Ask the Scholar
Document scope · 1 page
Scholar
Ask about this object, its catalog metadata, its source description, or the page inventory.
For page-specific OCR and visual context, open one of the page chats.
Scholar Source Context
Document identity
localId
4525769
label
Lear Contract and Defense, December 7, 1961
core
doc
dtoType
document
citationUrl
pageCount
1
Source metadata
id
4525769
sourceUrl
contentType
document
title
Lear Contract and Defense, December 7, 1961
citationUrl
collections
Gerald R. Ford Congressional Papers
Speeches
subjects
Military aircraft
Procurement and disposal
iiifBase
thumbnailUrl
largeImageUrl
imageCount
1
hasImages
yes
source
import
hasTranscription
no
Source extras
naId
4525769
coverageEndDate
logicalDate
1961-12-31
month
12
year
1961
coverageStartDate
logicalDate
1961-12-01
month
12
year
1961
levelOfDescription
fileUnit
recordType
description
ocrSource
nara-archive
Single page context
seq
1
pageIndex
0
type
document
url
mediaId
e24baf1d71025a4c
ocrText
The original documents are located in Box D15, folder "Lear Contract and Defense,
December 7, 1961" of the Ford Congressional Papers: Press Secretary and Speech File at
the Gerald R. Ford Presidential Library.
Copyright Notice
The copyright law of the United States (Title 17, United States Code) governs the making of
photocopies or other reproductions of copyrighted material. The Council donated to the United
States of America his copyrights in all of his unpublished writings in National Archives collections.
Works prepared by U.S. Government employees as part of their official duties are in the public
domain. The copyrights to materials written by other individuals or organizations are presumed to
remain with them. If you think any of the information displayed in the PDF is subject to a valid
copyright claim, please contact the Gerald R. Ford Presidential Library.
Digitized from Box D15 of The Ford Congressional Papers: Press Secretary and Speech File at the Gerald R. Ford Presidential Library
STATEMENT OF REP. GERALD R. FORD, JR.
December 7, 1961
The Havy under the Kennedy Administration has or is about to award a
multi-million dollar contract for a loft bomb release computer set to a Texas
firm that has never made this essential and extremely complicated military
hardware. Lear, Inc. developed this intricate equipment and has produced a great
number of these units for the Navy on schedule. Lear has been a low-cost
held
producer and in addition has provided excellent will maintenance and service
on these units for the combat aircraft involved.
I strongly believe that the Democratic Administration is making a serious
mistake to award the contract for this vital component of combat aircraft to a
company that has no experience in this field. I am certain the alleged low
bidder cannot meet the production and qualification delivery dates and will not
be able to provide the field maintenance which is important to the readiness of
Navy combat aircraft. Furthermore the Texas company I am confident will not in
the final analysis be able to produce the units at the lowest overall cost to
the Navy. The submitted bid price by the Texas company is an attempt to get
the contract by what appears to be a lower price and then sandbag the Navy during
production by the change order process to increase the real unit cost. Such
action by either the Havy or the company would be a fraud on the texpayers and
a perversion of the competitive bidding process.
Furthermore it is tragic to note that while defense spending has increased
under the New Frontier since January 20, 1961, Lear Inc., a reliable and offi-
cient producer of vital military hardware has not benefitted, in fact employment
in the Grand Rapids plant is down and the backleg of defense business is less.
The loss of this contract undoubtedly means that in 1962 Lear employment will
FORD
LIBRARY
-2-
be lower than at the present time.
Although I am a firm believer in the Defense Department getting the
lowest overall price for the military hardware, it purchases, I am equally
concerned that the Armed Forces obtain a thorogghly reliable product on the
specified delivery dates.
Democratic politicians from Michigan have talked a great deal about ob-
taining additional defense orders for Michigan. There is certainly no evidence
of effective action in the case of Lear, which is one of the largest single
Defense Department suppliers in Western Michigan. On January 1, 1961, Lear had
approximately 3827 employees in its major division in Grand Rapids. On October
31, 1961 the corresponding number of employees had dropped to 2983, a reduction
Lear's accumulated
of 844. The backlog of defense business has declined under the Democratic Ad-
ministration from $55.6 million on January 1, 1961 to $37.5 million on November
1, 1961. Tragically the undeserved less of this Havy contract under the new
Administration will mean a significant reduction in annual payroll in Grand
Rapids in 1962.
On the merits Lear should have been awarded the contract. Lear has pro-
duced these units on a quality basis, on schedule, and on a low overall cost
basis. As a member of the Defense Subcommittee on Appropriations I have done
everything I could to convince the Havy it was making a grave mistake to award
this contract to an inexperienced manufacturer of such equipment. It is my in-
tention to pursue this contract to the end to be certain that the Navy does not
extend the delivery dates to this insuperienced manufacturer in this fueld or
increase the final cost to the taxpayer by the unwerrented change order process.
GERALE FORD LIBRARY
STATEMENT OF REP. GERALD R. FORD, JR.
December 7, 1961
The Navy under the Kennedy Administration has or is about to award a
multi-million dollar contract for a loft bomb release computer set to a Texas
firm that has never made this essential and extremely complicated military
hardware. Lear, Inc. developed this intricate equipment and has produced a great
number of these units for the Navy on schedule. Lear has been n low-cost
field
producer and in addition has provided excellent waintenance and service
on these units for the coubat sircraft involved.
I strongly believe that the Democratic Administration is making a serious
mistake to award the contract for this vital component of combat aircraft to a
company that has DO experience in this field. I an certain the alleged low
bidder cannot neet the production and qualification delivery dates and will not
be able to provide the field maintenance which is important to the readiness of
Navy combat aircraft. Furthermore the Texas company I am confident will not in
the final enalysis be able to produce the units at the lowest overall cost to
the Navy. The submitted bid price by the Texas company is an attempt to get
the contract by what appears to be a lower price and then sandbag the Navy during
production by the change order process to increase the real unit cost. Such
action by either the Navy or the company would be a fraud on the taxpayers and
a perversion of the competitive bidding process.
Furthermore it is tragic to note that while defense spending has increased
under the New Frontier since January 20, 1961, Lear Inc., a relieble and effi-
cient producer of vital military hardware has not benefitted, in fact employment
in the Grand Rapids plant is down and the backlog of defense business is less.
The loss of this contract undoubtedly means that in 1962 Lear employment will
FORD & LIBRARY GERALD
-2-
be lower than at the present time.
Although I an a firm believer in the Defense Department getting the
lowest overall price for the military hardware, it purchases, I an equally
concerned that the Armed Forces obtain a thorogghly reliable product on the
specified delivery dates.
Democratic politicians from Michigan have talked a great deal about ob-
taining additional dafense orders for Michigan. There is certainly no evidence
of effective action in the case of Lear, which is one of the largest single
Defense Department suppliers in Wastern Michigan. On January 1, 1961, Lear had
approximately 3827 employees in its major division in Grand Rapids. On October
31, 1961 the corresponding number of employees had dropped to 2983, a reduction
Lear's accumulated
of 844.
backlog of defense business has declined under the Democratic Ad-
ministration from $55.6 million on January 1, 1961 to $37.5 million on November
1, 1961. Tragically the undeserved Loss of this Havy contract under the new
Administration will sean a significant reduction in annual payroll in Grand
Rapida in 1962.
On the merits Lear should have been awarded the contract. Lear has pro-
duced these units on a quality basis, on schedule, and on a low overall cost
basis. As a number of the Defense Subcommittee on Appropriations I have done
everything I could to convince the Navy it was making a grave mistake to award
this contract to an inexperienced manufacturer of such equipment. It is my in-
tention to pursue this contract to the end to be certain that the Navy does not
extend the delivery dates to this inexperienced manufacturer in this fueld or
increase the final cost to the taxpayer by the unwarranted change order process.
GERALD FORD ALBRARA