BS: Liberal slant, eh?

Subject: BS: Liberal slant, eh?
From: GUEST,282RA
Date: 11 Jul 07 - 09:52 PM

[Witness the amazing shrinking "scathing report". I am closely allied with some of these companies and I can attest to how inept and lost they are. So I copied this news article to show my bosses. When I checked on the link later, the first report was replaced with one less scathing, less critical of the massive failures of these defense contractors to measure up to the task for which they were awarded a contract. Softening it won't change the govt's assessment and it looks like heads will roll and I can guess which people I may not see next time I'm down there (I just got back from NC but am not in SC because this client MISSED ANOTHER DELIVERY!! Unbelievable.--AR]

Contractors failed to deliver armored vehicles

Inspector general finds Pentagon used firms it knew would be late

Updated: 3:03 p.m. ET July 11, 2007

WASHINGTON - The Defense Department put U.S. troops in Iraq at risk by awarding contracts for badly needed armored vehicles to companies that failed to deliver them on schedule, according to a review by the Pentagon's inspector general.

The June 27 report, obtained Wednesday by The Associated Press, examined 15 contracts worth $2.2 billion awarded since 2000 to Force Protection, Inc., and Armor Holdings, Inc.
The auditors found several contracts issued by the Marine Corps on a sole-source basis to Force Protection even though it knew there were other manufacturers that might have supplied the vehicles in a more timely fashion.

The Marine Corps determined that Force Protection of Ladson, S.C., was the only supplier that could meet the urgent delivery schedule for the vehicles.

The inspector general's report, however, concludes otherwise. It says the company "did not perform as a responsible contractor and repeatedly failed to meet contractual delivery schedules for getting the vehicles the theater."

The report also criticizes the Army's decision to award a contract for armor kits to Simula Aerospace and Defense Group, a subsidiary of Armor Holdings of Jacksonville, Fla.

Armor kits late, incomplete

Simula did not meet the government's definition of a "responsible prospective contractor," according to the report, and it lacked the mechanisms necessary to ensure proper delivery of the kits, which were needed to make Humvees less vulnerable to roadside bombs.

The Army received kits "with missing and unusable components, which increased the kit installation time and required additional reinspection of kits," it said.

Overall, the problems "resulted in increased risk to the lives of soldiers," the report states.
There was no immediate comment by the contractors.

The review was requested by Rep. Louise Slaughter in April 2006, after she learned the Pentagon was relying on a just a few small companies to supply armored vehicles to troops in Iraq.

'Lives of our soldiers took a back seat'

With improvised explosive devices accounting for the majority of combat deaths and injuries, Slaughter said that strategy needed to be examined.

"It's been business as usual," Slaughter, D-N.Y., said Wednesday after reviewing the report. "The lives of our soldiers took a back seat to who got the contracts."

Slaughter said the report raises "more questions than answers" and she wants to know if the awards were the result of "influence peddling or insider connections."

In written comments to the inspector general, the Marine Corps defended its acquisition decisions for the vehicles.

The armored vehicle contracts "were executed within the law, spirit and intent of the current acquisition rules and regulations," according the comments.

The Army did not object to the report's findings.

© 2007 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/19714632/

Contractors failed to deliver armored vehicles

Inspector general finds Pentagon bypassed firms that might be faster

Updated: 32 minutes ago

WASHINGTON - The Defense Department put U.S. troops in Iraq at risk by awarding contracts for badly needed armored vehicles to companies that failed to deliver them on time, according to a review by the Pentagon's inspector general.

The June 27 report, obtained Wednesday by The Associated Press, examined 15 contracts worth $2.2 billion awarded since 2000 to Force Protection Inc. and Armor Holdings Inc.

The contracts were issued without the normal competition for government work because the military determined these companies were the only ones capable of supplying the vehicles fast enough to meet the demands of deployed troops.

Yet the inspector general's report concluded otherwise.

Overall, Force Protection of Ladson, S.C., received 11 contracts from the Army and Marine Corps worth $417 million for a variety of vehicles, including its Buffalo and Cougar mine-resistant trucks.
Company stands by product

Force Protection failed to meet all delivery schedules, according to the report, and acquisition officials knew there were other manufacturers that might have supplied some of the vehicles in a more timely fashion. The report does not provide the names of those possible alternative sources.


Mike Aldrich, a Force Protection vice president, acknowledged the delays and said the problems were caused by an inability to get essential manufacturing materials.

The company's production and delivery schedules have improved greatly in recent months, Aldrich added, noting that 100 of the Buffalo vehicles have been delivered.

"Government reports are largely written by lawyers and look intimidating when you pick them up," Aldrich said. "But our vehicles perform well in theater and have saved the lives of troops."

Armor kits delayed, incomplete

The inspector general's report agreed that Force Protection's vehicles have been of substantial value since they arrived.

The report, not yet publicly released, also criticizes the Army's award of a $266 million contract for crew protection kits to Simula Aerospace and Defense Group, a subsidiary of Armor Holdings of Jacksonville, Fla.

Simula lacked the internal controls necessary to ensure delivery of the kits, which were needed to make military vehicles less vulnerable to roadside bombs and small-arms fire, according to the report.
The Army received kits "with missing and unusable components, which increased installation time and required additional reinspection of kits," according to the report.

In describing the scope of the problem, the report said that some of the Simula kits delivered to the troops had two left doors, were missing side plates and contained brackets that needed re-welding.

Lawmaker pledges more inquiries

Overall, the problems "resulted in increased risk to the lives of soldiers," the report states.
Armor Holdings received three other contracts worth $1.5 billion for armored Humvees and armor kits to strengthen older-model vehicles.

Spokesman Michael Fox said the company had not seen the report and had no immediate comment.
The review was requested by Rep. Louise Slaughter, D-N.Y., in April 2006, after she learned the Pentagon was relying on just a few small companies to supply bomb-resistant vehicles to troops in Iraq.
With improvised explosive devices accounting for the majority of combat deaths and injuries, Slaughter said that strategy needed to be examined.

"It's been business as usual," Slaughter said Wednesday after reviewing the report. "The lives of our soldiers took a back seat to who got the contracts."

Slaughter said the report raises more questions than answers and that she wants to know if the awards were the result of "influence peddling or insider connections."

In written comments to the inspector general, the Marine Corps defended its acquisition decisions for the vehicles.

The armored vehicle contracts "were executed within the law, spirit and intent of the current acquisition rules and regulations," according the comments.

In separate written comments, the Army did not object to the report's findings.

Subject: RE: BS: Liberal slant, eh?
From: Rapparee
Date: 11 Jul 07 - 09:56 PM

Having spoken to quite a few who have been there I can't say I'm surprised.

Subject: RE: BS: Liberal slant, eh?
From: The Fooles Troupe
Date: 11 Jul 07 - 10:08 PM

Funny lot, you bloody Yanks - in Oz, we would call that 'Conservative' slant - the Aussle Liberal Party has now been taken over by Fundamentalist Right Winger Conservatives... nothing 'Liberal' in that sort of displayed behaviour...

Subject: RE: BS: Liberal slant, eh?
From: GUEST,282RA
Date: 11 Jul 07 - 10:29 PM

That was sarcasm.

The rightwing cockwads can never shut up about the media being liberally biased. So I'm asking them if this is their idea of a liberal slant. I thought my phrasing it as a question would have made that obvious.

Subject: RE: BS: Liberal slant, eh?
From: Greg F.
Date: 12 Jul 07 - 10:42 AM

Whoa! The BuShites are two-faced, lying, corrupt and incompetent sacks of crap.

Who would ever have believed it?

[ Mission Accomplished! ]