More Army Armor Woes

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

Now, the Entire Armor Test Delay Story

The Army has opted to delay testing of new body armor designs that can stop powerful armor piercing bullets and vests that contain flexible plating much like the controversial Dragon Skin armor.

Citing industry requests, the Army's top gear buyer told Military.com the test firing on so-called "XSAPI" and "FSAPI" armor would be held off until March 2008.

"Some body armor manufacturers told us they needed a little more time to get long-lead materials and to test new designs before they could submit them to us," said Brig. Gen. Mark Brown, head of the Fort Belvoir, Va.-based Program Executive Office Soldier.

Brown said the new armor designs would likely be tested at Aberdeen Test Center, Md., beginning in March and finished up by June. Testing on the new designs was previously set to begin last fall.

Also Read: Army Seeks Body Armor for New Threat.

The Army was pressured into launching a new solicitation for body armor designs after lawmakers held hearings on Capitol Hill to delve into the debate surrounding Dragon Skin, which is made by Fresno, Calif.-based Pinnacle Armor. An NBC News investigative report in May claimed that the flexible Dragon Skin armor was far more protective than the current Interceptor system, which uses two rigid ceramic plates to stop armor-piercing bullets.

The Army came out swinging before the NBC report aired, claiming Dragon Skin had catastrophically failed several make-or-break tests it had conducted -- the same kinds of tests used to certify all body armor systems submitted to the Army for fielding.

Also Read: Army Refutes Dragon Skin Claims.

But that didn't stop some Dragon Skin advocates from claiming the fix was in, prompting a House Armed Services Committee hearing June 6 that pitted Pinnacle chief Murray Neal against the anti-Dragon Skin Army brass.

Nevertheless, the committee's ranking member, Rep. Duncan Hunter (R-Calif.), called for a side-by-side test of Dragon Skin and the Interceptor run by government engineers and overseen by both congressional and Pentagon auditors. That led to the Army's June 20 request to industry for both flexible armor designs like Dragon Skin -- which incorporates a series of interlocking ceramic disks rather than a single rigid plate -- and for a so-called "XSAPI" plate which could stop armor piercing rounds the current ESAPI can't.

Brown said part of the delay in testing comes from industry's inability to create an XSAPI plate that comes in under the weight limit of about seven pounds for a size "large" plate, about a pound more than the current ESAPI.

"One thing troops in the field have told us is they don't want any more weight with a new armor system," Brown said, adding that preliminary submissions for XSAPI have been too heavy.

For his part, Pinnacle's Neal says he plans to submit Dragon Skin samples for the upcoming test and is glad the Army is finally taking his technology seriously.

"The extensions, as we have been told by several Army personnel, are primarily for the current manufacturers to fix the plates that have been run through preliminary testing and that are not passing with enough percentage to guarantee passing the [final] testing," Neal said in a email to Military.com, adding he's only too eager to pit his flexible -- otherwise known as "scalar" -- system up against any comers.

Another top body armor designer who has a scalar system of his own said he doubts many companies other than Pinnacle will submit a flexible vest. Allan Bain, president of Evolution Armor, said the Army is right to delay the process to make sure any new submissions have realistic chance of success, though his company has declined to participate.

"The Army is looking for a state of the art system, and there is a lot of pressure by Congress to make every effort on a major purchase like this to ensure that the armor purchased is truly the best performed by unbiased testers and evaluators," Bain said via email. "So they are not rushing it."

-- Christian