Quote:
|
Originally Posted by http://militarytimes.com/blogs/gears...icit-new-bids/
Look to the amended solicitation to clarify how parties must take into account the licensing payments due Colt that date back to the 1997 M4 Addendum.
|
Seems from the article that the licensing payments are part of, if not one of the main issues. Will be interesting to see how the next round goes...
Frankly I dont see that huge of an issue with going back through the process, because I am sure that the company who has the rights to a design will seek to be paid for the use of those rights if another company underbids their cost. Doesnt matter if its Colt, Remington, or the New Age Widget Company.
Edit to add:
Just in case others are curious, the royalty is 5%, see source below.
Link:
http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/...etition-06942/
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/Colt-M4-Data-Rights-The-Individual-Carbine-Competition-06942/
Those terms also state that the US Army would have to pay 5% in royalties to Colt, for every M4/M4A1 carbine and/or their unique parts procured from second sources, for another 26 years – through Dec 24/37.
|