GovernmentExecutive.com

Contracting officials at Air Force Materiel Command have taken the unusual step of recommending that the Air Force prohibit Pinnacle Armor Inc., from signing new contracts with the U.S. government.

The recommendation, which comes from the command that oversees many of the service's research and procurement programs, will be reviewed by the Air Force general counsel's office with a final decision not expected for several weeks, a service spokesman said.

The command's decision, submitted to Air Force headquarters last Friday, coincides with public allegations by Air Force and Army officials that the Fresno, Calif.-based company placed a label on its Dragon Skin body armor claiming the product had been certified to meet a certain ballistic testing standard when it had not. The Air Force said it purchased this improperly labeled body armor.

"We're hoping to resolve the issues with the Air Force as soon as possible," a company spokesman said. "We haven't done anything wrong."

Contracting debarments, which extend across the federal government, typically do not last longer than three years. But that would still be a devastating blow for Pinnacle Armor, which has hoped to leverage its Dragon Skin flexible armor to make significant inroads into the lucrative world of military contracting.

If the Air Force debars Pinnacle Armor, the decision would indicate the service has an "open-and-shut case" of contractor negligence, said Keith Ashdown of the Washington-based watchdog group, Taxpayers for Common Sense. But, he added: "Debarment is as likely as there being a lunar eclipse tomorrow. ... It almost never happens."

A total of 5,864 companies are now prohibited from doing business with the federal government, according to the General Services Administration's "Excluded Parties List System" Web site. But only about 10 percent of those originated from the Defense Department, the military services and other defense agencies.

The Air Force last year was notified by the National Law Enforcement and Corrections Technology Center that Pinnacle Armor had no body armor certified to meet the National Institute of Justice's Level III standard. But the armor bought by the Air Force was "clearly and falsely marked" with a label purporting that it met Level III standards, according to written June 6 congressional testimony from Douglas Thomas, executive director of the Air Force Office of Special Investigations.

The Air Force then directed an independent lab to put the Dragon Skin armor through Level III testing, which the vests ultimately failed, Thomas said. Pinnacle Armor's CEO, Murray Neal, told reporters on Capitol Hill last week that the National Institute of Justice had "verbally" informed him to affix the label to the Dragon Skin armor. The armor did not officially receive Level III certification until eight months later.

Last Wednesday, the House Armed Services Committee held a hearing on the company's claims about Dragon Skin body armor.

Lawmakers, including House Armed Services Chairman Ike Skelton, D-Mo., have called for more tests on Dragon Skin to determine whether or not the flexible armor performs better, as Pinnacle Armor has claimed, than the military's more rigid interceptor body armor now used by troops in Iraq and Afghanistan. But lawmakers also were extremely upset with the marketing claims by Pinnacle Armor despite the failure of its Dragon Skin vests to pass previous Army tests.

COMMENTS

• All major decision made by any power of great influence in a democracy are ultimately politically motivated. Until there is cause for the whole nation to unite such as if its survival is threaten. This is the basis of democracy compromise and cooperation . The amount of lives saves by body armor in any major military power is insignificant compare to those saves by good intelligence. Ask any commander, commando , swat leader or indeed Osama bin Ladin so dont fret guys so long as our intel guys are doing a great job our guys in the front line shouldn't even need their armor =) Martin Posted June 23, 2008 2:25 AM
• Why doesn't the Air Force use its labs if they stil have any (or revitalize them since they anot using them as they should!) to be their technical conscience during acquisition. If they had done so, and adopted this philosophy, they would never have purchased the vests in the fiorst place. The contractor would have been "outed", or found to be in error at the very minimum, well before such EXPENSIVE procurement actions were made! A recent SECAF and Chief of Staff stated a few years ago that the USAF had lost its way technically. I had hoped they would correct this, but apparently not! They, and all the services need to be SMART buyers, and realize that the motives of the contractors (while not being dishonest or immoral) are NOT the same as the motives of the services! Tom Clare Posted June 13, 2007 8:00 PM
• Strange that would come out in a hearing six months after the vests had been officially blessed by the National Law Enforcement and Corrections Technology Center . The question no one is asking is when did the official tests take place and the Air Force tests take place and why did the "Independent tests" Fail the armor when the official tests passed the armor. Was the offense the timing of the label issue? If it was that serious why are we just hearing about it now or at the time of the hearings. Why did they bother having it tested? Why not return the vests and claim fraud and start the proceedings then instead of now. Too many conflicts. I would also like to know if Armor Holdings is employing anyone from the Air Force as the same way they hired Col Roland last year as VP, a few months after he oversaw the tests that failed Pinnacle Armor for the army. I'm sure there are some bad contractors. But There is also some recently retired Military personnel who are now very rich working for contractors whose products were accepted. In this case Armor Holdings, they went from a market Valuation of 300 Million in 2003 to 4 Billion in 4 Years with 73% of it's revenue coming from the military. They of course stand to win big if the sale of the company goes through to BAE , no stranger to controversy itself, in Q3 of this year. Sorry folks. The timing and the money at stake should make people look beyond the statements of this Air Force . The timing is suspect as well as the sheer volume of questions that haven't been addresssed. Don Burnstein Posted June 12, 2007 11:24 PM