NPR: Army Awards New Vest Contract Despite Media Report

Army Awards New Vest Contract Despite Media Report

A couple of days ago we told you about the controversy over the type of body armor used by the military. NBC News had done an investigative report that included interviews with experts who said that an armored protective vest known as Dragon Skin, made by Pinnacle Armor, would better protect troops in Iraq and Afghanistan than the current vest, known as Interceptor.

But the Pentagon produced test results that it said showed Dragon Skin was actually inferior to the current model, and some defense commentators at blogs like RedState backed the military. Then Wednesday, The Army Times reported that the brouhaha over the right vest didn't stop the Army from awarding new contracts worth $167 million for a new vest to protect soldiers.

Specialty Defense of Dunmore, Pa., and Point Blank of Pompano Beach, Fla., were awarded the contracts Monday to make the Improved Outer Tactical Vest, a redesigned version of the Interceptor that offers design improvements including a quick release system, increased coverage, lighter weight, and better fit and comfort, according to a press release from Program Executive Office Soldier.

10:07 AM ET | 05-24-2007 | permalink

Comments (Send a comment)

Shame on NBC and Pinnacle for pimping this non-story for their own benefit. NBC's test more credible than the Pentagon's? I think not. No one has more invested in protecting the lives of soldiers than the organization comprised solely of soldiers. And with the current political climate, if Dragon skin was truly better, does anyone believe that the military would have any problem getting the money from Congress to switch? I suppose it would be wishful thinking to expect NBC's retraction/clarification/update/apology on this week's edition of Dateline.

Sent by Edward | 11:25 AM ET | 05-24-2007

Shame on NBC and Pinnacle?????? Shame on our government for pimping our troops lives! I don't suppose the thought crossed your mind that perhaps someone at the Pentagon is benefitting from the contract going for the Interceptor? Similar to say HALLIBURTON and KBR???? If you're that far out in la la land, please blow some smoke my way!!!

Sent by Susan Canna | 12:23 PM ET | 05-24-2007

Would the military have problems getting money from Congress? Probably not. But the question remains; if Dragon Skin was INFERIOR to Interceptor armor, why did it take the Pentagon one YEAR to state that fact -- during which time many soldiers chose to wore Dragon Skin over the standard-issue body armor? I don't doubt that the Pentagon is concerened for the well-being of its soldiers, but something's fishy here, and this is an issue that bears further investigation.

Sent by Juni | 12:26 PM ET | 05-24-2007

Interesting enough as this is... Kinda frivalous, no ? I mean since 90% of our casaulties are from IED's, which correct me if Im wrong, Dragonskin and Interceptors WILL NOT protect our troops from. Just a thought, I don't think any of us on here our experts, so maybe we should leave it to them to decide...

Sent by samiamsglock | 1:43 PM ET | 05-24-2007

No disrespect to anitwar folks. I'm tired of this too. This isn't about the government going to war. It's about professional soldiers picking the best armor for their comrades. Career soldiers don't sell out their buddies for kickbacks from contractors. Putting out oil fires, fixing pipes, setting up tents and serving food (Halliburton/KBR work) is one thing. Letting an armor contract go to the highest bidder is another. I trust Pentagon testers more than the folks SELLING the armor. Dragon skin offers more flexibility at the expense of protection. The Army's test indicates that the glue that holds the small plates will fail after repeated heat cycles and doesn't protect against bullet strikes aligned with the plane of the small plates (think being shot while lying down). No such problems with Interceptor. If the CIA guys say it's more comfortable, fine. It probably is. That doesn't make it better. Pinnacle has been all over the media for months trying to drum up support for their product in an effort to hop on the gravy train. Don't let your opposition to the war make an engineering decision for you. As for wearing both, why wouldn't anyone if they had 'em?

Sent by Edward | 2:09 PM ET | 05-24-2007

It's about professional soldiers picking the best armor for their comrades. Career soldiers don't sell out their buddies for kickbacks from contractors.

Anyone who trusts the Pentagon unquestioningly when it comes to testing and procurement need only remember two words: Darleen Druyun. (Google it.)

I trust Pentagon testers more than the folks SELLING the armor.

Col. John Norwood was in charge of the testing for Dragon Skin from 2003 through the summer of 2006, when he retired. He immediately went to work as a vice president for Armor Holdings, the company that makes Interceptor. So, in his case, it looks like the people testing the armor WERE the folks selling the armor - only it was the OTHER armor.

Sent by William | 2:21 AM ET | 05-25-2007

Good point, William. You're right, and I agree that not all Pentagon procurement is above board. Ms. Druyun is a perfect example of how the system is gamed. I will admit that I sleep better at night believing that the qualities we praise in our soldiers on the front line (bravery, integrity) don't leave them when their bars are pinned on. I prefer not to let healthy skepticism of gov't activities run amok. Maybe I'm naive.
Why wouldn't Armor Holdings hire a person who tests body armor for the Pentagon? Wouldn't you? Why wouldn't Col. Norwood go to work for the company that makes what he thinks is the superior armor? Wouldn't you? Why didn't Col. Norwood go to work for Pinnacle? And while we're questioning the integrity of the players, let's not forget that NBC has a blemished testing record. Remember the rigged GM pickup tests? Dateline isn't exactly NPR in the hype department. Smoke in this case doesn't always equal fire. Let's let engineers decide the issue which armor is better before we decide that Col. Norwood and others in Pentagon are crooks. If I'm wrong, I'll help you protest.

Sent by Edward | 10:27 AM ET | 05-25-2007

Let's let engineers decide the issue which armor is better before we decide that Col. Norwood and others in Pentagon are crooks . . .
Why wouldn't Armor Holdings hire a person who tests body armor for the Pentagon? Wouldn't you? Why wouldn't Col. Norwood go to work for the company that makes what he thinks is the superior armor? Wouldn't you?

Why wouldn't I? Maybe because ... it's against the law? Federal law prohibits a federal employee responsible for procurement from going to work for a contractor to whom that person has awarded a contract within the previous year. Col. Norwood falls into that category. The same law also prohibits the contractor from employing such a person. The penalty can include rescission of any contract awarded by that person. Col. Norwood awarded a $32-million contract to Armor Holdings in February 2006, then went to work for them later in 2006. So, why don???t we get the crooks out of the testing process before we let them tell us which is the better body armor?

With regard to NBC's testing: Granting your skepticism of NBC's history, there's enough room for doubt on both sides of the issue to warrant a new round of testing, side-by-side, by disinterested third parties. Who could object to that?

Sent by William | 5:29 PM ET | 05-25-2007

Not I.

Sent by Edward | 11:29 AM ET | 05-29-2007

For you nah sayers and doubters:

http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/newsroom/2007/NIJ07057.htm

Sent by JD | 10:44 AM ET | 08-06-2007

TO JD:
see the following link

http://www.ksee24.com/news/local/9323222.html

Sent by Joe | 11:54 PM ET | 08-22-2007

Eisenhower: Supreme Allied Commander in WWII had this to say as he left the Presidency of the United States of America.

http://video.stumbleupon.com/#p=e45d2u4ssn

Do us all a favor; Pass it on.

Sent by Pay Close Attention | 10:06 PM ET | 09-21-2007

Send a Comment

Comments are reviewed and edited by NPR prior to display. All comments will be read, but not all will be posted.

NPR reserves the right to read on the air and/or publish on its Web site or in any medium now known or unknown the e-mails and letters that we receive. We may edit them for clarity or brevity and identify authors by name and location. For additional information, please consult our Terms of Use.

E-mail this Page

Recipient's e-mail address:	» Up to twelve addresses, separated by commas.
Your e-mail address:
Your name:
Personal message (optional, 600 characters max):
Your NPR member station:
Are you a member of your local NPR station?	Yes No
Would you like to receive information from your local NPR member station? (see NPR's privacy policy)	Yes No
May we contact you with information about NPR programming and services? (see NPR's privacy policy)	Yes No

(Information collected by NPR will be used solely for internal NPR or NPR member station purposes and only if you selected 'yes' above. See NPR's privacy policy for more information.)

Tom Regan

Blogger

About Us

This year's election cycle has been one of the most exciting in memory. At the NPR News Blog we'll do our best to bring you interesting, informative -- and controversial -- stories from our own reporters and bloggers, as well as the rest of the best of the Internet and blogosphere. And we hope you'll let us know what you think as well.

Want to learn more? Be sure to read our Frequently Asked Questions and our discussion guidelines.