This is one of seveal reasons why the troops email us for help. Below, I posted two emails from today:
From: XX, JXX M 1SG MIL USA USA B Co 1-201 USAxxxx [mailto:xxx.swa.army.mil]
Sent: Wednesday, May 04, 2011 8:47 AM
To: militec@militec1.com
Subject: [UNCLASSIFIED//FOUO] deployed request for your product
Sent: Wednesday, May 04, 2011 8:47 AM
To: militec@militec1.com
Subject: [UNCLASSIFIED//FOUO] deployed request for your product
UNCLASSIFIED//FOUO
I am the Company 1SG of a group currently deployed overseas. I have approx. 40 Soldiers currently in my location. Weapons, we have what I would call a “Standard Combat Load” as any Infantry Company would. I am requesting some of your product to distribute and utilize on our various platforms. As so many others before me have stated and as you know, MILTEC-1 hands down wins “the hearts and minds” of every Joe that has ever used it! Keep up the GREAT work! The support you give us is appreciated. To lighten the load on shipping and it helps with the OPSEC of the mission. If you can send it to my home (address below),. My wife sends packages to me about every other week with various supplies. Thanks again!
v/r
TF 1-201 Bravo Company First Sergeant
NIPR: XXXX@kuwait.xxx.army.mil
Mailing address, stateside
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: xxxx L SSG MIL USA USA XXX
Sent: Wednesday, May 04, 2011 8:08 AM
To: militec@militec1.com
Subject: militec for troops
Gentlemen,
I was overlooking the offer for free MILITEC for troops. I have a total of 208 weapons systems from crew serves to personal weapons that I would like the dry lubricant for. I think it is really awesome that your company does this for US Military personnel. You can ship it to the shipping address below. Thank you for your support.
XX
SSG, FA, XXARNG
Supply NCO
TF 201st xx
Camp xxx, Kuwait
APO AE xxx
To: Jesse Tolleson, via email
From: Brad P. Giordani
SUBJ: Timeline document governing proper authority
Date June 25, 2007
This document will highlight the approvals and classifications for MILITEC-1’s National Stock Numbers (NSN’s) in the early nineties and how they were blocked 10 years later by RDECOM without obtaining the proper authority from the office at OSD which issued the directive back in 1995 for the issuance of additional NSN’s for MILITEC-1.
The NSN approvals of 1995 were a result of Congress and OSD reaching agreement on limiting the use of MILITEC-1 for weapons and machine shop applications. The Army’s former executive agent for fuels and lubes (Mr. LePera) even agreed on these two applications for MILITEC-1 which resulted in thousands of requisitions thru DSCR @ http://www.militec1.com/nadeau/data_pull_p1.html.
Militec, Inc. contends that ARDEC, TACOM and RDECOM did not have the proper authority to block MILITEC-1 orders from Afghanistan and Iraq
June 29, 1994: Memo titled “Specifications and Standards - A new way of doing business” is sent by Secretary of Defense William J. Perry to his Under Secretaries. This became law in 1995, and Brad attended the Rose garden Ceremony. http://www.militec1.com/NewWay1.html
August 26, 1994: Acting DSCR commander advises Militec, Inc. that removal of MILITEC-1’s NSN’s is in the Government’s best interest. http://www.militec1.com/Lotts.html
October 31, 1994: Defense Logistic Agency (DLA), the parent agency of DSCR, advises Militec, Inc. that “all requisitions have been cancelled.” http://www.militec1.com/Lippert2.html
December 6, 1994: DLA advises Congress MILITEC-1’s NSN’s cancellation order as been suspended. http://www.militec.com/Montgomery2.html
March 17, 1995: Nineteen members of Congress send a joint letter to Secretary of Defense William J. Perry supporting MILITEC-1. http://www.militec1.com/Congress1.html
March 24, 1995: DLA advises Militec, Inc. that it will not cancel the NSN’s. http://www.militec1.com/Montgomery4.html
June 29, 1995: The Under Secretary of Defense sends Congress a letter stating, “Thank you for your letter of May 18, 1995, to Secretary Perry concerning MILITEC-l. I am pleased to inform you...” http://www.militec1.com/NSN1.html
July 6, 1995: DLA notifies Congress that two new National Stock Numbers (NSN’s) will be granted to MILITEC-1. http://www.militec1.com/FrankTejeda.html
September 18, 1995: MILITEC-1 is granted two additional NSN’s for a total of seven NSN’s through DLA. http://www.militec1.com/willfinkel1.html
For eight years, using our sole-sourced NSN’s, MILITEC-1 is continuously supplied to the Defense Supply Centers
March 19, 2003: While our troops are rolling into Baghdad
April 16, 2003: Major General Thompson (CG-TACOM) reluctantly supports a 60-day window for requisitions for MILITEC-1 through DSCR from Southwest Asia only. http://www.militec1.com/mes14_modif.html
August 21, 2003: Bruce Stout, of Rock Island Arsenal (TACOM-RI), sends Ernest Jeniolionis at DSCR a high priority directive to stop filling Army requisitions for MILITEC-1 immediately. Since DSCR’s computers could not differentiate between orders, Homeland Security and Coast Guard orders were also cancelled. http://www.militec1.com/mildocs/GilPerkins2.html
October 14, 2003: At the verbal direction of ARDEC, Militec, Inc. received a one-sentence email message from Ernest Jeniolionis at DSCR, stating, “Sir, as directed by the Army, effective immediately DSCR will begin processing all requisitions under the following NSN’s…” http://www.militec1.com/firearms/nsns.html
November 19, 2003: DSCR updates Congress on the status of our NSN’s. http://www.militec1.com/mildocs/Lyden.html
June 10, 2004: Militec, Inc. receives a Gold Metal Award from the Commanders of DLA and DSCR for perfect compliance in 2003. With our NSN’s being blocked from our troops for six months and the cancellation of dozens of emergency war orders we still managed to receive a perfect score for best value. http://www.militec1.com/mildocs/gold_medal.html
July 26, 2004: The Honorable Walter B. Jones, U.S. House of Representatives, receives a letter from Michael Wynne, Undersecretary of Defense, stating, “This letter responds to your June 23, 2004, inquiry to Secretary Donald Rumsfeld.” The demand for MILITEC-1 has “exceeded DSCR’s expectations”. http://www.militec.com/mildocs/07_26_04.html
December 9, 2004: Militec, Inc. receives an email from a GS-15, Gus Liggon, DSCR, stating Militec, Inc.’s ID/IQ long-term packaging contract is on track and has been initiated for 5 NSN’s (FSC9150). Estimated solicitation date is Dec. 23, 2004, closing date Jan 24, 2005 and award date March 30, 2005. (Enclosure 1)
Between October 2003 and April 2005, DSCR receives approximately 1600 orders through our exclusive NSN’s, which result in shipment by DSCR of 12,000 cases of MILITEC-1 to our troops. DSCR and Militec have supplied over 1 million bottles of MILITEC-1 to our troops since 2001. This demand for a special-request lubricant is unprecedented. http://www.militec1.com/nadeau/data_pull_p1.html
June 6, 2005: Militec, Inc. receives an email from Patrick Finegan at DSCR, saying the over-due MILITEC-1 solicitation SP0406-05-R-0995 has been cancelled. (Enclosure 2)
June 21, 2005: Militec, Inc receives its only contract in the past six months from DSCR. This contract requires labeling on all MILITEC-1 boxes that state, [MILITEC-1 is] “NOT APPROVED BY DOD FOR USE AS A SMALL ARMS LUBRICANT. Steve Waylen at ARDEC authorized this inconsistent and confusing language (Enclosure 3)
July 25, 2005: A copy of the second diverted contract requesting MILITEC-1 states: “Not approved by DOD for use as a small arms lubricant”. What ARDEC is telling our troops, you can buy it, but you can’t use it? Troops order MILITEC-1 for their weapons, only to receive a different product that can’t be used on their weapons, even though RDECOM classified the substitute for MILITEC-1 as a GPL. (Enclosure 4)
July, 2005: Militec, Inc. sends numerous letters of protest to government officials. (Enclosure 5)
August 15, 2005: Congressman Walter B. Jones sends Donald Rumsfeld a letter that states, “My understanding is that there may be ongoing occurrences of inappropriate and possibly unethical business practices at the Army’s Armament Research, Development and Engineering Center (ARDEC) located at the Picatinny Army Arsenal, NJ.” (Enclosure 6)
For the following two years, Militec, Inc. has hired numerous lobbyists and consultants in order to get MILITEC-1’s NSN’s reinstated in the supply system.
June 13, 2007: Gen Pace said in his June 13th reply to Rep. Hoyer, “We also feel that having a single lubricant is important, as we cannot afford to have different lubricants for different operation environments”. (Enclosure 7)
Gen Pace just highlighted the problems with CLP. The Army is limiting better products by insisting CLP will do everything out of one bottle. The Army has finally realized that one bottle can’t do everything so they began by (1) updating the CLP spec’s, and (2) recommending that CLP type 1 should not be used for long term storage and (3) a new CLP product should be created for extreme desert environments.
The Army told Congress in 2003 that it would develop a CLP type 2 for “extreme desert environments” to replace the existing CLP type 1 that was clogging weapons with sand. This agreement resulted from the aftermath of the Jessica Lynch story and related news coverage concerning weapons jamming from sand sticking to gunmetal. http://www.militec1.com/pdf/63460IA7.pdf
MG Nadeau said at a recent meeting with you and some Militec folks, that CLP type 2 have been discontinued since Break-Free, Inc changed their formula. Congress should investigate this since CLP #2 was on the QPL for Break Free, Inc and the CLP #2 was supposed to have solved the weapons jamming problems that congress was investigating.
The acquisition plan http://www.militec1.com/nadeau/acquisition_plan_p1.html clearly states MILITEC-1 has NSN’s classified as a corrosion inhibitor (as first classified in 1993 and then again in 1995) and not solely a General Purpose Lubricant (GPL) as was newly created by RDECOM in 2003. Corrosion inhibitor is also listed on all orders we have received from DSCR for the ½ ounce and 8 ounce sized containers of MILITEC-1.
RDECOM’s will not acknowledge MILITEC-1s’ classification for its NSN’s as a (1) corrosion inhibitor and (2) a weapons lubricant that were listed in the Federal Supply Class (FSC) 6150 and FSC 9150 respectively. RDECOM is using non-compliance to a General Purpose Lubricant (GPL) specification (that cover thousands of items) to claim MILITEC-1 does not work in a desert environment, because it does not meet the unique laboratory MilSpec requirements of a General Purpose Lubricant.
Troops order MILITEC-1 for their weapons and not for WD-40 type applications as the RDECOM GPL MilSpec covers.
The NSN’s created for MILITEC-1 in 1993 was a result of user demand. That was the criteria in 1993 for the issuance of NSN’s by the USG. The Army updated the NSN’s (with congresses help) in 1995 to reflect smaller bottles and limited uses for the product.
RDECOM incorrectly and purposely classified MILITEC-1 in 2003 as a GPL when the demand for MILITEC-1 was surging. This way, when our supporters retire or move on, civil-servants can say (which they did) that MILITEC-1 does not meet the MilSpec.
The only thing we are asking is to have the NSN’s that the USG created and assigned for MILITEC-1 in 1993 and again in 1995 be reinstated.
Rick Feeney has prepared a draft joint-letter from congress to Secretary Gates that is similar to the letter that was successfully used in 1995 (linked above) when the Army pulled the same stunt. I would like your advice with this letter and a path forward if our current efforts fall short with the Army. Hopefully, the new commander of RDECOM will be receptive to new ideas.
BTW, HP White told us last Friday that they no longer prepare weapons for dust chamber testing. We have a call into SWRI to see if they can do the testing. We should also be hearing from DAC shortly concerning their testing program.
I am at your service and thank you for your continued support,
Brad P. Giordani
President
Enclosures (7) will be linked and emailed this afternoon
No comments:
Post a Comment