A-93476, APRIL 30, 1938, 17 COMP. GEN. 877

A-93476: Apr 30, 1938

Additional Materials:

Contact:

Edda Emmanuelli Perez
(202) 512-2853
EmmanuelliPerezE@gao.gov

 

Office of Public Affairs
(202) 512-4800
youngc1@gao.gov

WERE FOUND BY BUREAU OF STANDARDS TEST NOT TO MEET THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE SPECIFICATIONS IN MANY PARTICULARS. NO OBJECTION WILL BE MADE TO THE PURCHASE AGAINST THE ACCOUNT OF THE CONTRACTOR. WAS FOUND APPARENTLY TO COMPLY WITH THE SPECIFICATIONS. THE MATTER AS TO WHETHER THE CONTRACTOR SHOULD BE DEBARRED FROM FURTHER BIDDING BECAUSE OF THE REPORTED FLAGRANT VIOLATION OF THE SPECIFICATIONS IS A MATTER FOR ADMINISTRATIVE CONSIDERATION AND NOT A QUESTION PROPERLY FOR DECISION BY THE GENERAL ACCOUNTING OFFICE UPON THE PRESENT RECORD. IN PERTINENT PART IS AS FOLLOWS: ON SEPTEMBER 3. WAS AWARDED ITEMS NUMBERED 1A. A COPY OF THE ACCEPTED BID IS ENCLOSED. AFTER THE BIDS WERE OPENED HARRY BUEGELEISEN.

A-93476, APRIL 30, 1938, 17 COMP. GEN. 877

CONTRACTS - DELIVERIES - REJECTION OF MATERIALS AFTER ADMINISTRATIVE TEST OF SAMPLE - PURCHASE ELSEWHERE ON DEFAULT OF CONTRACTOR, AND CONTRACTOR'S DEBARMENT WHERE CERTAIN CONTRACT DELIVERIES, REPORTED AS REPRESENTATIVE OF ALL, WERE FOUND BY BUREAU OF STANDARDS TEST NOT TO MEET THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE SPECIFICATIONS IN MANY PARTICULARS, AND CONTRACTOR, AFTER NOTIFICATION THEREOF, HAS FAILED TO MAKE PROPER DELIVERIES ALTHOUGH ADVISED THAT IF IT DID NOT FURNISH PRODUCTS MEETING THE SPECIFICATIONS PURCHASE WOULD BE MADE AGAINST ITS ACCOUNT, NO OBJECTION WILL BE MADE TO THE PURCHASE AGAINST THE ACCOUNT OF THE CONTRACTOR, NOTWITHSTANDING THE SAMPLE FURNISHED BY THE SUCCESSFUL BIDDER PRIOR TO AWARD, ADMINISTRATIVELY EXAMINED ONLY FOR "GENERAL MAKE-UP" AND NECESSARILY DESTROYED IN SUCH EXAMINATION, WAS FOUND APPARENTLY TO COMPLY WITH THE SPECIFICATIONS, THE SPECIFICATIONS NOT HAVING REQUIRED THE FURNISHING OF SAMPLES, AND THE RECORD GENERALLY INDICATING THAT DELIVERIES MATERIALLY BELOW MINIMUM SPECIFICATION REQUIREMENTS AND SOMETIMES INHERENTLY UNFIT FOR THE GOVERNMENT NEED, BUT THE MATTER AS TO WHETHER THE CONTRACTOR SHOULD BE DEBARRED FROM FURTHER BIDDING BECAUSE OF THE REPORTED FLAGRANT VIOLATION OF THE SPECIFICATIONS IS A MATTER FOR ADMINISTRATIVE CONSIDERATION AND NOT A QUESTION PROPERLY FOR DECISION BY THE GENERAL ACCOUNTING OFFICE UPON THE PRESENT RECORD.

ACTING COMPTROLLER GENERAL ELLIOTT TO THE SECRETARY OF AGRICULTURE, APRIL 30, 1938:

YOUR LETTER OF MARCH 17, 1938, IN PERTINENT PART IS AS FOLLOWS:

ON SEPTEMBER 3, 1937, THIS DEPARTMENT OPENED BIDS ON A QUANTITY OF CUP TYPE AND WELDING TYPE GOGGLES TO BE MANUFACTURED IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE SPECIFICATIONS INCLUDED IN USDA BID TRANSACTION NO. 376.

HARRY BUEGELEISEN, INC., 22 BERGEN STREET, BROOKLYN, NEW YORK, WAS AWARDED ITEMS NUMBERED 1A, 1B, 1C, 1D, 1E, 1F, 1H, 1I, 1J, 1K, 1L, 1M, 1N, 1O, 1P, 1Q, 1R, 1S, 1T, 1V, 1W, 1X, 1Y, AND 1Z OF THIS BID. A COPY OF THE ACCEPTED BID IS ENCLOSED.

AFTER THE BIDS WERE OPENED HARRY BUEGELEISEN, INC., WAS REQUESTED TO FURNISH A SAMPLE PAIR OF GOGGLES PROPOSED TO BE FURNISHED UNDER THE INVITATION IT SUBMITTED. THESE GOGGLES WERE THEN TESTED AND INSPECTED BY A SAFETY ENGINEER OF THE C.C.C. AND, AS FAR AS COULD BE DETERMINED, THE GOGGLES WERE FOUND TO BE IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE SPECIFICATIONS. THE AWARD OF THE CONTRACT WAS ENDORSED IN THE USUAL FORM ON THE INVITATION, BID, AND ACCEPTANCE FORM, AND AFTER THE TEST OF THE SAMPLE, THE PURCHASE ORDER WAS PLACED. FOLLOWING SHIPMENT OF THE GOGGLES SIX SAMPLES WERE TAKEN FROM THE SHIPMENT AND SUBMITTED TO THE BUREAU OF STANDARDS,WHICH FOUND THAT ALL OR PART OF THE GOGGLES WERE NOT IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE SPECIFICATIONS IN SEVEN SPECIFIC PARTICULARS.

THE DEPARTMENT DESIRES TO POINT OUT THAT THE EXAMINATION BY THE SAFETY ENGINEER OF THE C.C.C. WAS MERELY FOR DETERMINING THE GENERAL MAKE-UP OF THE GOGGLES AND NOT FOR DETERMINING WHETHER THE PHYSICAL MAKE-UP, THE GLASS, ETC., MET SPECIFICATIONS AND THAT THIS TEST WAS NOT COMPARABLE TO THAT CONDUCTED BY THE BUREAU OF STANDARDS, NOR INTENDED TO BE ADEQUATE TO TEST COMPLIANCE WITH THE SPECIFICATIONS. THE ADVERTISEMENT IN QUESTION DID NOT SPECIFY THAT BIDDERS WERE TO FURNISH SAMPLES. THEY WERE REQUIRED TO BID IN ACCORDANCE WITH SPECIFICATIONS. THE COMPANY CLAIMS THAT THE GOGGLES FURNISHED WERE IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE SAMPLE AND EXACTLY THE SAME AS SUPPLIED ON PREVIOUS CONTRACTS. THE DEPARTMENT, OF COURSE, HAS NO DEFINITE WAY OF DETERMINING WHETHER OR NOT THIS STATEMENT IS CORRECT. THE SAMPLE WAS DEMOLISHED AND AS FAR AS COULD BE DETERMINED THE GOGGLES FURNISHED ON PREVIOUS CONTRACTS WERE SATISFACTORY.

* * * THE FURNISHING OF THE SUPPLIES IN THIS CASE WAS SOUGHT ORIGINALLY BY MEANS OF SPECIFICATIONS WITHOUT ANY REQUEST IN THE INVITATION TO BID FOR THE FURNISHING OF A SAMPLE, AND * * * THE FORMAL ACCEPTANCE WAS ENDORSED ON THE BID FORM WITHOUT REFERENCE TO THE SAMPLE * * *. HOWEVER, THE SAMPLE ALSO HAVING BEEN SOUGHT AND HAVING BEEN SUBJECT TO A TEST, DOUBT ARISES AS TO THE PROPER INTERPRETATION OF THE REQUEST FOR A SAMPLE AND AS TO THE UNDERSTANDING WHICH THE CONTRACTOR COULD BE EXPECTED TO HAVE WHEN NO FAULT WAS FOUND WITH THE SAMPLE SUBMITTED AND A PURCHASE ORDER WAS SUBSEQUENTLY FILED. * * *

IT WAS NOT THE INTENTION OF THIS DEPARTMENT, IN REQUESTING THE SUBMISSION OF A SAMPLE, TO SUBSTITUTE SUCH SAMPLE AS A STANDARD RATHER THAN THE SPECIFICATIONS, AND IT IS THE FEELING OF THIS DEPARTMENT THAT THIS COMPANY WAS AWARE OF THE FACT THAT THE GOGGLES FURNISHED DID NOT COMPLY WITH THE SPECIFICATIONS. OTHER DEPARTMENTS, INCLUDING THE BUREAU OF SUPPLIES AND ACCOUNTS, NAVY DEPARTMENT, HAVE HAD DIFFICULTY WITH THIS COMPANY ON SPECIFICATION COMPLIANCE. THE DEPARTMENT HAS NO INTENTION OF PURCHASING ON SAMPLE SINCE THE SPECIFICATIONS WERE VERY DEFINITE AS TO THE TYPE OF GOGGLES DESIRED. SOME OF THE LENSES WERE FOUND TO BE MADE OF MATERIAL NO STRONGER THAN ORDINARY WINDOW GLASS. AS YOU KNOW, IT WOULD BE EXTREMELY HAZARDOUS TO FURNISH C.C.C. ENROLLEES OR ANY OTHER MEN WITH GOGGLES OF THIS KIND.

IT MIGHT BE ADDED THAT ALL THE GOGGLES HAVE BEEN PAID FOR WITH THE EXCEPTION OF 506; PAYMENT BEING MADE ON THE BASIS OF THE INFORMATION RECEIVED FROM THE SAFETY C.C.C. ENGINEER TO THE EFFECT THAT THE SAMPLE WAS CONSIDERED TO BE SATISFACTORY.

THE CONTRACTOR, REGARDLESS OF ANY TEST, HAD A DEFINITE FUNCTION TO PERFORM AND THAT WAS TO FURNISH GOGGLES IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE SPECIFICATIONS. HAVING SO FLAGRANTLY FAILED IN THIS CONNECTION THE DEPARTMENT PROPOSES TO BUY IN THE OPEN MARKET OR OTHERWISE AGAINST THE CONTRACTOR'S ACCOUNT AND TO PLACE THE COMPANY UNDER DEBARMENT FOR A PERIOD OF ONE YEAR. THE DEPARTMENT, THEREFORE, WOULD APPRECIATE ANY ADVICE OR SUGGESTIONS IN THIS CONNECTION AND ALSO YOUR APPROVAL OF THE ACTION WE PROPOSE TO TAKE.

THE INVITATION UPON WHICH HARRY BUEGELEISEN, INC., AND OTHERS BID IN THIS INSTANCE SET FORTH THE MINIMUM REQUIREMENTS WHICH THE ARTICLE BID UPON MUST MEET, AS FOLLOWS:

SPECIFICATIONS FOR GOGGLES 1. CUP TYPE:

1. MATERIAL TO BE OF HIGH-GRADE CONDENSATION PRODUCT.

2. INDIVIDUAL RIGHT- AND LEFT-EYE CUPS.

3. SIDE SHIELDS TO BE PERFORATED METAL.

4. EYE CUPS TO BE JOINED BY AN ADJUSTABLE FLEXIBLE METAL BRIDGE.

5. LENSES TO BE OF GLASS HAVING OPTICAL QUALITIES, FREE FROM WAVES AND STRIA, CASE-HARDENED AND HAVING A THICKNESS NOT LESS THAN 2.8 MM OR MORE THAN 3.6 MM; TO BE 50 MM IN DIAMETER AND SURFACES TO CARRY A 1.25 DIOPTER RADIUS CURVE WITH BEVEL EDGES.

6. LENS RETAINING RING TO BE OF THE SCREW TYPE.

7. HEADBANDS TO BE OF GOOD QUALITY ELASTIC CLOTH. 2. WELDING:

1. MATERIAL TO BE OF A HIGH-GRADE CONDENSATION PRODUCT.

2. INDIVIDUAL RIGHT- AND LEFT-EYE CUPS.

3. NOSE BRIDGE TO BE OF THE FLEXIBLE METAL BRIDGE TYPE.

4. LENS RETAINING RING TO BE OF THE SAME MATERIAL AS THE EYE CUPS AND OF THE SCREW TYPE.

5. THESE GOGGLES ARE TO BE LIGHT PROOF. LENSES TO BE OF THE HIGHEST QUALITY, INVISIBLE, LIGHT-RAY ABSORPTION GLASS, FREE FROM WAVES, PITS, AND STRIA. NUMBER SIX SHADE IS TO BE USED.

6. HEADBANDS TO BE OF A GOOD ELASTIC CLOTH.

IN RESPONSE TO THIS INVITATION U.S.D.A. 376 ISSUED AUGUST 16, 1937, WHICH WAS SPECIFIED FOR OPENING AT 2 P.M. AUGUST 27, 1937, THE BUEGELEISEN CORPORATION BID AUGUST 23, 1937, IN PERTINENT PART AS FOLLOWS:

WE INTEND TO SUPPLY OUR NO. 0861-25 RIDERISK GOGGLE EXACTLY AS SUPPLIED ON PREVIOUS CONTRACTS.

IN COMPLIANCE WITH THE ABOVE INVITATION FOR BIDS, AND SUBJECT TO ALL THE CONDITIONS THEREOF, THE UNDERSIGNED OFFERS AND AGREES IF THIS BID IS ACCEPTED WITHIN 60 DAYS FROM THE DATE OF OPENING, TO FURNISH ANY OR ALL OF THE ITEMS ON WHICH PRICES ARE QUOTED AT THE PRICE SET OPPOSITE EACH ITEM, F.O.B. DESTINATION * * * AS SPECIFIED * * * AFTER RECEIPT OF ORDER.

THIS BID WAS SUBSCRIBED FORMALLY JUST BELOW THE POSITIVE PRINTED INSTRUCTIONS ON THE FACT OF THE INVITATION AS FOLLOWS:

INSTRUCTION TO BIDDERS

GOGGLES

THESE PAPERS MUST REMAIN INTACT

BIDDERS ARE REQUESTED TO CAREFULLY READ THESE INSTRUCTIONS AND SPECIFICATIONS. NON-COMPLIANCE WITH ANY PART THEREOF WILL BE SUFFICIENT CAUSE TO REJECT BID.

THESE GOGGLES ARE NEEDED FOR IMMEDIATE USE; THEREFORE, IT WILL BE NECESSARY TO EVALUATE DELIVERY TIME BY ADDING 1 PERCENT OF THE UNIT BID PRICE TO THE UNIT BID PRICE FOR EACH CALENDAR DAY IN EXCESS OF 20 CALENDAR DAYS' DELIVERY AT DESTINATION.

THE BUEGELEISEN CORPORATION'S ACCEPTED BID WAS FOR FURNISHING "CUP TYPE GOGGLES IN ACCORDANCE WITH SPECIFICATIONS, GENERAL CLAUSES AND CONDITIONS ATTACHED" TO THE INVITATION, IN VARYING QUANTITIES AT DIFFERENT DESIGNATED POINTS THROUGHOUT SOUTHERN AND WESTERN STATES, FOR USE IN THE FOREST SERVICE. THE OFFICIALS OF THE CORPORATION ADMITTEDLY WERE FULLY FAMILIAR WITH THE HAZARDS NATURALLY INCIDENTAL TO SUCH SERVICE AND WERE ON NOTICE THAT THE SPECIFICATIONS FOR THE GOGGLES HEREINBEFORE SET FORTH WERE THE MINIMUM WHICH IT WAS DEEMED WOULD RESULT IN A PRODUCT AFFORDING REASONABLE PROTECTION FROM THOSE HAZARDS.

IN ITS LETTER OF JANUARY 8, 1938, THE BUEGELEISEN CORPORATION STATED:

WE REALIZE THE VALUE OF GOGGLES AND CONSIDER THE GOGGLES DELIVERED ABSOLUTELY SAFE IN EVERY RESPECT AND IDENTICAL WITH THE GOGGLE USED THROUGHOUT THE FOREST SERVICE FOR THE PAST THREE OR FOUR YEARS * * *

* * * THE SPECIFICATIONS * * * ARE VERY GENERAL AND EVERY PART OF OUR GOGGLES * * * COMPLIES WITH THESE SPECIFICATIONS.

IN LETTER OF JANUARY 25, 1938, THE BUEGELEISEN CORPORATION AGAIN STATED,"WE KNOW OUR DELIVERY WAS IN STRICT ACCORDANCE WITH THESE SPECIFICATIONS.'

IN ITS LETTER OF DECEMBER 15, 1937, THE CORPORATION STATED AS FACTS THAT-

THE GOGGLES DELIVERED WERE EXACTLY AND IDENTICAL IN EVERY RESPECT TO THE SAMPLE SUBMITTED. THEY COULD NOT BE ANY DIFFERENT BECAUSE THEY ARE MOLDED OUT OF THE SAME MOLD AS THE SAMPLE GOGGLE, AND OF THE SAME MATERIAL.

WE FURTHER SUBMIT THAT THE FIRST SHIPMENT OF THESE GOGGLES WERE RECEIVED IN THE FIELD AGENCIES AS EARLY AS NOVEMBER 8TH * * * YOU HAD A SAMPLE OF WHAT WE DELIVERED * * *

IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE, WE CANNOT COMPLY WITH YOUR REQUEST TO FURNISH YOU WITH SHIPPING INSTRUCTIONS, AND WE MUST ASK THAT YOU ACCEPT THESE GOGGLES AS COMPLYING WITH YOUR SPECIFICATIONS AND PASS THE BALANCE OF * * * INVOICES FOR PAYMENT.

IN THE SAME LETTER OF DECEMBER 15, 1938, THE BUEGELEISEN CORPORATION STATED:

THE EYE CUPS ARE DESIGNED EXACTLY AS THE SAMPLE SUBMITTED BECAUSE THEY COME OUT OF THE SAME MOLD, AND ALSO OF THE EXACT DESIGN AS OUR NO. 086125, WHICH WE HAVE ALWAYS DELIVERED TO YOUR DEPARTMENT.

IF SOME OF THE LENSES ARE THICK WE SHALL BE GLAD TO CHANGE THEM FOR LENSES OF THE PROPER THICKNESS.

WITH REFERENCE TO THE 6.00 DIOPTER LENSES, WE DO NOT UNDERSTAND HOW THEY GOT IN THE SHIPMENT, BUT WE ARE WILLING TO REPLACE THEM WITH THE REGULAR 1.25 CURVE.

THERE IS NO RECORD EVIDENCE PRESENTED FROM WHICH A DECISION COULD BE ARRIVED AT THAT ANY OF THE GOGGLES DELIVERED, COMMENCING WITH THE ALLEGED FIRST SHIPMENT OF NOVEMBER 8, 1937, EXACTLY CONFORMED TO THE SAMPLE WHICH WAS FURNISHED. IN THE VERY NATURE OF THE MATTER IT WAS UNDERSTOOD AS NECESSARY TO DESTROY THE SAMPLE TO MAKE ANY BONA FIDE TEST AND, THEREFORE, IT IS NOT AVAILABLE FOR COMPARISON. BOTH THE OFFICIALS OF THE DEPARTMENT AND THE BUEGELEISEN CORPORATION HAVE STATED THAT THE SAMPLE FURNISHED MET THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE SPECIFICATIONS. THE MATTER OF WHETHER THE SAMPLE IN FACT DID MEET THE SPECIFICATIONS IS IMMATERIAL, IN VIEW OF THE TERMS OF THE INVITATION AND OF THE WRITTEN AGREEMENT WHICH WAS MADE.

THIS WAS NOT A PURCHASE BY SAMPLE. ACCEPTING, FOR PURPOSES OF THIS DECISION, THAT THE SAMPLE DELIVERED AND DESTROYED IN FACT DID MEET THE SPECIFICATIONS, IF THE GOGGLES THEREAFTER DELIVERED UNDER THE WRITTEN AGREEMENT ARE ESTABLISHED NOT TO MEET THE SPECIFICATIONS OR NOT EVEN TO CONFORM WITH EACH OTHER, WHAT INFERENCES COULD THESE CIRCUMSTANCES ENGENDER EXCEPT SUCH AS WOULD CAST DOUBT UPON THE GOOD FAITH AND INTEGRITY OF THE CORPORATION? THEY MIGHT SUGGEST EVEN THAT ADVANTAGE WAS SOUGHT TO BE TAKEN OF THE WIDELY SEPARATED AND NUMEROUS DELIVERY POINTS WITH THE EXPECTATION THAT A SUPERFICIAL INSPECTION ONLY COULD BE MADE AT EACH POINT OF GOGGLES DELIVERED IN QUANTITY, PARTICULARLY SINCE IT MUST BE RECOGNIZED AS MORE THAN SUPERFICIAL INSPECTION OF SUCH AN ARTICLE WOULD REQUIRE AN INORDINATE AMOUNT OF TIME AND EXPENSE AND MIGHT IMPAIR THE USEFULNESS OR DESTROY THE GOGGLES SO INSPECTED.

NUMEROUS INSTANCES ARE REPORTED IN THE RECORD TRANSMITTED WHEREIN SUBSTANTIAL PORTIONS OF THE PRODUCTS OF THIS CORPORATION, DELIVERED UNDER DIFFERENT CONTRACTS, ARE SAID TO HAVE BEEN FOUND MATERIALLY BELOW THE MINIMUM SPECIFICATION REQUIREMENTS, AND IN SOME INSTANCES ARE SAID TO HAVE BEEN INHERENTLY UNFIT FOR THE ADVERTISED USE OR NEED.

IT IS NOT CONTENDED BY THE BUEGELEISEN CORPORATION OR BY ANY OFFICIAL OF THE DEPARTMENT THAT THE CORPORATION INTENDED ITS DESIGNATION OF ITS 0161- 25 RIDERISK GOGGLE IN THE BID TO BE REGARDED AS A COUNTER OFFER. THE BID NAMED THIS GOGGLE BUT THE BID AND THE TERMS OF THE WRITTEN AGREEMENT WARRANTED THAT SAID GOGGLE WOULD MEET ALL THE CONDITIONS AND THE SPECIFICATIONS. WITHOUT SUCH A WARRANTY OF MEETING SPECIFICATIONS AND CONDITIONS AND THAT SAID GOGGLE WOULD BE SUITABLE FOR THE USE INTENDED, THE ACCEPTANCE OF THE BID APPARENTLY COULD NOT HAVE RESULTED IN AN ENFORCEABLE CONTRACT. UNITED STATES V. ELLICOTT, 223 U.S. 524, 540-543. THERE HAS BEEN NO SUGGESTION HERE THAT A VALID CONTRACT DID NOT RESULT FROM THE AWARD. THE PARTIES IN THEIR CORRESPONDENCE HAVE ASSUMED THE ENTIRE VALIDITY OF THE CONTRACT AND WHEN THE WHOLE OF THE TERMS OF THE WRITTEN AGREEMENT ARE READ AS ONE CONTRACT IT SEEMS NOT OPEN TO DOUBT THAT THIS ASSUMPTION WAS CORRECT.

THE IMPORTANT ISSUE, THEREFORE, IS WHETHER THE GOGGLES WHICH WERE DELIVERED MET THE MINIMUM REQUIREMENTS OF THE SPECIFICATIONS EMBODIED IN THE WRITTEN CONTRACT. IT SEEMS ESTABLISHED ON THE RECORD PRESENTED THAT THEY DID NOT. ASIDE FROM THE UNEQUIVOCAL STATEMENTS OF SEVERAL OFFICIALS OF THE DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE REPORTING THAT MOST OF THE GOGGLES DELIVERED WERE INFERIOR AND WOULD BE DANGEROUS IF USED IN THE SERVICE FOR WHICH PURCHASED, AND THAT THE SAID GOGGLES DELIVERED DID NOT MEET THE SPECIFICATIONS, THERE IS FURNISHED THE UNDOUBTEDLY DISINTERESTED REPORT OF THE UNITED STATES BUREAU OF STANDARDS. FROM THE BEGINNING OF DELIVERY UNDER THIS CONTRACT AT THE VARIOUS POINTS, PROTESTS WERE MADE OF THE DEFECTS FOUND IN THE BUEGELEISEN CORPORATION'S GOGGLES. SIX PAIRS OF THE GOGGLES, WHICH ARE REPORTED AS FAIRLY REPRESENTING ALL THE GOGGLES DELIVERED, WERE PROMPTLY ASSEMBLED AND SUBMITTED TO THE BUREAU OF STANDARDS FOR TEST TO DETERMINE WHETHER THEY MET THE SPECIFICATIONS. THE REPORT OF THE TEST IS AS FOLLOWS:

UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

WASHINGTON

NATIONAL BUREAU OF STANDARDS

REPORT ON 6 GOGGLES, SUBMITTED BY FOREST SERVICE, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF

AGRICULTURE, WASHINGTON, D.C., ON NOV. 15, 1937

THE SIX GOGGLES WERE FORWARDED WITH LETTER OF TRANSMITTAL OF NOV. 15, FILE CCC, SAFETY PROGRAM, SAFETY EQUIPMENT, AND WERE A PORTION OF A PURCHASE FROM HARRY BUEGELEISEN OF BROOKLYN, N.Y. THE GOGGLES WERE TESTED FOR COMPLIANCE WITH SPECIFICATIONS CONTAINED IN THE LETTER. THE NUMBERS REFER TO THE PARAGRAPHS OF THE SPECIFICATIONS.

1. THE MATERIAL IS NOT A HIGH GRADE CONDENSATION PRODUCT. IT IS BRITTLE AND SEVERAL CRACKED DURING THE PROGRESS OF THE TEST.

2. THE EYECUPS ARE NOT WELL DESIGNED. THE LENSES ARE TOO THICK AND THE RETAINING RING SCREWS ON LESS THAN A QUARTER TURN BEFORE IT IS TIGHT IF THE THREADS WEAR SLIGHTLY THE RINGS WILL NOT STAY IN PLACE.

5. TEN OF THE TWELVE LENSES EXCEEDED THE MAXIMUM THICKNESS SPECIFIED. SOME CASES THE EXCESS WAS AS MUCH AS 0.5 MM. TWO OF THE LENSES HAD PLUS 6.00 DIOPTER CURVES INSTEAD OF THE SPECIFIED VALUE OF PLUS 1.25.

THREE LENSES SHATTERED DURING THE DROP TESTING OF THE LENSES IN THE EYECUPS. FIVE MORE LENSES BROKE WHEN DROP TESTED ON THE WOODEN TUBE. THE CRACKS WERE NOT OF A GOOD RADIAL TYPE. THE CASE HARDENING OF THE LENSES HAS NOT BEEN WELL DONE.

6. SEE PARAGRAPH 2.

7. THE QUALITY OF THE ELASTIC HEADBANDS IS NOT THE BEST.

WHERE NO REFERENCE IS MADE TO A PARAGRAPH, ALL GOGGLES COMPLIED WITH ITS REQUIREMENTS.

LYMAN J. BRIGGS, DIRECTOR. NBS TEST NO. 443Z-309/37 NOVEMBER 23, 1937.

UPON THIS RECORD THERE CAN BE NO DOUBT AS TO THE CORRECTNESS OF YOUR CONCLUSION THAT THE BUEGELEISEN CORPORATION HAS FLAGRANTLY FAILED TO MEET ITS CONTRACT OBLIGATIONS. IT WAS NOTIFIED PROMPTLY OF THE BUREAU OF STANDARDS REPORT AND THAT ITS DELIVERIES HAD BEEN REJECTED AS NOT MEETING CONTRACT SPECIFICATIONS AND IT WAS NOTIFIED TO FURNISH SHIPPING INSTRUCTIONS FOR THE REJECTED GOGGLES. IT ALSO WAS NOTIFIED THAT IF IT DID NOT REPLACE THE REJECTED GOGGLES WITH GOGGLES MEETING THE SPECIFICATIONS THAT PURCHASE WOULD BE MADE AGAINST ITS ACCOUNT. MONTHS HAVE ELAPSED WITHOUT THE BREACH HAVING BEEN CURED AND THIS, NOTWITHSTANDING THAT BIDS WERE EVALUATED UNDER THE TERMS OF THE INVITATION AS ABOVE STATED, BY ADDING 1 PERCENT OF THE UNIT BID PRICE FOR EACH CALENDAR DAY IN EXCESS OF 20 CALENDAR DAYS DELIVERY AT DESTINATION.

ACCORDINGLY, IF APPROPRIATION OTHERWISE IS AVAILABLE FOR SUCH PURCHASE,YOU ARE INFORMED THAT THIS OFFICE WILL NOT BE REQUIRED TO OBJECT IF YOU SHALL DEEM IT NECESSARY TO PURCHASE AGAINST THE ACCOUNT OF THE BUEGELEISEN CORPORATION UNDER THE CONTRACT UPON WHICH IT HAS DEFAULTED AND THIS OFFICE WILL STATE AN APPROPRIATE SETTLEMENT AND WILL ASSIST YOUR DEPARTMENT IN MAKING COLLECTION OF THE AMOUNT FOUND DUE, UPON RECEIPT OF THE RECORD SHOWING YOUR OFFICIAL ACTION THEREON.

THE MATTER OF WHETHER THE DEFAULTING CONTRACTOR SHOULD BE DEBARRED FROM BIDDING ON OTHER INVITATIONS, IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THIS PARTICULAR CASE, WOULD APPEAR PRIMARILY FOR YOUR CONSIDERATION AND UPON THE RECORD PRESENTED WOULD SEEM NOT A QUESTION PROPERLY FOR DECISION HERE AT THIS TIME.