Today's Article
Did an American
company
deliberately sell
worthless body
armor as protection
for our troops?
company
deliberately sell
worthless body
armor as protection
for our troops?
The American Spark
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
Air Force Procurement Officials Call For Debarment Of Body Armor
Maker
By Cliff Montgomery - June 22nd, 2007
Contracting officials working for Air Force Materiel Command, the office which oversees many research and
procurement programs for the Defense branch, have openly recommended that Pinnacle Armor Inc., be
prohibited from engaging in new contracts with the U.S. government.
The suggestion will be considered by the Air Force general counsel's office; a final ruling is not expected for
several weeks, a service spokesman told CongressDaily. The recommendation was given to Air Force
headquarters on June 8th.
This event comes on the heels of allegations by both Army and Air Force officials that the Fresno, Calif.-based
business fixed a label on its Dragon Skin body armor falsely claiming that the device had been certified to meet
certain ballistic testing standards. The Air Force admitted to CongressDaily that it had purchased these
mislabeled products.
"We're hoping to resolve the issues with the Air Force as soon as possible," said a Pinnacle Armor spokesman.
"We haven't done anything wrong," he continued.
Contracting debarments, which keep a company from making further deals with any part of the federal
government, normally do not last more than three years. Pinnacle Armor had planned for its Dragon Skin
flexible armor to serve as a stepping stone to long-term business associations with the U.S. military.
If the Air Force O.K.s the recommendation, it would seem America's fly boys have acknowledged an "open-and-
shut case" of contractor negligence, Keith Ashdown of the Washington-based watchdog group, Taxpayers for
Common Sense, told CongressDaily.
But "debarment is as likely as there being a lunar eclipse tomorrow...It almost never happens," he rather dryly
added.
A total of 5,864 businesses are currently prohibited from having any business affairs with the federal
government, says the General Services Administration's "Excluded Parties List System" Web site. But that
doesn't mean Mr. Ashdown was wrong: only about 10 percent of those debarments came from the Pentagon.
Things came to a head last year, after the Air Force was notified by the National Law Enforcement and
Corrections Technology Center that Pinnacle Armor made no body armor that was certified to comply with the
National Institute of Justice's Level III standard.
But the service had bought Pinnacle's Dragon Skin body armor which was "clearly and falsely marked" with a
label claiming it had been properly tested to meet Level III standards, according to Douglas Thomas, executive
director of the Air Force's Special Investigations Office, in written congressional testimony dated June 6th.
After this discovery, the Air Force allowed an independent lab to test the Dragon Skin body armor to see if it
matched its purported Level III toughness. The units failed the independent tests, Thomas added.
Pinnacle Armor's CEO, Murray Neal, claimed to Capitol Hill reporters two weeks ago that the National Institute
of Justice had given his company "verbal" confirmation to place the label on the body armor.
The product was not officially granted Level III certification until eight months after this supposed event, said
Neal.
On June 6th, the House Armed Services Committee conducted a hearing on Pinnacle's body armor mess.
House Armed Services Chairman Ike Skelton (D-MO) and other legislators have demanded a final test and
determination on whether Dragon Skin's relatively elastic armor does or does not perform better than the
rather inflexible interceptor body armor currently used by American troops in Iraq and Afghanistan.
If performed, a failed final test result may lead to another, darker question: Were the marketing claims of
Pinnacle Armor a deliberate attempt by an American company to sell a rather worthless product as protection
for our troops?
Like what you're reading so far? Then why not order a full year (52 issues) of the The American Spark
e-newsletter for only $15? A major article covering an story not being told in the Corporate Press will be
delivered to your email every Monday morning for a full year, for less than 30 cents an issue. Order Now!
Maker
By Cliff Montgomery - June 22nd, 2007
Contracting officials working for Air Force Materiel Command, the office which oversees many research and
procurement programs for the Defense branch, have openly recommended that Pinnacle Armor Inc., be
prohibited from engaging in new contracts with the U.S. government.
The suggestion will be considered by the Air Force general counsel's office; a final ruling is not expected for
several weeks, a service spokesman told CongressDaily. The recommendation was given to Air Force
headquarters on June 8th.
This event comes on the heels of allegations by both Army and Air Force officials that the Fresno, Calif.-based
business fixed a label on its Dragon Skin body armor falsely claiming that the device had been certified to meet
certain ballistic testing standards. The Air Force admitted to CongressDaily that it had purchased these
mislabeled products.
"We're hoping to resolve the issues with the Air Force as soon as possible," said a Pinnacle Armor spokesman.
"We haven't done anything wrong," he continued.
Contracting debarments, which keep a company from making further deals with any part of the federal
government, normally do not last more than three years. Pinnacle Armor had planned for its Dragon Skin
flexible armor to serve as a stepping stone to long-term business associations with the U.S. military.
If the Air Force O.K.s the recommendation, it would seem America's fly boys have acknowledged an "open-and-
shut case" of contractor negligence, Keith Ashdown of the Washington-based watchdog group, Taxpayers for
Common Sense, told CongressDaily.
But "debarment is as likely as there being a lunar eclipse tomorrow...It almost never happens," he rather dryly
added.
A total of 5,864 businesses are currently prohibited from having any business affairs with the federal
government, says the General Services Administration's "Excluded Parties List System" Web site. But that
doesn't mean Mr. Ashdown was wrong: only about 10 percent of those debarments came from the Pentagon.
Things came to a head last year, after the Air Force was notified by the National Law Enforcement and
Corrections Technology Center that Pinnacle Armor made no body armor that was certified to comply with the
National Institute of Justice's Level III standard.
But the service had bought Pinnacle's Dragon Skin body armor which was "clearly and falsely marked" with a
label claiming it had been properly tested to meet Level III standards, according to Douglas Thomas, executive
director of the Air Force's Special Investigations Office, in written congressional testimony dated June 6th.
After this discovery, the Air Force allowed an independent lab to test the Dragon Skin body armor to see if it
matched its purported Level III toughness. The units failed the independent tests, Thomas added.
Pinnacle Armor's CEO, Murray Neal, claimed to Capitol Hill reporters two weeks ago that the National Institute
of Justice had given his company "verbal" confirmation to place the label on the body armor.
The product was not officially granted Level III certification until eight months after this supposed event, said
Neal.
On June 6th, the House Armed Services Committee conducted a hearing on Pinnacle's body armor mess.
House Armed Services Chairman Ike Skelton (D-MO) and other legislators have demanded a final test and
determination on whether Dragon Skin's relatively elastic armor does or does not perform better than the
rather inflexible interceptor body armor currently used by American troops in Iraq and Afghanistan.
If performed, a failed final test result may lead to another, darker question: Were the marketing claims of
Pinnacle Armor a deliberate attempt by an American company to sell a rather worthless product as protection
for our troops?
Like what you're reading so far? Then why not order a full year (52 issues) of the The American Spark
e-newsletter for only $15? A major article covering an story not being told in the Corporate Press will be
delivered to your email every Monday morning for a full year, for less than 30 cents an issue. Order Now!