CORRUPTION AT THE GENERAL ACCOUNTABILITY OFFICE (GAO)

Thursday, March 10, 2011

GAO’s Double Standard

 I have just reported Mr. William Solis to fraudnet@gao.gov.
----- Original Message -----
Sent: Monday, November 02, 2009 8:18 AM
Subject: GAO’s Double Standard when Independent Expert Assessment is Required...

11828 Pika Drive, Waldorf, Maryland 20602 USA
Phone (301) 893-3910   Fax: (301) 893-8354

Mr. William M. Solis                                                                                                            November 2, 2009
Director
Defense Capabilities and Management
U.S. Government Accountability Office
441 G Street N.W.
Washington, DC 20548                        
Via USPS and Email

Subject:  GAO’s Double Standard when Independent Expert Assessment is Required; Rebuttal Evidence is Used or Not and Different Rules for Draft Report Response Timelines.

Dear Mr. Solis,

I read with interest your recent report (GAO-10-119 Warfighter Support) and found a noticeable double standard when independent experts are being recommended by GAO for body armor testing anomalies, while other independent experts are not even considered for critical lubricants that are applied to millions of DOD weapons.

Your report on MILITEC-1, dated June 25, 2009 (GAO-09-735R, Defense Logistics) never mentioned any type of independent review when numerous conflicting test results cannot be reconciled between lab testing versus field testing. The recent GAO report about body armor testing used the following terms throughout its report because it did not trust (same as Militec) the independence of DOD Laboratories:

GAO Wrote Thirteen Instances of the Importance of Independence from DOD

(1) “independent External Review”, (2) “experts external to the Department of Defense”, (3) “independent external peer review”, (4) “independent expert assessment”, (5) “independent evaluation”,  (6) “independent external expert”, (7) “independent review”, (8) “independent evaluation”, (9) “independent external expert review”, (10) “independent observer, external to DOD”, (11) “independent peer review”, (12) “panel of external experts”, (13) “independent experts and relying on conversations with industry experts.”

Militec, Inc has raised these very same concerns about the lack of independence in numerous documents to GAO about the efficacy of DOD simulation testing without field testing to support the simulation results for final accuracy.  The final proving grounds for weapons survival must be in a real world operating environment versus a controlled laboratory simulation environment that cannot and will not duplicate out-of-parameter conditions found in Iraq and Afghanistan. GAO failed to take into account the disclaimers (Lab V. Field) listed in the live-fire extreme dust tests performed at Aberdeen Proving Grounds.

GAO does note Militec, Inc.’s concern in its report that the MilSpec’s are faulty and do not correlate to real world conditions.  However, GAO admits it cannot validate the validity of the MilSpec’s.  If GAO cannot validate the validity of the specifications (or the results) then who can?  This is a perfect example when independent experts are needed.

The ability of small arms and crew served weapons to operate at peek performance is just as critical as body armor is for stopping bullets.  For GAO to call their report on body armor “Warfighter Support” and call the MILITEC-1 report “Defense Logistics” is not accurate or fair. The request by Rep. Hoyer to GAO dated February 5, 2008 said in part, “It is critical that we are not preventing our military personnel from receiving critical force protection equipment.”





GAO allowed the DOD one month to respond to its draft report dated July 31, 2009.  GAO included the DOD rebuttal document dated August 29, 2009 in its 25 page entirety and provided detailed answers (of more than 25 pages) to the DOD rebuttal document a month later.  However, Militec, Inc. was only allowed 30 minutes to review their draft report, could not leave with the draft (or notes)  and was told not to leak any portions of  the report (or conversation), or our comments  would not be included.

GAO relied on DOD officials to make their arguments against MILITEC-1 and failed to enlist any help from industry or federal law enforcement agency experts.  However, GAO relied on these very same experts for complimenting their report on body armor.  GAO should have established guidelines when independent experts are needed or not.

GAO-10-119 - WARFIGHTER SUPPORT EXCERPTS

Page 9, GAO wrote, “A determination should only be made based on a thorough assessment of the testing data by independent ballistics-testing experts”.  “Consequently, we have added a matter for congressional consideration to our report suggesting that Congress consider directing DOD to either require that an independent external review of these body armor test results be conducted or require that DOD officially amend its testing protocols…”

Page 36, GAO wrote, “Body armor plays a critical role in protecting our troops, and the testing inconsistencies we identified call into question the quality and effectiveness of testing performed at Aberdeen Test Center.”

Page 36, GAO wrote, “In light of such uncertainty and the critical need for confidence in the equipment by the soldiers, the Army would take an unacceptable risk if it were to field these designs without taking additional steps to gain the needed confidence that the armor will perform as required.”

Page 36, GAO wrote, “We recommend the Secretary of Defense direct the Secretary of the Army to provide for an independent evaluation of the First Article Testing results by ballistics and statistical experts external to DOD before any armor is fielded to soldiers.”

Page 38, GAO wrote, “This peer review should be performed by testing experts external to the Army and DOD.”

Page 38 “As a result, we continue to believe it is necessary to have an independent external expert review these test results and the overall effect of the testing deviations we observed on those results before any armor is fielded to military personnel.”

Page 41, GAO wrote, “We stand by our analysis, in combination with statements made by DOD and non-DOD officials with testing expertise and by the clay manufacturer, that exposure of the clay to constant, heavy cold rain may have had an effect on test results.”

Page 43, GAO wrote, “This approach meets the intent of our recommendation as long as the DOD members of the evaluation team are independent and not made up of personnel from those organizations involved in the body armor testing such as office of the Director of Operational Test and Evaluation, the Army Test and Evaluation Command, or PEO Soldier.”

Page 49, GAO wrote, “We also spoke with vendor representatives who were present and observing the First Article Testing, as well as with Army and industry subject matter experts.”

Page 84, GAO wrote, “The law-enforcement community relies on NIJ-certified laboratories to conduct their body armor testing and ensure that their body armor meets law enforcement levels of protection.”



Table 1: Organizations Contacted for Information about Body Armor Testing

DOD acquisition organization
DOD testing organization
Industry expert
Program Executive Office Soldier
Army Test and Evaluation Command
U.S. Laboratories
Developmental Test Command
H.P. White Laboratories
Aberdeen Test Center
Various body armor manufacturers
Army Research Laboratory
DOD’s office of the Director of Operational Test and Evaluation

In addition to the previously provided rebuttal documents (below on page 4) are additional areas where GAO applied a double standard in its report on MILITEC-1 versus its  Warfighter Support” report on body armor:

  • Did not enlist external industry experts.
  • Did not incorporate Militec’s rebuttal documents.
  • DOD was allowed 30 days for review and inclusion of rebuttal document to its draft report - Militec Inc was allowed 30 minutes to review the draft report and no inclusion of rebuttal document into report.
  • Did not reach conclusion or recommendations.
  • Did not provide analysis of any kind
  • Downplayed our report by calling it Defense Logistics versus Warfighter Support.

I have sent GAO numerous documents highlighting the weaknesses of your report on MILITEC-1 and have not received any kind of a reply.  If GAO is so sure of their facts, I would think an honest government would not only welcome rebuttals, but would comment on them for completeness.  Instead, GAO has ignored my point-by-point information rebuttals because it contradicts your entire report! The volume of material omissions that GAO failed to incorporate caused the report to be incomplete and defective as I have continuously documented to GAO.

I am extremely disappointed that our government (GAO) can go out of its way to damage a small company’s reputation by using incomplete information because of bureaucratic convenience and little fear of being held to account.  Senators (and others) are using your report on MILITEC-1 to attack my company with information that is incomplete and defective.  Your report is also sanctioning the waste and abuse of a 30 year old failed program that continues to go unchecked and is wasting billions.

I am preparing a detailed complaint for the GAO IG.  I am also going to encourage hearings on this issue since more troops are being killed unnecessarily due to jammed weapons caused by the Army’s weapons lubricant called CLP.

Sincerely,

Brad P. Giordani
President

CC:  Email Only
Steve Ham, Rep Hoyer’s Staff
Jesse Tolleson, HASC Staff
Jim Wood, Rep Hoyer’s Staff
Richard Feeney, Militec, Inc
Russ Logan, Militec, Inc
Oscar W. Mardis, GAO
Karen D. Thornton, GAO
Colin L. Chambers, GAO
Marilyn K. Wasleski, Assistant Director DDCM, GAO



GAO Continues to Ignore the Following Rebuttal Documents relating to the Problems with its Incomplete Report on MILITEC-1 Weapons Lubricant Dated June 25, 2009.

  1. October 19, 2009 email to Allen Westheimer, “Dust test at APG.”
  2. October 13, 2009 email/letter to Allen Westheimer, “Weapons Failed.”
  3. October 13, 2009 email to Allen Westheimer, “Omission of Documents.”
  4. Sept 23, 2009 email/letter to Allen Westheimer, “Reliance on Disclaimers.”
  5. Sept 25, 2009 email to Allen Westheimer, “Senator Coburn Provides.”
  6. Sept 18, 2009 email/letter to Allen Westheimer, “Failure to Investigate.”
  7. Sept 14, 2009 email to Steve Ham, copy to Westheimer, “Militec needed-proof for GAO.”
  8. Sept 10, 2009 email to Steve Ham, copy to Westheimer. “GAO’s Abuse of Authority.”
  9. August 24, 2009 email to Jesse Tolleson with copy to Westheimer, “Senator Grassley.”
  10. July 15, 2009 email to Allen Westheimer, “Brigades Acceptance of MILITEC-1.”
  11. July 16, 2009 email to Allen Westheimer, “Replacing CLP at Basic Training.”
  12. July 17, 2009 email to Jesse Tolleson, copy to Westheimer, Comments pertaining to the APG Dust Test, CNA Study and the DRI Report, to include the following attachments, (1) MILITEC Response Final dated July 17 2009. (2) Problems with the GAO Report Dated June 25, 2009” 11 pages (3) Extreme Dust test Brief (4) Center for Naval Analysis (CNA) Report Dated December 2006, CRM D0015259.A2 / Final.
  13. July 13, 2009 email to Jesse Tolleson, copy to Westheimer, “Comments from our July 10, 2009 meeting” with a copy of our GAO rebuttal dated July 9, 2009.
  14. July 9, 2009 email to Allen Westheimer “rebuttal to the GAO report dated June 25, 2009.”
  15. July 9, 2009 letter to Rep Hoyer, Hand delivered to Westheimer on July 10, 2009.
  16. June 8, 2009 email/letter to Marilyn Wasleski containing fifty-one points with 12 email attachments to GAO since May 29, 2009.
  17. June 5, 2009 email to Marilyn Wasleski, “This is “My Last Email and Letter.”
  18. June 5, 2009 email to Allen Westheimer, “If you are Reading My Emails.”
  19. June 4, 2009 email to Allen Westheimer, “The Troops Need Our Product.”
  20. June 3, 2009 email to Allen Westheimer, “Used Exclusively by the Secret Service Since 1992.”
  21. June 2, 2009 email to Allen Westheimer, “I Hope to Meet with GAO this Week.”
  22. June 2, 2009 email to Allen Westheimer, “DLA is Still Allowing Requisitions into the System.”
  23. June 2, 2009 email to Marilyn Wasleski, “Are Emails from Our Troops Considered Evidence.”
  24. June 1, 2009 email/letter to Allen Westheimer, “Follow up to my May 29th Message.”
  25. May 29, 2009 email to Allen Westheimer, “The First Error in GAO’s Statement of Fact Document, JOB CODE # 351227.”
  26. May 28, 2009 email to Allen Westheimer, “Army Breaks up FSC” – Militec, Inc meets with GAO to discuss the draft report.