----- Original Message -----
From: Brad Paul Giordani
To: Mike.Kuszmaul@dla.mil (3159)
Cc: Russ Logan
Sent: Tuesday, August 24, 2004 9:40 AM
Subject: WE NEED YOUR HELP

August 24, 2004

Mike Kuszmaul
DSCR
PC4 Richmond, VA.
Subject: URGENT- ID/IQ

Dear Mike,
It was a pleasure to meet you at the recent award ceremony in Richmond.

As you may know, we have been having difficulties with outside vendors that are trying to capitalize on our "sole source" product. We respectfully request that MILITEC-1 be awarded an ID/IQ contract. Please let me know if there will be a problem to implement this. We are prepared to visit Richmond at a moments notice if necessary.

Also, we received a "RUSH" order for 600 cases of 1-ounce bottles that we cannibalized from another Military order. This order has been ready for two weeks, and for some reason after we jumped through all the hoops, no one @ DSCR is addressing this rush order with us. I would appreciate it if you could look into this as well. The solicitation # is SPO41104QEC35 and the req # is YPG04217000425.

Please let me know if clarification is required on these two subject matters.

Thank you for your help, Mike!

Very Best Regards,

Brad P. Giordani
www.militec-1.com
President
MILITEC, INC.
11828 Pika Drive
Waldorf, MD. 20602
Toll Free 877-222-5512
Direct 301-893-3910
FAX 301-893-8354

__________________________________________________________________________

-----Original Message-----
From: Brad P. Giordani
Sent: Thursday, November 18, 2004 9:01 AM
To: Mike.Kuszmaul@dla.mil (3159)
Cc: Russ Logan
Subject: Re: WE NEED YOUR HELP/Again

Dear Mike, Since it has been awhile since we last spoke I thought this might be a good opportunity to bring you up to date on MILITEC-1's activities and the areas where we would like some guidance/clarification.

Last week we shipped the last DSCR contract for 80,000 bottles. We are still waiting for a 16,000 bottle request that has yet to be turned into a contract.

I very much appreciated the phone call on the 24th of August and explaining to me how the ID/IQ process can be implemented. About a week after your call we received a call from a gentleman that is working on our ID/IQ. He informed Russ Logan (my partner) that we should be receiving an internet notice for a one-year contact (with an option for four more) in a couple of months. If this is correct, can you give us an update?

We are still shipping out free samples to our troops everyday and are proud and honored to do so. I am amazed at how many troops are being deployed or deployed that are still issued MilSpec CLP. This product is defective and is causing weapons to jam. Is there a way that DLA/DSCR can help our troops by getting the word out to them that MILITEC-1 is available in the system?

Thanks for your continuing help!

Brad
www.militec-1.com

________________________________________________________________

----- Original Message -----
From: Kuszmaul, Mike (DSCR)
To: Brad P. Giordani
Cc: Thomas, Michele (DSCR) ; Liggon, Gus (DSCR)
Sent: Thursday, November 18, 2004 1:36 PM
Subject: RE: WE NEED YOUR HELP/Again

Brad, it is with regrets that based on a re-alignment here at DSCR I will no longer be working with your product line. Michele Thomas will now be the Lead that you will be working with. You may recognize her name as she had been my Procurement Branch Chief before the re-alignment. She and her group of employees are familiar with your products and will be working to keep our supply chain full in order to meet our customer needs.

It is by keeping our supply chain full that our troops realize products are immediately available from DLA/DSCR. As we have mentioned before, DLA/DSCR does not tell our customers what to order but rather we provide the materials that they requisition based on Service guidance and technical manuals for end item maintenance.

Best wishes for the continued success of you and your company.

Your support to the war fighter and DSCR is appreciated.

Mike Kuszmaul
Div Chief, Maritime 2

From: Brad P. Giordani
Sent: Friday, November 19, 2004 9:50 AM
To: Kuszmaul, Mike (DSCR)
Cc: Liggon, Gus (DSCR); Thomas, Michele (DSCR); Russ Logan Subject: Re: WE NEED YOUR HELP/Again

Dear Mike,

Thank you for your prompt response.

The reason I asked DSCR for help was back in 1994 (when we were first granted NSN's) DGSC requested brochures, samples and Kyle Petty posters to have on display and hand out at their meetings.

I was never suggesting to DSCR to tell our troops what to buy. What I was requesting, is some form of help to get the word out any way possible. If MilSpec CLP was not responsible for injury and death to our forces I would not be pushing this issue. We have given our troops over 50,000 free bottles so they would not be forced to use a product that will (eventually) cause their weapons to malfunction.

Dangerous products should NOT be supplied to our warfighters. Who at DLA/DSCR is responsible for investigating defective products that our troops' are forced to use?

Have a great weekend and all the best to you in your new department.

Brad P. Giordani
www.militec-1.com

___________________________________________________________

----- Original Message -----
From: Liggon, Gus (DSCR)
To: 'militec@militec-1.com'
Cc: Liggon, Gus (DSCR) ; Thomas, Michele (DSCR) ; Kuszmaul, Mike (DSCR)
Sent: Monday, November 22, 2004 9:59 AM
Subject: FW: WE NEED YOUR HELP/Again

Brad,

As the procuring agency, we purchase the approved products provided by the services. The responsibility for making the technical decisions as to which products are suitable for the soldiers' use rests with the engineering activity. If you have questions regarding whether the CLP product is defective or otherwise unsuitable for the soldiers' use, the proper route would be through the engineering activity.

Thanks
Gus

_________________________________________________________________________

-----Original Message-----
From: Brad P. Giordani [mailto:militec@militec-1.com]
Sent: Monday, November 22, 2004 10:17 AM
To: Liggon, Gus (DSCR)
Cc: Kuszmaul, Mike (DSCR); Thomas, Michele (DSCR); Liggon, Gus (DSCR); Russ Logan
Subject: Re: WE NEED YOUR HELP/Again

Dear Gus,

Do you have a name or code for the engineering activity or any other information? Its been awhile since I've had contact with those folks that cancelled our war orders. Thank you for your help and I wish you and your loved ones a happy thanksgiving,

Brad
www.militec-1.com

PS Please check out our home page.

I have also adjusted our site at the request of the DoD IG's Chief of Staff.

______________________________________________________________________

----- Original Message -----
From: Thomas, Michele (DSCR)
To: 'Brad P. Giordani'
Cc: Padgett, Jerry W Col (DSCR) ; Liggon, Gus (DSCR) ; Charles, Alma C (DSCR) ; Finegan, Patrick (DSCR) ; Jeniolionis, Ernest (DSCR) ; Archer, Judy (DSCR) ; Perkins, Gil (DSCR)
Sent: Monday, November 22, 2004 12:47 PM
Subject: RE: WE NEED YOUR HELP/Again

ESA POC as requested:

ARMY

U.S. Army Tank-Automotive and Armaments Command
ATTN: AMSTA-TR-R/210 (F&L TECH TEAM)
6501 E. 11 Mile Road
Warren, MI 48397-5000
Alternate:
POC: Luis Villahermosa      Allen Comfort
Phone Number: (586) 574-4207      (586) 574-4225
DSN: 786-4207        DSN 786-4225
FAX: (586) 574-4123       FAX: (586) 574-4123
E-Mail: villahel@cc.tacom.army.mil       comforta@tacom.army.mil
POL Help Mailbox: POLhelp@tacom.army.mil

Michele J. Thomas
Aviation Supply Chain Commodities Division
Branch Chief, Chemical/POL/Spacer Team
DSCR-FAEA
Phone: 804-279-3118 (DSN 695)
Fax: 804-279-4781
Email: Michele.Thomas@dla.mil

From: Brad P. Giordani [mailto:militec@militec-1.com]
Sent: Wednesday, December 01, 2004 8:43 AM
To: Thomas, Michele (DSCR)
Cc: Lew Ashley; Perkins, Gil (DSCR); Archer, Judy (DSCR); Jeniolionis, Ernest (DSCR); Finegan, Patrick (DSCR); Charles, Alma C (DSCR); Liggon, Gus (DSCR); Padgett, Jerry W Col (DSCR); Russ Logan
Subject: Re: WE NEED YOUR HELP/Again

Dear Ms. Thomas,

Thank you for providing the ESA information.

When you have time could you please address both questions (below) that I raised on the 18th of November?

I would also like to know when it would be convenient to have a meeting in Richmond?

Thank you for your help.

Very Best,

Brad
www.militec-1.com

____________________________________________________________________________

----- Original Message -----
From: Liggon, Gus (DSCR)
To: 'militec@militec-1.com'
Cc: Perkins, Gil (DSCR) ; Archer, Judy (DSCR) ; Jeniolionis, Ernest (DSCR) ; Finegan, Patrick (DSCR) ; Charles, Alma C (DSCR) ; Liggon, Gus (DSCR) ; Padgett, Jerry W Col (DSCR)
Sent: Thursday, December 09, 2004 10:44 AM
Subject: FW: WE NEED YOUR HELP/Again

Brad,

A long term contract package has been initiated for 5 NSNs (FSC 9150). The estimated solicitation issue date is 23 Dec 2004 with a closing date of 24 Jan 2005. The estimated award date is set for March 30, 2005 for an IQC with four option periods.

Also, we appreciate your interest and reasons for disseminating information concerning the availability of Militec-1 in the supply system. Unfortunately, we do not have readily available information conduits that would allow us to get that kind of information to the troops who order supplies. Even if we did, we would be prohibited from doing anything that gave even the appearance that we were endorsing a particular product. However, you may want to address this issue with the Army, as they are the program manager and have technical cognizance over the various gun lubricants. They also have better means of getting information to the actual users about the availability of particular products in the supply system.

As Mike previously stated, we have gone through a transformation here at DSCR. Product Centers no longer exist as we have re-aligned the organization under the Business Systems Modernization construct. The items manufactured by your company are now managed in the Chemicals/Petroleum/Industrial Gases Integrated Supplier Team in the Aviation Supply Chain Commodities Division. Therefore, it might not be a bad idea for you to meet the new management staff. Some time during the first or second week of January 05 would be best. Please forward me the topics you wish discussed so we can ensure the right folks are available.

Gus Liggon
Deputy Director, Aviation Supplier Operations
Defense Supply Center Richmond
Com 804-279-3627
Fax 804-279-6894

From: Brad P. Giordani [mailto:militec@militec-1.com]
Sent: Thursday, June 02, 2005 9:53 AM
To: Liggon, Gus (DSCR)
Cc: Perkins, Gil (DSCR); Archer, Judy (DSCR); Jeniolionis, Ernest (DSCR); Finegan, Patrick (DSCR); Charles, Alma C (DSCR); Liggon, Gus (DSCR); Padgett, Jerry W Col (DSCR); Russ Logan
Subject: Re: WE NEED YOUR HELP/Again

Dear Gus,

A few days ago we received a message (on our answering machine) from Dan Holt @ 279-5068 which may have been in response to a message that I sent you the previous week. Russ Logan also left two messages for Mr. Holt.

When convenient, we would appreciate an update.

We sincerely appreciate DSCR's continuing and great support.

All The Best,

Brad
www.militec-1.com

_____________________________________________________________________

----- Original Message -----
From: Finegan, Patrick (DSCR)
To: 'Brad P. Giordani'
Cc: Perkins, Gil (DSCR) ; Archer, Judy (DSCR) ; Jeniolionis, Ernest (DSCR) ; Finegan, Patrick (DSCR) ; Charles, Alma C (DSCR) ; Liggon, Gus (DSCR) ; Padgett, Jerry W Col (DSCR) ; Liggon, Gus (DSCR)
Sent: Monday, June 06, 2005 12:20 PM
Subject: RE: WE NEED YOUR HELP/Again

Mr. Giordani,

In response to your e-mail to Mr. Liggon, here is the current status of solicitation SP0406-05-R-0995. An amendment will be issued on Monday, June 6, 2005 to cancel solicitation SP0406-05-R-0995. This decision results from new information DSCR has received from the Army ESA. The Army ESA has informed DSCR that it is currently reevaluating its requirements and future needs for these NSNs. Until the Army more firmly defines its requirements, it is not in the best interest of the government to pursue a long term contract. DSCR will support these 5 NSNs with one time buys for the foreseeable future.

Thanks,

Patrick J. Finegan
Deputy Chief, Aviation (SC) Commodities Division
DSCR-FAE
Phone: (804) 279-6659, Fax (804) 279-6045
DSN: 695-6659
Patrick.Finegan@dla.mil

From: Brad P. Giordani [mailto:militec@militec-1.com]
Sent: Tuesday, June 07, 2005 7:51 AM
To: Finegan, Patrick (DSCR)
Cc: Perkins, Gil (DSCR); Archer, Judy (DSCR); Jeniolionis, Ernest (DSCR); Finegan, Patrick (DSCR); Charles, Alma C (DSCR); Liggon, Gus (DSCR); Padgett, Jerry W Col (DSCR); Russ Logan
Subject: Re: WE NEED YOUR HELP/Again/AND AGAIN

Dear Patrick,

Thank you for your response.

Please fax, or email, the document (s) from the Army's (TACOM) Engineering Service Activity (ESA) that justifies the cancellation of our one-year contract. Thank you and we need this ASAP.

As you know, there was no paper trail from the "ESA" to DSCR when MILITEC-1 was Re-Approved by them on October 14, 2003. We do have the one-sentence message from DSCR @ http://www.militec1.com/firearms/nsns.html which explains the Army's (ESA) most recent position on MILITEC-1.

Since the number of troops ordering MILITEC-1 throughout the system is unprecedented, (1,000 orders within one year) is why this new and last minute position does not make any sense when you clearly state:

"The Army ESA has informed DSCR that it is currently reevaluating its requirements and future needs for these NSNs. Until the Army more firmly defines its requirements, it is not in the best interest of the government to pursue a long term contract".

Each time TACOM reevaluates MILITEC-1 our orders get cancelled, and/or our National Stock Numbers (NSN"S) are suspended or cancelled. The history and dates to support these unnecessary and vindictive cancellations can be located on our site @ http://www.militec1.com/bias.html

This same group at TACOM also advised DSCR to cancel emergency war orders (which they did) for MILITEC-1 from all three Brigades from the 3ID as they were rolling into Baghdad. There were other war orders cancelled by DSCR, as well, by direction of the Army's ESA.

I am personally troubled when our contract was repeatedly delayed (while our troops are waiting for product so their guns don't jam) only to find out that the same handful of career bureaucrats are up to their old and predictable tricks again. I have sent DSCR several emails on this subject that should have prevented this premature action from occurring without proper and prior notice. Please advise and I will email you the file folder. Thank you.

I will have Russ Logan call to confirm you have received this email. Also, I am requesting a prompt meeting with Gus and Gil. Please fax the documents you just received from the Army's Engineering Service Activity (ESA) to 301-893-8354.

Thank you for your continuing support,

Brad P. Giordani
www.militec-1.com
President
MILITEC, INC.
11828 Pika Drive
Waldorf, MD. 20602
Toll Free 877-222-5512
Direct 301-893-3910

From: Finegan, Patrick (DSCR)
To: 'Brad P. Giordani'
Cc: Archer, Judy (DSCR) ; Jeniolionis, Ernest (DSCR) ; Finegan, Patrick (DSCR) ; Charles, Alma C (DSCR) ; Liggon, Gus (DSCR) ; Padgett, Jerry W Col (DSCR) ; Bank, Marit (DSCR)
Sent: Tuesday, June 07, 2005 3:38 PM
Subject: RE: WE NEED YOUR HELP/Again/AND AGAIN

Mr. Giordani,

I am in receipt of your e-mail.

Thanks,

Patrick J. Finegan
Deputy Chief, Aviation (SC) Commodities Division
DSCR-FAE
Phone: (804) 279-6659, Fax (804) 279-6045
DSN: 695-6659
Patrick.Finegan@dla.mil

________________________________________________________________

----- Original Message -----
From: Brad P. Giordani
To: Padgett, Michael G COL [AMSTA-AR-CC]
Cc: COL. Michael J. Smith ; Frank Puzycki ; Goetz, Joseph Andrew P.E. [AMSTA-AR-WET] ; XXX ; Hays Parks ; Jeniolionis, Ernest (DSCR) ; Joel Goldman ; Kevin Hayes ; Leonard Trahan, Jr. Director Defense Hotline ; LT.COL. Robert Carpenter ; Perkins, Gil (DSCR) ; Richard Audette ; Russ Logan ; Smith, James LTC PM SOLDIER ; Spiers, Dana W. (DSCR) ; Virginia Ezell
Sent: Sunday, October 19, 2003 9:58 PM
Subject: Statement of the Facts

For Immediate Release
Overview

On March 19, 2003, without justification, the Defense Supply Center Richmond (DSCR) reversed a standing eight-year-old directive by the Under Secretary of Defense, which allowed MILITEC-1, a Synthetic weapons oil to be requisitioned by all U.S. forces and federal agencies. This reversal was a collaborative act, done in concert, and at the direction, of Picatinny Arsenal, N.J. (ARDEC).

Militec, Inc. submits four allegations stemming from this act:

First, That Picatinny Arsenal did not have the proper authority to direct DSCR to block our National Stock Numbers (NSNs). Further, DSCR knowingly followed the ill-advised directive by ARDEC with the full knowledge that their parent agency, Defense Logistics Agency, (DLA) implemented the original directive from the Under Secretary of Defense.

Second, that DSCR and ARDEC followed a pattern and practice of unprofessional conduct in managing the supply of a critical product requested by combat forces in theater and by forces preparing for deployment to Iraq and Afghanistan. We contend that the policy reversal was not the result of a logical, orderly decision-making process by the parties involved, but rather was done as retribution for an eight-year-old grudge held by certain civilians within DSCR and ARDEC.

Third, that this action not only damaged the reputation of our small company and caused us grievous financial damage (several hundred thousand and counting), but also directly contributed to the death and injury of military personnel that were denied access to MILITEC-1 as a safe alternative to the Army’s twenty-three-year-old Military Specification (MilSpec) CLP weapons oil/solvent.

Fourth, that in spite of Militec’s, advisories and warnings to DSCR, ARDEC, TACOM and the DOD IG of the dangers of using MilSpec CLP weapons oil/solvent in desert operations, no action has been taken. Furthermore, official After-Action Reports from Iraq supporting our claims have also been dismissed and MilSpec CLP weapons oil/solvent is still being issued to troops in Iraq.

We strongly urge a swift and thorough investigation into these allegations, not only to redress the damage done, but most importantly to prevent additional injury and loss of life to our military forces.

Background
MILITEC-1 Metal Conditioner is a synthetic weapons oil that allows weapons to be fired dry without attracting sand and dust in desert environments. In contrast, the Army’s mandated MilSpec weapons oil (called “CLP” because of its “all-in-one” action as a Cleaner Lubricant and Preservative) traps sand and debris like a magnet. In the blowing dust and sand of a desert environment, gunmetal quickly becomes coated with a thick sludge, rendering weapons inoperative. For desert operations, MilSpec all-in-one weapons oil has been proven to be defective by deployed forces, federal agencies and many weapon manufacturers.

MILITEC-1 has been used by military activities in every conflict since Desert Storm. The Secret Service, State Department worldwide, FBI, INS, NCIS, DIA, DCIS, USPI, USPP, Sky Marshals, Coast Guard, Capitol Hill Police and many other federal agencies, including our Special Operation Teams in theater, currently use MILITEC-1.

Concerning the First Allegation: July 29, 1995 the Under Secretary of Defense for Materiel Distribution and Management notified Congress that MILITEC-1 would be made available to all military activities, including federal agencies. On the September 18, 1995 DLA implemented the Secretary of Defenses’ direction. However, eight years later Gil Perkins and Ernst Jeniolionis of DSCR did not obtain the required authorization from the Secretary of Defense’s office prior to canceling our war orders and blocking MILITEC-1’s NSNs. Furthermore, DSCR officials followed the direction of Picatinny Arsenal with full knowledge that our NSNs were authorized by the Under Secretary of Defense and the implementation of our NSNs, by their parent agency, Defense Logistics Agency, (DLA). To this day, no one at the Army Materiel Command, (AMC), DSCR, or ARDEC can give us an answer concerning who had the authority to cancel the directive from the Under Secretary of Defense that had been in effect since 1995.

Concerning the Second Allegation: July 2, 1993, MILITEC-1 was granted National Stock Numbers (NSNs) by DSCR. However, beginning in 1994, certain civilians within the Army tried to cancel our lawfully issued NSNs. As a result, on March 17, 1995, nineteen members of Congress sent the Secretary of Defense a joint letter supporting MILITEC-1 to ensure that supplies of MILITEC-1 would be made available to both DOD and non-DOD agencies. Seven months later, additional NSNs were granted and MILITEC-1 enjoyed a continuous, successful and problem-free history of delivery to our forces worldwide through DSCR for eight full years. Even our staunchest critic, Maurice LePera, the former DOD Executive Agent for Fuels and Lubricants, was in full agreement that MILITEC-1 could be used for weapon applications only.

Then, in March 2003, Militec, Inc. received initial orders worth over $100,000 from DSCR. These orders were somewhat larger than historical orders had been, but as our forces were massing to invade Iraq, we did not consider them out of the ordinary and were excited to comply. We were also informed to be prepared for additional large orders, and were told by Dana W. Spiers of DSCR that the “approval for these orders had division backing,” which we knew. We immediately packaged $120,000 worth of specific sizes of MILITEC-1 in anticipation of the promised orders from DSCR.

However, the day after notifying us that our orders had division backing, DSCR summarily cancelled all orders for MILITEC-1. No explanation was given. The field commanders who placed the orders were neither notified by DSCR or ARDEC, nor given an explanation as to why their war orders had been cancelled. Homeland Security orders were also cancelled without explanation. Further, the parties ordering MILITEC-1 were given no opportunity to request that their orders be reinstated, until after the war was declared over. We have requested the customer list and other information from Gil Perkins at DSCR without success. Perkins has promised us answers through several email exchanges, but has yet to deliver, and was recently transferred to another department within DSCR.

The root cause behind these cancellations was that the individuals who initially tried to exclude MILITEC-1 from the supply system in 1994 had been outraged that Militec, Inc. had gone over their heads when help was obtained from Congress. When the current large war orders for MILITEC-1 started rolling in, their smoldering grudge against Militec, Inc. caused them to ignore the standing eight-year-old directive. They simply could not tolerate seeing Militec, Inc. succeed in their system. In a later phone conversation, Ernest Jeniolionis from DSCR informed Russ Logan of Militec, Inc. that the orders had been cancelled on his authority. Jeniolionis said he remembered when Congress had intervened on our behalf eight years earlier, and the current large volume of orders presented a perfect opportunity to “get even.” He also stated that he had not been working alone in this decision. Although these actions may have made Jeniolionis and his comrades excited to see us suffer, this was nothing more than a spiteful act that constituted an historical pattern and practice of unprofessional conduct.

Concerning the Third Allegation: Unfortunately, the desire to hurt Militec, Inc. financially and to damage our reputation was not the only result of the canceled war orders. We firmly believe and have strong evidence to prove that military personnel have been injured and killed as a direct result of being denied access to MILITEC-1, or other products, as a safe alternative to the mandated MilSpec CLP all-in-one oil/solvent.

As an example, the 507th maintenance company was using MilSpec CLP oil/solvent on their weapons when their position was overrun. The fact that all their weapons quickly jammed, making them unable to properly return enemy fire, has been thoroughly reported both in the media and by the military. If those troops had been allowed to use MILITEC-1 instead of MilSpec CLP oil/solvent, their weapons would have functioned properly, and injury, death and capture might have been avoided.

Thus, the soldiers in the field are the ones who paid the ultimate price because a few individuals at DSCR and ARDEC abused their authority in an attempt to further punish our small company.

Concerning the Fourth Allegation: Militec, Inc. has repeatedly advised Ernest Jeniolionis of DSCR, Col. Padgett of ARDEC, Major General Thompson of TACOM and Leonard Trahan the DOD IG Hotline director that MilSpec CLP oil/solvent is a defective product for desert combat operations. Our advisories included warnings from U.S. Government Contractors based in Kuwait (MPRI), who cited years of field experience training U.S. forces for desert combat operations, and also direct intelligence concerning injury and death to our forces. All evidence was ignored, including the compelling account of the dead Navy Seal whose jammed weapon was later found after his position was over-run by Taliban and Al-Queda forces in Afghanistan.

We anticipated decisive action to restore our forces’ free access to MILITEC-1 and to punish the individuals who had abused their authority by following the historical pattern and practice of unprofessional conduct in managing the supply and authorization of critical requisitioned war orders.

Instead, MG Thompson refused to listen. In spite of the fact that to this day weapons continue to malfunction in the Iraqi and Afghani theaters, no direct, immediate action has been taken to alleviate the problem. MG Thompson continues to view our evidence as “masquerading as a serious proposal” and mistakenly believes that MilSpec CLP oil/solvent represents “State-of-the-Art Technology.”

We were extremely frustrated because the agencies we notified were the ones tasked with the responsibility of insuring the safety of our forces. Finally, realizing the responsible individuals were not going to act, we made their refusals public by posting their emails and letters on our website (www.militec-1.com). When they realized we had allowed the world to see their obfuscation, their retaliation, bad-mouthing our product and blocking our orders, have further harmed our forces and prevented our company from being awarded its rightful government contracts that we have worked for since 1988.

As Militec, Inc., of Waldorf, Md., has exhausted its options for definitive action within the appropriate military channels; we will now advise Congress to authorize a prompt investigation and hearings into a pattern and practice of unprofessional conduct at DSCR, TACOM and ARDEC.

Recent developments with Defense Supply Center Richmond and Picatinny Arsenal:

September 17, 2003: Bradley P. Giordani, President of Militec, Inc., sent a draft of a pending Congressional press release to Colonel Michael Padgett of Picatinny Arsenal, NJ. (Enclosure 1)

September 18, 2003: Colonel Padgett responded, stating, “Brad, Recommend we meet to discuss. Someone from the government side will contact you in the next few days to set it up, probably in the DC area. The storm is slowing down our ability to fully coordinate the proposed meeting and contact you with our recommendations. Please give it a few days...” (Enclosure 2) A copy of the draft press release and Colonel Padgett’s response of September 18 were forwarded by email to
XXX.XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX .
Militec, Inc. requested that Dr. Roth approach his friend, General Kern, Commander of AMC, to see if Kern’s office might want to coordinate the meeting with Col. Padgett, as Padgett is part of Kern’s subordinate command at Picatinny Arsenal.

September 22, 2003: Dr. Roth met with Lew Ashley, executive assistant to General Kern and Ombudsman for AMC. Ashley started an investigation after receiving the pending press release and supporting documentation from Dr. Roth, and called Mr. Giordani at home on five separate occasions.

Initially, Ashley asked for a couple of weeks to set up the meeting. Ashley specifically requested that Militec, Inc. hold off going to Congress with the press release since he felt an agreement could be reached that would satisfy both parties. Militec, Inc. agreed. However, after several more phone calls between Giordani and Ashley, both parties agreed that a meeting would not be necessary after all, as the matter could be resolved from Ashley’s office.

October 14, 2003: Militec, Inc. received a one-sentence email message from Ernest Jeniolionis, Chief, Commodity Service Section JDTA at Defense Supply Center Richmond (DSCR), stating, “Sir, as directed by the Army, effective immediately DSCR will begin processing all requisitions under the following NSNs: 9150-01-378-3058, 9150-01-378-3118, 9150-01-415-9112, 9150-01-415-9114, 9150-01-415-9111.” (Enclosure 3)

That evening at 5:45 PM, Lew Ashley phoned Mr. Giordani at home to ask if Giordani had heard anything concerning his efforts. Giordani told Ashley about the one-sentence email message from DSCR reinstating the NSNs, though three NSNs were missing that had originally been granted on September 18, 1995. Ashley explained those three NSNs had been cancelled because the Army did not want NSNs for MILITEC-1 the larger size containers. Giordani agreed to this position as a good faith gesture.

Giordani also informed Ashley that Militec had cleaned up its website, however, all of the Army content had not been removed, but rather was hidden until good faith was properly demonstrated. Ashley said thank you, and “please do not send any more nasty grams to Congress”. In a subsequent conversation, Giordani asked Ashley for a copy of the complete text of the Army’s directive to DSCR. Giordani felt this was a straightforward request, as he hoped it would state the facts and clarify exactly what the one-sentence email message meant. Giordani merely asked Ashley for a letter detailing the Army’s directive to DSCR. Giordani indicated that even a letter identical to the one-sentence email message Militec, Inc. received from DSCR would be acceptable. Since Picatinny Arsenal directed DSCR to process all requisitions for MILITEC-1, Giordani felt the Army could and should go on record reflecting that new agreement.

Ashley was very reluctant to help with the letter. He said the email from DSCR was enough and suggested Militec, Inc. post the message on its website (which had already been done). Giordani said again that the letter could be a verbatim copy of the one-sentence email message from DSCR. Ashley wanted to know why the letter was needed. Giordani explained that a letter was necessary to keep Picatinny honest and to insure that the new deal was in fact what the one-sentence email message inferred. Also, one of the other reasons for the letter would be to allow Militec, Inc. to prove to our forces that the NSN issue had been properly resolved, and their future orders would not be cancelled.

Ashley further explained that the NSNs for MILITEC-1 might only be reinstated for a few months, since Picatinny was currently engaging in “independent tests” of various weapons lubricants. These tests would not only include mere laboratory testing, but would also include actual live-fire testing under supposed real-world conditions. If MILITEC-1 did not fare well in these “independent” lab tests, the NSNs might have to be withdrawn again, and Militec, Inc. would be forced to accept that possibility.

Giordani stressed again to Ashley that the only way to properly test a weapons lubricant is in the field over an extended period of time. The lab testing, which MILITEC-1 has already completed, supports the health hazards and chemical and physical properties. However, Picatinny has continued to fail MILITEC-1 based on a 1960-era salt-fog MilSpec test that does not correlate with field conditions, and has proven to be worthless in real-world circumstances. To support our claims concerning this out-dated Military Specification, Militec, Inc.’s federal customer list is attached. (Enclosure 4)

Ashley’s reluctance to allow DSCR’s one-sentence email to be put into writing makes it apparent to Militec, Inc. that the recent reinstatement of the MILITEC-1’s NSNs is merely a ploy, deliberately planned to keep Congress off the Army’s back while Picatinny devises additional inappropriate lab tests designed to show MILITEC-1 in a negative light. These prejudicial results will then be put in an official report contrasting MILITEC-1’s shortcomings with other products and companies that have been blessed by Picatinny.

Furthermore, what the one-sentence DSCR message really means is that troops may be able to requisition MILITEC-1, but Picatinny has not approved it for use on weapons. In other words, in effect Picatinny is saying, you can buy it, but you shouldn’t use it!

October 15, 2003: Mr. Giordani sent Lew Ashley an email through Dr. Roth highlighting the reasons why a letter from the Army to Militec, Inc. is required. Confirming the Army’s directive to DSCR will put Militec, Inc. on a level playing field. (Enclosure 5)

October 17, 2003: Militec, Inc. received an email from Dr. Roth describing the reasons why Lew Ashley and certain staff at AMC believes a letter to Militec, Inc. is not in the Army’s best interest. (Enclosure 6)

October 17, 2003: Militec, Inc. sent an email message to Colonel Padgett and Kevin Hayes at Picatinny requesting help with the needed Army letter. (Enclosure 7)

Our allegations of unprofessional conduct are supported by the following facts:

1. July 2, 1993: MILITEC-1 products were first granted National Stock Numbers (NSNs) by DSCR. (Enclosure 8)

2. June 6, 1994: MILITEC-1’s NSNs were blocked with the Army’s help. (Enclosure 9)

3. March 17, 1995: Nineteen members of Congress sent a joint letter to Secretary of Defense, William J. Perry that stated, “the Defense Department will approve continued listings of MILITEC-1 in the Defense Supply Catalogue for use in DOD as a weapons lubricant and for machine shop applications, and will process all requisitions and orders from DOD and non-DOD agencies (emphasis added).” (Enclosure 10)

4. June 29, 1995: The Under Secretary of Defense sent Congress a letter stating, “Thank you for your letter of May 18, 1995, to Secretary Perry concerning MILITEC-1. I am pleased to inform you that the Defense Logistics Agency is in the process of establishing two new National Stock Numbers for the one-ounce and four ounce containers of MILITEC-1, for weapons grade and machine shop applications respectively. These two products will be made available to all activities within the Federal Government. The Defense Logistics Agency will advise MILITEC of the National Stock Number assignments when they occur (emphasis added).” (Enclosure 11)

5. September 18, 1995: MILITEC-1 was granted seven NSNs through DLA. (Enclosure 12)

6. For eight full years, MILITEC-1 was supplied to DSCR and Army units without a problem.

7. March 19, 2003: MILITEC-1’s NSNs were cancelled by direction of Colonel Padgett at Picatinny Arsenal, N.J. Colonel Padgett also directed DSCR to cancel over $120,000.00 in war orders bound for Iraq without notifying the Commanders in theater. (Enclosure 13)

8. April 4, 2003: Militec, Inc. sent a letter to Major General Ross N. Thompson. (Enclosure 14)

9. April 16, 2003: Colonel Padgett and Major General Ross N. Thompson (CG-TACOM) support a 60-day window for requisitions originating only in Southwest Asia through DSCR. (Enclosure 15)

10. May 15, 2003: MG. Thompson’s responded to Militec, Inc.’s letter of April 4 with a document filled with errors, innuendos and misleading facts. (Enclosure 16)

11. May 15, 2003 Operation Iraqi Freedom PEO Lessons Learned, commissioned by General Kern (MG Thompson’s boss), was made public. An excerpt from the report stated: “Lubricant: Soldiers provided consistent comments that CLP was not a good choice for weapons maintenance in this environment. The sand is a fine as talcum powder here. The CLP attracted the sand to the weapon. Soldiers considered a product called Militec to be a much better solution for lubricating individual and crew-served weapons.” (Enclosure 17)

12. June 1, 2003: Militec, Inc. sent a letter to MG. Thompson highlighting his many errors and misleading statements. MG. Thompson did not reply. (Enclosure 18)

13. August 21 2003: Colonel Padgett again allowed DSCR to cancel MILITEC-1’s NSNs. This cancellation was implemented in spite of After-Action Reports from Iraq which support the benefits of MILITEC-1 in combat by our troops. (Enclosure 19)

14. October 14, 2003: MILITEC-1’s NSNs were temporarily reinstated again in a one-sentence email at the direction of Colonel Padgett to Ernst Jeniolionis. (Enclosure 20)

There can only be two reasons why Militec, Inc. is being singled out and treated in such an unprofessional manner (a) Certain individuals are incompetent. (b) Those same individuals have a hidden agenda.

The Army must grant MILITEC-1 a MilSpec, or clarify in writing that MILITEC-1 is approved for weapons use and include MILITEC-1 in the Army Log so the troops can order without fear or retribution.

In summary, not only is the Army unwilling to enforce or address the Under Secretary of Defense’s directive of June 29, 1995, they will not even issue a letter repeating the same one-sentence text that Militec received from DSCR at the Army’s direction.

The reason is clear: If such a simple letter became part of the public record, it would be very difficult for Picatinny Arsenal, NJ to cancel MILITEC-1’s NSNs again. Also, and not withstanding all the evidence contained in this document, Picatinny’s new position, that troops can buy MILITEC-1 but it is not approved for use, exemplifies and proves a pattern and practice of unprofessional conduct.

Note: Militec, Inc. must promptly see a letter of good faith and must be treated fairly in the future.

Militec, Inc. will once again allow the system an opportunity to correct itself before this document is released to all printed and electronic media, and is tirelessly lobbied before both Houses of Congress with all the force Militec, Inc. can bring to bear.

October 19, 2003 DRAFT
Release date October 23, 2003

______________________________________________________________

From: Brad P. Giordani [mailto:militec@militec-1.com]
Sent: Wednesday, June 08, 2005 7:53 AM
To: Liggon, Gus (DSCR)
Cc: Perkins, Gil (DSCR); Finegan, Patrick (DSCR); Jeniolionis, Ernest (DSCR); Russ Logan
Subject: Re: WE NEED YOUR HELP/Again/AND AGAIN

Dear Gus,

In order to avoid history from repeating itself, I hope you and your staff will take the following public information into careful consideration prior to canceling our ID/IQ contract: PLEASE.

1. The Army's ESA does not have the proper authority to direct DSCR to cancel our pending contract which is based on historical orders from our troops. Our pending contract is required to meet our troops growing demand in a timely manner and intervention from ESA clearly proves, as I have stated below, they are up to their old tricks again.

2. Since MILITEC-1 began marketing to the Military in 1988, ARDEC, not TACOM, has had the responsibility for small arms lubricants. TACOM, has the responsibly for fuels and lubricants for vehicles (F&L). The former TACOM Commander, MG. Ross. N. Thompson got his facts wrong two years ago (when he said CLP is state of the art) and used his own ESA as justification to cancel Troops' orders and blocking our NSN's.

We have been advised that RDECOM is responsible for weapons lubricants, not TACOM or ARDEC. I am aware RDECOM is in the AMC chain of command.

I have pasted the Statement of Facts document below for background information. I trust you will not allow the ESA to wrongly influence DSCR. Our small company has been dragged thru the mud long enough and its time to use our God -Given common sense and stand up for what is in the best interest of our Troops.

Please help us!

Brad
www.militec-1.com

_____________________________________________________________________

----- Original Message -----
From: Liggon, Gus (DSCR)
To: Brad P. Giordani
Sent: Wednesday, June 15, 2005 5:15 PM
Subject: RE: WE NEED YOUR HELP/Again/AND AGAIN

Brad,

With respect to your recent emails to me regarding cancellation of solicitation SP0406-05-R-0995, I would like to clarify the events relating to our procurement activity to ensure we have a common understanding. As you know, solicitation SP0406-05-R-0995 sought competitive proposals for a long term, 5-year contract. DSCR, however, did not make an award against this solicitation. Consequently, the government did not cancel a contract with Militec.

Although the Militec part-numbered item was named in the item description of this solicitation, this reference to the Militec products was not intended to designate the Militec product as the only acceptable product. The solicitation’s clause L53F, 52.217-9002, Conditions for Evaluation and Acceptance of Offerors for Part Numbered Items, informed offerors that DSCR would accept alternate offers. The part-numbered description is thus merely intended to provide all offerors guidance concerning the characteristics of the product the government seeks under this solicitation.

With respect to the cancellation of the solicitation, DSCR was not directed by the Army to discontinue the solicitation. Rather, DSCR became aware that the Armament Research Development and Engineering Center (ARDEC) is reevaluating small arms lubricants. ARDEC has conducted tests on a number of small arms lubricants under desert conditions, and wants to impose standards vendors must meet to sell such lubricants to the Army. In light of this reevaluation, we did not believe it was prudent to continue with a solicitation for a long term contract until the results of the reevaluation are known. Consequently, we decided to cancel the long term solicitation and to focus our procurement strategy on more near term requirements.

Lastly, please be advised that Mr. Gil Perkins is no longer in charge of the business unit that manages these items. Mr. Perkins worked for this business unit as part of a rotational assignment to broaden his experience as a Defense Logistics Agency attorney, and has returned to his regular job with the DSCR Office of Counsel. I am the person you should contact with reference to any issues you have over DSCR’s procurement of lubricants. Please contact me if you want to arrange a meeting with me, and I can make the arrangements.

Thanks,
Gus

_____________________________________________________________

From: Brad P. Giordani [mailto:militec@militec-1.com]
Sent: Thursday, June 16, 2005 9:02 AM
To: Liggon, Gus (DSCR)
Cc: Finegan, Patrick (DSCR); Russ Logan
Subject: Could you please help us

June 16, 2005

Dear Gus,

Good to hear from you, Sir,

I have two questions:

1. It was my understanding that the historical and unprecedented demand by our troops ordering MILITEC-1 from DSCR warranted the contract. Was this not discussed and was this not the main subject at our last meeting and correspondence since last August?

2. How did DSCR become aware that reevaluating small arms lubricants by ARDEC might conflict with our much deserved contract? Can you share with us the operative document (s) and/or parties recommendations that the cancellation was based on, or was this a verbal deal, like the last deal, when our NSN’s were reinstated by DSCR for the 5th time, without the proper paper trail?

As I have told you before and also written to you on at least three (3) previous occasions, ARDEC/TACOM has a proven Anti-Militec agenda and they were (and still are) DEAD WRONG about MilSpec CLP lubricant being State-of-the-Art. This is the same product that does not work properly in the desert, since it collects dust and sand and causes all weapons to eventually jam. This is exactly why our troops order MILITEC-1 Weapons Lubricant from us 24/7 and we have shipped over two hundred thousands bottles free of charge, including shipping.

In case you haven’t heard, the Governments MilSpec CLP Lubricant (sic) was the ONLY PRODUCT to pass the simulated desert lubricant testing in Maryland. Since the Army’s reevaluation team netted no new results; this new position taken by DSCR does not make any sense, with all due respect.

We have worked long and hard for this contract and (if necessary) would love to meet with you ASAP, so there are no more surprises on either side.

We desperately need your guidance and help, PLEASE,

Brad
www.militec-1.com

______________________________________________________________

----- Original Message -----
From: Liggon, Gus (DSCR)
To: Brad P. Giordani
Cc: Finegan, Patrick (DSCR)
Sent: Tuesday, June 21, 2005 7:20 AM
Subject: RE: Could you please help us

Brad,

To answer your question, in a May 11, 2005 meeting, ARDEC let DSCR know that it wants to reevaluate lubricants. ARDEC hopes to identify lubricants suited to a desert environment based on the lubricants that stand up best to tests under simulated desert conditions. So DSCR knows that the Army wants to update its small arms lubricant requirement with a new specification. Based on this information, DSCR determined to cancel the solicitation for a long term contract since it would likely result in a long term contract DSCR would have to cancel or change. From DSCR’s standpoint, it makes more sense to await a decision from the Army about how it wishes to proceed based on its testing of products than to get into a long term arrangement now.

DSCR stocks the Militec-1 product, and will continue to buy this product do so as long as there continues to be a demand.

Thanks,
Gus

From: Brad P. Giordani [mailto:militec@militec-1.com]
Sent: Tuesday, June 21, 2005 7:58 AM
To: Liggon, Gus (DSCR)
Cc: Finegan, Patrick (DSCR); Russ Logan
Subject: Re: Could you please help us/WRONG INFORMATION FROM ARDEC

Dear Gus,

Thank you for your response.

Picatinny Arsenal/ARDEC has already completed their "Simulated Testing" in a desert environment for weapon lubricants. The results were (as I indicated in my last message), MilSpec CLP weapons lubricant beat-out all other commercially tested lubricants. Picatinny Arsenal/ARDEC relied on "Simulated Testing" for their MilSpec CLP Lubricant since 1980. This new round of simulated testing at Aberdeen Proving Grounds (APG) resulted in no new data. Is this the lubricant testing that Picatinny Arsenal/ARDEC advised you on May 11, 2005 that was underway? Or, is there a new simulated test planned that has not been announced yet, that you have based your decision on, for not awarding us our expected ID/IQ contract?

I think at this point I would like to request a meeting with you next week if your schedule permits.

Please advise and I am looking forward to seeing you again.

All The Best to you, Gus,

Brad
www.militec-1.com

________________________________________________________________________

----- Original Message -----
From: Liggon, Gus (DSCR)
To: Brad P. Giordani
Cc: Finegan, Patrick (DSCR) ; Roddy, Veera V (DSCR)
Sent: Tuesday, June 21, 2005 10:25 AM
Subject: RE: Could you please help us/WRONG INFORMATION FROM ARDEC

Brad,
Agree. I think it is time to cut this e-mail string and meet. I’ll have Veera contact your office for a date and time.
Thanks
Gus

From: Brad P. Giordani [mailto:militec@militec-1.com]
Sent: Tuesday, June 21, 2005 3:17 PM
To: Liggon, Gus (DSCR)
Cc: Finegan, Patrick (DSCR); Roddy, Veera V (DSCR); Russ Logan
Subject: Re: Could you please help us/WRONG INFORMATION FROM ARDEC

Dear Gus,

Thank you very much for the meeting and, If possible, around 11:00 AM from this Friday on would be great.

Russ Logan, will be the only one in attendance with me.

Also, we received a call this morning from John Baggett (sp) @ DSCR-FAECA and requested that the back-ordered cases (330) of four-ounce bottles be delivered yesterday. We happily complied and will meet his prompt deadline.

We also received a call this morning from Ft. Wainwright Alaska on the same subject of back-ordered four-ounce cases, and was informed that their order was never acted upon last month (nor have they heard a peep out of anyone) and we advised that their cargo will be shipped to Tracy, Ca. for distribution next week. Some of the Striker Brigade's Soldiers have already left for theater. We overnighted 10 cases of 16-ounce bottles to Ft. Polk recently in order for them to have MILITEC-1 on their weapons prior to landing into theater. They paid for this by impac card.

We sincerely appreciate DSCR's continuing support and thank you for our upcoming meeting in Richmond.

Brad
www.militec-1.com

______________________________________________________________

----- Original Message -----
From: Roddy, Veera V (DSCR)
To: Brad P. Giordani
Sent: Tuesday, June 21, 2005 4:07 PM
Subject: RE: Could you please help us/WRONG INFORMATION FROM ARDEC

Mr. Giordani,

I just spoke with Russ Logan and we agreed to setup a meeting for you and Mr. Liggon on Tuesday, June 28, 2005 at 1:00. We are located in Building 33, H Bay, Room 109. I have reserved our Conference Room for your meeting – it is Room 104 – and it is equipped with a computer and LCD projector, if you need them. Also, I have reserved a parking space for you. The space is located in Lot 3 (directly in front of our office, but up a small hill), space 16. The sign says, “Reserved Director FA.”

Veera V. Roddy
Secretary, Aviation Supplier Operations Directorate
Defense Supply Center - Richmond
804-279-5363

From: dod-emallsupport@dlis.dla.mil [mailto:dod-emallsupport@dlis.dla.mil]
Sent: Wed 5/18/2005 4:36 AM
To: McKinzie Richard SSG 172 SBCT S4 Fielding NCOIC
Subject: DoD EMALL Order Confirmation

Thank you for ordering from the DoD EMALL, the mega electronic shopping mall. Your purchase information appears below. To see the latest information about your order, just click the 'Order Status' link on the toolbar on the left side of the screen once you have logged onto our site.

http://www.emall.dla.mil

If you need to contact us about your order, send an email message to us at dod-emallsupport@dlis.dla.mil.

============================================
Order # : MOMS00000486054
Creation Date : 5/18/2005 8:33:57 AM EST
Confirmation Sent On: 5/18/2005 8:36:44 AM EST
Logon ID : MCKINZIER
Account Name : MOMS00000486054
Payment Method : MILSTRIP

E-mail Address : XXX@XXX
Phone # : XXX-XXX-XXXX
Ship To DoDAAC(s) : W90MKF

Order Comments :

============================================
LINE NUMBER : 0001
SUPPLIER : DLA
NSN : 9150014159114
DESCRIPTION : LUBRICATING OIL,GENERAL PURPOSE
DOCUMENT# : W90MKF5138001E
QUANTITY : 330
UNITS : BX
UNIT PRICE : $95.18
-----------------------------------------
ITEM TOTAL : $31409.40

ORDER TOTAL : $31409.40

We would appreciate if you would return to the EMALL and acknowledge receipt of your order. You can post this receipt by clicking the 'MRA Status' button on the left side toolbar once you have logged onto our site.

Thanks for shopping at the DoD EMALL!

__________________________________________________________________________

----- Original Message -----
From: McKinzie Richard SSG 172 SBCT S4 Fielding NCOIC
To: bob.kovacic@militec.com
Sent: Wednesday, June 22, 2005 3:27 AM
Subject: FW: DoD EMALL Order Confirmation

From: McKinzie Richard SSG 172 SBCT S4 Fielding NCOIC
Sent: Wed 5/18/2005 4:47 AM
To: bob.kovacic@militec.com
Cc: Devereaux Danny M CPT
Subject: FW: DoD EMALL Order Confirmation

Sir,
The below order was submitted this morning through E-Mall, here is the shipping address and POC. I need a delivery date as soon as you can give me one.

546 Maintenance Company (172nd Stryker BDE)
F.D.P 4658 Command Loop
Fort Polk LA 71459
POC: CPT Devereaux
XXX-XXX-XXXX
SSG McKinzie

----- Original Message -----
From: Bob Kovacic LTC US Army (RET) Dir. Troop Support
To: McKinzie Richard SSG 172 SBCT S4 Fielding NCOIC
Cc: Brad P. Giordani
Sent: Wednesday, June 22, 2005 8:02 PM
Subject: Re: DoD EMAIL Order Confirmation

SSG Mac

Russ Logan at MILITEC is on this as I write this note. I have been traveling and not able to keep up with my mail.
We have you covered
regards
bob

----- Original Message -----
From: Brad P. Giordani
To: Gus Liggon
Cc: Bob Kovacic, LTC USA RET, Director Troop Support ; Roddy, Veera V (DSCR) ; Finegan, Patrick (DSCR) ; Russ Logan
Sent: Thursday, June 23, 2005 8:40 AM
Subject: Re: Could you please help us/WRONG INFORMATION FROM ARDEC/ONE MORE THING

Dear Gus,

I have pasted the order (below) that was placed by Ft. Wainwright last month for 330 cases of four-ounce bottles.

We are happy to report that the order from DSCR-FAECA was received yesterday and we shipped the 330 cases of four-ounce bottles the same day to Tracy, Ca.

Also, there appears to be a mistake on our hard copy order which was received yesterday from DSCR for this shipment. The text in the hazardous section (which MILITEC-1 is NOT hazardous) states: " MILITEC-1 cannot be used on weapons or vehicles.

And finally, Bob Kovacic (Director Troop Support) visited with TACOM yesterday and has a meeting in 15 minutes with Bruce Stout http://www.militec1.com/mildocs/GilPerkins2.html @ (TACOM-RI). On November 22, 2004 we received an email from Ms. Thomas @ DSCR that stated that the Army's ESA at TACOM is our POC. When Mr. Kovacic met with the two people that Ms. Thomas said (below) was our POC for weapons lubricants, both parties said that they are NOT involved with weapon lubricants and only work on the vehicle side which I tried to explain (below) in this string of emails that goes back to August last year.

Russ and I are looking forward to our meeting and will present additional information, we hope, will allow for our ID/IQ contract to be reinstated.

All The Best and have a great weekend,

Brad
www.militec-1.com

August 10, 2005

Dear Marit,

I am sending you this eleven (11) month old email string that you may be unaware. Please note the timelines of Mr. Finegan’s emails and his subsequent actions.

One main case in point; DSCR cannot award a Cleaner Lubricant Preservative, CLP, our five (5) National Stock Numbers (NSN’s). MILITEC-1 is NOT a Cleaner lubricant and Preservative, it’s a dry lubricant that impregnates gunmetal. This is apples and oranges.

DSCR is now issuing a CLP product to our troops who ordered MILITEC-1. This is completely stupid and must be stopped before this case (and others) becomes national news.

Very Best,

Brad
www.militec-1.com