Marine Corps' Use of Smoke and Mirrors to Conceal Catto Cart's Failures

[thedrifter]

03.10.2006
From The Editor
Marine Corps' Use of Smoke and Mirrors to Conceal Catto Cart's Failures Won't Work

DefenseWatch last week reported on the anomalies and problems concerning the Marine Corps' questionable choice of a vehicle produced by American Growler as the prime mover for the Expeditionary Fire Support System (EFSS). This hard-hitting and well-researched piece smoked out a response from one of the Corps' trained liars in its Public Affairs stable, Major Douglas Powell, Director of the Media Branch.

To say the article got under the skin of certain Marine leaders at Quantico is to put it mildly. Rather than have some hapless lieutenant in the Quantico PAO respond, the Perfumed Princes of the Crossroads of the Corps selected Major Powell, as their "DL" (Designated Liar) to rebut Defense Watch's robust criticism of the "Catto Cart." (This was the nickname offered up by a Marine officer who has been a close observer of the golf-cart-looking vehicle's role in EFSS. The "Catto" appellation honors Major General William Catto, Commanding General of Systems Command, and the officer most responsible for fielding the vehicle.)

Not content to employ the standard PAO techniques of deny, deflect and misdirect, Major Powell stated, emphatically, at 14 places, in his rebuttal, "This is unequivocally untrue."

Well, let's take a look at just a few of the 14 disputed points where the major employed to the point of triteness his stock phrase, "this is unequivocally untrue."

DefenseWatch quoted Ralph Bicknell, an automotive engineer and retired Marine who has directly observed the EFSS program from an industry perspective, and who pointed out that several design requirements were watered down or eliminated entirely during design competition that otherwise would have eliminated the Growler-produced Catto Cart.

Bicknell specified two requirements (performance specifications) that had been deleted:

(1) The ability to drive over a 15-inch obstacle.

(2) The ability to tow 53% percent of its own weight from a dead stop on a hard, dry road surface. (This item is titled "Tractive Effort" in the performance documents.)

Now remember that Major Powell stated in reference to Bicknell's claim of requirement changes, "This is unequivocally untrue."

Relative to these two specific items, Powell also said that the current requirement is "to drive over a 14-inch obstacle" and that the ".53 tractive requirement was not deleted and remains a requirement that has already been met in developmental testing."

Unfortunately for Major Powell, there are official Marine Corps documents that, to put it mildly, raise serious questions about the truthfulness of the information provided to him by SYSCOM.

In a document distributed to industry representatives on January 15, 2004, wherein the Marine Corps responded to comments solicited from industry on the draft EFSS RFP (Request For Proposal), item #76 is titled, "Performance Specification for the ESS, Para 3.1.1.3 Vertical Step." The industry submitted comment recommended "that the step be 12 inches for threshold and 15 inches for objective."

The official response from the Marine Corps was, "Paragraph 3.1.1.3 will be deleted." (Emphasis added. For those unfamiliar with Pentagonese, the Marine Corps had just deleted the requirement for any "Vertical Step" for the Catto Cart.)

Now to the second requirement change specified by Bicknell as having been deleted -- tractive effort of 0.53.

There's a different official Marine Corps document that again directly refutes Powell's claim that requirements for the Catto Cart had "never" been changed or watered down.

In "Performance Specification for the Expeditionary Fire Support System (EFSS), dated 27 February 2004, the title for paragraph 4.3.1.5 is "Tractive Effort." There is also an Amendment of Solicitation/Modification of Contract No. U0001, Effective Date 12-Mar-2004.

This "amendment/modification" deleted paragraph 4.3.1.5, "Demonstrate the EFSS's minimum tractive effort to weight ratio of 0.53 on a dry, hard, level surface."

The following two paragraphs (4.3.1.6 and 4.3.1.7 were renumbered to reflect the deletion of the paragraph that had previously specified the requirement for tractive effort.

In light of the preceding documented "changes," Major Powell was asked to explain his absolute and unequivocal claim that "Requirements have never changed (or been 'watered down')."

Defense Watch also requested that if the deleted requirements had been reinstated, Major Powell provide the program documentation reflecting such reinstatement(s). Most readers would accept reinstatements as being yet more changes to the performance requirements.

No response has been forthcoming from the Marine Corps.

There is one additional requirement change that the Defense Watch article did not list, but which was identified to Major Powell, along with a request for his comment.

This requirement change is documented in the official Marine Corps responses to industry comments on the draft EFSS RFP in item # 23, which states: "The requirement for EFSS off road speed has been changed to 5mph (threshold=objective). A new requirement for EFSS unimproved road speed average = 10mph (threshold=objective) has been added." (Emphasis added.)

Again, Powell and the Marine Corps have declined to respond to Defense Watch citations of official Marine Corps documents that prove, beyond any doubt, that requirements for the Catto Cart have been deleted and/or changed.

In doing additional research on the shaky and flaky history of the Catto Cart's selection as the "Mobility Platform (prime mover)" for the EFSS, it became clear that someone had manipulated the requirements (performance specifications).

And it was evident that the beneficiary of these strange manipulations, as in the case of "side slope requirement" was the Catto Cart.

Three Marine Corps-unique vehicles, developed by the Marine Corps -- the Light Armored Vehicle (LAV), the Expeditionary Fighting Vehicle (EFV), and the Internally Transportable Vehicle (ITV) -- have listed "maximum side slope" requirements. For the LAV, it is 30%. For the EFV, it is 40%. For the ITV, it is 30%.

In reviewing official EFSS program documentation, Defense Watch has not found any such requirement for the EFSS Mobility Platform (prime mover), a.k.a. Catto Cart.

A retired US Army officer with several years experience, both on Active Duty and in retirement as a civilian contractor, as a specialist on development of tactical vehicles said he did not know of a single other tactical vehicle whose requirements did not specify numerical side slope criteria -- the Catto Cart is one of a kind!

Major Powell and the Marine Corps were asked to provide an explanation as to why this standard performance requirement was missing in the case of the Catto Cart.

No response has been forthcoming from the Marine Corps.

Given the widespread industry suspicions about the stability of the Catto Cart, particularly when pulling the ammo trailer loaded with up to 36 120mm mortar rounds, it should not come as a surprise that this standard performance requirement was being "finessed."

What is surprising is how such a missing requirement could go unnoticed during Navy, DOD and Congressional program reviews? Especially for a program where the total costs will no doubt approach a half-billion dollars.

And that leads to this article's last curiosity about the Catto Cart --no Life Cycle Costs figures have been noted in the extensive program documentation that Defense Watch has reviewed. Perhaps Major Powell and the Marine Corps will provide some meaningful response as to why this standard data is missing, but Defense Watch is betting that if we get any response, it will be the 15th, "this is unequivocally untrue."

[Author's note: Some readers may take offense at the designation of Major Powell as the "Designated Liar," a term that first surfaced publicly in a professional journal nearly twenty years ago in an article by a Marine Reserve officer who worked on the program appraisal staff of the Secretary of Defense. Major Powell may well be a loving husband, a devoted father, and coach of his child's soccer team. I don't think he kicks the family dog, or is a "bad" person. I do think he's a cog in a corrupt acquisition system that values desired outcome over honest and open competition. To see a Marine officer forced by career pressures to defend the indefensible, at a time when Marines and other US service personnel are fighting and dying to defend this great country... Well, "It just makes me mad as hell, and I'm not going to take it any more!"]

SFTT President Roger Charles is an Annapolis graduate, a retired USMC Lt. Col. who commanded an infantry platoon in I Corps during the Vietnam War, is the winner of the prestigious Peabody Award for news coverage, and was a protégée's of the late Col. David H. Hackworth. Rog can be contacted at sfttpres@aol.com. Please send comments to DWFeedback@yahoo.com.

Ellie

[beadwindow]

In response to your well-written, albeit lengthy note: poo.

DT