Glock Officially Protests Army Selection of Sigs

[Solomonson]

I have to wonder how much of this is about potential company stability? Glock is privately held as far as I know by an 87 year old, rather eccentric individual.

 

[Solomonson]

I like Glocks, they would be my personal preference. But it seems the military made a good choice. I can't find anything to not like about the Sig. But there is a lot that goes on behind the scenes and these contracts are rarely left to chance. Glock, nor any of the other entries probably ever had a chance. It appears that the military decided which gun they wanted before the trials and wrote the specs so that none of the others had a fair opportunity.

Stuff like this happens quite a bit with any type of government purchasing. And to a degree I don't have a problem with it. If you know what you want, then you should be able to buy what you feel works best for you. Not be stuck with the low bidder. Sounds like Glock is just going through the formality of a protest. Wouldn't be surprised if others don't follow their lead.

That's very problematic for the taxpayer however. If a spec is crafted specifically so that only one company has the ability to fulfill it, then competitive bidding goes out the window and the favored supplier is free to raise prices. That's wrong.

This whole modular pistol program is a huge gob of malarkey to begin with. The gov't should be buying proven weapons off the shelf for this one.

 

[Solomonson]

Idk why Glock didn't win, but I don't buy that modularity was an enormously decisive factor in granting the contract to SIG. I'd have a much easier time believing that Glock stupidly presented a model without a manual safety, and that was all she wrote.

I think their offering would have been rejected far earlier if it didn't meet the design specification.

 

[Arizona_Mike]

Image

Why the hate? A hired assassin with a hammer got the drop on a 60yo Gaston and he fought him off with his bare hands despite 7 head wounds and loosing a liter of blood.

Mike

 

[Solomonson]

View attachment 230727

Is that GG's granddaughter perchance?

 

[Arizona_Mike]

Is that GG's granddaughter perchance?

Second wife. Survived a stroke, married his nurse.

 

[herrwalther]

That's very problematic for the taxpayer however. If a spec is crafted specifically so that only one company has the ability to fulfill it, then competitive bidding goes out the window and the favored supplier is free to raise prices. That's wrong.

This whole modular pistol program is a huge gob of malarkey to begin with. The gov't should be buying proven weapons off the shelf for this one.

I don't think you understand how government contracts work. Sig cannot arbitrarily raise prices on a contract "just because" without risking a cancelled contract and likewise the Army can't spend more money than Congress approves. Government contracts are hundreds if not thousands of pages long detailing what can and cannot happen over the life of the order. If SIG can't meet the order, it can be cancelled. If they raise price per unit or accessory a certain percentage, it can be cancelled.

And also, how is the P320 not a proven design? They have been in full production since 2014. Many of their parts and design come from the P250 which has been around since 2007. When the Beretta M9 was adopted in 1985, the design was just hitting 10 years old. That puts the 320 and the M9 on the market for the same amount of time before being adopted by the military. Is the M9 not a proven design as well?

 

[Solomonson]

I don't think you understand how government contracts work. Sig cannot arbitrarily raise prices on a contract "just because" without risking a cancelled contract and likewise the Army can't spend more money than Congress approves. Government contracts are hundreds if not thousands of pages long detailing what can and cannot happen over the life of the order. If SIG can't meet the order, it can be cancelled. If they raise price per unit or accessory a certain percentage, it can be cancelled.

I believe I do. I've dealt with them for decades. If the gov't wants to purchase a certain item as you suggested and then develops a specification so the vendor of that item is guaranteed to be the only one able to meet the spec, then the vendor has tremendous leverage when it comes to pricing. Depending on the item/spec, it could undermine the entire competitive bidding process.

 

[entropy]

They are not going to going to custom fit to soldiers, they are going to custom fit to the Table of Organization. Probably one model to Infantry, may be another to tankers and MPs or air crews.

That might be official thinking, but it will end up with them being customized to the individual user, first with high speed, low drag types, then the rest of the military will follow suit.

 

[herrwalther]

I believe I do. I've dealt with them for decades. If the gov't wants to purchase a certain item as you suggested and then develops a specification so the vendor of that item is guaranteed to be the only one able to meet the spec, then the vendor has tremendous leverage when it comes to pricing. Depending on the item/spec, it could undermine the entire competitive bidding process.

Both sides have to agree to the specification. And the price. If the price per unit was too high for the Army budget, Sig would have lost the contract. The exact same thing happened when the Army was going from BDUs to the next uniform. They wanted Multicam because it was efficient, but it was too expensive. The leverage for both sides is the ability to walk away from a contract.

As far as Sig's proprietary parts, that may or may not happen. If Sig cannot meet the demand in the time frame specified, it would be smart for them to subcontract to other makers. This is not uncommon to the military. At least 3 companies made Ka-bar combat knives during WWII. The competitive process was not undermined. Glock didn't meet the requirements so they lost. If they submitted a proposal that was better than the P320, but cost less, we would be having a different discussion. But they didn't. And that is their fault and not Sigs.

 

[KansasSasquatch]

Is it Sig's fault that Glock just keeps making the same guns and refuses to try anything new? Is it Sig's fault that the .gov found a pistol that they wanted and wrote specs based on that pistol?

 

[helitack32f1]

Interesting that all the Glock haters believe that Glock only makes the exact same gun and didn't build anything new in an attempt to win this competition, yet Glock somehow beat out all the new and updated guns from Beretta, FN and S&W to be in the final selection with the Sig. If modularity was indeed a requirement, somehow Glock beat out the new modular Beretta APX. I would assume that means that Glock too had a modular concept that all the rabid know-it-all haters are unaware of.

 

[Solomonson]

Is it Sig's fault that Glock just keeps making the same guns and refuses to try anything new? Is it Sig's fault that the .gov found a pistol that they wanted and wrote specs based on that pistol?

It's quite wrong...

The specs should be based on actual need and not on one manufacturer's model "they wanted." I think the "modular" design matter is more sales razzmatazz than anything else. As others has expounded on here, I don't think it's going to amount to a hill of beans in practical use.

 

[Solomonson]

Interesting that all the Glock haters believe that Glock only makes the exact same gun and didn't build anything new in an attempt to win this competition, yet Glock somehow beat out all the new and updated guns from Beretta, FN and S&W to be in the final selection with the Sig. If modularity was indeed a requirement, somehow Glock beat out the new modular Beretta APX. I would assume that means that Glock too had a modular concept that all the rabid know-it-all haters are unaware of.

Salient points.

 

[Solomonson]

Both sides have to agree to the specification. And the price...

And if only one company (the chosen company) met the spec, you don't see how that would drastically change the negotiating process for this program?

 

[PabloJ]

Having had four Glock pistols let me say very very good things about them. They are very very reliable, with "non-stick pan finish" do not rust and show almost no wear after being shot few thousand rounds. I would not hesitate to carry one and defend my being with it. I feel bad for the folks at Glock. Loss of contract not only means loss of major military contract, but also loss of many many private sales. Many private citizens in USA buy guns that the military & police carry.

 

[JR24]

Having had four Glock pistols let me say very very good things about them. They are very very reliable, with "non-stick pan finish" do not rust and show almost no wear after being shot few thousand rounds. I would not hesitate to carry one and defend my being with it. I feel bad for the folks at Glock. Loss of contract not only means loss of major military contract, but also loss of many many private sales. Many private citizens in USA buy guns that the military & police carry.

While true, Glock will be just fine. Many, many police still carry Glock and the FBI recently, publicly, went with Glock.

As fornthe waaaabulance promoters, I'd bet dollars to donuts that had Glock won, Sig would be protesting, thats just how these things work.

I'm sure the Sigs will be fine. I wonder if the SF folks, Rangers and MARSOC will still have the Glock 19 optional like they do now.

 

[danez71]

I believe I do. I've dealt with them for decades. If the gov't wants to purchase a certain item as you suggested and then develops a specification so the vendor of that item is guaranteed to be the only one able to meet the spec, then the vendor has tremendous leverage when it comes to pricing. Depending on the item/spec, it could undermine the entire competitive bidding process.

.

I believe you don't know how govt contracts and bidding works.... or, at not nearly as well as you're portraying



The IFB indicated they needed a modular design. That would be decided based on the inputs of many; no one person gets to decide a spec for the govt/military for something of this scope and magnitude. (I posted a link to the IFB a few months ago)

The govt/military hates sole source products. Particularly for anything that surpasses the $150k threshold let alone multi million dollar contracts. To get a sole source product approved, quite a few flaming hoops have to be jumped thru and attracts a LOT of scrutiny including Commercial Availability study and addressing the technical reasons why something is sole source and the justification why they should accept getting into a sole source product.

Additionally, they are required to make public the justification for the need for the sole source product.

Yes, I deal with Federal Acquisition Regulations regularly and am currently working on program for respirator systems for a few different fighter planes.



6.3 of the FAR deals with the topic of sole source/lack of competition as well as 10 US Code 2304 and 41 USC 3304 and a plethora of other regulations.

Subpart 6.3—Other Than Full and Open Competition41 U.S.C. 3304 and 10 U.S.C. 2304(c) each authorize, under certain conditions, contracting without providing for full and open competition. The Department of Defense, Coast Guard, and National Aeronautics and Space Administration are subject to 10 U.S.C. 2304(c). Other executive agencies are subject to 41 U.S.C. 3304. Contracting without providing for full and open competition or full and open competition after exclusion of sources is a violation of statute, unless permitted by one of the exceptions in 6.302.

6.302).

6.102(a) or (b), if appropriate, or any other procedures authorized by this regulation.

6.303.

10 U.S.C. 2304(c)(1) or 41 U.S.C. 3304(a)(1).

2.101), or, demonstrates a unique capability of the source to provide the particular research services proposed;

10 U.S.C. 2304(d)(1)(A) and 41 U.S.C. 3304(b)(1).)

10 U.S.C. 2304(d)(1)(B) or 41 U.S.C. 3304(b)(2).)

10 U.S.C. 2304(d)(1)(B).)

6.302-7; it shall not be used when any of the other circumstances is applicable. Use of this authority may be appropriate in situations such as the following (these examples are not intended to be all inclusive and do not constitute authority in and of themselves):

Part 27).

41.101), circumstances may dictate that only one supplier can furnish the service (see 41.202); or when the contemplated contract is for construction of a part of a utility system and the utility company itself is the only source available to work on the system.

6.303 and 6.304.

5.102(a)(6)).

6.303 and 6.304.

5.201 shall have been published and any bids, proposals, quotations, or capability statements must have been considered.

10 U.S.C. 2304(c)(2) or 41 U.S.C. 3304(a)(2).

6.303 and 6.304. These justifications may be made and approved after contract award when preparation and approval prior to award would unreasonably delay the acquisition.

6.304.

10 U.S.C. 2304(c)(3) or 41 U.S.C. 3304(a)(3).

6.303 and 6.304.

10 U.S.C. 2304(c)(4) or 41 U.S.C. 3304(a)(4).

6.303 and 6.304.

10 U.S.C. 2304(c)(5) or 41 U.S.C. 3304(a)(5).

18 U.S.C. 4124 (see subpart 8.6).

41 U.S.C. chapter 85, Committee for Purchase From People Who Are Blind or Severely Disabled (see subpart 8.7).

44 U.S.C. 501-504, 1121 (see subpart 8.8).

6.303 for requirements for justification and approval of sole-source 8(a) awards over $22 million. (See subpart 19.8).

15 U.S.C. 657a (see 19.1306).

15 U.S.C. 657f).

15 U.S.C. 637(m) (see 19.1506).

10 U.S.C. 2304(k) for armed services acquisitions or 41 U.S.C. 3105 for civilian agency acquisitions; and

10 U.S.C. 2304(k) or 41 U.S.C. 3105, as appropriate. However, this limitation does not apply—

6.303 and 6.304, except for—

6.301(d)).

10 U.S.C. 2304(c)(6) or 41 U.S.C. 3304(a)(6).

6.303 and 6.304.

5.202(a)(1) for synopsis requirements.

10 U.S.C. 2304(c)(7) or 41 U.S.C. 3304(a)(7).

6.302 apply.

subpart 1.7, by—

6.302, the use of such actions in writing;

6.304.

6.303-2;

6.304; and

6.305.

6.302-7 shall only be made on an individual basis. Whenever a justification is made and approved on a class basis, the contracting officer must ensure that each contract action taken pursuant to the authority of the class justification and approval is within the scope of the class justification and approval and shall document the contract file for each contract action accordingly.

6.302-2 may be prepared and approved within a reasonable time after contract award when preparation and approval prior to award would unreasonably delay the acquisitions.

subpart 5.2 and, if not, which exception under 5.202 applies.

Part 10) and the results or a statement of the reason market research was not conducted.

6.302-1 is cited for follow-on acquisitions as described in 6.302-1(a)(2)(ii), an estimate of the cost to the Government that would be duplicated and how the estimate was derived.

6.302-2 is cited, data, estimated cost, or other rationale as to the extent and nature of the harm to the Government.

19.805-1).

6.303-2(b)(12) will serve as approval unless a higher approving level is established in agency procedures.

6.501 or an official described in paragraph (a)(3) or (a)(4) of this section. This authority is not delegable.

41 U.S.C. 1702(c) in accordance with agency procedures.This authority is not delegable except in the case of the Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition, Technology, and Logistics, acting as the senior procurement executive for the Department of Defense.

6.302-7, regardless of dollar amount, shall be considered approved when the determination required by 6.302-7(c)(1) is made.

10 U.S.C. 2304(l) and 41 U.S.C. 3304(f). Except for the circumstances in paragraphs (b) and (c) of this section, the justification shall be made publicly available within 14 days after contract award.

6.302-2, the justification shall be posted within 30 days after contract award.

6.302-1(c), the justification shall be posted with the solicitation (see 5.102(a)(6)).

www.fedbizopps.gov;

5 U.S.C. 552) and the prohibitions against disclosure in 24.202 in determining whether the justification, or portions of it, are exempt from posting. Although the submitter notice process set out in EO 12600, entitled “Predisclosure Notification Procedures for Confidential Commercial Information,” does not apply, if the justification appears to contain proprietary data, the contracting officer should provide the contractor that submitted the information an opportunity to review the justification for proprietary data, before making the justification available for public inspection, redacted as necessary. This process must not prevent or delay the posting of the justification in accordance with the timeframes required in paragraphs (a) through (c).

(f) The requirements of paragraphs (a) through (d) do not apply if posting the justification would disclose the executive agency’s needs and disclosure of such needs would compromise national security or create other security risks.

 

[entropy]

Salient points.

More likely, the reason Glock was a final contender was the fact the SF community has already been using their product, 'open sourced', in the sandbox already, along with some of SIG's product, namely the M11.

As for the choice of pistol, and changing issue pistols, I have personal experience; I was an Armorer during the changeover from the 1911 to the M9. While I literally cried when I had to send the 1911s in my Arms Room back, (especially the WWI- dated 1911), I soldiered on and maintained and supported the M9s, and trained our soldiers on them. The are some features on it I didn't like, but I wouldn't have felt undergunned taking one into combat. Nor a G19 or SIG 320 either. I will note I do not own a Glock (used to have a G21, but it was not 100% reliable with reloads), or M9, but I do own a 1911. Haven't shot a SIG 320 yet, so my opinion of them is tentative at this point. I will also note the pistol I recommend most for CCW is the G19. I've shot thousands of rounds throught them, and G17's, and when I finally do decide to go to the 9mm, it will probably be a G19.

 

[herrwalther]

And if only one company (the chosen company) met the spec, you don't see how that would drastically change the negotiating process for this program?

The modularity requirement was for soldiers with different hand sizes. Lots of companies do this on firearms. Walther, Glock, Sig. A few can do caliber conversions like Glock and Sig. You show more and more you do not understand how contract bidding works at the government level. If the Army says we want this, this, and this features. Company X meets all the specs while Company Y submits a stock model off the gun store shelf that doesn't, the Army isn't going to go with Y. I am not sure how I can explain this to you any clearer. Glock did not meet the requirements for the program so they lost.

 

[Solomonson]

More likely, the reason Glock was a final contender was the fact the SF community has already been using their product, 'open sourced', in the sandbox already, along with some of SIG's product, namely the M11...

That's a very interesting point. No one on this forum really knows what Glock offering was to the trial, given that its existing offerings really don't meet the modular handgun spec. Was Glock "included anyway" or did they brew something up for the trials?

If memory serves back in 1984-1985, Glock chose not to make a change to their offering (likely had to do with a safety) and it likely cost them the competition.

 

[Solomonson]

The modularity requirement was for soldiers with different hand sizes. Lots of companies do this on firearms. Walther, Glock, Sig. A few can do caliber conversions like Glock and Sig. You show more and more you do not understand how contract bidding works at the government level. If the Army says we want this, this, and this features. Company X meets all the specs while Company Y submits a stock model off the gun store shelf that doesn't, the Army isn't going to go with Y. I am not sure how I can explain this to you any clearer. Glock did not meet the requirements for the program so they lost.

You're just being rude now. Like many others have noted in this thread, the actual use of these modular options by the military will be limited.

It's ridiculous to demand a "modular system" that allows different calibers for instance. Pick a caliber already!

 

[Old Dog]

You're just being rude now. Like many others have noted in this thread, the actual use of these modular options by the military will be limited.

It's ridiculous to demand a "modular system" that allows different calibers for instance. Pick a caliber already!

Eh, I was so going to leave this silly thread alone, but it appears that there's a lot of butt-hurt extant by those who cannot let go of the Army's decision ... and presumably, most probably, likely zero people in this thread actually have a horse in this race other than their love for Glocks or distaste for SIG, otherwise, why all the fuss?

Nope, the guy wasn't just "being rude now." This statement:
"Like many others have noted in this thread, the actual use of these modular options by the military will be limited."

Sorry to say that's just projection and quite possibly wrong. It's all speculation by the "many others" (again, likely a number of folks no longer on active duty) that the military will not use the modular options. I kinda think they might, actually. It make sense to be able to change out a few pistols for different uses (and missions); giving the O's, senior NCO's, medics and a few others a full-size combat pistol for going outside the wire, on-base duty/watches or in garrison, a different pistol for aviators/aircrew, MPs and investigators ... Doesn't this make more sense than keeping a hodgepodge of assorted pistols, M9s, P-226s, M-11s, G19s and whatever, all requiring different parts, different magazines and different manual-of-arms?

Okay, I could be very wrong, but I'm just gonna go out on a limb here and say that maybe, for once, some portion of the military is going to doing something that indicates some common sense and might just in the long run, save some taxpayer dollars.

Love the way someone brings up "all the Glock-haters in this thread" when there's really been no "Glock-hate" displayed.

 

[danez71]

Eh, I was so going to leave this silly thread alone, but it appears that there's a lot of butt-hurt extant by those who cannot let go of the Army's decision ... and presumably, most probably, likely zero people in this thread actually have a horse in this race other than their love for Glocks or distaste for SIG, otherwise, why all the fuss?

Nope, the guy wasn't just "being rude now." This statement:
"Like many others have noted in this thread, the actual use of these modular options by the military will be limited."

Sorry to say that's just projection and quite possibly wrong. It's all speculation by the "many others" (again, likely a number of folks no longer on active duty) that the military will not use the modular options. I kinda think they might, actually. It make sense to be able to change out a few pistols for different uses (and missions); giving the O's, senior NCO's, medics and a few others a full-size combat pistol for going outside the wire, on-base duty/watches or in garrison, a different pistol for aviators/aircrew, MPs and investigators ... Doesn't this make more sense than keeping a hodgepodge of assorted pistols, M9s, P-226s, M-11s, G19s and whatever, all requiring different parts, different magazines and different manual-of-arms?

Okay, I could be very wrong, but I'm just gonna go out on a limb here and say that maybe, for once, some portion of the military is going to doing something that indicates some common sense and might just in the long run, save some taxpayer dollars.

Love the way someone brings up "all the Glock-haters in this thread" when there's really been no "Glock-hate" displayed.

Ohhhh,,, you mean implement the lessons learn from things like the HMMMWV and try to apply it?

http://www.military.com/equipment/high-mobility-multipurpose-wheeled-vehicle-hmmwv

Its 15 configurations (cargo/troop carriers, weapons carriers, ambulances and shelter carriers) share a common engine, chassis and transmission, with 44 interchangeable parts that are used in more than one position. That means fewer training hours are necessary for the mechanics who will maintain it. Its simplified supply, maintenance and logistics system — essentially one set of common parts for 15 configurations — means lower life-cycle costs which saves tax dollars.

 

[herrwalther]

It's ridiculous to demand a "modular system" that allows different calibers for instance. Pick a caliber already!

I'll agree with you on this point. I don't see how useful the caliber modularity will be in the Army. Ammo logistics is already a nightmare in most combat theaters with the standard 9mm, 5.56, 7.62, 40mm, and .50. Some in the operations community prefer other calibers such as 45 but not to the extent to use a modular caliber system to its full extent.