The document says that the Contract Specialist looked at Barska and Armsight. I know that other brands had to be considered, but would SOCOM really had accepted Barska scopes?:
https://www.fbo.gov/utils/view?id=a188202d9a285695a3fefff9e94c0cba
I hope not. Maybe if they were like the team in that movie SWAT where their commander absolutely hated them and wanted them to fail.
It’s CYA for the contracting folks. Sole source is sometimes frowned upon and they have to allow vendors to compete.
If you read the acquisition language correctly they are basically say that the only other makers offering a scope that have features similar to what the requirement is asking were Baraska and Armsight. It then basically said that those vendors’ scope could not completely meet the requirement. They also mention 2 other scope makers of known higher quality and why they cannot meet the requirement.
Even if barska had won there isn’t any guaranty that heir scopes would wind up on rifles down range. The document says they think they might order 120 scopes per year, not that they will. IDIQ contracts have some specifics best explained by a SME. Which I am not.
This is correct. On some RFI’s or programs there has to be some amount of Small Business companies, Small Business Disadvantaged (like a small business owned a disabled veteran) and Woman Owned Small Business companies as the Prime. This was done because the behemoths like General Dynamics, Lockheed-Martin, L3, and Motorola were securing the majority of contracts due to their vast resources. So there are RFI’s written by the Contracting Office that has language specific to a Small Business, or Disadvantaged SMB, or Woman Owned Small Business. Sometimes though the SMB is just a front. They act as the Prime, but sub all the work out to one of the big boys again because of their resources. You can see RFI’s written that sounds just like a marketing spiel for a specific product or services. I know this because I have read them. There are several strategies the Contracting Office can use to narrow down or reduce the number of RFP’s responding to the RFI’s. I’ve seen RFI’s posted for one day only. On a Friday. Before a long weekend. This one was opened two days it seems, but I also believe the language was specific enough to keep NF as the prime, but also make a half-stepping attempt to make it appear open for other competitors to have the opportunity to compete. Although it’s possible, those guys never had a chance out of the gate. I didn’t read it all.
On some RFI’s where you see very minimal response, it is not always because other companies aren’t interested in competing for that contract, it’s because they know that they don’t have a snowflakes chance in hades to win. It can take an inordinate amount of time to respond to an RFI and why burn through those resources, often bringing in contractor SME’s and paying out of the wazoo for them when you know they are going to award the contract to who they are going to award t to no matter how you answer the RFI questions.
I won’t get into more details about RFI’s that have been earmarked for a specific company due to certain congressmen or senators who may be residing on the Armed Forces Appropriations Committee, or maybe the Defense subcommittee. It’s how the big gov’t machine works though.
I would have enjoyed reading the RFI posted to award the contract for the next sniper system.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Robert,
That’s an excellent explanation, much better then I could do. On a smart phone no less. Very impressive.
Thanks
CD
Thank you CD. You hit the nail in the head also. For me it’s only because I’ve had the unfortunate experience of seeing that cutthroat, backstabbing, speak with forked tongue process at work. It put beans on the table and for that reason I am thankful. And the fact my eyes were opened to the truth. Although I question the value of that at times. Lol
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Just contracting games to get what the customer wants. Happens all the time to get sole sourced equipment / services.