|
January 2008
January 17, 2008
THE MAKING OF A SLEEPING BAG
Many years ago I learned
when insulation was uniform surrounding an object such as a sleeping
bag surrounding a human the heat retention was far superior to a sleeping
bag that had high and low spots. The sleeping bags made with quilted
insulation have the high and low spots so the high areas trap heat
and the low areas let it out precipitously and as it leaves the bag
it draws like a fire place the surrounding warm air located in the
high areas of the bag. When you have a uniform loft the heat does
not escape easily from any area of the bag. So, you stay warmer longer.
For more on the subject you can refer to my article “ABOUT WIGGY
PRDUCTS” on the web site.
The lamination of the fiberfill is a sewing aid which
is necessary when using continuous filament fiber; this is how I have been able
to make sleeping bags that have a uniform loft. It is now 22 years that I have
been making sleeping bags in this manner without making any changes; if it is
not a problem (broken) why change. That has not been the same experience experienced
by the other companies that market sleeping bags (none has a physical factory
of their own so they are not actually manufacturers any longer), they are always
making changes striving to finally have a sleeping bag that works as they claim.
This has been, is and could always be the experience experienced by the people
who are in charge of developing a sleeping bag for the military. That is until
now.
I have been told through the grapevine that the primary
contract holder Tennier Industries is actively looking either for a laminator
(laminating company) or a machine so they can make a Wiggy’s bag for our
military. At one time I worked with a staunch competitor of Tennier, Propper
International. They were / are desperate to get into the sleeping bag market
to compete with Tennier for military contracts. They came to me and I taught
them how to make Wiggy’s bags. The first contract they entered they lost
to Tennier on price however they didn’t loose on performance. When their
bags were tested (Lamilite insulated) at Kansas State Universities Environmental
Labs; i.e. the copper-man versus the quilted Tennier bag and they were significantly
more efficient. We know the military in almost all cases goes with the lowest
price versus performance as they did in this instance. The second time Propper
bid against Tennier they were the low bidder I believe but they again did not
get the contract because the geniuses who have never made a sleeping bag in their
lives rejected their bag because it was not quilted, Tennier
bags are quilted. They claimed the fiber would migrate. When I was given the
letter from the military stating this ridiculous conclusion I wrote to the base
commander letting him know that I did not like being insulted when my method
of manufacturing had proven itself from as early 1968. Of course it meant nothing;
they love to placate people who demonstrate that they in the government are wrong.
Sometime in early 2007 the Marines came out with a request
of information to get a sleeping system that would weigh almost nothing but keep
you warm at 0 degrees. See my newsletter dated May 2007. Propper International
decided to submit a sample for evaluation. I discussed with them using Lamilite.
Their response was they tried Lamilite and it was rejected, and they alluded
to the fact that the military did not want a laminated bag. Imagine that, and
now the only manufacturer who has received contracts (Tennier Industries) for
sleeping bags since about 1980 is looking for the means to copy Wiggy’s.
The question is; is Tennier acting on their own and
saying to the military our (the Tennier/ Natick) bag isn’t working (if
it were working why would the military like the non-military marketers constantly
look for a new bag) and since Wiggy’s is working lets copy him, or is the
military saying to Tennier copy Wiggy’s? It
would not surprise me to find out that they; the two of them discussed copying
me; just my opinion.
In 1987 I received a call from Howard Thier the owner
of Tennier Industries. He told me he had a customer who wanted him to make 14,000
sleeping bags but was unable to give him the production time. At the time Wiggy’s
was a fledgling company just getting started in the sleeping bag business. Acquiring
an order of this magnitude was certainly a feather in my cap. To make a long
story short the order grew to 39,200 bags and enabled me to relocate to Grand
Junction, Colorado. For his introduction to the company needing all those bags
which were for the U.S. government I am very grateful. It helped to put me on
the map as a sleeping bag manufacturer and it got me certified as a qualified
government contractor.
In 1995 the government came out with a solicitation
for 202,400 two bag sleep systems. They were supposed to perform from warm conditions
(+35 outer bags) to very cold conditions (0 degree inner bag) with a combined
capability of -30 F. Tennier was the low bidder. As I recall the low bidder was
to make 2400 bags for field evaluation. If they performed the balance of the
contract of 200,000 would be ordered. Simply put the field test was the most
successful failure that could happen; every user rejected the bag system. There
was one opportunity for the bidder to present a bag system that would perform.
I called Howard and suggested he give them my bag. He said mine was too expensive.
I said the contract had a provision that allowed the price to increase if the
bag system worked. He wouldn’t do it. It is easy to lead a horse to water,
you know the rest. Had he accepted my offer I would have given him an exclusive
at the time since my patent was still in effect. All of these years he would
have been producing the Wiggy’s bag under his label for the government
and I would have been supplying him with the Lamilite. That was not to be. For
the past 13 years Tennier Industries has supplied the military with a bag that
has not ever performed except south of Jacksonville, FL., in July (my opinion).
As I said earlier if it had performed why look for a new sleeping bag system.
Sometimes when someone does you a good turn as Howard did for me you can not
no matter how hard you try to be reciprocal. Wiggy’s might not be what
it is has become if it not been for Howard.
Propper International I am told is the single largest
supplier of uniforms to the military. They came to me about 7 or 8 years ago
wanting to learn how to make sleeping bags. They sent 5 employees here for a
week. They learned to make sleeping bags. However even though they found out
via independent testing that they were now making the best bag in the world they
chose to walk away from it. They observed while at the military offices the short
comings of the bag being delivered by Tennier. Propper demonstrated to me an
attitude towards the government employees of subservience. Even thought Propper
knew they had a better product they refused to stand up to these people; they
cowered. Maybe Propper thought they would jeopardize all of the other business
they do with the government, who knows.
The end result of the actions taken or not taken by
each of these companies is reprehensible in my opinion. The end item users; the
men who serve in the field in the combat zones of our military are short changed
when they are issued sleeping bags that simply do not perform as the specifications
require.
At this time I am the sole supplier to the Australian
military, and I have been working with other allies of ours and getting inquiries
from more of our allies. If enough of the troops of our allies are using Wiggy’s
bags maybe a ground swell will occur.
January 22, 2008, ARTICLE TWO
THE DIFFICULTY IN EDUCATING GOVERNMENT EMPLYEES OR IF YOU ARE A SOLDIER
BEWARE OF WHAT YOU MAYBE ISSUED
On February 27, 2006 I wrote to the General Services Administration
(GSA) asking that they end the sale of Snugpak brand sleeping bags.
The GSA does not actually sell the products that companies having
GSA contracts show on the GSA web site. Their web site is like a catalog.
If you want to purchase a sleeping bag all you do is type in sleeping
bags and click on find and all of the bags available show up. The
GSA being a government agency they must follow rules and regulations
pertaining to what are being offered. In some instances they have
to follow all of the rules about a product being Berry Amendment compliant
(the product must be made in America of components made in America).
In some cases if a product is unavailable as a made in America item,
it can come from another country that is a friendly country such as
England. However, if a product is made in America that is the same
as the product imported from England it takes precedence. When it
comes to sleeping bags there are two companies located in America
that make sleeping bags; Wiggy’s Inc. and Slumberjack. Each
of us makes products that are significantly better than the Snugpak
product; our products work, mine better than the Slumberjack bag and
the Snugpak product does not work!!!!!!!!!!
The reason I wrote to the GSA
at that time was because I had become aware of an incident that took
the lives of between 81 and 150 soldier trainees of the Chilean army.
In May 2005 while finishing a training exercise in the Andes they
were hit by a “tsunami of a snow storm” according to Col.
Carlos Mezano. They stopped forward progress due to a lack of visibility
and camped until the storm past. The deaths were attributed to hypothermia.
The bags used came from Snugpak.
I wrote to the contracting officer who was and possibly
still is responsible for over seeing one of the GSA contract holders who has
Snugpak on their GSA contract. It is possible this individual over sees other
contract holders who offer Snugpak. I provide the GSA with copies of the newspaper
articles that I found on the internet. They were found on the BBC News, Scotsman.com,
Wikinews, and Laprensa Latina. I also sent them my published critique (see
my news letter dated September 2004 in the archives). I never did receive a
response from the individual.
August
2007 I spoke with a person at the GSA offices
in Philadelphia, PA. I was directed to the Supervisory Contract
Specialist/Contracting Officer Professional
Audio/Visual, Sports and Recreation Acquisition Branch. I sent him
substantial information that I have collected over the past three
years all of which I had previously published. Most of the information
is damning of Snugpak; many have asked why they did not or do not
sue me; truth is truth and they know they can not defend the product
they have put on the market. The response I received was “I
have looked into it and do not anticipate taking any action.” The
man did not even have the common courtesy to address me as I
had him. I further advised him that I would
take further action. He did respond that he did not mean any disrespect;
he stated “I am a very busy
person.” He further stated “I
did look into it by consulting with my
contractor, and was satisfied with his answer.” My response was that he obviously
did not read my explanation of the snugcrap
product as I refer to it.
It is at this point that I spoke with the GSA legal
department. I was given the “lead” attorney. I explained
to him the problem and he said he would look into the situation and
he did. I am now into late October 2007. Having not heard from him
by November 8th I wrote him requesting what he had found about my
request to terminate the sale of Snugpak products by GSA contract
holders. He responded that same day letting me know the Federal Acquisition
Service would contact me shortly. Having not been contacted by November
16 I again wrote to the legal counsel and he advised me he “expected
someone from the Federal Acquisition
Service to have contacted me by now.” He
further stated that I would hear from someone
on Monday, November 19, on Tuesday November
20 I wrote to him letting him know I had still not heard from anyone.
On Wednesday November 21 I received correspondence from the Supervisory
Contract Specialist telling me a women was the “Point
of Contact (POC) for this because she had one contract that has Snugpak
products on it; Source One, Inc. She is investigating your claims
w/them and should have a report next week. Will let you know what
we find out.” Remember
his original response about being “satisfied with
his answer.” He
never gave me a name for the “his” person
but he did give me a name for the women
he has now referred the investigation too.
Was there ever a “his” involved
in this investigation in the first place,
my opinion; no. I think he was attempting
to “blow me off”; my opinion. Maybe he thought I would
just accept what he related to me and I would simply go away.
I then
wrote to the contract specialist quoting
Burrell the sales director of Snugpak; “when
a new fabric, insulation technologies have
become available our product is in use.”
I reminded the Supervisory Contract Specialist the
Snugpak Company uses chopped staple polyester fiberfill. Therefore
the statement is false since chopped staple fiberfill is ancient technology.
His response was “Sir, we are investigating your claims, and will let
you know the results.” This correspondence arrived via e mail November
26, 2007.
On December 3, 2007 I wrote to the lead attorney asking
for an update. He past the e mail on to the Superintendent Contract Specialist
who in turn asked me to please contact the administrator of the GSA contract
that over sees the Source One contract. I was told she “can keep me apprised
of the progress of these actions, but they do take time, so I request your
patience.” Having heard nothing I e mailed the contact person on December
13, 2007. She stated in her e mail response; “I am coordinating an investigation
and plan to send you a response shortly.” On December 28, 2007 I received
the following letter and here was my response.
As of this writing I have yet to receive to the request for information from
her.
On January 9, 2008 I wrote to her asking for a response
to the factual information I had presented earlier. Her response was that “my
concerns” were under review by our Office of Regional Counsel (ORC).
Therefore the situation has now gone full circle.
I started with the Office of Regional Counsel (the lead attorney) and now I
am back there.
I have written to the January 22, 2008 giving them
one more piece of important information about a component of the Snugpak bags;
the zipper. The zipper used by Snugpak is a #7 or 8 coil zipper. These zippers
when used in sleeping bags are notorious for their failure rate. It is near
100 percent.
After all is said and done; SNUGCRAP bags are just
that CRAP. And they are more expensive than mine at this time. When you start
calculating the cost, now that the American dollar is not as valuable as the
British pound, the price gets even higher. The end result is a product that
does not work for an exorbitant cost. And we the tax payers are taking the
hit and the soldiers are getting a product in my mind that is dangerous if
they try to use it in cold conditions.
_______________________________________________________________________
|
| |
