First Email to GAO and Steve Ham (Rep Hoyer's office) helping GAO
----- Original Message -----
From: Brad Paul Giordani
To: Marilyn K. Wasleski
Cc: Oscar W. Mardis ; lee kind ; Russ Logan ; Richard Feeney ; Brad Paul Giordani
Sent: Wednesday, August 13, 2008 8:51 AM
Subject: FOLLOW UP FROM OUR MEETING AUG 7TH
Dear Marilyn,
I wish to thank you and the rest of your team at GAO for spending two hours with us on August 7th.
Below are the responsive documents I promised to email you.
1. Militec, Inc's letter (below) to Major General Roger A. Nadeau, dated May 15, 2008.
2. The DSCR purchase requests from January 1, 2003 to March 23, 2006 are on our website @ http://www.militec1.com/nadeau/data_pull_p1.html.
3. The Coast Guard results comparing the MilSpec all-in-one product called CLP vs. MILITEC-1 Dry Lubricant @
http://www.militec1.com/firearms/CoastGuardTest_p1.html
5. We have alerted the 4th Marine Division about your interest and should have a green light this week for you to follow up through the knowledgeable contact.
We stand ready to provide any support you need.
Thanks again for your time!
Brad P. Giordani
President
Militec, Inc.
11828 Pika Drive
Waldorf, MD. 20602
Work 301-893-3910
FAX 301-893-8354
CELL 240-682-0810
Home 301-274-4129
www.militec-1.com
----- Original Message -----
From: Brad Paul Giordani
To: Steve Ham
Cc: deTeresa, Steve ; Wood, Jim ; Tolleson, Jesse ; Richard Feeney ; Russ Logan
Sent: Tuesday, June 17, 2008 9:27 AM
Subject: Fw: Response to your letter dated May 5th
Steve,
This may help GAO.
Thanks,
Brad
----- Original Message -----
From: Bradley P. Giordani
To: roger.nadeau@us.army.mil
Cc: Brad Paul Giordani
Sent: Thursday, May 15, 2008 3:28 PM
Subject: Re: Response to your letter dated May 5th
----- Original Message -----
From: Bradley P. Giordani
To: roger.nadeau@us.army.mil
Cc: Brad Paul Giordani
Sent: Thursday, May 15, 2008 3:17 PM
Subject: Response to your letter dated May 5th
11828 Pika Drive, Waldorf, Maryland 20602 USA
Phone (301) 893-3910 Fax: (301) 893-8354
Internet: www.militec-1.com
May 15, 2008
Major General Roger A. Nadeau
Commander ATEC
4501 Ford Avenue
Alexandria, Virginia. 22-301-1458
Dear MG Nadeau,
Tuesday, we received your registered letter dated May 5, 2008 (my birthday) in response to our FOIA request dated December 27, 2007.
You wrote: "This denial is made in my capacity as the Initial Denial Authority for records of the U.S. Army Test and Evaluation Command Headquarters and its subordinate commands, units, and activities that relate to test and evaluation operations"
You further wrote: “The release of this information to adversaries of the United States, among others, reasonably could be expected to cause harm to national security".
We received the exact document you cited as protected on December 22, 2007. The document you are citing as harm to national security has also been posted on the Internet.
You also confirmed what I have been saying from day one; that weapons jamming (also revealed in the extreme dust report) is in fact a national security issue.
I am attaching the extreme dust report you are citing as protected.
Your desire to personally intervene pertaining to a report using flour (the wrong baseline) that has been in the public domain since day one continues to highlight the fact that you’re “emotionally locked in” against our company and its principal product MILITEC-1.
On May 15, 2003 when LTG Ross N. Thompson (then MG Thompson CG TACOM) (who is also severely emotionally locked in) said in a letter to us that CLP was state-of-the-art and MILITEC-1 was lacking @ http://www.militec1.com/Thompson21.htm
The very same day, the Army’s first official after action report (also dated May 15, 2003) was released and said just the opposite - CLP was not a good choice for use in a desert environment and MILITEC-1 was a better choice. The link is @ http://www.militec1.com/OperationIraqiFreedom.pdf .
The next report done thru AMC activities is the SWAT Report where it found elbow grease to be the best lubricant @ http://militec1.com/swat.pdf This report also is opposite of your new recommendation to over lube weapons with CLP in desert environments.
LTG Thompson also influenced his former boss, Claude Bolton, (who recently stepped down) to rubber-stamp a recent IG report that is completely false. The report said” point 6 Cleaning. "A little Cleaner, Lubricant, Preservative does wonders, not MILTEC. This contradicts the Small Arm Centers own advice on repeated occasions. The Small Arms Center at Balad is the same center that recommended in the Stars and Stripes on March 28, 2006 that "the best way to protect weapons is to "over-lube" them.”[1] This actually contradicts advice given in TBs (Technical Bulletins) and GTAs (Government Training Aids) issued in Oct 2005 (See attachment, MILITEC-1, CLP inconsistencies, 9 Feb 07) to address the sand issue with “light” lubrication, no lubrication, and 4x daily cleanings.
You also recommended up to 8X cleanings a day at http://www.militec1.com/nadeau/Army_stands_by_CLP.html
The rubber stamped IG Report D-2007-010 is at http://www.militec1.com/nadeau/auditreport.html and our response is at http://www.militec1.com/nadeau/auditreport1.html
Since Desert Shield it was no lube, dry lube or use CLP sparingly. To recommend the opposite position after 15 years is causing more jammed weapons. This again is opposite of your own facts and the stars and stripes articles at http://www.militec1.com/nadeau/StarsAndStripes.html
Page 2
Are you aware the 10Th Mountain Division and the 101st Airborne Division approved MILITEC-1 and use it extensively in combat? There are other divisions, large Ranger elements, Special Forces and other Army activities, including your very own CID at Ft. Belvoir that only use MILITEC-1 (they buy it too).
We have unfortunately been at loggerheads ever since your old boss at APG and his boss, Gen. Paul Kerns, retired from AMC and the end of 2004.
Everything was working perfectly until you prematurely awarded our NSN’s to a competitor (early 2005) who never had its CLP product used by the Army. Issuing our NSN’s was based on fraudulent documents that your people used to justify the substitution. The link for this is at http://www.militec1.com/nadeau/questions.html
Your staff did this in order to reduce the huge supplies of MILITEC-1 being delivered to soldiers. This premature action also caused our ID/IQ contract to be terminated. The ID/IQ was initiated because DLA could not keep up with troop demand for MILITEC-1. We set records at DLA and were awarded a gold medal at http://www.militec1.com/mildocs/gold_medal.html
You awarded this unknown company our NSN’s with full knowledge that both products were different, and neither met the CLP/GPL MilSpecs. Please review TARDEC’s letter and our response on this subject and my letter to you at http://www.militec1.com/emails/request_for_testing.html and http://www.militec1.com/nadeau/nadeau_10_18_05.html
Because of your efforts at RDECOM (and now ATEC) to rid us from the Army supply system this unknown company also intercepted hundreds of thousands of dollars worth of orders, requisitions and contracts calling for MILITEC-1. This was made possible by your staff’s breaking the rules and ignoring what was being demanded by soldiers for successful combat operations.
With all due respect, you started this campaign against my company without cause and reversed your two senior officers’ position (who supported MILITEC-1) the moment they retired. This action has resulted in thousands of jammed weapons and increased risk to our men and women in uniform. The problem is now worse since your recommendation to over-lubricate weapons with CLP in desert environments.
Page 3
You wrongly believe that it doesn't matter if M16’s and M4’s jam in combat. You have no solid evidence (like we do) that the vintage 1995 CLP lubricant does not work in combat. You only have CONUS laboratory data to base your judgment exclusively on the efficacy on CLP working in combat. You cannot correlate these two different environmental extremes.
A weapon’s ability to perform in combat is only as effective as the lubricant that is applied to it. This is the problem since these weapons have always jammed in the past due to their tight tolerances and CLP’s not being able to hold up (very low flash point and little lubricity) due to the high heat from extreme friction. Now introduce over-lubing, with sand and dust from a desert environment adhering to the CLP, and the M16’s and M4's jam even worse. This is why we are continuously swamped with soldiers requesting our product.
Please don’t suggest that combat troops don’t know any better and are only requesting our product because it’s free. CLP is free too, and if it worked the troops would have confidence in it -- but they don’t because of past experience and/or word of mouth from the troops whom were previously in combat using MILITEC-1.
MILITEC-1 is a two cent solution to this million dollar problem. This is why we remain at loggerheads. If soldiers had a choice MILITEC-1 would be the only weapons lubricant ordered as it was during part of 2003 and 2004 when we were allowed to compete. Please review the governments own numbers at http://www.militec1.com/nadeau/data_pull_p1.html and the acquisition plan for MILITEC-1 at http://www.militec1.com/nadeau/acquisition_plan_p1.html please compare these USG facts against the demand for CLP and you will find the truth.
Only you and your advisors in the AMC chain of command believe CLP is the best choice to protect weapons in a desert environment. This is due to your MilSpec laboratory testing which does not replicate how weapons perform in combat.
Products for combat should be tested in actual environments as the final proving ground. Your testing required the use of large flakes of silica mesh 140 grade flour (the wrong baseline), instead of Iraqi sand, which has the consistency of talcum powder.
Please review the Desert Research Institute (DRI) findings which sites silica mesh flour as being the wrong baseline: http://www.militec1.com/Apples_and_Oranges_CLP_vs_MILITEC_1_IG_Report.ppt
Page 4
The GAO is currently investigating the NSN issue. I believe civil servants at Picatinny Arsenal, DSCR and others will be forced to retire, or worse. Please review our government abuse section at http://www.militec1.com/govabuse.html and your very own section at http://www.militec1.com/RogerANadeau.html
The Center for Naval Analysis (CNA) interviewed over 2,600 soldiers and revealed a lot about the M4 and MILITEC-1. Soldier’s confidence in their weapons decreases dramatically when Army lubes are used. The complete report is at http://www.militec1.com/pdf/cna_m4_study_d0015259_a2.pdf
The Army requested the CNA to conduct these surveys to prevent bias.
Please help us help our troops and let’s move on before this escalates.
Sincerely,
Brad P. Giordani
President
By Email: roger.nadeau@usarmy.mil
By Fax: 703-681-3779 Attn: Marcia
From: Brad Paul Giordani
To: Marilyn K. Wasleski
Cc: Oscar W. Mardis ; lee kind ; Russ Logan ; Richard Feeney ; Brad Paul Giordani
Sent: Wednesday, August 13, 2008 8:51 AM
Subject: FOLLOW UP FROM OUR MEETING AUG 7TH
Dear Marilyn,
I wish to thank you and the rest of your team at GAO for spending two hours with us on August 7th.
Below are the responsive documents I promised to email you.
1. Militec, Inc's letter (below) to Major General Roger A. Nadeau, dated May 15, 2008.
2. The DSCR purchase requests from January 1, 2003 to March 23, 2006 are on our website @ http://www.militec1.com/nadeau/data_pull_p1.html.
3. The Coast Guard results comparing the MilSpec all-in-one product called CLP vs. MILITEC-1 Dry Lubricant @
http://www.militec1.com/firearms/CoastGuardTest_p1.html
5. We have alerted the 4th Marine Division about your interest and should have a green light this week for you to follow up through the knowledgeable contact.
We stand ready to provide any support you need.
Thanks again for your time!
Brad P. Giordani
President
Militec, Inc.
11828 Pika Drive
Waldorf, MD. 20602
Work 301-893-3910
FAX 301-893-8354
CELL 240-682-0810
Home 301-274-4129
www.militec-1.com
----- Original Message -----
From: Brad Paul Giordani
To: Steve Ham
Cc: deTeresa, Steve ; Wood, Jim ; Tolleson, Jesse ; Richard Feeney ; Russ Logan
Sent: Tuesday, June 17, 2008 9:27 AM
Subject: Fw: Response to your letter dated May 5th
Steve,
This may help GAO.
Thanks,
Brad
----- Original Message -----
From: Bradley P. Giordani
To: roger.nadeau@us.army.mil
Cc: Brad Paul Giordani
Sent: Thursday, May 15, 2008 3:28 PM
Subject: Re: Response to your letter dated May 5th
----- Original Message -----
From: Bradley P. Giordani
To: roger.nadeau@us.army.mil
Cc: Brad Paul Giordani
Sent: Thursday, May 15, 2008 3:17 PM
Subject: Response to your letter dated May 5th
11828 Pika Drive, Waldorf, Maryland 20602 USA
Phone (301) 893-3910 Fax: (301) 893-8354
Internet: www.militec-1.com
May 15, 2008
Major General Roger A. Nadeau
Commander ATEC
4501 Ford Avenue
Alexandria, Virginia. 22-301-1458
Dear MG Nadeau,
Tuesday, we received your registered letter dated May 5, 2008 (my birthday) in response to our FOIA request dated December 27, 2007.
You wrote: "This denial is made in my capacity as the Initial Denial Authority for records of the U.S. Army Test and Evaluation Command Headquarters and its subordinate commands, units, and activities that relate to test and evaluation operations"
You further wrote: “The release of this information to adversaries of the United States, among others, reasonably could be expected to cause harm to national security".
We received the exact document you cited as protected on December 22, 2007. The document you are citing as harm to national security has also been posted on the Internet.
You also confirmed what I have been saying from day one; that weapons jamming (also revealed in the extreme dust report) is in fact a national security issue.
I am attaching the extreme dust report you are citing as protected.
Your desire to personally intervene pertaining to a report using flour (the wrong baseline) that has been in the public domain since day one continues to highlight the fact that you’re “emotionally locked in” against our company and its principal product MILITEC-1.
On May 15, 2003 when LTG Ross N. Thompson (then MG Thompson CG TACOM) (who is also severely emotionally locked in) said in a letter to us that CLP was state-of-the-art and MILITEC-1 was lacking @ http://www.militec1.com/Thompson21.htm
The very same day, the Army’s first official after action report (also dated May 15, 2003) was released and said just the opposite - CLP was not a good choice for use in a desert environment and MILITEC-1 was a better choice. The link is @ http://www.militec1.com/OperationIraqiFreedom.pdf .
The next report done thru AMC activities is the SWAT Report where it found elbow grease to be the best lubricant @ http://militec1.com/swat.pdf This report also is opposite of your new recommendation to over lube weapons with CLP in desert environments.
LTG Thompson also influenced his former boss, Claude Bolton, (who recently stepped down) to rubber-stamp a recent IG report that is completely false. The report said” point 6 Cleaning. "A little Cleaner, Lubricant, Preservative does wonders, not MILTEC. This contradicts the Small Arm Centers own advice on repeated occasions. The Small Arms Center at Balad is the same center that recommended in the Stars and Stripes on March 28, 2006 that "the best way to protect weapons is to "over-lube" them.”[1] This actually contradicts advice given in TBs (Technical Bulletins) and GTAs (Government Training Aids) issued in Oct 2005 (See attachment, MILITEC-1, CLP inconsistencies, 9 Feb 07) to address the sand issue with “light” lubrication, no lubrication, and 4x daily cleanings.
You also recommended up to 8X cleanings a day at http://www.militec1.com/nadeau/Army_stands_by_CLP.html
The rubber stamped IG Report D-2007-010 is at http://www.militec1.com/nadeau/auditreport.html and our response is at http://www.militec1.com/nadeau/auditreport1.html
Since Desert Shield it was no lube, dry lube or use CLP sparingly. To recommend the opposite position after 15 years is causing more jammed weapons. This again is opposite of your own facts and the stars and stripes articles at http://www.militec1.com/nadeau/StarsAndStripes.html
Page 2
Are you aware the 10Th Mountain Division and the 101st Airborne Division approved MILITEC-1 and use it extensively in combat? There are other divisions, large Ranger elements, Special Forces and other Army activities, including your very own CID at Ft. Belvoir that only use MILITEC-1 (they buy it too).
We have unfortunately been at loggerheads ever since your old boss at APG and his boss, Gen. Paul Kerns, retired from AMC and the end of 2004.
Everything was working perfectly until you prematurely awarded our NSN’s to a competitor (early 2005) who never had its CLP product used by the Army. Issuing our NSN’s was based on fraudulent documents that your people used to justify the substitution. The link for this is at http://www.militec1.com/nadeau/questions.html
Your staff did this in order to reduce the huge supplies of MILITEC-1 being delivered to soldiers. This premature action also caused our ID/IQ contract to be terminated. The ID/IQ was initiated because DLA could not keep up with troop demand for MILITEC-1. We set records at DLA and were awarded a gold medal at http://www.militec1.com/mildocs/gold_medal.html
You awarded this unknown company our NSN’s with full knowledge that both products were different, and neither met the CLP/GPL MilSpecs. Please review TARDEC’s letter and our response on this subject and my letter to you at http://www.militec1.com/emails/request_for_testing.html and http://www.militec1.com/nadeau/nadeau_10_18_05.html
Because of your efforts at RDECOM (and now ATEC) to rid us from the Army supply system this unknown company also intercepted hundreds of thousands of dollars worth of orders, requisitions and contracts calling for MILITEC-1. This was made possible by your staff’s breaking the rules and ignoring what was being demanded by soldiers for successful combat operations.
With all due respect, you started this campaign against my company without cause and reversed your two senior officers’ position (who supported MILITEC-1) the moment they retired. This action has resulted in thousands of jammed weapons and increased risk to our men and women in uniform. The problem is now worse since your recommendation to over-lubricate weapons with CLP in desert environments.
Page 3
You wrongly believe that it doesn't matter if M16’s and M4’s jam in combat. You have no solid evidence (like we do) that the vintage 1995 CLP lubricant does not work in combat. You only have CONUS laboratory data to base your judgment exclusively on the efficacy on CLP working in combat. You cannot correlate these two different environmental extremes.
A weapon’s ability to perform in combat is only as effective as the lubricant that is applied to it. This is the problem since these weapons have always jammed in the past due to their tight tolerances and CLP’s not being able to hold up (very low flash point and little lubricity) due to the high heat from extreme friction. Now introduce over-lubing, with sand and dust from a desert environment adhering to the CLP, and the M16’s and M4's jam even worse. This is why we are continuously swamped with soldiers requesting our product.
Please don’t suggest that combat troops don’t know any better and are only requesting our product because it’s free. CLP is free too, and if it worked the troops would have confidence in it -- but they don’t because of past experience and/or word of mouth from the troops whom were previously in combat using MILITEC-1.
MILITEC-1 is a two cent solution to this million dollar problem. This is why we remain at loggerheads. If soldiers had a choice MILITEC-1 would be the only weapons lubricant ordered as it was during part of 2003 and 2004 when we were allowed to compete. Please review the governments own numbers at http://www.militec1.com/nadeau/data_pull_p1.html and the acquisition plan for MILITEC-1 at http://www.militec1.com/nadeau/acquisition_plan_p1.html please compare these USG facts against the demand for CLP and you will find the truth.
Only you and your advisors in the AMC chain of command believe CLP is the best choice to protect weapons in a desert environment. This is due to your MilSpec laboratory testing which does not replicate how weapons perform in combat.
Products for combat should be tested in actual environments as the final proving ground. Your testing required the use of large flakes of silica mesh 140 grade flour (the wrong baseline), instead of Iraqi sand, which has the consistency of talcum powder.
Please review the Desert Research Institute (DRI) findings which sites silica mesh flour as being the wrong baseline: http://www.militec1.com/Apples_and_Oranges_CLP_vs_MILITEC_1_IG_Report.ppt
Page 4
The GAO is currently investigating the NSN issue. I believe civil servants at Picatinny Arsenal, DSCR and others will be forced to retire, or worse. Please review our government abuse section at http://www.militec1.com/govabuse.html and your very own section at http://www.militec1.com/RogerANadeau.html
The Center for Naval Analysis (CNA) interviewed over 2,600 soldiers and revealed a lot about the M4 and MILITEC-1. Soldier’s confidence in their weapons decreases dramatically when Army lubes are used. The complete report is at http://www.militec1.com/pdf/cna_m4_study_d0015259_a2.pdf
The Army requested the CNA to conduct these surveys to prevent bias.
Please help us help our troops and let’s move on before this escalates.
Sincerely,
Brad P. Giordani
President
By Email: roger.nadeau@usarmy.mil
By Fax: 703-681-3779 Attn: Marcia
posted by MILITEC at
9:40 AM
