WASHINGTON, DC- How does a company making just over $50 million a year turn it into a $4 billion juggernaut over four years? The rapid growth of Deployed Resources, a company that seemingly defied all odds, is a story that will surely pique your interest.
In the last administration, when Kamala Harris was dubbed “border czar,” most people probably didn’t expect much, and they were right. In the four years she served as Biden’s border czar, she did nothing except oversee an outright invasion of our country, with some estimates going as high as nearly 20 million illegal aliens entering the country.
While Republicans and their supporters were rightly upset that Harris was abdicating her duties, the truth of why she may have done so is much worse. What if there was a reason why Harris was so reluctant to stop the flow of illegals into the U.S.?
As with much of the Biden administration, it is important to follow where the money is going. Much has been reported about the abuse in the Paycheck Protection Program (PPP), with the Small Business Administration inspector general reporting some $64 billion in fraud from that program and $136 billion in fraud from the Economic Injury Disaster Loan Program (EIDL).
Meanwhile, the General Accountability Office (GAO) alleged that the Federal Pandemic Unemployment Compensation (FPUC) fund had over $100 billion in fraud. In other words, the above three programs had an estimated $300 billion in fraud, according to the FBI.
The following will take a bit of time to identify the key players, but suffice it to say, the former border czar, Kamala Harris, was knee-deep in what we will report.
Deployed Resources is a logistics company that provides temporary facilities and logistics management for government and commercial concerns, specializing in support for “disasters and special events.” The company is based in Rome, New York.
Founded in January 2001 by Rich Stapleton and Rob Napior, Deployed Resources averaged about $50 million a year in government contracts between 2001 and 2021. It should be noted that Napior, from Brookline, New Hampshire, was arrested in 2016 when he was found in possession of ten firearms as a convicted felon.
Napior had been arrested in 1988 and charged with manufacturing marijuana and was convicted. He appealed the conviction however, his conviction was upheld by the United States Court of Appeals, Sixth Circuit (900 F.2d 260). This is important only for background information.
In 2019, Deployed Resources appointed Tom Ziemba as head of Strategy and Corporate Development. In May 2021, he was promoted to President and COO. Ziemba served in the Clinton Administration under Attorney General Janet Reno and in senior roles on the 2004 John Edwards presidential campaign, also serving as chief of staff.
In 2007, Ziemba helped coordinate campaign activities for Hillary Clinton under his public affairs firm, Ziemba Waid Public Affairs (ZWPA). By 2009, Ziemba had moved ZWPA to Washington, D.C., recruited former Arizona Gov. Janet Napolitano's staff, and leveraged his relationship with her as she assumed the Secretary of Homeland Security in the Obama administration. ZWPA also assisted that administration with advance and event planning work.
Ziemba’s wife, Julie Mason, has close ties to Kamala Harris and her husband, Doug Emhoff. These connections, which seem to form a web of influence, raise serious questions about the integrity of the relationships. Mason followed a similar path as her husband, working as Deputy Press Secretary for then-First Lady Hillary Clinton from 1997 to 1999 and as a staffer for Napolitano when she served as Arizona governor from 2005 to 2009.
Mason then found her way to the Obama White House, where she worked as Joe Biden's Director of Special Projects from 2013 to 2015. She had previously served as Jill Biden’s communications director in 2012.
After taking some time off to work at a Democratic-aligned consulting firm, Albright Stonebridge Group, from 2015 to January 2021 (a key date), she became Emhoff's Chief of Staff from January 2021 to June 2022. This overlaps with Harris’s work on economic recovery and border crisis matters.
Deployed Resources experienced a significant surge in its fortunes in 2021, coinciding with the Biden-Harris administration's rise to power. Whether this is a mere coincidence or a result of strategic alliances, we leave it to our readers to ponder.
Law Enforcement Today has uncovered that Deployed Resources' government contract income, which was around $50 million annually, skyrocketed to an average of $1 billion per year during the Biden-Harris administration. Shockingly, public documents reveal that Deployed Resources overcharged without facing any consequences.
The question that naturally arises is: what exactly did Deployed Resources overcharge for?
It is first essential to understand what a blanket purchase agreement, or BPA is. In a nutshell, BPAs are established by government agencies under any scheduled contract to fill repetitive needs for supplies or services, according to acquisition.gov.
BPAs consider many factors, including: past performance, special features of the supply or service required, trade-in considerations, probable life of the item selected compared with other comparable items, warranty considerations, maintenance availability, environmental and energy efficiency considerations, and delivery terms.
Typically, single-award BPAs with an estimated value over $100 million are not awarded unless the agency considers many factors in writing, including whether the orders expected under the BPA “are so integrally related that only a single source can reasonably perform the work; the BPA provides only for firm-fixed price orders for: products with unit prices established in the BPA, or; services with prices established in the BPA for specific tasks to be performed; only one source is qualified and capable of performing the work at a reasonable price to the government; or, it is necessary in the public interest to award the BPA to a single source for exceptional circumstances.
According to Border Report, in 2021, the Department of Health and Human Services awarded contracts worth over $2 billion to two companies and a nonprofit without a bidding process while exempting providers from staffing requirements that state-licensed child facilities must meet. In this case, the facilities were to house unaccompanied children coming across the open US border.
The three recipients were Family Endeavors Inc. of San Antonio, TX, Rapid Deployment Inc. of Mobile, AL, and Deployed Resources LLC.
On January 29, 2021, just a week into the Biden administration, the Department of Homeland Security, Customs and Border Protection used a single BPA for operational supplies and services to support the agency’s Emergency Operations Center. Active Deployment Systems (ADS) of San Marcos, TX., protested the terms of the request for quotations (RFQ) with the General Accounting Office (GAO), No. 70B01C21Q00000009, arguing that the RFQ “unreasonably contemplates the establishment of a single blanket purchase agreement (BPA) instead of multiple BPAs.”
Specifically, ADS complained that the RFQ “unreasonably contemplates the establishment of a single BPA, as opposed to multiple BPAs…specifically, ADS argues that the agency’s market research dictated that establishing multiple BPAs was preferable because no single contractor surveyed indicated that it could perform all of the requisite services.”
ADS also argued that CBP “did not undertake the requisite analysis under FAR section 9.405-3(a)(3) to determine that a single BPA was preferable.”
CBP argued that “the scope and complexity of the requirement” of establishing a single BPA was “better suited to a single BPA because this requirement called for delivering critical infrastructure related to safeguarding public health within 24 to 72 hours following a disaster event, and that awarding a single BPA was the best method of satisfying this need.”
Jacob Burns, the CBP’s contracting officer, argued that “issuing a solicitation and evaluating quotations following either emergency or non-emergency disaster events would interfere with the government’s ability to resume operations quickly. CBP argued that soliciting and evaluating quotations and then making an award decision “could take several days or weeks, which is not practicable for this particular requirement.”
The GAO denied Active Deployment’s protest of the award.
Fast forward to February 22, 2024, when an RFQ was put out by CBP for “temporary, soft-sided holding facilities, ancillary structures, services, and amenities to provide accommodations for holding and processing up to 1,125 detainees at the agency’s property in North Eagle Pass, TX.”
The BPA was eventually awarded (again) to Deployed Resources, LLC, causing Active Deployment Systems, LLC to again file a complaint with the General Accounting Office. In outlining the case's background, the GAO noted that Deployed Resources, LLC had previously performed similar tasks for CBP.
In its complaint, Active Deployment complained “that the terms of the solicitation provide insufficient information for intelligent competition, are unduly restrictive of competition, and provide an unfair competitive advantage to the incumbent contractor,” who happened to be politically connected to then-Vice President Kamala Harris.
In its complaint, Active Deployment argued that Deployed Resources was given “an unfair competitive advantage” since it had an existing temporary facility they managed and would be able to use. Thus, it would not incur additional costs for erecting a new facility. CBP argued that an “incumbent contractor’s potential competitive advantage, gained by virtue of that contactor’s performing the incumbent contract, is not an unfair or improper competitive advantage and CBP is not required to attempt to equalize competition to compensate for that advantage.”
Long story short, Biden’s GAO denied Active Deployment’s protest.
This story gets interesting when you consider the rate table Deployed Resources operated under pursuant to contract number GS-10F-0309T, as noted in the General Services Administration’s (GSA) Authorized Federal Supply Schedule Price List, specifically under schedules H, Professional Services, and G, Miscellaneous.
So-called “turnkey base camps,” such as those contracted to Deployed Resources, include several built-in provisions, including support staff, billet facilities, food services, temporary power and HVAC, water, and waste treatment. The prices charged to the federal government for providing these resources are based on the base camp size—that is, how many persons it will be housing and for what duration.
Under the GSA’s price list, for example, a camp housing over 1,000 illegals for 1-3 months would cost American taxpayers $102.60 per illegal per day. A camp housing between 100 and 249 persons for 1-3 months would cost $133.65 per illegal per day.
In a lawsuit filed in Arizona by Active Deployment against the federal government, which Deployed Resources joined in as a defendant/intervenor (Case Nos. 24-1530C/24/1567C, US Court of Federal Claims), it was alleged that CBP did not correctly compare Deployed Resources’ rates with the rates negotiated with GSA negotiated rates.
In court documents obtained by Law Enforcement Today, it was found that the facility in Yuma, with a capacity of 1,375, was calculated by Deployed Resources at $102.60 per illegal/per day, times 30 days, or $4,232,250 per month. However, the capacity at the Yuma facility was only 875. Therefore, based on the GSA contract, Deployed Resources should have charged $104.50 per illegal/per day, or $2,743,125 per month. In other words, Deployed apparently violated the task order to the tune of $1,489,125.
In Tucson, the facility had a capacity of 1,000, equating to a rate of $104.50 per illegal/per day, or $3,135,000 monthly. In this case, the plaintiff alleged that CBP did not independently compare Deployed Resources’ quote with the rates they had negotiated with the GSA. Unfortunately, the portion of the case that defines what Deployed Resources paid and for how many illegals was redacted.
The suit against CBP and intervened by Deployed Resources alleged that the Yuma and Tucson contracts were awarded for a sum of $843 million just as the Biden administration was winding down, according to documents LET reviewed. After Active Deployment challenged the award in the Federal Court of Claims, CBP claimed the limited source award was given to Deployed Resources, claiming it was “in the economic interest” of the federal government and said that, due to that, they had the right to go with a sole source, or limited source award.
According to a US Department of Justice fact sheet, neither a limited source procurement nor noncompetitive proposals are, as the name implies, a proposal from only one source. Such awards must comply with 2 C.F.R. § 200.320(c) as outlined in the Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards as adopted by the U.S. Department of Justice in 2 C.F.R. § 2800.101. There are strict requirements for using a limited source procurement. It is unknown if CBP followed those requirements in awarding the Yuma and Tucson contracts, however, it doesn’t appear that it did.
An anonymous source with knowledge of the award, whose identity is being withheld by our team, told LET that CBP could not have relied on the presumption of price reasonableness provided by the pre-negotiated GSA rates and that they failed to independently compare the quoted rates with Deployed Resources’ GSA rate.
As things turned out, in the Yuma and Tucson cases, Active Deployment claimed that Deployed Resources submitted an incorrect bid, so CBP’s argument that the limited source award was given to Deployed for economic reasons couldn’t hold water. Deployed Resources intervened in the case as a co-defendant/intervenor at some point, which wasn’t clear from the court documents we reviewed.
In the end, Active Deployment received “corrective action” from the Federal Court of Claims, akin to summary judgment. CBP and Active Deployment basically reached an agreement because CBP terminated both contracts, or terminated the task orders at issue and allowed them to expire without further extension, thereby making Active Deployment’s challenge moot. While CBP did not admit fault, they agreed to the corrective action. CBP issued two bridge contracts to allow the agency to continue services while it completed follow-on work under the DHS-BPA. The consolidated matters for Yuma and Tucson were dismissed without prejudice.
As an aside, according to a 2023 report in the Washington Free Beacon, Deployed Resources owed $585,075 in unpaid taxes, yet received $964 million in federal contracts that year to house illegal aliens in North Carolina and Texas. Those awards appeared to violate FAR 52.209-11, which makes it unlawful for companies to receive federal contracts if they owe back taxes.
This brings us back to our original point, and the old analogy…if it waddles like a duck and quacks like a duck, it’s a duck. Why did Kamala Harris abdicate her appointment as border czar? Democrats claimed that their “hands were tied” because Congress refused to address legislation to secure the border. Yet, under then-former President Donald Trump, the border was secure overall, despite Congressional Democrats blocking efforts to build a border wall.
In the lead-up to Biden’s inauguration, a surge toward the US border began in Central America and up through Mexico. When Biden, on day one, issued executive orders countermanding President Trump’s border policies, the floodgates were opened. That invasion primarily at our southern border continued unabated for the four years of Biden’s administration. As soon as President Trump took office in January, the flow of illegals into the U.S. came to a virtual stop.
All told, during the Biden administration, Deployed Resources took in $4.08 billion in government contracts related to providing services to Customs and Border Protection at the southern border. The question everyone should be asking, including DOGE and Elon Musk, is how a relatively small company from Rome, N.Y., with around 115 employees, got CBP contracts worth over a billion dollars. It is unknown if any of that money somehow made its way into Harris/Emhoff's bank accounts, but it is probably worth exploring.
An anonymous source told LET that Jacob Burns, CBP’s procurement contracting officer, possibly had a connection to Deployed Resources or, if nothing else, apparently looked the other way regarding what Deployed Resources was charging for its services. There also had to be some type of political cover. The connections between top officials at Deployed Resources and former VP Kamala Harris cannot be overlooked, especially when discussing over $4 billion.
President and COO Tom Ziemba’s close ties to officials in the Clinton, Obama, and Biden administrations cannot be overlooked, nor can those of his wife Julie Mason, Executive VP of Communications at the company, who is closely tied to Harris and her husband Doug Emhoff, especially in consideration of her previously working as Emhoff’s chief of staff. At the same time, Harris served as “border czar.” What better way to take care of loyal staff members than to look the other way as the border was being overrun to benefit those (now former) staff members’ company?
Of course, all of this could merely be a coincidence. After all, anyone can take a company that was making just over $50 million a year and turn it into a $4 billion juggernaut over four years without having political cover, as the person responsible for facilitating the conditions that enabled said juggernaut possibly looks the other way.
Again, how does a company that was making just over $50 million a year turn into a $4 billion juggernaut over four years?
It happens all the time…in Washington, D.C.’s swamp.
