SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 
This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Lieutenant Colonel 
Dominic ‘Rocky’ Baragona Justice for American Heroes 
Harmed by Contractors Act’’. 
SEC. 2. FINDINGS. 
Congress makes the following findings: 
(1) On May 19, 2003, Lieutenant Colonel 
Dominic ‘‘Rocky’’ Baragona, United States Army, 
was killed in Safwan, Iraq, when his vehicle was 
struck by a truck being driven by a driver employed 
by the Kuwait & Gulf Link Transport Company, a 
Kuwait company under multiple contracts with the 
Department of Defense to provide logistics services 
in support of the United States military in Kuwait 
and Iraq, after the truck struck a pile of debris, 
jacknifed, and crossed two lanes of traffic. 
(2) Lieutenant Colonel Baragona, who was born 
on June 14, 1960, and commissioned into the 
United States Army after graduating from the 
United States Military Academy in 1982, was serv-
ing as a logistician in III Corps Artillery in Iraq at 
the time of his death, and is now forever at rest in 
Arlington National Cemetery. 
(3) Lieutenant Colonel Baragona was, at the 
time of his death, the highest-ranking United States 
military officer to be killed in Iraq following the ini-
VerDate Nov 24 2008 
06:46 May 14, 2009
Jkt 079200
PO 00000
Frm 00002
Fmt 6652
Sfmt 6201
E:\BILLS\H2349.IH
H2349
wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with BILLS
tial invasion of Iraq in March 2003 and since the 
liberation of Kuwait by United States forces. 
(4) In November 2007, the United States Dis-
trict Court for the Northern District of Georgia en-
tered a default judgment against Kuwait & Gulf 
Link 
Transport 
Company 
and 
ordered 
that 
$4,900,000 be paid in damages for the death of 
Lieutenant Colonel Baragona. 
(5) In the legal proceeding brought against Ku-
wait & Gulf Link Transport Company in United 
States district court, Kuwait & Gulf Link Transport 
Company knowingly chose not to appear to answer 
for the actions of its employee and similarly acted 
inconsistently with the conduct of a responsible 
party when it evaded or refused service of process in 
the claim even when service of process was issued di-
rectly by the court, only appearing in the action 
after the Department of Defense had issued a ‘‘re-
quest for information’’ letter, which was a follow-up 
letter to an Army notice for Kuwait & Gulf Link 
Transport Company to ‘‘show cause’’ why the com-
pany should not be debarred for its refusal to accept 
service of process in the Baragona civil litigation, re-
questing information regarding the company’s intent 
to either honor the court’s final judgment against it 
VerDate Nov 24 2008 
06:46 May 14, 2009
Jkt 079200
PO 00000
Frm 00003
Fmt 6652
Sfmt 6201
E:\BILLS\H2349.IH
H2349
wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with BILLS
or to otherwise respond to the judgment. A failure 
to respond to the request for information would have 
jeopardized the company’s capacity to continue to 
perform as a contractor of the United States Gov-
ernment. 
(6) Kuwait & Gulf Link Transport Company 
has stated that it neither evaded nor refused service 
of process in the civil litigation, asserting that the 
initial and multiple attempts at service of process 
made in accordance with international law via cer-
tified international mail courier did not comply with 
Kuwait law. Service of process was ultimately exe-
cuted in accordance with Kuwait law via the Kuwait 
Ministry of Justice. The Federal district court over-
seeing the case ruled that service of process had 
been properly executed prior to entering the default 
judgment against Kuwait & Gulf Link Transport 
Company. Kuwait & Gulf Link Transport Company 
has not disputed in court that service of process was 
properly executed and thereby has consented to the 
court’s determination that service of process in the 
case was proper. 
(7) Kuwait & Gulf Link Transport Company 
has since made an appearance in the action only to 
dispute the court’s personal jurisdiction over it and 
VerDate Nov 24 2008 
06:46 May 14, 2009
Jkt 079200
PO 00000
Frm 00004
Fmt 6652
Sfmt 6201
E:\BILLS\H2349.IH
H2349
wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with BILLS
to request the dismissal of the judgment against it 
and has not contested in court that its negligence 
was the cause of Lieutenant Colonel Baragona’s 
wrongful death. But for Kuwait & Gulf Link Trans-
port Company’s fear of debarment, it may not have 
entered the action to answer for its negligence. 
(8) The Honorable William S. Duffey, Jr., 
United States District Judge in the Northern Dis-
trict of Georgia, has described the conduct of Ku-
wait & Gulf Link Transport Company as ‘‘evasive 
and disruptive to a significant jurisdictional issue’’, 
has further described the conduct of Kuwait & Gulf 
Link Transport Company as ‘‘ghastly’’, has ques-
tioned whether Kuwait & Gulf Link Transport Com-
pany ‘‘appreciate[s] the sacrifice of the citizens and 
the men of our military’’, and has further questioned 
why the company would not compensate the 
Baragona family when an employee of the company 
‘‘apparently by negligence, has caused the death and 
caused damages to another person’’ and when the 
company ‘‘has the wherewithal to compensate [the] 
victims of [the] negligence’’. 
(9) In March 2009, the Baragona family sought 
to amicably resolve their claim against Kuwait & 
Gulf Link Transport Company through court ap-
VerDate Nov 24 2008 
06:46 May 14, 2009
Jkt 079200
PO 00000
Frm 00005
Fmt 6652
Sfmt 6201
E:\BILLS\H2349.IH
H2349
wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with BILLS
pointed mediation. Kuwait & Gulf Link Transport 
Company formally declined to join in or consent to 
the Baragona’s request for court appointed medi-
ation. 
(10) Kuwait & Gulf Link Transport Company 
is a foreign-owned contractor of the United States 
Government whose earnings under United States 
Government contracts exceed $45,000,000 from 
prime contracts and are reported to exceed 
$100,000,000 from subcontracts. 
(11) In a special advertising section of the New 
York Times, the Chairman of Kuwait & Gulf Link 
Holding Company, a separate but related legal enti-
ty, described the business of Kuwait & Gulf Link 
Holding Company with the United States Armed 
Forces as follows: ‘‘[The] U.S. military is one of our 
largest customers today. We have been working with 
[the] U.S. military since 1992. Immediately after 
[the] liberation of Kuwait, we established our busi-
ness again, and we started working with them, and 
have continued now, for over 15 years’’. 
(12) Kuwait & Gulf Link Transport Company 
has asserted that it had insurance for its operations 
in Iraq at the time of the death of Lieutenant Colo-
nel Baragona, such insurance having been a require-
VerDate Nov 24 2008 
06:46 May 14, 2009
Jkt 079200
PO 00000
Frm 00006
Fmt 6652
Sfmt 6201
E:\BILLS\H2349.IH
H2349
wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with BILLS
ment under its contracts and subcontracts with the 
Department of Defense. However, it has failed to 
rely on that insurance to address the wrongful death 
claim of the Baragona family, which appears incon-
sistent with its claim of insurance coverage and is 
unjust to the Baragona family. 
(13) The Government of Kuwait first failed to 
respond to, and then declined to act on, requests by 
members of Congress that it instruct Kuwait & Gulf 
Link Transport Company, its corporate citizen, to 
conduct itself honorably with respect to the claim of 
the Baragona family. 
(14) Kuwait & Gulf Link Transport Company, 
the Kuwait Government, and others should act hon-
orably to deliver justice to the Baragona family and 
to honor the service and sacrifice of Lieutenant 
Colonel Dominic Baragona. 
(15) The Baragona family has nobly sought 
justice in the wrongful death of their son and broth-
er but has faced many obstacles from Kuwait & Gulf 
Link Transport Company and others in their efforts. 
(16) Members of the Armed Forces, civilian em-
ployees of the United States Government, and 
United States citizen employees of companies per-
forming work for the United States Government, or, 
VerDate Nov 24 2008 
06:46 May 14, 2009
Jkt 079200
PO 00000
Frm 00007
Fmt 6652
Sfmt 6201
E:\BILLS\H2349.IH
H2349
wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with BILLS
in the event of their death, their family members, 
should be able to seek redress from Federal contrac-
tors in a United States Federal court when the 
member of the Armed Forces, civilian employee, or 
United States citizen employee experiences serious 
bodily injury because of the negligent performance 
by the contractor of its work for the United States 
Government. 
SEC. 3. IN PERSONAM JURISDICTION IN CIVIL SUITS WITH 
RESPECT TO SERIOUS BODILY INJURIES OF 
MEMBERS OF THE ARMED FORCES, CIVILIAN 
EMPLOYEES OF THE UNITED STATES, AND 
UNITED STATES CITIZEN EMPLOYEES OF 
COMPANIES PERFORMING WORK FOR THE 
UNITED STATES AGAINST ENTITIES UNDER 
UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT CONTRACTS 
PERFORMED ABROAD. 
(a) IN GENERAL.—The Director of the Office of 
Management and Budget shall amend the Federal Acqui-
sition Regulation to include in the regulation with respect 
to any contract for work to be performed outside the 
United States that is approved and financed by the United 
States Government, or any executive department, inde-
pendent establishment, or agency thereof, or any sub-
VerDate Nov 24 2008 
06:46 May 14, 2009
Jkt 079200
PO 00000
Frm 00008
Fmt 6652
Sfmt 6201
E:\BILLS\H2349.IH
H2349
wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with BILLS
contract or subordinate contract under such a contract, 
the following: 
(1) A requirement that the contractor consent 
to in personam jurisdiction over the contractor by 
the Federal courts of the United States with respect 
to any suit alleging a serious bodily injury of a mem-
ber of the Armed Forces, civilian employee of the 
United States Government, or United States citizen 
employee of a company performing work for the 
United States Government, including a suit for neg-
ligence against one or more employees of the con-
tractor for which the contractor may be liable under 
theories of vicarious liability. 
(2) A clause specifying that consent to in per-
sonam jurisdiction under paragraph (1) shall not op-
erate to deprive or terminate in personam jurisdic-
tion as described in that paragraph in any other 
court that otherwise has in personam jurisdiction as 
described in that paragraph under applicable law. 
(3) A requirement that, where a cause of action 
in a suit described in paragraph (1) arises from an 
act or omission occurring outside the United States, 
in personam jurisdiction in a suit covered by para-
graph (1)— 
(A) may lie either— 
VerDate Nov 24 2008 
06:46 May 14, 2009
Jkt 079200
PO 00000
Frm 00009
Fmt 6652
Sfmt 6201
E:\BILLS\H2349.IH
H2349
wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with BILLS
(i) in the district court of the United 
States of the legal residence of the injured 
person, deceased, or heirs of the deceased, 
or in the place of the estate established for 
the deceased; or 
(ii) in the district court of the United 
States of the command issuing the con-
tract; or 
(B) if in personam jurisdiction cannot be 
established in a district court of the United 
States under subparagraph (A), shall lie in the 
United States District Court for the District of 
Columbia. 
(4) In the case of a contract covered by this 
section with a value of $5,000,000 or more and 
awarded to a contractor that does not maintain an 
office in the United States, a requirement that the 
contractor designate an agent located in the United 
States for service of process in any suit described in 
paragraph (1). 
(5) A requirement that— 
(A) any suit described in paragraph (1) 
shall be analyzed in accordance with the sub-
stantive laws of the United States; and 
VerDate Nov 24 2008 
06:46 May 14, 2009
Jkt 079200
PO 00000
Frm 00010
Fmt 6652
Sfmt 6201
E:\BILLS\H2349.IH
H2349
wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with BILLS
(B) if pursuant to such requirement the 
law applicable to such suit is the law of the lo-
cation where the cause of such suit occurred 
and the location is designated as a hazardous 
duty zone by the Department of Defense, the 
tort law of the State in which such suit is 
brought shall be the law applicable to such case 
rather than the law of the location where the 
cause of such suit occurred. 
(b) SERIOUS BODILY INJURY DEFINED.—In sub-
section (a), the term ‘‘serious bodily injury’’ means bodily 
injury which involves— 
(1) death or a substantial risk of death; 
(2) extreme physical pain; 
(3) protracted and obvious disfigurement; or 
(4) protracted loss or impairment of the func-
tion of a bodily member, organ, or mental faculty. 
(c) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendments to the Fed-
eral Acquisition Regulation made pursuant to subsection 
(a) shall take effect on such date as the Director shall 
specify, but not later than 90 days after the date of the 
enactment of this Act. 
(d) APPLICABILITY.— 
(1) IN
GENERAL.—The amendments to the 
Federal Acquisition Regulation made pursuant to 
VerDate Nov 24 2008 
06:46 May 14, 2009
Jkt 079200
PO 00000
Frm 00011
Fmt 6652
Sfmt 6201
E:\BILLS\H2349.IH
H2349
wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with BILLS
subsection (a) shall apply with respect to any con-
tract covered by that subsection that is entered into 
on or after the effective date of such amendments. 
(2) PROSPECTIVE APPLICABILITY UNDER CER-
TAIN CURRENT CONTRACTS.— 
(A) INDEFINITE
DELIVERY, INDEFINITE 
QUANTITY CONTRACTS.—In the case of an in-
definite delivery, indefinite quantity contract in 
effect as of the effective date of the amend-
ments to the Federal Acquisition Regulation 
made pursuant to subsection (a), the amend-
ments to the Federal Acquisition Regulation 
made pursuant to subsection (a) shall apply to 
any task order under such contract, or any sub-
contract of such contract, that is made on or 
after the effective date of such amendments. 
(B) MODIFICATIONS
OF
CURRENT
CON-
TRACTS.—In the case of any contract or sub-
contract in effect as of the effective date of the 
amendments to the Federal Acquisition Regula-
tion made pursuant to subsection (a) that is 
modified after the effective date of such amend-
ments, the amendments to the Federal Acquisi-
tion Regulation made pursuant to subsection 
(a) shall apply with respect to any modification 
VerDate Nov 24 2008 
06:46 May 14, 2009
Jkt 079200
PO 00000
Frm 00012
Fmt 6652
Sfmt 6201
E:\BILLS\H2349.IH
H2349
wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with BILLS
of such contract or subcontract after the effec-
tive date of such amendments. 
(3) CERTAIN OTHER CONTRACTS.—In any civil 
action commenced during the period beginning on 
September 11, 2001, and ending on the date of the 
enactment of this Act to which the requirement in 
subsection (a)(1) would have applied if such sub-
section had been in effect during such period, the 
contractor shall consent to the jurisdiction of the 
Federal courts of the United States in such action 
as a condition of— 
(A) entering into any contract with the 
United States Government on or after the date 
of the enactment of this Act; or 
(B) receiving any payment from the 
United States Government for performing any 
activity under a contract with the United States 
Government on or after the date of the enact-
ment of this Act. 
(4) 
ADDITIONAL
DEFINITION
OF
CON-
TRACTOR.—For purposes of paragraph (3), the term 
‘‘contractor’’— 
(A) shall have the meaning given that term 
in section 6(1); and 
VerDate Nov 24 2008 
06:46 May 14, 2009
Jkt 079200
PO 00000
Frm 00013
Fmt 6652
Sfmt 6201
E:\BILLS\H2349.IH
H2349
wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with BILLS