Unintended or not, the Army’s most recent delay in announcing the down select is going to hurt those firms currently in the competitive range for the Army Camouflage Improvement Effort. The program has slipped several times since its inception but this latest delay, with announcement coming “during the second week of JAN 2012” is the most troubling.
Unfortunately, this new deadline butts right up against the annual Shooting, Hunting, and Outdoor Trade Show, 17-20 January in Las Vegas. SHOT Show is THE trade show of the year for those in the camo business, regardless of hunting or tactical and many of the candidate families of patterns will do well in both markets.
This is the first time we can think of in the Soldier Systems industry that a company is penalized for being a possible contract winner. These companies can’t conduct any marketing activities or even share their designs with potential customers for fear of influencing the source selection authority.
With a Government announcement as late as the 13th of January, companies are already enroute to Las Vegas. There is no way that they could print new signage or marketing materials in time to use them at SHOT. What’s more, with the 10 day protest window bracketing both SHOT Show and Outdoor Retailer, a formal announcement by a company that they are a finalist could very well, still be premature.
Conversely, companies that have already been informed that they are not in the competitive range can on about their business and market their patterns without any encumbrances. They are probably all jumping for joy at the Army’s decision.
We don’t believe that this decision was made with the intention of making things difficult for industry. But, it does. We urge the Army to make its announcement soon so that industry can do the things it needs to do, to sell its wares. That is what a good partner would do.
As we all know, when you sign a contract with the Military… .. .
No one has signed contract one with the military. That is the point with this.
Yes, I understand that but now they have a NDA right?
????, No, no one has signed an NDA with anyone.
I could care less if they made the choice before or after SHOT. As long as the process is true and the compitetion is done the right way! The Goverment should not make decisions based on dates of trade fairs.
At face value I would agree. However, there are other factors at work here.
Companies will miss the prime opportunity to recoup their investment if they cannot market during SHOT. The Army has repeatedly stated that the company who is selected would be able to sell their patterns commercially. However, we have already heard that at least one potential offeror was dinged due to the commercial availability of their patterns. It seems that those still in the race will need to tread carefully if they want to remain competitive.
I would venture to say that the process has already deviated from its original intent if they haven’t announced by now. They know what they don’t want, and have informed those companies. All along I was under the impression that the Army was seeking the three (now four) proposed families of patterns that exhibited the best performance in testing. That should have been cut and dry.
To delay sends a signal that there are other factors than performance at stake.
Whatever the factors are, SHOT show should not come into play in any Gov run competition. Commercial market is the commercial market. Government programs shouldn’t be influenced or influence whatever commercial money is to made off the success or demise of whatever happens. Sure it will happen, but the Gov timeline should have nothing to do with contract award or awards. I’m sure the writing is very specific in the solicitation, and if the companies didn’t want to obied by those rules, they should not have entered.
If companies were waging their bets on their future our their company on a 1 in 20 chance to win, i would say they need to relook at their business model and the industry they are in.
I am not saying companies shouldn’t capitalize off the contract award, but if you want to play, play by the rules.
and to play devils advocate, why should the Gov have to give any company a chance to recoup their investment? Many company’s, investors, small business make good and bad investments all the time, it is not the governments role to make sure they make their money back!
All your points are true if you feel that Government should be adversarial to business. Conversely, the tactical market exists as an outsourcing of Government use of force. In a capitalist economy, particularly one with protectionist clauses such as Berry, Government needs the tactical industry as much as the industry needs the Government as a customer. It is a symbiotic relationship that has not reached a very good balance due to a variety of factors. One of the most influential of those is Government planning which can cause feast or famine surges in industry.
It is imperative in a capitalist economy that we do not punish excellence and those companies that build a better mousetrap must have the ability to profit (within the framework of our national security strategy).
Government shouldn’t go out of its way to aid individual companies but in that same line of thinking it shouldn’t adopt policies that subvert industry’s ability to conduct business.
I don’t disagree at all, but the Gov doesn’t need to run its programs around trade shows and private companies marketing strategies.
Who is being punished? the people that cry foul becasue they didnt read the rules or was it just because they were not selected for the next phase?
In response to BrettW,
It’s very important to note that no one is crying foul but me.
Oddly, in this situation, the Army was quick to tell certain companies that they were right out and they are now free to do as they please. However, the companies who are still considered to be in the “competitive” category are the ones to have their hands tied.
As long as we in the force do not get a repeat of UCP I will be happy. I prefer to blend into the environment, not stick out like a sore thumb screaming here I am, shoot me!
Thats the spirit man.
There were always going to be other factors than performance. Nobody said that but I think that has been the case in every contract in history.
It all depends on who is doing the contract. If you look for the best kit for the operator the sequence goes Technical Performance, Management, Past Performance and Price, each exponentially more important than the other. Unfortunately in a resource constrained environment the government assumes a certain element of risk in performance and raises Price in importance, at the expense of the operator. In other words, we, the most powerful nation in the world only buys what we can afford for the military, You know, we have to be able to offset the cost of health care and student loans….less I digress
Other factors can be explicitly stated. If you have a commercial camouflage that you feel is the best option for submission and their is no stipulation against it, then why wouldn’t you send it in?
On the other hand is they state in the solicitation that they want completely new patterns that are not yet available to the public then you can alter your plan of action for the final submission.
In the solicitation the Army did not restrict the submission of Pre-existing or commercially available patterns.
Right, so it is nonsense to claim this as a reason for dismissal, especially when you can come up with plenty of other inclusive reasons for not continuing forward with a particular submission.
In my opinion yes. Reasons like this cause protests.
Happens all the time. The agency I support issued an RFP for what would be the major IT contract vehicle. Bidders submitted proposals, and looked forward to an award prior to the agency’s annual IT conference. And of course, they delayed the award so long that the vendors at the conference had to order their booths and signage without being able to say that they had won.
The price of doing business with the government is that their timelines and policies are incompatible with profit maximization. It’s just reality. Frustrating, but nothing we can do about it.
I’d say the big difference there is that the Government is going to pay fair market value for that IT contract. For the camo effort, the Army wants to pay a one time fee for use of the patterns and it won’t be anywhere near fair market value. Instead, the Army has stated that offerors can sell their product commercially and that is where the real money is to be made.
Didn’t it take a few years until the BDU became commercial for hunters and ordinary people when it was issued way back like ERDL did? or it never left the lab in 1948 and no ordinary citzen walked down the street in the early 50s wearing camo XD, they probably would have been arested for impersonating a soldier or leaking classifed government material or something.
I don’t see what that comment has to do with the current situation.
It was a off joke about the commercial availability part, once a new camo is issued it dosn’t take too long to find its way into the civilian or foreign market like UCP and MC did.
1. Anyone who thinks that hard work gets done between Thanksgiving and Christmas is blowing smoke up your butt. I don’t even set downstream deadlines for major work in that window. Minor milestones? Sure. I was the only person in my office the week of Thanksgiving, and we were 50% staffed the week after. By this Wednesday, I will be alone in the office again. Funny, we used to laugh at our Muslim brothers for doing jack or squat during Ramadan. News flash: we’re not much better.
2. Re: SHOT Show, and trade shows in general. Sometimes they synchronize nicely with business operations, usually notsomuch. Apple Computer walked away from the convention industry because they like to release products when they are ready for market, not when a trade show is scheduled. MacWorld SF hits right after the New Year, meaning that people were expected to work over Christmas to ready prototypes and tweak software. Refer back to #1 (above) for insights into the feelings of designers and engineers held to this expectation. For the record, there is one industry that gets it right: Consumer Electronics Show hits after the New Year. Buyers flush with revenues from Black Friday selloffs of obsolete, legacy technology get to look at Shiny New Things–and submit orders for more crap to sell us (which was designed well before the winter holidays common to every culture) over the course of the year to come. Maybe–just MAYBE–the lack of an annointed camo winner will get Procurement people at SHOT to look at DESIGN (oh no, Booth Girls are NEVER part of that equation). And there will always be a shortcoming. Two years ago printed webbing was what distinguished crazy sexy cool. Last year it was exotic textiles such as printed pile tape. Hmm wonder what it will be come January?
3. Advocacy: If there’s someone who needs advocacy it’s that individual operative out there who went out and bought his own UCP gear, then went out and bought his own OCP gear–not to look cool but to have full freedom of movement in uniformity-fixated environments.
Bottom line: Big Army can take all the time it needs–for a decision on a camouflage pattern that will outast my currently issued CAC card. Find a workable concept, execute it, and for chrissakes stick to it long enough to wear it out…
I thought the same way when I was in Government. But, if Government wants to have industry to conduct commerce with, it has to exercise a certain amount of flexibility.
I don’t want Government looking at design too closely lest they adopt it and call it their own. There is nothing wrong with paying for innovation. Our country holds intellectual property in high esteem.
I am a little out of the loop. Are you saying there will finally be a final decision in early Jan? I did hear its going to be a 3 uniform kit and based on your job and location you will be deployed to will depend on what kit your issued. Aor1, Aor2, M81 And MC are all great but personally I like the UK’s desert and our 3 color desert better than anything and there’s a woodland by the company called pencott that’s great. But the UK desert and M81 could really do a great job. I am very anxious to see what they give us.
Read https://soldiersystems.net/2011/12/16/army-camouflage-improvement-effort-for-dummies/
This should answer your questions. However, the Army still has no idea how they will employ the family of patterns if at all.
[…] into account the Pentagon’s decision to undertake the Camouflage Improvement Effort budgeting millions to rethink camo which will produce new multiple camo designs for all uniforms in […]