CORRUPTION AT THE GENERAL ACCOUNTABILITY OFFICE (GAO)

Tuesday, July 26, 2011

MORE INFOMATION FOR THE GAO-IG

I have supplied the GAO-IG with significant evidence to prove that certain GAO employees went out of their way to damage my small company by withholding favorable USG reports and by diverting the NSN audit into a different and unrelated subject matter of mentioning lubricant additives over fifty (50) times. The audit diversion occurred roughly 12 months after Rep Hoyer’s specific request seeking  the granting of  National Stock Numbers (NSN’s) and the associated rules and regulations from 1993-1995 when MILITEC-1’s NSN’s were created by the  Defense Logistics Agency (DLA) and then two years later additional NSN’s for MILITEC-1 were awarded.

GAO’s diversion occurred because the information governing the rules and regulations for NSN assignment  that Rep Hoyer was seeking, could not be located and the responsible folks from DLA back in the 1990’s have left the agency, so no one at GAO could find the rules that covers thousands of products being used today, including MILITEC-1. 

Since GAO was unable to dazzle the congressman with brilliance, they baffled him with BS by mentioning “Lubricant Additives” over fifty (50) times and the constant repetition of citing  failed laboratory testing (9 out of 11 failed) and other negative connotations. Allen Westheimer admitted that it is GAO’s practice to repeat the same thing over and over again.  This reminds me of the old saying:  say it enough times, and people will believe it. By enforcing (a negative) through negative repetition and the mentioning of lubricant additives over fifty (50) times, proves GAO was deflecting the congressman's only question concerning  an NSN listing for a dry  weapons lubricant and not vehicle lubricant additives that GAO pounded for 50 plus times . I hope the IG will explain to me how the request for NSN listing is related to lubricant additives and the associated testing that warranted over 50 mentions. Please recall, Allen Westheimer only notes taken during our meeting  were when I pointed out to him  the 50 mentions  of the words lubricant additives. Westheimer seemed concerned about that high number of repeating lubricant additives over 50 times.

1.       The GAO-IG should ask William Solis  and Allen Westheimer why they released a report that was not responsive (did not answer the mail) to Rep Hoyer’s specific request concerning listing and delisting of the  NSN’s that were created for MILITEC-1 by DLA in 1993.

2.       Why did GAO fail to mention the alleged problems with MILITEC-1’s competition (Milspec CLP) that Militec Inc presented facts in volumes to GAO the first day we met in 2008? The first thing I said in our first meeting (and second one too)” the reason we are here is because CLP does not work properly”. If CLP worked properly, we would not have shipped over 750,000 bottles to warfighters and DLA would not have shipped over 600,000 bottles to warfighters as well. For GAO to be completely  absent on the dangerous flashpoint and other hazards of this 30 year old volatile Milspec’d gun oil that has been upgraded 18 plus times is careless, irresponsible and proves a bias.  This army’s formula is not sold in the private sector or used in the private sector, because the product does not perform the three functions properly, for cleaning, lubing and preserving (CLP). This should have been a red flag for GAO, especially since the original manufacturer refused to fill an order for this specification because it’s faulty, especially in desert environments. 

3.       Allen Westheimer and Marilyn have stated the reason MILITEC-1 is requested is because it’s free and not because it works.  MG Nadeau also made this same statement which proves how out-of-touch-with-reality these folks really are. This must be why GAO said that the tens of thousands of emails (requesting MILITEC-1) are not relevant.

4.       Why did the report contain no recommendations or conclusions as other GAO reports contain? The report mentions lubricant additives over fifty (50) times. What do lubricant additives have to do with the listing or de-listing of NSN’s, where 30,000 email requests from warfighters do not?  In the early 1990’s, NSN’s were issued based on demand, so the supply system could gauge the volume. Now, Picatinny Arsenal must approve the gun oil (and all the related products too) first and not the supply system as before. This is another layer of government that prevents American jobs and builds up the government’s manpower in order to police itself from potentially bad products and unwanted (and perhaps competitive) business.

5.       Why did the GAO fail to mention gun companies that have approved, use and recommend MILITEC-1?  Many of these same companies supply the military with these same weapons. The rules back in the old days (70’s and 80’s and part of the 90’s) were if the manufacturer approved your product then the services automatically did too. Now the manufacturers have no influence over the use of products that are applied to their weapons (because of new Milspec and associated rules), which is careless and irresponsible because the manufacturers know more than the chemists and the associated layers of staff on how to maintain their manufactured weapons. This was how the defective gun oil called CLP stayed in the system 30 plus years and is still going strong -- because the jobs are more important than the best technology.

6.       GAO failed to mention (brushed off) the diversion of MILITEC-1’s NSN’s to an unknown competitor, who supplied (but should not have) the Military with CLP gun oil that was never requested or used before by the government. These large orders calling for MILITEC-1 were substituted with a CLP product that DLA and ARDEC rubber-stamped (and in record time) to this unknown competitor. Hundreds of thousands of dollars of “MILITEC-1 RUSH, GWOT Stamped orders” bound for Iraq were instead diverted and delayed (months) prior to the delivery of a product that no one requested and in fact, CLP was being avoided because it had problems of collecting sand and dust—which leads to the constant cleaning of weapons, even if they are not fired. The MILITEC-1 orders were delayed for 3-4 months (without notifying CDR’s in Theater that their re-orders would not show up) so the civilian army (ARDEC) could process this new companies CLP products information, using MILITEC-1’s NSN to capture the delayed and retroactive contracts calling for MILITEC-1.   How could GAO be silent with baiting and switching of critical products (involving the NSN subject) that are being applied to weapons during wartime? In the old days (turning a blind eye) would be called aiding and abetting the enemy. Today, its business as usual since their dog is not in the hunt and no one wants to stick their necks out -- since the reward for doing so is nonexistent and perhaps being perceived as traitorous by their peers for thinking outside the status quo box.

7.       Rep. Hoyer’s specific request dealt with the listing and de-listing of NSN’s and if the rules and regulations were followed. Why did GAO not properly report on the listing and de-listing of Militec’s NSN’s in 2005? This was the closet occurrence that would be responsive to the original request on how NSN’s are awarded? Furthermore, this was the exact subject where Allen Westheimer said (more than once) that the Fraud used against Militec was OK, since the Militec NSN’s were never valid in the first place. GAO could not find the NSN rules in 1993 and continues to ignore how NSN’s were awarded (to Militec’s competitor) in 2005 (which proves fraud- and makes my case). Militec’s NSN’s were awarded to a competitor in record time (short-cutting the process) by Picatinny Arsenal in order to stop the significant revenue stream (that I worked over 20 years for) and to  begin  the cancellation of Militec’s pending five year ID/IQ contract. My facts are based on a FOIA request through DLA that DLA (DSCR) even admitted that the NSN bait and switch could not be done (incomplete documents from the competitor) and the ID/Q contract should be issued to Militec Inc as sole source based on the history. Picatinny Arsenal/ARDEC did the NSN bait and switch anyway and convinced the brand new CG of RDECOM (BG Nadeau) to block the sharing of both companies NSN and reinstate the use of Milspec CLP only -- based on a single lab test with countless disclaimers showing no correlation  to actual conditions found in theater. Weapons are still jamming unnecessarily due to the continued use of CLP, and more soldiers will be killed because of a defective product that GAO and their friends in the army mistakenly believe is state-of-the-art.