"First of all, it didn't exactly come down solely to money. The SACO entry actually failed part of the performance testing and was allowed to proceed to the bid portion anyway to allow there to be at least two competitive bids. I think it would be hard to argue that fact played no part at all in the final selection process".(JohnKSA). Do you have any evidence (and verifiable source) to back your statement up that the performance failure factored in to the contract being awarded to Beretta? Or is this an opinion?
According to the Armed Forces History Website... "After cost analysis, the contract was awarded to Beretta. Though the P226 had a lower cost per pistol, its magazine and spare parts package price was higher than that of the Beretta." It stated "after cost analysis". No mention was made pertaining to the performance testing failure on SACO's part factoring in the decision. Do you have evidence that proves otherwise?
So you have said repeatedly that politics were not involved "The package price Beretta provided was lower than SIG and so Beretta won. Where are the politics in that?" (JohnKSA). Any verifiable evidence to back up your original statement that politics were NOT involved, as you appear to have doubts yourself as you also stated... "I'm not saying that there were absolutely no "politics" involved because when humans are involved, it's hard to strictly exclude other issues,"(JohKSA). ??? So which is it? I thought we agreed on this point?
Last edited by shurshot; November 25, 2012 at 04:59 PM.