GovernmentExecutive.com

House Armed Services Committee members Wednesday accused a body armor maker with falsifying information about its product and making unsubstantiated claims that the Army rigged live-fire tests to set the firm's vests up for failure.

During a long hearing that often seemed like a trial, the Fresno, Calif.-based Pinnacle Armor Inc. offered lawmakers no firm evidence to back up its public assertions that Army officials manipulated tests on its Dragon Skin body armor to cover up the vests' true capabilities.

Murray Neal, the Pinnacle Armor chief executive, expressed displeasure over a May 2006 Army test and a "pattern of anti-Dragon Skin misinformation" coming from the military. But Neal was unable to provide specific information on wrongdoing done by either the Army or H.P. White Laboratory Inc., a private ballistic research facility in Maryland that ran the tests.

"They are trying to impugn the integrity of the Army through innuendo," Rep. Jeff Miller, R-Fla., said of the firm in a brief interview outside the hearing room. Meanwhile, Rep. Michael Turner, R-Ohio, said Neal's testimony was "one of the least professional" he has ever heard before the committee.

The panel's hearing came as the Air Force, which also has tested the Pinnacle Armor vests, has opened a criminal investigation into the firm over allegations that it had placed a label on their Dragon Skin armor improperly stating that it had been certified to a ballistic level it had not.

House Armed Services Chairman Ike Skelton, D-Mo., and other lawmakers, saying they want to ensure U.S. troops have the best protection available, called for more tests to determine which armor works better.

Nonetheless, Skelton seized on written evidence demonstrating that Pinnacle Armor had labeled its armor as certified eight months before the National Institute of Justice, which evaluates the Dragon Skin vests used for law enforcement personnel, actually certified it as meeting a certain law enforcement specification.

"Being a country lawyer, this bothers me a great deal when you mistake dates so far apart," Skelton told reporters after the hearing.

Meanwhile, Lt. Gen. Ross Thompson, the military director of the Army's acquisition office, called the mislabeling a "serious, fraudulent claim."

Neal told reporters he had not heard of the criminal investigation before the hearing, but added that his company is now in talks with the Air Force. He also said the National Institute of Justice had "verbally" informed him to affix the label to the Dragon Skin armor. Neal said he received no written authorization to do so.

Pinnacle Armor has promoted Dragon Skin armor as a more protective and flexible alternative to the rigid interceptor body armor U.S. troops now wear in Iraq and Afghanistan. The Army has banned its use, but the families of service members have bought the vests and shipped them overseas.

During the hearing, Neal asserted that the Army had inaccurately concluded that bullets had penetrated the Dragon Skin armor during the tests, when in fact it had only pierced the surface of the vests. But Army officials later played a video of the same test that Neal alluded to in his testimony, demonstrating that at least portions of the fragmented bullet had traveled through the entire vest.

Neal, who was featured in the video, said later that the Army showed the wrong test, and disputed that the bullet had actually penetrated the armor. The video showed a large bullet hole on the surface behind the vest.

Skelton called the hearing just weeks after an NBC News report indicated that the Dragon Skin armor performed better in NBC-sponsored ballistic tests than the interceptor body armor the military now distributes to troops.

Army officials testified Wednesday that the interceptor body armor tested against the Dragon Skin in the NBC test was not produced by any of the six companies that supply the vests to the military, a fact that may have contributed to the interceptor armor's poor showing.

The report "brings NBC's credibility into serious question," said Thompson, who added that the news organization disregarded the Army's own evidence to pursue a "salacious story." Skelton announced at the hearing that NBC News declined an invitation to appear before the committee.

A call to NBC's Washington bureau was not returned at presstime.

Thompson suggested that Pinnacle Armor respond to a recent request for proposals for new body armor. By doing so, the company would get its product re-tested along with other potential suppliers.

Thompson stressed that it would be unfair to other armor makers to test Pinnacle Armor's product separately, as the company has proposed. But, in a gesture to the company, he said the Army would not run the tests at the H.P. White facility.

Pinnacle Armor has not responded to three similar requests for proposals offered by the Army in the last three years, according to the Army. Company representatives did participate in an "industry day" last year -- a chance for firms to interact with the Army -- but did not respond to a subsequent request for information.

COMMENTS

• The only thing the military services are guilty of in this case is letting false accusations grab front page coverage for the media and worse, politicians, to cry foul without reviewing factual test data. Purchasing equipment for Soldiers, Sailors, Airmen and Marines without regards for cost would be great…if it were possible. There is a limit to the amount of funds available for equipping the force. Changes have been made over the last several years to make cost an independent variable in developing and fielding items, so buying items at the lowest bidder is a catchy, but in accurate phrase. As for the body armor case, the facts never made the front page because they supported the current Interceptor Body Armor as the best for the Warfighter so the media and politicians can’t cry foul on the administration or military. John Posted July 10, 2007 4:31 PM
• I'd be curious to know if any of the lawmakers involved have received any campaign donations from the company that received the contract. Jack Posted June 14, 2007 7:40 AM
• I beleive Neal already wore the armor. Also the weight factor was a smoke and mirrors show. By showing a complete Dragon skin set up that covers all the critical areas and comparing that weight to an interceptor that only covers the chest and back, the army made it appear heavier. The reality is, the weight in any configuration is identical to Interceptor. Just to keep it simple, the army made a 55 minute multi-media presentation about how the armor failed. All the army had to do was to show fragments or holed armored plates where the bullets had penetrated. Instead they showed vests or the portion over the plates that was rubber and adhesive. That's why Neal was upset Fine. Show us the plates that were penetrated. You say 13 of them. It should be a problem to hold them up and sync them with the video and documentation for a simple audit. Yet they were able to show the Dollar size plates during the presentation to make a point that , in their belief, that if the plates didn't overlap, the strength was diminished. Don Burnstein Posted June 9, 2007 2:24 PM