Modular Handgun System contract award

**w3453l** · 07-05-17, 19:01

Originally Posted by L-2

ARE YOU MISSING SOMETHING(?).

Here's my understanding of what's available today from Glock regarding the subject Glock MHS.
It's not available for sale, and it's not in production. Although, if you've got $85M+ to spend, Glock might contract the "MHS" model(s) with you.

The Glock 17M & 19M models have, so far, only been sold at the agency/department level and not to individuals. There has been talk/rumor/speculation the "17M/19M" models might be individually sold once Glock fulfills any of these agency/department contracts, but that will remain to be seen, and I estimate to be no earlier than 2018.

Not asked, but seems to come up on the internet forums, so far, there are no "Gen5" model availables. It makes sense Glock might have some prototypes in existence. This is probable as Apple Computer likely has an "iPhone 8" prototype, but none yet for sale. The MHS and M models are not Gen5 models and are marked "MHS" and "17" or "19M" on the slides. It'll be interesting to see what features from the MHS or M model guns end up on any potential Gen5 models, but it'll have to wait for Glock.

Further unsolicited advice. I'll wait for ~year after any new Glock is introduced as I did not previously do this with an ambi mag release G21SF and G43. The G43 wasn't a big deal. It was just ~6 months prior to the current trigger connector was released with a lower trigger pull weight. I no longer care to be paying to be one of the first to acquire a new model, only to become an unpaid "beta-tester" to some extent. My Gen3 & Gen4 models are fairly reliable now.

Originally Posted by Fjallhrafn

You are. The 19M is not the same model as the 19MHS.

Gotcha.

Thanks for the clarification, makes sense now.

**Slater** · 07-07-17, 11:08

Looks like Glock really doesn't want to let this go:

"The leadership at Glock Inc. says that the U.S. Army's decision to select Sig Sauer to make its new Modular Handgun System was driven by cost savings, not performance. The gun maker is also challenging the Army to complete the testing, which the service cut short, to see which gun performs better."

http://www.military.com/daily-news/2...ore-tests.html

**Singlestack Wonder** · 07-07-17, 11:27

Someday the Army might "get it".....

**SomeOtherGuy** · 07-07-17, 11:42

Originally Posted by Slater

Looks like Glock really doesn't want to let this go:
"The leadership at Glock Inc. says that the U.S. Army's decision to select Sig Sauer to make its new Modular Handgun System was driven by cost savings, not performance. The gun maker is also challenging the Army to complete the testing, which the service cut short, to see which gun performs better."
http://www.military.com/daily-news/2...ore-tests.html

As Lord Humongous would say "walk away, just walk away..."

Glock seems to be arguing that their claimed benefit in reliability (or whatever) is worth it because a handgun is a last-ditch weapon. I always thought the Army's point of view was that handguns are of such limited tactical importance that they are barely worth time or money, at least from a General-officer level perspective.

**JulyAZ** · 07-07-17, 15:36

https://youtu.be/dGI2H0EjDTw

**Slater** · 07-07-17, 16:17

Maybe an unbiased third party (with a large ammo budget) could do the testing since the Army didn't. Funded by Glock, of course

**RHINOWSO** · 07-07-17, 16:26

I wonder how much more beta testing the P320 will need in Army service.

They are already doing away with the lighter 9MM slides that caused excessive slide speed.

Then there is the Gen2 slide stop, TDL, and frames.

I hope they have all the manual safety stuff worked out, as they haven't had the public beta test that for them yet.

But it is the military, where your shit is made by the lowest bidder. Not surprisingly so.

**sndt1319** · 07-08-17, 23:09

So I’ve wanted to comment on this for a minute but didn’t have the time until now. After seeing the Glock Protest results I still maintain that this was a flawed solicitation from the outset. I’m not sure how this even got approved for release. This was a massively consolidated contract. I don’t know how they justified it. The Army should have specified a caliber from the get go. How do you select both pistols and ammo in the same solicitation? How many manufactures actually make both? How did this not hurt competition? All of the FAR is based on ensuring competition. I don’t get why no one protested ammo being included. I would love to see the justification for this in the Acq plan. If you take ammo out of the equation looking at the source selection factors GLOCK is much more closely tied or ahead of Sig Sauer in technical evaluation. Factor 1 would go to Sig based on Subfactor 4 which was unfairly slanted to Sig. Factor 2 is Glocks. Factor 3 is tied. Factor 4 shouldn’t exist. Factor 5 stays with Sig. Factor 6 Swings to Glock. This leaves things very close at initial look. I further feel eliminating ammo from this RFP is justified because we got 9mm pistols.

We ALREADY HAVE 9MM AMMO in the system. We don’t need a new provider for blank or ball ammo based on a competition. If you look at the enhanced ammo requirement, we actually hurt our competition. By not conducting a separate ammo source selection after the pistol was awarded we limited the number of configurations we had access to. There could be an awesome small business ammo manufacture who would have submitted their own product but because they can’t partner with the right pistol manufacturer we never get to even see their stuff. How is that good for anyone?

Next issue I don’t understand is how the how the previous GAO decision applied to this RFP. The GAO says several times that the Army wasn’t required to make multiple awards but the case they referenced had two different technical approaches in it. This is a different situation. We don’t have two different technical approaches. The other case involved buying RTCH’s. The Army wanted to look at the traditional forklift style vs a reach style. Once they evaluated a reach style RTCH they realized there was no way they wanted to even bother with a forklift style RTCH so they didn’t do a second award. Anyone who has seen these two systems in action can see why this would happen. I see this as different then saying something is so much cheaper than something else that why bother testing them? The Army is solely committed to the Sig at this point. They don’t actually know that the SIG will meet the full bore technical evaluation and if they don’t they are stuck. This is why Glock should have won the protest. The Army only conducted a screening evaluation of the full size pistol. I’m assuming that Sig won Factor 1 because they offered a two gun solution which fit a greater number of people but we don’t know that the compact gun is reliable. Sig got points for something that wasn’t even tested. How is that even remotely fair or sane for the warfighter. You are going to issue a pistol that wasn’t tested for reliability?

Now Glock is asking the Army to finish testing the Sig and publish the results. This is an issue that they brought up in their protest but the GAO said what someone might do isn’t protestable. Note, if the Army fails to conduct the second part of the testing then Glock does have grounds to protest because it would be on actual behavior not a prediction of behavior. Glock is telling the Army to put their money where their mouth is. If they don’t, I would expect another protest where Glock states that the Army misbehavior is not speculative anymore. I’m assuming that the GAO would consider it at that point. This second phase of the testing is important especially as it is related to price. Sure the Sig maybe much cheaper but if it doesn’t meet the requirements then price doesn’t matter. You can’t use a price on a proposal that isn’t technically acceptable for award or comparison. The required service life for the pistols is greater than the number of rounds that the Army shot through the guns. They don’t know that the pistol meets those requirements. What are they going to do if it fails? They eliminated Glock already even though it passed the tech screening. It isn’t like they can go back and make an award to Glock at that point. Well I guess they could based on a Sole Source but they would look stupid and I doubt that anyone would actually do it. So if Sig bolo’s we are all out of luck. Considering the Army has already published a fielding schedule I doubt they would allow Sig to fail. Again how is this fair to Glock? This follows a pattern of the Army not treating industry fairly.

If any acquisition professionals see flaws in my logic please point them out. I’m always looking to learn but this just seems fishy. Thoughts? (Also this was written after a drink or two so…..yeah.)