----- Original Message -----
From: Brad P. Giordani
To: Michael C. Schexnayder
Cc: Lew Ashley ; XXX ; Russ Logan ; gdavies@arl.army.mil
Sent: Thursday, January 29, 2004 4:24 PM
Subject: W911QX-04-GLD-02

Dear Mr. Schexnayder,

We have reviewed the Request for Lubrication Samples For Small Arms Weapons In A Desert Environment @

http://www.eps.gov/spg/USA/USAMC/DAAD17/W911QX-04-GLD-02/SynopsisR.html and have several questions that we hope can be addressed by email and meetings.

The objective as stated is to identify "a weapon lubricant that will improve small arms weapon performance when operating in desert environments."

While the Notice is meant to encompass "any new technologies or state-of-the-art lubricants" it already limits its view rather than using the acquisition of samples to learn what qualities these might have and what they can offer that is not already known. It limits the task by defining required capabilities that appear to be restrictive. For example, it requires the product to be a corrosion preventer that may have to meet a salt fog requirement. This alone could eliminate the best possible lubricant for a desert environment. It is not clear why laboratory conformance for corrosion prevention is so critical for a desert environment that it would disqualify a prospective product.

Another required capability is that the product be a cleaner. This reverts back to the weaknesses of trying to have one product do everything while losing sight of the performance objective. There is an apparent attempt to qualify these requirements by labeling them as threshold (T) and objective (O) requirements but these terms are not defined. However, the sentence "Product must be a lubricant (T), cleaner (O), and corrosion preventer (O)", by using the term "must", makes each of these essential for a product to be considered. This appears to put other unstated objectives ahead of the objective to improve small arms weapon performance.

Another essential requirement is that the product "be compatible with existing Army Cleaner-Lubricant-Preservative (CLP)(T) which will continue to be used as a cleaner and preservative and other approved small arms lubricants (O)." The continued use of CLP as a preservative assumes that (1) an enhanced preservative is necessary in a desert environment, and (2) it will have no effect of the ability of the lubricant to enhance performance. In fact, the reports, including AAR's from Iraq show that the presence of CLP causes small arms to jam by attracting dust and sand. By requiring that a new product work with CLP in a desert environment is eliminating any chance that a new product could enhance performance. The presence of CLP would negate any performance enhancement potential and place our troops at additional risk.

There is the requirement that the new product provide as good as or better lubrication in a representative desert environment than CLP in an ambient dust-free environment as measured by military standard reliable firing of 630 rounds of M865/M856 and all types of small arms ammunition. This would mean that if a product could not meet this standard it would be eliminated while there is no testing of CLP in the desert environment, so the end result would be that CLP would prevail even if it could only reliably fire 10 rounds of ammunition while the tested lubricant achieved 630 rounds.

The number of rounds appears to be an arbitrary figure unless that is the number of rounds that could be expected to be fired using CLP in an ambient dust-free environment. The study is limiting the possible ceiling of numbers of rounds. If, perhaps, a lubricant would allow for 2,000 rounds to be fired, the study would never learn that because the testing would cease at 630 rounds. If the study is meant to learn about new technologies, there is no reason to put a limit on the number of rounds.

The Notice continues, "The threshold requirement is for a minimal degradation in reliability when firing with the lubricant in a desert environment as compared to CLP firings in the ambient environment. This threshold requirement will be quantified after the evaluation of the results of the baseline lubricant test, which is currently ongoing." One could ask why CLP would be used at all for comparison when it is considered by many to be an inferior product (e.g. federal law enforcement agencies and military firearm manufacturers have frequently stated this). The idea that the study will look at minimal degradation in reliability based on a comparison with CLP firings limits any opportunity to look at improvements in performance far greater than what CLP can achieve in a sterile environment.

Additionally, the Notice states, "The objective desert capability solution must provide for improved lubrication while maintaining a cleaning and corrosion prevention capability through the reliable military standard firing of 630 rounds of M855/M856 (O), in representative desert environments (O), and all types of ammunition (O) than CLP in a sterile and desert environment." Here again the standard is kept low by comparing the performance of the new product against the CLP performance which is very limited even in a sterile environment. Also, it requires the product to act as a cleaner and preservative during this period of firing. It is not stated how this will be measured. How is a product judged to be cleaning and preserving during this period? What is the act of cleaning during firing that would provide a means for judgment? If it is found that at the end of the 630 rounds, the firearm is clean and not corroded, does that show it was performing these functions? If the preservative has no significant utility in a desert environment, how would the action of the product to preserve be judged?

Furthermore, there is a requirement that soldiers "be able to apply desert lubricant on their weapons without special baths, tools, or other pre-application or post-application procedures, or a requirement to fire the weapon to make the lubricant effective in a desert environment." This appears to be an attempt to eliminate MILITEC-1 from the study because it is known that firing a weapon after the MILITEC-1 is applied allows the oil to be subsequently wiped off of the weapon so that the metal surfaces are dry. This keeps the weapon clean for long periods of time in the worst desert conditions because there is no substance on the metal to which the dust and sand would adhere. This would allow the weapon to be used without cleaning and relubricating when it otherwise might require many cleanings and relubrications. This freedom from maintenance provides a level of reliability and convenience that could be judged very valuable during combat operations, but it is being used to disqualify the product in advance of testing. While the firing of the weapon and wiping it dry are not a requirement to achieve a very high level of performance in adverse desert conditions, and thereby enabling MILITEC-1 to remain in the study, the further ability of MILITEC-1 to bond with the metal during firing to provide even greater performance and reliability is something that the Army may find of value and we would urge that this be examined for possible application in the field.

It is confusing to have the following instruction included in the notice, "Suppliers must also provide....an indication of whether the solution is for lubrication only (T) or lubrication, cleaning, and corrosion prevention (O)" Given the requirements stated above that the product "must" clean and preserve, such an indication would rule out a lubricant that is only for lubrication. Also, if the Army relents and allows such a lubricant to be included in the study, it would fail when tested as described in the Notice.

We would like to visit with you and Mr. Davies next week at a convenient time, preferably around 11:00 AM. Please let us know what day best fits with your schedule.

We are looking forward to our meeting and gaining a better understanding on exactly what your organization is trying to accomplish for testing desert lubricants for SW Asia operations.

All The Best,

Brad P. Giordani

----- Original Message -----
From: Brad P. Giordani
To: Davies, Gregory (Civ,RMAC/Adelphi-APG)
Cc: Russ Logan ; Michael C. Schexnayder ; XXX ; Lew Ashley
Sent: Monday, February 09, 2004 2:59 PM
Subject: Re: W911QX-04-GLD-02

Dear Mr. Davies,

I will try my best to summarize the outstanding issues that require clarification and answers from you at your earliest convenience.

1. I am forwarding you the below message dated January 29, 2003 for your response as indicated by Mr. Schexnayder the same date. I also sent you a message on January 30, 2004 @ 6:21 in the morning which pertains to the January 29th message (in question) contained below.

2. I understand you are going to respond to my six (6) outstanding questions per Mr. Schexnayder's message dated February 5, 2003.

3. My message to you dated February 5, 2003 concerning clarification on your agreement that you transmitted to us via email on January 30, 2003. Your message states:

"Please review, sign, and returned the attached Agreement. Once you sign this Agreement, you are authorized to ship lube samples per the directions in the Agreement".

The 5-gallon sample is ready to ship, however, we need clarification and answers from our January 29th, January 30th and February 5, 2003 messages. Please let me know if we should ship the 5-gallon sample without your agreement being executed?

Thank you for your help and needed clarification.

Sincerely,

Brad P. Giordani
www.militec-1.com
301-893-3910
FAX 301-893-8354

-----Original Message-----
From: Brad P. Giordani [mailto:militec@militec-1.com]
Sent: Wednesday, February 18, 2004 9:41 AM
To: Davies, Gregory (Civ,RMAC/Adelphi-APG)
Cc: Michael C. Schexnayder; XXX; Lew Ashley; Russ Logan
Subject: Re: W911QX-04-GLD-02

Dear Mr. Davies,

Can you please let me know when we can except answers pertaining to our agreement and the related outstanding questions?

Also, please let me know if additional clarification on my questions are necessary for your response.

Have a great week.

Best Regards,

Brad www.militec-1.com

----- Original Message -----
From: Schexnayder, Mike C
To: 'Brad P. Giordani' ; Davies, Gregory (Civ,RMAC/Adelphi-APG)
Cc: Schexnayder, Mike C ; XXX ; Lew Ashley
Sent: Wednesday, February 18, 2004 12:39 PM
Subject: RE: W911QX-04-GLD-02

Brad,

I would like to be specific in our communication. You have submitted 6 questions in late November 03 that I am preparing a response to. You also submitted questions about the FedBizOpps announcement that is shown in the subject line. Are you asking about for a response to the 6 questions, the questions on the announcement - or both?

Michael C. Schexnayder
SES
Associate Director for Systems
Aviation and Missile RDEC
tel# 256-876-4396

-----Original Message-----
From: Brad P. Giordani [mailto:militec@militec-1.com]
Sent: Wednesday, February 18, 2004 2:38 PM
To: Davies, Gregory (Civ,RMAC/Adelphi-APG); Schexnayder, Mike C
Cc: Lew Ashley; XXX; Russ Logan
Subject: Re: W911QX-04-GLD-02

Dear Michael,

Thank you for your message.

It would be great to get answers to both.

One of the reasons I have asked for clarification on W911QX-04-GLD-02 is:

The Soldiers in SW Asia are operating in environmental extreme conditions. The equipment is used hard and wears out faster than in normal use and stateside training exercises. The weapons and lubricants gets used in ways and is exposed to conditions that has never been used before. There are new types of failures that are unique to SW Asia that have never been seen before. So how can this new testing protocol properly correlate to a SW Asia battlefield environment?

You can't test an airplane if it's never left the ground. You can't test a desert lubricant for SW Asia environments in Maryland.

I hope this answers your question and we are looking forward to understanding Picatinny's test protocol.

Have a great week.

Best Regards,

Brad
www.militec-1.com

----- Original Message -----
From: Schexnayder, Mike C
To: 'Brad P. Giordani' ; Davies, Gregory (Civ,RMAC/Adelphi-APG) ; Schexnayder, Mike C
Cc: Lew Ashley ; XXX
Sent: Wednesday, February 18, 2004 5:03 PM
Subject: RE: W911QX-04-GLD-02

Brad, thanks for the answer. By the way, the test protocol does not belong to Picattinny Arsenal. RDECOM has the responsibility to decide on the test protocol.

Michael C. Schexnayder
SES
Associate Director for Systems
Aviation and Missile RDEC
tel# 256-876-4396

-----Original Message-----
From: MILITEC-1 [mailto:militec@militec1.com]
Sent: Wednesday, February 18, 2004 4:15 PM
To: Schexnayder, Mike C; Davies, Gregory (Civ,RMAC/Adelphi-APG)
Cc: Lew Ashley; XXX; Russ Logan
Subject: Re: W911QX-04-GLD-02

Dear Michael,

Mr. Davies said Picatinny was involved. Is this incorrect?

Thanks,

Brad
www.militec-1.com

----- Original Message -----
From: Schexnayder, Mike C
To: 'MILITEC-1' ; Schexnayder, Mike C ; Davies, Gregory (Civ,RMAC/Adelphi-APG)
Cc: Lew Ashley ; XXX ; Russ Logan
Sent: Wednesday, February 18, 2004 5:36 PM
Subject: RE: W911QX-04-GLD-02

Brad,

Subject matter experts from Picattinny may be used during the course of this evaluation where appropriate. That said, I want to reinforce my statement to you that the test protocol is not a "Picattinny test protocol".

Michael C. Schexnayder
SES
Associate Director for Systems
Aviation and Missile RDEC
tel# 256-876-4396

----- Original Message -----
From: Brad P. Giordani
To: Davies, Gregory (Civ,RMAC/Adelphi-APG) ; Schexnayder, Mike C
Cc: XXX ; Lew Ashley ; Russ Logan
Sent: Wednesday, February 18, 2004 7:27 PM
Subject: Re: W911QX-04-GLD-02

Dear Michael,

In other words, the subject matter experts (Picatinny) were used during the course of this evaluation to assist RDECOM in developing RDECOM's test protocol. This is logical, if my assumptions are correct, since Picatinny has the history and experience in dealing with this subject matter.

Thank you for the clarification.

Brad
www.militec-1.com