1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

Smith & Wesson protests Glock contract award...

Discussion in 'Handguns: Autoloaders' started by Slater, Nov 25, 2008.

  1. Slater

    Slater Well-Known Member

  2. mgregg85

    mgregg85 Well-Known Member

    S&W should have waited until obama got sworn in, after all he is putting a bunch of former clinton staffers in his regime. And S&W was buddying up with the Clintons eight years ago, maybe they could have called in a favor.:cool:
  3. tlen

    tlen Well-Known Member

    Nope, the politicians in GA just have more clout than those in MA.....:uhoh:
  4. Beagle-zebub

    Beagle-zebub Well-Known Member

    See, this is why I want to work for the GAO.
  5. gb6491

    gb6491 Well-Known Member

    This really wasn't a competition based on the merits of different pistols.:rolleyes:

    Smith and Wesson protested the sole-source purchase award to supply additional pistols to the Pakistan forces (in a make they had already purchased for themselves):
    "This procurement is to supply additional pistols for use by U.S. fighting forces in Pakistan, the Pakistan Army, and the Pakistan Army Special Service Group. The agency states that the Pakistanis use Glock pistols exclusively, the result of earlier direct commercial purchases and follow-on sole-source procurements.2 Response to Comments on the AR at 2. The pistols that are the subject of this protest are required for additional scheduled training exercises in early 2009. J&A at 2."

    The reason the Smith and Wesson dispute was denied actually makes sense:
    "We need not resolve this issue, because the protester does not dispute that the fighting forces use the Glock as their primary weapon and, for the reasons discussed below, we find the agency’s rationale in support of this weapon standardization reasonable....It is undisputed that the parties using these weapons do so under extremely hazardous and unstable conditions. Under these circumstances, we conclude that the benefits to the fighting forces cited in the J&A from procuring the same pistol currently in use, such as avoiding the need for retraining on a different model or the need to stockpile spare parts for different models, are sufficient to support the agency’s decision to procure the pistols on a sole-source basis.
    The protest is denied."

    I think that, by filing the protest in the first place, S&W may have "won" themselves a chance at a contract further down the line:
    "The original protest challenged TACOM’s intent to award on a sole-source basis, under the foreign military sales (FMS) program, contracts for the purchase of Glock pistols for security forces in Thailand and Pakistan. The agency stated in its report that it was deleting the Thailand requirement and amending the solicitation to reflect that the pistols for Pakistan were being procured on a sole-source basis not through an FMS but with Department of Defense funds"

  6. Slater

    Slater Well-Known Member

    True, but S&W didn't file a protest because they had nothing better to do that day. If they had overturned the award, their gun may (in their view) have had a shot at the award.
  7. gb6491

    gb6491 Well-Known Member

    I think you are correct. That Thailand was dropped from this purchase contract (after S&W filed their protest) means there is a chance that Thai troops might be carrying M&Ps in the future.:)
  8. Beagle-zebub

    Beagle-zebub Well-Known Member

    S&W already won the contract to supply the Afghan National Police, correct?

Share This Page