NPIC'S RELATIONS WITH THE (Sanitized)

• Document Type: CREST
• Collection: NGA Records (Formerly NIMA)
• Document Number (FOIA) /ESDN (CREST): CIA-RDP78B05703A000200010026-5
• Release Decision: RIPPUB
• Original Classification: S
• Document Page Count: 22
• Document Creation Date: December 28, 2016
• Document Release Date: February 26, 2004
• Sequence Number: 26
• Publication Date: July 24, 1970
• Content Type: MF

Approved For Release 2004A13126_! IA-RDP78B05703AN0200010026-5
DECLASS REVIEW by NGA
x < Lt "' p u t y i r e c t o r f o r T tcfl
iti the
1. 1 11t-aw n"Stigat t sophist
in a s ' my letter to ' nator P,)-rd that t
2 4 JUL 1970
fairly t:lti res?ect to a large p oC t contract
tai . I r cancliAed that the I k
fairly.
22. P . cop of fix` #i i=s in the f of a , aranM for th,
is attar-,d together `4th related w alts . +-itr;
,ecwd
igraalt 19 of r-y A*wfor t= i' or is a irt }:_y-,;o rit. re-
poise to t.3 letter.
:. ho l+ette Was fora'
[yrr`a Staff on 1.7 July to the ~ :fense I11telli race
01A, at (flir 5l j*st1a'i, t respodet wit'.4 an .no=y14
says t'he fitter is beir Investigate. To* .iLk ac'ataLo,
tic CIA.
request the Ixg1slat
that I
'
4.
1 r co et
3
,
r
~~ien
or !Iyrayl staff inforz t v Y,.,* . ha tEo procu e'.ti3bent
ra tion Is orse r i,y .ii, that Vo contract is class
t ` - i s ?t , aid that we are 'spar : to t ri : ;:. ctvr f"rU o
the facts of th can.
S. I gave cosies to you t at I invite, $I
of letter and the `may in whir--, it ;,acs Inaccurate
to i" briefed i . 1C officm e in t::
;tt this point; I as Ii i. d a *irst oin= g>o.
Info r tI - W s s to - tnat a face-to-fay discussion -mild E:o gin-
likely i n all ei r t t a # a w t o satisf the I 11 t i
I - I'G T2 j :J4TAG COMJ GI
irecto
1
.1w
'C
y ,}},,.<
e..
' ational 11'"o4o -J 1C I tt+ r :2`n"t L ' E'. ':.. ~
*bAd" 23 My i.-M;
,M -!&t table . raltip< r.'?t
;r from ; for vrd, I,' Jul-.- 15,70
25X1
25X1
25X1
25X1
25X1
Approved For Release 2004/03/2 ;-p1;A P78B05703A00020 01~,.026-5 ,_ 2
 SECRET
Approved for Release 2004/03/26 : CIA-RDP78BO5703A000200010026-5
23 July 1970
25X1
25X1
25X1
25X1
25X1
25X1
MEMORANDUM FOR T1 1E RECORD
1. The following is a report of NPIC's relations with the
as they relate to the complaint by that company, in a 9 July
1970 letter to Senator Harry Flood Byrd, Jr., that the-company was treated
unfairly in the award of a procurement contract. The letter to Senator Byrd,
and a detailed chronology on the case are attached.
2. In mid-1967 NPIC identified a need for a new light table deliverable
by late 1970. Development Objectives were presented to the
an established supplier of light tables, in May 1968 on a
single source basis. In early June 1968 submitted a letter proposal
and on 28 June 1968 a contract was awarded to lI to design and fabricate
a prototype table at the fixed price of 0 This prototype was to be
delivered on 1 November 1968.
both companies.
25X1
25X1
25X1
25X1
25X1
. 3. The
delivered the prototype on 6 February 1969.
as
d
i
o
,
The overall performance rating o the contractor during this per
determined by this Agency's contract monitor, varied from "minimum acceptable"
l test
to "average". The prototype was then subjected to our usua
These
noted
i
.
es were
and evaluation procedures and several major deficienc
deficiencies included low light level, excessive light gradient, poor film
drive, film scratching and light flicker.
1969 we became aware that
ar
J
I
25X1
y,
anu
4.
n
e
rotot
formerly
was developing with
yp
funds a similar p
IC
25X1
light table.
W
on
is ig1 table was offered an slivered to NP
cted it to our usual test and evaluation procedures.
bj
22 May 1969.
-
e
e su
d major deficiencies similar to those of the
h
l
25X1
J table
The r
a
so
a
ortant
i
h
d
mp
e
t
prototype, but it came with an advantageous new feature an
motorized film drive system performed exceptionally well.
5. As a result of the two evaluations we determined that neither light
table met our requirements. A new set of Development Objectives, incorporating
d
I
.
n
the best features of both the tables, was prepare
nt to
2 5X1
August 1969 requests for proposals against the new objectives were se
NPIC's Relations with the 25X1
in the Development and Procurement of a New
Light Table
.~z l'4:vtii:^xwr.2 era
Approved For Release 2004/03/2: l8BO5703A000200010026-5
t-:: ; 4r:J ff,, ~~
~r~l?. .iica~an ~ i a
.eix.ixave. ?.re.w.euc.s^>oein-?.. N.
 SECRET
Approved For Release 2004/03/26 : CIA-RDP78B05703A000200010026-5
SUBJECT: NPIC's Relations with the I Iin the Development
and Procurement of a New Light a e
6. On 20 October 1969, a contract was awarded to the
to develop and fabricate ft second prototype light table with
a delivery date of 20 February 1970. A similar contract was awarded to
0
on 3 November 1969 with a specified delivery date of 23 February 1970.
7. With these awards, NPIC had made a total investment of over
I I-- toward the development
of prototypes for equipment that was critical to our future needs.
Because the need was critical, we encouraged the competition to ensure
obtaining effective equipment at reasonable procurement costs, and timely
deliveries to meet our scheduled needs.
8. On 6 March 1970 0 delivered the second prototype which was
immediately returned for several minor corrections which were to have been
eliminated before delivery. On 11 March the table was again delivered to
us.
9. The 0 table was delivered on 9 March, with assembly being
completed on 11 March. ?
10. Again, both prototype light tables were subjected to engineering
testing and operational evaluations. Visits by both contractors to make
adjustments and repairs were restricted to those which were required to
rectify outright failures that were sufficiently serious to interfere with
completing the test and evaluation. Under these circumstances,
made two visits and =made four visits during the testing period. NPIC's
operational evaluation was completed on 6 April 1970, at which time NPIC
concluded that both tables continued to display deficiencies, but that the
table evidenced fewer and technically less complex deficiencies.
11. On 14 April, representatives of NPIC met with 0 representatives
to discuss, in detail, the engineering tests and operational evaluation of
the 0 table. The same procedure was followed the next day with a repre-
sentative of the to discuss the 0 table.
Both companies agree to confirm in a letter their agreement to correct
the deficiencies noted. These letters were received during the week of
20 April, and, on 4 May, the two tables were returned to their respective
companies for modification and rework in accordance with the agreements
expressed in their letters of intent.
12. On 5 May 1970 the Executive Director, NPIC, after an intensive
review of all aspects of the tests evaluations, unit costs, and availability
of funds, decided to procure the table for NPIC. The basis for this
decision was the suitability of the table to NPIC's tasks, lower costs
and a judgement that 0 could meet production requirements.
25X1
25X1
25X1
25X1
25X1
25X1
Approved For Release 2004/03/ 78B05703A000200010026-5
 Approved For Release 2004/03/26 : CIA-RDP78BO5703A000200010026-5
SUBJECT: NPIC's Relations with the
and Procurement of a New Light Table
in the Development
13. The Center submitted a request for proposal, to include price
quotations, to on 15 May 1970, and to 0 on 19 May 1970. The
request to was based on NPIC's decision of 5 May to purchase the
II table, and included the additional quantities and configurations of
other agencies' needs, in recognition of the possibility of a decision
by those agencies to purchase the Q table. The request to
was based on the needs of other a encies in the community, and for
contingency purposes in the event could not fully satisfy NPIC's
needs in the time period required. was requested to propose costs
of producing three different configurations or variants 'ranging in units
of 17 to 281. 0 was requested to bid on producing two variants
of their model in units of .5 to 140.
14. Both companies responded on 25 May 1970, as follows:
Configuration 1 - 281 units @
179 units @
Configuration 2 - 63 units @
30 units @
Configuration 3 - 37 units @
17 units @
Configuration 1 - 200 units @
155 units @
45 units @
Configuration 2 - 200 units @
155 units @
45 units @
15. On 28 Ma submitted a 'revised quotation as follows:
Configuration 1 - 40 units @
Configuration 2 - 5 units @
25X1
25X1
25X1
25X1
25X1
25X1
Approved For Release 2004/03/2 .C ' 178B05703A000200010026-5
 Approved For lease 2004/03/26 : CIA-RDP78B0570 00200010026-5
SUBJECT: NPIC's Relations with thel in the Development
and Procurement of a New Light Table
16. On 15 June 1970, a production contract was awarded to II
This contract calls for the production of a total of 389 light tales,
costing a total of Delivery is to be completed by
28 June 1971, with 145 units being delivered on or before 2 January 1971.
17 0n 16 June 1970 the?NPIC Contracting Officer informed
that they were unseccessful in their bid for light to es an
that the award to their competitor was based on both technical and cost
considerations. On 25 June, the Chief of NPIC's Technical Services Group
informed representatives of the that the procurement
,contract had been awarded to e to them a as a result of a
thorough engineering testing and operational evaluation program, the
table had not been found acceptable for NPIC use.
18. The following comments are in specific response to each of the
points or questions posed in the letter to Senator Byrd:
a. Thel makes the point that it.
was working primarily with its own funds, and reports that
it was paid for its prototype while II reportedly,
was paid about for the prototype. NPIC's
record shows that it contribute to the development
of the 0 prototypes, and for the 0 prototypes.
b.II states that, during the evaluation of the
tables, no information was given it regarding the comparative
performance of the two tables. This is true - neither was
any such information given to 0 during that time. Each
company was informed of the test and evaluation results
concerning its table following the test and evaluation.
c. 0 states that I] personnel were frequently
called in to resolve difficulties with their equipment during
evaluation, but that Q was told not to correct such
difficulties until testing was completed. In fact, each
company was called in r II twice and =four times -
to correct only those failures which would have prevented
continuation and completion of the full series of tests.
d. 0 states that they asked for a review of
the reasons they had not been selected and that the review
had not yet taken place, but is anticipated shortl .
Although such a review has been discussed by II personnel
with our contracting officer and contract monitor, t e
Executive Director, NPIC, has not decided whether such a
review should be conducted.
25X1
25X1
25X1
25X1
25X1
25X1
25X1
25X1
25X1
25X1
25X1
25X1
25X1
4
Approved For Release 2004/03/ 6,s IA- RDP78B05703A000200010026-5
L
a.,i I..
 Approved For -Release 2004/ 61A DP78B0570MA000200010026-5
SUBJECT: NPIC's Relations with thel in the Development
and Procurement of a New Light Table
. e. 0 states that it was not asked to bid on
the "substantially larger quantity" which would have lowered
its price significantly. NPIC's record shows that each
company submitted cost estimates on two separate occasions.
The first occasion in May 1970 both companies submitted
budgetary cost estimates for the same quantities (200 and
300 units) with the.I price being approximately 250
higher than [::]in both cases. On the second occasion
submitted bids for 200, 155, or 45 units, while
on the same date bid on the basis of 281 and 179 units.
bid was considerably lower for 179 units than was
bid for 200 units.
f. 0 asks if price was a major factor, why were
no negotiations held with 0 concerning the price of
its equipment? Price was an important factor, but the
performance of the equipment was more important. On both
counts thelI record was better than that of
Also, time had run out - NPIC had no more time to negotiate
further if it were to meet the scheduled need.
g. Istates that it has learned that those who
are to participate in the forthcoming technical review of
its equipment have been instructed not to compare the
table with the successful 0 table. The technical review
refers to is apparently the final review action
require by the contract for the prototype development, and
is not relevant to the procurement contract. NPIC officers have
not been told to refrain from comparing the 0 and
tables at any time.
h. Il asks why it was never asked to submit a
definitive proposal on the larger quantities - 400 units -
which now are being procured from II Neither 0 nor
I as requested to bid on quantities of 400 units.
NPIC's decision to purchase from and the 265 units it requires
was based on tests, evaluations, a comparative analysis
of earlier cost estimates for smaller quantities of tables
submitted by both Subsequently, other
agencies have decided to loin in this procurement
action, resulting in a total of 389 units for all agencies
now on order with II
i. J Istates it has reason to believe that
deliveries a e begin in August 1970, and that this would
indicate that =ad received a contract commitment prior
25XI
25X
25X1';
25X11
25X1
25X1
25X1
Approved For Release 2004/03/26 CIA-RDP78BO5703A000200010026-5
CE T
SE
 Approved Forelease 2004/03/26 : CIA-R .DP78B057d` 000200010026-5
SUBJECT: NPIC's Relations with the in the Develop'Ment 25X1:
and Procurement of a New Light Table
to the time 0 was asked to submit a firm proposal,
since component deliveries would'require at least 60 days.
In fact, deliveries are to begin 5 October 1970, and
did not receive any contract commitment prior to the time
was asked to submit a proposal.
states that it has very good reason to
believe that its equipment, as finally configured, was
superior to that offered by NPIC's tests and
evaluations resulted in finings that the =table was
preferred in most respects by NPIC's engineering,, maintenance,
and operating personnel. We have no doubt that, given time,
both could develop a table superior to that
.NPIC is purchasing from 0 NPIC has no more time to give.
25X1
25X1
25X1
Executive Director
National Photographic Interpretation Center
Approved For Release 2004/03/2$-40
78B05703A000200010026-5
 Approved For Relee e 61413126: CIA-RDP78905703A000200010026-5
CHRO'NOLOG'Y OF LICHT TABLE DEVELOPMENT
1.
Summer 1967
2.
April 1968
3.
May 1968
4.
9 June 1968 :
5.
28 June 1968
National Photographic Interpretation Center
(NPIC) identified the need for a new light
table to exploit a future acquisition system.
.Development Objectives prepared for a Split-
Format 1540 Light Table Model I.
Development Objectives delivered to
and a proposal requested.
Letter proposal submitted by
to design and
fabricate prototype table at fixed price of
25X1
Table with operating and maintenance
manuals to be delivered 1 November 1968. The
performance on this contract is indicated below:
Ills~ection Report No.
Date
Overall Performance Rating
1
2 Aug 1968 Average
2
15 Oct
1968
Minimum Acceptable
3
26 Dec
1968
Minimum Acceptable
4
18 Feb
1969
Minimum Acceptable
6. 6 February 1969 Prototype delivered; Operating and Maintenance
Manuals have not boon delivered as of 20 July
1970.
25X1
25X1
25X1
7. 10 February -
10 March 1969 : Test and evaluation period for Q proto-2 5X1
8. 22 Mai 1969 :
type. Major deficiencies noted were a low light
level, excessive light gradient, poor film drive,
film scratching and light flicker.
A 1540 Light Table,
developed by 0 now known
25X1
as
a
25X1
di
company funds,
25X1
and partially design
ment Objectives was
ed to meet NPIC's Develop-
delivered to NPIC.
Approved For Release Q 4 26 : CIA-RDP78B05703A000200010026-5
 rte.
"low
Approved For Release 2004/03/26 : CIA-RDP78B05703A000200010026-5
Q
NOTE: NPIC understands the Navy discussed
their requirements for a 1540 type light
table with 0 and through this conversation
a majority of the photo intelligence commu-
nity's needs, 0 requested a copy of NPIC's
Development Objectives which was furnished
to them in January 1969,
learned of NPIC's developmental efforts.
In order to fabricate a table configured to
9. 22 May -
23 June 1969 : Test and evaluation period for 0 prototype.
Two units were provided;-one equipped for
manual film drive and the other for motorized
film drive.
The motorized film drive system performed
exceptionally well. In addition, a unique
and advantageous new feature, a table tilting
capability, was included. Major deficiencies
10. July 1969
included low light level, light flicker,
excessive light gradient, poor focus control
and no provision for motorized microstereoscope
carriage motion.
Decision reached to undertake parallel develop-
ment contracts with This
decision was based on a consideration of the
following factors:
a. The critical need to have an acceptable
light table in large quantity by late
1970.
b. The necessity to ensure sufficient
quantities to meet NPIC and community
needs. We believed that simultaneous
production by two sources would be
needed in order to procure sufficient
numbers of the new tables in time to
cope with the scheduled arrival of
new kinds of photography.
c. A desire to achieve reasonable equip-
ment costs and optimum technology in a
heretofor non-competitive situation.
had become over the years the
major source of light tables and, in
our judgement, had begun to show
25X1
25X1
25X1
25X1
25X1
Approved For Release 2004/CSO' C?. 2DP78BO5703A000200010026-5
V1 .
 SECRET
Approved For Release 2004/03/26 : CIA-RDP78BO5703A000200010026-5
signs -- particularly in the initial
phases of the Model I light table
development -- of being unresponsive
to our requirements.
11. 24 July 1969 : New Development Objectives were prepared for
competitive development of a 1540 Light Table
Model II. It combined the best features of
both tables and further refinement suggestions
from the photo interpreters.
12. 8 Au u st 1969 : Requests for proposal in accordance with the
new Development Objectives were forwarded to
13. 4 September 1969
AIL submitted proposal to develop light table
14. 5 September 1969 Richards submitted a proposal to develop light
table for
25X1
25X1
25X1
15. 20 October 1969 was awarded to 25X1
to develop an fabricate a Split Format Light
Table in accordance with the Development
Objectives dated 24 july 1969. The contract
was negotiated at a firm fixed price of
for late delivery to 20 days an a maximum
contract value of ased on a reward 25X1
of 0 per day for ear y e ivery up to 20
days. The target date for delivery was
20 February 1970. performance on 25X1
the contract is in ica a elow:
Inspection Report No.
Date Over
all
Performance Rating
1
16 Jan 1970
Very Good
2
S.Mar 1970
Above Average
3
7 May 1970
Above Average
16. 29 October 1969 Following negotiations1 "submitted a modified 25X1
proposal with an offer to accept a contract at
a firm fixed price with a minimum 25X1
contract value of of based on a penalty of 25X1
per day for-late delivery up to 20_days_and
a maximum contract value of, based on a 25X1
reward of E= per day for early delivery up to 25X1
20 days.
3
Approved For Release 2004/03/26 : CIA-RDP78BO5703A000200010026-5
SECRET
with a minimum contract value of
based on a penalty of per day 25X1
 SECRET
Approved Forelease 2004/03/26: CIA-RDP78B0570000200010026-5
17. 3 November 1969
Inspection Report No.
was awarded to 0 to
develop and fabricate a Split Format Light
Table in accordance with the Development
Objectives dated 24 July 1969. The contract
was awarded in accordance with the pricing
indicated in =letter 29 October 1969.
The target date or delivery was 23 February
1970. 0 performance on the contract is
indicated below:
Overall Performance Ratin&
1 16 Jan 1970 Very Good
2 5 Mar 1970 Above Average
3 7 May 1970 Above Average
18. 3 November 1969 : At this point in time the Government had made
19.
6 March 1970
20.
9-11 March 1970
the following investments in the 1540 Light
Table Development:
A.
B.
Contract for Mod II
25X1
25X1
25X1
25X1
25X1
25X1
25X1
: II Mod II light table delivered which was
imme lately. returned because had failed 25X1
to correct the air bubbles and ig t flicker
problems, which had been noted by the project
monitor while conducting his pre-acceptance
tests at d which were to have been 25X1
eliminated prior to delivery.
: 0 Mod II table delivered and assembled at NPIC.
21...11 March 1970
: I
22. 12 March 1970
:
od II table redelivered.
Test and evaluation of both light tables initiated
by NPIC personnel. Because the time for producing
a substantial quantity of the light tables was
becoming critically short the period for both
engineering testing and operational evaluations
was limited to one month. Accordingly, NPIC
found it necessary to restrict any adjustments,
repairs, and modifications by the manufacturers
during test and evaluation to outright failures
Orig Contract for Mod I -
Contract for Mpd II
: Cost to Gov't for Mod I -
Approved For Release 2004/03 M L P78B05703A000200010026-5
 .rrp~~? Now
Approved For Release 2004/03/2 A-F~D.78B05703A000200010026-5
23.
24.
24 March 1970 :
25.
27 March 1970 :
26.
30 March 1970
:
27.
,
31 March 1970 -
6 April 1970
28.
3 April 1970
29.
6 April 1970
that were sufficiently serious to prohibit
further test and evaluation if they were not
corrected. All other modifications or rework
were to be deferred until the conclusion of
the engineering testing and operational
evaluations.
NOTE: During the test and evaluation program
failures were experienced in both tables; in
the= table four failures (which were 25X1
repaired on 24, 27, 30 March and 22 April 1970).
and in the F_ table two failures (which 25X1
were repaired on 3 and-22 April 1970).
AIL repaired Y-bridge'drive clutch.
AIL repaired Y-drive cable.
AIL again repaired Y-drive.
: Following engineering testing both tables
were subjected to operational evaluation by
the photo interpretation group. This
operational testing was performed by eight
experienced imagery interpreters using a
variety of imagery. The evaluation group
worked in teams of two, uninterrupted, for
a period of four consecutive working days.
Each team Jiad an opportunity to operate each
light table one full day. In addition, one
member of the group used both tables one-half
day each on an operational scanning project.
: During the operational evaluation 25X1
repaired a gear failure.
: At the conclusion of the operational evaluation,
"the results were consolidated and swnmarized..
The conclusion was unanimous: the =table 25X1
was found to have a substantially greater
operational suitability than the unit. 25X1
This was based on Such factors a superior.
film drive, dry light source and lower heat
output -- features critical to the particular
task NPIC performs in exploiting photography.
Cost was not a factor in arriving at this
conclusion.
Approved For Release 2004/03/26 : CIA-RDP78BO5703A000200010026-5
 SEC'T
Approved For Release 2004/03/26 : CIA-RDP78B05703A000200010026-5
30. 13-21 April 1970 : DIAAP-9 and Imagery Analysis Service/CIA
had the two tables for operational evaluation
and both selected the II model for
procurement.
NOTE:' NPIC understands that the superior
microscope transport of the 0 table
was a primary factor in the choice of the
I lunit because this feature is critical
31.
32.
33.
to t e particular tasks they perform in
exploiting the photography.
10 April 1970 :
As a contractual requirement budgetary cost
estimates were submitted by Don production
quantities of light tables.
14 April 1970
As a
contractual requirement budgetary cost
esti
mates were submitted by I I on
prod
uction quantities of light tables.
:
A co
st comparison of the
esti
mates is as follows:
1. Basic Configuration
2. Motorized Film Transport
3. Power Elevation
4. Power Tilt F, Carriage Drive
5. Total
6. Difference
34. 14 April 1970
35. 15 April 1970 :
200 Units
300 Units
25X1
25X1
25X1
25X1
25X1
25X1
NPIC personnel met with" representatives 25X1
at NPIC concerning the engineering testing
and operational evaluation of their table.
All deficiencies, both major and minor, of
the IItable were discussed in detail and 25X1
remec. is action was suggested. The 25X1
table was not discussed. At the cone i
of this meeting 0 agreed to submit a letter 25X1
of intent of their agreement to correct the
deficiencies noted.
NPIC personnel met with a 0 represen-
tative. All deficiencies associated with the
unit--were discussed and remedial
action was suggested. The 0 light table
was not discussed. At the conclusion of
this meeting greed to submit a
letter of intent o' their agreement to correct
the deficiencies noted.
25X1
25X1
25X1
Approved For Release 2004/03/26 : C(A-RDP78B05703A000200010026-5
SECRET
 Approved Four Release 200
25X1
36.
20 April 1970
25X1
37.
22 April 1970
25X1
38.
22 April 1970
25X1
39.
22 April 1970
40.
4 May 1970
41. 5 May 1970
6NL -RDP78B057'3A000200010026-5
submitted their letter of intent.
0
repaired carriage motion drive.
repaired drive.
submitted their letter of intent.
Acting for all community interests, NPIC
returned the tables to each company for
modification and rework. Even though NPIC
management was considering recommendations
for purchase of the =table, other agencies
25X1
had tentatively selected the 0 table, 25X1
if satisfactorily reworked, as a purchase
item.
The Executive Director, NPIC reviewed all
aspects of the tests, evaluations, budgetary
costs estimates of both tables, and availability
of fiscal year funds with all relevant NPIC
personnel. Following this review and lengthy
discussions the Executive Director decided
that the n light table would more fully 25X1
satisfy NPIC needs. The record shows that
his decision was based on the following
considerations:
1. The greater suitability of the =table 25X1
to the unique tasks of the NPIC photo
interpreter, with particular regard to
the film drive, dry light source, lower
level heat output, and quietness of
operation.
2. The lower unit cost of the O table 25X1
(based on a comparison of budgetary
cost estimates submitted by each
contractor).
3. A judgement that problems associated
with the =table could be corrected, 25X1
and corrected in time, to meet
production requirements; whereas the
problems of the 0 table could 2 5X1
not be since they were considered to be
of a greater complexity.
Approved For Release 2004/03/26 : Sig
 HHCRE1
Approved Fo`f"Release 2004/03/26 : CIA-RDP78B05iVA000200010026-5
42. 15 May 1970
43. 19 May 1970
A request for proposal (including price
quotations) was issued to 0 This
request included, in addition to NPIC's
needs, the quantities and configurations
of other members of the community. These
quantities and configurations were as
follows:
Configuration #1 - 179 units and 281, units
(NPIC & IAS)
Configuration #2 - 30 units and 63 units
(AF) '
(Army $
Configuration #4 - 17 units and 37-units
0
Similarly a request was made of 0 for
the following quantities and configurations
based on the community's requirement for the
table.
Configuration #1 - 40 units and 140 units
(DIA and
potential
NPIC)
Configuration #2 - 5 units and 15 units
(Navy)
44. 25 May 1970 : 0 quoted as follows:
Configuration #1 - 281 units
179 units
Configuration #2 - 63 units
30 units
Configuration #3 - 37 units
17 units
45. 25 May 1970
0
quoted as follows:
Configuration #1 - 200 units
155 units
45 units
Configuration #2 - 200 units
155 units
45 units
25X1
25X1
25X1
25X1
25X1
8
Approved For Release 2004/03/26 : CIA-RDP78BO5703A000200010026-5
SEC' ET
 Approved Fo Release 2004I2 lARDP78B0570 A000200010026-5
46.
28 May 1970
47.
1 June 1970
48.
9 June 1970
49.
10 June 1970
50.
10 June 1970
51.
15 June 1970 :
52.
16 June 1970 :
An unsolicited letter received from
53.' 25 June 1970
which revised their quote of 25 May 70 as
follows:
Configuration #1 - 40 units @ $
Configuration #2 - 5 units @ $
Navy advised the NPIC Contracting Officer
that price of table was too high
and they would switch to =table.
DIA advised NPIC that it. had decided to
procure 0 table. IAS had previously decided
to procure the =table.
NPIC representatives performed pre-acceptance
tests on the reworked =light table at the
=plant.
Negotiations for production contract of
light tables began (at this point in time
all PI elements of the community had elected
to purchase the 0 table).
25X1
25X1
25X1
25X1
25X1
25X1
25X1
25X1
25X1
Production contract awarded to 0 Their 25X1
production rate was sufficient to satisfy the
totality of the community's needs. Accordingly,
a second source for light table procurement was
not required.
The NPIC Contracting Officer informed II 25X1
that they were unsuccessful in their bid
fight tables and that the award to their
competitor was based on both technical and
cost considerations.
Meeting initiated by NPIC representatives with
representatives 25X1
In this meeting it was explained
t at as a result of a very thorough engineering
testing and operational evaluation NPIC found
the II table unsuitable. It was pointed
25X1
out, however, that this decision would not
negatively effect consideration of 25X1
as a contractor for future development or
procurement.
Approved For Release 2004/03I~8 ttP781305703A000200010026-5
 Approved Fd elease 2004/03926c~4 DP78B05 A000200010026-5
54. 10 July 1970
In accordance with normal contractual
procedures NPIC representatives performed
pre-acceptance tests on the reworked 25X1
Mod II table at their plant. This to .e wi
be subjected to the regular engineering test
and operational evaluation program after
delivery at NPIC; the results will be
disseminated to the Intelligence Community.
Approved For Release 2004/JFC$~TRDP78B05703A000200010026-5
 ApprovZrd For Release 2004/03/26 : CIA-RQP705703A0,00200010026-5
r3 A
-L o
-J Z. G v:..:vw
,7uly 10, 1970 b
re_e:'i"ea
C,; ; ,- s ; c'na1 Liaisonfense
:;a _.nte111C1-..Lice Agency
T?'r~:.r. or., D. C.
3 e o the desire of this office to be
;G;ponslve to all inquiries and communicationsy
you consideration of the attached is
rccweste Your findings and yews, in.
duplicate _orm, along with return of the
oncl.osurO-, will be appreciated by
lia Zy T .... VZ.,... r ...............
U.S.S.
Approved For Release 2004/03/26 : CIA=RDP78B05703Ad0Q 0 01 0 0 26-5
 Approved For Release 2004/03/26 : CIA-RDP78B003A0002
:._ Cod "y-3 , J'}
S
D. C. 2051.0
`3yi.d:
9 July' 19-70
U. re a `^?e x 20 old \C tpatsy . located iii :" la:nu
rCtt'.~e e.quip::?C ti: .)`.r. y use by t ha
'
L: .. :i.. l.'O~/'e ~.~t.':f' ?i.:a
1:":l ~. Cte i 'i. several t'ea'r:: we T'
1 vc 17C:G:7 the p..radomw-
~. ,L we I.c"t~ t L.o f;.l:
~.:_.:^; o '~
. :,:L c2c ~''? lig?.1t tables: `
,In ~? p~?,~ _oto- r.elli_
rr::n c: com:mn-.,'ty, We h vo had a conolete7y, s.i-"i-,f.ac..Ii:-^J xela onsh`
~.: e local Ci:trL(en[:i2?~' 1t creIes C'f_ '_Sf'X: of pie
' _':upply. Ho,vever our Confidence in Clad
Opi e
n and -c i:'
h... bscr% by their
~''^ T1' ling o
~_ G of a a la- contract
`c.. c1'e pe5 t~has been
C ,
o-v yunc1s -- o the develop-
7.: O_ a new 11 {ilk .7 nest the Sp: C'_ iC
of `h' ace 10--al cs \? ncies. The first proto-
i j' C s con t acted fo j r rirej i ded 'O tbese agencies over a year
0 for tiota~ ll ce. C ~= \at t:Z "ire decided no0 - to Make
a: ?%::'ccuci: o i y S'^t . ^.te. d a r'.~~7tsed and t'o e detailed act.
".Ore cov p:pi piece of equip-Imant. At ti-.c
i^C,;.'."..e`i.C:C1 LJia~:Z!L'S for a second pro-otype
~I:cy jde e -U?t::ed that an alter .ate
~o vide ry~711
a 1 YO'to4- 1 J. s alter}. tC
Ce N.% f knc,m as the
as i.
tier, a.:x , or ou_~ prototype. Reportedly,
''
"7'~~'~c for tL1eir'S.
WC._, C7"'' i? GC 'C