Soldier Systems
TEA Headsets
Categories About Us EmailArchives Home Tactical Fanboy Soldier Sytems Home

Archive for the ‘Contracts’ Category

The Safariland Group Selected As Equipment Supplier For United States Air Force Security Forces In $17.7M Contract

Wednesday, October 22nd, 2014

The Safariland Group has announced they have received a contract from the United States Air Force to supply batons, holsters, and body armor to the Air Force Security Forces. The full release can be read below:

Air Force Security Forces to use Safariland Group batons, holsters and body armor

JACKSONVILLE, Florida – The Safariland Group (the “Company”), a leading global provider of safety and survivability products, announced today that its distributor, Garrett Container, was awarded a $17.7M contract from the United States Air Force for law enforcement equipment. As the majority equipment supplier for this contract, The Safariland Group products, including Monadnock® batons, Safariland® tactical holsters and accessory kits, and Second Chance® body armor, will be supplied to the Air Force Security Forces over the five-year contract period.

“We have been working diligently with our customer Garrett Container for several years to meet the U.S. Air Force Security Forces equipment requirements. Our high-quality products, experienced work force, and capabilities to meet large order requirements enabled us to be selected for this award by Garrett Container,” said Roger Cox, Vice President, Government Sales, The Safariland Group. “We are pleased to be the majority supplier of this contract for Garrett Container, a trusted industry distributor.”

The contract specifies a maximum quantity of 30,866 Monadnock® Detective® Series batons; 34,764 Safariland® Model 6005 SLS Tactical Holsters and holster accessories, and approximately 37,100 sets of Second Chance® BV02 Level IIIA body armor packages for both male and female.

All products included in this contract will be manufactured at the Company’s facilities located in Pittsfield, Mass.; Ontario, Calif.; and Jacksonville, Fla.

The Safariland Group is celebrating 50 years in business in 2014. For information about the Company and its life-saving products, visit www.safariland.com or follow The Safariland Group on Facebook, Instagram and Twitter.

SIG SAUER Gives Us A Look At Their Modular Handgun System Candidate

Tuesday, October 21st, 2014

FullSizeRender

At AUSA, SIG SAUER‘s Kevin Brittingham walked us through their candidate for the Army’s Modular Handgun System program which may replace the M9 Pistol issued since the mid-80s and based on the Beretta 92F.

IMG_8285

Although based on the commercially available P320 modular pistol, SIG made a few changes to be in compliance with the Army’s requirement.

-Tan Color
-Ambi Thumb Safety
-Lower Profile Ambi Slide Release
-Loaded Chamber Indicator
-Trigger Boot
-Firing Pin Assembly

IMG_8286

Although SIG is very optimistic about their chances, they also look at programs like this as an opportunity to improve their firearms. Some of these changes may we find their way into the P320 and other SIG firearms.

IMG_8283

AUSA – FNH Introduces CSASS Contender And In Doing So Will Offer MK 20 Commercially

Wednesday, October 15th, 2014

IMG_8319.JPG

At AUSA FNH USA is displaying their Compact Semi-Automatic Sniper System (CSASS) entry. Based on the tried and true SOF Combat Assault Rifle (SCAR) system, FN’s CSASS rifle is essentially the same package they developed for the Mk 20 Sniper Support Rifle selected by USSOCOM. FN also told me that the rifle would be available for commercial sale about a year from now and will be manufactured in the South Carolina plant. If you’ve been wanting an SSR, your chance is coming.

IMG_8323.JPG

Mk 20 SSR specs:

RECEIVER
-Hard-anodized monolithic aluminum receiver
-MIL-STD 1913 accessory rails at the 3, 6, 9 and 12 o’clock positions
-Adjustable, removable folding front and rearback-up iron sights

BARREL
-Hammer-forged, chrome-lined steel
-Fully free-floating design
-The barrel can be removed and replaced by the operator to facilitate cleaning and maintenance with negligible impact on previously established zero
-Flash hider optimized for suppressed fire

STOCK
-Non-folding, adjustable cheekpiece
-Length of pull adjusts without tools
-Aluminum and polymer construction

OPERATING CONTROLS
-Ambidextrous selector lever and magazine release
-Charging handle may be mounted on right or left side
-Enlarged trigger guard
-Adjustable gas regulator for use with or without suppressor to maintain felt recoil

IMG_8326.JPG

The extended hand guard was designed to accommodate mounting of the AN/PVS-30.

IMG_8327.JPG

The stock is adjustable for comb and length of pull.

IMG_8325.JPG

www.fnhusa.com

Crye Precision’s 2001 Scorpion Development Contract Calls Into Question Army Claims Of “Appropriate Rights To Use” New OCP Variant

Monday, September 22nd, 2014

Many have questioned the US Army’s right to use a recently announced camouflage pattern, so a few weeks ago we decided to put it to bed and asked the Army about it. They offered us a rather curt, but confident, answer. But then DLA began a quest to fund a new printer that didn’t pay commercial printing royalties to Crye Precision for Scorpion. So last week, we ran a story regarding the US Army’s statement that they had “Appropriate rights to use the Operational Camouflage Pattern” and, in the process, exposed a major controversy that had arisen over printing royalties for OCP.

IMG_7084.JPG

The US Army uses the name Operational Camouflage Pattern to refer to the Scorpion W2 camouflage pattern which is a 2010 modification of the so-called Scorpion pattern originally introduced by Crye Precision in 2001 and patented in 2004. What is at question, is whether or not the Army can use the pattern, royalty-free.

We know that Crye filed for, and was granted, a patent for this camouflage by the US Patent and Trademark Office, Camouflage Pattern Applied to Substrate US D487,848 S, March 30, 2004. We also know that not long after the patent was granted, the Army asked the PTO to insert the following addendum into the patent:

After claim, insert the following:
–Statement as to rights to inventions made under federally sponsored research and development.
The U.S. Government has a paid-up license in this invention and the right in limited circumstances to require the patent owner to license others on reasonable terms as provided for by the terms of contract No. DAAD16-01-C-0061 awarded by the US Army Robert Morris Acquisition Natick Contracting Division of the United States Department of Defense.–

From this, we surmised that the US Army’s assertion of appropriate rights is based on the funding of the Scorpion project via contract (DAAD16-01-C-0061) in September of 2001. This 13 year-old contract has remained the missing piece to this puzzle. Does this contract, in fact, prefer rights to the camouflage to the US Army?
(more…)

Why Has Controversy Over US Army Rights To Use Scorpion Camouflage Led To A Quest for New Camouflage Printers?

Monday, September 15th, 2014

To be sure, Operational Camouflage Pattern is the way ahead for the US Army. That fact is not at question and I’m very happy to see our Soldiers getting something effective. It is definitely an improvement over the Universal Camouflage Pattern that it is replacing.

But exactly what OCP is, and who actually owns it, are a bit more perplexing. With two distinct patterns sharing the same name, there’s sure to be some confusion. Turns out, ownership can be established based in records and a few pointed questions. But then there’s this whole printing issue that’s recently, and inexplicably come up. How that ties in, will all make sense, by the time you get to the end of the story.

As you know, the US Army selected the Crye Precision Multicam Pattern in 2010 and decided to call it Operation Enduring Freedom Camouflage Pattern, as it was intended specifically for use in operations in Afghanistan. Then, the Army began a Multi-year Camouflage Improvement Effort (aka Phase IV) that cost tens of Millions of Dollars and ultimately resulted in no new capability. During the Army’s rather protracted, ill-fated search, for a family of camouflage patterns for use in the world’s various operational environments, Congress decided to act, fearing waste. With the passing of the 2014 National Defense Authorization Act, the Defense Department had to stick with what whatever camouflage they already had. The Army reacted by renaming OCP to a simple “Operational Camouflage Pattern” to give it a more universal feel and started negotiations with Crye Precision to adopt the pattern service-wide. Unfortunately, the Army abruptly stopped talking to Crye Precision with the Army reportedly unhappy with the pricing provided by Crye.

20140802-183641-67001414.jpg

Then, in May of 2014, the Army’s leadership chose a course of action that would adopt a new flavor of OCP called Scorpion W2. It was a camouflage pattern created by modifying Scorpion, a developmental pattern designed in the early 2000s as part of the Objective Force Warrior Program and tested during the 2002-2003 camo studies. This new OCP variant also looked suspiciously similar to the existing Crye Precision MultiCam version of OCP. Interestingly, the Scorpion W2 pattern was tested for mere weeks before being certified fit for service, while the Phase IV testing went on for well over a year of actual testing and analysis with no final solution selected.

No sooner than the Army unveiled this variant did people start to question who “owned” the pattern. This was fueled partly by assertions by COL Robert Mortlock, Program Manager for Soldier Clothing and Individual Equipment that it would be less expensive than using MultiCam leading many to believe that the Army owns it. In fact, Scorpion W2 is a 2010 government modification of Crye’s patented Scorpion pattern and exhibits quite a bit of similarity to the MultiCam it is intended to displace as OCP.

To find the answer to the ownership question, I went to PEO Soldier, who’s Public Affairs Team directed me to the US Army’s Office of the Chief of Public Affairs. I asked some very specific questions about ownership of the Scorpion camouflage pattern and its use as a option under the NDAA. While they did reply in a timely manner, unfortunately, it wasn’t very forthcoming.

The Army possesses appropriate rights to use the Operational Camouflage Pattern (OCP) on its uniforms and equipment. Congress is aware of the Army’s intent and Army has been informed that it complies with the NDAA.

William J Layer
DAC, OCPA

From the response, we know this; the Army doesn’t own Scorpion W2. We asked specifically if they do. Rather than a simple, “We own it,” they instead claimed, “appropriate rights to use” the pattern.

The question then comes back to, who owns Scorpion? For that, we have to look at the Scorpion patent (USD487848), issued on March 30, 2004. This patent for a “Camouflage Pattern Applied To Substrate” was granted to Caleb Crye and assigned to LineWeight LLC, Crye Precision’s IP holding company. Later, after the patent was granted by the US Patent and Trademark Office, the Army asserted its “appropriate rights to use” Scorpion based on a correction letter amendment in June of that year:

After claim, insert the following:
–Statement as to rights to inventions made under federally sponsored research and development.
The U.S. Government has a paid-up license in this invention and the right in limited circumstances to require the patent owner to license others on reasonable terms (emphasis added) as provided for by the terms of contract No. DAAD16-01-C-0061 awarded by the US Army Robert Morris Acquisition Natick Contracting Division of the United States Department of Defense.–

The Army has never challenged the validity of the patent or who holds it. Not in 10 years. Instead, as is often the case with Federally Funded Research and Development, the Army had the USPTO amend the patent with that statement above. It is also important to note that this same amendment was applied to patents for all of the various technologies that spawned from the Scorpion effort, not just the camouflage pattern. Like I said, it’s pretty much boiler plate. Finally, it goes without saying that the Army does not enjoy this same position regarding the later MultiCam patent (USD572909).

The issue at hand is whether the Army has lived up to its end of the deal they applied to the patent. It reads, “paid-up license in this invention and the right in limited circumstances to require the patent owner to license others on reasonable terms.” As you can see, it’s not just enough to have established who owns what. We now have to take a look at whether the Army should be paying for the “rights to use” Scorpion. It seems that based on this language, they can use it as they see fit. I can see where they feel that this assertion would give the Army the right to have modified the base pattern to the W2 variant. But that only covers their use. The issue arises when they pay others to print it and that is what brings this last “reasonable terms” bit into question. Even in cases of “eminent domain” where private property is seized by the Government for use, they must always pay a reasonable fee for the value of the property. The Army isn’t printing the pattern. Instead they are purchasing material provided by vendors that incorporate the invention. This is where things get sticky because these private companies have existing agreements in place.

According to industry and government sources, the companies that are currently printing the Scorpion W2 fabric unto fabric are paying Crye Precision a royalty fee. Yes, for Scorpion. It has been an open secret in industry for some time. I’ve even alluded to it once or twice. The fee isn’t being paid because the Army is living up to the verbiage it had inserted into the patent, but rather due to commercial, contractual obligations between the printers and Crye Precision.

Those same sources who’ve indicated that the royalties are being paid have also said that there are those in the Army’s acquisition community who are incensed at the notion. And how much is this outrageous royalty? As I understand it, the Army is paying less than $1 per uniform. Ironically, this is a similar price to what Caleb Crye asserted the Army would pay for the use of MultiCam in a statement released earlier this year (less than 1% price difference between MultiCam and UCP).

How did this royalty come about? The answer is quite sublime. When the US Army selected Crye Precision’s MultiCam for use in 2010, they insisted that Crye license about 11 new printers to use the MultiCam pattern. Eventually, over time, these limited use licenses were converted to also cover commercial printing. The contents of the agreements, which remain confidential, I am told contain stipulations that the printer agrees to not print patterns with similar shapes or colors to MultiCam in order to discourage knockoffs. Seems reasonable to me that Crye Precision and a commercial printer would enter into a legally binding royalty agreement but this situation apparently has some in government hot under the collar.

Circumstances being what they are, the question of whether the royalty should be paid looks to have been answered. Contracts exist. The question has transformed to why the US Government is taking action that could be construed as to impede those contracts.

At least three times over the past month, DLA Troop Support and PEO Soldier have held private, by-invitation-only meetings with representatives from various parts of the supply chain to discuss the Army’s transition to the OCP Scorpion W2 variant. One important conversation point has been the royalty fee and if there is a mechanism to avoid paying it. Printers have been queried as to whether they would be willing to stop paying Crye Precision the royalty. Another suggestion has been that perhaps a printer could be purchased by a vendor or even a new one stood up that was unencumbered by any contractual obligations with Crye Precision. I am told that as these conversations were being guided by PEO Soldier, members of industry glanced nervously at one another wondering, “What’s to say they won’t turn on my company next?”

You could easily dismiss this information as hearsay, if it weren’t for a Sources Sought Notice released on 8 September, 2014 by the Defense Logistics Agency Troop Support entitled, “Operational Camouflage Pattern Fabric MIL-DTL 44436B Class 14“. In this FBO posting by the Defense Logistics Agency – Troop Support, they are looking “for printing capability and capacity of Operational Camouflage Pattern (OCP) on wind resistant poplin nylon/cotton cloth.” All-in-all, DLA needs about 6-9 Million Yards per year of OCP NYCO in order to manufacture enough Army Combat Uniforms. As if they didn’t already know, based on years and years of interaction with the supply chain, not to mention those numerous secretive meetings, they are trying to figure out who can print cotton here in the US. I’m not buying it.

A few very interesting things stick out in the Sources Sought. First, there’s these disclosures that potential offerors must comply with:

52.227-6 Royalty Information APR 1984

52.227-9 Refund of Royalties APR 1984

Those would be so they can identify who actually has a royalty agreement with Crye Precision although, as I understand it, the exact contents of those agreements are confidential, and could not be disclosed to the Government.

Another very curious statement caught my eye and made me realize that there was actually something to those clues I had been picking up.

This notice is intended to identify firms that either have the equipment or are willing to make capital investments to obtain the equipment necessary to support the aforementioned requirements. Warstopper funding may be available to firms needing to make some capital investments. (emphasis added)

The domestic printing industrial base has stayed fairly constant over the past 10 years and exists almost solely to support DoD’s Berry requirements. It’s more than held its own supporting military printing (of which the Army’s is the single largest user). If anything, that printing capacity has taken a beating over the past 18 months or so, as the Army has half-stepped toward a camouflage way ahead and they curtailed purchase of UCP ACUs. Now that the Army has decided what they are going to do, the existing printing industry should be more than ready to go to work. So why offer up taxpayer money to set up a new printer? What are they up to?

I looked into this “warstopper” funding program to see if there was a good reason. Here’s what I found:

The Warstopper Program was created to preserve and/or expand the industrial base for critical go-to-war items that had insufficient peacetime demands to keep the known industrial base producers in operation.

Since NYCO fabric is used for ACUs and the Army fights in FR uniforms, I have to question this notion of OCP printed NYCO being something that we need to stockpile as a nation. Then, there’s that whole existing supply chain infrastructure that seems to be able to hold its own.

So I dug more and found they’ve established criteria for commodities purchased with the program. Maybe those will hold the answer:

1. Mission Essential or Critical

2. Low peacetime demand but high wartime demand

3. Limited shelf-life

4. Long production leadtime

5. Cost effective alternative to War Reserve Inventory

No. In fact, peacetime or wartime, demand for NYCO remains constant and that fabric has a long shelf-life. None of those seem to apply.

Consequently, several questions come to mind. Why does DLA Troop Support want information on printers’ commercial royalty agreements? And, why do they want to establish new printers? Perhaps the current crop of printers aren’t suitable? If not, why? Wouldn’t it be less expansive and faster to help them come into compliance?

Doing the right thing is critical to the acquisition community. But it’s not just enough to follow the Federal Acquisition Regulations to the letter or to field great equipment. The end does not justify the means. Professionals must also avoid the appearance of impropriety. Unfortunately, as this story unfolded over the past couple of months, I’ve seen a lot of things happening that I’m concerned with; shake and bake testing, negotiations with IP owners breaking down, lack of transparency.

You should be concerned too and we deserve answers. We deserve to know why the Army and DLA are willing to invest taxpayer money in new printers that will compete with companies already struggling due to decreased government demand for their wares. We deserve to know why the Army and now DLA aren’t standing by the government’s own language by seeming to be interfere with private businesses negotiating “reasonable terms” with Crye Precision for the use of their Intellectual Property. Once again, I’ll echo a concern that has been voiced to me by members of industry, “If the Army can do this to Crye, what makes us think they might not do something to us later?”

I urge the Army and DLA to become more transparent in this process and explain why they have taken steps that appear to be made to avoid paying a company for the use of its intellectual property and why they are so interested in using taxpayer funds to establish new businesses in an already crowded space.

Leupold Mark 6 3-18x44mm Wins Again With FBI Contract

Tuesday, August 26th, 2014

BEAVERTON, Ore. — Leupold®, America’s Optics Authority®, has been selected to deliver Mark 6® 3-18x44mm riflescopes to the Federal Bureau of Investigation.

Mk6_3-18x44_M5B2

Designated for use by the FBI’s Hostage Rescue Team (HRT), the Mark 6 3-18x44mm delivers a wide magnification range in a compact, efficient package perfect for urban environments as well as extended rural settings.

“The world’s most elite military and law enforcement units are finding the Mark 6 3-18x44mm to be the complete package,” said Wilson Timothy, director of tactical and international sales at Leupold & Stevens, Inc. “The 3 to 18 power range covers almost any scenario these groups may experience, all in a riflescope that’s less than 12 inches in length.”

The Mark 6 3-18x44mm riflescope has been selected by a number of agencies and departments for its rugged durability, exceptional optical quality, and American design, machining and assembly. As part of the ECOS-O (Enhanced Combat Optic Sight – Optimized) program, the Mark 6 3-18x44mm was selected by the Naval Special Warfare Center.

In addition, the past two International Sniper Competitions have been won using the Mark 6 3-18x44mm by SSGT Daniel Horner and SPC Tyler Payne. The famed Los Angeles Police Department Special Weapons and Tactics (SWAT) team has also made the Mark 6 3-18x44mm the standard optic for the unit’s precision rifles.
“We especially want to remind rifle manufacturers that may be submitting weapons for the U.S. Army’s Compact Semi Automatic Sniper System (CSASS) trials that the Mark 6 3-18x44mm has been accepted and approved in a number of military contracts,” Timothy said. “There are a number of details to worry about in any military contract process, but your optic does not need to be one.”

For additional product and warranty information, please go to www.leupold.com.

The Official SSD Response to the Washington Times’ Latest Article on the US Army’s Halted Individual Carbine Program

Thursday, August 21st, 2014

IMG_6546.PNG

Our official response to the Washington Times article entitled “Army quits tests after competing rifle outperforms M4A1 carbine”?

“Derp”

That is all…

U.S. Marine Corps Ocular Interruption (OI) Program Contract Awarded to B.E. Meyers & Co. Inc. as part of $49M IDIQ Solicitation

Monday, June 16th, 2014

BEMeyers_RECOIL_34

June 16, 2014 (Redmond, WA) – B.E. Meyers & Co. Inc. is proud to announce the United States Marine Corps Systems Command (MARCORSYSCOM) has awarded them a contract for the GLARE RECOIL (http://bemeyers.com/product/glare-recoil/) in support of the Ocular Interruption (OI) Program. The GLARE® RECOIL joins the established GLARE® product line of non-lethal green lasers that have helped evolve escalation of force protocols over the last 10 years. With over 36,000 hail and warning lasers fielded since 2004, the GLARE® product line is the most widely deployed system in service across the DoD.

BEMeyers_RECOIL_Action_01

MARCORSYSCOM met with B.E. Meyers & Co. Inc. in Redmond, WA last week to discuss future deliveries and technology advancements by B.E. Meyers & Co. as part of the official post-award conference.

“B.E. Meyers’ reputation as a technology innovator and industry leader in non-lethal laser capabilities now benefits the Corps, and we are proud to be able to provide to them with the appropriate equipment to meet the challenges of the modern battlefield”, said Mike Alvis, CEO of B.E. Meyers & Co. Inc. “The GLARE series of products have a proven track record of helping determine threats on the battlefield as well as saving lives. The GLARE® RECOIL will provide U.S. Marines in convoys, checkpoints, and during port security operations with the best technology available to ensure the safety of the Marine on watch as well as the host-nation populace.”

BEMeyers_RECOIL_Action_04

In 2011, B.E. Meyers & Co. Inc. was awarded the contract for the Army’s Green Laser Interdiction System (GLIS) Program through PEO Soldier as well as multiple other deliveries to all branches of the U.S. Military. The GLARE® RECOIL joins the GLARE® LA/9-P, GLARE® MOUT Plus, GLARE® MOUT, GLARE® Enforcer, and GBD-IIIC family of combat-proven green laser ocular interruption devices.

MARCORSYSCOM in Quantico, VA is the procurement entity for the United States Marine Corps non-lethal capabilities, and will service the requirements of this program with B.E. Meyers & Co. Inc. to the greatest benefit of the U.S. Government, the Corps, and the Marine in the fight. The Ocular Interruption (OI) System solicitation number is M67854-13-R-1040.

bemeyers.com

Finalized RFP Released For Compact Semi-Automatic Sniper System (CSASS)

Friday, June 13th, 2014

Back in July of 2012, Project Manager Soldier Weapons released a Sources Sought Notice for a Compact Semi-Automatic Sniper System, by conducting a “market survey to identify potential sources for manufacturing a complete system or reconfiguring some or all of the existing 7.62 x 51mm M110 Semi-Automatic Sniper System (SASS).”


Manufactured by Knights Armament, the current M110 is a lightweight, direct gas operated, semi-automatic, box magazine fed, 7.62 x 51mm rifle intended to engage and defeat personnel targets out to 800 meters.

After an initial RFP released back in November 2012, the wait is finally over: PM SW has released a finalized Draft Request for Proposals.

The details are as follows:

The Army Contracting Command – New Jersey (ACC-NJ), on behalf of Project Manager Soldier Weapons (PM SW), intends to award a single Indefinite Delivery/Indefinite Quantity (IDIQ) contract with Firm Fixed Price (FFP) Delivery Orders. This requirement will be solicited as Full and Open Competition. The minimum ordering obligation is thirty (30) CSASSs to be used for Production Qualification Testing/Operational Testing (PQT/OT). The period of performance for the base contract will be twelve (12) months for PQT/OT. Option one (I) will permit the Government to order production of systems, which will be the quantity of CSASSs needed to match the current M110 Army Acquisition Objective of no more than three thousand, six hundred forty three (3,643). Option one (I) will also include spare parts, depot support, first article testing, and Instructor and Key Personnel Training (I&KPT). Congruently, option one (I) will create five (5) – one (1) year ordering periods with Firm Fixed Price (FFP) delivery orders. Option two (II) is for the purchase of a technical data package (TDP) and Government Purpose Rights (GPR). The Government does not anticipate placing delivery orders beyond the PQT/OT quantities (30 ea) until the successful completion of Milestone C/Type Classification-Standard.

Offerors looking to compete in this requirement have the option to submit no more than two (2) proposal(s) to acquire a new system or to retrofit the existing M110 SASS. The contractor shall manufacture, produce, and support the CSASS. The contractor shall provide for all necessary labor, material, supplies, services, facilities, and equipment to perform the requirements of the Statement of Objectives (SOO) in Section C of the formal Request for Proposal (RFP).

The CSASS is intended to more effectively execute a broad spectrum of missions than the M110 Semi Automatic Sniper System (SASS). The CSASS will provide the following upgrades: improved reliability, improved accuracy, and improved ergonomics; reduced weight and length; advanced coatings; improved optics; reduced felt recoil; enhanced suppressor performance; enhanced modular rail capabilities; an improved bipod, trigger, pistol grip, and buttstock.

www.fbo.gov/index?s=opportunity&mode=form&id=7474a989b4929cfe52783861999d051a&tab=core&_cview=1

Ten Commandments of Effective Contracts by Jonathon (JD) Long

Wednesday, June 11th, 2014

I’ve known Jonathon Douglas (JD) Long for several years. Originally written for his blog, this piece is based on some DAU material along with additional amplification based on his experience. I asked him if I could share it here in SSD as it’s always good for industry to see an insider’s perspective regarding contracts. For those of us that aren’t contracting professionals or members of industry, it’s a great learning opportunity. Thanks Jonathon!

From the Defense Acquisition University we are reminded about the “Ten Commandments of Effective Contracts.” Although seemingly simple and straightforward, the Ten Commandments could be a great facing page for any acquisition professional creating or responding to DoD procurement efforts.

1. “Read the contract.” That includes reading the request for information, request for sources sought, request for bid and or proposal (RFB/RFP) and responses to contractor questions after a RFB/RFP has been published. That means everyone on the source selection panel must read the contract and associated requirements documents before initiating a source selection. that means that industry should read their bid proposal along side the RFB/RFP to ensure they have answered all the government’s information requirements.

2. “The contract is interpreted as a whole.”

3. “Only the Contracting Officer may change or agree to changes in the Contract.” So to my colleagues in industry, it doesn’t matter what the helpful contract specialist or the quality assurance representative agreed to, until that agreement is institutionalized as an amendment to an RFB/RFP or a modification to a contract – its doesn’t count (meaning not legally sustainable). Remember – proposal requests are amended and contracts are modified.

4. “Requirements or material changes must be approved and documented.” While it might be acceptable following contract award and early in the spin-up towards manufacturing; to place advanced orders for material changes – you must follow-up quickly with the Contracting Officer (KO) in writing to describe what those changes are and which government official directed you to make that change. This ensure that the KO will follow-up with a signed modification as documentation. Don’t move forward and invest significant sums or manufacturing change plans until you have the signed modification in hand.

5. Approved and documented requirements take precedence over verbal requests.” See my comment above in number 4.

6. “No funding means no requirement.” Note to business developers – unless your customer has a validated requirement and associated funding, you don’t have real future business. The government cannot award a contract without a validated requirement and a valid funding Line of Accounting – not going to happen. This brings about the discussion on how best to meet future government needs. I have experienced two strategies: (1) Anticipate government requirements early on as described in some Advanced Planning Brief to Industry document or a Preplanned Product Improvement with the advantage being that both have an initial requirement concept in mind and likely some funding, or (2) “Build it and they will come” strategy. I believe that there was much more room for strategy (2) over the last twelve years of constant combat when the military services (mainly ground combat forces) refreshed much of their basic equipment, were open to new concepts and were well funded. However, I do not believe that this trend is continuing and with the draw-down in Afghanistan and US combat operations ending in 2015, I think focusing on existing requirements or incremental improvements is a more sustainable business development approach. I have heard the term “cost neutral improvement” several times.

7. “The contract schedule takes precedence over the contract clauses.”

8. “Contract clauses take precedence over the other documents, exhibits and attachments.” The contract clauses flow from the Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) and contain statutory language and direction that cannot be overwritten by a text narrative to do something otherwise. In reference to specifications – according to the uniform contract format, specifications are last in the order of precedence following documents, exhibits, and attachments (see commandment 9. below).

9. “Other documents, exhibits and attachments take precedence over the specifications.”

10. “Plain English takes precedence over technical language. Ambiguous language is interpreted against the drafter.” Now while I am not exactly sure about the practical application I believe this is similar to the baseball analogy that “tie goes to the runner!”

Now if we can just get the total solicitation page count decreased and the contract award cycle time faster, we would be doing great!