"Having worked in the federal gov't, and now for a state, I always cringe a little when I hear people authoritatively say things such as:
Quote:
not only does function play a roll in the selection process, but so does LOWEST BID. "
Cringe if you like, but there's often more than a bit of truth to it. When I was in the USAF I worked in contracting and saw where "lowest bid" often played a role in almost every contract I worked.
I was in charge of R&D (state level LE agency) when we went to Glock. We did testing of 15 different makes and models over a period of about 18 months. The top 3 in our testing, in order, were SIG, S&W, and Glock. Bids were then received from those companies for 2500 guns, holsters, and 750 rds per person transition training ammo with our S&W 5904/6904 in on trade. Glock came in at a few dollars over $1/4 mil. S&W was a bit over $1/2 mil. SIG was a bit over $1 mil. Even tho Glock was # 3 in our tests, "lowest bid" played the deciding role in the selection process and it was the lowest priced gun that met operational requirements.
BTW, all companies will play the game when trying to get a contract. S&W did it for years. We were issued S&W autos for 32 yrs. S&W came thru was some very competitive bids when we transitioned to newer guns. Usually than involved even swap old guns for new at little or no cost. When I was involved in our transition to Glock a local PD of about 300 officers put bids to replace their aging 6906s. SIG had just come out with the 357 SIG round and it was just laying there. SIG made the PD a heck of an offer. For the PD's old guns SIG would give the PD new SIGs in 357, all new leather, training ammo, and duty ammo, and a promise that if the 357 round didn't pick up after 2 yrs then SIG would replace the guns with .40s at no cost.
As an aside, 21 of the 49 SP/HP agencies are currently issuing Glock. 18 are issuing SIGs. S&W, Beretta, and H&K make up the other 10 states.
Whether it be guns, squad cars, uniforms, radios, whatever, "lowest priced that met all operational requirements" is the deciding factor. In fact, not taking lowest price that meets all operational requirements can get an administrator time in front of a grand jury, legislative/congressional committee, or the feds explaining why lowest bid wasn't accepted even tho the bidder met all operational requirements. There are procurement laws that have to be complied with. Having been closely involved in procurement processes for both the military and a state agency there's no way on earth I was going to approve a purchase of anything, big or small, where a lowest bid wasn't accepted and the bidder met the requirements. People go to jail for violating state and federal procurement laws.
