Basher, It appears that the Morpho contracts you asked about are contracts won as part of ECAC requirements. Morpho launched its non-radioactive passenger screener, the 4DX, in November of 2014 and earned ECAC approval in mid-December, 2014, some months later than Implant’s B-220. Once certified, it proceeded to win a series of ECAC-related tenders: for example a sale to Spain of 290 of its 4DX detectors on Dec. 17 of last year, and 160 4DX systems to German airports in October of last year. In a press release dated Dec. 1, 2015, Morpho claimed that more than 50 airports in Europe have installed the 4DX, stating that the system was “the most selected ETD system by airports to meet EU legislation for enhanced passenger screening effective September 2015.” I can’t vouch for the veracity of that statement; in any event it’s marketing BS. I understand that Darryl Jones said that Implant has won 70 percent of the European tenders, but he said that a long time ago, and haven’t heard it since. Maybe that was marketing hype too.
Board participants, or some of them, have made too much of Morpho’s inability to compete effectively for the TSA contract. It’s as if that loss proved Morpho simply couldn’t compete with Implant ever, anywhere. Clearly the Morpho wins in Europe suggest they have improved their technology. Some on the board also make a point that Morpho was the low cost bidder for the TSA contract and still IMSC won. Morpho was, indeed, the low cost bidder, but that was irrelevant, as the government's report made clear. Only Implant and Smiths were judged by the TSA to have the technology capability at the time that met strict agency standards, and therefore were the only two companies eligible to compete for the contract. Of the two equally ranked and therefore potential winners, Implant’s pricing won the day. Morpho protested, delayed the awarding of the contract, and apparently used the time to fix its technology.
Hope that answers your question.
