I’m sure you all have already seen this, but here’s a story we ran as our lead item at Military.com this morning:
DoD Audit Finds Body Armor Buys Flawed
The Army can’t be sure some of its body armor met safety standards, partly because it didn’t do proper paperwork on initial testing of the protective vests, a Defense Department audit said.
Democratic Rep. Louise M. Slaughter of New York, who requested the department inspector general’s report, on April 3 demanded the firing of officials responsible. But the Army said the gear is safe and the issue is a disagreement over when and what type of testing is required — principally so-called “first article testing” typically done on a product before a contract is awarded.
The inspector general reviewed $5.2 billion worth of Army and Marine Corps contracts for body armor from 2004 through 2006.
“Specific information concerning testing and approval of first articles was not included in 13 of 28 Army contracts and orders reviewed, and contracting files were not maintained in 11 of 28 Army contracts to show why procurement decisions were made,” the report concluded.
“As a result, DoD has no assurance that first articles produced under 13 of the 28 contracts and orders reviewed met the required standards,” or that 11 of the 28 contracts were awarded based on informed decisions, it said.
The news wires beat me to the punch on this, but I did find the report on the DoD IG web site if you want to read it for yourself…
I also pinged PEO Soldier for their reaction to the report. Here’s what they told me:
Soldier protection is the Army’s top priority. Since its initial fielding in 1999, the Army’s Interceptor Body Armor has demonstrated superior combat performance in Kosovo, Afghanistan, and Iraq. Many Soldiers are alive today because of it. Prior to issuing body armor to Soldiers, the U.S. Army conducts rigorous and extensive testing to ensure it meets Army standards and is safe for use by Soldiers in combat.
The Army is in full and complete compliance with the FAR, DFAR, source law and current policy in every case concerning body armor procurement.
The fact that the Defense Department Inspector General was not completely able to verify testing and approval of first-article testing or aspects of contracting files does not mean the body armor did not meet specifications.
The Army requires two levels of performance verification prior to acceptance of body armor issued to Soldiers: First Article Test (FAT) and Lot Acceptance Test (LAT). These two test requirements verify that body armor meets U.S. Army standards before being issued to Soldiers and ensure production processes remain in check. The Army’s response to the draft report states that first-article testing is a regular and consistent current business practice for purchasing body armor.
The current body armor is doing what it is designed to do: stop or slow bullets and fragments, and reduce the severity of wounds.
Prevention of injuries to our men and women is a top priority for the Department of the Army and the Department of Defense.
IG Report Points:
- The IG reviewed Army and Marine Corps contracts and orders awarded between January 2004 and December 2006.
- The scope of the review was limited to reviewing pre-solicitation and the solicitation and evaluation phases of the acquisition process, as well as contracting files related to first-article testing.
DoD IG found:
- Specific information concerning testing and approval of first articles was not included in 13 of 28 Army contracts and orders.
- Contracting files were not maintained in 11 of 28 Army contracts to show why procurement decisions were made.
- DoD has no assurance first articles produced under 13 contracts met required standards or 11 contracts were awarded based on informed decisions.
- First-article testing is performed before or in the initial stage of production to determine whether the proposed product conforms with contract requirements.
- Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) allows first-article testing to be waived if the contractor is already producing the item under contract.
Now, I don’t like the idea that the Army took shortcuts in testing. But I can understand that the service wouldn’t pay for a series of FAT tests if they’re contracting for another large buy of the same vest.
When I looked into the Marine Corps armor flaws — where waivers were issued on specific production lots of armor that government testers believed were flawed — the rejections did not require a FAT test to verify. In fact, the engineers looked at earlier FAT test data as a benchmark for performance of the new, flawed lots.
Technically, it seems correct that if the Army — or any service — is buying a new type of armor, or new components or either with new manufacturing techniques, a FAT test must be conducted. It seems to me on the surface that the Army issued a new contract to the same company — Point Blank — for the same vest with the same components and manufacturing technology as previous ones. That shouldn’t technically require another FAT test. But, I guess you could argue that it’s better to be safe than sorry.
As a commenter on the Military.com story put it:
“Yeah, it’s too bad they cut through all the red tape to rush this equipment out to the troops instead of the usual procedure that keeps new gear in the prototype phase until years after the need has passed and the technology has become obsolete.”
You can kind of see the guy’s point.
– Christian
I personally like the idea of any contracting agent who approves the purchase or any Vendor having to personally test any equipment sold to the government. Make the contracting officer stand in front of a weapon and see if they feel satisfied being defended by a vest, or officials from the supplier wear a randomly selected vest stand in front of a firing squad. They survive, they get the contract. Same with the new “mine-proof” vehicles, or fighter plane, or… If the contracting officer or supplying offical will literally stand behind their product, then maybe it is good enough for me to wear or use in combat. Just saying…
No suprise to me. Troops aint equipped with Dragon Skin anyway so wtf?
Let’s be clear, folks. There’s a difference between FAT testing and “lot” testing, or “quality assurance” testing (QA). Each new lot of vests has random QA tests done. But not FAT tests, which as you know from the stories on the Dragon Skin testing, is extremely complex and expensive.
The contracting officer did not make the buy decision. Those who did are the ones that should stand in front of the weapons. (And, I don’t even like most contracting officers!)
I guess all those who were claiming during the DragonSkin debate how wonderful the body armor testing process is will be eating their words, right?
.
No, I didn’t think so.
.
But it certainly looks to me that “something ain’t right”.
Is this more of the blame the victim mentality? Why is it we have all these military suppliers who can’t seem to get anything right…unless they are paid $147 for a hammer, or $600 for a toilet seat.…?
Further evidence of the rip-off mentality in the corporate sector.
I think anyone claiming that anyone should litterally ‘stand behind’ the product is making an ill informed statement. HOWEVER that bieng said, I think that with the dragonskin debate, and the advent of “flawed” armor, anyone found knowingly responsible for trying to produce purchase or distribute this kind of product should be tried as a traitor to the fullest extent of military law. (which from my understanding during a time of war, is punishable by death?)
Forgot to add, even though i dont think they should be forced to ‘stand behind’ it, i think it would go along way as a show of faith…i mean, im willing to bet someone from Dragonskin would do it, would the interceptor guys? I understand that with any kind of automated production, some flawed units may come out, but when a flawed unit means a dead soldier in a very real way, it isnt something you can just return and say ‘sorry for the mistake, well take care of it’ dead is dead, quality control is paramount along with speed of deployment, sacrifice one for the other, and both become a moot point
as a former paratrooper,in vietnam 5/17,67 to 11,19/68, i feel for our man and women serving overseas, i know how they feel about their equipment, since its not up to par, for the job they were sent to do, i wish our elected official would take into account, that one life lost do to faulty equipment is one life to many. from a true patriot,
?
?
DC ?
VIP
?
?
Just DO Remember where this came from kk? < without the final k, cuz i don’t give a doggone about that crap!
Resolving the Next-Gen Armor Muddle
All right boys and girls, there