Baltimore police yanked scores of bulletproof vests from the street after tests found they were defective, and today Maryland's top law enforcement officer will recommend that the supplier be barred from doing business with the state.
Only a handful of city officers wore the protective gear for about two weeks in August before the city, prompted by concerns of a local police supply store owner, had the vests tested at a firing range, officials said.
"Those vests were taken off the street immediately," said Sam Ringgold, a city police spokesman. "Bullets were piercing the vests. That is a serious safety issue."
Assistant state Attorney General John Tennis said his office will make the request to bar Park Technology Inc. of Midlothian, Va., at this morning's Board of Public Works meeting in Annapolis.
"We believe the gravity of their breach of contract in supplying mislabeled and defective body armor to police officers justifies an immediate suspension by the board," Mr. Tennis said, quoting from a letter written by Attorney General J. Joseph Curran Jr.
Officials from the company did not return messages left on an answering machine yesterday. The firm will have 30 days to respond to the state action before a permanent suspension can become effective.
Meanwhile, the Baltimore Police Department returned the vests it bought and is trying to recoup the money paid to Park Technology. Park's bid of $112,500 was the lowest of seven bids submitted in October 1993.
City officials could not say yesterday how many vests were actually delivered and paid for, though they said the company has not yet returned the money. The city has since bought vests from the second lowest-bidder, Protective Apparel of Tennessee, which bid $124,025.
Baltimore was not the only police department to deal with the company and have problems. The Virginia State Police spent $64,000 to buy 290 vests for its officers and also has returned them to the company.
Claire Kapel, a spokesman for the Virginia State Police, said most of the vests had been issued, but were recalled as soon as problems arose. She said that one in 50 9 mm bullets fired from about 16 feet away penetrated the vests.
The Maryland State Police received one of Park Technology's vests as a sample but decided not to pursue buying the vests after learning of problems encountered by Baltimore City, said Mike McKelvin, a department spokesman.
Other state agencies also had expressed interest in the vests from Park Technology, but decided not to pursue the purchase. That includes the Maryland Natural Resources Police, said Bob Kleinhen, a purchasing agent for the state.
The state fire marshal's office, however, bought 30 vests for $7,320. They apparently got different vests than the city police received. Fire Marshal Rocco J. Gabriele said the vests his agency received met proper requirements.
"We got what we wanted," Mr. Gabriele said. "Quite frankly, we are satisfied by the product."
Park's contract began unraveling in August, when the vests first started arriving in Baltimore. A city police officer brought one of the vests into The Cop Shop, a downtown store run by retired city police officer Sam Walters.
Concerned by its light-weight appearance, Mr. Walters -- whose company also bid for the contract, but came in third -- said he photocopied the label, which shows the vests were made in Canada and implies it meets the standards set by the U.S. Justice Department.
But after hearing from the Justice Department that it had never tested the body armor purchased by the Police Department, Mr. Walters warned the city.
Police sent a vest to H. P. White Laboratories in Harford County and discovered the failures, officials said.
"They wouldn't certify them," Mr. Walters said. "Therefore, no agency would buy them. The incredible thing about this was, it was a fluke that we even saw this. Unless someone is very attuned to the technical aspects of this product, you never would have discovered that something was seriously wrong."
Officer Gary McLhinney, the president of the city's Fraternal Order of Police, praised police commanders for taking prompt action. But he criticized the department for buying what he termed inexpensive equipment.
"We need to be purchasing the best available equipment for our officers, and that includes the best body armor available," Officer McLhinney said. "This shows the problem with the low-bid concept. When it comes to the safety of police officers, we can't just look for the cheapest thing available."