GAO'S ABUSE OF AUTHORITY- Allen Westheimer Again
This is the letter I sent to Steve Ham at Rep Hoyer's office. Steve Ham and Jesse Tolleson (HASC) were GAO's point of contact on the Hill.
----- Original Message -----
From: Brad Paul Giordani
To: Steve Ham
Sent: Thursday, September 10, 2009 6:00 AM
Subject: GAO'S ABUSE OF AUTHORITY
Phone (301) 893-3910 Fax: (301) 893-8354
Internet: www.militec-1.com
September 10, 2009
To: Steve Ham
From: Brad P. Giordani
Subject: GAO’s abuse of authority
This is a follow up to my letter to Mr. Hoyer dated, July 9, 2009. Since I have not received a reply, I am providing additional information concerning the fragrant abuse of authority by GAO, specifically, Mr. Allen Westheimer.
Since GAO could not evaluate the MilSpec testing, their results, or locate vital records governing the NSN rules, GAO could only default on the Army’s historical documents from the past twenty years, without addressing the specific request from Mr. Hoyer’s letter. There was no new information in the GAO report that was not already public.
Below, is information that GAO failed to include in their report to Mr. Hoyer, dated June 25, 2009. As I previously documented in my letter dated, July 9th and my rebuttal document, (attached), the GAO could not validate the validity of the MilSpec’s nor were records available to confirm the governing rules for the listing and delisting of MILITEC-1 NSN’s as requested over eighteen months ago.
Additional information GAO failed to include in their report
The current Army requirement is for individual soldiers to clean and lubricate their weapons up to eight times per day with CLP, if the weapon is fired or not. This is contrary to military readiness for the following and additional reasons:
- CLP was never tested or certified outside of a laboratory environment.
- CLP is combustible, flammable and vapors do catch fire.
- CLP cannot be used on hot gun metal. Metal temps exceeds CLP flash point.
- CLP cannot be used in closed environments due to vapors.
- CLP must be shaken before use, or it separates.
In addition to the above limitations, CLP is not endorsed by any weapons manufacturer, mandated by non DOD activities, or sold into U.S.
The stringent 1979 MilSpec requirement for CLP was developed for the jungles of Vietnam and not the deserts of Afghanistan
Mr. Westheimer embraces the Army’s methodology using simulated laboratory testing for weapons performance evaluation, instead of, field testing in actual environments because of the logistical expense. History has proven that it’s more economical and accurate to adopt lessons learned by the working user, using pen, paper, and laptop than to pay simulation technicians to evaluate commodity items. These technicians spend allot of money in an attempt to duplicate (simulate) the changing combat conditions inside a laboratory environment.
The current battlefields and rear operating bases are real-world laboratories that we can learn from; however, Army labs insist that strict environmental controls are necessary for a proper evaluation of weapons and their lubricants. There are no environmental controls in combat environments. How can a laboratory be the final proving ground when there are out-of-parameter conditions that don’t conform to the MilSpec parameters inside a lab? This is the reason field testing should be mandatory for small arms.
Here is another example of the shortcomings of Mr. Westheimer’s argument that is in favor of MilSpec’s (over field) testing: Before a commercial airplane can be certified to carry passengers by the FAA, it must first be tested in the actual environment to which it will be used. Upon successful field/flight testing the airplane will be approved to carry passengers. The same real-world certification process (based on field testing) should apply to weapons, as it does to all other critical hardware used by the USG.
It has been proven; field testing over time is the final proving ground on the efficacy of military hardware. However, GAO believes that weapon testing in a field environment is not needed (why the exception?) for certification for wet or dry lubricants since the Army’s simulation practices do provide the necessary correlation of field versus lab results. This is where GAO and the Army are wrong. Exceptions cannot be made to exclusively rely on lab results when there are credible field reports that contradict the lab findings. The question is, which evidence should the USG accept as being accurate, the numerous reports from the field? Or, the simulated testing inside Army laboratories that come with disclaimers?
GAO’s entire argument against MILITEC-1 is based exclusively on the Army’s 20 years of proforma information on simulated and MilSpec laboratory testing. GAO agrees with the Army’s position, without being able to validate the validity of the Military Specification, (MilSpec), or the results obtained. How can GAO agree with the Army’s testing, if they can’t evaluate the results? Who decides (other than the Army) if the MilSpec for CLP is faulty as Militec, Inc has claimed from day one?
Mr. Westheimer is also very knowledgeable with certain MilSpec salt fog testing (the Army’s main argument used against us) and used his own personal experience in accepting the Army’s testing methodology and also agreed with their findings 100%. This is why the Army did not object to Mr. Westheimer’s draft report, where Militec, Inc. did with force and have yet to hear a reply from GAO regarding several rebuttal documents that are attached.
GAO failed to list the Surgeon General’s approval for MILITEC-1 in small arms and the related lab tests from APG that passed. If GAO included the other USG reports that it has on file or seen, the GAO report, dated June 25, 2009 would be more balanced. My rebuttal document dated July 9th 2009 to the GAO goes into more detail concerning the volumes of material omissions, countless redundancies and the cherry picking of selected text by, Mr. Westheimer.
If GAO wanted to hear the truth, and understand the facts, it's imperative that they get to the field and speak one-on-one with those operating these weapons. Since GAO does not accept (as evidence) thousands of emails from front line warfighters all saying the same thing, they probably consider troop interviews as anecdotal information just like email reports. However, GAO does rely on interviews (on other subjects) with Bureaucrats to piece together lost, destroyed or missing NSN records that should be public property.
Militec, Inc takes exception to several deficiencies in the GAO report dated June 25, 2009. Militec, Inc worked with the GAO for over a year, provided thousands of USG documents and none of this information was used in their report. Instead, GAO relied on 20 years of proforma documents gathered by certain Army and DLA activities that consider Militec, Inc not welcome in their offices. This report by the GAO is a flagrant abuse of authority and I strongly urge Mr. Hoyer’s good offices to file a complaint through the GAO’s IG.
I am available to meet with Mr. Hoyer or GAO at any time.
Sincerely,
Brad P. Giordani
President
Copy to: Allen Westheimer, Senior Analysis GAO
Attachments:
1. Militec-GAO letter dated Feb 5, 2008
2. Final GAO Response dated July 9, 2009
3. Militec Inc letter to Rep Hoyer dated July 9, 2009
4. Comments from HASC/GAO meeting on July 10, 2009
5. Militec Inc response to DRI, CNA and the APG dust test dated July 17, 2009
6. Brad Giordani's memo to Steve Ham dated September 10, 2009
posted by MILITEC at
8:14 AM
