Why Is Sallyport Global So Hard to Track in DBA Records?
Your client was injured at the U.S. Embassy compound in Baghdad. They say the employer was "Sallyport." You search DOL records and find cases under "Sallyport Global Services." Then you find a separate batch under "Sallyport Global Holdings." Then "Caliburn - Sallyport Global Holdings - MBGS." Then "Acuity International - Sallyport Global Services." Each name returns a different carrier. You are now four searches deep with four conflicting answers.
This is the Sallyport problem. Unlike KBR or DynCorp, which dominate headlines and generate enough public data for manual research, Sallyport occupies a tier of Iraq contractors that flew under the radar while generating enormous DBA claims volume. ClaimTrove data shows over 1,900 cumulative DBA cases across Sallyport-related entities. DOL records contain at least 14 distinct employer name strings tied to carrier data for this single company family.
Sallyport Global started as a logistics and security services firm operating primarily in Iraq. The company provided base life support, crash fire rescue, airfield services, and protective security under Department of Defense and State Department contracts. Federal spending data shows 55 contract awards totaling over $25 million in tracked prime awards, with the largest single contract exceeding $15.5 million for crash fire rescue services in Iraq. But those tracked awards represent only a fraction of the real contract value, because much of Sallyport's work flowed through task orders under larger indefinite-delivery vehicles that do not surface cleanly in USAspending data.
What Was Sallyport's Role at the Baghdad Embassy?
Sallyport's highest-profile contract was the Baghdad Diplomatic Support (BDS) program. This contract covered security, life support, and facility operations at the U.S. Embassy compound in Baghdad, one of the largest American diplomatic facilities in the world. The BDS program required thousands of employees providing guard force operations, access control, facility maintenance, transportation, and emergency response.
Embassy compound work under the State Department creates specific DBA insurance dynamics. From 1991 through mid-2012, the State Department maintained a mandatory single-carrier DBA program. Any contractor performing State Department work during that window had their DBA coverage dictated by the agency contract, not selected by the employer. After August 2012, the State Department moved to open-market procurement. Each contractor began selecting its own DBA carrier.
That transition is critical for Sallyport investigations. A claimant injured at the Baghdad Embassy in 2010 falls under a completely different carrier framework than one injured in 2016 or 2022. The mandatory program period simplifies the carrier answer. The open-market period makes it dependent on Sallyport's specific policy choices, which shifted over time.
Sallyport also performed work for USAID in Iraq. Federal contract data shows USAID awards for vehicle storage and field support services at the Sallyport Mansour Compound. USAID has maintained its own mandatory DBA carrier arrangement since 2010, creating yet another carrier pathway that differs from both the State Department program and DoD open-market policies.
How Many Name Variations Does Sallyport Have?
ClaimTrove's database tracks 14 distinct employer name strings tied to Sallyport entities across BRB decisions, DOL case summaries, and other federal data sources. The full list reveals the scope of the alias problem:
- Sallyport Global Services - Original operating entity name
- Sallyport Global Services Ltd - Legal name on federal contract awards
- Sallyport Global Holdings, Inc. - Parent holding company
- Sallyport Global Holdings - Abbreviated parent name in DOL records
- Sallyport Global - Shortened variant across multiple fiscal years
- Sallyport - Minimal reference in recent DOL case summaries
- Caliburn - Sallyport Global Holdings - MBGS - Post-acquisition combined entity
- Caliburn International / Sallyport Global Holdings - Transitional naming
- Caliburn-Sallyport Global Holdings - Hyphenated acquisition variant
- Acuity International - Sallyport Global Services - Current parent branding
- Acuity Intl. LLC/Sallyport Global Holdings - Abbreviated current parent
- Sallyport Global Services / Acuity - Reverse-order current branding
- Sallyport Global Holdings n/k/a Acuity International - Legal transition notation
- Sallyport Golbal Services - Misspelling appearing in federal records
That last entry is not a typo in this article. Federal records actually contain "Golbal" instead of "Global," and that misspelling appears in carrier mapping data tied to real cases. If your search is exact-match only, you will miss it. The DOL does not correct employer name entries retroactively.
This alias complexity mirrors patterns seen with SOC LLC, which has 9 documented name variations across its history. But Sallyport's situation is compounded by two successive corporate acquisitions that layered additional parent company names on top of the original operating entity.
How Did Sallyport Become Caliburn and Then Acuity?
Sallyport's corporate history follows a pattern common among mid-tier government services contractors: grow through contract wins, get acquired by a portfolio company, then get folded into a larger rebrand.
Sallyport Global Holdings was acquired by Caliburn International, a holding company that also owned entities like Medical Base Global Solutions (MBGS) and Comprehensive Health Services (CHS). Caliburn assembled a portfolio of government services firms under one umbrella. DOL records from FY2020 through FY2022 show the combined "Caliburn - Sallyport Global Holdings - MBGS" entity generating 375 cumulative DBA cases across those three years alone.
Caliburn International then rebranded as Acuity International. The most recent BRB case captions use "Sallyport Global Holdings n/k/a Acuity International" and "Acuity International - Sallyport Global Services." The legal notation "n/k/a" (now known as) signals that the corporate entity has changed names but the legal successor relationship is acknowledged in litigation.
Each acquisition layer creates a new set of carrier identification questions. Did the carrier change when Caliburn acquired Sallyport? Did it change again when Caliburn became Acuity? The answer depends on whether the acquiring entity maintained the existing DBA policy or procured new coverage. Our data shows carrier records tied to multiple carrier families across these corporate transitions, suggesting coverage did not remain static.
For practitioners handling PMC acquisition chains like the Triple Canopy-to-Constellis transition, the pattern is familiar. The employer name your client knows may be two or three corporate restructurings behind the current entity. The carrier your client needs may be attached to any point in that chain.
Why Are Mid-Tier Contractors Harder Than Major Primes?
Large defense contractors like KBR, DynCorp, or Fluor generate thousands of public records. Congressional testimony, GAO audits, SEC filings, and industry press coverage create a paper trail that makes carrier identification possible through open-source research, even if time-consuming. Mid-tier contractors like Sallyport leave a much thinner trail.
Sallyport was not publicly traded. It did not file SEC disclosures. Congressional inquiries about Iraq contractor oversight rarely named Sallyport specifically, even though the company operated at the same embassy compound that drew intense scrutiny. The result is a contractor that generated over 1,900 DBA cases while producing almost no publicly searchable corporate disclosures about its insurance arrangements.
Mid-tier PMCs are also more likely to use insurance brokers that obscure the actual carrier relationship. A large prime might have a dedicated DBA risk manager and a direct relationship with an underwriter. A mid-tier firm is more likely to procure DBA coverage through a broker who places the policy with whichever carrier offers the best rate that year. The broker relationship means the carrier can change annually without any public announcement or trace.
Task order structures compound the problem. Sallyport's Iraq work included base life support at specific installations (PB Hamiyah, for example) and airfield sweeper services at other locations. These task orders often fall under larger indefinite-delivery contracts where the prime contractor relationship is not immediately obvious from the task order itself. Tracing the prime-versus-subcontractor insurance chain requires matching individual task orders to their parent contracts, then matching those contracts to the DBA policy in effect during the performance period.
The practical impact: an attorney investigating a Sallyport DBA claim cannot rely on a single Google search or a quick DOL lookup. The data is scattered across multiple name variations, multiple contract vehicles, multiple agencies, and multiple carrier families. Each piece of the puzzle lives in a different federal database, indexed under a different version of the employer name.
What Does Sallyport's Claims Timeline Look Like?
DOL case summary data reveals a clear arc in Sallyport's DBA claims history, tracking closely with the three distinct eras of Iraq DBA claims.
The early period (FY2009-FY2013) shows claims filed under "Sallyport Global Services," starting with 10 cases in FY2009 and jumping to 90 cases in both FY2010 and FY2011. That spike aligns with peak U.S. military presence in Iraq and the corresponding demand for base life support and security contractors.
The middle period (FY2014-FY2019) shows a dip followed by a surge. FY2014 reported zero cases under both "Sallyport Global Services" and "Sallyport Global Holdings." By FY2018, cases had climbed back to 168 across name variations. That recovery tracks with the return of U.S. forces to Iraq for counter-ISIS operations and the renewed demand for contractor support at embassy and military installations.
The recent period (FY2020-FY2024) introduces the Caliburn and Acuity naming layers. FY2021 shows 224 cases across four different Sallyport name variants, while the Caliburn combined entity adds another 167 cases. FY2024 shows 301 cases split across "Sallyport," "Sallyport Global," and "Sallyport Global Holdings." The claims keep coming even as the corporate name keeps changing.
Across all periods and all name variants, the cumulative total exceeds 1,900 DBA cases. That volume places Sallyport firmly in the top tier of Iraq-focused DBA claim generators, despite the company's relative obscurity compared to the major primes.
How Should You Investigate a Sallyport DBA Claim?
Start with the injury date and the contracting agency. Was your client working under a State Department contract, a DoD contract, or a USAID contract? Each agency has different DBA insurance procurement rules that directly affect which carrier was on risk. The State Department's mandatory carrier program, USAID's ongoing carrier arrangement, and DoD's open-market approach each point to a different investigative pathway.
Next, identify the corporate entity at the time of injury. "Sallyport Global Services" in 2011 is not the same legal entity as "Caliburn - Sallyport Global Holdings" in 2021, even if the claimant performed the same job at the same location. The DBA policy is tied to the legal employer, not the job site. Corporate restructuring can shift the responsible carrier even when nothing else changes about the work.
Then search every name variation. A single-name search captures only a fraction of available carrier data. ClaimTrove tracks 14 known Sallyport aliases and searches all of them simultaneously across 18 federal data sources. Manual research requires running each variation separately against each database, a process that can take hours and still miss records filed under misspellings or combined entity names.
Finally, resolve the carrier family. When your research returns references to multiple carrier names, determine whether those names represent the same carrier group or genuinely different underwriters. TPA references like "c/o Gallagher Bassett" or "c/o Broadspire" identify the claims administrator, not the insurance carrier. Filing against a TPA instead of the actual underwriter is a procedural error that costs time and credibility.
ClaimTrove automates the entire Sallyport investigation. Enter any Sallyport name variant and the engine resolves all 14 aliases, searches DOL records, federal contract data, BRB decisions, and FOIA database results in parallel, then ranks carrier results by temporal proximity to your client's injury date. Run your investigation at ClaimTrove.com.