SECTION I - COMPLAINT LETTER
February 7, 2007
Defense Supply Center Phila. G&I
700 Robbins Avenue
Philadelphia, PA 19111-5096
Attention: Mr. Dan Ferry and Mr. Tony Armantani
Subject: Complaint - DLA Mismanagement, Waste and Abuse, DLAD 56210.1
Reference: 1. Telecom 07FEB2007– RCB/DLA-P’s Dan Ferry and Tony Armantani;
3. U.S. Military Feedback Emails (See http://www.theonlysurvivallight.com/26/Testimonials%20-%20Military.pdf.)
Application: All Battery Powered Flashlight NSN’s procured by DLA – Philadelphia’s Lighting Group
buyers and Contracting Officers.
Complaint: SECTION I Complaint Letter
Report: SECTION II Report About DLA Mismanagement, Waste And Abuse
Rules: SECTION III Table Of Authorities
PID: SECTION IV Nightstar® Renewable Energy Flashlights Information
LCCA: SECTION V Nightstar® Graphical Life Cycle Cost Analysis
Examples: SECTION IV Examples - Recent, Questionable, DLA Procurements
Dear Dan Ferry;
AIT believes your recurring mismanagement, waste and abuse actions are certainly actions that are
detrimental to the DLA and affects DLA’s efficiency, effectiveness, economy, and reputation. (DLAD 5610.1)
I have repeatedly and politely discussed what Applied Innovative Technologies, Inc. (AIT) believes is
Defense Logistic Agency – Philadelphia’s (DLA) procurement mismanagement, waste and abuse with many
levels of DLA personnel. This is documented in many phone calls and in many items of extensive email and
written correspondence. DLA is buying thousands of additional battery powered flashlights when they have
AIT’s renewable energy flashlights in stock. It is AIT’s opinion that new requirements must be filled with them
unless a written justification has been approved and placed in every new procurement award and contract file.
Educating DLA employees about Public Law, Executive Orders, OMB Policies and other applicable legal
Authorities is DLA’s responsibility, not AIT’s. Again, today in our telephone call, I was told by you that DLA
is not responsible to perform actions well defined in published Authorities and transfers the responsibility for
actions to our company as a supplier. DLA has repeatedly refused to take corrective actions and, in fact (like
your Mr. Robert Pezick and buyers Michelle Burke and others) you told me that I would be required to take an
unnecessary, defined action before you or Mr. Armantani would take any action to stop this DLA misconduct.1
In AIT’s opinion, this is MISMANAGEMENT. You say you have not reported it. I believe you must.
DLA is continually buying thousands of less-resilient flashlights that (1) require battery disposal2 and the
resupply of batteries, (2) are of both a higher initial cost and Life Cycle Cost, (3) conserve less energy and are
less energy efficient and (4) are not disposal- and waste-stream-free and are therefore less environmentally
In AIT’s opinion, this is WASTE.
5 C.F.R. § 2635.101 - Executive Branch Employee Ethics. Basic obligation of public service. (b) General principles... (11) Employees shall disclose waste, fraud,
abuse, and corruption to appropriate authorities. (Note: DLAD 5610 now includes the category of Mismanagement with Waste, Fraud and Abuse.)
“…in order to improve the Federal Government's use of …environmentally preferable products and services, it is hereby ordered as follows: § 101. Consistent with
the demands of efficiency and cost effectiveness, the head of each executive agency shall… It is the national policy to prefer pollution prevention, whenever feasible.
…Disposal should be employed only as a last resort.” Executive Order 13101 § 101 - Greening The Government Through Waste Prevention, Recycling, And Federal
You have stated that AIT must identify every National Stock Number involved, prepare and supply an
Alternate Product Identification (PID) bid and then you will review each one. This is unacceptable. All DLA
flashlights should be less-expensive, renewable energy, disposal free flashlights unless there is a documented
reason. This repeats and follows DLA’s past patterns of mismanagement, waste and abuse.
Example 1: DLA placed requirements for our proprietary item NSN’s in a “Set-Aside” program. Your
system made it such that AIT could not electronically bid on our own patented, proprietary inventions until we
agressively and repeatedly protested DLA’s actions.
Example 2: DLA made one contract award for our proprietary items to an another unrelated supplier that
tried to charge DLA $100.00 each for an item AIT sells direct to you for about $30.00. Nothing changed until
we aggressively notified your buyer again. No action was taken until later when AIT notified the buyer’s
supervisor again of this misconduct. The action was only corrected after DLA’s award to that supplier. The
requirement for our products disappeared and we still believe it was retaliation by DLA.
Example 3: DLA also made an award to still another supplier that did not bid with deviations even though
they knew they could not buy or resell AIT’s products to the government or bind AIT, as the manufacturer, to
government terms and conditions, including AIT’s warranty. DLA supposedly had to “eat” some of the product
he delivered and canceled the balance of the order. Again, the requirement for our product disappeared and
DLA would not confirm any action against either of these suppliers. We still believe it was retaliation by DLA.
Examples 4 - 24: In the last four years DLA required AIT to prepare more than 20 separate bids (for our
patented, proprietary, renewable energy flashlights and accessories that we sell direct to the government) to be
compared to suppliers that DLA buyers knew were not able to supply our products to DLA and could not buy
the products from AIT for sale to DLA. When DLA buyers were notified of these improper actions DLA told
AIT DLA was taking action to correct the problem. The DLA item requirements, again, mysteriously
disappeared. AIT’s marketing efforts were wasted and our legitimate income was lost. We still believe it was
retaliation by DLA.
Example 25: Our company name, AIT, Inc., and contact information has been incorrect for 2 years on
http://www.dscp.dla.mil/GI/general/Lighting/portable.htm, DLA’s online Energy Efficient Lighting Catalog
webpage. DLA posted it but, as you told us, does not maintain or update it anymore. We have requested a
correction repeatedly and it has not happened. It is still listed as a “Magnetic Force Flashlight” instead of the
patent name “Renewable Energy flashlight.” The company name is incorrectly listed as “NightStar.” How can
any Government Agency easily identify AIT in the Energy Efficient Lighting Catalog?
Example 26: DLA personnel states that every order and contract awarded is a Defense Priorities Allocation
System (DPAS) rated order (see Block 7, mysteriously titled “Code”.) All DPAS rated orders require, as “an
element of a rated order”, a statement on the face of the contract similar to the following:
This is a rated order certified for national defense use, and you are required to follow all the provisions
of the Defense Priorities and Allocations System regulation (15 CFR part 700).
Few, if any (other than our predecessor’s Contract SP0560-03-M-R063 Amendment P0001 Block 14) DLA
award Contracts list this statement. I personally have made many of your employees aware of this including Mr.
Robert Pezick, Supervisor of the Lighting Department. DLA continually refuses to comply with this regulation
and the rules embedded in it.
In AIT’s opinion, it is recurring and knowing ABUSE, when these actions continue over four years time.
“Government Contractor Standards of Conduct and Self-Reporting” requires that (1) any suspected or
possible violation of law in connection with Government contracts or (2) any other irregularities in
connection with such contracts must be reported to appropriate Government officials.3
Applied Innovative Technologies, Inc (CAGE Code 3E3E7)(AIT) believes it may be obligated, by law, to
report the recurring government procurement, distribution and disposal of thousands of flashlights and flashlight
batteries (by many different National Stock Numbers) which are not as economically sound, energy-sound,
environmentally-friendly or disposal free as AIT’s patented products that are readily available in “In Stock” at
It is our opinion that it is the responsibility of every Government employee to comply with the cited
authorities. It is also our measured opinion that your actions, as affirmative and stated refusals to implement the
DFARS 203.7000 (3) and (4 )and DFARS 203.7001(a)(6) and (7). See Section II for a true copy of the text of these regulations.
use of these renewable energy tools in place of more expensive flashlights requiring battery disposal, also
violates both the letter and the intent of many of the Authorities cited in Section II and specifically the National
Policy against disposal in Executive Order 13101.
It is the responsibility of the Government employees to provide written justification for the procurement file
explaining and documenting the need and use of any flashlight that is not a “Renewable Energy, Disposal Free
Flashlight.” It is not AIT’s responsibility to (1) identify every one of the NSN’s for DLA battery powered
flashlights that the Government buys and (2) then supply an unsolicited, alternate PID bid for your review and
convenience. It is your and your employees and customers responsibility to comply with the published
Authorities and laws. It is your and every DLA buyers’ obligation, as Executive Branch employees, to follow
all of the applicable rules, not just the DLA’s internal policies. It is the end-users’ responsibilities to buy
products that are law and rule compliant or to issue a written justification defining why some other product is
necessary. Do you have those written justifications in every procurement file? I have been told by your
employees that they do not.
This recurring, agency lack-of-action has left some of our soldiers in foreign lands without the required
batteries for their flashlights and, possibly, endangered their lives. Every soldier knows light is more critical for
immediate survival than food or water. DLA’s actions, in this matter, are unforgivable.
A U.S. Air Force Medic and others said it best in emails to AIT:
• "Your light is just what we have needed for years. A good bright light that requires no logistical support beyond it's initial
• From Major (DR) __________ NY/FL board certified USAF CCAT DR, "With the white light staying permanently
operational and being apparently immune to the ionizing that occurs with the Aluminum hulled Surefire lights, these are
the premier light to have in any austere climate/condition where resupply is difficult. END LINE.
• (Note to AIT - "This was the Doctor in ___ _____ near Baghdad that I gave the white (LED) to, since he was griping about
generators going down all the time. And his $100 Surefire only works with lithium A123 power cells. Tough to come by
since the military does not stock those and they last about 20 minutes in the powerful ones and less in the sand. He will be
ordering half a dozen on his rotation back. You can put in stitches by these things.")
• "Oh, and as an aside, you can point out your lights are immune to vibration. C-130H kills small electronics by vibrating
them apart. That's why my team gave up on Maglights. 20 flight hours and they were done."
• "...plus as it in non-sparking, mine has been used while clearing Clandestine meth labs (a huge problem on the east and
west coast. This may be a selling point with LEA groups as even the best Surefire (flashlight) can spark off a meth lab and,
bang, there goes the house and the Team.)"
• Batteries / Re-supply - "First I would like to praise your flashlight. I am a flight medic who frequently spends long
amounts of time in back woods of 3rd world areas where batteries are non-existent. All the cool little tactical LED Surefire
lights that cost $200 and are made of titanium-whatever don't do you a bit of good with no batteries. Your light, on the
other hand, has worked forever in every condition from the Arctic cold (we are the air wing that rescued that doctor off the
South pole) to the heat of Oman. And while I still carry a Photon and a few chem sticks (you always need a plan B and C) I
rely on your light as my primary.
Therefore, based on everything stated above and below and our recurring, bad experiences with DLA, we
are hereby stating our intent and obligation to report these improper actions relating to U.S. Government
contracts to the appropriate Government officials.
If this recurring mismanagement, waste and abuse is not corrected within 30 days we shall also consider
providing this same information to the DOD Inspector General, our Congressional representatives, the GAO
investigative staff and the public media.
We have been very cooperative with DLA for almost four years and the renewable energy tools have been
available to your organization since they were patented in 1999 and in Stock at DLA for the last couple of
years. The DOD and DLA is not totally exempt from the laws the rest of the country complies with.
Executive Branch employees, by law, have ethics requirements imposed on them than specifically include
mismanagement and misconduct reporting requirements. 4 Why have DLA employees not reported it?
It is our opinion that DOD’s and DLA’s Agency Heads are responsible for all compliance with applicable
Executive Orders, OMB Policy rules, FAR’s, DFAR’s and Public Laws. Executive Branch employees, by
5 C.F.R. § 2635.101 - Executive Branch Employee Ethics. Basic obligation of public service. (b) General principles... (11) Employees shall disclose waste, fraud,
abuse, and corruption to appropriate authorities. (Note: DLAD 5610 now includes the category of Mismanagement with Waste Fraud and Abuse.
extension, are required to implement these requirements or to report and prevent recurring incidents of
Mismanagement, Waste and Abuse.
You have chosen to state affirmatively that you will not do that; so we feel we must report it in accordance
with DLA Directive 5610.1.D.1, 10, 13 and Contractor Standards of Conduct (if applicable.) 5
I was the successful investigator, initiator and filing Plaintiff in what was described by the Department of
Justice as the largest defense industry “Whistleblower” (fraud) lawsuit settlement in American History in 1990.
Government officials reported to the international media that my actions saved the taxpayers in excess of
$100,000,000.00. I am trying to again help the public fisc. Please do not mistake my cooperation with DLA for
a lack of knowledge, resolve or an inability to comply with the applicable Public Laws, regulations and rules. I
shall do what is necessary to protect the public fisc and DLA’s reputation. I shall insist on DLA’s compliance
with all applicable rules, DLA’s Standards of Conduct and the Uniform Code of Military Justice.
AIT’s relationship started with the DLA about four years ago; our products became available to DLA in
1999. At that time we manufactured our products in Fort Lupton, CO. Your delays in taking action has harmed
AIT, as has the flood of unfair imports. Consequently, AIT has had to move its manufacturing, temporarily,
offshore. This was a necessity for financial survival. When sales volume justifies and financially supports
reconsideration we will proudly return manufacturing of this American invention to its invention and birth
place, the United States.
Please expedite your solution to these identified DLA deficiencies of not requiring and substituting
renewable energy tools and products that increase the conservation of water and energy6 and eliminate disposal.
This letter is being sent to you only for now. Please respond in writing within 30 days with your plan of
action or you decision for no action. If this recurring mismanagement, waste and abuse is not corrected within
30 days we shall also consider providing this same information to the DOD Inspector General, our
Congressional representatives, the GAO investigative staff and the public media. If no acceptable resolution has
been achieved at the end of the 30 days, I feel it will be necessary to also send a copy of this document to the
persons on the “CC:” list on the next page. They are involved. DLA’s overt retaliation and rampant
incompetence will no longer be tolerated. Executive Branch employees appear to be personally liable when the
government’s rules on disposal is involved. Remember, “Disposal is against the National Policy.”
I swear or affirm that the information given by me in this statement is true and correct to the best of my
knowledge, so help me God.
Robert C. Ballew, C.P.M. ret.
Director of Government Sales
Applied Innovative Technologies, Inc.
CAGE Code 3E3E7
F: 303 857-1405
C: 817 929-8758
CC: HQ DLA ATTN: DLA Complaint Program DLA Contrascting Officers or Buyers: U.S. Senator Kay Bailey Hutchison
CAASR, Defense Logistics Agency, "DLA/P - Tony Armentani" <Anthony.Armentani@dla.mil>, U.S. Senate Committee on Appropriations
8725 John J. Kingman Road, Suite 2533 "DLA/P - Susan Berneski" <Susan.Berneski@dla.mil>, 284 Russell Senate Office Building
Fort Belvoir, VA 22060-6221 "DLA/P - Donna M. Boyce" <Donna.Boyce@dla.mil>, Washington, DC 20510-4304
800-411-9127 "DLA/P - Michelle Burke" <Michelle.Burke@dla.mil>, 202-224-5922
"DLA/P - Phil Cufaro" <Philip.Cufaro@dla.mil>, 202-224-0776 (FAX)
The Defense Hotline Program "DLA/P - Lee Edgil" <Bertis.Edgil@dla.mil>,
The Pentagon "DLA/P - Eric Ekberg" <Eric.Ekberg@dla.mil>, U.S. Senator John Cornyn
Contractor Standards of Conduct - Policy, DFARS 203.7000 (3) and (4) and DFARS 203.7001(a)(6)&(7) - Contractor Standards of Conduct - Procedures.
(Introduction) "...it is hereby ordered ... It is the policy of this Administration that executive departments and agencies (agencies) shall expedite energy-related
projects to conserve energy." § 1. Policy. "... it is the policy of this Administration that executive departments and agencies (agencies) shall take appropriate actions
…to expedite projects that will increase the ...conservation of energy.” EO # 13212 of May 18, 2001 - Actions to Expedite Energy-Related Projects.
Washington, DC 20301-1900 "DLA/P - Dan Ferry" <Daniel.Ferry@dla.mil>, U.S. Senate Budget Committee
800-424-9098 "DLA/P - Susan Hill" <Susan.Hill@dla.mil>, 517 Hart Senate Office Bldg.
"DLA/P - Sabrina Morgan" <Sabrina.Morgan@dla.mil>, Washington, DC 20510
SUBCOMMITTEE on Defense: "DLA/P - Jeanette Moy" <Jeanette.Moy@dla.mil>, Tel: 202-224-2934
Senator Ted Stevens (Chairman) (AK) "DLA/P - Rob Pezick" <Robert.Pezick@dla.mil>, Fax: 202-228-2856
Senator Thad Cochran (MS) "DLA/P - Helen Price" <Helen.Price@dla.mil>,
Senator Arlen Specter (PA) "DLA/P - Mary Ryan" <Mary.Ryan@dla.mil>, Congresswoman Kay Granger
Senator Pete Domenici (NM) "DLA/P - Harry Sands" <Harry.Sands@dla.mil>, House Appropriations Committee
Senator Christopher Bond (MO) "DLA/P - Lynne.Wiedeman" <Lynne.Wiedeman@dla.mil> 440 Cannon HOB
Senator Mitch McConnell (KY) Washington, DC 20515
Senator Richard Shelby (AL) DLA Item Managers: Ph. 202-225-5071
Senator Judd Gregg (NH) "DLA/P - George Oseyemi”<email@example.com> Fax 202-225-5683
Senator Kay Bailey Hutchison (TX) "DLA/P - Clara Herbin” <firstname.lastname@example.org>
Senator Conrad Burns (MT) "DLA/P - Jesida Zayas” <email@example.com>
Senator Daniel Inouye (Ranking Member) (HI) "DLA/P - Trudy Regan” <firstname.lastname@example.org>
Senator Robert C. Byrd (WV)
Senator Patrick Leahy (VT)
Senator Tom Harkin (IA)
Senator Byron Dorgan (ND)
Senator Richard Durbin (IL)
Senator Harry Reid (NV)
Senator Dianne Feinstein (CA)
Senator Barbara Milkulski (MD)