close

Privacy guaranteed - Your email is not shared with anyone.

Army Awards New M4/M4A1 Contract to FN

Discussion in 'Black Rifle Forum' started by LL6, Feb 23, 2013.


  1. WoodenPlank

    WoodenPlank
    Expand Collapse
    Who?

    Joined:
    May 15, 2010
    7,958
    3
    Location:
    NW Florida
    Not sure how such a stipulation could be put on FN when it wasn't enforced on Colt or Sabre (before Sabre went TU), and I doubt Remington was going to give up it's civilian AR line just to get the military contract.
     

    Wanna kill these ads? We can help!
  2. daddysnapmuffins

    daddysnapmuffins
    Expand Collapse

    Joined:
    Jul 30, 2008
    271
    1
    Location:
    Downtown
    I think it has to do with Colt owning the TDP. My research indicates that any company not named Colt that takes up an M4 contract with the military can't sell to civilians. Sabre I don't think even got one out of the factory.
     

  3. WoodenPlank

    WoodenPlank
    Expand Collapse
    Who?

    Joined:
    May 15, 2010
    7,958
    3
    Location:
    NW Florida
    I'd be interested to see where that info is coming from. All of that just seems awfully odd to me.
     
  4. daddysnapmuffins

    daddysnapmuffins
    Expand Collapse

    Joined:
    Jul 30, 2008
    271
    1
    Location:
    Downtown
    Grant from GR Tactical. Check M4carbine.net.
    Flip through the pages here. Grant usually has a pretty good idea of what's what. http://www.m4carbine.net/showthread.php?t=113928&page=7
     
    #24 daddysnapmuffins, Feb 24, 2013
    Last edited: Feb 24, 2013
  5. fnfalman

    fnfalman
    Expand Collapse
    Chicks Dig It

    Joined:
    Oct 23, 2000
    49,693
    2,650
    Location:
    California & New Mexico, US
    How can Colt own the TDP when the US Army Board of Ordnance contracted them to develop the M4 and M4A1 in the first place?
     
    #25 fnfalman, Feb 25, 2013
    Last edited: Feb 25, 2013
  6. fnfalman

    fnfalman
    Expand Collapse
    Chicks Dig It

    Joined:
    Oct 23, 2000
    49,693
    2,650
    Location:
    California & New Mexico, US
    Of course they can't sell M16A2s to civilians. However, I doubt that there is an issue of them making a semiauto version and sell it. It's not like Beretta isn't doing the same with the M9 pistol.
     
  7. countsk

    countsk
    Expand Collapse

    Joined:
    Sep 29, 2009
    193
    0
    We have a mix of FN M-16A2s and Colt M-4s in my current unit. I'm looking forward to the M-4A1's fielding. I haven't fired a full auto rifle/carbine since the M-16A1s and that has been a few years.
     
  8. daddysnapmuffins

    daddysnapmuffins
    Expand Collapse

    Joined:
    Jul 30, 2008
    271
    1
    Location:
    Downtown
    I really don't know the ins and outs of it but Colt at some point owned the rights to the TDP. They bought IP from Armalite. The Army contacted them to develop the M4 but Colt still created it. The Army set standards and Colt created a product to meet them. Whether FN makes the M4 and M4A1 or the contract gets pieced out among several companies, they would pay royalties to Colt on each rifle just as FN has on the M16.
     
  9. KalashniKEV

    KalashniKEV
    Expand Collapse

    Joined:
    Sep 24, 2003
    6,391
    3
    Location:
    NoVA
    This.

    Colt owns the TDP. If Colt wins the contract, they earn their fee on each rifle produced, if Colt loses the contract (which they did), they get their royalties on each rifle produced via second-source.

    Read up on it below, especially the comically stupid behavior of NSWC Crane in improperly disclosing the M4 TDP while trying to buy... an M4 simunitions kit. :upeyes:

    Short version- US Army Rock Island gave the Navy a copy of the M4 Addendum to the TDP (Colt's Secret Sauce/ Coke Formula) and they attached it to a solicitation and blasted it out to 21 of Colt's competitors...

    :faint:

    20 of them returned the TDP and signed docs stating, "I didn't see nothing..."

    The 21st was Fabrique Nationale- who instead of signing the paper returned a random unsolicited bid to produce M4s to the specs that were leaked for less money.

    :rofl:

    The hilarity goes on as Colt jacked their prices from $521 to $912 for a stripped base gun after the war kicked off, and then eventually $1,221 for a kitted M4.

    Those were the good old days...

    http://www.pepperlaw.com/publications_article.aspx?ArticleKey=198

    http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/Colt-M4-Data-Rights-The-Individual-Carbine-Competition-06942/
     
  10. fnfalman

    fnfalman
    Expand Collapse
    Chicks Dig It

    Joined:
    Oct 23, 2000
    49,693
    2,650
    Location:
    California & New Mexico, US
    Inflation sure had gone up a bit. I remembered when I went through the US Army armorer's course, we were shown that an M16A2 costed Uncle Sam $135. Of course this was probably back in 1987 or 1988, I can't remember.
     
  11. RWBlue

    RWBlue
    Expand Collapse
    Mr. CISSP, CISA
    CLM

    Joined:
    Jan 24, 2004
    23,476
    809
    Many of the Gov. contracts I deal with have a Small Minority Business mandated component. I would like to know if this contact mandates this also.
     
  12. KalashniKEV

    KalashniKEV
    Expand Collapse

    Joined:
    Sep 24, 2003
    6,391
    3
    Location:
    NoVA
    Yes... but nothing doubled their costs in 2002. They were taking advantage of the GWOT.

    I'm also pretty sure that the Military buys more ARs than Walmart, and should probably get a better price with ongoing demand.

    It is a Full and Open Solicitation.

    There is likely no SB participation requirement.

    https://www.fbo.gov/index?s=opportu...33ff75540f9e3fb13da1720d9ab&tab=core&_cview=0
     
  13. fnfalman

    fnfalman
    Expand Collapse
    Chicks Dig It

    Joined:
    Oct 23, 2000
    49,693
    2,650
    Location:
    California & New Mexico, US
    The MBE/WBE/SBE/DBE requirement probably comes in under accessories like mags, slings and other non-essential stuff. So the slings are probably made from "Lighthouse For the Blind" or something like that.
     
  14. RWBlue

    RWBlue
    Expand Collapse
    Mr. CISSP, CISA
    CLM

    Joined:
    Jan 24, 2004
    23,476
    809

    I was anticipating this to be the rifle and accessories.

    I thought the sights were made by the "Lighthouse For the Blind".:shocked:



    It use to be that the magazines were made by small minority businesses. The problem was that the contract was so lucrative that the business would grow and make money for a year and then it would not qualify as a small business.
     
  15. KalashniKEV

    KalashniKEV
    Expand Collapse

    Joined:
    Sep 24, 2003
    6,391
    3
    Location:
    NoVA
    No, this is a rifle contract.

    This is a sling contract:
    (100% SB Set Aside)

    https://www.fbo.gov/index?s=opportu...2f45c6f06b63d2cf013abf9fcde&tab=core&_cview=1

    This is a cleaning kit contract:
    (100% SB Set Aside)

    https://www.fbo.gov/index?s=opportu...a9f420f1dfffc6ef6dba5bb5c77&tab=core&_cview=1

    etc...

    BUIS are made by Matech Inc., Hebron MD, 21830.

    https://www.fbo.gov/index?s=opportunity&mode=form&tab=core&id=733e6e30ad6eada01c6378be8d62cf91

    That's not the "problem-" that's the entire point of the SBA and it's programs.

    The "problem" to some may be that it makes more sense for a company to divest itself of the most profitable business unit than break the size standard and go into full and open competition... creating two seperate qualified small businesses rather than graduating from the program and competing their next contract against Boeing, General Dynamics, ManTech, BAE, etc...

    Also, I'm not sure what your hang up is on "minority owned" but there are all types of SB categories- 8(a), SDVOSB, VOSB, WOSB, HubZone, ANC, etc.

    The most lucrative magazine contract in recent history went to Magpul.
     
  16. RWBlue

    RWBlue
    Expand Collapse
    Mr. CISSP, CISA
    CLM

    Joined:
    Jan 24, 2004
    23,476
    809
    You have gone from an Army contract to an Airforce contract.

    It all depends on how you want to set up the contract. Set aside for a separate bid or force a certain percentage to a small business as part of the larger contract. It can be done either way.

    You missed the joke. Blind making slings is not funny, it is just work which I am sure they can do.. Blind making sights is funny. Not to say they can not do it, but it is funny in an ironic way.


    My issue is I have seen the contract NOT go to the best product or best priced produce because the they wanted a small minority owned business to do the work.

    I have also seen the contract be divided in screwy ways so it goes to the correct states.

    I have also watched organizations divide and reform so they can work the system.

    When you include race and sex on the forms, you create a way for people to be racist and sexist. If you eliminate all everything except for the facts....all you have is price and quality and past performance.

    Or to put it a different way, If the Gov. spend the money like it was coming out of their personal pocket or their life depended on it working, they wouldn't do it like we do.
     
  17. AK_Stick

    AK_Stick
    Expand Collapse
    AAAMAD
    1. Glock Talk's Drunk Squad

    Joined:
    Jan 20, 2004
    16,909
    668
    Location:
    Alaska, again (for now)

    Not everyone is going to M4A1's. Just specific units
     
  18. DustyJacket

    DustyJacket
    Expand Collapse
    Directiv 10-289

    Joined:
    Oct 16, 2008
    6,447
    100
    Location:
    Missouri, East of KC
    I wonder how their qualities compare to that Hydro-matic I carried....... :)
     
  19. KalashniKEV

    KalashniKEV
    Expand Collapse

    Joined:
    Sep 24, 2003
    6,391
    3
    Location:
    NoVA
    Ummm... My bad???

    :dunno:

    This is another sling contract:
    (100% SB Set Aside)

    https://www.fbo.gov/index?s=opportu...f6027df2d13344d149664b7064b&tab=core&_cview=1


    All contracting authorities have different SB goals. How rigidly enforced they are depends on the Dep/Agency/Org. For a lot of them, if you don't meet your SB goals, you get less money next year.

    OK... we get it, minorities... :upeyes:

    There are also set asides for HUBZones that provide jobs for Americans in rural, or declining urban areas where they would otherwise wither away and die.

    There are set asides for Service Disabled Veterans who got broken in the course of their service to Nation.

    There are set asides for Woman Owned Small businesses that help women succeed.

    These are just the rules of the game. Hate it or love it. Also, if you're in the game you know that competition is still just as cutthroat in these smaller pools.

    ...and Technical.

    The government has an "agenda" to not just pour money into the mega corporations of the military industrial complex.

    They take care of Small Business in many ways (as above). This creates healthy competition in the different pools. Also, sometimes when a "graduated" lean-and-mean SB *does* make a shot at going big time, they can pose a real threat to an organization who has spent their money building glass castles, filling them with retired Generals, and giving out fat retirements and bennies.
     
  20. RWBlue

    RWBlue
    Expand Collapse
    Mr. CISSP, CISA
    CLM

    Joined:
    Jan 24, 2004
    23,476
    809
    Exactly!

    No, or not always. In fact one of the minority groups does a GREAT job at what they do, but another minority group is working the system.

    I want minority gorup1 because they do a great job. I would really like to see group2 go away.


    Sometimes yes, sometimes no, sometimes I think we would be better off going to the strip club to support single mothers because we are not getting what we need.

    I don't like using the term "the government" for items like this. Someone has an agenda, but...

    There was an article in forbes recently about the presidents and their wealth. It was very interesting. We could also look at different Senators and Representatives who have consulting companies they own or work for.....It is not all Rep or Dem, it is both of them.




    On a side note, I finally finished 2 more SOWs. We will see what I get. I think I wrote them tight enough to get quality, but then again.... Anyone want to make a bet? I am betting at least 50% of these SOW $ go to a SB or a SMOB and the bids will be higher than if it was just for an open compete.
     
Loading...
Similar Threads Forum Date
Colt M4 and M4A1 Carbine Black Rifle Forum Oct 30, 2014
Philippine Military Awards Assault Rifle Contract to Remington Defense Band of Glockers Feb 25, 2014
FN awarded M4 /M4A1 contract over Remington & Colt! Black Rifle Forum Mar 27, 2013
FNH Lands Army M4 Contract, Underbids Colt, Remington Political Issues Mar 1, 2013
New Army Badge Awards: Special Operations Diver Veteran's Forum Aug 16, 2005