B-123812, JUL. 22, 1955

B-123812, JUL. 22, 1955

TO UNITED HATTERS, CAP AND MILLINERY WORKERS INTERNATIONAL UNION:

FURTHER REFERENCE IS MADE TO YOUR LETTER OF APRIL 28, 1955, ENCLOSING A COPY OF YOUR LETTER OF APRIL 28, TO THE COMMANDING GENERAL, QUARTERMASTER PROCUREMENT CENTER, PROTESTING AGAINST THE AWARD OF A CONTRACT UNDER INVITATION TO BID NO. QM-36-030-55-761, CALLING FOR ARMY GREEN SERVICE CAPS.

YOU STATE THAT THE SPECIFICATIONS ARE RESTRICTIVE BECAUSE THEY CALL FOR A SHAPE SUPPORT AND RUBBER GROMMET WHICH ARE PATENTED PROPRIETARY ITEMS OWNED BY ONE INDIVIDUAL. YOU STATE FURTHER THAT PAST EXPERIENCE SHOWS THAT THE OWNER OF THE PATENT HAS CHARGED AN AVERAGE OF $0.25 FOR EACH ITEM, OR A PREMIUM OF APPROXIMATELY $0.20 EACH, TO THOSE MANUFACTURERS WHO PROPOSED TO BID FOR THE MAKING OF SUCH CAPS. THUS, YOU POINT OUT THAT, IF 2,000,000 CAPS ARE PURCHASED, THERE WILL BE AN APPROXIMATE SAVING OF $800,000, SHOULD THE PROPRIETARY ITEMS BE ELIMINATED. IT IS YOUR BELIEF THAT IF IT IS NECESSARY TO USE THE PATENTED ITEMS THE GOVERNMENT COULD SAVE MONEY BY PURCHASING THE PATENTED ITEMS AND FURNISHING THEM TO THE MANUFACTURERS. IN ADDITION, YOU POINT OUT THAT THE SPECIFICATIONS REQUIRE THE INSERTION OF A SPRING STEEL BAND IN THE CAP WHICH ADDS APPROXIMATELY $0.03 TO THE COST OF THE CAP. IT IS YOUR OPINION THAT THE SPRING STEEL BAND IS UNNECESSARY BECAUSE THE SPECIFICATIONS CALL FOR THE FURNISHING OF A CAP WITH A STATIONARY PERMANENT COVER. YOU FURTHER STATE THAT THE SPECIFICATIONS CALL FOR THE ATTACHMENT OF AN UNNECESSARY RIVET WHICH MERELY ADDS TO THE LABOR COST OF THE MANUFACTURER. FINALLY, YOU STATE THAT THE INSTRUCTIONS CONCERNING BUTTONS AND SOCKET POSTS ARE TOO EXACTING AND THAT IT IS IMPOSSIBLE TO COMPLY WITH THEM.

THE DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY HAS REPORTED THAT THE INVITATION WAS ISSUED FOR A PROCUREMENT OF 1,500 CAPS FOR REPLACEMENT PURPOSES. IT WAS DECIDED, HOWEVER, THAT PRODUCTION TESTING OF THE SPECIFICATION WOULD BE ADVISABLE TO INSURE ADAPTABILITY OF THE SPECIFICATION TO LARGE SCALE PRODUCTION. THEREFORE, THE INVITATION FOR BIDS WAS CANCELED AND ACTION HAS BEEN TAKEN TO NEGOTIATE CONTRACTS WITH A REPRESENTATIVE SEGMENT OF THE CAP MANUFACTURING INDUSTRY FOR THE PURPOSE OF PRODUCTION TESTING THE SPECIFICATION. THE REQUIREMENT FOR THE PATENTED FRONT STAY AND RUBBER GROMMET WAS ELIMINATED FROM THE SPECIFICATION USED IN THE PRODUCTION TEST AND A PERFORMANCE REQUIREMENT WAS USED INSTEAD. IT IS REPORTED FURTHER THAT, BEFORE A NEW SPECIFICATION IS USED FOR PROCUREMENT OF AN ITEM OF SUPPLY ON A LARGE SCALE BASIS, IT IS THE POLICY OF THE QUARTERMASTER CORPS TO CIRCULATE THE NEW SPECIFICATION TO REPRESENTATIVES OF INDUSTRY FOR REVIEW, COMMENT AND RECOMMENDATION. IN ACCORDANCE WITH THIS POLICY, REVISED SPECIFICATION MIL-C-13998 (QMC) WAS SUBMITTED TO NINE CAP MANUFACTURERS FOR THEIR INFORMATION AND REVIEW.

REGARDING YOUR STATEMENT CONCERNING THE SHAPE SUPPORT AND RUBBER GROMMET, IT IS REPORTED THAT THESE ITEMS HAVE BEEN USED BY THE ARMY ESSENTIALLY IN THEIR PRESENT FORM SINCE 1947. IN 1950 THE DESIGN OF THE CAP WAS EXAMINED AND PLANS WERE MADE FOR A COMPREHENSIVE REDESIGN. THREE FEATURES OF THE DESIGN ADOPTED CONTRIBUTED TO THE INCLUSION OF THE FRONT STAY AND RELATED GROMMET IN THE SPECIFICATION FOR THE CAP. THESE WERE, (A) A HIGHER VERTICAL FRONT; (B) A SOFTER SILHOUETTE WITH A STRAIGHT HIGH FRONT FLOWING TOWARD THE REAR WITHOUT THE RIGID SUPPORT WHICH HAD BEEN OBTAINED IN THE ARMY CAPS BY THE USE OF A STIFF WIRE GROMMET AROUND THE BRIM; AND (C) A CAP WHICH WAS EASIER TO PACK THAN THE PREVIOUS ARMY CAP. THIS WAS CONSIDERED IMPORTANT ALTHOUGH NOT ESSENTIAL, BECAUSE OF THE INCREASE IN THE HEIGHT OF THE VERTICAL FRONT OF THE CAP.

INCLUSION OF THE METAL SHAPE SUPPORT, TO WHICH IS INTEGRATED A D SHAPED HOLLOW RUBBER GROMMET, IS EXPLAINED ON THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS:

"/A) UNIFORMITY OF APPEARANCE ACHIEVED WITH THE METAL SUPPORT;

"/B) THE AG 44 SERVICE CAP IS HIGHER IN FRONT THAN ANY RECENT ARMY CAP. THE HIGH VERTICAL FRONT (4 INCHES) REQUIRED A MORE RIGID STAY THAN THE COMMERCIAL CLOTH WITH TWIN WIRE TAPE USED IN THE AIR FORCE CAP (3 1/2 INCHES).

"/C) BEING OF METAL, THE SHAPE SUPPORT CANNOT BE EASILY BENT FORWARD OR BACKWARD IN THE CAP. THIS RESULTS IN UNIFORMITY OF THE FRONT LINE OR FRONT ANGLE OF ALL CAPS. THE SUPPORT USED IN THE AIR FORCE CAP CAN BE BENT FORWARD OR BACKWARD;

"/D) A CAP HAVING THIS RIGID METALLIC SHAPE SUPPORT CANNOT BE DISTORTED BY INDIVIDUAL SOLDIERS AND THE UNIFORMITY OF APPEARANCE OF TROOPS WEARING THE CAP IS ASSURED;

"/E) THE USE OF THE REMOVABLE METAL FRONT STAY MAKES THE CAPS EASIER TO PACK;

"/F) IF THE STAY SHOULD BECOME DEFORMED, IT CAN BE REPLACED, THEREBY SIMPLIFYING THE MAINTENANCE PROBLEM;

"/G) THE D-SHAPED HOLLOW RUBBER GROMMET MAKES IT POSSIBLE TO MAINTAIN A SOFTER SILHOUETTE WITH A STRAIGHT HIGH FRONT FLOWING TOWARD THE REAR WITHOUT THE RIGID SUPPORT WHICH HAD PREVIOUSLY BEEN OBTAINED IN THE ARMY CAP BY THE USE OF A STIFF WIRE GROMMET. THE AIR FORCE HAD OBTAINED A SIMILAR SOFT FLOWING LINE WITH A SPONGE RUBBER GROMMET BUT THE LARGE BULGE AT THE BRIM WHICH THEY OBTAINED AND WHICH WAS RELATED SOMEWHAT TO THE TRADITIONAL "FIFTY MISSION CAP" WAS NOT DESIRED IN THE ARMY CAP. THE "D- SHAPED" HOLLOW RUBBER GROMMET PROVIDES THE DESIRED SUPPORT TO THE OUTER EDGE OF THE CROWN IN A SMOOTH CONTOUR WITHOUT RIGIDITY.'

WITH RESPECT TO THE PATENTED FEATURES OF THE FRONT STAY AND GROMMET, IT IS REPORTED THAT THEIR USE WAS DECIDED UPON IN 1947. AS IMPROVEMENTS WERE MADE BY THE INVENTOR THEY WERE ALSO ADOPTED. AT THE PRESENT TIME A METAL FRONT STAY PRODUCED BY ANOTHER COMPANY IS BEING CONSIDERED AND ALTHOUGH IT HAS NOT BEEN TESTED IT IS POSSIBLE THAT IT MAY BE ACCEPTABLE. IT IS PRESENTLY BELIEVED, HOWEVER, THAT THIS ITEM IS ALSO PATENTED AND WILL BE MORE COSTLY TO PRODUCE THAN THE ONE PRESENTLY SPECIFIED. IN ADDITION, IT IS REPORTED THAT, IN VIEW OF THE COMMENTS RECEIVED FROM YOU AND OTHER MEMBERS OF INDUSTRY, NO LARGE SCALE PRODUCTION WILL BE AFFECTED UNTIL THESE COMMENTS AND THE RESULTS OF THE PRODUCTION TEST ARE EVALUATED. IF, AFTER THE EVALUATION, IT IS CONSIDERED NECESSARY TO REQUIRE THE PATENTED ITEMS, SERIOUS CONSIDERATION WILL BE GIVEN TO FURNISHING THESE ITEMS AS GOVERNMENT FURNISHED PROPERTY TO OBVIATE THE POSSIBILITY OF EXCESSIVE PRICING BY THE PATENT HOLDER OR POSSIBLE FAVORITISM.

IN REGARD TO THE SPRING STEEL BAND, IT IS REPORTED THAT EXPERIENCE INDICATED THAT CAPS WORN BY ENLISTED MEN IN THE ARMY ARE SUBJECTED TO SEVERE TREATMENT AND THE USE OF THE SPRING STEEL BAND IN THE CAP IS CONSIDERED DESIRABLE TO ASSIST IN RETAINING SHAPE UNDER THE MOST SEVERE CONDITION OF USAGE. ALTHOUGH THE BAND IS NOT CONSIDERED ESSENTIAL FOR OFFICERS' CAPS, IT IS BELIEVED TO BE DESIRABLE FROM THE STANDPOINT OF STABILITY OF CONSTRUCTION AND IN MAINTAINING PROPER SHAPE. IN OTHER WORDS THE ARMY TAKES THE POSITION THAT THE BENEFITS DERIVED FROM THE USE OF THE STEEL BAND MORE THAN OFFSET ITS SLIGHT ADDITIONAL COST.

CONCERNING THE RIVET PROVIDED FOR IN TABLE II, PARAGRAPH 11-B, IT IS REPORTED THAT THERE IS NO ABSOLUTE REQUIREMENT FOR A RIVET IN THE SUBJECT SPECIFICATIONS. THE CONTRACTOR MAY EITHER ATTACH A RIVET ON EITHER SIDE OF THE SHAPE SUPPORT, OR ONE IN THE CENTER, OR HAND TACK THROUGH THE CENTER HOLE. THE PRIMARY PURPOSE OF THE OPERATION IS TO ASSURE EXACT ALIGNMENT OF THE FRONT EYELET WITH THE OPENING IN THE METAL FRONT STAY IN THE FINISHED CAP SO THAT THE INSERTION OF THE INSIGNIA POST WILL NOT DISTORT OR PUSH ASIDE THE WOOL FABRIC IN THE CAP FRONT.

REGARDING YOUR ALLEGATION THAT THE INSTRUCTIONS CONCERNING BUTTONS AND SOCKET POSTS ARE TOO EXACTING, THE ARMY REPORTS THAT YOU APPARENTLY ARE OF THE OPINION THAT THE SPECIFICATION REQUIRES SEWING OR STAPLING OF THE SOCKET POSTS TO THE CAP FRAME, AS IS DONE IN COMMERCIAL CAPS. ACTUALLY, THE SOCKET POST IS PUT ON THE CAP WITH A COVERING WASHER SO THAT IT IS FREE TO TURN. WHEN THE BUTTON IS SCREWED INTO THE SOCKET POST AS FAR AS IT WILL GO, THE SOCKET POST AND BUTTON WILL THEN TURN UNTIL THE EAGLE IS IN AN UPRIGHT POSITION.

IN VIEW OF THE FACTS REPORTED WE FEEL SURE THAT YOU WILL AGREE THAT THE ARMY IS TAKING EVERY PRECAUTION TO DRAFT SPECIFICATIONS WHICH WILL ACCURATELY REFLECT THEIR ACTUAL MINIMUM NEEDS AND THAT THEY HAVE NO INTENTION TO FAVOR ANY PARTICULAR BIDDER.

UPON THE BASIS OF THE COPY OF YOUR LETTER ADDRESSED TO THE MARINE CORPS CONCERNING A SIMILAR PATENTED CAP, WHICH YOU FORWARDED TO US BY LETTER OF MAY 10, 1955, YOU ARE ADVISED THAT WE HAVE REQUESTED A REPORT FROM THE SECRETARY OF THE NAVY AND UPON RECEIPT OF THE REPORT YOU WILL BE ..END :