H
Harry Hope
Guest
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/rep-louise-slaughter/our-soldiers-deserve-armo_b_56611.html
July 17, 2007
Our Soldiers Deserve Armor -- And Answers
By Rep. Louise Slaughter
In yesterday's USA Today expose on the ignored pleas from troops in
the field for Mine Resistant Ambush Protected (MRAP) vehicles to
protect from the growing threat of IEDs, we learned of a heartbreaking
statistic that "'621 to 742 Americans' who would have survived
explosions had they been in MRAPs rather than Humvees."
http://www.usatoday.com/printedition/news/20070716/1a_iedcoverxx.art.htm
It's an issue that I have long been troubled with in this mismanaged
war.
In January 2006, I grew concerned after reading an article in The New
York Times that revealed sole-source contracts that had been issued to
contractors that had significant issues in delivering the vehicles to
Iraq, including one, Force Protection "that had never mass-produced
vehicles."
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/01/06/p...tml?ex=1184817600&en=765b8844d22fd4b3&ei=5070
In light of this shocking report, I demanded answers from the
Department of Defense's Inspector Generals (IG) Office on the
procurement policies for body armor and armored vehicles, specifically
asking them to focus on the sole-source contracts issued to Armor
Holdings, Inc. and Force Protection, Inc.
Last week the first of those reports was released by the Pentagon on
the "Procurement Policy for Armored Vehicles."
http://www.louise.house.gov/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=835&Itemid=1
The 49-page report details how the Pentagon regularly violated federal
procurement policies in order to justify the sole-source awards to AHI
and FPI.
The IG documented that senior military officials wanted to
multi-source the contracts, but that they were overruled by a Task
Force report to the Deputy Secretary of Defense.
As a consequence of these sole-source awards, AHI and FPI regularly
failed to get the vehicles to theater.
Those companies were rewarded with additional sole-source contracts
despite delays in providing vital armor or broken equipment arriving
in Iraq.
Twice in the report, the Inspector General writes that the problems
"increased risk to soldiers' lives."
The 15 sole-source contracts issued to these two companies were worth
a total of more than $2.2 billion.
From the beginning, these contracts should have raised more questions
as decisions for procurement from other companies were overruled at
some of the highest levels of the Defense Department.
Force Protection was unable to meet production deadlines even after
the Pentagon paid $6.7 million to build up their capability.
The results were unsurprising and tragic.
Armor Holdings sent cracked equipment that had been painted over, and
even two armored left doors for the same vehicle, instead of one right
and one left.
All of this put our troops in greater danger all while these companies
continued to receive additional contacts.
This report and the fine reporting from USA Today and The New York
Times unearths more questions than answers.
Our soldiers deserve nothing less than best equipment and answers to
why they are not receiving it -- and we are determined to get them
both.
___________________________________________________
Do you agree, rightards?
Harry
July 17, 2007
Our Soldiers Deserve Armor -- And Answers
By Rep. Louise Slaughter
In yesterday's USA Today expose on the ignored pleas from troops in
the field for Mine Resistant Ambush Protected (MRAP) vehicles to
protect from the growing threat of IEDs, we learned of a heartbreaking
statistic that "'621 to 742 Americans' who would have survived
explosions had they been in MRAPs rather than Humvees."
http://www.usatoday.com/printedition/news/20070716/1a_iedcoverxx.art.htm
It's an issue that I have long been troubled with in this mismanaged
war.
In January 2006, I grew concerned after reading an article in The New
York Times that revealed sole-source contracts that had been issued to
contractors that had significant issues in delivering the vehicles to
Iraq, including one, Force Protection "that had never mass-produced
vehicles."
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/01/06/p...tml?ex=1184817600&en=765b8844d22fd4b3&ei=5070
In light of this shocking report, I demanded answers from the
Department of Defense's Inspector Generals (IG) Office on the
procurement policies for body armor and armored vehicles, specifically
asking them to focus on the sole-source contracts issued to Armor
Holdings, Inc. and Force Protection, Inc.
Last week the first of those reports was released by the Pentagon on
the "Procurement Policy for Armored Vehicles."
http://www.louise.house.gov/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=835&Itemid=1
The 49-page report details how the Pentagon regularly violated federal
procurement policies in order to justify the sole-source awards to AHI
and FPI.
The IG documented that senior military officials wanted to
multi-source the contracts, but that they were overruled by a Task
Force report to the Deputy Secretary of Defense.
As a consequence of these sole-source awards, AHI and FPI regularly
failed to get the vehicles to theater.
Those companies were rewarded with additional sole-source contracts
despite delays in providing vital armor or broken equipment arriving
in Iraq.
Twice in the report, the Inspector General writes that the problems
"increased risk to soldiers' lives."
The 15 sole-source contracts issued to these two companies were worth
a total of more than $2.2 billion.
From the beginning, these contracts should have raised more questions
as decisions for procurement from other companies were overruled at
some of the highest levels of the Defense Department.
Force Protection was unable to meet production deadlines even after
the Pentagon paid $6.7 million to build up their capability.
The results were unsurprising and tragic.
Armor Holdings sent cracked equipment that had been painted over, and
even two armored left doors for the same vehicle, instead of one right
and one left.
All of this put our troops in greater danger all while these companies
continued to receive additional contacts.
This report and the fine reporting from USA Today and The New York
Times unearths more questions than answers.
Our soldiers deserve nothing less than best equipment and answers to
why they are not receiving it -- and we are determined to get them
both.
___________________________________________________
Do you agree, rightards?
Harry
