Yesterday was the deadline for the Government Accoutability Office to issue a ruling on GLOCK’s protest of the US Army’s Modular Handgun System award to competitor SIG SAUER of February 24th. The GAO denied the protest, meaning the Army’s planned fielding of the M17/18 will move forward, starting with the 101st Air Assault Division at Fort Campbell, Kentucky, later this year.
Below is the GAO’s statement.
The following is a statement from Ralph O. White, Managing Associate General Counsel for Procurement Law at GAO, regarding today’s decision resolving the protest filed by Glock, Inc., of Smyrna, Georgia, B-414401, June 5, 2017.
On June 5, 2017, the U.S. Government Accountability Office (GAO) denied a protest filed by Glock, Inc., of Smyrna, Georgia, against the award of a contract by the Department of the Army to Sig Sauer, Inc., of Newington, New Hampshire. The solicitation, issued under request for proposals (RFP) No. W15QKN-15-R-0002, is for the procurement of a modular handgun system. The protester challenged the Army’s interpretation of the solicitation regarding the minimum number of contract awards required by the RFP. The protester also alleged that the Army improperly evaluated its proposal. The maximum contract value, including all options, is approximately $170 million.
GAO denied the challenge to the interpretation of the solicitation, finding that the RFP allowed the Army to make only one award, although up to three awards were permitted by the RFP’s terms. GAO also denied the challenge to the Army’s evaluation of Glock’s proposal on the basis that any errors did not prejudice Glock in the competition.
GAO’s decision expresses no view as to the merits of the protester’s proposal. Judgments about which offeror will most successfully meet the government’s needs are reserved for the procuring agencies, subject only to statutory and regulatory requirements, such as full and open competition, and fairness to potential offerors. GAO’s bid protest process is handled by GAO’s Office of General Counsel and examines whether procuring agencies have complied with procurement laws and regulations.
Today’s decision was issued under a protective order because the decision may contain proprietary and source selection sensitive information. GAO has directed counsel for the parties to promptly identify information that cannot be publicly released so that GAO can expeditiously prepare and release a public version of the decision. When the public version of the decision is available, it will be posted to our website, www.gao.gov.
Not really surprising, although there are some famous reversals, GAO protests by the losers have become so automatic that they few have merit enough to get sustained.
I thought the requirement was for an external safety. If so Glock didn’t have a leg to stand on. HK sued over the USSS contract awarded to Knight’s Armament. The requirement stated ambidextrous controls. Needless to say HK lost also.
I’m a Glock guy. Pistols are horribly neglected in the military. I bet the SIGs get a bad reputation within a decade.
Glock was also late with their appeal.
I wouldn’t say Beretta’s reputation suffered from being the supplier of the M9.
Nobody said Beretta the company got a bad reputation. Beretta the M9 sure did. I think it is undeserved but it exists nonetheless
More than likely they submitted a model with an external safety. Most gun companies will bend over backwards if there are enough numbers in the quantity column.
Heck most of the Glock improvements can be traced to Glock competing for a big government contract.
They did, and they have made external safety models in the past for other Mil contracts. Google it, the info and pics are out there.
Glock has made models for military in past with an external safety, google it and what comes up. They 100% reproduced a model for this Army Modular Handgun whatever it’s called.
Its become a standard tactic for the losing bidders to protest. In fact, I’ve read where lawyers are advising the losing bidders to protest automatically, just because they have nothing to lose.
Glock should at least be satisfied that SOCOM and the FBI are giving them business, dont’cha think??
We’ll see how long that lasts once 5th Group and SOAR start receiving their bog Army guns later this year and have a chance to evaluate them head to head. Does the free gun meet their requirements and do they continue to justify using unit funds on additional pistols?
True because SOCOM still carries multiple Sig Sauer Models.