JHZR2
Staff member
Originally Posted By: billt460
Originally Posted By: JHZR2
The intent of a sealed bid is to force best and final upfront.
That never happens. These companies all know how to play this game. Especially Sig and Glock.
...
But without knowing what the other guy is bidding, Glock, (or anyone else for that matter), can't come back and undercut their first bid. It then becomes a game of, "how much can we get away with charging". Instead of, "How low can we go and still make money".
IMO, youre essentially presupposing that Glock should win. That's not an objective analysis, nor what the contracting officer is supposed to do.
"gee only if I had known" is not an acceptable response in a sealed bid situation. Again, best and final upfront...
I state that youre presupposing that Glock should win because of this: Sig did bid a low number. Glock apparently didnt. Why not? Why didnt they offer a better number upfront? Fear of not maximizing a profit?
If Glock had won, and Sig was $x higher, would you be saying the same thing? Youre showing bias in my view (yes, big assumption on my part, and you DID say about "anyone else for that matter" in the above quote), by bringing this up in the context, as opposed to looking at final cost and pure technical facts associated with the test results (which Im not sure if they are public record or not, and I know they werent fully completed). The real world is chock full of shoulda, woulda, coulda... Including the best and final price that Glock should have offered, which would have provided them with an acceptable level of profit on their product. If they were too proud to offer a better price on an established contracting strategy and methodology, whose fault is that?
The other option would have been to not had a sealed best and final, used data and an initial cost basis to source select, and then have the contracting officer negotiate down on fee. But even in that process, the CO would have been negotiating with one company.
What youre really asking for is a reverse auction, to the rock bottom price... An interesting concept, worth considering, but not what is done, ever, and I doubt that even major corporations do this. Heck, very few people even do this when buying major items for themselves, other than a bit of comparison shopping.
Also, again, not relevant to JSF, because JSF was already source selected. An evaluation board already evaluated LM vs Boeing's (and IIRC M-D as well) offerings, and picked the LM one. TO equate:
JSF in the 90s had a LM, a Boeing and an MD offering. That's like Sig, Glock, and Beretta offering options for which was selected. LM was selected, and Sig was selected.
Now, 20 years later LM gets a call from POTUS. In 20 years from now, the Army will probably be looking for a replacement for the M17; doubt POTUS will call Sig, or Glock, or anyone over it.
Originally Posted By: JHZR2
The intent of a sealed bid is to force best and final upfront.
That never happens. These companies all know how to play this game. Especially Sig and Glock.
...
But without knowing what the other guy is bidding, Glock, (or anyone else for that matter), can't come back and undercut their first bid. It then becomes a game of, "how much can we get away with charging". Instead of, "How low can we go and still make money".
IMO, youre essentially presupposing that Glock should win. That's not an objective analysis, nor what the contracting officer is supposed to do.
"gee only if I had known" is not an acceptable response in a sealed bid situation. Again, best and final upfront...
I state that youre presupposing that Glock should win because of this: Sig did bid a low number. Glock apparently didnt. Why not? Why didnt they offer a better number upfront? Fear of not maximizing a profit?
If Glock had won, and Sig was $x higher, would you be saying the same thing? Youre showing bias in my view (yes, big assumption on my part, and you DID say about "anyone else for that matter" in the above quote), by bringing this up in the context, as opposed to looking at final cost and pure technical facts associated with the test results (which Im not sure if they are public record or not, and I know they werent fully completed). The real world is chock full of shoulda, woulda, coulda... Including the best and final price that Glock should have offered, which would have provided them with an acceptable level of profit on their product. If they were too proud to offer a better price on an established contracting strategy and methodology, whose fault is that?
The other option would have been to not had a sealed best and final, used data and an initial cost basis to source select, and then have the contracting officer negotiate down on fee. But even in that process, the CO would have been negotiating with one company.
What youre really asking for is a reverse auction, to the rock bottom price... An interesting concept, worth considering, but not what is done, ever, and I doubt that even major corporations do this. Heck, very few people even do this when buying major items for themselves, other than a bit of comparison shopping.
Also, again, not relevant to JSF, because JSF was already source selected. An evaluation board already evaluated LM vs Boeing's (and IIRC M-D as well) offerings, and picked the LM one. TO equate:
JSF in the 90s had a LM, a Boeing and an MD offering. That's like Sig, Glock, and Beretta offering options for which was selected. LM was selected, and Sig was selected.
Now, 20 years later LM gets a call from POTUS. In 20 years from now, the Army will probably be looking for a replacement for the M17; doubt POTUS will call Sig, or Glock, or anyone over it.