Internet: www.militec-1.com

To: Friends of American Troops

From: Brad P. Giordani, President, Militec, Inc.

Subj: A Major General that is hurting our troops in combat

Civil servants at Defense Supply Center Richmond (DSCR) have been warned for years about the misconduct of Picatinny Arsenal (RDECOM/ARDEC). Even with this prior knowledge of multiple problems with Picatinny, DSCR still implemented ARDEC’s unethical and misleading campaign, diverting Militec, Inc.’s military contracts and NSN’s to a CLP competitor in record time.

DSCR also failed to adequately investigate their own internal records. Prior to acting so swiftly to substitute a CLP for MILITEC-1, they should have tried to understand why MILITEC-1 is always on back-order or rush order status by our troops and the pending ID/IQ contract.

This document will justify a prompt investigation and will provide evidence for indictments of several civil servants. Holding people accountable is the only way to help reform the Military procurement system. Successful prosecution of this case can be used as a blueprint to root out related corruption that the system is designed to protect by default.

Timeline

August 23, 1993: MILITEC-1 products are first granted seven National Stock Numbers (NSN’s) by Defense Supply Center Richmond (DSCR), formerly DGSC. (Enclosure 7)

February 28, 1994: The AMC Inspector General investigates LePera for complaining to WMAL Radio Station in DC about Militec, Inc.’s radio advertisement that mentioned our NSN’s. This is the first of multiple investigations into LePera’s activities. (Enclosure 8)

June 6, 1994: LePera encourages the elimination of MILITEC-1’s NSN’s after the AMC IG and others investigate his activities. (Enclosure 9)

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. (Enclosure 10)

August 26, 1994: Acting DSCR commander advises Militec, Inc. that removal of MILITEC-1’s NSN’s is in the Government’s best interest. (Enclosure 11)

October 31, 1994: Defense Logistic Agency (DLA), the parent agency of DSCR, advises Militec, Inc. that “all requisitions have been cancelled.” (Enclosure 12)

December 6, 1994: DLA advises Congress MILITEC-1’s NSN’s cancellation order as been suspended. (Enclosure 13)

March 17, 1995: Nineteen members of Congress send a joint letter to Secretary of Defense William J. Perry supporting MILITEC-1. (Enclosure 14)

March 24, 1995: DLA advises Militec, Inc. that it will not cancel the NSN’s. (Enclosure 15)

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...” (Enclosure 16)

July 6, 1995: DLA notifies Congress that two new National Stock Numbers (NSN’s) will be granted to MILITEC-1. (Enclosure 17)

September 18, 1995: MILITEC-1 is granted two additional NSN’s for a total of seven NSN’s through DLA. (Enclosure 18)

For eight years, using our sole-sourced NSN’s, MILITEC-1 is continuously supplied to the Defense Supply Centers and Military units worldwide without a problem.

March 19, 2003: While our troops are rolling into Baghdad, MILITEC-1’s NSN’s are abruptly cancelled by direction of Colonel Padgett at Picatinny Arsenal N.J (ARDEC). Colonel Padgett’s group also directs DSCR to cancel over $120,000.00 in emergency war orders for MILITEC-1, without notifying the Commanders of all three Brigades of the 3rd ID that were arriving in theater. Militec, Inc. lost over $500,000.00 in war orders and our troops experienced thousands of individual jammed weapons. This is criminal. (Enclosure 19)

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. (Enclosure 20)

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. (Enclosure 24)

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…” (Enclosure 25)

November 19, 2003: DSCR updates Congress on the status of our NSN’s. (Enclosure 27)

January 21, 2004: Michael Schexnayder investigates another cancelled order for 930 cases of four-ounce bottles (12 per case) ordered by Ft. Hood. DSCR called to inform us that they were not happy about losing the commission on this contract after investing hours of hard work. (Enclosure 31)

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. We were not surprised when our invitation was not sent for this year’s award ceremony. (Enclosure 32)

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. (Enclosure 34)

August 24, 2004: Brad contacts Mike Kuszmal, our new POC at DSCR, regarding a competitor (an Iranian chemical salesman in Texas named Hussein) who is trying to capitalize on our “sole source” NSN-specific product. Brad requests ID/IQ contract guidance. DSCR awarded Hussein a contract for MILITEC-1 valued at over $200,000.00. Militec protested and DSCR promptly cancelled the Iranian’s contract. (Enclosure 35)

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 37)

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. (Enclosure 40)

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 41)

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, who authorized this language and is listed by name as the judge and jury on the contract, should be promptly arrested! (Enclosure 42)

June 24, 2005: This was the first time (to our knowledge) a MILITEC-1 contract was diverted to a CLP award. The contract number is SPO406-05-M-AR28. DSCR also requested accelerated delivery on this diverted and delayed contract. We bid on this public solicitation (prior to the award) last February (the same month ARDEC gave away our NSN’s) so how could this contract be awarded four months later without our knowledge, or us being notified? This contract did not contain the “not approved by DOD for use as a small arms lubricant” in the final contract, as did the last contract dated June 21, 2005. (Enclosure 43)

July 19, 2005: Militec, Inc is finally allowed to become aware that DSCR has awarded the MILITEC-1 NSN’s to a new competitor’s CLP formula. Militec, Inc. receives an email from Patrick Finegan, stating that Solicitation SP040605Q0780, which called for 261 cases of 4 oz. bottles of MILITEC-1, has been awarded to the same brand-new competitor. This second diverted award was also delayed and accelerated delivery was again requested. (Enclosure 44)

July 20, 2005: Militec files protest with DSCR legal. Sol# SPM40605Q0780 and Contract ID # SPM406-05-M-1351. Reply expected August 15, 2005, per DLA CDR. (Enclosure 45)

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. This is criminal. (Enclosure 47)

July 28, 2005: A copy of the stop work order that resulted in our protest. (Enclosure 48)

July 25, 2005: A MILITEC-1 NSN contract for 261 cases of four ounce bottles is improperly issued to a competitor with Picatinny’s POC information on the face of the contract that states “All alternative offers must be approved by US Army ARDEC prior to contract award.” ARDEC should not be advertising this fact to our competitors then be allowed to play judge, jury and executioner. Since Desert Storm, we have told the world that ARDEC’s MilSpec CLP product is defective, and is directly responsible for injury and death to our forces. This is their payback to us. (Enclosure 51)

July, 2005: Militec, Inc. sends numerous letters of protest to government officials. (Enclosure 52)

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 53)

August 15, 2005: Our protest letter dated July 20, 2005 was answered by Mr. Finegan and not the legal department. This letter was not dated and supports Picatinny’s behavior, without addressing the specifics of our complaint. (Enclosure 54)

August 16, 2005: Brad sends DSCR legal an email/fax asking why the person he is complaining about is signing on behalf of the legal department. (Enclosure 55)

August 17, 2005: Brad sends the PM @ Picatinny/ARDEC five questions. (Enclosure 56) As of June 18th, 2006 Gus Funcasta has not replied to simple questions.

Additional facts

Since September 11, 2001 Militec, Inc. has received over 25,000 emails from all military branches requesting free supplies of MILITEC-1. The troops constantly tell us the reason they email us requesting as much MILITEC-1 as they can get is that CLP does not work.

In an effort to properly equip our troops and rid the Military of a defective lubricant, Militec, Inc. has donated over 300,000 bottles of MILITEC-1 and spent over one-million dollars (not including labor) to answer our troops’ requests for help. In total, over one million bottles of MILITEC-1 have been supplied to our troops since Operation Enduring Freedom (OEF).

DSCR deleted millions of dollars of MILITEC-1 sales history from their website. Accurate records are now unavailable when troops search to see what the historical demand for MILITEC-1 has been through DSCR.

Picatinny Arsenal NJ, and Rock Island Arsenal IL, have done nothing since Desert Storm to update the Technical Manuals (TM’s) for proper lubricant use in desert combat.

Picatinny to this day insists MILITEC-1 does not work and only their CLP product should be used by our troops in combat.

Why would Picatinny grant our exact NSN’s to a CLP product if, in fact, according to Picatinny, CLP is a better product? If it is a better product, it should have its own NSN’s so troops can order it as such.

Since 1980, Picatinny’s MilSpec CLP has had its own NSN’s and so should any new CLP replacement products they support. To support this, the new CLP # 2 has its own NSN’s and the CLP’s are completely interchangeable. The new CLP # 2 is said to be for “HARSH DESERT ENVIRONMENTS” Why would ARDEC developed a CLP # 2 if the regular CLP worked as MG Nadeau is claiming? ARDEC also claims not to use their CLP’s as a preservative anymore. They are starting to understand the problems.

Granting MILITEC-1’s NSN’s to a CLP competitor is simply Picatinny’s way of blocking troops’ access to MILITEC-1. If it weren’t for the huge demand for a dry lubricant that Militec, Inc. recently created, a CLP substitute of ARDEC’s choice would never be sharing our NSN’s. This is cut and dried.

The danger with sharing our NSN’s is that when troops order MILITEC-1 through DSCR by plugging in our NSN’s, they may (and some have) receive CLP instead - exactly what the troops are trying to avoid by ordering MILITEC-1.

CONCLUSION

Since September 11, 2001 Militec, Inc has created a multi-million dollar demand for the best dry weapons lubricant the Military has ever used in a desert environment.

As a result of this massive and unprecedented demand for MILITEC-1 weapons lubricant, Picatinny Arsenal (ARDEC) has awarded our hard earned Military business to a CLP company of their choice in record time with Major General Roger A. Nadeau’s support.

Now, with their new rules in place (which are contained in all solicitations and contracts for MILITEC-1), Picatinny can play judge and jury deciding which MILITEC-1 contracts are diverted for CLP contracts.

Picatinny justified a substitute for MILITEC-1 based on MilSpec CLP lab testing which does not correlate to real-world conditions. Picatinny uses the same lab testing to justify their MilSpec CLP product that our troops don’t want. This is why the APG testing did not use real sand and tested the weapons wet with CLP and then exposed to silica mesh flour which has proven to work the best with MilSpec CLP formulations containing solids.

Picatinny has lied about CLP’s ineffectiveness in a desert environment ever since Desert Storm. CLP has failed since Desert Storm because it was never tested in a real-world environment over time. All twenty four lubricant products except Picatinny’s MilSpec CLP failed in the recent simulated testing at APG cited above.

This document proves once again that Picatinny/RDECOM is paying us back for exposing their corrupt activities over the years through multiple IG investigations and posting their own words on our website. Since MG Nadeau came from Picatinny, it’s no wonder that he blindly supports his civilians vs. listening to our troops and understanding how small arms function in a desert environment.

If this situation is not fixed promptly, more jammed weapons and dead troops will result from the continued use of a wet CLP product that is defective for desert combat conditions.

Please help us expose the corruption at Aberdeen Proving Grounds (APG) (RDECOM) and Picatinny Arsenal (ARDEC) and get the word to the Secretary of Defense and the White House that Major General Roger A. Nadeau the commander of RDECOM @ APG has got to go and his ill advised position to our troops must be reversed at once.

Sincerely,

Brad P. Giordani

President and

Inventor of MILITEC-1