DISCUSSION OF THE PROTOTYPE (SANITIZED) 1540 LIGHT TABLE WITH REPRESENTATIVES (SANITIZED)

• Document Type: CREST
• Collection: NGA Records (Formerly NIMA)
• Document Number (FOIA) /ESDN (CREST): CIA-RDP78B05703A000200010019-3
• Release Decision: RIPPUB
• Original Classification: S
• Document Page Count: 7
• Document Creation Date: December 28, 2016
• Document Release Date: July 10, 2006
• Sequence Number: 19
• Publication Date: August 21, 1970
• Content Type: MFR

rFNTFR ROUTING SLIP'
Declassified in Part -Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2013/01/04 :CIA-RDP78B05703A000200010019-3
r _ ?,
FROM ~ /
/
4
~
f
~`6' '~
V IO
RESEARCH & ENGINEERING DI
- -- -
TO INITIALS DATE REMARKS
DIRECTOR
l .~
~
/
DEP; DIRECTOR
~
f
~
EXEC/DIRECTO
-
- -- --
SPECIAL ASST
1
~
L~
ASST TO DIR
HISTORIAN
CH!PPBS
DEP CH,`PPBS
~ ~- _,l
~ ~-J
CHiSS
DEP CHrSS
SC $ P
RECORDS MGT
NEL
PERSON
LOGISTICS
^/V ~
TRAINING
SECURITY
FINANCE
CH-IEG
DEP CH IEG
EXO %IEG
CH-PSG
DEP CH PSG
EXO PSG
CH/TSG
DEP CHI TSG
EXO;'TSG
DIRiIAS/DDI
CH%DIAXX-4
CHi DIAAP-9
CHiSPAD
n a0 1] ]01 OBSOLETE ^R EVIOUS EDITIONS
Declassified in Part -Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2013/01/04 :CIA-RDP78B05703A000200010019-3
 r
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy_ Approved for Release 2013/01/04 :CIA-RDP78B05703A000200010019-3
~_ SET ~'
NPIC/TSG/RED/SDB-030-70
21 August 1970
SUBJECT: Discussion of the Prato
with Representatives
1540 Light Tab
1. On 18 August 1970, a meeting was held in
to discuss the evaluation of the prototype C
Model II Light Table. In attendance were Messrs.
their table during the evaluation period?
f. Was the table over engineered, and if
so, was this brought out at the critique?
2. opened the meeting by stating that the 25X1
had requested the meeting. He asked if 25X1
ha s eci is questions they wished to have answered. 25X1
stated that he had questions on the short 25X1
comings of their equipment:
a. In what ways were the systems and subsystems
of the table deficient? How were they relative 25X1
tO the table? 25X1
b. In the evaluation of the tables, was past per-
formance of the companies rated? Did managerial, tech-
nical, or any other factors influence the evaluation?
c. He had questions on the equality of the evalu-
ation. He stated he heard rumors about the evaluation.
d. Is
tions as the
ble built to the same specifica-
table?
25X1
25X1
25X1
25X1
25X1
25X1
25X1
25X1
e. Was ~~ allowed to make more corrections to 25X1
3, pointed out that his organization carried
a uantitative evaluation and not a subjective one. Mr.
suggested that it might answer most of the questions
briefed on his evaluation of the "fixes" made to
&RQUP't...,~.R.
Excluded ts~,~ sutesnat~c
fir,-~a~ deWR?rcdir~; k;~d
39~:~ decias;,;Si?~:t;cn
25X1
25X1
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2013/01/04 :CIA-RDP78B05703A000200010019-3
 Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2013/01/04 :CIA-RDP78B05703A000200010019-3
SUBJECT: Discussion of the Prototype
Table with Representatives
1540 Light
the (table. (gave the same briefing he gave
the Executive Director, NPIC, on 4 August 1970. He stated
that the deficiencies had been corrected with the exception
of
a. Excessive temperature at the film plane after
4.5 hours operation with 2.0 density film.
b. Rate control of the carriage movement was
still too high.
c. Dirt still got under the glass.
4. (said they would like to know what
must be done to im rove the equipment and make it competi-
tive. stated we would to discuss the
shortcomings anc corrections to the table but would
not give a comparison of systems and subsystems of the
tables. He explained that a time problem ex-
isted during the evaluation period, and the Center made an
engineering judgment of which table came closest to meeting
specifications and the PI needs. He stated that both tables
did not totally meet specs, and that the shortcomings were
reviewed with T&E and IEG, and the decision had to be made
on a time basis. He stated that if the had ini-
tially contained all these "fixes" it could have influenced
our decision.
25X1
25X1
25X1
25X1
25X1
25X1
5. asked when the decision was made 25X1
to go with laid it would be difficult to 25X1
answer since there are many decision points in our procure-
ment cycle. This varies from the operational request to the
executive sign off. He thought it might have occurred in
June. stated that they had demonstrated 25X1
some axes in pri and some in mid-June. He asked if the
decision had been made prior to mid-June. 25X1
stated that due to our procurement cycle, the decision had
to be made prior to the end of June and technical and cost
considerations both entered the picture. He said he would
not hazard a guess if the present table and a dif- 25x1
ferent price would have won the competition. .25X1
said they ran operational tests on both tables in March and
April. The PIs felt they could immediately go to work on
the table, but they desired further features. The PIs 25X1
fel ey could not do this with the table. 25X1
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2013/01/04 :CIA-RDP78B05703A000200010019-3
 Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2013/01/04 :CIA-RDP78B05703A000200010019-3
.:~ ...-
~~~~L~
SUBJECT: Discussion of the Prototype
1540 Light
Table with Representatives of the 25X1
6. ~ asked if was allowed in more 25X1
frequently for repairs. said he could not state 25X1
how many times each company was in or repairs. He stated
that the ground rules were that a contractor would be allowed
in for repairs only if the malfunction would cause the ter-
mination of the T&E tests. stated that 8 series 25X1
of PIs were used in the opera~iona gists. There was very
little down time for either table. Cost information was
withheld and onl the o eration of the table was used in the
evaluation. asked what items revented 25X1
the table being use immediately. 25X1
stated that the film drives, the heat problem, and the film
tracking prevented its immediate use.
7. stated that the over temperature 25X1
of the drive systems was caused by a failure of a component
that was allowed to remain uncorrected during the evaluation
period. He thoucht this might have seriously affected the
evaluation. stated this was not the case. A 25X1
list was made of all the faults, and a description made of
the seriousness of the fault. In all cases, faults had de-
tailed rationales as to their seriousness. Heat in PI space
alone did not reject the table. stated that the 25X1
70mm tracking was a very serious problem during the opera-
tional evaluation. stated this did not 25X1
occur initially at e p an The firs 25X1
knew of this was when t e a e was returned to 25X1
after the critique. stated that we have to 25X1
assume that the table is in proper working order and ready
for evaluation when it is delivered to us.
8. asked if ~ was asked in more 25X1
often during the T&E. stated that they were not 25X1
asked in more as far as a is aware. stated 25X1
that had one recurring problem and two problem 25X1
areas. did not know the dates and number of 25X1
visits. He said worked on the carria e drives several 25X1
times when it stopped the tests, but that was not allowed 25X1
to make other "fixes" during these visits.
9. asked if any other evaluating groups 25x1
(from the Intelligence Communit ) had been involved in the de-
cision on the tables. stated that we brokered 25X1
the evaluation for the Community through our T&E and operation-
al people.
3
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2013/01/04 :CIA-RDP78B05703A000200010019-3
 Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2013/01/04 :CIA-RDP78B05703A000200010019-3
SUBJECT: Discussion of the Prototype
Table with Representative
1540 Lig
25X1
25X1
10.1 (said he is still at a loss to get 25X1
a hold on the situation. He asked what it is about the
abl t is not satisfactory or is less satisfac- 25x1
ory an thetable. He said needed to learn 25X1
"what you are not ha with and what ma es the 25X1
table "less good". stated that this had been 25X1
pretty well covered by telling what was wrong 25X1
and by exp aining t e time frame. 25X1
ll. ~ asked what does the Center prefer 25X1
in a table beyond the specs. explained that no 25X1
one table could please ever PI, but that the PI could not
possibly live with the table as it was during the 25X1
operational evaluation.
12. ~ stated that if they could have 25X1
looked at the table rior to 4 May, certain "fixes" might
have been made. tated that they were provided 25X1
a critique once the T&E ha een completed, but that there
had been some procrastination on Richards' part in responding
to "fixes" to the problems highlighted at the critique.
13. stated that the tracking problem was not 25X1
made clear at the critique. stated this was not 25X1
1-r17A. and that it was the number one item addressed on the
List of Fixes, dated 22 April. also 25X1
stated that it was discussed at the critique. 25X1
stated that the tracking and hunting problem ham nog
corrected in late June.
14. ~ stated that it sounds like the
Center has thoroughly evaluated the tables.
asked: "Can you compare the major areas of both tables so
knows where to improve their table?"
stated that we have given you an evaluation of t e s or -
comings of your table, and that a comparison of the tables is
not needed.
15. asked what weight was given to
past performance. stated that the green oil and
25X1
25X1
25X1
25X1
the leaks could not have come at a worse time, but that we
had accepted ex lanation of the method of overcoming 25X1
this problem. asked if th table 25X1
had been over engineered and had too many frills. 25X1
4
+~z F~
~','t~"
_~~~~
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2013/01/04 :CIA-RDP78B05703A000200010019-3
 nrnrlCT
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2013/01/04 :CIA-RDP78B05703A000200010019-3
SUBJECT: Discussion of the Prototype
Table with Representatives
said he saw a pictu
had a more pot
a ed items may hav
in the evaluation.
ward appearance of
re of the
fished job.
tab
stated that
table was b
stated that the
le added points
the overall out-
16. stated they are trying to answer
for themse ves tie Brea ifference in cost for the tables.
Did frills contribute to these costs. stated that
there were many intangible differences between the tables.
said intangibles only entered the PI evaluation
not the T&E. Both tables basically met specs but that the
evaluation had to be time oriented.
17. tasked why the purchase was all one buy
if tables were required by a certain date.
stated that this had been aired and discussed. If could
not have met the production schedule, there might have been
a split order. He further stated that the T&E report will be
distributed throughout the Communit and it will state that
the fixes have been made to the able.
18. stated that one point has not
been covered. built a prototype at a great loss,
and a competitor was provided the information free. The com-
petitor is rumored to have rec i 3 times as much
money for the development. stated this was not
true - that the amount s ent on each contractor for total
development was within ~ He further stated that we
were not buying competition. He also stated that
would have to answer any questions on contracting:
19. emphasized that the results of this
procurement by no means meant that erminating
relationships with the We still had
respect for and confidence in eir capa i hies and they
would be iven an opportunity to bid on future tasks. In
fact, had recently been solicited for a proposal
on the High Intensity Tracking Light Source.
20.
is evalua
perature
ting the table
problem.
the only question he raises
without correcting the tem-
stated that the evaluating
people realized the table does not ordinarily operate this
hot.
~CRET
25X1
25X1
25X1
25X1
25X1
25X1
25X1
25X1
25X1
25X1
25X1
25X1
25X1
25X1
25X1
25X1
25X1
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2013/01/04 :CIA-RDP78B05703A000200010019-3
 c~rR~T
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2013/01/04 :CIA-RDP78B05703A000200010019-3
SUBJECT: Discussion of the Prototype
Table with Representative
1540 Lig
21. thanked the group for their time
and information. eiterated that the T&E report
on the tables and the corrections will go out to the entire
Community.
Chi -, ys ems eve o en ranc , RED
Distribution:
Original - Exec. Dir/NPIC
1 - C/TSG
1 - C/PPBS
1 - C/IEG
1 - C/ESD/TSG
1 - Route RED
1 - Contract File
1 - SDB Chrono
SECRET
25X1
25X1
25X1
25X1
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2013/01/04 :CIA-RDP78B05703A000200010019-3