By Ann Roosevelt
The Defense Department Inspector General (DoD IG) finds that contract documentation between January 2004 and December 2006 Army body armor procurement was not adequately maintained, according to Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) requirements.
However, the Army has said repeatedly that its top priority is soldier protection, and responds saying: “Since its initial fielding in 1999, the Army’s Interceptor Body Armor has demonstrated superior combat performance in Kosovo, Afghanistan and Iraq.”
In the March 31 Report No. D-2008-067, “DoD Procurement Policy for Body Armor,” the DoD IG said, “Specific information concerning testing and approval of first articles was not included in 13 of 28 Army contracts and orders reviewed, and contracting files were not maintained in 11 of 28 Army contracts to show why procurement decisions were made.”
The DoD IG reviewed pre-solicitation, solicitation and evaluation phases of acquisition as well as the contracting files on first article testing for Army and Marine contracts and orders.
First article testing is done before or in the initial stage of production to ensure the product–in this case body armor–conforms to the contract requirements. The FAR requires contracting organizations to maintain adequate contract documentation for a complete acquisition history. However, the Army said, FAR allows first article testing to be waived if the contractor is already producing the item under contract.
The Army says it is in “full and complete compliance with the FAR, [Defense] DFAR, source law and current policy in every case concerning body armor procurement.”
To correct future deficiencies and receive best value, the DoD IG made three recommendations. The first is that Program Executive Office (PEO) Soldier direct testing and evaluation of the first articles of body armor make sure they comply with the contract before all production contracts.
PEO Soldier should also update purchase descriptions and document contract actions for all body armor contracts.
PEO Soldier neither agreed nor disagreed with this recommendation, saying in its response that no action is required because the recommended actions are current business practice in the office. The DoD IG audit found that is not the case, and contract documentation is inconsistent.
Further, PEO Soldier stated that while it was not within the audit scope, the Army also conducts lot acceptance testing and post-issue surveillance testing.
In a meeting with Army officials, the PEO said the “Army has no evidence of deaths that can be attributed to defective body armor.”
Secondly, the IG recommends the Army Research, Development and Engineering Command ensure testing instructions for the first articles of body armor are included in contract documents where applicable and document contract actions.
The Army Research, Development and Engineering Commander agreed with the recommendation and said he implemented changes.
Finally, the IG recommends the Assistant Secretary for the Army Acquisition, Logistics (ASA ALT) and Technology ensure the proper use of non-DoD contracts to make sure the contracts are in the best interest of the government.
The deputy ASA (ALT) agreed with the recommendation, but the IG said it was only partially responsive because “he did not identify what actions will be taken to ensure that policies and procedures are enforced.”
However, for the Army, the bottom line is: “The current body armor is doing what it is designed to do: stop or slow bullets and fragments, and reduce the severity of wounds.”