|
|
|
Last Updated: Aug 27, 2008 - 11:25:32 AM |
In nearly half of the body-armor contracts given out between January
2004 and December 2006, according to the report, the Army failed to
require or perform so-called ‘first article testing’ designed to catch
and correct any defects in the body-armor manufacturing process.
What’s more, the Army failed to maintain appropriate records to justify
why a number of contracts were awarded in the first place, the report
said. It is scheduled for public release tomorrow.
As a result, the report states that the Department of Defense “has no
assurance” that 13 of 28 Army body-armor contracts--worth an estimated
$2.98 billion--“met the required standards” or that 11 of 28--worth an
estimated $3.92 billion--“were awarded based on informed procurement
decisions.”
“This is astonishing,” said Congresswoman Louis Slaughter (D-N.Y.), the
chairwoman of the House Rules Committee. She first asked the IG to
examine the Pentagon’s body-armor procurement practices back in April
2006. Slaughter told NBC News: “Army’s officials have a responsibility
to the soldier and the taxpayer and they failed in both areas. Whoever
is responsible for this needs to be fired.”
For its part, the U.S. Marine Corps, which has fewer acquisition
resources than the Army, received high marks for its work on body
armor. The IG’s review of 12 Marine Corps contracts during the same
period (January 2004 and December 2006) found no deficiencies in either
testing or record keeping.
In a statement to the IG, the Army official responsible for body armor,
Brigadier General Mark Brown, insisted that the Army “conducts rigorous
and extensive testing of body armor to ensure that it meets Army
standards and is safe for use by Soldiers in combat.” Army officials
told the IG they have no evidence of any deaths attributable to
defective body armor.
With respect to first article testing, General Brown argues that
federal regulations do not mandate a specific time in which such
testing must be conducted. Moreover, he said the same regulations allow
the Army to waive testing where the body armor being purchased is
identical or similar to armor that was previously tested and accepted.
But after examining Army files, the IG said that in 15 of 28 cases
there was no documentation of the sort federal acquisition rules
require in order to justify the issuance of a waiver (or any other
deviation from contract requirements).
The Army has until April 30 to provide comment on a series of
recommendations put forth by the IG to ensure that Army body-armor
contracts comply with federal acquisition rules.
Source:Ocnus.net 2008
Top of Page
|
|
|
|