COMMENTS ON PROPOSED CONTRACT BETWEEN MR.(Classified) AND THE OFFICE OF TRAINING

• Document Type: CREST
• Collection: General CIA Records
• Document Number (FOIA) /ESDN (CREST): CIA-RDP78-04718A001000170007-7
• Release Decision: RIPPUB
• Original Classification: S
• Document Page Count: 3
• Document Creation Date: December 12, 2016
• Document Release Date: September 20, 2001
• Sequence Number: 7
• Content Type: MF

25X1A9A
' 25X1A5A1
25X1A5A1
25X1A9A
25X1A5A1
25X1A5A1
25X1A5A1
Approved For Rele se 2001/1 H-' 3
:P.71erd Mo. _
Ghange In Mts. ri
r-
Tv. TS
_ 2 a _;41o34
IdEIWATIEUM Fat
suBJEcT.
OGC HAS
t
78-04718A0010001.KVIEWED.
7.0 7:7
ER; 5.3895
CONFIDENTIAI4
Assistant to the Director
Comments on Proposed. Contract Between
and the Office of Training
1. Following receipt of your request of yesterday that
this office comment upon the subject proposal, several inquiries
were made by this office of a, well-known local producer of
commercial documentary films for the Government in an effort
to develop points of comparison between the substance of this
proposal end accepted commercial practice. In addition, back-
ground information not contained in the original paper requesting
the approval of the Director of Central Intelligence concerning
the relations between the Office of Training and Mr
solicited from Mr. MIIM Deputy Director o
in the absence of the Director of Training. The resul
this exploration are as follows:
a. To begin with, it is apparent that a verbal agree-
ment between a representative of the Office of Training
acting as agent for the Director of Training, amlier.
existed as an outgrowth of conversations between the princi-
pals. This agreement, notably that a $3000 fee for the
services set forth in the proposed oontract
stemmed from an earlier opinion from**. t 5000
would be his price for doing this perticu job.
advised that the Office of Training had asked. Mr. if
he would be interested in undertaking this assignment in
the first place, and that the Director of Training sub-
sequently authorised a representative of his office to
come to terms with Mr. at any mutually satisfactory
figure below- $5000. Consequently, the opinion of this
office as to the rectitude of this contract for personal
services is being rendered pretty largely from a tao
point of view, a position that necessarily limits treedixn
of action.
b. In view of the additional information developed
by this office, relative to technical matters involved in
the proposed filming, it now appears that the established
figure of $3000 is acceptable, subject only to certain
modifications Which I would suggest in the method of pay-
ment, and sillch are detailed elsewhere in this commentary.
The background facts are these:
Approved For Release A-RDP78-04718A001000170007-7
' CONVIDENT I Alt
25X1
25X1A5A1
25X1A5A1
25X1A5A1
25X1A5A1
25X1A5A1
Approved For Release 2001/11/.. ? - DP78-04718A001000170007-7
SR: 5-15895
ONFIDENTLAL
film to be shot under comyerable condi
ted States union cameraman,
the union rate o per day for
luding the use of his equipment, but
or local travel necessary to reach
shooting, it is estimated that the
mould call for 14 days, which allows
weather. This mould total 42B00 in all.
2. Since interior camera work mill be required, in
addition to the background photography of the exterior
location, I am told that the cameraman would be obliged
to hire a union electrician for the 14 days, at a
salary of from 475 to 4100 per meek. Added to the
previous 426000 this approxiutes the 43000 set forth
in the proposed contract.
3. Although "free-lance photographerew,
Nr. appears to be one, generally do not steM
on union rules in these matter:4 and on occasion mey
be engaged for as little as 450 per day, their price
is largely a function of their reputation, and I en
assured by the Deputy Director of Training that Mr.
IIIIIIIenjoys an excellent reputation in his chosen
field. Therefore, his fee does not appear unreasonable.
2. I do believe it night be proper to suggest a modifies.-
of the method of payment for these services, in the event
the monies set forth in the proposal are accepted, without
tion. As it now stands, the proposal is that Nr.IIIIIII 25X1A5A1
an initial 41000 at the signing of the contract-Cilia:-
4 the 4400 to buy his film), 41000 at the time he
shooting, and 41000 on delivery and roval by the
of Training. This means that if, for some reason, the
re deemed unsatisfactory at the time of delivery to OTR,
of Aewould only stand to lose 41000, out of an entire amount
lfor the venture, while the Agency would be out 70 percent
of the amount. It might be better to establish it as follomm:
a. At the time of execution of the contract, the
Agency to pay Sir- 500 as a retainer, plus 000
for the film.
b. The Agency to pay
went of shooting on location.
Approved For Relea /01 : CIA-RDP784471,8A0D1R111170007-7
CONFilizA
25X1A5A1
25X1A5A1
25X1A5A1
Approved For Release 2001/11110 -RDP 78-04718A001000170007-7
1111..
c. On deltvery of
to its value by CTR, Mr
ment of $1500.
The proposal
to produce a quality
Bible loss to C/A (
event the finished product did no
ER: 5-8895
certification as
ive a final pay-
to give Mr. added
, and at the s time to
74 to about 56% in the
et OTR's standards.
4. in view of the circumstances set forth above, it would
appear that the approval of the Deputy Director of Central
Intelligence in this instance is indicated.
LAWRENCE R. HOUSTON
Acting Deputy Director
(Administration
Attachmenta:
Contract Information and Check List
Memo to DCI from DTR dtd 9 Aug 5k
SUbject: Contract with 10.
Approved For Release 200 RDP11404718A001000170007-7