top - download
⟦f06c572ae⟧ Wang Wps File
Length: 9576 (0x2568)
Types: Wang Wps File
Notes: CR Corp. - TDS contract
Names: »1488A «
Derivation
└─⟦0c861a53d⟧ Bits:30006079 8" Wang WCS floppy, CR 0122A
└─ ⟦this⟧ »1488A «
WangText
- # -
1981-12-18 GJ/am]
to.: CR Corp.
Att.: BRV
Fr.: Christian Rovsing A/S
Gert Jensen
Our ref.: GJ/am]/LET/0036
Subject: TDS Contract
---------------------
Ref.: a) CPS/110/TLX/0018
b) CRC/FAX/0065
This fax serves two purposes. First, to continue ref.
a) explaining why we took the drastic step. Secondly,
to give you a reply to your fax, ref. b), which we basically
consider a sad collection of unjustified accusations
and an uninhibited treatment of the facts.
We trust we can find a more professional level to continue
our dialog at. We therefore, in the following tell you
what we consider facts, and which of these facts led
to the current situation.
Fact 1: Prior to contract signature (nov. 80) CRC and
CRAS agreed to a total cost for the TDS and
LITSYNC contracts of 2.1. Mio. Dkr. devided
evenly on the two contracts.
Fact 2: CRC wanted a different payment plan (Jan. 81).
Instead of deviding the amount evenly, CRC
wanted 1.2. Mio. on the LITSYNC contract and
0.9 Mio. on the TDS contract. CRC in this way
created a less advantageous payment plan for
themselves on the TDS contract.
Fact 3: The price for the TDS contract was finalized
on 22. Jan. 81 to 167,000 dollars. CPS/100/tlx/0075.
Fact 4: The TDS contract was mutually agreed upon and
signed on 12. march 81.
During the final negotiations CR A/S agreed
to provide extra funding for the TDS effort
amounting to extra 83,400 US dollars to a total
of US dollars 250,400.
CRC at this time received an increase of 50
percent.
Fact 5: The contract specified a start date of first
week in april 81.
Fact 6: A down payment of 40 percent = 100,160 US dollars
was paid to CRC to finance the TDS effort up
to October 81, at which date package A and
B should have been delivered to CR A/S.
Fact 7: The 1. July CRC should have delivered to CRAS
package A and the development plan (contract
clause 4). Therefore, CRAS asks CRC for the
status on 18. June 81.
Fact 8: On 28. June 81 CRC announced the first schedule
slippage. (THOK/TWX/0223). CRAS is convinced
that no or very little effort at that time
has been spent by CRC, which is backed up by
CRC's info in the TWX/0223 para. 3.
Fact 9: On 3rd July 81, CPS/100/tlx/0153, we ask CRC
to produce the development plan per 15. july
81, with the purpose of getting a complete
picture of the activities involved (including
the CRAS activities) and a realistic picture
of the delivery dates.
Fact 10: At a meeting in CPH 16 - 17 july 81 CRC disclosed
that E.I would be brought onto the program
1. aug. 81. Additional info disclosed that
9 people were needed on the program in order
to maintain the schedule.
If CRC continued the program with 5 people
the program would be completed approx. March
1983!! CRAS askes CRC to evaluate the situation.
A new meeting was scheduled for 24. Aug. 81
at CRC. The intention of the meeting was as
stated under fact 9. (M.O.M. 15).
Fact 11: On 24. July 1981, CPS/100/tlx/0161, CRAS offered
their assistance in order to get the program
off the ground.
Fact 12: On 30. July 1981, CPS/100/tlx/0165, CRAS ask
you for an answer to our offer of assistance.
Fact 13: On 4. aug. 1981 CRC in telex THOK/TWX/0293,
turned down the CRAS assistance in form of
manpower irregardless that this was the most
scarce resource at CRC!!
At the same time you informed us of another
two weeks delay on the start, by telling us
that E.I would start two weeks later; i.e.
15. aug. 81.
Here we are 5 month into the program according
to the original schedule, and we have not yet
started.
Fact 14: On 12. august 1981, THOK/TWX/0302, CRC suggests
that the meeting which CRAS urgently has been
looking for in order to get enough inside into
the program, so decision could be made (see
fact 9, 10), should be moved to a nondisclosed
date in september.
Time was running and we were still not getting
anywhere.
Fact 15: On 18. August 1981, CPS/100/tlx/0175, CRAS
once again express their concern and suggest
that the meeting takes place on 7. september
1981. CRC can have no doubt from the telex
what CRAS position is by then.
In THOK/TWX/0322, 27. aug. 81, CRC seems to
agree with the suggested date.
Fact 16: On 10 sept. 81 CRC was still not able to meet
with CRAS. Therefore CRAS asks for a new meeting
date of 21. september 81. See CPS/100/tlx/0190.
Fact 17: On 14. sept. 81 CRC informs CRAS that they
are unable to meet with us. At the same time
they announce that HM has left.
Do I have to tell you where we had the confidence
to the TDS development effort?
CRC suggested a new meeting date of 28. sept.
81.
Fact 18: On 26. sept. 81, THOK/TWX/0375, CRC once again
moves the meeting to the end of october 81.
In total the planning meeting has now been
moved 4 month!! Every time on behalf of CRC.
Fact 19: The time from late september until late october
was spent working to our satisfaction.
Fact 20: On the 5. nov. 81, CRC/FAX/0052, CRC sends
us a list of H/W equipment to be delivered
by CRAS in order to support the TDS development
offer. The only problem is that this information
should have been part of the development plan
due on 1. July 81. See contract para. 5.
Fact 21: On 6. Nov. 1981 CR delivers the package B "User
Manual and System Design", and CRAS immediately
begin to review the documents. Also we receive
the development plan.
The review/planning meeting is then scheduled
for the 19 - 20 nov. 81.
Fact 22: On 13. Nov. 81, THOK/TWX/0423 CRC inform CRAS
that BRV will not be available at the meeting!
For this reason G. Jensen informs CRC that
he will not travel to LA.
Fact 23: At the meeting at CRC on 19., 20. and 23. it
was disclosed that the program definitely was
in trouble. It would be extremely difficult
to meet the needs of the CAMPS program schedule.
However, CRC recognized the problem and expressed
that more people should be added to the team
instead of the 2 people working on the program.
Fact 24: In spite of the fact that the contract is a
fixed price contract and in spite of the fact
that the program only had been manned with
2 - 3 people for a short period of time and
in spite of the fact that the contract value
was increase by 50 percent on 12. march 81,
then CRC send CRAS a letter (CRC/LET/0783,
dated 23. nov. 81) where they express that
CRAS shall provide additional 100.000 US dollars
if the program schedule shall be maintained.
CRAS was more than surprised, but did not respond
immediately because CRAS did not know how to
deal with this problem.
Fact 25: On 3rd Dec. 81, THOK/TWX/0441, CRC informs
CRAS that they will stop the program temporarily!!
This was a completely unfounded decision which
nobody around here understood. On the contrary
we were quite astonished.
We checked if it was a threat by calling E.I.
But, sure E.I. was at Hughes.
Now we find ourselves in a situation where
CRC - hopelessly behind schedule - after approximately
5 manmonth of work accuses CRAS of not funding
the program and furthermore stops the program
! ? ! ?
-------------------------------------
This situation is so fantastic that nobody
around here can make sence of it. The only
conclusion we can come to is that this situation
has been thorughly planned in advance. We conclude
this because E.I. went to Hughes no later than
the day the telex THOK/TWX/0441 was sent.
Furthermore we conclude that CRC only attempted
to get the next 25 percent of the contract
value paid before the people were transferred
to a different program. We do not believe that
CRC has any intention of completing the TDS
program.
If CRC please look back over this very sad
story, I hope CRC can see that they created
a situation, where we had no other choise than
terminating the contract.
-------------------------------------------------------------------
I now turn to ref. b.
We are very impressed with the energy CRC has shown
putting this FAX together. Had CRC shown the same energy
earlier on the program this situation had been avoided.
Your point
2.1 Unsubstantiated. See fact 2, 4, 6, 25.
2.2 Unsubstantiated. See fact 7 - 18.
2.4 Yes, CRC has certainly brought a major program
into danger.
3.2 Unjustified. CRC is the company performing the
contract.
3.3 Unjustified. See fact 6.
Also the contract clearly states that the Product
Spec. and the Users Manual shall be approved by
CRAS. See contract para. 11. So the payment plan
is clear.
3.5 Unjustified. See fact 1 - 25. We are surprised,
and sad.
3.7 We have not delayed CRC. If CRC look at the contract
para. 7 and 10 they will see that no date is stated.
This is on purpose. See contract para. 5, 6th bullet.
CRC shall specify when the items are needed !!
You never did that. See fact 20.
3.8 Please clarify.
3.9 Bad irrelevant excuse.
3.10 See our answers to 3.7.
6. I hope CRC can see that they are off the track
after they have confronted this fax.
-------------------------------------------------------------------
If CRC has any points they still like to bring forward,
please let us here from you.
Kind regards,
CHRISTIAN ROVSING A/S
Gert Jensen
