SPECIAL INSPECTOR GENERAL FOR IRAQ RECONSTRUCTION 

400 Army Navy Drive • Arlington, Virginia 22202 

April 27, 2011 

LETTER FOR COMMANDING GENERAL, U.S. ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS

SUBJECT: Gulf Region District Is Adjusting Its Aegis Security Contract Requirements for 

Changes in Reconstruction Activities in Iraq (SIGIR 11-015) 

Since May 2004, the Department of Defense (DoD) has had a series of contracts with Aegis 

Defense Services, Limited (Aegis), for private security and related services in Iraq. As of April 

7, 2011, Aegis had received over $1 billion for its services. The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers 

(USACE), DoD’s primary user of Aegis services in Iraq, is decreasing its reconstruction 

activities in Iraq as U.S. military forces plan to withdraw by the end of calendar year 2011. In 

January 2009, the Special Inspector General for Iraq Reconstruction (SIGIR) issued a report on 

DoD’s oversight of Aegis’s performance on the largest active and completed contracts at the 

time.1 SIGIR’s objectives for this current report are to determine if and on what basis Aegis’s 

contract services have been adjusted to reflect changes in USACE’s reconstruction activities in 

Iraq. 

SIGIR found that the number of USACE’s active projects in Iraq has declined and Aegis’s 

security personnel services have also declined since our January 2009 report. Moreover, 

USACE’s active projects and security personnel requirements are projected to decline much 

further by July 2011. USACE’s Gulf Region District (GRD)2 monitors the utilization of Aegis’s 

security teams and provides Aegis with planning information from which Aegis can determine 

the number and composition of security personnel to satisfy GRD’s requirements. Information 

provided by GRD includes the number of active projects GRD must monitor, how often GRD 

inspectors need to visit each project, the location of each project to be visited, and the duration of 

the projects. GRD monitors the utilization of contractor security teams to ensure contract 

requirements are adjusted to reflect changes in GRD’s reconstruction activities. GRD’s process 

for adjusting contract requirements appears reasonable and responsive to changes in 

reconstruction activities. 

Background 

Since May 2004, DoD has had a series of contracts with Aegis for private security services. 

Aegis is currently working on two contracts and has completed its work on eight contracts. The 

contracts can be categorized into four broad service categories: reconstruction security support 

services, support-to-contractor operations cells, personal security details for U.S. senior military 

officers, and transportation and security escort services. Although this report provides basic 

information on the 10 contracts, it focuses primarily on contract W912ER-11-C-0008, which is 

 

1 Oversight of Aegis’s Performance on Security Services Contracts in Iraq with the Department of Defense, SIGIR 

09-010, 1/14/2009. 

2

 Previously the Gulf Region Division. 
2 

the latest reconstruction security support services contract to provide for a broad range of 

security services for USACE’s reconstruction activities. 

Table 1 shows the total obligations and expenditures for the 10 contracts as of April 7, 2011. 

According to a USACE official, USACE funded the reconstruction security support contracts 

primarily from Operations and Maintenance, Army funds. Please see Appendix B for more 

information on the 10 contracts. 

Table 1—Obligations and Expenditures for Aegis Contracts with the 

Department of Defense in Iraq, as of April 7, 2011 ($ millions) 

Contract Number Obligations Disbursements Statusb

Reconstruction Security Support 

W911S0-04-C-0003 $447.5 $445.5 Completed 

W91GDW-08-C-4003 38.7 36.0 Completed 

W91GDW-07-D-4021 499.0 475.0 Completed 

W91GDW-10-C-4004 81.3 75.0 Completed 

W912ER-11-C-0008 70.0 8.8 Active 

Contractor Operations Cell 

W91GDW-10-C-4005a 2.3 1.6 Completed 

W52P1J-10-F-0030a 5.0 0 Active 

Personal Security Detail for US Officers 

W91GY0-07-C-0004a 15.9 15.8 Completed 

W91GDW-11-P-8000a .9 0 Completed 

Transportation and Security Escort Services 

W91GY0-07-D-0008 .2 .2 Completed 

Total $1,060.8 $1,057.9 

Note: 

a Obligations and disbursements are as of March 16, 2011. 

b Status of work requirements. 

Source: U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Financial Management System. 

Contracts Management Structure 

GRD had, and continues to have, oversight responsibilities for the vast majority of services 

performed under the Reconstruction Security Support Services and follow-on contracts to 

USACE supported organizations. The Defense Contract Management Agency and the U.S. 

Central Command Contracting Command have assisted in contract administration and oversight. 

GRD is planning to close by July 1, 2011, and management of the remaining construction 

projects will transition to USACE’s Middle East District. Some projects transitioned to the 

Middle East District in the latter part of 2010. 
3 

Services Provided Under Contracts 

The services provided by Aegis to DoD components over the years have remained fairly 

consistent. These have included: escort and personal security; security at installations (static 

guards); liaison with local communities; antiterrorism support and analysis; Iraqi personnel 

vetting; and staffing reconstruction operations/support centers to provide DoD private security 

contractors with intelligence and information to coordinate the movement of their teams with 

U.S. military and Iraqi forces. Following is a more detailed description of the services Aegis has 

provided under the various contracts. 

 Security Escort Teams: Provide security to military and civilian personnel during 

construction site visits. 

 Personal Security Details: Provide personal protection to designated personnel. 

 Static Guards: Provide security within secure compounds for fixed location, such as 

office buildings and living quarters. 

 Security Reconnaissance Teams: Previously called Reconstruction Liaison Teams, they 

are to develop positive relations with the communities surrounding the reconstruction 

sites, meet with local leaders to coordinate community involvement and support for the 

construction projects, and conduct technical inspections of ongoing construction. 

 Anti-Terrorism Force Protection: Conduct facility security evaluations, coordinate force 

protection measures, and plan risk mitigation to improve safety and security at designated 

GRD sites. 

 Personnel Vetting Services: Provide a vetting program that includes conducting 

interviews and reviewing employment applications for all local hires. 

 Reconstruction Support Centers: Perform four primary functions: (a) comprehensive 

management of protective security operations, (b) analysis of operational environment, 

(c) operational and tactical communications for protective security operations, and (d) 

support reconstruction operations through security support services. Centers operate at 

three levels: the District center supports GRD headquarters, area centers support GRD 

area offices, and detachments which extend Reconstruction Support Center capabilities to 

isolated areas. 

 Contractor Operations Cells: Provide U.S. Forces–Iraq and its Divisions with 

information to assist them in controlling private security contractor activities. 

Gulf Region District’s Process for Adjusting Security Contract 

Requirements Appears Reasonable and Responsive to Changes in 

Reconstruction Activities 

The number of USACE’s active projects in Iraq has declined, and the contract requirements for 

Aegis security personnel have also declined since our January 2009 report. Moreover, as the 

active projects continue to decrease, requirements for security personnel are projected to further 

decline. GRD estimates the number of projects and security personnel in July 2011 will be about 

10% of the number in July 2010. 
4 

GRD officials told us that GRD provides Aegis with information from which Aegis determines 

the number of security personnel and teams it needs to meet GRD’s requirements, and GRD 

monitors the utilization of contractor security teams to ensure contract requirements are adjusted 

to reflect changes in GRD’s reconstruction activities. 

Projects and Security Personnel Requirements Have Declined and Are Projected to Further 

Decline

According to a USACE official, USACE was managing 491 projects in Iraq in February 2008, 

and by February 2011, the number of active projects had decreased to 150. As Figure 1 shows, 

the number of active projects is projected to decline to 31 by July 2011 and eventually to 10 by 

January 2012. 

Figure 1—Active and Projected Projects from February 2011 through January 2012 

Source: SIGIR compiled from GRD-provided data as of February 14, 2011. 
5 

Between February 2008 and March 2011, the required numbers of security personnel and teams 

have also declined. Table 2 shows the number of personnel and teams required in February 2008 

by the contract in effect in at the time of SIGIR’s prior report and under the current contracts. 

Table 2—Changes in Security Personnel and Teams between February 2008 and 

March 2011 

 February 2008 March 2011 Changes 

Function Personnel Teams Personnel Teams Personnel Teams 

Security Escort Teams 570 38 315 21 -255 -17 

Personal Security 

Detailsa 12 2 11 1 -1 -1 

Static Guards 346 107 -239 

Reconstruction Liaison 

Teams

 182 14 212 17 30 3 

District Reconstruction 

Support Center 

 35 78 43 

Reconstruction 

Support Centers

 95b 56 -39 

Area Reconstruction 

Support Center/ 

Security Escort Team 

Detachments 

 13 4 -9 

Personnel Vetting 

Services 

 5 -5 

Contractor Operations 

Cellsa 

 50 31 -19 

Management 29 32 3 

Support 36 20 -16 

Total 1,373 54 866 39 -507 -15 

Note: 

a

 These requirements were in separate contracts in March 2011. b

 Includes four Anti-Terrorist Force Protection personnel shown separately in SIGIR’s prior report. 

Source: SIGIR compiled from DoD component contracts with Aegis. 

GRD officials told us that a new security services contract is being negotiated to provide security 

services for multiple organizations, including GRD. The contract was to be issued in late March 

2011, but had not been issued by April 5, 2011. Requirements for GRD and other organizations 

utilizing the contract will be in task orders specific to an organization. GRD officials told us that 

GRD’s active projects and required security personnel in July 2011 will be about 10% of the 

number in July 2010.3

 

3

 A GRD official asked that we not provide the specific number of security personnel they plan to require in July 

2011 because they consider it competition sensitive. 
6 

Gulf Region District’s Process for Adjusting Security Contract Requirements Appears 

Reasonable and Responsive to Changes in Reconstruction Activities 

According to a GRD official, a number of factors are used to determine required security 

personnel. These include the number of active projects GRD must monitor, how often GRD 

inspectors need to visit each project, the location of each project to be visited, and the duration of 

the projects. These factors are provided to Aegis which determines the number of security teams 

it will need to satisfy GRD’s requirements. Those requirements vary by type of service 

provided. For example, Aegis is required by the current contract to maintain sufficient personnel 

and equipment to provide security escort team services 24 hours a day year round, with an 

objective schedule of six missions per security escort team per week. Each team is to comprise 

11 contractor security personnel, one of whom shall be an Iraqi. As a further example, Aegis is 

to maintain sufficient personnel and equipment to accomplish two missions and four tasks per 

security reconnaissance team per week.4

 Each team is to comprise nine contractor security 

personnel, five of whom must be Iraqi. 

GRD officials stated that they monitor the utilization of security personnel and teams to ensure 

that Aegis is meeting contract requirements and that the personnel and teams assigned are needed 

to meet those requirements. According to the officials, operations officers approve the security 

teams’ missions and receive reports on those missions. In addition, Aegis personnel keep a daily 

log of missions and hours worked for each security escort team and reconnaissance team. Those 

data were rolled up into weekly and monthly reports which were provided to the operations 

officers that approved the missions. 

According to GRD officials, the utilization reports and other information provided by operations 

officers were used in monthly discussions with Aegis managers to determine if adjustments to 

the number of security teams and locations of teams were required. Because of the accelerating 

pace of the drawdown, the monthly discussions were changed to bi-weekly. According to the 

officials, GRD looks for trends in team utilization rates to determine if contract requirements 

need to change rather than individual monthly reports, which could vary considerably from 

month to month. If trends warrant an increase or decrease in requirements, the changes are 

discussed with Aegis managers and conveyed to the contracting officer for modification to the 

contract. The GRD officials stated that Aegis managers are receptive to changes and reductions 

in personnel requirements. 

According to a GRD official, reductions in the number of security personnel and teams do not 

automatically translate into reductions in the number of Aegis management, logistics, and 

support center personnel. The official stated that there are minimum essential capabilities in 

those functions that have to be maintained. For example, if a support center has three 

intelligence analysts supporting four security escort teams, it may be possible to eliminate one 

security analyst if two teams were eliminated. However, it would not be possible to eliminate 

one of the two remaining analysts if the two teams were reduced to one team because minimum 

essential capability is two analysts. 

It is important for GRD to monitor contractor usage and reduce requirements when the workload 

decreases and security conditions allow because of the tremendous cost of retaining security 

 

4

 Tasks include project reconnaissance, project monitoring, and post-construction project analysis. 
7 

personnel. We calculated, based on data provided by a USACE official, that each day a security 

escort team (comprising 11 individuals–a team leader, an assistant team leader, two medics, and 

seven team members, all of whom are foreign nationals except for two Iraqi nationals) is in 

country (whether or not they are on a mission), it costs the U.S. government about $5,000 in 

daily reimbursable salary rates. The $5,000 does not include other costs to the government such 

as food; lodging; transportation to, from, and within Iraq; equipment; fuel; and ammunition. The 

costs of these life support and equipment items are not readily available.5

Concluding Observations 

The number of USACE’s active projects in Iraq has declined, and the contract requirements for 

Aegis security personnel have also declined since our January 2009 report. Moreover, those 

requirements are projected to decrease further. Although we reviewed the relationship between 

numbers of active projects and GRD’s requirements for security personnel, there is not a direct 

relationship between the two because of other factors GRD uses to determine requirements, such 

as project location, frequency of required visits, and trends in the utilization of teams. While the 

effects of the other factors on requirements are not readily quantifiable, we believe, based on our 

discussions with GRD officials and the projected decline in required security personnel, that 

GRD’s process for adjusting contract requirements appears reasonable and responsive to changes 

in reconstruction activities. 

Management Comments and Audit Response 

USACE provided technical comments that we have addressed, as appropriate. 

- - - - 

We appreciate the courtesies extended to the SIGIR staff. For additional information on the 

report, please contact Glenn D. Furbish, Assistant Inspector General for Audits (Washington, 

DC), (703) 604-1388/ glenn.furbish@sigir.mil or Jason Venner, Principal Deputy Assistant 

Inspector General for Audits (Washington, DC), (703) 607-1346/ jason.venner@sigir.mil. 

Stuart W. Bowen, Jr. 

Inspector General 

cc: U.S. Secretary of Defense 

Commander, U.S. Central Command 

Commanding General, U.S. Forces–Iraq 

 

5

 In our January 2009 report, we estimated the cost of food, water, shelter, and vehicles could exceed $57 million per 

year. 
8 

Appendix A—Scope and Methodology 

Scope and Methodology 

In August 2010, the Special Inspector General for Iraq Reconstruction (SIGIR) announced 

Project 1019 to review the U.S. government’s oversight of private security contractors in Iraq. 

SIGIR’s objectives for this report are to determine if and on what basis contract requirements are 

adjusted to reflect changes in reconstruction activities in Iraq. SIGIR performed this audit under 

the authority of Public Law 108-106, as amended, which also incorporates the duties and 

responsibilities of inspectors general under the Inspector General Act of 1978. SIGIR conducted 

its work from November 2010 through March 2011 from its headquarters in Arlington, Virginia. 

To determine contract requirements and changes in those requirements, SIGIR reviewed all 

amendments to existing contracts and all new contracts for Aegis security services in Iraq. 

Specifically, we reviewed the (1) services Aegis is required to perform, (2) number of personnel 

required to perform those services, and (3) required composition of security teams. We also 

compared security personnel requirements at the time of our January 2009 report to those in the 

latest contract. 

To determine changes in reconstruction activities, we analyzed the changes in active projects 

from the time of our January 2009 report to the present and available projections for the future. 

With Gulf Region District (GRD) officials, we discussed the relationship between requirements 

and reconstruction activities and the process for determining increases or decreases in 

requirements. 

We conducted the audit in accordance with generally accepted government auditing standards. 

Those standards require that we plan and perform the audit to obtain sufficient, appropriate 

evidence to provide a reasonable basis for our findings and conclusions based on our audit 

objectives. We believe that the evidence obtained provides a reasonable basis for our findings 

and conclusions based on our audit objectives. 

Use of Computer-processed Data 

The computer processed financial data was obtained from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers' 

(USACE) Financial Management System. It was the most complete data available and used by 

GRD to manage projects. Moreover, it was used for background purposes and is not critical to 

SIGIR’s conclusions. Accordingly, we did not independently verify the detailed data but 

concluded that it was the best available for purposes of our audit. 

According to a USACE official, the number of projects managed by USACE in 2008 was 

obtained from the Iraq Reconstruction Management System. SIGIR has issued two reports on 

the system that identify problems with the quality, accuracy, and completeness of its data.6 

 

6 Comprehensive Plan Needed to Guide the Future of Iraq Reconstruction Management System, SIGIR 08-021, 

7/26/2008 and Management of Iraq Relief and Reconstruction Fund Program: The Evolution of the Iraq 

Reconstruction Management System, SIGIR 06-001, 4/24/2006. 
9 

Although the data used may not be completely accurate, we believe it is the best data available 

on the number of projects managed at that time. 

Internal Controls 

We reviewed the specific controls used by GRD to manage contract requirements and utilization 

of Aegis security personnel and teams. The results of this review are presented in the body of 

the report. 

Prior Coverage 

We reviewed the following SIGIR report. 

Oversight of Aegis’s Performance on Security Services Contracts in Iraq with the Department of 

Defense, SIGIR 09-010, 1/14/2009. 

 
10 

Appendix B—Descriptions of Aegis Contracts 

The following paragraphs briefly describe the 10 Aegis contracts with the Department of 

Defense for providing security services in Iraq. 

Reconstruction Security Support Services-I Contract, W911S0-04-

C-0003 

In May 2004, the Department of the Army awarded a nonpersonal services contract to Aegis for 

security management services, protective services, and antiterrorism support and analyses for the 

Coalition Provisional Authority, Program Management Office personnel and construction service 

contractors involved in reconstruction efforts in Iraq.7

 The contract was for a 1-year base 

period—June 1, 2004 through May 31, 2005—and two 1-year options—June 1, 2005 through 

May 31, 2007. The two 1-year options were exercised, and the second option year was extended 

for 6 months to November 30, 2007. As of April 7, 2011, obligations totaled $447.5 million, and 

Aegis had received $445.5 million. 

Bridge Contract, W91GDW-08-C-4003 

Because the start of performance under the Reconstruction Security Support Services-II contract 

was delayed, a separate contract was awarded to bridge the period between the end of the 

Reconstruction Security Support Services-I contract and the start of the Reconstruction Security 

Support Service-II contract. The bridge contract performance period was for 3-months—

November 1, 2007 through January 31, 2008. As of April 7, 2011, obligations totaled $38.7 

million, and Aegis had received $36.0 million. 

Reconstruction Security Support Services-II Contract, W91GDW07-D-4021 

This indefinite delivery/indefinite quantity contract8, awarded in September 2007, essentially 

continued the security services provided under the earlier contracts. The start of the contract 

performance period was delayed to February 1, 2008, because the award was protested.9

 The 

contract was for a 1-year base period—February 1, 2008 through January 31, 2009—and one 

option year—February 1, 2009 through January 31, 2010. The option year was exercised and 

extended for 6 months to July 31, 2010. As of April 7, 2011, obligations totaled $499.0 million, 

and Aegis had received $475.0 million. 

 

7

Federal Acquisition Regulation 37.101 defines nonpersonal services contracts as contracts under which the 

personnel rendering the services are not subject, either by the contract’s terms or by the manner of its administration, 

to the supervision and control usually prevailing in relationships between the government and its employees. 

8

Federal Acquisition Regulation 52.216-22 states that the delivery and quantity of services under indefinite 

delivery/indefinite quantity contracts shall be specified in task orders to the contract. 

9

The protest with the Government Accountability Office was later withdrawn. 
11 

Reconstruction Security Support Services Contract, W91GDW-10-

C-4004 

The contract, awarded to Aegis in July 2010, continued the security services provided under 

contract W91GDW-07-D-4021. The contract period of performance was August 1, 2010 

through December 31, 2010 and was extended to January 31, 2011. As of April 7, 2011, 

obligations totaled $81.3 million, and payments to Aegis totaled $75.0 million. 

Reconstruction Security Support Services Contract, W912ER-11-C0008 

The contract, awarded to Aegis in December 2010, continues the services provided under the 

previous security support services contracts. The contract period of performance is February 1, 

2011 through April 30, 2011, with an option to extend the contract to July 31, 2011. As of April 

7, 2011, obligations totaled $70.0 million, and payments to Aegis totaled $8.8 million. 

Contractor Operations Cells Security Support Services, W91GDW10-C-4005 

The contract, awarded in July 2010, continued the services for Contractor Operations Cells 

previously provided under the Reconstruction Security Support Services contracts. The 

Contractor Operations Cells system was established by the Multi-National Force–Iraq to 

coordinate the missions of private security contractors in Iraq and gather, assemble, and 

distribute information on serious incidents involving private security contractors.10 The contract 

period of performance was August 1, 2010 through October 31, 2010. As of March 16, 2011, 

obligations totaled $2.3 million, and payments to Aegis totaled $1.6 million. 

Contractor Operations Cells Security Support Services, W52P1J-10-

F-0030 

The contract, awarded in September 2010, continues the services provided under contract 

W91GDW-10-C-4005. The contract is for a base year—September 21, 2010 through September 

20, 2011—and two 6-month option periods—September 21, 2011 through September 20, 2012. 

As of March 16, 2011, obligations totaled $5.0 million, and no funds had been disbursed to 

Aegis. 

Personal Security Detail Contract, W91GY0-07-C-0004 

The contract, awarded to Aegis in February 2007, was for personal security details in Iraq, other 

Middle Eastern countries, and non-hostile territories for up to five senior officials with the MultiNational Security Transition Command–Iraq. The contract had an initial performance period—

July 15, 2007 through January 29, 2008—and three 6-month option periods—January 30, 2008 

through July 26, 2009. The contract was extended, and the requirements for the services were 

incorporated in a task order under the Reconstruction Security Support Services-II contract. As 

 

10Incidents involving death, injury, property damage, criminal acts, traffic accidents, or believed to have possible 

strategic or operational impact. 
12 

of March 16, 2011, obligations totaled $15.9 million, and payments to Aegis totaled $15.8 

million. 

Personal Security Detail Contract, W91GDW-11-P-8000 

The contract, awarded to Aegis in December 2010, was for personal security details for three 

principals designated by the Deputy Commanding General, Advisory and Training. The contract 

is essentially a continuation of the services incorporated in a task order under the Reconstruction 

Security Support Services-II contract. The contract has a 31-day period of performance from 

January 29, 2011 through February 28, 2011. According to a Defense Contract Management 

Agency official, the follow-on contract was awarded to another security provider, G4S. As of 

March 16, 2011, obligations totaled $0.9 million, and no funds had been disbursed to Aegis. 

Convoy/Escort Contract, W91GY0-07-D-0008 

Under this indefinite quantity contract, Aegis provided transportation and security escort services 

to move vehicles and equipment for Iraqi military forces. The contractors participating in the 

contract bid on task orders for the movements. The contract had an initial 1-year performance 

period—March 1, 2007 through February 29, 2008—and two 6-month option periods. The U.S. 

Government decided not to continue to place delivery orders after August 2008. As of April 7, 

2011, obligations and payments to Aegis each totaled $0.2 million. 

 
13 

Appendix C—Acronyms 

Acronym Description 

DoD Department of Defense 

GRD Gulf Region District 

SIGIR Special Inspector General for Iraq Reconstruction 

USACE U.S. Army Corps of Engineers 
14 

Appendix D—Audit Team Members 

This report was prepared and the audit conducted under the direction of Glenn D. Furbish, 

Assistant Inspector General for Audits, Office of the Special Inspector General for Iraq 

Reconstruction. 

The staff members who conducted the audit and contributed to the report include: 

Michael A. Bianco 

Robert L. Pelletier 

Nadia Shamari 
15 

Appendix E—SIGIR Mission and Contact Information 

SIGIR’s Mission Regarding the U.S. reconstruction plans, programs, and 

operations in Iraq, the Special Inspector General for Iraq 

Reconstruction provides independent and objective: 

 oversight and review through comprehensive audits, 

inspections, and investigations

 advice and recommendations on policies to promote 

economy, efficiency, and effectiveness

 deterrence of malfeasance through the prevention and 

detection of fraud, waste, and abuse

 information and analysis to the Secretary of State, the 

Secretary of Defense, the Congress, and the American 

people through Quarterly Reports

Obtaining Copies of SIGIR 

Reports and Testimonies 

To obtain copies of SIGIR documents at no cost, go to 

SIGIR’s Web site (www.sigir.mil). 

To Report Fraud, Waste, and 

Abuse in Iraq Relief and 

Reconstruction Programs 

Help prevent fraud, waste, and abuse by reporting 

suspicious or illegal activities to the SIGIR Hotline: 

 Web: www.sigir.mil/submit_fraud.html

 Phone: 703-602-4063

 Toll Free: 866-301-2003

Congressional Affairs Hillel Weinberg 

Assistant Inspector General for Congressional 

Affairs 

Mail: Office of the Special Inspector General for Iraq 

Reconstruction 

 400 Army Navy Drive 

 Arlington, VA 22202-4704 

Phone: 703-428-1059 

Email: hillel.weinberg@sigir.mil 

Public Affairs Deborah Horan 

Director of Public Affairs 

Mail: Office of the Special Inspector General for Iraq 

Reconstruction 

 400 Army Navy Drive 

 Arlington, VA 22202-4704 

Phone: 703-428-1217 

Fax: 703-428-0817 

Email: PublicAffairs@sigir.mil