Defense Logistics: Army and Marine Corps's Individual Body Armor 
System Issues (26-APR-07, GAO-07-662R). 			 
                                                                 
Since combat operations began in Iraq and Afghanistan, U.S.	 
forces have been subjected to frequent and deadly attacks from	 
insurgents using various weapons such as improvised explosive	 
devices (IED), mortars, rocket launchers, and increasingly lethal
ballistic threats. Since 2003, to provide protection from	 
ballistic threats, U.S. Central Command (CENTCOM), which is	 
responsible for operations in Iraq and Afghanistan and other	 
areas, has required service members and Department of Defense	 
(DOD) civilians in its area of operations to be issued the	 
Interceptor Body Armor (IBA) system. Used by all U.S. military	 
service members and DOD civilians in the area of operations, the 
IBA consists of an outer tactical vest with ballistic inserts or 
plates that cover the front, back, and sides. As the ballistic	 
threat has evolved, ballistic requirements have also changed. The
vest currently provides protection from 9mm rounds, while the	 
inserts provide protection against 7.62mm armor-piercing rounds. 
Additional protection can also be provided for the shoulder,	 
throat, and groin areas. Concerns also regarding the level of	 
protection and amount of IBA needed to protect U.S. forces have  
occurred in recent years, prompted by a number of reports,	 
newspaper articles, and recalls of issued body armor by both the 
Army and the Marine Corps. In May 2005, the Marine Corps recalled
body armor because it concluded that the fielded body armor	 
failed to meet contract specifications, and in November 2005, the
Army and Marine Corps recalled 14 lots of body armor that failed 
original ballistic testing. Additionally, in April 2005, we	 
reported on shortages of critical force protection items,	 
including individual body armor. Specifically, we found reasons  
for the shortages in body armor were due to material shortages,  
production limitations, and in-theater distribution problems. In 
the report, we did not make specific recommendations regarding	 
body armor, but we did make several recommendations to improve	 
the effectiveness of DOD's supply system in supporting deployed  
forces for contingencies. DOD agreed with the intent of the	 
recommendations and cited actions it had or was taking to	 
eliminate supply chain deficiencies. Congress has expressed	 
strong interest in assuring that body armor protects ground	 
forces. Additionally, as part of our efforts to monitor DOD's and
the services' actions to protect deployed ground forces, we	 
reviewed the Army and Marine Corps's actions to address concerns 
regarding body armor to determine if they had taken actions to	 
address these concerns. Because of broad congressional interest  
in the adequacy of body armor for the ground forces, we prepared 
this report under the Comptroller General's authority to conduct 
evaluations on his own initiative. Our objectives for this review
were to determine to what extent the Army and Marine Corps (1)	 
are meeting the theater requirements for body armor, (2) have the
controls in place to assure that the manufacturing and fielding  
of body armor meet requirements, and (3) are sharing information 
regarding their efforts on body armor ballistic requirements and 
testing.							 
-------------------------Indexing Terms------------------------- 
REPORTNUM:   GAO-07-662R					        
    ACCNO:   A68849						        
  TITLE:     Defense Logistics: Army and Marine Corps's Individual    
Body Armor System Issues					 
     DATE:   04/26/2007 
  SUBJECT:   Department of Defense contractors			 
	     Information management				 
	     Military forces					 
	     Military personnel 				 
	     Operational testing				 
	     Product evaluation 				 
	     Protective equipment				 
	     Reporting requirements				 
	     Requirements definition				 
	     Testing						 
	     Information sharing				 
	     Interceptor Body Armor				 

******************************************************************
** This file contains an ASCII representation of the text of a  **
** GAO Product.                                                 **
**                                                              **
** No attempt has been made to display graphic images, although **
** figure captions are reproduced.  Tables are included, but    **
** may not resemble those in the printed version.               **
**                                                              **
** Please see the PDF (Portable Document Format) file, when     **
** available, for a complete electronic file of the printed     **
** document's contents.                                         **
**                                                              **
******************************************************************
GAO-07-662R

   

     * [1]end of correspond & Test.pdf

          * [2]PDF6-Ordering Information.pdf

               * [3]Order by Mail or Phone

United States Government Accountability Office
Washington, DC 20548

April 26, 2007

Congressional Committees:

Subject: Defense Logistics: Army and Marine Corps's Individual Body Armor
System Issues.

Since combat operations began in Iraq and Afghanistan, U.S. forces have
been subjected to frequent and deadly attacks from insurgents using
various weapons such as improvised explosive devices (IED), mortars,
rocket launchers, and increasingly lethal ballistic threats. Since 2003,
to provide protection from ballistic threats, U.S. Central Command
(CENTCOM), which is responsible for operations in Iraq and Afghanistan and
other areas, has required service members and Department of Defense (DOD)
civilians in its area of operations to be issued the Interceptor Body
Armor (IBA) system.^1 Used by all U.S. military service members and DOD
civilians in the area of operations, the IBA consists of an outer tactical
vest with ballistic inserts or plates that cover the front, back, and
sides. As the ballistic threat has evolved, ballistic requirements have
also changed. The vest currently provides protection from 9mm rounds,
while the inserts provide protection against 7.62mm armorpiercing rounds.
Additional protection can also be provided for the shoulder, throat, and
groin areas.

Concerns also regarding the level of protection and amount of IBA needed
to protect U.S. forces have occurred in recent years, prompted by a number
of reports, newspaper articles, and recalls of issued body armor by both
the Army and the Marine Corps. In May 2005, the Marine Corps recalled body
armor because it concluded that the fielded body armor failed to meet
contract specifications, and in November 2005, the Army and Marine Corps
recalled 14 lots of body armor that failed original ballistic testing.^2
Additionally, in April 2005,^3 we reported on shortages of critical force
protection items, including individual body armor. Specifically, we found
reasons for the shortages in body armor were due to material shortages,
production limitations, and in-theater distribution problems. In the
report, we did not make specific recommendations regarding body armor, but
we did make several recommendations to improve the effectiveness of DOD's
supply system in supporting deployed forces for contingencies. DOD agreed
with the intent of the recommendations and cited actions it had or was
taking to eliminate supply chain deficiencies.

1U.S. Central Command (CENTCOM) is one of DOD's five geographic combatant
commands, whose area of responsibilities encompasses 27 countries,
including Iraq and Afghanistan, in Southwest Asia, South and Central Asia,
and the Horn of Africa. Combatant commanders are responsible for
overseeing U.S. military operations that take place in their geographic
area.

2Army and Marine Corps officials told us they took actions to address the
reasons the lots failed.

3GAO, Actions Needed to Improve the Availability of Critical Items during
Current and Future Operations, GAO-05-275 (Washington, D.C.: Apr. 8,
2005).

Congress has expressed strong interest in assuring that body armor
protects ground forces. Additionally, as part of our efforts to monitor
DOD's and the services' actions to protect deployed ground forces, we
reviewed the Army and Marine Corps's actions to address concerns regarding
body armor to determine if they had taken actions to address these
concerns. Because of broad congressional interest in the adequacy of body
armor for the ground forces, we prepared this report under the Comptroller
General's authority to conduct evaluations on his own initiative. Our
objectives for this review were to determine to what extent the Army and
Marine Corps (1) are meeting the theater requirements for body armor, (2)
have the controls in place to assure that the manufacturing and fielding
of body armor meet requirements, and
(3) are sharing information regarding their efforts on body armor
ballistic requirements and testing. We are addressing this report to you
because of your committee's oversight responsibilities.

On February 22, 2007, we briefed congressional staff on our preliminary
observations. This report expands on the information delivered in that
briefing and includes additional information concerning whether
contractors or non-DOD civilians obtain body armor in the same way as U.S.
forces and DOD civilians given the number of contractors and non-DOD
civilians in CENTCOM's area of operation. We are attaching the slides from
the briefing as enclosure I.

                             Scope and Methodology

Our audit work primarily focused on Army and Marine Corps body armor
systems for
U.S. service members and DOD and non-DOD civilian personnel deployed
within CENTCOM's area of operations, including Iraq and Afghanistan. To
determine whether the Army and Marine Corps are meeting the theater
ballistic and inventory requirements for body armor, we reviewed
documentation and interviewed officials from key DOD, Army, and Marine
Corps organizations, such as the Office of the Under Secretary of Defense,
Acquisition, Technology and Logistics, the Defense Logistics Agency, and
CENTCOM, which are responsible for managing theater ballistic and
inventory requirements. We visited the Army and Marine Corps body armor
program offices to obtain and analyze overall development and management
of their systems. We analyzed the ballistic requirements and compared
these requirements to the body armor systems provided to personnel. The
DOD operations officials and the Army and Marine Corps body armor program
officials provided us with information about both theater requirements and
body armor systems available worldwide for the Army and the Marine Corps.
We analyzed this information to determine if the amount of body armor
available would meet the amounts needed in theater. Their information
included the quantities of the outer tactical vests and its subparts
provided to military personnel as well as DOD civilians and contractors
embedded in deployed units.^4 We also visited the following sites--Fort
Stewart, Georgia; Fort Lewis, Washington; the Naval Station and the
Amphibious Base in Norfolk, Virginia; and the Marine Corps Base in
Quantico, Virginia. At Fort Stewart
and Fort Lewis, we interviewed Army officials to determine if body armor
was being distributed to service members. To determine the distribution
practices for those preparing to deploy, including contractor and non-DOD
civilians, we reviewed documentation and interviewed officials at these
sites in addition to CENTCOM officials. We analyzed the distribution
practices to assure that personnel were receiving body armor systems that
met ballistic theater requirements and that these systems were available
for those preparing to deploy. We also met with DOD Inspector General
staff who have worked on body armor issues, and obtained and reviewed
reports they have issued. We selected and analyzed Army classified
readiness reports,^5 from December 2006 to February 2007 and two months of
Marine Corps reports from December 2006 and January 2007 for deploying and
deployed combat units. Our analysis was to determine whether commanders
were reporting problems with body armor, such as shortages, or whether the
Army identified it as a critical item affecting unit readiness.^6

4Subparts include protectors for the upper arms and side of the torso in
addition to sets of ballistic inserts for the vests.

To assess the extent to which the services have controls in place during
manufacturing and after fielding to assure that body armor meets
requirements, we reviewed documentation and discussed the services'
ballistic test processes and procedures with their program and technical
officials. We analyzed these test processes and procedures to determine if
there are controls in place that assure body armor meets ballistic
requirements during manufacturing and after fielding. Our analysis
included ballistic test methods for the tactical vests and the protective
plate inserts; however, we did not independently verify test results. In
addition, we reviewed the services' past experiences where the services
concluded that fielded body armor systems failed to meet contract
specifications and ballistic testing requirements. We analyzed the
services' actions to determine if their actions corrected the failures. We
also reviewed documentation and interviewed Army and Marine Corps body
armor program officials who provided manufacturer production quality and
ballistic testing lot failures for early 2006 through early 2007.

To identify the extent to which the Army and Marine Corps share
information regarding their efforts on body armor ballistic requirements
and testing, we analyzed the services' body armor programs and policies
and discussed with service officials whether there is a requirement to
share information between the services regarding their separate programs.
We also discussed with officials and reviewed documentation to determine
whether the services do share information and if shared, what specific
actions they take. To determine whether contractors or non-DOD civilians
obtain body armor in the same way as U.S. forces and DOD civilians in
CENTCOM's area of operations, we obtained and analyzed DOD and CENTCOM
policy regarding personal protection for contractors and non-DOD
civilians. We also interviewed Army, Marine Corps, and CENTCOM officials
on this issue.

We found the data sufficiently reliable for the purposes of our review and
this report. We conducted our review from November 2006 to March 2007 in
accordance with generally accepted government auditing standards.

5We searched commanders' classified comments contained in the Status of
Resources and Training System (SORTS) for entries related to body armor
and its parts.

6To determine the reliability of the unit readiness reports, we spoke with
key DOD and service officials and found the data sufficiently reliable for
the purposes of our review and this report.

                                    Summary

In this review, we found that the Army and Marine Corps have taken several
actions to meet theater requirements, assure testing, and share
information on body armor. We also found that contractors and non-DOD
civilians receive body armor if this provision is included in a negotiated
contract. Specifically, we found that the Army and Marine Corps

     o are currently meeting theater ballistic requirements and the required
       amount needed for personnel in theater, including the amounts needed
       for the surge of troops into Iraq;
     o have controls in place during manufacturing and after fielding to
       assure that body armor meets requirements; and
     o share information regarding ballistic requirements and testing, and
       the development of future body armor systems, although they are not
       required to do so.

Regarding contractors or non-DOD civilians, we found that DOD Instruction
3020.41 allows DOD to provide body armor to contractors where permitted by
applicable DOD instructions and military department regulations and where
specified under the terms of the contract. CENTCOM's position is that body
armor will be provided to contractors if it is part of a negotiated
contract.

More detailed information on each of these areas is presented below.

        o Requirements: Army and Marine Corps body armor is currently meeting
          theater ballistic requirements and the required amount needed for
          personnel in theater, including the amounts needed for the surge of
          troops into Iraq. Page 13 of the enclosed briefing details Army and
          Marine Corps theater requirements and worldwide inventory
          quantities of the body armor systems. CENTCOM requires that all
          U.S. military forces and all DOD civilians in the area of
          operations receive the body armor system. Currently, service
          members receive all service-specific standard components of the
          body armor system prior to deploying. For example, the Army issues
          the shoulder protection equipment to all its forces; however,
          Marine Corps personnel receive this equipment item in theater on an
          as-needed basis. The Army and the Marine Corps provide the DOD
          civilians with components of the armor system. However, the
          timeframe for receipt of these items varies as some receive the
          body armor prior to deploying and others upon arrival in-theater.
        o Army unit commanders only reported one body armor issue in their
          December 2006 to February 2007 classified readiness reports. This
          one issue did not raise a significant concern regarding the body
          armor. Moreover, Marine Corps commanders' comments contained in the
          December 2006 and January 2007 readiness reports did not identify
          any body armor issues affecting their units' readiness. In December
          2006 and January 2007, the Army, in its critical equipment list did
          not identify body armor as a critical equipment item affecting its
          unit readiness.

     o Testing: The Army and Marine Corps have controls in place during
       manufacturing and after fielding to assure that body armor meets
       requirements. Both services conduct quality and ballistic testing
       prior to fielding and lots are rejected if the standards are not met.
       They both also conduct formal testing on every lot of body armor
       (vests and protective inserts) prior to acceptance and issuance to
       troops. During production, which is done at several sites, the lots of
       body armor are sent to a National Institute of Justice certified
       laboratory for ballistic testing and to the Defense Contract
       Management Agency for quality testing (size, weight, stitching) prior
       to issuance to troops. Once approved, the body armor is issued to
       operating forces. Currently, both Army and Marine Corps personnel are
       issued body armor prior to deployment. The Army lot failure rate from
       January 2006 to January 2007 was 3.32 percent for the enhanced small
       arms inserts, and there were no failures for the outer tactical
       vests.^7 From February 2006 to February 2007, the Marine Corps lot
       failure rate was 4.70 percent for the outer tactical vests.

Although not required to do so, after the systems have been used in the
field, the Army does limited ballistic testing of outer tactical vests and
environmental testing of the outer tactical vests and the inserts. The
Marine Corps visually inspects the vest and the plates for damage.
According to Army officials, there has been no degradation of body armor
based on ballistic and environmental testing results. Additionally, to
determine future enhancements and improvements, the Army and the Marine
Corps body armor program offices monitor and assess the use of body armor
in the field, including the review of medical reports from the Armed
Forces Medical Examiner. For example, the Army and Marine Corps added side
plates and throat protection based on body armor usage in the field.

DOD has a standard methodology for ballistic testing of the hard body
armor plates, but not for the soft body armor vest. Currently, DOD's
Director, Operational Test and Evaluation, office is developing a standard
methodology for ballistic testing of the soft body armor to eliminate
discrepancies in testing methodologies. The new standard is expected to be
issued sometime in 2007.

o Information Sharing: The Army and Marine Corps share information
regarding ballistic requirements and testing, and the development of
future body armor systems, although they are not required to do so. For
example, in August 2006 the Marine Corps attended the Army's test of next
generation body armor types at Fort Benning, Georgia. Similarly, the Army
sent representatives to attend the Marine Corps's operational assessment
of the new Modular Tactical Vest. DOD officials indicate that there is no
requirement to share information. Title 10 of the

U.S. Codeallows each service to have separate programs, according to Army
and Marine Corps officials. Nevertheless, the services are sharing
information

The lot failure rate is calculated by dividing the total lots rejected by
the total lots tested. A lot is a pallet or grouping of manufactured items
varying in number per lot. For example, the Army's outer vest lots range
from 1,100 to 1,200. A lot is manufactured within a specific period of
time, at a common location.

regarding ongoing research and development for the next generation of body

armor.

o Contractors and non-DOD civilians: Regarding contractors or non-DOD
civilians, we found that DOD Instruction 3020.41 allows DOD to provide
body armor to contractors where permitted by applicable DOD instructions
and military department regulations and where specified under the terms of
the contract. It is CENTCOM's position that body armor will be provided to
contractors if it is part of the terms and conditions of the contract.
According to CENTCOM officials, non-DOD government civilians such as State
Department civilians are expected to make their own arrangements to obtain
this protection. However, the officials indicated that commanders, at
their discretion, can provide body armor to any personnel within their
area of operation.

                                Agency Comments

DOD officials did not provide written comments to the draft but provided
specific technical comments that were incorporated as appropriate.

We are sending copies of this report to other interested congressional
committees; the Secretary of Defense; the Under Secretary of Defense
(Acquisition, Technology and Logistics); the Secretaries of the Army,
Navy, and Air Force; and the Commandant of the Marine Corps. Copies of
this report will also be made available to others upon request. In
addition, this report will be available at no charge on the GAO Web site
at http://www.gao.gov.

If you have any questions regarding this report, please contact me at
(202) 512-8365 or [email protected] . Contact points for our Office of
Congressional Relations and Public Affairs may be found on the last page
of this report. GAO staff that made major contributions to this report
includes Tracy Burney, Grace Coleman, Alfonso Garcia, Jennifer Jebo,
Lonnie McAllister, Terry Richardson, Lorelei St. James, and Leo Sullivan.

William M. Solis, Director
Defense Capabilities and Management

Enclosure

Congressional Committees

The Honorable Carl Levin
Chairman
The Honorable John McCain
Ranking Member
Committee on Armed Services
United States Senate

The Honorable Daniel Inouye
Chairman The Honorable Ted Stevens
Ranking Member
Subcommittee on Defense
Committee on Appropriations
United States Senate

The Honorable Ike Skelton
Chairman
The Honorable Duncan Hunter
Ranking Member
Committee on Armed Services
House of Representatives

The Honorable John P. Murtha
Chairman
The Honorable C.W. Bill Young
Ranking Member
Subcommittee on Defense
Committee on Appropriations
House of Representatives

Enclosure I

GAO Review of Body Armor Preliminary Observations

                                   Background

o Concerns about body armor have occurred in recent years.

     o In February 2005, an Armed Forces Institute of Pathology report found
       that body armor did not provide side protection.
     o In April 2005, GAO reported that there were shortages in body armor
       due to material shortages, production limitations, and in-theater
       distribution problems.
     o In May 2005, Marine Corps recalled body armor because it concluded
       that the fielded body armor failed to meet contract specifications;
       public concern raised.
     o In November 2005, Army and Marine Corps recalled 14 lots of body armor
       that failed original ballistic testing, but were accepted by DOD.
     o In January 2006, a New York Times article reported on the Institute of
       Pathology report and the recalls, raising public concern again.

                                       5

                                   Background

     o Congress has expressed strong interest in assuring body armor protects
       ground troops including the amount and level of ballistic protection,
       testing of body armor before and after fielding, and coordination of
       requirements and testing between the Army and Marine Corps.

          o GAO has conducted prior and ongoing work concerning force
            protection for ground forces, including truck armor to protect
            forces
          o from Improvised Explosive Devices (IEDs).

     o GAO began review of body armor as part of its review of protection of
       ground forces.

                                   Objectives

o Our overall objective was to determine if the actions of the Army and
Marine Corps have addressed body armor concerns. Specific objectives were
to determine the extent to which the Army and Marine Corps are

     o meeting the theater requirements for body armor,
     o have controls in place during manufacturing and after fielding to
       assure that body armor meets requirements, and
     o sharing information regarding their efforts on body armor ballistic
       requirements and testing.

                                       7

                             Scope and Methodology

     o Our review focused on Army and Marine Corps body armor for personnel
       deployed within the Central Command's (CENTCOM) Area of Operation
       including Iraq and Afghanistan.

          o We visited or contacted the following organizations during our
            review:

               o Office of the Secretary of Defense
               o Army Headquarters Operations & Army Program Executive Office
                 (PEO) Soldier
               o Marine Corps Systems Command & Marine Corps Combat
                 Development Command
               o Air Force Security Force Requirements Branch
               o Naval Expeditionary Combat Command & Navy Fleet Forces
                 Command
               o Defense Logistics Agency
               o CENTCOM

                             Scope and Methodology

     o To determine whether the Army and Marine Corps are meeting the theater
       requirements for body armor, we interviewed DOD officials and reviewed
       the CENTCOM policy on body armor. In addition, we reviewed Army and
       Marine Corps requirements specifying the amount of body armor needed
       and the ballistic specifications needed for protection against the
       theater threat.
     o We interviewed service officials and discussed ballistic test
       processes and procedures, to determine the extent of Army and Marine
       Corps body armor tested during production and in the field. We did not
       independently verify test results.
     o To determine the extent the Army and the Marine Corps share
       information regarding their efforts on body armor, we interviewed
       service officials to determine if there is a policy that requires the
       services to coordinate, and if not, whether they do, and what actions
       they take to coordinate.
     o We selected and analyzed Army classified unit readiness reports for
       deployed and deploying units to CENTCOM's Area of Responsibility from
       December 2006 to February 2007 and Marine Corps units for December
       2006 and January 2007 to determine if commanders' comments reported
       body armor as an issue. From the classified data, we also extracted
       and analyzed the total Army's critical equipment items list that
       identify items that may impact unit readiness--as of December 2006 and
       January 2007 to determine if body armor was reported as a critical
       equipment item.
     o We conducted our review from November 2006 to March 2007 in accordance
       with generally accepted government auditing standards.

                        Preliminary Observations Summary

o The Army and Marine Corps have taken several actions to meet theater
requirements, assure testing, and share information on body armor.

     o Army and Marine Corps body armor is currently meeting theater
       ballistic requirements and the required amount needed for personnel in
       theater, including the amounts needed for the surge of troops into
       Iraq.
     o The Army and Marine Corps have controls in place during manufacturing
       and after fielding to assure that body armor meets requirements. The
       Army and the Marine Corps conduct quality and ballistic testing prior
       to fielding. Lots are rejected if the standards are not met.
     o The Army and Marine Corps share information regarding ballistic
       requirements and testing, and the development of future body armor
       systems, although they are not required to do so.

                     Preliminary Observations Requirements

o The Army and the Marine Corps have body armor to meet the theater
ballistic requirement and the amount needed for personnel in theater. They
also have sufficient quantities of body armor for the surge of troops in
Iraq.

           Preliminary Observations Requirements as of February 2007

                                        Army               Marine Corps
Body                           Amount    Current   Amount        Current   
armor                        needed in  worldwide   needed in   worldwide  
systems                       theater   available  theater      available  
                                           inventory               inventory  
Outer                         154,000    991,580   23,000        198,088   
tactical                                                                   
vest                                                                       
Enhanced small arms inserts   154,000    402,369   23,000      56,970      
Side protection               154,000    244,192   23,000      50,500      
Shoulder proctection          154,000    243,229   4,600       4,600       

Army and Marine  Corps amounts include  service personnel, DOD  civilians,
and contractors embedded with units. For the Army, shoulder protection  is
issued, but its use is optional. Shoulder protection is not issued to  all
Marine Corps personnel. It is only issued to specialized personnel such as
Marine Corps turret gunners.

Source: Army Operations, PEO Soldier and Marine Corps Systems Command. [13

     o CENTCOM requires that all U.S. military service members and DOD
       civilians in the area of operations be issued Interceptor Body Armor.
       According to Army and Marine Corps officials, all service members
       currently receive body armor components before they deploy. The
       Marines receive components prior to deployment, except the shoulder
       protection, which is provided in theater, if needed.
     o DOD civilians receive components from the Army and the Marine Corps.
       Some receive the body armor prior to deploying, while others may
       receive it in theater.
     o According to Army and Marine Corps officials, CENTCOM tactical-level
       commanders will prescribe the use of the body armor components based
       on their estimate of the situation. Situational factors include
       assessments of enemy threat, environmental conditions, and the
       tactical missions assigned to their units.
     o In our review of Army unit readiness data from December 2006 to
       February 2007 and Marine Corps data for December 2006 and January
       2007, only one body armor issue was reported in the commanders'
       comments. During the December 2006 to February 2007 time period, the
       five Army brigades identified for the Iraq surge did not indicate that
       body armor was a problem.
     o In our review of Army critical equipment items impacting readiness as
       of December 2006 and January 2007, body armor was not identified as a
       critical equipment item impacting unit readiness.

o The Army and Marine Corps have controls in place during manufacturing
and after fielding to assure that body armor meets requirements. The Army
and the Marine Corps conduct quality and ballistic testing prior to
fielding. Lots are rejected if the standards are not met.

     o The Army and the Marine Corps conducts formal testing on every lot of
       body armor (Vests and Protective Inserts) prior to acceptance and
       issuance to troops. The body armor vests and plates are manufactured
       at several sites.
     o During production, the lots of body armor are sent to a National
       Institute of Justice (NIJ) certified laboratory for ballistic testing
       and DCMA for quality testing (size, weight, stitching) prior to
       issuance to troops. Once approved, the body armor is issued to
       operating forces. Both the Army and the Marine Corps are issued body
       armor prior to deployment.
     o Army lot failure rate from January 2006 to January 2007 was 3.32% for
       the Enhanced Small Arms Inserts and no failures for the outer tactical
       vests. From February 2006 to February 2007, the Marine Corps lot
       failure rate was 4.70% for the outer tactical vests.

Preliminary Observations Testing

     o The DOD has had a standard methodology for ballistic testing of hard
       body armor (plates) since December 1997.
     o DOD's Director, Operational Test and Evaluation office is currently
       developing a standard methodology for ballistic testing of soft body
       armor (vests). The new standard will eliminate discrepancies in
       testing methodology that resulted in inconsistent ballistic results
       contributing to the November 2005 recall. The new standard is expected
       to be issued sometime in 2007.

Preliminary Observations Information Sharing

o The Army and Marine Corps share information regarding ballistic
requirements and testing, and the development of future body armor
systems, although they are not required to do so.

        o The Army and Marine Corps officials said that Title 10 of the

U.S. Code allows each to have separate programs.

     o The Army and Marine Corps are sharing information regarding ballistic
       requirements and testing, and the development of future body armor
       systems.
     o The Army and Marine Corps informally share information regarding
       on-going research and development for the next generation of body
       armor.

(350794)

*** End of document. ***