Mr. Michael C. Schexnayder November 23, 2003
Acting Deputy to the Commander
US Army Research, Development and Engineering Command (Provisional)
Aberdeen Proving Ground, MD. 21010-5424
Dear Mr. Schexnayder:
This message is a follow up to our email exchange of November 21, 2003.
I will try to state my views more clearly in this communication, as my message dated November 21, 2003 and my three other messages evidently failed in that regard.
1. Your fax letter of November 14th states, “My request is that you communicate your small arms lubricant performance issues, concerns and recommendations to me-preferably in writing by letter or electronic mail.”
However, now on the 21st your email message states, “I ask that you do this through the address shown in the announcement since we expect to receive a number of inputs from industry on this subject.” This is a complete reversal of your fax letter of Nov. 14th, and runs directly contrary to our phone conversation of the same date.
I have been trying to work in good faith with you since our phone conversation of November 14th. Your letter of the 14th and our phone conversation confirm that you stated Militec, Inc. deal only with you and to send all correspondence directly to you.
I tried to comply with your original request on four separate occasions. In those four messages to you (which are attached to this document), I have repeatedly asked you six basic questions, which you have failed to answer.
I was expecting an honest reply to my six questions, not a boilerplate, proforma response that is titled “Lubricant RFI” now posted on
FedBizOpps website @ http://www.eps.gov/spg/USA/USAMC/DAAD17/RFI-04-GLD-01/SynopsisR.html
Unfortunately, I see now that your original request of Nov. 14 was never intended seriously, but was merely a stalling tactic. Instead of dealing with us in good faith, acting as our single point of contact within the Army, you merely used your request as a delaying tactic while you completed your agenda.
2. In your message dated November 21, you state “we prepared a statement that we released publically through the HQDA Public Affairs Office to Channel 7/ABC.” (Attached)
As I stated in my reply, also dated November 21, your “MILITEC Statement” is misleading.” It contains numerous inaccuracies. Your message states, in part, “MILITEC had been available for requisition through the Defense Logistics Agency for use by soldiers as a small arms lubricant by soldiers since 1995. In March 2003, DLA ceased filling requisitions for MILITEC, and informed the Army of that decision. Although MILITEC did not actually meet the Army's corrosion protection requirements, it was being used by some soldiers in the field based on individual preference. The Army wanted to ensure the product would continue to be available to those soldiers who wanted to use it.
You are incorrect. Here are the facts:
You are probably wondering why I am going to such extremes to get to the truth and hold government officials accountable for their actions. It is very simple and should be obvious to anyone who has done his or her homework, as the media is doing. The answer is, we had $117,500.00 worth of legitimate war orders cancelled, a division ordered that was in the process of being placed was also cancelled, and yes, these orders had division backing, not just “some soldiers in the field based on individual preference.” Furthermore, the commanders in theater were not notified that their war orders had been cancelled.
We went into considerable debt preparing these orders, as we did with dozens of other orders through DSCR and through impact card orders and direct requisitions from the S4’s and purchasing officials. We are still laboring under this debt, which threatens the very existence of our small company. But, most important, the continued use of MilSpec CLP (all in one oil and solvent) has led directly to injury and death of our combat forces.
To suggest after eight (8) years of uninterrupted requisitions from DSCR, that the cancellation of these legitimate orders, without advance notice to the commanders in theater, was due to corrosion concerns in the Iraqi desert is, at best, foolish and irresponsible. Documents like your official “MILITEC Statement” continues to mislead the public, while you consider those inaccurate statements valid.
Further, your position and language are suspiciously similar to that of MG. Ross. N. Thompson’s letter to us dated 15 May 2003. His letter was filled with half-truths and misleading statements that we clarified in our response to him on June 1, 2003. You must have seen this since it’s posted at the top of our homepage.
In addition, on 15 May, the Operation Iraqi Freedom PEO Soldier Lessons Learned Report was released, stating unequivocally that, compared to MilSpec CLP, our forces in combat found MILITEC-1 to be a “much better solution for lubricating individual and crew-served weapons” in the Iraqi desert. This official fact has been disregarded. Evidently, the “Lessons Learned Report,” a five-day fact-finding mission commissioned by Gen. Kern, is not a lesson the Army civilians (who are supposedly responsible for placing the best technology in the hands of our troops) have learned.
Through documents like Gen. Kern’s “Lessons Learned Report,” and hundreds of other documents through the years, Militec, Inc.’s efforts have finally convinced the civilian Army leadership that their testing standards need to be revised. This effort has been underway since MILITEC-1 was first used in Desert Storm and continues with its acceptance during Operation Iraqi Freedom, Enduring Freedom and training in Kuwait.
Now that this revision is starting to occur, MILITEC-1 is being treated as if it has no history. Compelling evidence, like our federal user data and testing, and the “Lessons Learned from PEO Soldier,” is being ignored. Why?
Your new program is designed to evaluate lubricants for a harsh desert environment. This is being done, in part, to delay an official approval for MILITEC-1 and to allow other companies of your liking an opportunity to replace MILITEC-1. This fact is supported by your timely response of 21 November, which is the same date as your posted solicitation date for our competitors of 21 November.
This new testing program must be conducted in the actual environment where the gun lubricant is to be used, (Iraq, Kuwait Afghanistan). If not, you may end up with another defective product; similar to the one that this new testing program is designed to replace. If you don’t test and evaluate in the real world, you are allowing our combat forces to be no more that “Guinea pigs,” forced to use another (un-tested in combat) lubricant like MilSpec CLP that looks good in a controlled environment, but fails miserably in the field.
Furthermore, your twenty-three-year-old standard for MilSpec CLP “all in one” gun oil and solvent does not even require a weapon to be fired to qualify for the specification. This is one of the reasons you are now considering revising this flawed specification. The civilians in the Army have perhaps learned a partial lesson, however, you are not supporting the very technology (MILITEC-1) that forced this change to finally occur. Why?
There is no better test or evidence on the efficacy of a product than what works in combat over time. No laboratory or controlled field test can properly duplicate the environmental extremes found in SW Asia. In MILITEC-1, you already have a lubricant that has seen extensive combat use and has stood the test of time. Additional testing in a controlled US environment cannot duplicate the harsh, hot, dusty conditions found in combat in SW Asia. So why are you discounting evidence from SW Asia?
By spending scarce resources in an attempt to duplicate MILITEC-1’s existing and extensive testing, the Army is not only indulging in unnecessary duplication, it also runs the risk of jeopardizing the safety of our combat forces by further delaying their access to a proven and needed technology.
Picatinny Arsenal is still advising our troops not to use MILITEC-1 in Iraq. The most recent advisory was given to a division Major in Hawaii. This is not fair to our troops that want an alternative to MilSpec CLP and is not fair business practice to us. This pattern and practice of unprofessional conduct is continuing to this day, even though, the Army has directed DSCR to fill all requisitions for MILITEC-1. Does this sound ethical to you?
Please check with the 10th Mountain Division who packed-up MILITEC-1 for the invasion of Afghanistan. They just ordered 800 more bottles last week. The 10th MTN is one of our best Military customers. We also have solid evidence from over two years use of MILITEC-1 in Afghanistan – this ought to be of significant interest to you. Further solid evidence comes from extensive use of MILITEC-1 in combat by all three Brigades of the 3rd Infantry Division. There is much more evidence if you have studied our website, POC’s and contacted our Military customers either in theater or who have returned from SW Asia. Has your office solicited information from our customers that have used MILITEC-1 in combat?
In your “Public MILITEC Statement,” you say, “We have a responsibility to place the best products and equipment in the hands of our warfighters.” MILITEC-1’s extensive combat testing and After Action Reports (AAR’s) has already proven it is the best product for desert operations. Why, then, don’t you immediately approve it for that function instead of spending scarce government resources trying to reinvent the wheel and further damaging our small company by releasing information to the media that is inaccurate and misleading? Your undefined testing and timetable by your experts only serves to delay full deployment of a life-saving product that our forces demand and require to fulfill their mission safely.
Our forces have enough to worry about in combat. The proper operation of a soldier’s weapon is critical to his or her survival on the battlefield. Our troops should not have to worry whether or not their weapon will jam in a firefight, and then pray their weapon won’t need to be cleaned again after only a clip or two has been fired.
Since you refuse to work with us in good faith, I have come to the unfortunate conclusion that, in spite of our repeated attempts to work with you and Picatinny Arsenal, I have been naive in believing the civilian gate keepers within the Army would also work in good faith to turn a wrong into a right. You evidently do not intend to reciprocate, even though your written and verbal word stated you would. In fact, it has become obvious that you must believe it is your job to protect your friends at Picatinny Arsenal, at the expense of our men and women that are in harm’s way. This is the net result when you hold the status quo.
One of our representatives is meeting with General Kern on Monday, 24 November. If this meeting does not result in positive action because of your group’s inability to get to the truth, I will push Congress to hold hearings (ABC news has already advised Ms. Clinton to do so), and you and your associates can explain your obfuscation to Congress.
I have attached two documents. One document is your Public MILITEC Statement that was released to ABC and others. The second document contains our 21 November emails and my three previous emails and your 21 November FedBizOpps website posting for our competitors.
Sincerely,
Brad P. Giordani
President
MILITEC, INC.
11828 Pika Drive
Waldorf, MD. 20602
301-893-3910
www.militec-1.com
| Home | Site Use Agreement | Contact Us | Store |
©1988-2007 - MILITEC, INC.