Homeland Safety and Sniffex

[Hutch]

Saw this in the Commentaries.

First thing I want to know is the purchase order number or contract number the US Navy issued this company for the item and the particular office that issued it.

The Government publishes all these transactions/contracts (I believe they are required to by law) but given the thousands of new and amended contracts that are done each week, it can be hard to find the specific contract.

In addition, there is a US Government program to use Credit Cards for "small purchases" which in some cases can be used to make $250K buys. Those are even harder to find records of.

If I can find the particular Navy section that suppossedly made this purchase, I'll see what I can dig out.

[jeffq]

Since a useless tool for dowsing explosives is likely to get people killed, I sent the following email (slightly customized for each) to my three Congressmen (which fortunately include the senior Republican on the Senate Armed Services Committee; a former Navy Secretary; and a member of the House Appropriations Committee).


I am writing to you because of a grotesque attempt to provide our troops with non-functional equipment that claims to allow them to detect explosives at a distance. I refer to a product called "Sniffex", from Homeland Safety Intl, in Irving, Texas. A marketing agency is claiming that the company has obtained:

"the receipt of their first purchase order from the US Navy for deployment of Sniffex, the Company's explosives-detection device. Homeland Safety indicated that this was the first order, other than for testing purposes, it had received from the US Military." -- "Homeland Safety Intl, Formerly Sniffex, Inc., Announces New Symbol -- HSFI", http://www.marketwire.com/mw/release_html_b1?release_id=168436

Yet this device was tested at the Joint Experimental Research Complex of the Yuma Proving Grounds on August 8-9, 2005, with the following conclusion:

"Based upon the observed test results, the SNIFFEX handheld explosives detector is not capable of detecting explosives regardless of the distance between the device and any explosives..." -- ("Test Report: The Detection Capability of the SNIFFEX Handheld Explosives Detector", September 2, 2005)

The report apparently details how tests that were much looser than the claimed abilities utterly failed to produce any better results than chance, which is scientific jargon for "a block of wood would accomplish the same thing". According to an excerpt in "Swift", an online publication of the James Randi Educational Foundation (which investigates, among other things, "dowsing" claims):

"The test objectives were to evaluate the vendor's claims concerning the device's ability to detect explosives. Testing was performed in a manner consistent with the specifications of the SNIFFEX, and was designed only to evaluate the device's principles of operation, not to test its limits. Thus, explosive weights were considerably more than the minimum detectable amounts (20 or more pounds vs. 0.1 pounds), while distances were kept well within the maximum delectable ranges (10-25 feet vs. 300 feet) and the vendor was given the opportunity to take multiple passes prior to making a determination vs. 2-3 as stated in their literature. As shown in Table 1, the SNIFFEX handheld explosives detector performed no better than random chance over the course of testing…

"The SNIFFEX did not detect explosives. A summary of the results is shown in Table 2. Every effort was made to meet the vendor's needs to allow the device to operate under ideal conditions…

"The vendor never suggested that the SNIFFEXs were malfunctioning during any test despite the fact that the devices were not correctly identifying the location of explosives…

"On one occasion, the vendor wondered if the building was influencing the accuracy of the device, even though their device is purported to be able to detect explosives through most any barrier. In response to this, the operator proceeded to walk around the outside perimeter of the building while twenty pounds of TNT were inside. As he walked, the SNIFFEX indicated that explosives were present within the building as evidenced by a clear antenna deflection. [Randi comments: The vendor/operator had already been informed that there was an explosive target stored somewhere within that building.] However, as he was noting the positive indication of explosives in the structure, two explosives trucks containing a total of 1,000 pounds of explosives drove up behind him to a distance of approximately twenty feet away. The SNIFFEX failed to show any indication of this much larger quantity of explosives…" -- "A Failure to Communicate?", "Swift", February 16, 2007, http://www.randi.org/jr/2007-02/021607failure.html

Note that the excuses made during failures of "outside influence" are a standard part of dowsing tests, with the participants coming up with all sorts of post-hoc rationales for failure that, even if true, would render the device useless in practice. (That's why responsible manufacturers perform proper carefully designed, double-blind tests *before* they attempt to demonstrate their amazing creations.)

The company itself, which changed its name from "Sniffex" and no longer supports its own original website (a trivial expense, but unsurprising if too much negative publicity is associated with it), seems to be managed by a group of shady characters, according to a report from OTC fraud investigation website Stocklemon.com. ("Stocklemon Reports on Sniffex (SNFX.pk)", http://www.stocklemon.com/08_01_05.html )

I'm sure you're aware that, like any other incredibly lucrative market, the anti-terrorism business cries out to (and receives responses from) the charlatans and fools of the world who care more about selling their ideas and "products" than ensuring that they actually work. The possibility that non-functional explosive detection devices might be deployed, jeopardizing the safety of our men and women in battle by giving them a fatally false sense of security, is absolutely frightening. Either the military procurement people are committing a grevious mistake that will get hundreds of soldiers killed, or this company and its marketing partner are lying about the U.S. military's support to sell their merchandise. Either way, it's a horrible form of fraud that must be stopped before it can do serious damage, both in human and in political terms.

I beg you to investigate this matter as soon as possible, to confirm the reports and confront the players involved. Thank you for your attention.


Hopefully this will get some action from the Powers That Be.

[Beady]

...I sent the following email (slightly customized for each) to my three Congressmen (which fortunately include the senior Republican on the Senate Armed Services Committee; a former Navy Secretary; and a member of the House Appropriations Committee).

Nice letter. Maybe you should send copies to the various news organizations.

[Zep]

First class, Jeffq. Even I, a non-USAian, am appalled that US military personnel may be issued such trash as standard equipment. I thought the days of "defending your freedom, equipped by the lowest bidder" had long since passed.

[Biff Starbuck]

I think the first step should be finding out from the Navy if they actually did order these things for deployment. Not that I am saying a company willing to sell completely non-working explosives detection equipment shouldn't be trusted, but... I wouldn't say all of their previous press releases look that honest to me either. :D

If in fact someone in the Navy was foolish enough to place an order in after their very own testing showed the devices to be worthless, I am sure the Government Accountability Office (new name for the GAO) or the Navy Office of Inspector General (OIG) would be able to investigate why.

[Teetop]

http://www.stocklemon.com/08_01_05.html

This report is a bit old but it looks as though investors have been aware of this scam for a while now.

[rjh01]

This other thread is also on the same story
Is the U.S. Navy Really that dumb? (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=75092)

Should the two threads be merged? If someone agrees they should be merged they can PM Darat.

[Jackalgirl]

This other thread is also on the same story
Is the U.S. Navy Really that dumb? (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=75092)

Should the two threads be merged? If someone agrees they should be merged they can PM Darat.

Done. Hutch & Biff, FWIW, I mentioned on the other thread that I fully intend to notify the IG (and possibly also the Defense Contract Management Agency) about this. I'll be checking in at work tomorrow to see if the EOD Technical Division sent me a copy of the report that found Sniffex to be ineffective. I also wrote to HSI directly and asked them for the contract number (though I don't really expect them to give it to me).