However, if the GAO finds that the Army failed to follow their formal proposal evaluation process in an area that directly impacted the competitor ratings.....Glock could force a second evaluation of all bidders (even if Sig was the best value offer).
Why do they keep mentioning a "stainless steel frame" in these articles?
"And while the weapon can be adapted to shoot 9mm, .357 SIG and .40 S&W ammunition, the Army is opting to stick with the 9mm."
Yep - that's pretty much SOP with any large $$$ DoD contract.
Correct. It is pretty much guaranteed that one of the losing bidders will file formal complaint. What this does is force into the open the decision making process and how they came about the award. Glock may or may not have been the lowest bidder. That usually is not the reason. I've had protests filed against awards/companies I represented. And the contracting office in this case the army will have to publicly declare why they gave Sig the award. The RFQ was seemingly written to basically eliminate all others from get go to begin with which is another thing I've encountered in these types of things. Without naming it the RFQ will be written to such perfection that only one companies product will fill the bill. I myself am interested in hearing why Sig beat Glock. I don't think it was due to reliability of one over the other or price. Some have said it was because the Glock has finger grooves which was an eliminator. But the new Gen5 FBI model Glocks do not have finger grooves. It will be interesting to see the real reason behind the award.However, if the GAO finds that the Army failed to follow their formal proposal evaluation process in an area that directly impacted the competitor ratings.....Glock could force a second evaluation of all bidders (even if Sig was the best value offer).
It's interesting to note that the GAO review would never establish that a more competitive bidder should win the award (in this case, possibly Glock).....just that if the Army failed to follow their documented evaluation process, then a new evaluation may be warranted.
Maybe, but a lot of contracts have been overturned through protests so don't assume this is "pro forma". The usual cause for upholding a protest is because the source selection authority did not follow the criteria precisely as laid out in the Request for Proposal. Hopefully the long drawn-out selection was because they were carefully following the process.
I bought my 320 because I liked its feel in my hand and the trigger is quite good.Who cares? Makes exactly 0 difference to 99% of us anyways
Legal and appeal "preparation" fees can bee quite large. I agree with you it's a common practice. Wonder if the "rules" will change under the new administrationNope it's a business and they lost out on what is probably the last big handgun contract. The DOD appeals process does not punish for filing frivolous appeals so it's good business to go for it; worst that can happen is, well nothing. They still lose. That's it.
Cost benefit analysis. There are a number of reasons ranging from cost to performance to capacity. The fact is the pistol is a secondary weapon, which the majority of soldiers aren't even issued at this point. The 9mm is more than adequate for the role it is pressed into. It is less expensive, lighter, able to afford more rounds, which keeps you in the fight, and they already have a huge stock pile of it in inventory. Changing calibers just doesn't make sense as it would be terribly cost prohibitive without offering any discernible advantage, at all."And while the weapon can be adapted to shoot 9mm, .357 SIG and .40 S&W ammunition, the Army is opting to stick with the 9mm."
Comments/Thoughts on the commitment to 9mm for the army?