Today, ATF announced the results of its highly competitive procurement for a new service sidearm. Both Glock and Smith & Wesson were awarded 10-year contracts worth up to $40,000,000 each. These are the largest non-military small arms contracts in U.S. history.
As some of you know, for the past year and a half I have been consulting with the ATF on this project. It’s been an incredibly rewarding process that allowed me to work with some of the most professional, knowledgeable, and patriotic federal law enforcement officers in our country. You can read the RFP (Request for Proposal) which details both the specifications and testing protocols at FedBizOps.
The award announcements do not go into details about quantities, models, etc. so I cannot discuss that yet. But I’m sure all of that information will be released by the manufactures just as soon as their public relations people can draft a lofty sounding press release.
Train hard & stay safe! ToddG
Thanks Todd, interesting stuff. Am I reading it right that the sights will have a single tritium lamp on the rear sight? Interesting to see the ‘straight eight’ design gaining wider acceptance.
If they are indeed using a ‘straight eight’ type sight system that would be very interesting. I work for a larg police department, about 1800 officers in NC and our firearms rules are extremely strict. It would be really nice if S&W offered a factory straight eight sight, thats about the only way we would ever see one on our guns.
Thanks for the info Todd
Todd,
Sorry to double post but is there anything in print that highlights the benefits of a straight eight type sighting system vs. the novak 3 dot system? Reason I ask is a bunch of officers saying that they like this particular sight isn’t good enough. I figure if anyone would know you would. Thanks.
JSG — The spec called for a two-lamp (one front, one rear) sight solution, correct.
Zack — I’m not aware of any published information that compares the two systems scientifically. Many shooters find the double dots on a traditional rear sight distracting, preferring an all-black sight. However, the all-black option eliminates the ability to index properly under low- or no-light conditions. Thus, the figure eight design was born.
Todd, could you please post a link to this ATF announcement.
I don’t see it on their website or anywhere else for that matter.
Joe —
Glock award: DJA10D000010
S&W award: DJA10D000011
wonder how many people are going to mix up mags during training?
Todd, in the DJAS09*New_Weapon_System.pdf on page 23 it states:
3. Must withstand firing a live round of ATF-approved duty ammunition when a bullet is lodged one inch
forward of the chamber (barrel obstruction test).
Does this test mean that it must withstand a squib load or is this test something different?
Thanks,
Magnus
While both companies received contracts, that does not necessarily mean that any particular agency will buy both brands for its personnel. A multiple award contract helps the agencies primarily by maintaining competition and providing a fallback position if a first choice starts to have problems.
For example, let’s suppose companies Jones and Engh win contracts for pistols.
The Jones gun was more reliable and accurate so Agency-X decides to buy Jones pistols. As a company, Jones delivers late, delivers guns that don’t run as well as the test samples, and/or provides poor post-purchase customer support. Agency-X calls up Jones and says, “Get your shit together or we’re switching to Engh.” No testing is necessary. No contracts need to be written, because the contract already exists.
This is exactly what happened with the big DHS pistol contract in ’04. Two companies, SIG and HK, won contracts. ICE, the agency that ran the testing, chose SIG. So did many other DHS agencies. Customs and Border Patrol, however, chose to buy tens of thousands of HKs. And when a SIG customer had problems or complaints, we always knew that they could switch to HKs with nothing but a signature…
Magnus — All I can say is that it means submitted guns had a bullet lodged one inch forward of the chamber and then a round of live ammo was fired (remotely) and the effect on the gun was assessed. Except where specified in the solicitation, I cannot give any details on procedures or assessment standards, nor can I discuss any of the specific results.
Suffice it to say, I would clearly undercut Jones, higher his R&D guys and then produce a product that eats itself.
Consideringthe $40,000,000 contract-volume I wonder why HK didn’t submit the P30 or P2000. Or did they? just curious….
Customs and Border PROTECTION, Todd.
The United States Border Patrol is a component of CBP.
Honor first,
Phil
HK did not compete.
Only Sig, S&W, and Glock. Sig was tossed for it’s lack of reliability….. THEN filed a protest claiming that the ATF had placed too much emphasis upon reliability.
Check it out for yourself. http://www.gao.gov/decisions/bidpro/4023393.htm
“Based on the results of the shooting tests, the [source selection board] recommended to the contracting officer that Sig Sauer’s handgun be excluded from further consideration as unacceptable with respect to reliability,” said the GAO, in a decision document released on August 18. ATF agents had recorded 58 stoppages with Sig Sauer’s full-size and compact pistols, 13 of which were considered to be gun-induced and 45 shooter-induced.
And reading that report is the quintessential example of bureaucracy and it’s worst.
And reading that report is the quintessential example of bureaucracy at it’s worst.
Matt – I’m quite sure that “bureaucracy” is NOT what made the guns not fire.
wow
So they way I understand it, neither company is guaranteed any particular amount of money. The awards state “not to exceed $40,000,000”, it doesn’t specify a minimum amount “secured” by either company.
Correct me if I wrong, but it reads to me “ATF has anywhere between 40 and 80 mil to spend on handguns over next 10 years, and some or all of that money is going to go to Glock, or SW, or both”.
Todd, you know how these things work. Can you explain why H&K (or half a dozen other firms we could think of) didn’t compete? When I formed for a company that responded to RFPs, we would respond to almost anything even if the odds of winning were really low. To blow off an evaluation like this they must have known they wouldn’t win. Perhaps they knew they would be eliminated based on price? I’m not asking for any inside information about this competition or H&K. I’m just looking for your insight as an industry person.
Truly disappointed to read that you consult with the ATF.
What ammo will they be using?
From the solicitation:
“Current ATF-approved duty
ammunition is Speer 165gr Gold Dot (part number 53947) and current ATF-approved training ammunition is
Speer Lawman 125gr RHT (part number 53375).”
I’m curious as to why HK didn’t compete. It doesn’t appear that they were “written out” however the preferences cited in the solicitation certainly weren’t favorable, particularly for the mag release.
“Truly disappointed to read that you consult with the ATF.”
Seriously, after more than a decade of dealing with the ATF, I have zero interest in the knee-jerk “jack booted thug” crap. Every ATF agent I’ve ever dealt with — many of whom I consider good friends — have been gun owners and strong supporters of the Second Amendment.
Since pistol-training.com isn’t about politics, that’s the last comment on the subject that will be allowed.
Care-o-meter picture copied for future use………….if you don’t mind Todd. (-:
The question about HK and decisions by others not to compete is a good one. Anything you can provide on that would be most welcome Todd.
And that picture is almost as good as Ceiling Cat.
Were/will the Glocks be Gen3 or Gen4?
If I understand this correctly, the contract is for up to $40M over 10 yrs max. Other fed agencies may piggyback this? IOW, it’s not likely ATF alone will buy $40M from each, or $80M total, rather ATF and other agencies may but that, or less, over the next 10 yrs?
Kinda interesting the S&Ws had about twice as many shooter induced stoppages as the Glocks in the GAO report? Wassup w dat?
Wonder how each did in the big durability/reliability test w and w/o light attached in the later phase? Obviously, both did well enough…
Re: HK, I cannot comment unless someone from HK gives me permission to. It’s nothing notorious, I assure you.
Re: Glock, until either ATF or Glock makes a formal announcement, I cannot discuss which models we tested and were accepted. Same goes for S&W.
Re: the nature of the contracts, MikeO, you’ve got it exactly right. These are two separate open 10yr contracts. Any federal agency can purchase off of them over the next ten years, with a total expenditure not to exceed $40M per contract.
Re: test results, no one (myself included) is allowed to divulge any of that. In fact, I was very surprised GAO put so much of the information out there in the public domain.
Any agency in DOJ, or is this open to agencies DHS, etc too?
MikeO: page 8 of the solicitation:
B.2 TERM OF CONTRACT
The contract shall be for a period of 12 months from the date of contract award, plus nine, one year option periods subject to the Government’s discretion to extend the term of the contract. The contract will be open to all Federal Agencies.
I noticed the bit about shooter induced stoppages for the S&W too. I don’t quite understand how that translates into a higher subjective reliability rating for the S&W model among the testers. I hope more details about the testing surfaces over the coming weeks.
In any case, it is clear that both S&W and Glock performed admirably.
it will be truly interesting to see if any numbers get published that show just what is being purchased. More Glocks or more S&Ws. I doubt we’ll ever hear that number though.
Re:HK, understood Todd. But what about other manufacturers? Any particular reason for their not participating that you can tell us about. Obviously if it’s stuff you can’t talk about, we’ll understand, but it is curios to see no Beretta, or did I miss them in my reading?
Kind of curious about why they are planning to buy from 2 different manufacturers. Wouldn’t it be simpler just to select one design for uniformity???
(edited: again, pistol-training.com is not the place for anti-ATF or other anti-law enforcement comments, links, etc.)
STEVEN: That report you posted is 9 pages long an example of Government Bureaucracy, IMO. Sorry if I didn’t clarify.
“GLOCK was chosen over others due to the new design features of the Gen4 pistol and GLOCK’s Safe Action System, as well as reliability and durability that have made GLOCK pistols famous,” said GLOCK Vice President Josh Dorsey, in a news release.
– Atlanta Business Chronicle
Todd,
Congrats on consulting on this.
Can you speak to the Dry Fire Training Guns? If so, will they be made available by S&W and Glock to the general public?