CORRUPTION AT THE GENERAL ACCOUNTABILITY OFFICE (GAO)

Thursday, June 16, 2011

I AM HOPEFUL THE GAO-IG WILL ACT-- SINCE THERE IS A SMOKING GUN

From: Brad Giordani [mailto:militec@militec1.com]
Sent: Thursday, June 16, 2011 3:40 PM
To: 'Bradley P. Giordani'; 'OIGHotline'
Cc: 'Fraud'; russalogan@gmail.com; Rick1655@aol.com
Subject: RE: COMPLAINT CITING WILLIAM SOLIS AND ALLEN WESTHEIMER/PLEASE CONFIRM RECEIPT OF THIS COMPLAINT/ANSWER PLEASE


Dear Madam/Sir,

I am sending you this message that I cited to you in yesterday’s email. Why am I sending you this? Because you may not have clicked on the link to my Blog @ www.militec.blogspot.com where the below message is contained. Now you have the text so this information is part of my complaint/record to your office. I hope you do not reply with in-house rules about the proper procedures were not followed when I filed my complaint, or other bureaucratic means of dodging a direct question.  
Allen Westheimer said FRAUD was OK since our NSN’s were never valid in the first place. If you all did your homework you might have realized that I will not drop this issue until Westheimer and Solis are jailed or kicked out of the USG. It’s troubling to me the secrecy (GAO rules/regs... as needed) about not commenting on, if there would be an investigation or not. This really depends on who is doing the asking as we all know.

May I please have a status of my complaint?

Thank you very much and have a nice day.

Respectfully,

Brad P. Giordani

President
Militec Inc

HOW CAN THE GAO JUSTIFY FRAUD WHEN EMERGENCY WAR ORDERS WERE DELAYED, DIVERTED AND THEN CANCELLED?


Allen Westheimer, Senior Analyst for GAO admitted that the Fraud used by an unknown competitor during 2005 to gain our NSN's was OK, since the MILITEC-1 NSN's issued in 1993 and reaffirmed again in 1995 were never legitimate, even though federal orders were being issued citing the NSN's. It's funny (not really) that a statement like this could be made, even though Mr. Westheimer could not find the rules that explains how NSN are issued. Rep Hoyer asked GAO for the governing rules for the issuance and cancellations of NSN's. I am excited to hear what the GAO-IG has to say on this subject of Westheimer justifying Fraud involving emergency war orders bound for theater.

This Fraud allowed for emergency war orders (stated on contracts) calling for MILITEC-1 (many are reorders) to be diverted and then cancelled without notifying the commanders in theater that their war requisitions were cancelled. This proves beyond any shadow of a doubt that Allen Westherimer and his supervisor William Solis believe they are above the law. Allen Westheimer admitted this in front of William Solis and others at their office in DC. I could not believe he said that, and Solis was as quiet as a little mouse hiding in the government shadows where its safe. Subsequently, when I pressed Solis for an answer, he reported me to the Federal Police. Can you believe that? Reports me because I want an answer to a simple question. The investigator saw no merit in Solis' complaint, but had to speak with me just the same.

There is also the subject of material omissions that are to numerous to mention, but contained below in my rebuttal to the GAO Dated July 9, 2009. If Mr. Westheimer would have included the most complete and comprehensive report from the Army-- this would have caused their dated materials (some 20 years old) to become obsolete, since it contradicted the information. In other words, if Westheimer would have told the truth and included the most recent reports from the Army, the report would have had to be altered based on the APG test that GAO did it's best to hide, since they knew Steve Ham from Rep Hoyers office sold us out and the GAO only answers to Congress.

How are corrupt officials held to account when the IG and others will not investigate? They are not held to account and become embolden, especially since the GAO is held in such high regard as being politically neutral (no one votes at GAO?) -- REALLY -- Neutral?  Then how could it be that  GAO could not even site published reports of weapons jamming by the Stars and Stripes and other credible USG publications -- which was the very basis of Rep Hoyer's request to GAO in the first place. GAO could not find any gun jamming problem, or could they find the rules (covering millions of products) that explains how NSN's are issued. No one can be this stupid, except for embolden folks) Both questions were deflected and and the GAO audit changed course after one year. Talk about wasting money. It took GAO 18 months to respond to Rep Hoyer, and did not even answer his simple question. GAO also said the folks back in 1993 *that worked for DLA) are all gone and the info is not available. Again, no one can be this stupid.. unless there is a agenda.

What do you call someone that prevents emergency war orders from reaching the commanders in a war zone that need to be resupplied so their weapons do not jam? I call them Traitors and they are Traitors. What do you call someone that claims, more than once, that the Fraud used -- that resulted in cancelled emergency war orders was justified. This action that prevented MILITEC-1 from reaching theater resulted in jammed weapons and dead troops. This is why I will never stop until Solis and Westheimer are jailed.

Wednesday, June 15, 2011

HOW CAN THE GAO JUSTIFY FRAUD WHEN EMERGENCY WAR ORDERS WERE DELAYED, DIVERTED AND THEN CANCELLED?

Allen Westheimer, Senior Analyst for GAO admitted that the Fraud used by an unknown competitor during 2005 to gain our NSN's was OK, since the MILITEC-1 NSN's issued in 1993 and reaffirmed again in 1995 were never legitimate, even though federal orders were being issued citing the NSN's. It's funny (not really) that a statement like this could be made, even though Mr. Westheimer could not find the rules that explains how NSN are issued.  Rep Hoyer asked GAO for the governing rules for the issuance and cancellations of NSN's.  I am excited to hear what the GAO-IG has to say on this subject of Westheimer justifying Fraud involving emergency war orders bound for theater. 
 
This Fraud allowed for emergency war orders (stated on contracts) calling for MILITEC-1 (many are reorders) to be diverted and then cancelled without notifying the commanders in theater that their war requisitions were cancelled. This proves beyond any shadow of a doubt that Allen Westherimer and his supervisor William Solis believe they are above the law. Allen Westheimer admitted this in front of William Solis and others at their office in DC. I could not believe he said that, and Solis was as quiet as a little mouse hiding in the government shadows where its safe.  Subsequently, when I pressed Solis for an answer, he reported me to the Federal Police. Can you believe that? Reports me because I want an answer to a simple question. The investigator saw no merit in Solis' complaint, but had to speak with me just the same. 
 
There is also the subject of material omissions that are to numerous to mention, but contained below in my rebuttal to the GAO Dated July 9, 2009. If Mr. Westheimer would have included the most complete and comprehensive report from the Army-- this would have caused  their dated materials (some 20 years old) to become obsolete, since it contradicted the information. In other words, if Westheimer would have told the truth and included the most recent reports from the Army, the report would have had to be altered based on the APG test that GAO did it's best to hide.
 
How are corrupt officials held to account when the IG and others will not investigate? They are not held to account and become embolden, especially since the GAO is held in such high regard as being politically neutral. I wonder if folks at GAO vote? Are they affiliated with any party? Do they have political opinions? This is where the IG is needed and needs to do its job since I will NOT drop this until Westheimer and Solis are fired, or better yet, jailed for allowing the continuance of Jammed Weapons that are responsible for dead troops. YES, these two rascals are responsible for the continuing gun jamming problem. Please recall. GAO could find no evidence of jammed weapons.
 
What do you call some one that prevents emergency war orders from reaching the commanders in a war zone that need to be resupplied so their weapons do not jam? I call them Traitors and they are Traitors. What do you call some one that claims, more than once, that the Fraud used -- that resulted in cancelled emergency war orders was justified? WOW. This is why I will never stop until Solis and Westheimer are kicked out of the USG. 
 
 
Sent: Tuesday, April 05, 2011 1:09 PM
Subject: Re: COMPLAINT CITING WILLIAM SOLIS AND ALLEN WESTHEIMER/PLEASE CONFIRM RECEIPT OF THIS COMPLAINT

Dear Madam/Sir,
 
Thank you for acknowledging my complaint involving William Solis and Allen Westheimer. Based on the policy of the OIG, how do I know if the IG  will even look into this complaint? I have more information to share in addition to my Blog www.militec.blogspot.com -- so do I wait until I am asked for more information, or should I keep sending you relevant documentation? Would it help my case if Rep Hoyer sent a letter of support? May I have a contact at the OIG?
 
Myself and my company  have been severely damaged by the volume of material omissions contained in the audit. If the two credible USG documents that were cited in my complaint (and in my rebuttal documents) been incorporated into the audit, most of the testing that GAO claims we failed (9 out of 11) would have become obsolete. This reminds me of an unethical investigator knowingly leaving out recovered DNA evidence from a crime scene.
 
Also, as I have reported, Mr. Westheimer admits fraud was used to gain our National Stock Numbers (NSN's) involving substitution of products witch caused emergency war orders to be delayed and then diverted to a company with no history and different technology. However, Mr. Westheimer also admitted that the Fraud was OK since our NSN's were never legitimate in the first place. It's unbelievable that this statement would have been made since Mr. Westheimer was unable to locate the records involving the proper issuance of the NSN's to determine legitimacy. 
 
I hope that the OIG will promptly investigate these two areas at a minimum:
 
1. The volume of Material Omissions that were furnished in my complaint and rebuttal documents dated July 9, 2009
2. Fraud used to gain multiple and large DLA contracts and NSN's. FOIA'd documents from DLA proves inconsistencies and reveals smoking gun statements by DLA employee's.
 
There is allot more waste and abuse that I could describe in detail, however, if the OIG could focus on these two areas and stay clear of politics and favoritism, the facts will reveal a pattern and practice of unethical conduct. The fact that the audit changed course after a year (because of lost records) and then did not answer Rep Hoyer's specific request (but mentioned lubricant additive over 50 times), should be helpful for the IG.
 
I would appreciate a prompt reply to my questions. If my questions cannot be answered, then please state.
 
Sincerely,
 
Brad P. Giordani
President
Militec, Inc.
11828 Pika Drive
Waldorf Maryland. 20602
Office 301-893-3910
Fax    301-893-8354
Cell 240-682-0810
 
 
----- Original Message -----
From: OIGHotline
Sent: Monday, April 04, 2011 2:30 PM
Subject: RE: COMPLAINT CITING WILLIAM SOLIS AND ALLEN WESTHEIMER/PLEASE CONFIRM RECEIPT OF THIS COMPLAINT

Mr. Giordani,

GAO's Office of Inspector General (OIG) has received your e-mail to our hotline. Thank you for bringing this matter to our attention. It is the policy of OIG not to inform complainants about any actions our office may undertake regarding complaints we receive.


GAO's Office of Inspector General


From: Bradley P. Giordani [mailto:militec@militec1.com]
Sent: Friday, April 01, 2011 12:34 PM
To: OIGHotline
Cc: Brad Paul Giordani
Subject: Re: COMPLAINT CITING WILLIAM SOLIS AND ALLEN WESTHEIMER/PLEASE CONFIRM RECEIPT OF THIS COMPLAINT

Dear Ms. Garcia,

Could you please confirm that you have received my complaint.

Thank you for your help and I am at your service.

Respectfully,

Brad
----- Original Message -----
Sent: Monday, March 28, 2011 2:21 PM
Subject: COMPLAINT CITING WILLIAM SOLIS AND ALLEN WESTHEIMER

                                                         
                                                       
                                                                                        March 28, 2011
United States Government Accountability Office
Office of the Inspector General
Attn: Ms. Frances Garcia
441 G Street NW                                 VIA EMAIL ONLY
Room 1808                              
Washington, DC 20548

Subject: Re: - GAO-09-735R Defense Logistics dated June 25, 2009

Dear Ms. Garcia,

Representative Steny Hoyer wrote to the Honorable David Walker, Comptroller General, on February 5, 2008 requesting GAO assistance on two very specific and not complicated requests. (1) …”Effectively auditing the history of listing a particular product within the Defense Logistics Agency (DLA) stock system” and (2) …”Determining if those federal agencies who were involved followed proper procedures and complied with all relevant laws and regulations in their actions taken to list and then delist MILITEC-1 within the national stock system”. 

The response received on June 25, 2009 stated, “The purpose of this letter is to respond to your request for information regarding the test and evaluation process1 conducted by the Department of Defense (DOD) of a specific synthetic lubricant called MILITEC-1 that is produced by Militec, Inc., and the assignment and cancellation of national stock numbers (NSN) associated with that product.”

The test and evaluation portion was never requested by Rep. Hoyer. Further, it is not relevant or applicable to the specific request concerning the listing and delisting of MILITEC-1 in the stock system. This extraneous information also consumes approximately two thirds of the report and is a distraction from Hoyer’s request that was based on thousands of emails sent to Militec Inc by warfighters seeking a better lubricant.

GAO responded to the listing and delisting portion of the request by stating. (1) “However, DOD officials were unable to provide complete information regarding early DOD policies governing the assigning and canceling of NSNs due to the passage of time, as some of the responsible officials are no longer employed by DLA” and (2) “According to DOD officials, DOD has no single regulation for either assigning or canceling an NSN; although it has an established system for assigning, it does not have a comparable system for canceling an NSN”.

From what I have been told by Rep Hoyer’s  staffer (Steve Ham) months after the investigation started, GAO significantly expanded their scope to include test and evaluation of military specifications; only to conclude “We did not, however, observe testing or evaluate test results, given the considerable lapse in time since such tests had occurred. We also did not evaluate the validity of the military specifications”

GAO was unable to evaluate the validity of the Military Specifications, or the results from the testing. I find this troubling since two thirds of the report is based on information that can’t be validated for accuracy; however, these reports are continuously cited throughout the report as MILITEC-1 failing tests, which we now learn cannot be evaluated for validity.

In addition to the added-on test and evaluation  section  and being unable to evaluate the validity of Military Specification’s, the report also included references to “lubricant additive (s) fifty-one times and goes back years before the product in question was invented and even had NSN’s. This deeply troubles me since the report does not answer Rep Hoyer’s two specific requests, appears to be one-sided and omits critical reports showing MILITEC-1 passing government testing.  

Since GAO could apparently find no records of the governing rules for NSN listing and delisting used in the nineties (that apply to millions of currently approved products); another scope was needed to complete its report. GAO’s audit only revealed public army documents spanning over 25 years. There was no new information in the report that the Army and DLA had not previously reported. I have pasted below my main rebuttal document to the GAO report, dated July 9, 2009 and Militec rebuttal letters sent to William Solis who signed the June 25, 2009 report and has not yet responded to my letters asking for clarity. Since the reports release, I have sent Mr. Allen Westheimer and Mr. William Solis over twenty rebuttal documents without a single reply. However, Mr. Solis reported me to the Federal Protective Service (FPS) over an email asking politely for a reply. The rebuttal documents I have cited are on my new Blog @ militec.blogspot.com and hundreds of more documents sent to GAO will also be posted.

There have been millions of contracts issued for products during the nineties that require a valid NSN prior to contract award. How can there be no documents covering the basic requirements for listing and delisting of stock numbers that have been applied to products beginning in 1993 when MILITEC-1’s NSN’s were first awarded and  through 2005 when they were blocked? Are there products being used today with NSN’s that were granted in the nineties, like MILITEC-1? If so, what was the requirement involved back then in order to approve a product for listing through the stock system?

The most troubling portion of the report  are the volumes of material omissions absent in the report as evidenced by my volume of rebuttal letters to the GAO report and the extensive communications to William Solis and Allen Westheimer without a single reply.  One such example of material omissions is the Army’s approval of MILITEC-1 passing a series of laboratory testing at Aberdeen Proving Grounds that was endorsed by the Army Surgeon General. In addition, MILITEC-1 passed environmental testing by the Navy’s Environmental Heath Center and was subsequently approved by the Naval Medical Command.  These two reports, if entered into the June 25, 2009 report, would have caused the report to become more balanced and not one-sided. By omitting these and other documents, allowed for a series of incomplete and irreverent reports, to become noteworthy in the June 25th report.

The report also revealed another startling result; GAO wrote, “Army officials told us that they are unaware of any indications that weapons have jammed as a result of service members using the approved lubricant product”  I have supplied GAO with over one-thousand warfighters emails, news reports, various government reports and releases documenting that weapons do in fact jam. In Rep Hoyer’s letter dated February 5, 2008, referenced a large quantity of emails being received by Militec   only for GAO to report We have reviewed many e-mailed testimonials that Militec, Inc., officials shared with us, and we note them in our report. However, irrespective of their number, these testimonials are not relevant to the testing and evaluation or assigning and canceling of national stock numbers for MILITEC-1, the review of which constituted our objectives” If it was not for the large volume of “emailed testimonials” by our service personnel requesting MILITEC-1 to prevent jammed weapons, the request by Rep Hoyer would not have been sent.

I have also written on my blog about Allen Westheimer stating that the “fraud used by a competitor was OK”, since MILITEC-1’s National Stock Number’s (NSN’s) were never valid in the first place.




Sincerely,


Brad P. Giordani
President

CC: Rep Hoyer

PROBLEMS WITH THE GAO REPORT DATED JUNE 25, 2009

Subject: Defense Logistics: Information on the Test and Evaluation and Assignment and Cancellation of National Stock Numbers as It Relates to MILITEC-1.

This rebuttal to the GAO report dated June 25, 2009 was prepared by Brad P. Giordani. This document and attachments are being furnished to, Allen Westheimer, senior analyst for GAO on July 10, 2009. Copies will be emailed and hand delivered to Steve Ham, Jim Wood and Jesse Tolleson.

Release date, July 9, 2009

1.     Page 2, first paragraph: The vast majority (80%) of the GAO report contains information regarding “test and evaluation” that was neither requested nor relevant to the “listing or delisting”, of MILITEC-1’s NSN’s.  No MilSpec or ASTM procedures were listed to support the efficacy or the real world correlation of the various T&E programs. GAO wrote:  “We did not, however, observe testing or evaluate test results, given the considerable lapse in time since such tests had occurred. We also did not evaluate the validity of the military specifications”. How can GAO devote 80% of their report to MilSpec’s and testing if they can’t evaluate the results?
2.     GAO mentioned “Lubricant Additive(s) 51 times, DLA Officials 18 times, DOD Officials 18 times, Army Officials 12 times, contains chlorine 10 times and negative corrosion protection 18 times. GAO also mentions 10 times, “live fire”. What GAO does not reveal is that these live fire tests are done inside of a laboratory using artificial sand. Please see the (attached) Desert Research Institutes (DRI) findings on the flaws with this testing using artificial sand and the problem with jammed weapons in combat.
3.     The GAO report is 15 pages with seven additional pages as enclosures titled one and two.  The seven pages of enclosures are duplicated in the main body of the report. Without mentioning lubricant additives 51 times and other non-small arms applications repeatedly, the report would be 5 pages or less.
4.     Page 3, top paragraph: GAO’s main argument for supporting the army’s NSN cancellation policies is, “DOD officials told us that their procedures require DLA to obtain approval from the military services prior to assigning NSNs, to ensure that a product meets military specifications.”  The issuance and reissuance of MILITEC-1’s NSN’s and the Army’s repeated approval of MILITEC-1 during the wartime was never based on MilSpec’s.
5.     The DLA regulations that Militec, Inc., followed in 1993 were based on significant user demand by a variety of federal agencies, not MilSpec lab testing. Where are the governing rules by DLA that GAO is citing to support the Army’s position in 1993 and then again in 1995 that the NSN’s we not administered properly? Why weren’t these rules mentioned in 1995 when the NSN’s were reinstated and additional NSN’s were granted by DLA?
6.     MILITEC-1’s NSN’s were never awarded based on MilSpec’s in 1993, 1995 and granted to our competitor in 2005. To illustrate this, why did DLA and the Army (ARDEC) grant our competitor our five NSN’s in 2005 (and retroactive contracts) when its product did not meet the same MilSpec for CLP?
7.     Page 21, 2nd paragraph: and Page 5, last Paragraph: GAO wrote, “However, DOD officials were unable to provide complete information regarding early DOD policies governing the assigning and canceling of NSNs due to the passage of time, as some of the responsible officials are no longer employed by DLA.”   GAO further wrote, “According to DOD officials, DOD has no single regulation for either assigning or canceling an NSN; although it has an established system for assigning, it does not have a comparable system for canceling an NSN.” Should there not be copies of the regulations that were in effect in 1993 and 1995 for the listing and delisting of NSN’s?  GAO’s whole argument as to why the MILITEC-1’s NSN’s were never legitimate is based on the fact that DLA did not follow the regulations. Were there regulations in 2005 when the Army approved our NSN’s to a competitor? Or, were the regulations not followed?
8.     Over eighty percent of the GAO report contains MilSpec conformance testing and laboratory conformance testing.  Even if MILITEC-1 passed 99% of these tests, the product will still fail to meet the MilSpec for Cleaner Lubricant Preservative, (CLP).  In order to qualify for the CLP MilSpec a product must pass each lab test, no exceptions.  MILITEC-1 failed the first MilSpec lab test in 1990, (D). It was never reformulated to meet the MilSpec for CLP, because CLP is combustible, flammable and hazardous, as its Material Safety Data Sheet, (MSDS) reveals, (13).  Products are continually tested against this MilSpec and related MilSpec’s in order for the Army to reinforce its position against competition.  No commercial company has ever passed this MilSpec testing in more than 30 years. A candidate product must be combustible and flammable in order to pass these exacting lab tests.
9.     MILITEC-1’s NSN’s, assigned in 1995 for small arms applications, remained active for eight years without a problem. Why did the Army wait eight years to move against MILITEC-1's NSN’s?  No one in the Army had the authority to thwart the 1995 agreement, or to override the direction of the AMC commanding general, Paul Kern, in 2003 that reinstated MILITEC-1’s NSN’s, with the full backing of the RDECOM commanding general. GAO is silent on these two generals’ support and the resulting letter from DLA dated October 14, 2003, (1). The moment these two commanding generals retired, BG Nadeau stepped in and cancelled MILITEC-1's war orders and NSN’s at the request of Picatinny, claiming after eight years MILITEC-1 did not meet MilSpec. The new commanding general for AMC was not involved in this decision and never corresponded with us.
10.Page 3, last paragraph: GAO has received the Material Safety Data Sheet (MSDS) for CLP, where it states it is combustible, hazardous and flammable, and its vapors may catch fire, (13). GAO does not reference the MSDS hazards for CLP, or that MILITEC-1 is approved by the Naval Medical Command for submarine use, (4).  GAO also does not mention that MILITEC-1 passed the health and safety testing in 2005 by the Army at APG, (5). The Army’s specifications for CLP have been modified 18 times in the past 30 years and it’s still combustible, hazardous and flammable.
11.GAO does not consider thousands of emails from troops in combat stating MILITEC-1 works and MilSpec CLP does not as evidence.  Nor does GAO use any of the U.S. Coast Guard information that favors MILITEC-1 over CLP in its report, (19). GAO did not reference emails that GAO’s, Oscar Mardis, sent, and were replied to by warfighters when asked for their feedback, (attached).  If troop email is not evidence, why did GAO, use Militec-supplied emails from warfighters, asking for their opinion, and then leave this material out of its report?  How can MilSpec laboratory testing be considered real-world  evidence for combat usage of a product, if there is no field testing to support and correlate to the lab testing, especially when field users vehemently prefer MILITEC-1?
12.Page 11, first paragraph: Thousands of warfighters’ emails, using military computers and military email accounts are solid evidence that GAO completely discounts as “laudatory testimonials”. These emails are being sent by executive officers, commanding officers, including captains, majors and colonels. We have even received requests from generals serving in combat. GAO’s, Allen Westheimer, would not respond when asked if emails sent from combat are evidence. [[Perhaps, Allen would on another subject.]]
13.Page 6, 4th paragraph: Militec has had Department of Homeland Security and Coast Guard orders that were blocked because DLA could not differentiate between military and federal law enforcement users in 2003.  If what GAO is saying is true, why aren’t MILITEC-1's NSN’s just blocked from military users? How can the Army cancel MILITEC-1’s NSN’s when the NSN request for assignment was not initiated by Army? Militec has dozens of federal customers that are not allowed to order from DLA, despite what GAO is stating. GAO wrote: “For example, according to DLA officials, if an item meets the needs of a civilian user but does not meet military specifications, it retains its NSN listing but is specifically blocked from purchase by DOD users”.
14.Page 17, first paragraph: GAO knowingly left out two very significant health and safety reports that can be evaluated for validity, (4 and 5). However, GAO included an 18-year-old statement (without any testing) that said, “The study also found that MILITEC-1 posed a possible health hazard following both acute and chronic overexposure to the skin, and it noted that the product should not be recommended for use”.  Also, what does the velocity of a bullet have to do with the CLP Milspec or the NSN process from a 1991 report?
15.Page 7, bottom paragraph: GAO was provided a complete contact list for other federal users, but only mentions three. GAO also fails to mention what “broader needs” the troops have with an M-16 lubricant that other federal agencies do not. GAO has been furnished the complete POC list, but only refers to three users.
16.Page 9, 3rd paragraph; The diesel lubricants at this time also contained chlorine, though not as much. GAO failed to mention other navy diesel lubricants and MilSpec CLP contained chlorine. GAO mentions chlorine 18 times.
17.Page 16, 3rd paragraph: It was ADM Donahue, the Chief Engineer (GAO calls fleet) for the Atlantic Fleet, who authorized the testing. GAO failed to list the tests we had passed during the two year approval, (E). GAO fails to mention that in 1991, ADM Donahue sponsored the MILITEC-1 NSN’s for assignment, (27). This action by ADM Donohue and the Atlantic’s fleet two-year approval caused a backlash by Naval Sea Systems Command that resulted in the advisory to stop using MILITEC-1.
18. Page 18, 2nd paragraph: The NRL report never said would result; it said may result in white metal damage based on a European study on different chlorine containing products, and not MILITEC-1. NRL only conducted a four ball wear test (using twice the amount needed) and other MilSpec conformance tests that did not pertain to small arms. This was not a test and evaluation and used no bearings in their lab tests.
19.Page 11, 2nd paragraph: For GAO to write, “Army officials told us that they are unaware of any indications that weapons have jammed as a result of servicemembers’ using the approved lubricant product”,   This statement is false and  parrots the Army’s position, and discounts the warfighters’ experience in combat since Desert Storm. Why would the current instructions by, MG Nadeau, to clean a weapon up to “eight times a day” with CLP, if weapons did not jam?, (26). As also mentioned in number two above, the Army’s own Desert Research Institute (DRI) mentions weapons jamming in combat, (attached) and the Stars and Stripes articles report on “thousands of jammed weapons get fixed”, (18).
20.GAO continues to rely on verbal information from “DOD officials” instead of relying on public USG documents for their information. The majority of GAO’s conclusions are based on what they were told by the very people (our enemies) who were overridden by OSD, and had to answer numerous congressional inquiries.  GAO likes to use these terms for credibility purposes; “According to DOD officials,” (18 mentions) “According to DLA officials,” (18 mentions) without citing their department or civil service rating. GAO never mentions if there was a previous bias with these people.
21.Page 12, last paragraph: How can eight years of using our NSN’s thru DLA without a problem are blamed on a “computer system update” that failed to block our NSN’s?  This computer system update was separate and apart from the other mistakes made by DLA in the listing and delisting of MILITEC-1’s NSN’s. If all of these mistakes are true, why was it that 2.3 million dollars of sales were made to DOD with 1,800 requisitions to back this up thru DLA computers after multiple mistakes occurred? GAO is also calling hundreds of thousands of dollars, “uptick”, when GAO previously reported that only 3,000 dollars were purchased.  GAO is suggesting the “temporary issuance was granted” for the use of MILITEC-1 during war time was based on “concerns that the Army was biased against their product”. For GAO to report that the Army allowed MILITEC-1 to be purchased and used (during a war) for fear of being portrayed as biased, is incomprehensible. Was the “wartime demand” for MILITEC-1 evaluated as the Army said it would when our NSN were unblocked? Perhaps DLA orders (by the troops) could help the Army in assessing wartime demand? DLA awarded Militec, Inc. a Gold Medal in 2003 for perfect compliance.
22.Page 13, first paragraph:  Why would a future independent test allow the Army to reverse its position, again, and allow troops to order MILITEC-1 thru DLA for 18 months? This was not an independent test; it was done at APG with Picatinny’s help. What is the basis for calling this an independent test? Why would the Army keep reversing its position, when there is no evidence outside of their labs that MILITEC-1 caused problems? The Army kept reversing its position because the troops were demanding MILITEC-1.
23.The Army also reversed its position on under-lubing to over-lubing based on the 2005 artificial dust test at Aberdeen. GAO does not address this, or the Army’s Desert Research Institutes (DRI) report on this test using the wrong contaminate and that jammed weapons are in fact a problem in combat. The DRI confirms our position that jammed weapons occur with the use of CLP.  This over-lubing dust test was another reason our dry lubricant failed the laboratory live fire test. The Desert Research Institute (DRI) at Yuma Proving Grounds (YPG) should have had and wanted this responsibility for desert testing, since this is its domain.  DRI claims the dust test is faulty, (attached) as we do, because the dust particles are too large and not the consistency of real sand. If the Army used real sand, it would experience the same problems as the troops encounter in harsh desert environments with weapons jamming.  GAO only quotes (out of context) MG Nadeau’s mandate on constant cleaning, but never mentions up to eight times a day may be required if a weapon is fired or not, (F).  How do you clean a weapon in a sustained gunfight, or if you are on patrol in a dust storm?
24.Page 14, first and 2nd paragraphs: If warfighters’ testimonials (GAO now calls customers) in combat are not relevant (or real world) in this report (they test and evaluate too- and drive the NSN’s) then what is relevant? GAO wrote, “specifications are in part based on real world conditions, as experienced by the warfighter.” What are the real word conditions GAO is referring too? Is repeated use of a product in combat real world with thousands of emails claiming MILITEC-1 works better than CLP?
25. Page 14, 2nd paragraph: Why did Rep Hoyer include in his letter that troops were in large quantities emailing Militec, Inc, if these testimonials are not relevant”?  Where is the real world testing by the troops that GAO is referring too?  Field use over time (in combat) is “real world” and should be the final proving ground. Email reporting from combat provides lessons learned. What is more credible than thousands of emails from troops in combat all saying the same thing regarding MILITEC-1 vs. MilSpec CLP?
26.GAO fails to mention the Coast Guard tests MILITEC-1 has passed for their approval and the follow-on letter from the Coast Guard commandant. (19). GAO fails to report that MILITEC-1 has been approved by most weapons manufacturers and that the majority of federal law enforcement agencies mandate MILITEC-1. This is easily verified and the fact MILITEC-1 has protected the last four commanders in Chiefs’. GAO also does not report it cannot find evidence outside of Army Materiel Command (AMC) circles to support the efficacy of MilSpec CLP. No weapons manufacturer has approved or advises use of MilSpec CLP, unless the Army mandates it on its weapons because a company manufacturers its weapons under contract.

CRITICAL INFORMATION IGNORED BY GAO AND MATERIAL OMISSIONS


1.  Gen Kern (AMC CG) direction to Picatinny and confirmed by DLA, to reinstate MILITEC-1’s NSN’s dated Oct 14 2003. http://www.militec.com/firearms/nsns.html

2.  DLA acquisition plan documenting testing MILITEC-1 passed and the projected demand for MILITEC-1 for the next five (5) years. http://www.militec1.com/nadeau/acquisition_plan_p1.html

3.  DLA requisitions showing troop demand. This does not include several hundred thousand dollars of cancelled war orders.  http://www.militec1.com/nadeau/data_pull_p1.html

4. The Naval Medical Command approval for MILITEC-1 in submarines. http://www.militec.com/deptofnavy1.html

5. The health and safety testing at APG for small arms usage and approved by the army. http://www.militec1.com/mildocs/bowers1.html

6. The May 15, 2003 - First After Action Report (AAR) from Iraq. The SWAT report below cites this report for credibility, (A). http://www.militec.com/OperationIraqiFreedom.pdf

7. The Army’s convoy leader training handbook mentions MILITEC-1.  http://www.militec1.com/nadeau/convoy_leader_training_handbook.html#link


9. The Department of Justice (DOJ) M-16 maintenance manual. http://www.militec1.com/coltrifle.pdf

10. H&K Shotgun manual. http://www.militec.com/HK_USC.html

11. Talon high stress field test. http://www.militec.com/histresstest1.html
CRITICAL INFORMATION IGNORED BY GAO AND MATERIAL OMISSIONS

12. Ft Benning Infantry school test. http://www.militec.com/m1battlelab.html

13. The MSDS for CLP citing significant health hazards. http://www.militec.com/pdf/384_[MSDS]%20Royco%20634-1.pdf

14. The new CLP #2 MilSpec that was cancelled and used this spec (that never went anywhere) to block MILITEC-1’s NSN’s. http://www.militec1.com/pdf/63460IA7.pdf

15. CLP failing the MilSpec for cold weather at Ft. Richardson. http://www.militec1.com/Effects_of_Cold_on_Military_Equipment.ppt

16. DOD IG report stated a little CLP does wonders (opposite of current mandate) and not MILITEC-1. We were singled out by name and no one else; this was payback by LTG Thompson, former TACOM commanding general. http://www.militec1.com/nadeau/auditreport.html#link1 and the problems with the report. http://www.militec1.com/nadeau/auditreport1.html

17. Technical manuals inconsistencies; under lubing versus over lubing. GAO cites no field manuals that can be evaluated for consistency.  http://www.militec1.com/MILITEC_1_CLP_Inconsistencies_IG_Report.ppt

18. Stars and Stripes articles proving jammed weapons occur and how much lube to use. GAO has seen no evidence that weapons jam. Emails from military computers from Iraq and Afghanistan (citing jammed weapons) don’t count as evidence by GAO and the DRI report is dismissed. http://www.militec1.com/nadeau/StarsAndStripes.html

19. Coast Guard test report at Crane approving MILITEC-1 and safety concerns with CLP. http://www.militec1.com/firearms/CoastGuardTest_p1.html

20. Congressional letter, signed by nineteen members to the Secretary of Defense.  http://militec1.com/Congress1.html MILITEC-1  

21. Under Secretary of Defense letter to Congress advising of the new NSN’s. http://militec1.com/NSN1.html

CRITICAL INFORMATION IGNORED BY GAO AND MATERIAL OMISSIONS


22. DLA officially awarding new NSN’s and confirming old NSN’s from DLA HQ, Ft. Belvoir. http://militec1.com/willfinkel1.html 18 sept 1995

23. DLA issues Gold Medal to Militec, Inc for perfect compliance during 2003, even though MILITEC-1’s NSN’s were blocked for six months. http://www.militec.com/mildocs/07_12_2004.gif

24. DLA letter proving demand with no computer glitches. http://militec1.com/mildocs/Lyden.html

25. Southwest Research Institutes (SWRI) vehicle oil tests where MILITEC-1 passed. http://militec1.com/labtest.html  The Army has a facility here and has been provide these tests.

26. Picatinny Arsenal’s, Gus Funcasta’s, email blaming the troops (not CLP) for jammed weapons experienced by the 507th Maintenance Company. Troops were killed and captured because all of their weapons jammed. GAO is still unable to find evidence of jammed weapons. http://militec1.com/mildocs/GusFuncasta.html

27.January 8, 1991: First NSN request by the Commander Atlantic Fleet. http://militec1.com/NSN2.html  This request for NSN assignment was based on operational field use after two years of testing MILITEC-1.


               REPORTS TAKEN OUT OF CONTEXT


A. Picatinny Arsenal’s, SWAT report,  http://www.militec1.com/swat.pdf  mentioning elbow grease as the best lubricant and not CLP. This report was released in word format and the editing process (which was not erased) reveals a bias towards MILITEC-1. The only reason this report was hastily released in word format was to counter the Army’s first After Action Report (AAR) dated May 15, 2003, that favored MILITEC-1 over CLP.

B. Official USMC Jeep test: The MILITEC-1 conditioned motor ran 25 minutes under full power and the MilSpec oil motor ran 12 minutes losing power. http://militec1.com/MarineCorpsTest1.html GAO did not mention the MILITEC-1 Jeep ran twice as far under full power and the engine could be restarted, where the other Jeep had a seized motor.

C. Center for Naval Analysis (CNA) interviewed over 2,600 soldiers, fresh off combat. The GAO used one sentence out of context citing this $900,000.00 study that was requested by the Army to prevent bias.   http://www.militec1.com/pdf/cna_m4_study_d0015259_a2.pdf  and the positive mentions towards MILITEC-1. http://www.militec1.com/Soldiers_Perspectives_Report.html

D. Picatinny’s MilSpec testing revealed MILITEC-1 surpassed the machines ability to test lubricity. http://militec1.com/memorandumTC.html

E. Atlantic’s Fleet Justification and Approval (J&A) cites Navy Medical command and other tests. http://militec1.com/JandA1a.html

F. MG Nadeau claims to clean a weapon up to eight times a day. http://www.militec1.com/nadeau/Army_stands_by_CLP.html

G. The Army, DLA and GAO accepts the fact that fraudulent documents were used by a competitor to receive MILITEC-1’s NSN’s. The MSDS was not dated and different specs for same formula were used. There must have been current regulations in 2005 governing the listing and delisting of NSN’s? http://www.militec1.com/nadeau/product_data_p1.html


For additional information regarding this document please contact the undersigned.
Brad P. Giordani

President
Militec, Inc.
11828 Pika Drive
Waldorf, Maryland. 20602
Office 301-893-3910
Fax 301-893-8354








Tuesday, June 07, 2011

WHY DID THE GAO IGNORE THE REPORTS FROM WANAT AND OTHER BATTLES WHERE WEAPONS HAVE JAMMED AND SOLDIERS WERE KILLED?

 GAO also ignored the ambush on the 507th where soldiers were killed and captured and all their weapons jammed. How is it that  Allen Westheimer and William Solis cannot find any evidence of jammed weapons?
 
Westheimer and Solis must believe its the soldiers' fault for not keeping their weapons cleaned is why GAO is silent on gun jamming. Augustine Funcasta at ARDEC, Picatinny Arsenal NJ, also blamed the soldiers of the 507th for inadequate individual maintenancee in a desert environment.
 
As I have said this before, a weapon is only as effective as the applied lubricant. This is why synthetic oils are used in tanks and jets... but NOT weapons. Since most folks working in NJ have baggage, is why everyone turns a blind eye to this combustible Milspec oil that has a minimum flash point of 149 degrees F. 
 
Allen Westheimer and William Solis decided to expand their 12 month investigation into other areas since they could not answer Rep Hoyer's specific question regarding the issuance and cancellation of National Stock Numbers (NSN's).  Why would GAO expand their investigation into old lab reports that do not and cannot collerate to real world conditions? Answer, because they can and this was the only way to discredit Militec Inc by throwing a ton of garbage at us (mentioning lubricant additives for vehicles over 50 times)  and hoping most of this trash will stick.
 
Allen Westheimer and William Solis believe they can do what they want (since they work for GAO) and GAO is held in such high regard and they are politically neutral. With all due respect, if any one believes that GAO is an honest broker and politics do not play a role, are sadly informed. All federal agency's have rotten apples. However, to remove the rotten apples, requires folks with no baggage to challenge the system. Who at GAO would challenge Solis and Westheimer? Answer, the GAO IG. I have written previously about the GAO IG and how the IG will not even tell me if they would investigate.
 
GAO went out of their way to damage my company and its product. The proof is in their report and in my rebuttals. All that has to happen is to have these two rascals raise their hands and ask a few easy questions. If the GAO IG is going to punt, then hopefully Rep Issa will call these traitors to the carpet.
 
The inaction of the GAO is simply a sign of the times. Certain folks feel they do not have to account for their actions. WAIT. This is the GAO and their job is accounting, not hiding behind their desk and raking in big bucks at the expense of hurting a small business because chits were traded in order for the GAO to finish their report and help the army dispose of MILITEC-1 once and for all.
 
I will fight the GAO and the other groups that discount the needs of our troops as long as I am breathing. I will be posting video's next week and you can see for yourself who is telling the truth and who needs to go to jail for covering up crimes that have caused dead and captured troops. Why? All because of a combustible gun oil called CLP that does not work properly in desert environments. Once we put a few rascals in jail, this might embolden others to do the right thing, instead of hiding in the government shadows where its safe. To do good work in  a government job, all you have to do is, show up to work on time, keep your mouth shut, and you will go along way with the USG. There are no programs that reward folks for thinking outside the box and challenging the system when there are crimes, versus hiding in the shadows where its safe.
 
  
----- Original Message -----
Sent: Tuesday, October 13, 2009 9:17 AM
Subject: Weapons Failed Troops in Afghan Fight

11828 Pika Drive, Waldorf, Maryland 20602 USA
Phone (301) 893-3910   Fax: (301) 893-8354
                                                                                                                  
October 13, 2009
U.S. General Accountability Office                        
Allen Westheimer, Senior Analyst
350 S. Figueroa Street
World Trade Center,
Suite 1010
Los Angeles, CA. 90071                            

 Subject: EXERPTS - AP News Report Dated October 12th 2009.   The Wanat study by Douglas Cubbison of the Army Combat Studies Institute at Fort Leavenworth, Kansas.

                       Weapons Failed Troops in Afghan Fight

WASHINGTON - It was chaos during the early morning assault last year on a remote U.S. outpost in Afghanistan and Staff Sgt. Erich Phillips' M4 carbine had quit firing as militant forces surrounded the base. The machine gun he grabbed after tossing the rifle aside didn't work either.
When the battle in the small village of Wanat ended, nine U.S. Soldiers lay dead and 27 more were wounded. A detailed study of the attack by a military historian found that weapons failed repeatedly at a "critical moment" during the firefight on July 13, 2008, putting the outnumbered American troops at risk of being overrun by nearly 200 insurgents.
Staff Sergeant Phillips poured out fire, as recalled by another Engineer Specialist loading for him, “[SSG Phillips] went through three rifles using them until they jammed.”
SSG Phillips recalled: “My M4 quit firing and would no longer charge when I tried to correct the malfunction. I grabbed the Engineers SAW and tried to

Mr. Westheimer, GAO
October 13, 2009
Page 2
fire. It would not fire, so I lifted the feed tray tried clearing it out and tried to fire again. It would not
CLP” refers to Break-Free@ brand CLP- Cleaner, Lubricant and Preservative, the standard U.S. Army and tactical weapons weapon cleaner and lubricant. “Febreze@” is a household laundry product that comes in a relatively large bottle. Thus, the young Specialist is noting that he used such quantities of CLP that should have been adequate to have cleaned debris and fouling from the weapon, and provided sufficient lubrication for further operation of the SAW.
Some GWOT and U.S. Army veterans queried by the author have suggested that this could have been caused by improper weapon cleaning. However, numerous Chosen Few NCOs interviewed for this study have been vehemently adamant in stating that weapons were meticulously and regularly cleaned, and rigorously and routinely inspected by the chain of command.
 Other GWOT veterans consulted have noted that the high rates of fire sustained during the two hour intense engagement phase at Wanat could possibly have contributed to these failures. However, numerous weapons failed relatively early in the engagement (particularly a number of M-4 rifles and at one SAW at the mortar pit), and in any event the maintenance of cyclic rates of fire was critical to restore fire superiority, and to prevent positions (particularly at OP Topside) from being overrun by determined, numerous, and hard pressed insurgent assaults
Battlefield surveys show that nearly 90 percent of Soldiers are satisfied with their M4s, according to Brig. Gen. Peter Fuller, head of the Army office that buys Soldier gear. Still, the rifle is continually being improved to make it even more reliable and lethal.
Fuller said he's received no official reports of flawed weapons performance at Wanat. "Until it showed up in the news, I was surprised to hear about all this," he said.
Mr. Westheimer, IF GAO CONTINUES TO EMBRACE BREAUCRATIC LOYALITY MORE TROOPS WILL BE KILLED.


Mr. Westheimer, GAO
October 13, 2009
Page 3



Sincerely,



Brad P. Giordani
President

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