Drillmation Inc. 3-66 Bolt Contract
Found a Contract expenditure for Drillmation Inc for Bolts and M2 Carbines $1,657,113 listed in a Army Research and Development monthly newsletter dated March 1966.
Listed under RDTE production contracts, Which I assume means Research and Development Test and Evaluation: RDTE.
It reads: Drillmation, Inc., $1,657,113, bolts for M2 carbines
This limited information can be found on page 17 in the upper middle column:
https://asc.army.mil/docs/pubs/alt/a...6/Mar_1966.PDF
Thought it was better to add like this, instead of reviving a ~10 year old thread.
These are a Round Bolt with the gas hole on the bottom and a D stamped on the left lug.
There was some debate over the type of finish and who they were made for?
M and D marked post WWII Round Bolts:
https://www.milsurps.com/showthread.php?t=30148
Drillmation vs ASBCA Appeal Ruling 10 April 1969
ASBCA = Armed Services Board of Contract Appeals
Where Contractors that received a Army contract and have a gripe go for a Ruling.
In this case a company called Drillmation with a parts contract.
The below Appeal, I typed word for word. The source came about from a 'Search of Drillmation Inc Company History'. It was pulled from a Google online book of ASBCA Appeals Judgements/Rulings, covering January to late July 1969. So it contains many misc rulings. The Ruling on Drillmation's Appeal starts on page 35 - 437. You'd have to scroll down about 60% down to find it. When on this Link, my PC shows a bookmark just to the left of the scroll up or down column, that turns to yellow when you hit the right page, But I have typed below everything in it if you want to save 20 minutes of down scrolling.
ASBCA Google Book Link: Board of Contract Appeals Decisions - United States. Armed Services Board of Contract Appeals - Google Books
Anything in BOLD is to note for future follow up.
Anything in (** **) was added for clarity.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1 7632 DRILLMATION COMPANY INC
ASBCA No 12501 April 10 1969
Contract No DA 19 058 AMC 1509 (w).
DEFAULT TERMINATION- CAUSES BEYOND CONTRACTOR'S CONTROL- ALLEGED GOVERNMENT PROMISES.
A contract was properly terminated because the record did not support a finding of failure to perform for causes beyond the contractor's control or that the contractor had been induced to enter into the contract by government promises to furnish equipment and to adjust the contract price in the event of bid error. Following the failure of the contractor to meet delivery schedules, even as extended, and the denial of his request for a price adjustment, the contractor advised that he was compelled to cease production of contract item, and the contract was terminated for default. The contractor alleged that his failure to perform was caused by the government's failure to furnish equipment and adjust the contract price as promised. The government denied having made the promises and the ASBCA so found. The failure to perform was caused by underbidding and the contractor's inability to obtain necessary supplies was a cause within his control.
Gottlieb and Schwartz by Robert L Brooks for the appellant. Col. Warren L Taylor and Lt. Col. Richard G Garties for the government.
Opinion by Col Kelly with Mr Solibakke, Mr. Campbell and Col Petkoff concurring.
The appellant is appealing the contracting officer's decision which terminated its contract for default. Despite the critical urgency of the requirements of the contract, the appellant was told, at time it was defaulted. That the undelivered supplies were no longer needed and would not be repurchased. Although the case was twice set down for hearing. The appellant eventually elected to submit the case upon the record pursuant to Rule 11. The Government waived a hearing but elected to file a brief pursuant to Rule 13. The appellant declined to file a brief or supplement the record with any material in addition to what it had already submitted. The parties were therefore notified the record was settled and the case ready for decision. Appellant is represented by counsel. A decision is being rendered on the record before the Board consisting of the Rule 4 documents, the pleadings and other papers and correspondence of file.
FACTS
On 8 February 1966 the appellant entered into a contract with the Department of the Army for the production of bolts for the M 1 Carbine. This contract was effected by negotiation pursuant to the authority contained in 10 USC 2304 (a) (2). This authority may be invoked when the "public exigency will not permit the delay incident to advertising" (Sec. 2304 (a) (2).
The contract recited that time was of the essence and accordingly price incentives were provided for early or accelerated delivery (Rule 4, Exh. 4). An initial quantity of 256,400 bolts were called for with an option in the Government to order within 150 days from the date of contract execution an additional 134,280. This option was exercised within the time prescribed on 7 July 1966 (Rule 4. Exh. 4. Mod. 8). Deliveries under contract to various locations in the United States were to begin on 8 July 1966 and be completed during the month of January 1967.
On 7 July 1966 appellant notified the Government that due to problems with forgings supplied by a subcontractor, the first shipments would be delayed by 30 days (Rule 4. Exh. 8). On 3 August appellant requested a revised delivery schedule because of labor difficulties encountered by a subcontractor. The subcontractor's delivery of poor quality forgings and the appellant's difficulty in obtaining certain cutting tools (Rule 4. Exh. 10). On 5 August 1966 appellant wrote the Government that it had made a "grave error" in its contract cost estimate and requested a substantial increase in contract price (Rule 4. Exh. 11). On 9 August 1966 it again requested a revision in delivery schedule because of problems with its forgings subcontractor (Rule 4. Exh. 12). On 18 August 1966 however, appellant informed the Government its failure to deliver was because the Government had not furnished appellant the production tooling it had promised and this promised tooling was the premise upon which appellant alleged it had signed the contract (Rule 4. Exh. 15). The delivery schedule was revised on 23 September 1966 and called for the first deliveries on or before 23 September 1966 (Rule 4. Exhs. 4. 9). On 25 November 1966 however, the appellant. not yet having delivered any bolts, told the Government that its failure to do so was due to problems it encountered in material heat treatment and labor difficulties of its own necessitating plant relocations (Rule 4. Exh. 23).
On 31 January 1967 appellant filed request for contract price adjustment under Public Law 85-804 (Rule 4. Exh. 24). The head of the procuring activity denied the request (Rule 4. Exh. 26) and on 19 April 1967 appellant advised the Government that. "In absence of favorable action we are compelled to terminate work on bolt contract this date." (Rule 4. Exh. 25). The next day 20 April 1967, the appellate advised the Government that all operations had ceased at its plant. On 21 April the appellant's banker notified the Government of the proposed sale of appellant's assets to satisfy debts. On 19 May appellant having failed to deliver and having abandoned its contract was terminated for default (Rule 4. Exh. 27) and on 23 May it filed its notice of appeal and praying that a termination for convenience be substituted in lieu of that rendered (Rule 4. Exh. 26). (**19 April 1967**)At the time it was defaulted, appellant had delivered only a small fraction of the bolts. Shortly after it was defaulted, appellant's president, its financial specialist and plant superintendent each executed affidavits regarding the appellant's failure to produce according to the contract. All three of these individuals cite repeated pressure from Government officials, including the administrative contracting officers. Coupled with assurance that so long as bolts were produced "Drillmation would not be allowed to suffer." As one of the prime reasons for its eventual failure to perform.
Although both contracting officers admit to urging upon appellant the high priority status of the contract, both these officials deny that they promised that Drillmation would not suffer financially as long as it produced bolts. The affidavit of appellant's president maintains that the Government promised him equipment with which to produce bolts and further infers that Government officials indicated that in the event his bid proved to have been too hastily made, financial assistance would be forthcoming by contract amendment. Government officials deny that appellant was offered equipment or special financial assistance.
A pre award survey as well as minutes of a pre award conference indicates appellant to have had sufficient facilities to produce the bolts. Although appellant did seek additional production equipment from the Government. This was to permit him to take advantage of price incentive for early delivery.
Five months prior to the assertions made in these affidavits, appellant sought to have the contract amended without consideration pursuant to Public Law 85 804 (Rule 4. Exh. 25).
This petition chronicles four reasons for its (** Drillmation**) inability to produce Bolts:
a Heat treat methods
b Labor difficulties
c Defective forgings
d Equipment procurement
In addition, the petition states that appellant's Board of Directors was astonished to hear of the contract entered into by its president. This petition further states had its cost projections materialized for financing, nevertheless, the productions would have proved fallacious because they were not based upon a fully engineered job and all were predicated upon an inadequate allowance for burden (Rule 4. Exh. 25). Although appellant maintains that it changed its heat treat method because of suggestions it received after consulting with a Government metallurgist. The metallurgist has never been uncovered or otherwise identified. The total contract price including the incentive, if earned, and including the upward adjustment in price due to the Government's exercise of its option was $2,425,903.02. Ten progress payments were made totaling $1,491,121.46. No Government furnished property was provided under the contract except carbines, ammunition and certain gauges (Rule 4. Exh. 4). Attempts by appellant to obtain certain production tooling from the Government met with no success, as agreement could not be reached on the terms under which the tooling would be delivered, used and returned (Rule 4. Exhs. 5. 6). Since this procurement was of an urgent nature, the entire requirement did not go to appellant. During appellant's performance period, another contractor satisfactorily produced the bolts.
DECISION
There is nothing in the record before the Board that lends any support to appellant's position that its failure to perform was due to causes beyond its control or was without its fault or negligence The difficulties in which appellant found itself enmeshed were entirely of its own making. None can be ascribed to the Government nor imputed to Government officials. Upon the evidence, the Board does not find that appellant was induced to enter into the contract because of a promise of production tooling or special financial arrangements. The Government did not promise appellant any production tooling nor did it promise appellant that contract changes would take care of price errors in its bid. Although the contractor was extended progress payments in amounts and to a degree beyond that which hindsight indicates to be prudent, it was done to help the appellant. These payments did not carry with them any implied assurances or guarantees as would permit appellant to infer that it was to be accorded any extracontractual treatment or special consideration to prevent financial reverses. It is not disputed that the appellant was urged and exhorted by contracting officers to produce the contract item. But appellant was fully aware that the procurement carried a high priority. The contract itself recited that, " time was of the essence" and a price incentive was provided for early or accelerated delivery. Under the circumstances, the actions of the contracting officers in urging and insisting that delivery schedules be met were to be expected, were not improper and the Board so finds. The appellant's failure to perform its contract and the financial difficulties it encountered in attempting to do so are largely due to three factors:
A: The appellant submitted its bid haste and without due consideration of that was entailed. Appellant admits even its financial planning was fallacious since it was not based upon a fully engineered job nor predicated upon an adequate allowance for burden.
B: Appellant was unable to obtain forgings of sufficient quality and quantity as to enable it to start production on schedule. There is nothing in the file to suggest that these failures were without the fault or negligence of appellant or its subcontractor or arose from causes beyond the control of appellant.
C: Finally appellant decided on its own to depart from the heat treat method provided for in the contract when that method proved unsatisfactory. It changed to another method austempering and when that method also proved unsatisfactory, it reverted to the method set forth in the contract. That this sequence of events was unusually costly can scarcely be disputed. However, it was not suggested or instigated by Government action. The appellant's assertion that the change in heat treat method came as the result of suggestions made by a Government metallurgist who was consulted by appellant is simply not borne out by the evidence record.
The action of the Government in placing appellant in default was justified. The Board finds that appellant's abandonment of its contract and its failure to deliver were not due to causes beyond its control nor without its own fault or negligence The appeal is denied.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Again as time allows. I'll get away from these legal briefs and try to follow up on who I believe the Other Bolt maker was. Maybe being able to answer some odd marked bolts from this time period. Other questions remain on why these bolts were deemed so critical in this time period, for the Gov to offer Pay incentives for parts received ASAP. And other tid bits.
Follow only if interested. I'm trying to put this together here where any findings of the 60's era made for the Army bolts can be easily located.
