I note that the SOW refers to the "TRL-1" light. Do they mean the TLR-1?
I note that the SOW refers to the "TRL-1" light. Do they mean the TLR-1?
Exactly.Originally Posted by joshs
The basis would be an inability to justify the requirement in a fair & reasonable way. Again it's moot because all of the potential players have SFA pistols and none are probably willing to risk protesting just to get more models in the game. In '04, ICE rejected SIG's 357 models saying that the chambers didn't meet SAAMI spec. SIG chose not to protest because the number of 357s expected to be purchased was incredibly small and no one wanted to annoy anyone in a decision-making role at ICE by challenging them.
FWIW, it turned out that ICE was using incorrect gauges and -- big surprise -- SIG did in fact know how to produce SAAMI-spec 357 SIG pistols. Because: invented here.
I dunno. Above my pay grade. I'd ask on what grounds though. If I'm the customer and want a pistol that meets "X" specs, its up to you to present me a pistol that matches "X" specs if you want to play. My department is 1600+ full time officers and I don't think we're under any obligation to test every platform someone wants to submit.
Your department isn't subject to CICA.
Last edited by joshs; 04-02-2015 at 09:54 PM. Reason: Spelling is hard.
Gotcha. That makes sense.
In (my former) world of DoD procurement, working on Systems to Deliver Stuff That Goes Boom, what I've sometimes seen is that the Procuring Agency/Contracts Officer already knows "what they want" and they pretty much tailor the Development Specification (or, Statement of Work, in this case) to simply justify that decision.
Can't say I blame DHS, it seems they know what they want.
Based on the inputs from the SMEs here, it does appear that they've done that, based on a reasonable approach (the SFA reducing through-life cost and increasing Operational Availability vis a vis lower maintenance costs vs. TDA, as well as a simpler manual of arms to reach a broader target user demographic/wider anthropometric standard.)
I've been asked to help more than one agency do exactly that. If you know enough about all the options on the market, it's not that hard to do. The point I always make is that choosing something in advance and tailoring a procurement around it rather than actually striving to get the best gun is not just disingenuous, it's potentially illegal (in the federal system anyway) and more importantly it ignores the point of getting a new handgun, which should be maximizing the safety and survival of the agents/officers for whom it is being procured.
For example, many agencies have blocked Glock simply by saying the gun needs to be capable of disassembly without making contact with the trigger. That's easy to justify on paper. Whether the motivation was (a) safety or (b) "FU, Glock!" is another matter.
Actually we ordered 140 Glock 22 gen 4s at FEMA with support gear and 28 Glock 23 gen4s Glocks came in with night sights and 5 magazines @$320
Here’s the latest with the ICE pistol submission.
https://www.fbo.gov/index?s=opportun...=core&_cview=0
Why even bother?? Every time one of their guys uses a gun he gets tossed under the bus.
Any prominent cases that you're referring to?
#RESIST
Reply With Quote