Sir, once again, I was NOT referring to the testing part of the selection process, only the final decision, which, after being narrowed down to the Beretta and the Sig, came down to MONEY.
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.
But let's say we simplify things, and for the sake of argument accept that it really did come down to MONEY.
The price difference per pistol was about $2 and ended up favoring SACO by about $686K. Parts favored Beretta, but by a smaller amount giving Beretta a $391K advantage in that category. At that point, the SIG package (pistols and parts) was cheaper than Beretta's bid by $295K. Remember that the total price for the complete package was over $70 million, so this is really a small percentage of the total--less than half a percentage point difference in favor of SACO.
BUT, the bid was for the entire package
. Pistols, parts and magazines
, NOT just for pistols or just pistols and parts. The Beretta magazine bid was over $ 3.3 MILLION less than the SACO magazine bid, and that changed things significantly.
The Beretta bid was, when you total it up, over $3 million lower than the SACO bid. The package price Beretta provided was lower than SIG and so Beretta won. Where are the politics in that?
the selection process comes down to COST ANALYSIS as the deciding factor between two great weapons, and there are MILLIONS & MILLIONS $$$ involved... politics DO indeed play a HUGE part in the outcome.
No, that's exactly how price competitions are supposed to work, and if you do some research on the topic, you'll be able to verify that fact. Once the fitness of the competing products are established, the lowest bidder wins.
That's exactly what happened in this case--the lowest bidder won. And an independent investigation concluded that there was no evidence to support allegations that the pricing competition was conducted unfairly.
I still don't understand what you think provides evidence that politics played a huge part in the selection process.
Products were tested--even you have stated that you don't believe that the results were falsified. So that eliminates all but 2 of the 8 competitors without politics being involved.
Two bids were submitted in accordance with standard government procedures and the lowest bid won. That is precisely how the process is supposed to work. Again, it's hard to see where there's room for politics to play "a huge part".
So, what evidence do you have to support your contention that the pricing competition was hugely affected by politics? If you have anything concrete, you're doing better than the U.S. General Accounting Office--they couldn't find anything that suggested anything other than a typical bid process with the low bidder winning. Just as it should be.