Anyone here familiar with the company? Used their products? Our City Office of Contract Administration just rejected our "No Substitution" bid for the less lethal round we've used for 15 years (CTS 2581 Supersock), because they didn't feel we adequately justified "no substitute". They're putting the contract out to bid, and they told me this is a 'like product'. Don't know if this is what we'll get, but I've never heard of the company. Anyone use it? Opinions? Feel free to PM me if necessary.
Wow. Not a single reply in 24 hours. Was afraid of that. How about this....who is currently using 12ga based less lethal munitions, and what are you using? This is the only universally deployed standoff less lethal tool we have, since we do not and likely never will have tasers. Not ideal, I know....too great a chance of mistakenly loading lethal ammo, and frankly they don't work that well. But it's all we have.
We use the Defense Technology (Safariland owned) drag stabilized bean bag rounds (model 3027) for 12g less lethal. Although we regularly train on them, most actual deployments have been on non-human targets- primarily window breaking. Manufacturer’s recommended minimum distance for humans is significant- 20ft.
I think CTS supersock is an authorized substitute for bidding purposes.
Anything I post is my opinion alone as a private citizen.
We used the DefTec product years ago. Only real reason we went to the CTS 2581 was the 15 foot minimum safe distance they list in their literature. Now we are in the position of having purchasing and equipment selection made for us by a bunch of millennial accountants working for the city. Did the same with our pistol ammo. FBI BRF test results? Our own test results? Reliability in our weapons? Quality control issues? Ability of the manufacturer to meet high volume orders? Nope, nope and nope. Irrelevant to them. They'll find something "just as good" for cheaper.
I know this is a LE forum post, but as a civilian the very first thought I had would be the liability if someone were injured and their lawyers made a claim that the city tried to cut corners and save money at the expense of switching to subpar, cheaper ammo.Originally Posted by AMC
They do not think that way. They believe their fiduciary responsibility is met by "saving money". Risk Management is another game entirely, but even there, it's playing the odds. And something folks outside of government just don't grasp is that the folks who make these kinds of bad decisions will never ever be held responsible if something goes wrong. The responsibility chain will start with the poor cop stuck with the equipment and end with the taxpayers. And that's reality.
Last edited by AMC; 10-20-2018 at 12:16 PM.
We’ve used CTS in the past and we’re currently using the Safariland/DefTec socks. I’ve never heard of Accusox. Who in your Contract Administration has a friend/relative involved with that company? Cynical I know but I always wonder how purchasing comes up with the low bid fly by night companies.
Just a dog chauffeur that used to hold the dumb end of the leash.
The guys with OCA actually sideways accused me of that, asking why only one approved vendor for CTS was listed on the purchase request....implied maybe my buddy owned the company. Had to point out they were the only licensed vendor of the product in our state.
This is partly due to Penny pincher mindset, and I'm now realizing possibly a hostility to LE on the part of some city government folks. They kept asking for changes, for additional information, for more justification, examples, etc.....then just said "no" when I complied with all their requests. Clear they were never gonna say yes to begin with.
Last edited by AMC; 10-20-2018 at 04:59 PM.
We had one sole source CTS vendor. They were the only game in town for CTS IN Arizona.
Just a dog chauffeur that used to hold the dumb end of the leash.
Reply With Quote