----- Original Message -----
From: Brad P. Giordani
To: Lew Ashley
Cc: XXX (DSCR) ; XXX ; Davies, Gregory (Civ,RMAC/Adelphi-APG) ; XXX ; Kevin Hayes ; XXXXXX ; Michael C. Schexnayder ; XXX ; Russ Logan
Sent: Monday, November 29, 2004 4:48 AM
Subject: Your Immediate Attention is Appreciated

November 29, 2004

Dear Lew,

We received the first phase of the candidate lubricant evaluation from Joseph Bowers at RDECOM on Thanksgiving eve by an overnight carrier.

The report is dated November 18, 2004 and is referenced: U.S. Army Small Arms Lubrication Testing Program Agreement Number W911QX-04-GLD-02-004.

We are pleased to report that MILITEC-1 passed the Health Hazard Assessment and the initial Laboratory Screening tests.

However, MilSpec CLP clobbered MILITEC-1 when the 140 Mesh Silica Flour Products was dusted on weapons in a controlled chamber to simulate real-world combat performance. According to the report CLP out-performed MILITEC-1 during the flour test. This is why we were not selected for advancement to the second phase of the five planned test phases.

As you may recall, the laboratory conformance testing (salt fog) was the “main” reason TACOM/ARDEC would not consider MILITEC-1 in the past. For some unknown reason, salt fog is not the litmus test any more with TACOM.

As RDECOM/ARDEC lab personnel know, in 1993, MilSpec CLP clobbered MILITEC-1 and all other lubricants that were tested against CLP in a similar dust test conducted in a controlled, chambered environment. Similar results again.

Both of these artificially tailored tests used a silica flour product to replace the “unique” battlefield dust, sand and powder found in Iraq/Afghanistan. The portion of the first phase of testing where MilSpec CLP beat MILITEC-1 is titled “Weapon Performance Tests” The test weapons are placed in an environmentally controlled chamber set at 104 F, as prescribed by AR 70-38, for the duration of the performance testing. All weapons are dusted at the same time using a 140 Mesh Silica Flour product.

The full 1993 report has been on our website until several months ago when it was requested that we soften our stance. We post all government testing, good or bad. We do this to demonstrate that the out-dated MilSpec testing has no direct correlation to current combat conditions found in Iraq and Afghanistan.

It is simply unbelievable that this team of experts would call their flour test a “Weapons Performance Test,” which is “the litmus test” for any other testing. Can RDECOM/ARDEC’s really justify that this controlled U.S. laboratory flour testing protocol properly duplicates and correlates to conditions that a weapons lubricant would encounter in Iraq and Afghanistan by combat troops?

The silica flour “litmus test” is not what you and I agreed to, was never discussed and is not consistent with our understanding of the direction given by General Kern and Michael C. Schexnayder. Speaking of Gen. Kern, it is very interesting to note that RDECOM/ARDEC caused lengthy delays in the above preliminary testing process. These delays meant their biased report was released only after the General had retired. This was predictable, and completely consistent with their continuing behavior, i.e. “Wait the General out.”

I am certain that this case will show how RDECOM/ARDEC tailored the “Flour Testing” (disguised as a weapons performance test) in such a way that the results would be predictable and favorable to their MilSpec CLP product. If not, why would the weapons lubricant that is most requested by our troops and mandated by the Secret Service since 1992 not be allowed to participate in a second test phases?

Prior to reaching our agreement (that I would not go back to Congress), there was one critical point that I’m sure you will recall during several of our conversations and which our public record properly reflects, including the same subject cited in the November 23, 2004 letter to Mr. Michael C. Schexnayder, a copy of which was sent to you. The letter states in part:

“This new testing program must be conducted in the actual environment where the gun lubricant is to be used, (Iraq, Kuwait Afghanistan). If not, you may end up with another defective product; similar to the one that this new testing program is designed to replace. If you don't test and evaluate in the real world, you are allowing our combat forces to be no more that "Guinea pigs," forced to use another (un-tested in combat) lubricant like MilSpec CLP that looks good in a controlled environment, but fails miserably in the field”.

During our discussions on 14 October 2003, you said real world field-testing would be performed. As you must also recall, my main argument was that RDECOM/ARDEC would not treat us fairly and would fail us at controlled lab testing before any real-world testing would begin. Unfortunately, my prediction came true as the two PDF attachments and other public documents support.

Why RDECOM/ARDEC still insists on using MilSpec CLP for laboratory conformance testing baselines (for the development of an advanced desert lubricant specification) that follows out-dated MilSpec’s that don’t properly correlate with today’s weapons’ tolerances and, most importantly, with environmentally unique battlefield conditions, is dangerous to our troops!

In order for this vintage do-it-all product to shine in Army labs they must strictly adhere to conformance testing that has amassed twenty-five years of unique Army tests specifically tailored for this all-in-one product to look great in the lab while other products do not. MilSpec CLP remained the top dog for twenty-five years, because MilSpec lab testing trumped real-world field testing.

We contacted Mr. Greg Davies at APG to confirm the date to participate in the proper application of MILITEC-1 for the weapons (flour) test. This participation was previously agreed to. However, Davies responded by email stating that there was a change in plans and we would not be allowed to apply our product for the weapons tests. If this test was important, they would not have cancelled.

There is an obvious bias on behalf of certain AMC employees concerning their influence on joint service members. It’s interesting to note that Militec, Inc. was the company that caused the requirement for a new desert lubricant specification to be created in the first place. Unfortunately, the lessons learned by our troops using MILITEC-1 in Iraq and Afghanistan are being discounted as anecdotal.

Our small company is just starting to recover from the devastating blow we took when the “Army’s” Engineering Service Authority (ESA) directed DLA to cancel all of our lawfully requisitioned orders from commanders in theater during the invasion of Iraq. TACOM/ARDEC cancelled our NSN’s and orders because the troops’ demand for our product was increasing by such a degree that we were becoming the new standard for small arms lubrication. Militec, Inc. was the only company that had its lubricant orders and NSN’s cancelled during the war.

Certain AMC employees are still trying to justify their 25-year existence with MilSpec CLP in spite of the obvious failure of their product in a desert environment. By RDECOM holding the status quo, certain troops will remain in danger and some (or all) of their weapons will jam while they are in harm’s way.

Our troops should not have the added burden of knowing that their weapons will jam in a firefight when CLP is used. The Army’s own report (s) concludes that MilSpec CLP is not the best choice in a desert environment. Everybody seems to know this in the Army except for the ones whose job it is to fix the problem.

Certain TACOM/ARDEC personnel were so upset by the May 15th 2003 Lessons Learned Report, which contained a positive reference to MILITEC-1 and a negative comment towards MilSpec CLP, that a similar report was generated, called “SWAT.” Col. Smith (no relation to LTC Smith PEO Soldier) made a big mistake with this report because he released it to the Infantry Bugler Magazine (who we advertise with) in “MS WORD” format, which left all the editing intact, including times, dates and text which had been unused or replaced. Here is another smoking gun for investigators.

The SWAT report concluded that “elbow grease” was the best lubricant for weapons and that it did not matter what lubricant was applied to gunmetal in Iraq. The person(s) that authorized this current “elbow grease” allowance for our troops in combat should be tried for aiding the enemy and face a firing squad.

We need to discuss this promptly.

Happy Holidays,

Brad

New home number in Hughesville, MD is (301) 274-4129 and new cell is (240) 682-0810.

STATEMENT OF FACTS
SOLICITATION