Army News, opinions, editorials, news from Iraq, photos, reports - Army Times

Investigators question body armor tests

The Army failed to adequately document testing of hundreds of thousands of soldier body armor components the service bought between 2004 and 2006, according to a Defense Department Inspector General audit.

The March 31 draft report on DoD procurement policy for body armor states that specific information concerning testing of “first articles,” or initial production samples, was not included in 13 of 28 Army contracts reviewed for the DoD audit. In addition, the report states that the contracting files of 11 of 28 Army contracts did not show why the procurement decisions were made. Such documentation is required by Federal Acquisition Regulations, the audit states.

“As a result, DoD has no assurance that first articles produced under 13 of the 28 contracts and orders reviewed met the required standards, or that 11 of the 28 contracts were awarded based on informed procurement decisions,” the audit report states.

The Army took issue with the audit’s findings in an April 2 release.

The service maintains that it is in “full compliance” with federal regulations and current policy when it comes to buying body armor, Army spokesman Paul Boyce said in the release.

“The fact that the Defense Department Inspector General was not completely able to verify testing and approval of first-article testing or aspects of contracting files does not mean the body armor did not meet specifications,” Boyce said.

“The Army requires two levels of performance verification prior to acceptance of body armor issued to soldiers: First Article Test and Lot Acceptance Test,” Boyce said in the release. “These two test requirements verify that body armor meets U.S. Army standards before being issued to soldiers and ensure production processes remain in check. The Army’s response to the draft report states that first-article testing is a regular and consistent current business practice for purchasing body armor.”

DoD’s IG launched the audit at the April 19, 2006, request of Rep. Louise M. Slaughter, D-N.Y., who said she was concerned about the Army’s decision to ban soldiers from wearing any body armor other than the issue Interceptor Outer Tactical Vest.

“I am concerned that our soldiers in the field — who think they need better protective gear than provided to them by DoD — were not consulted before the Army banned privately-bought body armor,” she wrote in her April 19 letter to the DoD IG.

The Army did release a “safety of use” message in March 2006, which banned all commercially purchased body armor, but singled out Dragon Skin, a particular type of armor manufactured by Pinnacle in Fresno, Calif. Both Army and Marine officials maintained that Dragon Skin does not protect against current threats troops face in Iraq.

The message sparked a feud between that Army and Pinnacle that drew Congressional interest.

The Army tested Pinnacle’s SOV 3000 Level VI Dragon Skin vests in May of that year at the National Institute of Justice-certified H.P. White labs near Aberdeen Proving Grounds, Md. In that test, Dragon Skin “failed miserably,” according to Army officials.

The tests subjected Dragon Skin to the same test protocols the Army uses to test its body armor, the ceramic plates that sit in pockets in the outer tactical vest and are known as Enhanced Small Arms Protective Inserts and Enhanced Side Ballistic Inserts. Four out of the eight Dragon Skin vests tested failed after suffering 13 first- or second-shot complete penetrations with 7.62mmx63mm APM2 Armor Piercing ammunition, Army officials said.

That same month, Pinnacle also became the subject of a joint investigation by the Air Force’s Office of Special Investigations and the Defense Criminal Investigative Service after Dragon Skin failed two Air Force tests in February 2006.