percent of pirates captured are released. This “catch and release” is the product of few countries being willing or able to accept captured pirates for criminal trial. Overall, there simply is not enough space nor enough nations ready to address the pirate challenge through established court systems.

Furthermore, Somalia does not have the judicial infrastructure or the prison capacity to take in all captured pirates. Already about half of imprisoned pirates are held in jails in Somaliland and Putland regions with little extra room for new convicts. While some western nations – like the United States, Canada and the UK – have put pirates through their court systems, overall, western governments have been reticent to do so. Kenya has taken in about 200 captive pirates, and the Indian Ocean island nation of the Seychelles is also prosecuting and imprisoning some Somali pirates.

Given the military force in the region, however, one wonders why navies cannot simply use their massive firepower to blow all pirate ships from the water – certain demise in the face of international naval strength could be a strong deterrent; however, it is not that simple. Rules of engagement dictate that if the act of piracy is not witnessed or if U.S. forces have not been fired upon, they do not have the legal authority under international law to use deadly force. Indeed, as well as the challenge of finding prisons to hold captured pirates, countries worldwide are faced with the legal quandary of how to address piracy in the 21st century. It seems evident the best methods for dealing with it have not been finally determined.

A Wider Maritime Threat

Somali pirates present a real danger to lives and commerce, and the world’s inability to stamp out the maritime threats gives potential rise to greater regional challenges. The al Qaeda-affiliate al Shabaab in Somalia has caused death and suffering throughout its country, conducting acts of terrorism and preventing international aid from reaching those in need. At the same time, the United States and its allies are working to disrupt and bring an end to Al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula, a union of Saudi and Yemeni al Qaeda groups operating in Yemen and presenting what Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano called the greatest threat to U.S. security.

Independently, these terrorist groups present grave threats, but if they were to unite and coordinate to disrupt maritime movement in the region, the challenge of piracy could grow bigger still. This, coupled with the $7 billion-$12 billion annual maritime piracy costs and the threat to human life, reveals just how troubling and disruptive Somali piracy has become.

To address and discuss this international challenge with national impact, the National Chamber Foundation, the think tank of the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, will host on March 13th a half-day program entitled, “High Risk on the High Seas: The Economic Impact of Piracy in the Indian Ocean.” Held at the Chamber’s Washington headquarters, the program will focus on the impact maritime piracy has on the global economy and bring together experts and industry leaders, including:

- Dr. Peter Pham, Director, Michael S. Ansari Africa Center, Atlantic Council
- Rear Admiral Terence E. “Terry” McKnight, Former Commander, Piracy Task Force 151
- Mitch King, Supply Chain Director – Marine & Terminal Operations, The Dow Chemical Company
- Mark Martecchini, Managing Director, Stolt Tankers
- Paul Gugg, Company Security Officer, Emergency Response Team Leader, Chevron
- Svein A. Ringbakken, Managing Director, Den Norske Krigsforsikring for Skib (DNK)

To attend the program and get more details, please register with NCF to secure your seat for this important discussion. If there is one thing we all need to remember, an incident more than half a world away can have real consequences to commerce and the bottom line.

This piece was originally posted on the National Chamber Foundation blog.

Like some, I am left wanting after the Secretary of Homeland Security Janet Napolitano’s 2nd Annual Address on the State of America’s Homeland Security: “Homeland Security and Economic Security.”

Having been involved with DHS’ Support Anti-terrorism by Fostering Effective Technologies Act of 2002 (SAFETY Act) since its inception, my antenna are always alert for mentions of it. Like in late 2008, I am surprised that DHS’ end-of-year remarks did not include a pat on the back for the Department’s remarkable milestones achieved in the past year.

Recall that to incentivize the creation and deployment of anti-terrorism technologies by providing liability protection, the SAFETY Act was enacted by Congress as part of the Homeland Security Act in the wake of the terrorist attacks on September 11, 2001.

As reported on the safetyact.gov web site, 2011 saw the following achievements:

- On November 4, 2011, the 500th application was approved.

- In FY11, there were 101 approvals, more than 40 percent above FY10 and 20 percent above the previous record, reached in FY07.

- The Procurement Pre-Qualification Assistance Initiative was announced, continuing the SAFETY Act Office’s work in integrating the SAFETY Act into Federal Requests for Proposal.

- A new Block Designation (providing applicants with a streamlined application) was announced for participants in the DNDO GRaDERSM Program.

- To provide incentives for increased use and more widespread implementation of anti-terrorism standards, special procedures for Developers of Anti-Terrorism Standards were announced.

Specifically, in 2011, the following technologies were evaluated and now have SAFETY Act coverage, thus allowing for their deployment, or increased deployment, to protect the public:

- GeneXpert® is an Anthrax identification system. (Cepheid, Inc.)

- Conventional X-ray Systems identify incendiary weapons or explosive devices. (Rapiscan Systems, Inc.)

- Blast Mitigating Composite Panels, a line of polymer panels mitigate the damage caused from projectile strikes or explosions. (Sherwin-Williams Company)

- Powered and Non-Powered Air Purifying Respirators provide respiratory protection against known hazardous particulate matter and vapors. (Immediate Response Technologies)

- The Marine Asset Tag Tracking System (MATTS) is used for tracking and monitoring remote mobile assets. (iControl, Inc.)

- WhisprWave® Small Craft Intrusion Barrier™ is a floating security barrier system designed to impede small boats from approaching protected targets. (Wave Dispersion Technologies)

- RBC Shield® Tiles are self-adhesive interlocking tiles used in converting an unprotected space into a shelter-in-place to protect occupants from radiological, biological, and chemical threats. (RBC Shield)

- The MailDefender™ is a device that decontaminates mail through a combination of thermal/radiation energy and steam. The decontamination process reduces the viability of biological pathogens. (BioDefense Corporation)

As you can see, this partial list of accomplishments is quite impressive. My hat is off to the SAFETY Act Office. Hopefully, next year the Secretary will give them a much-deserved nod.

Full disclosure: I was not at DHS Secretary Napolitano’s State of HS speech at the Press Club but have read the transcript. I was at the US Chamber for the “US-Canada Regulatory Cooperation Council” and “Beyond the Border” sessions. My remarks were prompted by colleagues’ reactions to her speech (found here, here and here, among other places.)

Maybe it’s just a Washington thing, but no where can you gather more than a hundred or so people in a significant venue for a major speech on a topic of national importance that says… well… nothing. Such was the scene at the National Press Club when 200 or so people assembled to hear DHS Secretary Napolitano’s second annual “State of Homeland Security Address.”

The entire program got off to an interesting start when attendees arrived for the luncheon remarks to discover a plate filled with cupcakes at the center of each table. These weren’t just any cupcakes though. These cupcakes bore the seal of the nine-year-old Department, with white sprinkles surrounding the emblem.

Either someone at the National Press Club has a wicked sense of humor to feature a potentially life-threatening desert – just three weeks after TSA confiscated a fearful red-velvet cupcake (baked into a jar) – or the Department has gotten very creative in licensing its logo. An even greater irony was the fact that TSA Administrator John Pistole was at the Secretary’s remarks, but I don’t know if he or his staff screened the cupcakes prior to their being served. The DHS cupcakes though seemed to be the apt descriptor for the delivered remarks.

If the goal was to deliver a speech that is presented effectively, it succeeded. Like the cupcakes, it made for a pleasant and unique presentation.

If the speech was intended to not make any news, it succeeded there as well. Napolitano’s remarks listed the obligatory, if not rudimentary things that the Department does day in and day out to safeguard the American public. It was sprinkled with all of the usual ingredients (actions by FEMA, Border Patrol, US Coast Guard, etc.) – the foundational flour, eggs, milk and sugar that make up the DHS batter. For all of these fundamentals, the speech, like the presented cupcake, was bland, without much taste and was really unremarkable. It had none of the flavor that a cupcake crazy craving nation was looking for and you literally walked away feeling, “What a waste…”

I guess you could say they were empty calories that we just consumed because they were on a plate in front of us. It was easy to take note of the empty consumption because you could see the reporters who regularly cover the homeland security and national security beat as visibly bored during her remarks.

Reporters are usually the first groups of people to hear something new and newsworthy come out of a speaker’s mouth, and they had to stretch to find either of those items in these presented remarks. In walking out of the Press Club, you could hear many of them verbalizing those sentiments. I actually heard one say to another, “Well that was another fine rendering of non-newsworthy talking points, wouldn’t you say?”

For those experienced DHS veterans and other observers in the crowd, they too walked away with a fairly empty feeling. There were some solid T-ball opportunities to knock the ball out of the park and make some key points that were not seized upon, a fact that my friend and colleague David Olive lamented about in his own recent blog post.

Even the Q&A portion of the program (which is usually the most informative as it is unscripted) proved to be an exercise in saying next to nothing. When questioned about the challenges of doing the Department’s mission in a severely budget constrained environment, (which is probably the biggest crisis the Department faces), the Secretary proved her adeptness at delivering an answer that was a non-answer. In short, the Secretary has perfected what it is to live and work inside the Capitol Beltway.

Like the presented cupcake, there was a dignified and professional presentation to it but in the end it was bland, not filling and was utterly unremarkable. There’s something really disappointing about that given all of the great ingredients that make up the Department and its mission assignments. There is a richness and flavor to what they do every day, but when it is mixed, baked and presented as it was at the National Press Club, you certainly expect it to be something a whole lot more filling and enjoyable.

That’s something that the Secretary and the Press Club’s bakers should work on for next time.

DHS Secretary Janet Napolitano delivered a “State of Homeland Security” address yesterday at the National Press Club and did a wonderful job delivering a very droll message. She is an accomplished public speaker and was comfortable in reading from the Teleprompter, and if her goal was to avoid making headlines, her presentation was a rousing success.

Simply put, Napolitano’s talk was a checklist review of DHS efforts and had all of the emotional impact that most committee-generated speeches have. It thoroughly covered some of the key DHS efforts, but the text was unpleasantly dull, and until the Q&A session, her presentation was lacking in any passion for the subject matter.

Napolitano missed a number of opportunities to discuss the real-world impacts of congressional budget actions. She was asked, but politely deferred, when given an opportunity to talk specifically about how a constrained DHS budget could be spent efficiently and effectively. She mentioned, but declined to bring focus to, what DHS means by taking a “risk-based” approach to security. She did not talk about how that approach makes us safer.

There were a couple of high points in her talk, particularly her emphasis on international partnerships and information sharing; her discussion of economic security and homeland security as going hand-in-hand; her reference about homeland security and efficiency as not being mutually exclusive efforts; and her highlighting programs such as CBP’s advanced cargo screening efforts and TSA’s Pre-Check initiative, which allows advanced screening of passengers who pose no threat to the aviation system.

But for all of the positive data points the Secretary cited, it was sad that she failed to publicly recognize key members of her DHS team who are responsible for the successes she mentioned.

How could she spend an entire hour standing before a packed Press Club audience and fail to recognize the presence – right in front of her – of TSA Administrator John Pistole, ICE Director John Morton or CBP Commissioner David Aguilar? They lead the DHS components that run the programs she talked about so proudly, but their names were never mentioned.

There were probably other DHS officials in the room who Napolitano ignored also – and that says a lot about how DHS operates under Napolitano’s leadership.

There is never a doubt that she holds a political position and her direct staff looks for opportunities to promote her in a way that could benefit her political future, should she want one…and that is a deficiency that needs to be corrected, in my opinion.

Napolitano has frequently said that “homeland security begins with hometown security.” Indeed it does. But it also requires a team approach that overtly does not promote a partisan, political message – and Napolitano missed a golden opportunity to talk about the successes of those on her team whose work made her message possible.

If GAO were writing the analysis of yesterday’s talk, they would be quite comfortable saying: “DHS has had many successes but much work remains to be done.”

Had Secretary Napolitano wanted to outline her vision of what DHS’s remaining work might be, she had the opportunity to do so and let it pass by.

Caught in the pincer between escalating entitlements and a defense industrial establishment transitioning from denial to panic, President Obama announced on January 5^th the U.S. Defense Strategic Guidance for 2012 that sets the conditions for a decisive shift in favor of the former.  In doing so the President positioned himself firmly among the American majority, according to Rasmussen, Reuters, Harris and others, who favor defense budget reductions – an alignment that becomes even more pronounced when poll participants learn the actual level of U.S. defense spending.

The upcoming FY2013 budget request will begin to identify winners and losers in this new scenario.  A peanut butter spread of cuts is traditionally selected as the safest political strategy, but it is not the only possibility.  Senator John McCain, no particular supporter of the Obama team, responded to the January 5^th announcement ominously:

“I understand the need for reduction in defense spending, but we must also address the broader cultural problem plaguing our defense establishment:  the waste, inefficiency and ineffective programs…”

However they are applied, reductions announced on Thursday equal the elimination, roughly, of one Lockheed Martin or a General Dynamics plus a Raytheon – every year for the next 10 years.  And if post-Supercommittee-failure sequestration unfolds as current law requires, the resulting industrial carnage will more than double the total announced on Thursday.

What does this mean for firms in the defense and security business? This new normal can spell terrific opportunity for firms that are willing to shed comfortable habits and plunge into the maelstrom with courage. Some of the outlines of the new future may already be emerging, including these possibilities:

- Next generation DoD programs may be more numerous, smaller and of shorter duration, making them more addressable for smaller U.S. firms and for a growing number of international defense and security contractors — whose home markets are even more stressed than the U.S. market. These companies that have traditionally prospered in the second, third and lower tiers of the U.S. government procurement system may find themselves bidding and performing as prime contractors.

- These same firms whose order books have been typically been satisfied by U.S. government purchases may increasingly attempt to turn to international markets to replace revenues lost from a shrinking U.S. base.  These companies will quickly discover that doing business overseas, although it may initially appear similar to their familiar U.S. business environment, is different.

- The U.S. Defense and Homeland Security Departments may place an increasing premium on solutions that are more proven and much more rapidly deployable to the forces and first responders who need them.  Companies serving in this environment will have to find ways to eliminate risk and guarantee performance in a much more commercially oriented business environment.

Firms that embrace the coming chaos, that are willing to challenge their internal shibboleths, to continuously redesign themselves, and to immerse themselves deeply in the seemingly intractable decisions their customers must make can serve their customers, workers and owners and prosper in the years ahead.

On the other hand, incumbents entrenched in the 20^th Century may die.  They will sound like Arthur C. Clarke’s neurotic computer HAL, speech patterns deteriorating to an incomprehensible mumble as its brain cells were slowly deactivated:

“I know everything hasn’t been quite right with me, but I can assure you now, very confidently, that it’s going to be all right again. I feel much better now. I really do… I know I’ve made some very poor decisions recently, but I can give you my complete assurance that my work will be back to normal. I’ve still got the greatest enthusiasm and confidence in the mission. And I want to help you.”

David Olive: There are two changes which need to be made within DHS itself – first, all acquisition and procurement activities need to be consolidated into an enterprise acquisition office. It is ridiculous, in my opinion, to allow some component agencies within DHS to have a separate procurement operations that operate wholly independently from the DHS enterprise procurement office. Second, the Office of Health Affairs and the Domestic Nuclear Detection Office need to be folded back into the S&T Directorate. Both serve an important function and both should address critical needs in making America safe, but neither need to be separate from S&T.

Externally, the issue of congressional oversight of homeland security must be addressed. The one remaining unfulfilled recommendation of the 9/11 commission is the reduction of the number of committees and subcommittees which have a piece of jurisdictional turf over DHS. All members of Congress have an interest in national defense, but not all of them serve on committees that have oversight of the Department of Defense, nor should they.

Homeland Security Experts Weigh In: Where to Cut and Where to Spend – CQ Homeland Security

With the new year beginning, CQ has asked dozens of homeland security experts in the public, private and academic sectors to weigh in on the lessons of 2011 and what 2012 holds in store. In this second installment of a three-part series, respondents answered the question “In a tight budget environment, what homeland-related activities should Congress look at cutting in the coming year? What must be preserved, or see increased funding?”

David Olive: There will never be enough money to provide solutions for all of the vulnerabilities our nation faces. The tendency of Congress to fund “point solutions” rather than take a serious look at a “systems approach” hampers the ability of DHS stakeholders to make smart decisions about how to find the right balance in homeland security funding.

For example, I have not been shy about questioning the cost effectiveness of the CBP’s use of Predator UAVs because there are other, smaller (and cheaper) air platforms that more closely “fit” CBP and Border Patrol operations. I believe DHS could save millions of dollars and gain increased effectiveness by using air assets to “track and trace” illegal border crossers instead of using the Predator for a “persistent surveillance” mission — a mission that the Predator is not all that well suited to perform.

I question whether the funding for the current BioWatch program is being well spent and believe that if even 10 percent of that funding were to go toward prototyping new detection technology or creating new DNA-based vaccines which can be produced almost “on demand,” the cost savings would more than pay for the investments.