Stainless Steel Case measures 39mm lug to lug x 32mm wide non inclusive of the Crown while using Calipers.Original Black '24 hr' Dial shows Luminous and White printed numerals, tracks and Bulova logo are printed White. Hour and Minute Hands are Luminous filled and the sweep Center Seconds hand is Steel.Crown is Steel.Anti-magnetic dust shield between Caseback and Movement.Caseback screws on and is stamped as shown.In May of 1961 President John F. Kennedy sent 400 U.S. Green Beret 'special advisors' to South Vietnam to help train South Vietnamese Soldiers in methods of counter insurgency in the fight against Viet Cong guerrilllas:First introduced in 1956 this Vietnam War era United States Military issue MIL - W - 3818A would be the last Military piece produced by Bulova.The Bulova 3818A is shown on a N.O.S. era correct Nylon one piece strap
In reply to "First introduced in 1956 by Wayne Hanley
Just a comment for some that are not sure about terminology: All military issue watches can be properly called an ORD watch as that is the proper designation for any MILSPec peice of equipment of this era ( as a generic term) , however we also have watches MARKED ( stamped) ORD. Those in the know are aware of this, but some people are not. To keep this from confusing people maybe we should call the ORD marked watches as 'Marked ORD'...
Nice watch, my favorite is the A17, as My father was issued one as a SEAL in 1969 (A17) , it survived 3 trips to the Nam and he still wears it on ocasion...
Wayne, I think what Fifth means by the last Bulova issue watch is that it was the last NEW style issued, not necesarrily the last item issued...or produced.
B-153564, MAY 4, 1964
TO BULOVA WATCH COMPANY, INC.:
FURTHER REFERENCE IS MADE TO YOUR LETTER OF FEBRUARY 20, 1964, PROTESTING THE AWARD OF A CONTRACT TO BENRUS WATCH COMPANY UNDER REQUEST FOR PROPOSAL NO. AMC/A/36-038-64-490/NS), DATED FEBRUARY 7, 1964.
THE RECORD SHOWS THAT IT WAS DETERMINED BY REPRESENTATIVES OF THE AIR FORCE, NAVY AND ARMY, THAT SPECIFICATION MIL-W-3818A, DATED MARCH 12, 1956, REQUIRED REVISION TO ACCOMPLISH THE FOLLOWING RESULTS:
A. REDUCE THE VARIETY OF GRADES AND TYPES OF WATCHES.
B. ASSURE CONSISTENT QUALITY OF ITEMS.
C. ELIMINATE TESTING REQUIREMENTS OF ONE YEAR AND
SUBSTITUTE IN LIEU THEREOF A GUARANTEE PROVISION.
D. INCORPORATE A NEW CASE DESIGN.
ACCORDINGLY, THE SPECIFICATION WAS FORMALLY REVISED ON OCTOBER 17, 1962, AND IS IDENTIFIED AS MIL-W-3818B.
SUBSEQUENT TO THE APPROVAL OF SPECIFICATION MIL-W-3818B, ALL SOURCES ON THE PREVIOUS QUALIFIED PRODUCTS LIST, UNDER SPECIFICATION MIL-W 3818A, WERE INVITED BY LETTER DATED DECEMBER 6, 1962, TO MAKE APPLICATION FOR THE SUBMISSION OF THEIR PRODUCT OF FRANKFORD ARSENAL FOR QUALIFICATION TESTING. UPON RECEIPT AND APPROVAL OF THE APPLICATION AS REQUIRED BY PARAGRAPH 104 OF THE PAMPHLET ENTITLED "PROVISIONS GOVERNING QUALIFICATION," SAMPLES WOULD BE AUTHORIZED TO BE SUBMITTED. THREE FIRMS SUBMITTED APPLICATIONS AND SAMPLES DURING 1963, NAMELY, BENRUS WATCH CO., INC., LONGINES-WITTNAUER WATCH CO., AND MATBEY-TISSOT WATCH CO., INC.
HOWEVER, BENRUS WATCH CO., INC., WAS THE ONLY SOURCE THAT SUCCESSFULLY MET THE REQUIREMENTS FOR APPROVAL. THEREFORE, THAT FIRM WAS FORMALLY NOTIFIED ON SEPTEMBER 16, 1963, THAT THE SAMPLES SUBMITTED WERE APPROVED AND THAT ITS PRODUCT WAS LISTED ON THE QUALIFIED PRODUCTS LIST FOR SPECIFICATION MIL-F-3818B. THE OTHER TWO SOURCES WERE NOTIFIED BY LETTER OF NOVEMBER 21, 1963, THAT THEIR SAMPLES DID NOT MEET MINIMUM SPECIFICATION REQUIREMENTS.
ON THE BASIS OF MILITARY INTERDEPARTMENTAL PURCHASE REQUESTS FROM THE MARINE CORPS FOR A TOTAL OF 10,849 WATCHES, THE CONTRACTING OFFICER EXECUTED A DETERMINATION AND FINDINGS DATED FEBRUARY 2, 1964, AUTHORIZING NEGOTIATION UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF 10 U.S.C. 2304/A) (10) AND ASPR 3.210.2 PROMISED ON THE CIRCUMSTANCES REPORTED AS FOLLOWS:
"A. THIS WATCH IS A QUALIFIED PRODUCT AND THE TIME REQUIRED FOR TESTING WOULD UNDULY DELAY DELIVERIES.
"B. THE INTEREST OF THE GOVERNMENT REQUIRES ASSURANCE PRIOR TO AWARD THAT THE PRODUCT IS SATISFACTORY FOR ITS INTENDED USE AND NO OTHER MEANS OF QUALITY ASSURANCE IS AVAILABLE.
"C. AMPLE SOLICITATION AND OPPORTUNITY WAS AFFORDED THE CLOCK AND WATCH INDUSTRIES, RESULTING IN ONLY ONE QUALIFIED PRODUCT, NAMELY, BENRUS WATCH CO.'
THE REQUEST FOR PROPOSAL WAS ISSUED ON FEBRUARY 7, 1964, WITH A CLOSING DATE OF FEBRUARY 24, 1964, TO BENRUS WATCH COMPANY, AS A SOLE SOURCE PREMISED ON THE FACTS SHOWN ABOVE. BENRUS QUOTED A UNIT PRICE OF $28.28 EACH FOR A QUANTITY OF 10,849 WRIST WATCHES OR A TOTAL COST OF $306,809.72. ON FEBRUARY 20, 1964, AN AMENDMENT WAS ISSUED EXTENDING THE CLOSING DATE TO FEBRUARY 27, 1964. THE PROCUREMENT ACTION WAS SYNOPSIZED, FOR SUBCONTRACTING ONLY, IN THE COMMERCE BUSINESS DAILY DATED FEBRUARY 17, 1964. AT YOUR REQUEST, YOU WERE FURNISHED A COPY OF THE REQUEST FOR PROPOSAL ON FEBRUARY 13, 1964.
YOU ALLEGE, IN EFFECT, THAT FRANKFORD ARSENAL IS ATTEMPTING TO CIRCUMVENT CURRENT REGULATIONS IN THE AREA OF COMPETITION AND METHOD OF PROCUREMENT AND HAS FAILED TO CLARIFY AMBIGUITIES IN THE SPECIFICATION, PARTICULARLY WITH REFERENCE TO THE GUARANTEE PROVISION AS SET FORTH IN PARAGRAPH 3.21 OF SPECIFICATION MIL-W-3818B, DATED OCTOBER 17, 1962.
YOU ALLEGE SPECIFICALLY THAT FRANKFORD ARSENAL, WITH KNOWLEDGE OF YOUR INTEREST IN THE PROCUREMENT OF BACK-TYPE WATCHES, CIRCUMVENTED PROCUREMENT REGULATIONS BY NOT OBTAINING COMPETITION.
THE RECORD SHOWS YOU WERE AFFORDED AMPLE TIME TO SUBMIT YOUR PRODUCT FOR QUALIFICATION TESTING AND POSSIBLE INCLUSION ON THE QUALIFIED PRODUCTS LIST. HOWEVER, YOU DID NOT SUBMIT YOUR PRODUCT UNTIL FEBRUARY 13, 1964, A LAPSE OF 14 MONTHS FROM THE DATE APPLICATIONS WERE ORIGINALLY REQUESTED. THE PRODUCT YOU SUBMITTED WAS REJECTED ON MARCH 11, 1964, FOR THE REASON THAT IT FAILED THE SHOCK TEST PERFORMANCE PRESCRIBED IN PARAGRAPH 4.8.9 OF SPECIFICATION MIL-W 3818B IN THAT OVER A PERIOD OF 20 HOURS THE WATCH GAINED 1 HOUR AND 22 MINUTES. THIS FAILURE WAS CONSIDERED A SUFFICIENT CAUSE TO REJECT YOUR PRODUCT AS NOT QUALIFYING FOR INCLUSION ON THE QUALIFIED PRODUCTS LIST. SINCE ONLY ONE OF THREE OTHER SOURCES WHICH SUBMITTED THEIR PRODUCT FOR QUALIFICATION TESTING SUBMITTED A PRODUCT WHICH PASSED ALL THE REQUIREMENTS OF MIL-W-3818B AND WAS APPROVED FOR INCLUSION ON THE QUALIFIED PRODUCTS LIST, THE DETERMINATION BY THE CONTRACTING OFFICER THAT IT WAS IMPRACTICABLE TO OBTAIN COMPETITION, AND THAT A CONTRACT SHOULD BE NEGOTIATED WITH BENRUS, APPEARS TO HAVE BEEN PROPER.
YOU FURTHER ALLEGE THAT THE PROPOSED PROCUREMENT SHOULD BE CANCELLED AND THAT THE GOVERNMENT SHOULD PROCEED ON AN ADVERTISED PROCUREMENT TO ASSURE ADEQUATE COMPETITION.
AS INDICATED ABOVE, COMPETITION COULD NOT BE ATTAINED BECAUSE ONLY ONE SOURCE WAS ON THE QUALIFIED PRODUCTS LIST AT THE TIME OF THE INITIATION OF THE PROCUREMENT ACTION, AND SO FAR AS WE ARE ADVISED NO OTHER PRODUCT HAS SINCE BEEN QUALIFIED. IN OUR DECISION OF AUGUST 9, 1961, 41 COMP. GEN. 93, IT WAS HELD THAT WHERE THERE IS ONLY A SINGLE SOURCE LISTED ON THE QUALIFIED PRODUCTS LIST, THE PROPER METHOD OF PROCUREMENT IS NEGOTIATION IN LIEU OF FORMAL ADVERTISING. WE SEE NO VALID BASIS UPON WHICH A DIFFERENT CONCLUSION MAY BE REACHED IN THE INSTANT CASE.
IN ADDITION, YOU ALLEGE THAT THE GUARANTEE PROVISION OF PARAGRAPH 3.21 OF MIL-W-38188 IS UNREASONABLE IN THAT IT REQUIRES THE CONTRACTOR TO BE LIABLE FOR THE REPAIR OF WATCHES THAT FAIL TO MEET ALL SPECIFICATIONS FOR A PERIOD OF TWO YEARS, AFTER ACCEPTANCE BY THE GOVERNMENT, WITHOUT ANY LIMITATION OF REPAIR RESPONSIBILITY WHATSOEVER.
SINCE THE THREE SOURCES THAT SUBMITTED THEIR PRODUCTS FOR TESTING DID NOT TAKE ANY EXCEPTION, OR REQUIRE INTERPRETATION AS TO THE GUARANTEE PROVISION IN THE SPECIFICATION, IT APPEARS THAT THOSE FIRMS WERE READY TO MEET SUCH PROVISION AND THAT THE PROVISION WAS CONSIDERED REASONABLE. ANY EVENT IT DOES NOT APPEAR THAT THE GUARANTEE PROVISION IS GERMANE TO YOUR PROTEST OR TO YOUR FAILURE TO HAVE A WATCH APPROVED FOR INCLUSION ON THE LIST.
AS TO THE ALLEGATION THAT BENRUS WATCH COMPANY IS NOT A MANUFACTURER OF WATCHES BUT ONLY IMPORTS CASES AND SELLS WATCH MOVEMENTS FROM FOREIGN SOURCES, WE ARE ADVISED THAT BENRUS POSSESSES MANUFACTURING FACILITIES IN THE UNITED STATES AND SWITZERLAND WHICH ARE UTILIZED IN THE PRODUCTION AND ASSEMBLY OF WATCHES AND, THEREFORE, QUALIFIES AS A MANUFACTURER UNDER ASPR 12-603.1. THE BENRUS PROPOSAL SHOWS THAT IT IMPORTS THE MOVEMENT AND DIAL SETTING, DIAL STEM AND SPRING BARS, AND THAT THE CASE, CROWN, ATTACHMENTS, PACKING MATERIAL AND JEWEL BEARINGS (TURTLE MOUNTAIN ORDNANCE PLANT) ARE ALL DOMESTICALLY PRODUCED. ITS COST DATA INDICATES THAT THE COST OF THE DOMESTIC COMPONENTS IS CONSIDERABLY IN EXCESS OF 50 PERCENT OF THE COST OF ALL COMPONENTS, AND THEREFORE THE ITEM MUST BE CONSIDERED A DOMESTIC SOURCE AND PRODUCT UNDER ASPR 6-101 (D).
IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES WE FIND NO VALID BASIS FOR YOUR PROTEST, AND IT IS THEREFORE DENIED
The linked Dept. of Defense Document below clearly shows MIL-W-3818A as being introduced MARCH 12, 1956, as originally stated and MIL-W-3818B 17, OCTOBER 1962.
http://goldsmithwatchworks.com/MIL-W-3818B_Sepcifications.pdf
A Bulova MIL-W-3818B aka DTU-2 A/P was never issued, that contract was awarded to Benrus as indicated in the letter (Yellow text) above and if found would be examples submitted for testing purposes, making them extremely rare.
I'd be interested in seeing any Bulova Military issue piece Dated post 1962.
In reply to B-153564, MAY 4, 1964 by FifthAvenueRes…
Looks like someone at Bulova dropped the ball on this one !! This could be (the loss of military contracting) the start of the downward spiral and eventual buy-outs of Bulova. Im sure this contract was worth tens of millions in military and civilian sales of military ish watches.
In reply to B-153564, MAY 4, 1964 by FifthAvenueRes…
[quote=FifthAvenueRestorations]
B-153564, MAY 4, 1964
TO BULOVA WATCH COMPANY, INC.:
FURTHER REFERENCE IS MADE TO YOUR LETTER OF FEBRUARY 20, 1964, PROTESTING THE AWARD OF A CONTRACT TO BENRUS WATCH COMPANY UNDER REQUEST FOR PROPOSAL NO. AMC/A/36-038-64-490/NS), DATED FEBRUARY 7, 1964.
THE RECORD SHOWS THAT IT WAS DETERMINED BY REPRESENTATIVES OF THE AIR FORCE, NAVY AND ARMY, THAT SPECIFICATION MIL-W-3818A, DATED MARCH 12, 1956, REQUIRED REVISION TO ACCOMPLISH THE FOLLOWING RESULTS:
A. REDUCE THE VARIETY OF GRADES AND TYPES OF WATCHES.
B. ASSURE CONSISTENT QUALITY OF ITEMS.
C. ELIMINATE TESTING REQUIREMENTS OF ONE YEAR AND
SUBSTITUTE IN LIEU THEREOF A GUARANTEE PROVISION.
D. INCORPORATE A NEW CASE DESIGN.
ACCORDINGLY, THE SPECIFICATION WAS FORMALLY REVISED ON OCTOBER 17, 1962, AND IS IDENTIFIED AS MIL-W-3818B.
SUBSEQUENT TO THE APPROVAL OF SPECIFICATION MIL-W-3818B, ALL SOURCES ON THE PREVIOUS QUALIFIED PRODUCTS LIST, UNDER SPECIFICATION MIL-W 3818A, WERE INVITED BY LETTER DATED DECEMBER 6, 1962, TO MAKE APPLICATION FOR THE SUBMISSION OF THEIR PRODUCT OF FRANKFORD ARSENAL FOR QUALIFICATION TESTING. UPON RECEIPT AND APPROVAL OF THE APPLICATION AS REQUIRED BY PARAGRAPH 104 OF THE PAMPHLET ENTITLED "PROVISIONS GOVERNING QUALIFICATION," SAMPLES WOULD BE AUTHORIZED TO BE SUBMITTED. THREE FIRMS SUBMITTED APPLICATIONS AND SAMPLES DURING 1963, NAMELY, BENRUS WATCH CO., INC., LONGINES-WITTNAUER WATCH CO., AND MATBEY-TISSOT WATCH CO., INC.
HOWEVER, BENRUS WATCH CO., INC., WAS THE ONLY SOURCE THAT SUCCESSFULLY MET THE REQUIREMENTS FOR APPROVAL. THEREFORE, THAT FIRM WAS FORMALLY NOTIFIED ON SEPTEMBER 16, 1963, THAT THE SAMPLES SUBMITTED WERE APPROVED AND THAT ITS PRODUCT WAS LISTED ON THE QUALIFIED PRODUCTS LIST FOR SPECIFICATION MIL-F-3818B. THE OTHER TWO SOURCES WERE NOTIFIED BY LETTER OF NOVEMBER 21, 1963, THAT THEIR SAMPLES DID NOT MEET MINIMUM SPECIFICATION REQUIREMENTS.
ON THE BASIS OF MILITARY INTERDEPARTMENTAL PURCHASE REQUESTS FROM THE MARINE CORPS FOR A TOTAL OF 10,849 WATCHES, THE CONTRACTING OFFICER EXECUTED A DETERMINATION AND FINDINGS DATED FEBRUARY 2, 1964, AUTHORIZING NEGOTIATION UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF 10 U.S.C. 2304/A) (10) AND ASPR 3.210.2 PROMISED ON THE CIRCUMSTANCES REPORTED AS FOLLOWS:
"A. THIS WATCH IS A QUALIFIED PRODUCT AND THE TIME REQUIRED FOR TESTING WOULD UNDULY DELAY DELIVERIES.
"B. THE INTEREST OF THE GOVERNMENT REQUIRES ASSURANCE PRIOR TO AWARD THAT THE PRODUCT IS SATISFACTORY FOR ITS INTENDED USE AND NO OTHER MEANS OF QUALITY ASSURANCE IS AVAILABLE.
"C. AMPLE SOLICITATION AND OPPORTUNITY WAS AFFORDED THE CLOCK AND WATCH INDUSTRIES, RESULTING IN ONLY ONE QUALIFIED PRODUCT, NAMELY, BENRUS WATCH CO.'
THE REQUEST FOR PROPOSAL WAS ISSUED ON FEBRUARY 7, 1964, WITH A CLOSING DATE OF FEBRUARY 24, 1964, TO BENRUS WATCH COMPANY, AS A SOLE SOURCE PREMISED ON THE FACTS SHOWN ABOVE. BENRUS QUOTED A UNIT PRICE OF $28.28 EACH FOR A QUANTITY OF 10,849 WRIST WATCHES OR A TOTAL COST OF $306,809.72. ON FEBRUARY 20, 1964, AN AMENDMENT WAS ISSUED EXTENDING THE CLOSING DATE TO FEBRUARY 27, 1964. THE PROCUREMENT ACTION WAS SYNOPSIZED, FOR SUBCONTRACTING ONLY, IN THE COMMERCE BUSINESS DAILY DATED FEBRUARY 17, 1964. AT YOUR REQUEST, YOU WERE FURNISHED A COPY OF THE REQUEST FOR PROPOSAL ON FEBRUARY 13, 1964.
YOU ALLEGE, IN EFFECT, THAT FRANKFORD ARSENAL IS ATTEMPTING TO CIRCUMVENT CURRENT REGULATIONS IN THE AREA OF COMPETITION AND METHOD OF PROCUREMENT AND HAS FAILED TO CLARIFY AMBIGUITIES IN THE SPECIFICATION, PARTICULARLY WITH REFERENCE TO THE GUARANTEE PROVISION AS SET FORTH IN PARAGRAPH 3.21 OF SPECIFICATION MIL-W-3818B, DATED OCTOBER 17, 1962.
YOU ALLEGE SPECIFICALLY THAT FRANKFORD ARSENAL, WITH KNOWLEDGE OF YOUR INTEREST IN THE PROCUREMENT OF BACK-TYPE WATCHES, CIRCUMVENTED PROCUREMENT REGULATIONS BY NOT OBTAINING COMPETITION.
THE RECORD SHOWS YOU WERE AFFORDED AMPLE TIME TO SUBMIT YOUR PRODUCT FOR QUALIFICATION TESTING AND POSSIBLE INCLUSION ON THE QUALIFIED PRODUCTS LIST. HOWEVER, YOU DID NOT SUBMIT YOUR PRODUCT UNTIL FEBRUARY 13, 1964, A LAPSE OF 14 MONTHS FROM THE DATE APPLICATIONS WERE ORIGINALLY REQUESTED. THE PRODUCT YOU SUBMITTED WAS REJECTED ON MARCH 11, 1964, FOR THE REASON THAT IT FAILED THE SHOCK TEST PERFORMANCE PRESCRIBED IN PARAGRAPH 4.8.9 OF SPECIFICATION MIL-W 3818B IN THAT OVER A PERIOD OF 20 HOURS THE WATCH GAINED 1 HOUR AND 22 MINUTES. THIS FAILURE WAS CONSIDERED A SUFFICIENT CAUSE TO REJECT YOUR PRODUCT AS NOT QUALIFYING FOR INCLUSION ON THE QUALIFIED PRODUCTS LIST. SINCE ONLY ONE OF THREE OTHER SOURCES WHICH SUBMITTED THEIR PRODUCT FOR QUALIFICATION TESTING SUBMITTED A PRODUCT WHICH PASSED ALL THE REQUIREMENTS OF MIL-W-3818B AND WAS APPROVED FOR INCLUSION ON THE QUALIFIED PRODUCTS LIST, THE DETERMINATION BY THE CONTRACTING OFFICER THAT IT WAS IMPRACTICABLE TO OBTAIN COMPETITION, AND THAT A CONTRACT SHOULD BE NEGOTIATED WITH BENRUS, APPEARS TO HAVE BEEN PROPER.
YOU FURTHER ALLEGE THAT THE PROPOSED PROCUREMENT SHOULD BE CANCELLED AND THAT THE GOVERNMENT SHOULD PROCEED ON AN ADVERTISED PROCUREMENT TO ASSURE ADEQUATE COMPETITION.
AS INDICATED ABOVE, COMPETITION COULD NOT BE ATTAINED BECAUSE ONLY ONE SOURCE WAS ON THE QUALIFIED PRODUCTS LIST AT THE TIME OF THE INITIATION OF THE PROCUREMENT ACTION, AND SO FAR AS WE ARE ADVISED NO OTHER PRODUCT HAS SINCE BEEN QUALIFIED. IN OUR DECISION OF AUGUST 9, 1961, 41 COMP. GEN. 93, IT WAS HELD THAT WHERE THERE IS ONLY A SINGLE SOURCE LISTED ON THE QUALIFIED PRODUCTS LIST, THE PROPER METHOD OF PROCUREMENT IS NEGOTIATION IN LIEU OF FORMAL ADVERTISING. WE SEE NO VALID BASIS UPON WHICH A DIFFERENT CONCLUSION MAY BE REACHED IN THE INSTANT CASE.
IN ADDITION, YOU ALLEGE THAT THE GUARANTEE PROVISION OF PARAGRAPH 3.21 OF MIL-W-38188 IS UNREASONABLE IN THAT IT REQUIRES THE CONTRACTOR TO BE LIABLE FOR THE REPAIR OF WATCHES THAT FAIL TO MEET ALL SPECIFICATIONS FOR A PERIOD OF TWO YEARS, AFTER ACCEPTANCE BY THE GOVERNMENT, WITHOUT ANY LIMITATION OF REPAIR RESPONSIBILITY WHATSOEVER.
SINCE THE THREE SOURCES THAT SUBMITTED THEIR PRODUCTS FOR TESTING DID NOT TAKE ANY EXCEPTION, OR REQUIRE INTERPRETATION AS TO THE GUARANTEE PROVISION IN THE SPECIFICATION, IT APPEARS THAT THOSE FIRMS WERE READY TO MEET SUCH PROVISION AND THAT THE PROVISION WAS CONSIDERED REASONABLE. ANY EVENT IT DOES NOT APPEAR THAT THE GUARANTEE PROVISION IS GERMANE TO YOUR PROTEST OR TO YOUR FAILURE TO HAVE A WATCH APPROVED FOR INCLUSION ON THE LIST.
AS TO THE ALLEGATION THAT BENRUS WATCH COMPANY IS NOT A MANUFACTURER OF WATCHES BUT ONLY IMPORTS CASES AND SELLS WATCH MOVEMENTS FROM FOREIGN SOURCES, WE ARE ADVISED THAT BENRUS POSSESSES MANUFACTURING FACILITIES IN THE UNITED STATES AND SWITZERLAND WHICH ARE UTILIZED IN THE PRODUCTION AND ASSEMBLY OF WATCHES AND, THEREFORE, QUALIFIES AS A MANUFACTURER UNDER ASPR 12-603.1. THE BENRUS PROPOSAL SHOWS THAT IT IMPORTS THE MOVEMENT AND DIAL SETTING, DIAL STEM AND SPRING BARS, AND THAT THE CASE, CROWN, ATTACHMENTS, PACKING MATERIAL AND JEWEL BEARINGS (TURTLE MOUNTAIN ORDNANCE PLANT) ARE ALL DOMESTICALLY PRODUCED. ITS COST DATA INDICATES THAT THE COST OF THE DOMESTIC COMPONENTS IS CONSIDERABLY IN EXCESS OF 50 PERCENT OF THE COST OF ALL COMPONENTS, AND THEREFORE THE ITEM MUST BE CONSIDERED A DOMESTIC SOURCE AND PRODUCT UNDER ASPR 6-101 (D).
IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES WE FIND NO VALID BASIS FOR YOUR PROTEST, AND IT IS THEREFORE DENIED
The linked Dept. of Defense Document below clearly shows MIL-W-3818A as being introduced MARCH 12, 1956, as originally stated and MIL-W-3818B 17, OCTOBER 1962.
http://goldsmithwatchworks.com/MIL-W-3818B_Sepcifications.pdf
A Bulova MIL-W-3818B aka DTU-2 A/P was never issued, that contract was awarded to Benrus as indicated in the letter (Yellow text) above and if found would be examples submitted for testing purposes, making them extremely rare.
I'd be interested in seeing any Bulova Military issue piece Dated post 1962.
[/quote]
Reading through this document we can see that the new 3818B spec was not released until December 6th. 1962.
Further we can see that the 3818B spec watches were not ordered from Benrus, the only one to pass spec, until February 2, 1964.
From this we can deduce that Bulova and all were probably still producing watches until the new spec 3818B watches were delivered, which was more than likely quite some time after Feb 1964.
In reply to Fifth I stand corrected on by Wayne Hanley
In reply to OH, sorry Wayne, the 'dropped by shooter144
"The linked Dept. of Defense Document below clearly shows MIL-W-3818A as being introduced MARCH 12, 1956, as originally stated and MIL-W-3818B 17, OCTOBER 1962."
Specification MIL-W-3818B superceded MIL-W-3818A as stated in the newly acquired pdf of the B spec. And as Shooter said somebody at Bulova dropped the ball, because production of any at the end of any contract order of A spec watches. Just to clarify, these two specifications had nothing to do with the A17A Navigation Watch. Personal experience indicates that the A17A continued to be issued in new condition to USAF aircrew members well into the 1970s.
According to My research the Bulova Military issue A-17A http://www.mybulova.com/watches/1950-military-issue-17a-2370 would have production Dates from approx 1946 - 1956.
The interesting point is the A-17A Caseback is clearly stamped 'U.S. Property'. Wether or not these Military issue timepieces were recycled and reissued post 1956 is anyones guess but I see no reason whatsoever for production of Spec. MIL-W-6433A (A-17A) and Spec. MIL-W-3818A (3818A) to be running concurrently.
In reply to According to My research the by FifthAvenueRes…