So how and where does one LEGALLY find the TDP? I know it’s a process. We’d like to play but are getting conflicting data from sources.
Thanks!
Win a USG contract to provide M16 or M4 rifles to the Military and you can license the TDP from Colt expressly for that purpose and that purpose only.
It’s available to those who might be competing for said contract, otherwise the products can’t be compared or even judged because they’re not “to spec” to start with.
It’s a serious question.
Serious Competitors for the most part already know where to go. Every Tom, Dick and Harry can’t just bid for sensitive contracts. I’d contact ARDEC or DLA. Do you have a CAGE code?
The technical data still belongs to Colt. The only LEGAL way to get it is to buy it from Colt.
Everyone else “reverse engineered” it;
That’s the rub and the reason that so far, only FN has been able to win a contract vs Colt. The TDP is Colt’s proprietary information/intellectual property. The agreement Colt has with the USG is that they will license the TDP to a competitor that wins a contract and that that competitor can only use the information to manufacture rifles delivered under the contract. Competitors submit a bid with examples of past performance and their ability to not only manufacture and deliver in the quantities/timeline defined by the contract, but also to comply with published standards and QC procedures (milspec, ISO, etc.). Bidders on such a contract do not have to provide the USG examples of rifles they have made to the TDP during the contract competition. Colt does not give the TDP to their competition prior to contract award.
To get in the game there first has to be an open solicitation or request for proposal (RFP). Check FBO.gov. Then to be able to submit a bid/proposal you will have to have a DUNS number and a CAGE code, as well as meet the category of business designated to receive the contract (i.e., veteran owned, service disabled veteran owned, woman owned, minority owned, small business, large business, etc.). All of the information required to submit a bid (proposal) should be specified in the published solicitation or RFP published by the responsible contracting agency, who would also be the POC for any clarification of the solicitation or RFP.
Bottom line is that Colt is just not going to relinquish their intellectual property to just anyone with a CAGE code that wants to be prepared to bid on a contract.
CAGE Ccide is in process. Working on the other required creds. Thanks. I’ll check those out. My main concern is where to find what info they put out for bidders, it may not be the whole package but to know what their parameters are for judging samples. Thanks for the info!
Agreed. I have the DUNS number and working on the CAGE Code like I said above. I knew Colt didn’t share. The Army and I think the Navy let the package leak a few years ago without the proper procedures being followed when bidding for accessories (I think that was the context) so I’m sure they’re a little tighter with it now.
Great info! Thanks so much! Honestly guys, I’m not looking to rip anyone off here or be shady. We’re in the process of doing things the right way do we can submit a sample next time around so any help getting in the right spot is much appreciated!
Spencer
If you dig around you can find the report on COLT’s protest to GAO, and their lawsuits against other manufacturers. The GAO report on the incident is open source, I had a copy on my old computer. Remington and several other vendors have received copies of the TDP over the years between the M16 contract bids, the M4 bids, FMS, etc.
What are you actually trying to do? With the draw down going on there will be a very limited opportunity to bid on an actual rifle contract. They are converting M4s into M4A1s and also reallocating weapons from deactivating units. As you will find, it will cost a bunch to spin up to where you can be competitive. That could bit your business in the fourth point of contact should a contract fail to materialize.
Unless it is specified in the RFP you should not have to provide a physical example with your bid. Like I said earlier, you will not get access to the TDP unless you are awarded a contract. I’m assuming that you are a small business. If the solicitation specifies a large business you will need to partner with a large business to bid on the contract. Basically you do all of the legwork, figure out costs per unit, your burdening and markup as well as an acceptable pass through to the partner and royalties to Colt, then the partner submits the bid as the prime and subs out part or all of it to your small business. If it is a small business set aside, then you would still probably be best served by partnering with a large business. In this case you would bid as the prime and sub to your large business partner in order to gain manufacturing capacity and economy of scale. You still do all of the same legwork, but you figure what your pass through is after your partner’s burdening, markup and royalties to Colt. There are some gotchas on some RFPs, as some specify that the prime must do >51% of the actual work.
Supplying complete rifles as a small business is a pretty monumental undertaking. Part of the reasons that Remington lost their M4A1 contract were for underestimating Colt’s royalties per rifle and doubts about their manufacturing capacity, which sent the contract back out for rebid, with FNH USA winning on an approximately $642/rifle bid.
Pay close attention to what AC130 is saying. I work on the opposite side of the fence in that I wear a green suit to work and do the contract prep work and tech eval in a limited purview (IT), AC130 is pointing out a lot of key points that a business must take into consideration to be competitive.
I see what both of you are saying. I was under the impression, possibly mistakenly, that the physical sample had to be run through its paces and torture tests especially if the sample has changes or improvements. This is the reason I figured they had to allow bidders access to the package so the sample could be up to spec and compete on a level playing field.
Believe me, I know this is an uphill battle but, without saying too much about future product plans, we have some improvements that we think are worthwhile and have not been offered before (to our knowledge; it’s not the standard stuff).
So if I understand y’all correctly, this process has gone to a paper/electronic bid process only based on projections, numbers and cost and the winner gets the package. This being the case, how do they consider improvements? Or do they?
The other thing to take into consideration is that there are steps to the process and there are differences in the process depending if it’s a new or existing product. Go to fedbiz like ac130 recommended, but also Go to ARDEC like I recommended and click their “Buisness oppurtunitys” tab. Look at what is going on with the Modular Handgun program and what happened with the MARINES IAR. Then compare it to the bidding process for the M4. You will notice differences.
Here is some additional reading:
http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/Colt-M4-Data-Rights-The-Individual-Carbine-Competition-06942/
http://gearscout.militarytimes.com/2012/11/28/gao-denies-latest-colt-m4-protest-could-this-be-it/
You will notice that Crane released the TDP to 21 vendors, an issue only arose when one vendor refused to sign COLT’s NDA.
For a contract to supply more M16s or M4s that is correct. Basically you bid and if you win the USG tells Colt to license the TDP to you and tells you “We want you to make these rifles EXACTLY as specified in the TDP, no more, no less.” Otherwise it would not be an M4, as the TDP defines exactly what an M4 is and that is what was solicited.
To try to pitch improvements or new features you would have to somehow get a demonstration in front of the military and get someone that can actually effect change to see an added value of your product to champion it as a requirement. Not only must you address a deficiency in the current design but you must convince the powers that be that your change is significant enough to justify the cost of not only your product on new purchases, but also how will the implementation of your product affect the logistics tail and if it is truly a requirement, is it even possible to incorporate into the existing inventory of weapons and at what cost. Keep in mind that if your product is seen as a requirement it would likely be solicited as an RFP and you may not even win the contract.
The other options you have are to search FBO.gov for a Request For Information (RFI) that matches a possible requirement or feasibility study looking into more information on something that is the same or similar to your product. That is another way to get your product seen or possibly evaluated. Other than the contracting venues your only other options are advertising and trade shows.
In the end, the military must have a requirement for what you want to sell them before you can try to sell them your product.
The only other opportunity I could think of to sell modifications or improvements to a weapon system is if the military is looking to replace an existing weapon system and they have a “shoot off” or test and evaluation program to select a new or modified platform. Again though, selection would be based not only upon performance, but initial cost, life cycle cost and ultimately how well it fulfills the requirement. For small arms there usually has to be a very significant delta across several areas to justify the expense, along with a marked increase in capability to fulfill the requirements.
The T&E was what I was thinking. I was also figuring since it was not a completely new weapon system that it could be designated as an improvement (i.e. M4A2 etc).
I’ll do this leg work and see where that takes things. THANK YOU BOTH VERY MUCH!! this was a very helpful dialogue and EXACTLY what I was looking for. Have a safe and happ 4th!!
Spencer
Actually you can send in an unsolicited proposal, but good luck with that.
Also, I am pretty sure that the down select vendors (the final few) had to undergo some manner of technical screening that involved hard products.
The RFIs that AC130 mentions are a good place to look, I had forgotten them. Take a look at the recent Rail solicitation and the M110C for more info/examples of that.
Whatever you do, make sure you do a cost benefit analysis. Don’t pull an H&K and wind up owned by BAE after the G11 wasn’t adopted.
Roger that. Good advice. Thanks again so much!
Say, what outfit are you with anyway?
Whatever you have cooking, get it patented or at least apply for a patent. Next step is to get the military to identify your offering as a requirement. In which case, they would likely go to Colt to implement the necessary change to the TDP and of course, Colt, in turn, would need to license your intellectual property from you to incorporate the new requirement into the TDP for the “M4A2”.
Understood. That was the path we had planned for the most part. Thanks again!