SureFire

Confirmed – H&K Wins CSASS

 

In spite of PEO Soldier claiming that an award has not been made, it has. This is the DoD announcement from March 31, 2016. H&K USA Wins the Compact Semi-Automatic Sniper System program.  

www.defense.gov/News/Contracts/Contract-View/Article/710219

The U.S. Army Contracting Command – New Jersey, Picatinny Arsenal, NJ on behalf of the Project Manager Soldier Weapons awarded a single award Indefinite Delivery-Indefinite Quantity (IDIQ) contract with Firm Fixed Price (FFP) Delivery and Task Orders with two (2) options for a maximum total of 3,643 Compact Semi-Automatic Sniper System (CSASS) units. The period of performance for the base ordering period will be Twenty-Four (24) months, during which time Production Qualification Testing/Operational Testing(PQT/OT) of 30 CSASS units will be conducted. The minimum ordering obligation for this contract is 30 CSASS units to be used for PQT/OT. Option one (1) will enable additional ordering periods and will include production, spare parts, depot support, First Article testing, and Instructor and Key Personnel Training (I&KPT). Option two (II) is for the purchase of a technical data package and Government Purpose Rights.

Tags:

36 Responses to “Confirmed – H&K Wins CSASS”

  1. Mick says:

    Knight’s Armament Company Legal Department:
    Start your engines!

    • Joglee says:

      You know people will fight the choice. They always do.

      • SSD says:

        I’ve already gotten an earful.

        • Joglee says:

          Sorry about my skepticism in the rumor has it article.

          However I have a feeling FN won’t go down without a fight. They’re proud of the SCAR platform.

          • SSD says:

            In DoD, SCAR hasn’t won anything since SCAR.

            • Joglee says:

              The SCAR is to the rifle world, what fruit cake is to the cake world.

              So here’s a question. The CSASS competition took 2 years to complete and was a success.
              If the MHS can be completed in a timely manner and successfully, whats the chances of another Carbine competition under current leadership?

              HK could possibly offer a deal on the 416a5.

              • SSD says:

                There’s stuff happening but it’s more requirement development than a move to release a new requirement.

                • Joglee says:

                  Hk416A6 in .264 AMU?

                  • SSD says:

                    Dreamer

                  • Cool Arrow Kicker says:

                    Conventional forces should just give up on the thought of having anything else other than an M4 and 9mm handgun until there is a significant leap in technology.

                    I would also say it may be a worthwhile bet that the new handgun solicitation will be cancelled or if awarded, only minimal quantities awarded.

                    What people don’t understand is that buying any new system such as a carbine on a scale to outfit the entire DoD is not only fiscally monumental, but a huge logistical effort too.

                    Aside from provisioning (making sure all the parts are in the system), technical manuals need to be written, training packages, new equipment training, disposal of legacy systems etc. must also be considered.

                    • Joglee says:

                      Luckily we could do a lot worse than the M4A1.

                      It may not be the absolute best now days, but it’s still one of the best on the market.

                • Moshjath says:

                  I’d be happy if the M4A1+ RFI actually becomes an RFP. It seemed a pretty reasonably thought out concept.

              • JP says:

                I’m a newbie to the snipe world and was wondering if you would not mind expanding on the above “The SCAR is to the rifle world, what fruit cake is to the cake world.” I was considering purchasing a SCAR 17-S… thanks.

    • SSD says:

      They weren’t finalists. They can’t protest.

  2. Cool Arrow Kicker says:

    Of course there will be protests. However, what few people know is that every company that submits a proposal and wasn’t selected receives a debrief. Protests are just a means to satiate a company’s investors or shareholders.

    So, when you are on the forum boards and the “Industry Experts” from the companies start whining about how they were “cheated” tell them to post the findings of their debriefs. I can tell you from experience that this shut down the ramblings of a company who competed for the IAR solicitation on a certain forum board.

    Before any of you start to pontificate on or whine about the process that led to this decision, unless you know the criteria and how all the parties were rated, just shut up.

    And finally to the “end users” who will most undoubtedly jump on this, unless you were part of the requirements generation process for this system you too should STFU.

    “Requirements” are like voting and the end product is what you get. Unless you make an effort to get involved in the requirements process, you have no forum to complain.

    • Joglee says:

      Are they legally able to post the findings of the debrief?

      • Cool Arrow Kicker says:

        Unless it is classified, yes. The debrief only contains information related to the company that it is directed to and does not contain anything related to other participants.

        For example, a simple debrief matrix will be something like this:

        Attribute 1: Met (green)
        Attribute 2: Met with Exception (yellow)
        Attribute 3: Not met (red)
        etc. etc.

        Usually, if someone gets a “Not Met” they don’t proceed. “Met with Exception” and “Not Met” will have explanations to support the source selection board’s decision.

        The key is that ALL the vendors KNOW how they will be rated prior too, or should be. This was the point of contention with the whole Army body armor debacle SSD wrote about when the PEO changed requirements AFTER the proposals were received.

        In regards to a procurement of a new rifle, vendors are usually rated on the following:

        1. Applicability to the requirement (Does it do what the government needs it to do?)
        2. Past Performance (Has this company done this before, and if so, were they successful?)
        3. Delivery Schedule (Does the company have the ability to deliver the item IAW the government’s schedule?)
        4. Price (Initial procurement, life cycle costs, etc.)

        One would be remiss if they didn’t acknowledge the fact that the aforementioned can’t be rearranged differently IAW the solicitation type.

        For all that we know, this may have come down to something as simple as price and all the participants did well.

        However, that may not be the issue as the M110 SASS is a fielded item (fully provisioned, etc.) and one would think that it would be more cost effective to just buy a shorter barreled upper and improved stock.

        If you look at it from that point of view, the decision may be more associated to overall performance.

        The importance of this particular event is to keep in mind that the companies who were NOT selected will view this as a slight to their reputation. After all, if an entity wants to procure a weapons platform, why would they want to choose any vendor other than the awardee? After all, PEO just did all the leg work regarding evaluations etc.

    • SSD says:

      It’s all about the requirement.

      • Cool Arrow Kicker says:

        SSD, agreed. Unfortunately, end users love to whine and say: “We didn’t ask for this!”

        While this may have been true years ago, presently, there is heavy involvement from the occupational field sponsors, advisory groups, subject matter expert conferences, etc.

        The problem is that end users don’t care to find out how to get involved which provides a slippery slope.

        Now, we all know that some entities, who will remain unnamed, tend to get way out of scope by procuring end items with input from individuals who don’t really use it that much.

        For example, if you were going to say, buy a new body armor vest, one would think that your primary target audience would be ohhhh I don’t know… “Grunts” and not motor transport or admin people. Not to denigrate the latter, but it is a system that is primarily associated to a grunt.

        And well, there are times when certain offices have disregarded the primary end user’s desired material solution and opted to procure something else and justifying it by stating something like: “Just because the XXX was the preferred system and also combat proven and fielded by XXX doesn’t mean it’s the right solution”

        yeah, I guess “Sometimes doing the right thing isn’t the right thing”

        My advice to end users is that when you catch word that your service component is even entertaining the idea of buying a new widget that will impact you, get involved and make your voice heard.

        • Dev says:

          I like reading your informative posts.

          Maybe you should get your own soapbox here in SSD like Lt Col T Baldwin.

        • Riceball says:

          What you say makes sense but it would help a lot if you mentioned how would one get involved. Let’s say that Pvt. Snuffy hears that the Army wants to get a new helmet and has some definite opinions on what the wants and does not want in a new helmet. How does Pvt. Snuffy go about making his opinion known? I doubt that his squad leader or even platoon Sgt. would know anything or even necessarily care about this new helmet, much less Pvt. Snuffy’s opinion on the matter. Does he submit his opinion to the unit Sgt. Major, his CO?

          • SSD says:

            Yeah, nobody is really going to care what PVT Snuffy thinks.

            • Cool Arrow Kicker says:

              I wouldn’t go so far as to say that “… nobody is really going to cares what PVT Snuffy thinks” per se. While there is some validity to that statement due to the fact that Privates generally do not have the operational experience to draw from, they do sometimes come up with some good ideas.

              Case in point, we had an E-3 submit an idea for what he called the ‘Stocker”. Essentially it was the weapons retention system fielded in SPEAR. He was a bit crestfallen that it wasn’t an original idea, but he did have a good idea.

              For Marines, there is the Marine Enhancement Program (MEP) and for the Army, the Soldier Enhancement Program (SEP) which are both online.

              The biggest issue is that the requirements process is not taught to Senior Staff Noncommissioned Officers and it should be. At a minimum, there should be one day devoted to how service members can submit need statements via their respective service component’s protocols and IAW DOTMLPF.

              Obviously, the easiest way is via the urgent need process which is sponsored by a combatant commander.

              It is also important that Senior Staff Noncommissioned Officers stay engaged with their respective OCCFIELD sponsors and find out who is responsible for fielding the kit that will impact them.

  3. MidGasFan says:

    A friend sent me a link to an article and pics on the Sig entry yesterday. I must say, it looks really nice and is well thought out without the usually large amount of polymer these guns seem to be going to. Not that polymer it’s a bad thing but dang, all that aluminum sure looks nice and strong and is only pushing 9lbs with a slightly bigger rail and an adjustable folding stock.

    Plus, Sig ACTUALLY listens to their customer base and will probably bring it to market. At least, I hope they do!

    It will be interesting to see if any of the protests hold weight but to be honest, I’m still a little surprised the selection went this quick, much less didn’t get cancelled!

  4. Joshz says:

    Who is this solicitation for? And what weapon is this replacing if any?

  5. 762 Fan says:

    I thought the KAC SR25s were the best 762 rifles these days? The ACC and APC in particular. Doesn’t CAG or whatever delta calls themselves these days use SR25s for their battle rifles/762 semi autos? I love HK stuff too though, but thought the 417 was too heavy. Glad to see hk win a contract though.

  6. Chris says:

    The example HK had at shot had an OSS can on it. Did OSS win the suppressor part of it?

  7. Sal says:

    Hmm…

    I would’ve thought KAC was a shoo-in. As cool arrow kicker said, what could be more cost effective than buying a cut-down M-110?

  8. Marcus says:

    Soooo HK is going to build on the long line of success they’ve had with platforms like the G-36?

    If past is prologue there are going to be a few more bites at this apple. I’ll be here at the end of the bar running a tab while this plays out. I may be here for awhile…

  9. JP says:

    I’m a newbie to the snipe world and was wondering if you would not mind expanding on the above “The SCAR is to the rifle world, what fruit cake is to the cake world.” I was considering purchasing a SCAR 17-S… thanks