SIG Talk banner

Glock files protest against Army's decision

3300 Views 36 Replies 16 Participants Last post by  Doug570
Glock files suit over Army's pick of Sig's P320 .. Rumors have it that
Glock may have a modular pistol no one has seen ??

So does Glock have a mystery gun ??


Shootout over the Army's new $580 million handgun
1 - 20 of 37 Posts

· 🎖USAF Veteran
Joined
·
1,202 Posts
Interesting way of doing business. Shoot your best shot and if you lose, sue.
 
  • Like
Reactions: ramnj

· Registered
Joined
·
913 Posts
Discussion Starter · #4 ·
Interesting way of doing business. Shoot your best shot and if you lose, sue.
Seems that's the way of doing business any more !!

The idea of a modular Glock is interesting in will other companies also come out in the near future with there own modular pistol ?? like Beretta, S&W and Ruger and others ??
 

· 🎖USAF Retired
Joined
·
561 Posts
In the past contractors (in DOD parlance) would rarely protest an acquisition award because they didn't want it held against them for the next contact. However, these days there are so few big contracts that can't afford to not take that shot (so to speak). Plus, the DOD has a recent history of not following the published "scoring" criteria when awarding contracts and a significant number of big contracts have been overturned by the GAO. Block would be crazy not to protest. May not win, but crazy nonetheless...
 

· Banned
Joined
·
5,101 Posts
Last go around Sig sued Beretta and won money all is fair. Thats why they won this time.
I think you're right, but I can't prove it. ^_^
 

· 🎖USAF Retired
Joined
·
561 Posts
Last go around Sig sued Beretta and won money all is fair. Thats why they won this time.
Absolutely not why...
 

· Banned
Joined
·
5,101 Posts

· 🎖USA Veteran
Joined
·
10,709 Posts
Glock files suit over Army's pick of Sig's P320 ..
The article says that Glock filled a "PROTEST", not a "SUIT". There's a big difference. Used to joke that all it took was a postage stamp to file a protest, now it can be emailed and soon it can all be done on line.

Last go around Sig sued Beretta and won money all is fair.
SIG sued Berreta?! Says who?
 

· Registered
Joined
·
1,169 Posts
SIG-Sauer did not sue Beretta. Both the SIG P226 and the Beretta 92 FS were considered to have passed the 1983-84 XM9 pistol trials. The Beretta was selected because Beretta underbid SIG on the entire contract package.

It was Smith and Wesson, whose entry had failed the XM9 trials, that objected to Congress resulting in the XM10 trials in 1988 in which Beretta was again the winner.
 

· Registered
Joined
·
5,502 Posts
SIG-Sauer did not sue Beretta. Both the SIG P226 and the Beretta 92 FS were considered to have passed the 1983-84 XM9 pistol trials. The Beretta was selected because Beretta underbid SIG on the entire contract package.

It was Smith and Wesson, whose entry had failed the XM9 trials, that objected to Congress resulting in the XM10 trials in 1988 in which Beretta was again the winner.
https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct...8mab4HXe46oaPEG4Q&sig2=XiBXUAaCVdx3JUQgWyUTFg
 

· 🎖USAF Veteran
Joined
·
1,979 Posts

Attachments

· 🎖USAF Retired
Joined
·
561 Posts
Can you provide definitive proof?
20 years in the DOD acquisition business; qualified, experienced (and now retired) Program Manager, one of which was a $300M F-16 modification program. Participated in multiple source selections (i.e. picking a winner from an open competition).

That said, winners must be selected from published grading criteria (most upheld protests are because the winner was selected for reason other than those specified when the solicitation was issued). I can't imagine a single contracts lawyer or contracting officer that would approve criteria that said you must have sued a previous winner. Can't happen. Wouldn't have happened. Won't ever happen.
 

· Banned
Joined
·
5,101 Posts
20 years in the DOD acquisition business; qualified, experienced (and now retired) Program Manager, one of which was a $300M F-16 modification program. Participated in multiple source selections (i.e. picking a winner from an open competition).

That said, winners must be selected from published grading criteria (most upheld protests are because the winner was selected for reason other than those specified when the solicitation was issued). I can't imagine a single contracts lawyer or contracting officer that would approve criteria that said you must have sued a previous winner. Can't happen. Wouldn't have happened. Won't ever happen.
No, do you have definitive proof on this particular situation? I was intelligence for many years, and I held the highest clearance one can possibly hold, and participated directly is some actual campaigns, but that doesn't mean I hold information on every situation in the intel community. I understand you're a knowledgable individual wrt how the whole process is supposed to work, and I take you at your word on the integrity of the system with which you were involved; however, does that mean you know everything about how every deal went down? Doubtful. You have knowledge of how the system works, not every exact deal. Now, it could be that everything about this acquisition is by the book, but surely you would have to admit, even if only to yourself, that the possibility for corruption exists.
 

· 🎖USAF Retired
Joined
·
561 Posts
Believe what you want, but it didn't happen that way. Absolutely cannot.

Some things you just know. I haven't seen every person that fell into the Grand Canyon (or anyone for that matter), but I'm pretty sure everyone that did died.
 

· Banned
Joined
·
5,101 Posts
Believe what you want, but it didn't happen that way. Absolutely cannot.

Some things you just know. I haven't seen every person that fell into the Grand Canyon (or anyone for that matter), but I'm pretty sure everyone that did died.
I think your comparison of the Grand Canyon to a system that has a reputation for corruption is lacking, but OK. I'll let you have it. It's really not all that deep.
 

· 🎖USAF Retired
Joined
·
561 Posts
I think your comparison of the Grand Canyon to a system that has a reputation for corruption is lacking, but OK. I'll let you have it. It's really not all that deep.
I resent the reference to corruption. That went away decades ago.

Problem is the cure is as bad as the disease...to prevent corruption, folks aren't allowed to remain in a program position that long. Result is often inexperience and lack of training (something they are trying to change now). Some fast movers are placed in a high visibility acquisition job to advance them, but the program suffers.

The other problem is that the law, policies, and regulations emphasize fairness of the process at the expense of the best product (also a way to combat corruption by inserting full transparency into the process). So a product that is far better often loses to an offering that barely meets the minimum, but as they say "if minimum wasn't good enough it wouldn't be the minimum".
 
1 - 20 of 37 Posts
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Top