Glock Officially Lodges Protest of the Army Choosing Sigs
- Thread starter tipoc
- Start date
I don’t know how weapon solicitations work, but I bid on multi-million dollar US Government contracts for synthetic jet engine oils for 20 years and found the people and procedures to be absolutely fair and unbiased, that is they faithfully followed the rules. As for the rules being fair and unbiased, that is a different story.
The only protest I ever saw was one that I filed when a large oil company conspired with a small business to win the small business set-aside portion of a contract. The small business then conspired with a "disadvantaged" business to get a 10% bid advantage. Since the definition of a disadvantaged business hinged on the country where the owner was born, I filed based on the fact that the product was actually manufactured by a large business, and the disadvantaged business criteria was discriminatory.
The DLA investigated and ruled against me on the grounds that the rules were followed, even though the rules were flawed, so I appealed to the GAO. They agreed with the DLA, so I filed suit in Federal court. The judge bit on the discrimination aspect and, being an election year, the DOJ immediately wanted to settle. Net result is I was awarded the contract, the competitor was disqualified, and the rules for disadvantaged businesses were changed.
So such challenges can be won if they are legitimate. If Glock has material grounds based on procedures or bias they may have a bona-fide case, although they may have to bump it outside of the military system. If it is just sour grapes it will be disposed of in fairly short order.
The only protest I ever saw was one that I filed when a large oil company conspired with a small business to win the small business set-aside portion of a contract. The small business then conspired with a "disadvantaged" business to get a 10% bid advantage. Since the definition of a disadvantaged business hinged on the country where the owner was born, I filed based on the fact that the product was actually manufactured by a large business, and the disadvantaged business criteria was discriminatory.
The DLA investigated and ruled against me on the grounds that the rules were followed, even though the rules were flawed, so I appealed to the GAO. They agreed with the DLA, so I filed suit in Federal court. The judge bit on the discrimination aspect and, being an election year, the DOJ immediately wanted to settle. Net result is I was awarded the contract, the competitor was disqualified, and the rules for disadvantaged businesses were changed.
So such challenges can be won if they are legitimate. If Glock has material grounds based on procedures or bias they may have a bona-fide case, although they may have to bump it outside of the military system. If it is just sour grapes it will be disposed of in fairly short order.
Last edited:
Exactly. At this point, Glock has to prove or demonstrate that the government didn't follow it's stated rules regarding how it was going to select the winning handgun / company, dumb as those rules may or may not be at this point in time
. Only time will tell, but as you said, if Glock has a case it may take up to 90 days to resolve (from the date the protest was received by GAO).So we may be waiting around for a while.
john in jax
New member
Over two decades ago Gaston Glock engineered an elegantly simple, no frills, and extremely reliable service pistol. That pistol design has served individuals and law enforcement well for many years.
I am not about to let corporate lawyers making business decisions that have nothing to do with the design, function or performance of the platform influence my oppinion of that pistol.
Everyone is free to vote with their wallet, but this is just business/politics and nothing new.
I am not about to let corporate lawyers making business decisions that have nothing to do with the design, function or performance of the platform influence my oppinion of that pistol.
Everyone is free to vote with their wallet, but this is just business/politics and nothing new.
FairWarning
New member
I am confident that Glock's tantrum won't change the end result.....
Overkill777
New member
It's not a tantrum, I guess you didn't read the rest of the posts.
johnwilliamson062
Moderator
Having read the post, it seems baseless and not that far from a tantrum to me.
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.
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
Administrator
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 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-protest-service-pistol-award-wont-halt-sigs-contract-going-forward/
tipoc
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-protest-service-pistol-award-wont-halt-sigs-contract-going-forward/
tipoc
Glockgreat23
New member
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