Glock Officially Lodges Protest of the Army Choosing Sigs - Page 2

FairWarning · March 8, 2017, 10:55 PM

I am confident that Glock's tantrum won't change the end result.....

Overkill777 · March 9, 2017, 06:36 AM

It's not a tantrum, I guess you didn't read the rest of the posts.

johnwilliamson062 · March 9, 2017, 08:26 PM

Quote:

It's not a tantrum, I guess you didn't read the rest of the posts.

Having read the post, it seems baseless and not that far from a tantrum to me.

**JohnKSa** · March 10, 2017, 01:13 AM

Well, from a commercial standpoint, there's essentially nothing to lose and potentially a lot to gain.

So it's not baseless.

I can't say exactly why Glock protested this result, but I imagine it's similar to the reasons that S&W, SACO (now SIG Sauer) and H&K protested the M9 competition.

**Spats McGee** · March 10, 2017, 07:11 AM

IIRC, this contract is worth something like $580M over 10 years. If my client complained to me that it had lost a contract that size, I'd absolutely want to do some heavy-duty review of the process. I'd guess that Glock made a risk-reward analysis and simply opted to risk legal fees against the prospect of getting the contract. Given the size of the contract, I can't say it's a bad move.

tipoc · March 10, 2017, 12:12 PM

I hadn't come across this before. According to this report Sig can go ahead with it's fulfillment of the contract, meaning that it can begin to send the guns and gear to the Army. The earliest reports had stated that Glock's protest had put a hold on the fulfillment. The reason they state that Sig can go ahead is that Glock missed a deadline.

Seems that the Army held a debriefing with Glock, Sig and others telling them of their choice on Feb. 17th this year. Any protests of that had to be filed within 10 days to receive attention. But within 5 days to stop the work of supplying the Army with the product. Glock took 7 days to turn in the protest. This means that the protest is still valid but that it was not submitted within the 5 day time frame to stop Sig from beginning to fill the order.

http://taskandpurpose.com/glocks-pro...going-forward/

tipoc

Glockgreat23 · March 18, 2017, 12:21 PM

A a contracting officcer myself, all I can say is good luck. These kind of procurements get loads of attention and it's rare mistakes are made with the process

Boncrayon · March 18, 2017, 04:13 PM

It's all about the Marketing of the manufacturers and the money in the pockets who carry the preference into the final decision! Marketing and (who's) pocket preferences make the ultimate "deal!" This is the Pentagon we are reffering to, isn't it?

March 8, 2017, 10:55 PM	#26
FairWarning Senior Member Join Date: September 9, 2008 Location: GA Posts: 1,149	I am confident that Glock's tantrum won't change the end result..... __________________ Mauser Werke, Schmidt-Rubin, Colt, Walther, HK, Weatherby, Sig Sauer, Browning, Ruger, Beretta, etc, etc....a few friends of mine

March 10, 2017, 01:13 AM	#29
JohnKSa Staff Join Date: February 12, 2001 Location: DFW Area Posts: 24,993	Well, from a commercial standpoint, there's essentially nothing to lose and potentially a lot to gain. So it's not baseless. I can't say exactly why Glock protested this result, but I imagine it's similar to the reasons that S&W, SACO (now SIG Sauer) and H&K protested the M9 competition. __________________ Do you know about the TEXAS State Rifle Association?

March 10, 2017, 07:11 AM	#30
Spats McGee Staff Join Date: July 28, 2010 Location: Arkansas Posts: 8,821	IIRC, this contract is worth something like $580M over 10 years. If my client complained to me that it had lost a contract that size, I'd absolutely want to do some heavy-duty review of the process. I'd guess that Glock made a risk-reward analysis and simply opted to risk legal fees against the prospect of getting the contract. Given the size of the contract, I can't say it's a bad move. __________________ I'm a lawyer, but I'm not your lawyer. If you need some honest-to-goodness legal advice, go buy some.

March 18, 2017, 04:13 PM	#33
Boncrayon Senior Member Join Date: March 24, 2008 Posts: 920	Glock Officially Lodges Protest of the Army Choosing Sigs It's all about the Marketing of the manufacturers and the money in the pockets who carry the preference into the final decision! Marketing and (who's) pocket preferences make the ultimate "deal!" This is the Pentagon we are reffering to, isn't it?

March 9, 2017, 06:36 AM	#27
Overkill777 Senior Member Join Date: January 4, 2015 Posts: 267	It's not a tantrum, I guess you didn't read the rest of the posts.

March 10, 2017, 12:12 PM	#31
tipoc Senior Member Join Date: December 11, 2004 Location: Redwood City, Ca. Posts: 4,114	I hadn't come across this before. According to this report Sig can go ahead with it's fulfillment of the contract, meaning that it can begin to send the guns and gear to the Army. The earliest reports had stated that Glock's protest had put a hold on the fulfillment. The reason they state that Sig can go ahead is that Glock missed a deadline. Seems that the Army held a debriefing with Glock, Sig and others telling them of their choice on Feb. 17th this year. Any protests of that had to be filed within 10 days to receive attention. But within 5 days to stop the work of supplying the Army with the product. Glock took 7 days to turn in the protest. This means that the protest is still valid but that it was not submitted within the 5 day time frame to stop Sig from beginning to fill the order. http://taskandpurpose.com/glocks-pro...going-forward/ tipoc

March 18, 2017, 12:21 PM	#32
Glockgreat23 Member Join Date: January 2, 2016 Posts: 89	A a contracting officcer myself, all I can say is good luck. These kind of procurements get loads of attention and it's rare mistakes are made with the process