Business screen magazine (1971)

EDITORIAL Short-sighted new Navy procurement policies. uup WILLARO I PRODUCTIONS, INC. 1842 BRIARWOOD RD , N E ■ ATLANTA. GEORGIA 30329 ■ 404-634-2433 ■ During World \V;ir II the U.S. Navy pri)vod that aiiilii)-\isiial lochniqiies in training and information could do a more efficient job, quicker and more thoroughly than any other method ever found. And ever since that time it has been widely recognized that Navy films have generally been a little bit better than those of any other government agency — a little more finished, a little more thorough, with a little more alleniion to detail. The Na\y got these films b\ working hard at them. Navy supervisory officers have been dedicated film craftsmen. Navy suppliers have devoted great skill to their assigned n^^ -1 « rmanhattan SST^ color '^ ■f sparkle added to every slide and filmstiip we procei ^r print whatever the quantity! (anhallan Color, the compleio slide and tilmslnp source. Unequal! ility melicuiouslv conlrollod by nnasler technicians Thn largest on' ^he F ' iinst the ' leadline with f iworktori . .mls.Any job. Small or large. Sparkling quality and rendition added, on time and at realistic prir. -^--^ for free copy of Manhattan Color's "Guide t Film Strips an M riLMSTNlPA SI r./lliBO, C«nn.. OviuK* Ot'i'CAi *>t>rint TV s[.'iA5 Numbitr". i (-f)ii«*-fi^ Hoiing. Mount ImprtnilnQ, Special MouMi Manh^f»^n Color 1 •^hor^itnnes Inc. I tasks, and the procurement of Navy films has been a recognized example of sound, simon-pure bu\ing practices. Over the years a group of 20 or more production comp.mies have staffed themselves with people, equipment) and techniques particularly adapted to serving the Navy's needs. By any criteria, practically all of these com-, panics have rated high on the Navy's own standards of evaluation based on availability of technical personnel, equipment, facilities, security standards, financial stability, auditing pr.ic tices and the track record of past performance. j This has been the situation until a recent decision by a Navy procurc-i ment committee to buy production of' future Navy films seemingly almost entirely by price, discounting experience completely. Navy film produC' tion contracts are awarded on a cost plus basis, and bids are submitted oi a typical, "template" film for sucl items as one cameraman, so manyj dollars per day, one director, one as-] sistant, one soundman, and so forth, This type of specification allows of a wide variety of interpretations: there are all sorts of cameramen — shall the] producer make his bid based on a{ pick-up part time camera operator, oi should he bastr his bid on the b man he can get — the cameraman wl has delivered to the Navy the h quality images it has demanded fdl many years? There is probably no] business in which it is easier to cm corners, or harder to define exaci standards than the film productioi business. Yet, the Navy's considera-l tion of proposals on the new contraci seem to equate one each cameraman] with one each cameraman, be James Wong Howv or a student frcshj out of a cinema course at the local] college. The Navy's new contracts for 1972 are scheduled to go to an almost entirely new group of producers, coi pletely eliminalin'g those produce who have served the Navy for man; past years. This seems to us to be short-sighted, penn\-wise. pound foolish policy. This is not to implv th.it the newl; selected producers, taken as a group] or individually, are inferior. Man offer very excellent qualifications, ant some are long overdue in being sc lected for Nas> production work. Bui it seems bevond reason that so man) .seasoned producers, as wise in thi Navy ways, and as gung-ho to ihi Navy spirit as any Navy career men should suddenly find themselves cas adrift after di>/ens of \ears of failhfu serMCC. B.S1 BUSINESS SCREEh