GovernmentExecutive.com

Return to Article: Air Force officials seek debarment of body armor maker

• 52886
  

  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
• 25564
  

  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
• 25485
  

  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
• 25438
  

  The push for this armor was brought about by National News and a couple of stupid congressmen. The system worked AMEN

  dan ketter Posted June 12, 2007 12:37 PM
• 25423
  

  A government that protects those who do harm to our troops is no better than the crooks who perpetrate the violations. A heavy hand should always prevail in cases where the contractor is found to have falsely represented the facts. Read the debarment laws if you want a good laugh because they're a joke.

  mike Posted June 12, 2007 11:25 AM
• 25412
  

  Another typical example of "you get what you pay for" but in Government procurement, you don't always get what you pay for! This shows a standard lack of oversite of contractors on the Army's part. There are checks & balances in place to prevent these kinds of things from happening like inspection/acceptance of product @ origin location instead of destination. Oversite of contractors by DCMA would allow Government witnessing of First Article ballistic tests prior to armor going into production. There is quite clearly no oversite of this contractor.

  Joe Posted June 12, 2007 10:19 AM
• 25389
  

  I would like to know if any of this body armor made it to the Airmen, especially those Air Force personnel who are out in the trenches supporting the Army mission. As the mother of an Air Force Airman I am appalled if the Air Force accepted the word of a private contractor and didn't actually test life-saving equipment such as body armor. Do these Air Force officials have loved ones serving in the military?

  J. Fonseca Posted June 12, 2007 8:05 AM
• 25379
  

  ON TV I saw where Dragon Skin passed a variety of tests including a hand grenade explosion. What happened? Why didn't they pass the Defense Department tests?

  dennis olson Posted June 12, 2007 6:49 AM
• 25377
  

  This is truly government at its worst! I've seen this body armour under testing. Having been a Marine infantryman in combat for 19 months, wounded twice, I cannot understand a government that sends its troops in harms way without the BEST body armour on the market.

  The stuff in use today was politically selected through a flawed procurement process. If you have ever witnessed the tests Dragon Skin has passed, you would not use anything else!!

  Any you want me to send my son into combat? Get real.

  Bob St. Germain Posted June 12, 2007 6:26 AM