GearScout has more info on the strange, strange news of the Army’s order from Remington of 24,000 M4A1s, as part of an IDIQ (indefinite delivery, indefinite quantity) contract of up to 120,000 carbines.
28 comments on “I Took A Nap And Woke Up In An Alternate Universe Where Remington Makes M4s For The Military”
The much maligned Feedom Group has got be thrilled about winning what I think is their first major military contract. I know AAC was recently awarded a contract from USSOCOM, but it is small potatoes compared to this. I hope everything goes smoothly for Remington.
Colt was charging the US Army quite a bit more than $890. At the time of the Army’s final sole-source delivery order in December 2010, Coltâs price was just over $1,221.
The FBO.gov site shows that Remington was awarded a small arms contract by ACC-Warren matching the dollar amounts shown. That said, no specific details are given about what the contract buys nor the unit price. I doubt that ACC-Warren will post the actual contract documents. The initial DOD confirmation of quantities will likely come if DefenseLink posts it in their daily listing of large contract awards.
Of course, I would not be surprised if Colt and/or FN file protests with the GAO.
I’ll be dipped. ACC-Warren published the delivery order – $673.10 per carbine, plus $8,852.07 for the First Article Test. FAT isn’t due until late March 2013.
$673 i wonder what accessories come with it for that price. i know it’s a 50+/- year old gun, but where does that leave the carbine competition program? the m4 is a pretty good gun. is the govt going to pay double or triple for something that is not a big technological leap forward?
btw personally i think the troops deserve to be able use the best carbine out there whatever it is.
Bub: The original solicitation W56HZV-10-R-0593 stated:
“This solicitation will result in a five year Indefinite Delivery Indefinite Quantity (IDIQ) contract per FAR 16.504 for the Standard M4 Carbine, NSN: 1005-01-231-0973, Part Number: 9390000; and Standard M4A1 Carbine, NSN: 1005-01-382-0953, Part Number: 12972700. The standard M4 and M4A1 Carbine are configured with Back-up Iron Sight (BUIS) and Adaptor Rail System (ARS). In addition to the standard M4 and M4A1 Carbine, alternate configurations of the M4 or M4A1 Carbine may also be procured, such as an M4/M4A1 Carbine without the BUIS and ARS, but with Carrying Handle (NSN: 1005-01-382-7083, Part Number: 129511021) and Hand Guards (NSN: 1005-01-237-
2297, Part Number: 9390003); or M4/M4A1 Carbine without BUIS and Hand Guards, but with the ARS and Carrying Handle.
“Award will be made to the offeror whose proposal offers the best value to the Government, which may result in award to other than the low offeror and/or other than the highest rated proposal. The maximum quantity over the five year life of the contract is 120,000 ea. of any combination of the M4 and M4A1 Carbine configurations. The Government assumes no liability whatsoever regarding the likelihood that orders will be placed for any particular quantities over the guaranteed minimum quantity under this proposed IDIQ Contract.”
I don’t know why FN would contest this contract. The produce M16s, not M4s. Colt will not be happy though. They will probably sue, but in the end, Remington will get to keep their contract. Colt will just have to settle with producing Colt 6920s and stamping M4 on them to placate the Internet Operator market.
Why wouldn’t FN contest it? The manufacture of M4 isn’t that terribly different from the M16, and the contract is worthy serious money. Remington and its sister companies have never made a complete MIL-STD/TDP compliant M4 or M16 either. Colt had never made a complete M249 or M240 before they bid on and won contracts for their production.
Remington’s per-unit price will be slightly lower than that estimated, as the first delivery order will certainly include funds for a First Article Test, say $20,000-30,000. I suspect Remington’s low ball bid was positioned as a loss-leader. They must think that the resulting prestige from winning the contract will make up for the financial hit.
On what basis would Colt sue? The solicitation response evaluation criteria is spelled out – heck, it is even best value (not lowest price); that said, cost would certainly be a factor and many a contract has been lost with DoD (especially these days) if you don’t figure out how to be in the ballpark on price. The only way someone could call shenanigans is if it can be proven that there is no way Remington could actually provide at the price quoted.
I said that a GAO bid protest was likely to be filed. Of course, it isn’t likely to win, but that has never stopped anyone before from filing the protest.
It will be worded along the lines of: “(Protestor) argues that the Army did not reasonably evaluate Remington’s past performance in accordance with the solicitation’s evaluation criteria, the Army’s technical evaluation was flawed, and its source selection decision was unreasonable.”
Think about all the others IBM, TRW, GM, Singer, IHC, … it’s not that difficult to produce weapons, if you’ve got the right drawings and process documentation. There are a lot of things more complicated to produce.
what worries me about this is that cerberus is now going to be getting guns in our soldiers hands…..and im not sure i trust their quality control, just look at bushmaster
I don’t want to defend Shrubmaster, but they have produced military contract rifles before, and as far as I know, they’ve worked ok. I think the Czech’s would have complained if their Bushy M4s were crap.
Bill: Nearly all of the Bushmaster rifles and carbines bought by the US Army have been commercial models purchased on behalf of Foreign Military Sales customers. The clue is that none of these items were issued NSN. It isn’t terribly likely that we would hear whether or not these clients were dissatisfied. That said, I’m not putting any bets on whether the Omani who approved the purchase of Carbon-15 via TACOM-Rock Island still has his head attached to his neck.
The Czechs are still using the Sa vz 58, their special operations use M4s, and their armed services as a whole are now phasing in the CZ 805 Bren A1/A2 to replace both. Here’s the new Bren, which thanks to the BATFE will not be available in the US until 2017 despite CZ saying they’re ready to start production and US sales the moment they get the nod: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hyjeqBPnubU&feature=related
How the Czech Bushmasters have been performing hasn’t been classified or happening in a vacuum. Those field results were likely a part of the overall decision. Consider them a test run on a TDP contract gun, and then you get a perspective that the feedback was possibly a lot more positive than some internet Brandinistas want to admit.
Life goes in cycles, Remington has built issue weapons before, and others – like Colt – have lost contracts, too. Hint: FN makes the M16. Government inspectors will be on sight, experienced, and a lot of parts will be coming from Colts former vendors anyway. Colt didn’t forge the platters, and their supplier has likely already had lunch with the Remington corporate buyers.
I’m more concerned about the next gen weapon – we rely entirely too much on the M16 mag design, it’s not the best, and we need to dump it for a clean sheet design that handles the cartridges without compromises. The LSAT does that, has 40% more ammo by weight, and has moved to battalion level trials with SOCOM signed on. That means hundreds of working field prototypes, not lab experiments.
Who made them is likely more important in deciding the new supplier of the Nextgen rifle than who just made the ranks as “Just another M4 supplier.”
Maybe DHS is getting the M4’s to go with their 1.75 MILLION rounds of 5.56. Ran them through the US ARMY procurement process rather than take the media hit on a DHS labeled order. Last time I checked the US Army had all the M4’s they needed with the current Colt production order, and Colt was maxed out on producing them. Lets see how many (if any) actually show up in US Army hands.
This is actually a good thing for us law abiding gun owners. Hopefully Remington will eventually have these AR’s on the market for civilians and it will give us even more of an option when it comes time to buy an AR. Since Remington has the M4 TDP now they will have the blue print to make a high quality weapon, and this will create another Colt-like AR-15 option on the market.
The main reason gun owners love Colt AR’s so much is because they have the TDP which means they are of HIGH quality, and they are battle proven. I can’t wait until Remington is making a similar rifle and it is available to us, that will be a trip! I might have to add one to the stable, only time and putting them into battle will tell.
The much maligned Feedom Group has got be thrilled about winning what I think is their first major military contract. I know AAC was recently awarded a contract from USSOCOM, but it is small potatoes compared to this. I hope everything goes smoothly for Remington.
“Lowest bidder” maybe?
has to be, considering they are coming in at $673 each, last contract I saw that was huge was in 2010 from colt and they were costing $890
Colt was charging the US Army quite a bit more than $890. At the time of the Army’s final sole-source delivery order in December 2010, Coltâs price was just over $1,221.
The FBO.gov site shows that Remington was awarded a small arms contract by ACC-Warren matching the dollar amounts shown. That said, no specific details are given about what the contract buys nor the unit price. I doubt that ACC-Warren will post the actual contract documents. The initial DOD confirmation of quantities will likely come if DefenseLink posts it in their daily listing of large contract awards.
Of course, I would not be surprised if Colt and/or FN file protests with the GAO.
you sure
TACOM awards a $1,399,763.40 delivery order to Colt for 1,410 M4 carbines. These are for FMS to Iraq
that puts them at $992, which is still more than i remembered
Yes, I’m sure. I pulled it directly out of the delivery order documentation.
The FMS configuration did not necessarily have the BUIS or ARS included.
Oh, and you are also citing an April 2009 delivery order.
I’ll be dipped. ACC-Warren published the delivery order – $673.10 per carbine, plus $8,852.07 for the First Article Test. FAT isn’t due until late March 2013.
$673 i wonder what accessories come with it for that price. i know it’s a 50+/- year old gun, but where does that leave the carbine competition program? the m4 is a pretty good gun. is the govt going to pay double or triple for something that is not a big technological leap forward?
btw personally i think the troops deserve to be able use the best carbine out there whatever it is.
Bub: The original solicitation W56HZV-10-R-0593 stated:
“This solicitation will result in a five year Indefinite Delivery Indefinite Quantity (IDIQ) contract per FAR 16.504 for the Standard M4 Carbine, NSN: 1005-01-231-0973, Part Number: 9390000; and Standard M4A1 Carbine, NSN: 1005-01-382-0953, Part Number: 12972700. The standard M4 and M4A1 Carbine are configured with Back-up Iron Sight (BUIS) and Adaptor Rail System (ARS). In addition to the standard M4 and M4A1 Carbine, alternate configurations of the M4 or M4A1 Carbine may also be procured, such as an M4/M4A1 Carbine without the BUIS and ARS, but with Carrying Handle (NSN: 1005-01-382-7083, Part Number: 129511021) and Hand Guards (NSN: 1005-01-237-
2297, Part Number: 9390003); or M4/M4A1 Carbine without BUIS and Hand Guards, but with the ARS and Carrying Handle.
“Award will be made to the offeror whose proposal offers the best value to the Government, which may result in award to other than the low offeror and/or other than the highest rated proposal. The maximum quantity over the five year life of the contract is 120,000 ea. of any combination of the M4 and M4A1 Carbine configurations. The Government assumes no liability whatsoever regarding the likelihood that orders will be placed for any particular quantities over the guaranteed minimum quantity under this proposed IDIQ Contract.”
I don’t know why FN would contest this contract. The produce M16s, not M4s. Colt will not be happy though. They will probably sue, but in the end, Remington will get to keep their contract. Colt will just have to settle with producing Colt 6920s and stamping M4 on them to placate the Internet Operator market.
(for those who don’t get me last part: http://www.thefirearmblog.com/blog/2012/03/21/colt-m4-carbine-lesocom/ )
Why wouldn’t FN contest it? The manufacture of M4 isn’t that terribly different from the M16, and the contract is worthy serious money. Remington and its sister companies have never made a complete MIL-STD/TDP compliant M4 or M16 either. Colt had never made a complete M249 or M240 before they bid on and won contracts for their production.
Remington’s per-unit price will be slightly lower than that estimated, as the first delivery order will certainly include funds for a First Article Test, say $20,000-30,000. I suspect Remington’s low ball bid was positioned as a loss-leader. They must think that the resulting prestige from winning the contract will make up for the financial hit.
Why would FN contest it? Because they are mad they didn’t win? It doesn’t work that way …
On what basis would Colt sue? The solicitation response evaluation criteria is spelled out – heck, it is even best value (not lowest price); that said, cost would certainly be a factor and many a contract has been lost with DoD (especially these days) if you don’t figure out how to be in the ballpark on price. The only way someone could call shenanigans is if it can be proven that there is no way Remington could actually provide at the price quoted.
I said that a GAO bid protest was likely to be filed. Of course, it isn’t likely to win, but that has never stopped anyone before from filing the protest.
It will be worded along the lines of: “(Protestor) argues that the Army did not reasonably evaluate Remington’s past performance in accordance with the solicitation’s evaluation criteria, the Army’s technical evaluation was flawed, and its source selection decision was unreasonable.”
I haven’t seen the wording yet, but press reports indicate that Colt has filed a protest with the GAO.
The GAO sustained Colt’s protest on July 24. Now, I guess we’ll see if Remington appeals the ruling.
Who knows, maybe H&R will get back in the business of making M16s/M4. Or Hydramatic.
Think about all the others IBM, TRW, GM, Singer, IHC, … it’s not that difficult to produce weapons, if you’ve got the right drawings and process documentation. There are a lot of things more complicated to produce.
what worries me about this is that cerberus is now going to be getting guns in our soldiers hands…..and im not sure i trust their quality control, just look at bushmaster
I don’t want to defend Shrubmaster, but they have produced military contract rifles before, and as far as I know, they’ve worked ok. I think the Czech’s would have complained if their Bushy M4s were crap.
Bill: Nearly all of the Bushmaster rifles and carbines bought by the US Army have been commercial models purchased on behalf of Foreign Military Sales customers. The clue is that none of these items were issued NSN. It isn’t terribly likely that we would hear whether or not these clients were dissatisfied. That said, I’m not putting any bets on whether the Omani who approved the purchase of Carbon-15 via TACOM-Rock Island still has his head attached to his neck.
Czechs with Bushys? I thought they all rocked different rifles by Cz?
The Czechs are still using the Sa vz 58, their special operations use M4s, and their armed services as a whole are now phasing in the CZ 805 Bren A1/A2 to replace both. Here’s the new Bren, which thanks to the BATFE will not be available in the US until 2017 despite CZ saying they’re ready to start production and US sales the moment they get the nod: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hyjeqBPnubU&feature=related
How the Czech Bushmasters have been performing hasn’t been classified or happening in a vacuum. Those field results were likely a part of the overall decision. Consider them a test run on a TDP contract gun, and then you get a perspective that the feedback was possibly a lot more positive than some internet Brandinistas want to admit.
Life goes in cycles, Remington has built issue weapons before, and others – like Colt – have lost contracts, too. Hint: FN makes the M16. Government inspectors will be on sight, experienced, and a lot of parts will be coming from Colts former vendors anyway. Colt didn’t forge the platters, and their supplier has likely already had lunch with the Remington corporate buyers.
I’m more concerned about the next gen weapon – we rely entirely too much on the M16 mag design, it’s not the best, and we need to dump it for a clean sheet design that handles the cartridges without compromises. The LSAT does that, has 40% more ammo by weight, and has moved to battalion level trials with SOCOM signed on. That means hundreds of working field prototypes, not lab experiments.
Who made them is likely more important in deciding the new supplier of the Nextgen rifle than who just made the ranks as “Just another M4 supplier.”
Maybe DHS is getting the M4’s to go with their 1.75 MILLION rounds of 5.56. Ran them through the US ARMY procurement process rather than take the media hit on a DHS labeled order. Last time I checked the US Army had all the M4’s they needed with the current Colt production order, and Colt was maxed out on producing them. Lets see how many (if any) actually show up in US Army hands.
I really like the AR bolt face photo.
This is actually a good thing for us law abiding gun owners. Hopefully Remington will eventually have these AR’s on the market for civilians and it will give us even more of an option when it comes time to buy an AR. Since Remington has the M4 TDP now they will have the blue print to make a high quality weapon, and this will create another Colt-like AR-15 option on the market.
The main reason gun owners love Colt AR’s so much is because they have the TDP which means they are of HIGH quality, and they are battle proven. I can’t wait until Remington is making a similar rifle and it is available to us, that will be a trip! I might have to add one to the stable, only time and putting them into battle will tell.
Rant over…. 🙂