----- Original Message -----
From: Ebner, Susan
To: michael.child@dodig.mil
Cc: Brad Paul Giordani ; Hilton, Steven
Sent: Wednesday, August 09, 2006 5:30 PM
Subject: Militec Inspector General Complaint

Dear Mike:

As promised, I am following up on our teleconference this morning to provide the enclosed complaint from Militec (the whole package, including referenced attachments will be sent via overnight mail tomorrow). I would ask that you forward it to the appropriate personnel to be reviewed and investigated promptly.

Troops lives are at risk because the Army is forcing them to use Cleaner Lubricant Preservative (CLP) and General Purpose Lubricant (GPL) specifications and products that do not work in the adverse conditions found in the current desert war theater. The Army and the Defense Supply Center Richmond (DSCR) are affirmatively preventing troops from getting weapons and equipment lubricants, such as MILITEC-1, that do work in these hostile environments, and they are taking actions against Militec in retaliation for raising these proper concerns. The enclosed complaint and documentation is provided in support of the following specific points:

  • Even though it does not work in the desert environment, the Army has deliberately determined that CLP is the lubricant of choice for troop weapons and equipment.
  • Militec has received tens of thousands of emails from troops in the war theater, those who have returned from the war theater, their families, and law enforcement personnel, that consistently indicate that CLP does not work, CLP causes serious problems such as attracting dust and sand to the weapon or equipment causing it to jam. These emails also indicate that MILITEC-1 does work, MILITEC-1 is better than CLP, but MILITEC-1 is not available to them in the war theater, or when they ask for MILITEC1-1, they get another product that is not the same.
  • Other agencies that fire weapons, such as the Defense Criminal Investigative Service, the U.S. Coast Guard, the Secret Service, have looked into CLP and MILITEC-1 and chosen MILITEC-1 as a better lubricant, corrosion inhibitor and metal conditioner for their weapons.
  • The Army's continued use of CLP, especially in the current war theater, increases the potential for weapons and equipment jams and loss of life. The Army could prevent this by providing better lubricants. Where other military services and agencies that use weapons are repeatedly choosing MILITEC-1 over CLP, and troops are writing that CLP does not work, but MILITEC-1 does, there must be a problem somewhere. The issue needs to be investigated.
  • The Army and DSCR strategized and retaliated against Militec for raising these concerns: They cancelled procurements rather than allow Militec to compete and raise its concerns. DSCR, in concert with the Army, blocked National Stock Numbers (NSNs) for Militec products so that they are not accessible to the public for acquisition of MILITEC-1. DSCR stopped procurements of the product under these NSNs. At the request of the Army, DSCR told listed users of MILITEC-1 that MILITEC-1 failed Army lubricant tests under specifications that have never been applied to the MILITEC-1 NSN. These and other actions by DSCR and the Army deprive Militec of its rights and an opportunity to be heard; they constitute a de facto debarment/suspension of Militec.

    As I said in my call to you, I have handled government contracts matters over the past 25 years and have never seen a situation like this. I raised these issues on behalf of Militec through normal bid protest and administrative agency channels. In response, DSCR cancelled procurements that were protested, refused face to face meetings, and the Army refused to come to the table for Alternate Dispute Resolution. FOIA'ed documents indicate that the DSCR and Army met to form a strategy to prevent sales of MILITEC-1, and without permitting Militec input, qualified otherwise unequal products to be sold under the MILITEC-1 NSNs, tested MILITEC-1 against inapplicable specifications, instituted a block on sales of MILITEC-1, and engaged in a course of conduct that improperly and unfairly disparages MILITEC-1. Indeed, they issued press statements and contacted other listed NSN users to tell them MILITEC-1 failed specification tests and CLP works. I do not know how else to get my client's issues heard since the proper administrative channels for this type of thing appear to have been closed to them. On behalf of Militec, please take a look at the enclosed complaint and supporting documentation. I believe it is in the best interests of all that this matter be thoroughly investigated by objective, neutral personnel once and for all.

    Thank you.

    Susan Ebner

    Susan Warshaw Ebner
    Buchanan Ingersoll & Rooney PC
    1700 K Street, NW
    Suite 300
    Washington, DC 20006

    Home Site Use Agreement Contact Us Store

    ©1988-2008 - MILITEC, INC.