[Yang Nak-gyu's Defence Club] Gukgiyeon and Companies Oppose Audit Office's Criticism of Bulletproof Vests

The Defense Acquisition Program Administration (DAPA) and the company involved have pushed back against the Board of Audit and Inspection's (BAI) allegation that they signed a contract to purchase over 50,000 substandard bulletproof vests for more than 10.7 billion won. It is unusual for an audited agency to strongly oppose the BAI.

▲The Ministry of National Defense announced that new bulletproof vests will be provided to GOP soldiers by January next year.

According to the BAI's audit report titled "Status of Efforts to Improve Service Conditions for Soldiers," DAPA signed a contract in December 2021 with military supplier Company A to purchase a total of 56,280 bulletproof vests. The contract was worth approximately 10.778 billion won.

The audit report states that Company A manipulated the bulletproof performance by adding bulletproof material only to specific areas where bullets would pass through during shooting tests. They produced bulletproof vests that did not have uniform bulletproof performance but were designed to pass the tests.

The Defense Technology Promotion Institute (DTPI), responsible for quality assurance, was aware that bulletproof material had been added but still approved Company A to manufacture the bulletproof vests, the BAI pointed out. Furthermore, DTPI did not inform the testing agency about the "reinforced bulletproof vests." The testing agency conducted shooting tests on the reinforced areas according to regulations and judged that the bulletproof performance standards were met. Consequently, the BAI demanded that the DTPI director take disciplinary action against two related personnel who improperly handled quality assurance for bulletproof vests that failed to meet performance standards.

DTPI: “Only Approved Products Delivered” · Company: “Manipulation Allegations Are Untrue”

However, DTPI released a statement rebutting the audit results.

DTPI stated, "The BAI's bulletproof performance test was conducted differently from the test methods and standards specified in the purchase request." They added, "DTPI delivered only products that passed tests conducted by domestic accredited testing agencies and U.S. accredited testing agencies used by the U.S. military, in accordance with the standards and test procedures specified in the contract."

They further explained, "Bulletproof performance measurement is divided into two parts: the rear deformation measurement area and the penetration measurement area. The BAI measured rear deformation in the penetration measurement area and claimed it exceeded the standard, but this does not align with the test conditions."

Regarding the allegation that Company A manipulated performance by adding bulletproof material and that the shooting positions were adjusted excluding the vulnerable central area, DTPI insisted, "This is not true."

DTPI added, "As required by the test procedure, shooting tests were conducted on the reinforced areas, the non-reinforced areas, and their boundaries, confirming that the rear deformation met the standards."

Company A, the bulletproof vest manufacturer, stated in a press release, "Our company clearly conducted performance tests based on the standards of the U.S. National Institute of Justice (NIJ), which the Ministry of National Defense uses as the standard for bulletproof vests." They claimed, "The BAI is making unfounded assertions based on test results that differ from NIJ regulations."

Company A explained that the NIJ tests involve shooting three rounds each at the upper, left, and right sides of the bulletproof vest, and three rounds at the central area with different angles of incidence to check for penetration. However, the BAI only fired straight shots at the central area without adjusting the angle of incidence and judged the performance as substandard based on the rear deformation exceeding 44 mm rather than penetration.

In particular, regarding the BAI's claim that adding bulletproof material only to the upper and left/right sides was an attempt to manipulate performance, Company A rebutted, "Adding bulletproof material to the edges of the vest was to secure additional bulletproof performance in areas where a bulletproof panel is not required." They added, "It is a patented product that ensures flexibility when wearing the bulletproof vest."

This content was produced with the assistance of AI translation services.