US: GAO says no to Sigs

[m24]

Source: From Say Uncle to GSN

The GAO has thrown out a protest from handgun manufacturer, Sig Sauer, Inc., which has supplied the .40 caliber handguns currently used by agents of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF), after that agency eliminated Sig Sauer from the most recent procurement competition to supply new handguns to the ATF.

Three gun manufacturers, Sig Sauer, of Exeter, NH; Smith & Wesson Corp., of Springfield, MA; and Glock, Inc., of Smyrna, GA, competed for a contract to supply the ATF with a new “handgun system,” which would consist of two separate weapons of identical function and design, said the GAO, “a standard-size duty weapon for enforcement operations and a compact model for backup and auxiliary needs.”

During phase two of a three-phased evaluation process, the ATF asked 20 of its agents to put all three proposed handguns through identical “live-fire” tests.

“Based on the results of the shooting tests, the [source selection board] recommended to the contracting officer that Sig Sauer’s handgun be excluded from further consideration as unacceptable with respect to reliability,” said the GAO, in a decision document released on August 18. ATF agents had recorded 58 stoppages with Sig Sauer’s full-size and compact pistols, 13 of which were considered to be gun-induced and 45 shooter-induced.

Sig Sauer raised a variety of objections to the manner in which ATF considered various criteria during the evaluation process, but the GAO didn’t buy the company’s arguments.

“In sum, the record shows that ATF reasonably evaluated the firms’ proposals in accordance with the solicitation’s evaluation criteria and concluded Sig Sauer’s offer was not one of the ‘most suitable for performance to the Government’ to continue to phase III,” said the GAO, in a protest denial signed by Acting General Counsel Lynn Gibson.

The decision document did not make clear if the ATF has issued a procurement contract yet to either Smith & Wesson or Glock.

Sig Sauer is an ISO 9001 certified company with over 380 employees. It is the largest member of a worldwide business group of firearms manufacturers that includes J.P. Sauer & Sohn and Blaser, Gmbh. in Germany and Swiss Arms AG in Switzerland.

Regards

[xl_target]

There have been numerous complaints on SIGforum about the quality control of handguns coming out of Exeter, New Hampshire. Finish problems, function problems, etc. seem to bedevil the US branch of this venerable firm. The preference is for German made SIG's. You can tell a German made SIG by the triple serial numbers (frame, barrel and slide) and the proof marks. Both of my SIG's are made in Germany and function flawlessly. SIG made its reputation for reliability on the alloy framed, folded carbon steel slide P-series pistols.

I'm not sure which pistols they tested but it might have included SIG's newer polymer framed P250 which has had a lot of teething problems. If ATF tested the P226 and P229, both of which have been in production for a while, then heads should roll. If Exeter can screw up a tried and true design, then their handguns deserve to be eliminated.

Smith & Wesson's M&P series of pistols have proved to be very popular and are selling very well.

[xl_target]

It looks like they were testing only Polymer guns and the P250 is the SIG that they tested.

Here is the actual decision issued by the GAO. In typipcal government fashion, it is somewhat vague and doesn't give many specifics. (i.e. what kind of malfunctions, how do they define a shooter induced malfunction, etc.)
http://www.gao.gov/decisions/bidpro/4023393.htm
Regardless, it appears that ATF had a significant number of malfunctions with the SIG P250 and (and correctly so, IMO) decided that the gun was unsuitable for use by their service.

I am a huge SIG fan but have never fired a Polymer framed SIG. All my experience has been with metal framed SIG's. The earlier 2340, 2009 and 2002 polymer framed SIG's are, from what I have heard, on par with the metal framed SIG's as far as ergonomics, reliability and accuracy are concerned. The newer P250, however, has had numerous complaints made about it on the various gun forums.

If anyone is interested, here is some more info on this topic:
http://thehighroad.us/showthread.php?t=420030

[timmy]

Just looking over this subject, I can speak to these sorts of product selection processes from a past life's experiences. Besides the straightforward writing of requirements and the straightforward meeting of requirements, there's a whole lot more that goes into the product selection process than simple rating and grading.

As has been pointed out, politics on both the buyer's and suppliers' sides commonly enter into these sorts of things.

My own experience is that when large contracts involving considerable sums is that the vendors will often play all sorts of tricks to ensure a favorable response. Vendors of respectably sized companies have a host of sales people who have the job of influencing decision-makers on golf courses, bars, and even less savory establishments. They also freely part with all sorts of knick-knacks, gifts that will put their company's products in a good light.

When their product is not selected, they can squawk like stuck pigs and raise a ruckus, often with vice presidents or someone else who will delve into the processes of their minions and ask, "Why?"

I have had to give readouts to unselected, disgruntled vendors, and it can often be a rough experience when they have an "in" to go over one's head to a muckety-muck -- you know, a babu.

On the other side of the coin, a buyer may not want to do business with a certain vendor for one reason or another, and that is dealt with by putting requirements into the RFP (Request for Proposal) that it is known that the unwanted vendor's products will have trouble meeting. For instance, perhaps the buyer isn't happy with the delivery times promised on past shipments, or maybe servicing concerns were not met. Sometimes, there can be uncomfortable feelings about a vendor company's management or corporate direction. In such cases (and others), it isn't particularly hard, if one actually knows what products will be submitted, to set up a matrix of weighted benchamrks that will ensure disqualification of a specific vendor or vendors -- and such results are very hard to overturn, unless, of course, the vendor has recourse to a babu.

Governmental contracts can be stringent with lots of oversight and politicians looking over shoulders, but no process is free from shenanigans: a process is ultimately as "clean" as the people involved.

[xl_target]

It looks like both Smith & Wesson and Glock will share the contract:
http://pistol-training.com/archives/3583/

Today, ATF announced the results of its highly competitive procurement for a new service sidearm. Both Glock and Smith & Wesson were awarded 10-year contracts worth up to $40,000,000 each. These are the largest non-military small arms contracts in U.S. history.

[xl_target]

Announcement from Smith and Wesson:

http://ir.smith-wesson.com/phoenix.zhtm ... &highlight