Just some additional tidbit information in relation to the topic or thread discussion.
The Colt M4 finished last against four competetors, yet was still continued in procurement. During the procurement cycles for the Colt M4, Colt has steadly increased the price (while on sole-source contract from 1999 to 2009) while not improving quality and reliability:
In December 1999, Colt was charging $521 per M4 carbine (DAAE20-98-C-0082-P00011).
In December 2002, Colt price for the U.S. Army-configuration M4 carbine was $912 (DAAE20-02-C-0115-P00004).
In July 2006, Colt agreed to lower its prices, and agreed to provide basic issue items like the Back Up Iron Sight (BUIS) and M4 Adaptor Rail System (ARS) which had formerly been provided to Colt as Government Furnished Material (GFM) (W52H09-04-D-0086-P00025). Before this, the price of the M4 and M4A1 was, respectively, $1,012 and $1,029 (W52H09-04-D-0086-0040).
(Note: Yes ladies and gentlemen, the M4 Adaptor Rail System (ARS) and BUIS that Colt was using was supplied by the U.S. Government and Colt did not make it, it was your property, it was used on the M4 (but the ARS was also copied) and returned it to you on civilain weapons without even giving you a price break on the weapon - essentially Colt sold your own property back to you in both the military and civilian weapon. The reason Colt agreed to lower its price and supply some items in 2006 was because although the Army could not solicit another supplier for supply of the M4 it could solicit for an alternative to the M4. In 2006 the Army issued a presolicitation notice indicating its intent to award a contract for an alternative to the M4. Seeing the threat to its price gouging cash cow Colt responded with an agreement to lower its price for that purchase order and supply some items that were previously supplied to Colt by the government for the M4.)
After 2006 the price of a basic M4 dropped to $815, and with Colt provided BUIS and ARS is $1,142 (W52H09-04-D-0086-0040).
At the time of the final sole source order in December 2010, Colts price was just over $1,221 per fully equipped carbine (W52H09-07-D-0425-BR02) (sole source contract clause ended in 2009 with the final purchase taking place in 2010 but began in 2009).
The Army issued an open solicitation in 2006 but withdrew it. The Colt sole source clause in the "M4 Addendum" expired in July 2009. The Army upon the sole source clause expiring started looking for a new supplier for the M4A1 and has awarded a contract to a different supplier. The unit cost in the new contract was roughly half the price charged by Colt in its final delivery order in December 2010. In April 2012 Remington sold the U.S. Army 24,000 M4A1s at $673.00 each (W56HZV-12-D-0056). It is not true that Remington was not awarded a contract as Colt fans tout, Remington was awarded a contract for supply just not a sole source contract for supply. There is currently no sole source contract for the M4/M4A1. The Army received its last delivery of Colt M4A1s in November, 2011 with no more deliveries outstanding.
According to the Department of the Army's Chief of Legislative Liaison, the Army executed a delivery order to buy 24,000 M4A1s worth $16,163,252.07 from Remington on April 20, 2012. The Remington contract for up to 120,000 carbines worth $83,924,089.00, though U.S. Army Contracting Command lists the "Max Potential Contract Value $180,000,000.00". The Remington contract is an indefinite delivery/indefinite quantity contract according to Remington. (Note: The Remingtons will be produced using the US Army's M4 technical data package, Colt no longer has exclusive ownership of the TDP data as the Army acquired ownership via license of the Colt TDP data in July 2009 - according to contacts at Remington they plan to be manufacturing their own upper receivers, lowers receivers, bolt, bolt carrier and barrels) Of course Colt filed a protest to the contract award on May 1, 2012. The protest has had the effect of slowing adoption of the contract award. The complaint from Colt concerned how the Army evaluated bids so the GAO took a look and upheld Colts protest. The Army had three options; reevaluate the submitted bids and take the GAO's revised pricing calculations into account, alter the original contract terms and request new bids, or simply ignore the GAO (they have before) and buy the rifles from Remington anyway because the GAO's finding isn't binding. The Army adopted the GAO guidance and sought new bids in an amended solicitation for the M4 contract and provided the amended solicitation to vendors whose previous proposals fell within the competitive range on 21 September, 2012. Of course, Remington is not happy with the prospect of a recompetition since their pricing was exposed as part of the original award, and such could bring up a legal battle. It means a competitors bid was exposed to competition and now gives an unfair advantage because it would allow Colt or another competitor to purposely lower their price simply to get the contract. Colt is on some slippery ground here. If Colt competes and submits a bid lower than Remingtons there will be some very interested people in Congress, at the GAO, and in the DoD, who will want to know why Colt gouged the goverment on previous pricing which may lead to criminal investigation and prosecution. Also at issue is royality payments. According to the now infamous 'M4 amendment" which expired in 2009 for the sole source contract portion, the US Army would have to pay 5% in royalties to Colt for every M4/M4A1 carbine produced and/or their unique parts (the auto fire related attributes items) procured from second sources for another 26 years – through December 24, 2037. I guess the term 'military intelligence' really is an oxymoron because no one in their right mind would have agreed to such but to be fair at the time the military had little choice. Its the royality payment that made the GAO step in and give attention to Colts protest, in the contract bids valuation process by the Army they failed to consider the royality payments.
Colt sued the U.S. Government and as a result won a concession for a sole source contract that was to last a decade, it expired in 2009. The lawsuit was due to an improper release of the Colt TDP. in January 1996, the Army released the M4A1 carbine TDP to the Navy. The Navy requested the TDP for internal use but inappropriately released it in August 1996 to contractors in a solicitation for M4A1 adapter kits. Colt filed a lawsuit against the Government in December 1997 regarding the rights and responsibilities of each party under License Agreement DAAF03-67-C-0108. Colt agreed to drop its damage claim against the Army and in exchange was granted sole source status for a decade (ended in 2009). During that sole source decade Colt steadly increased prices, refused to provide and/or delayed fixes, made no real improvements in quality or reliability, and blocked any possible competition for supply of the M4. Granted, the Army was blocked from procuring another supplier during this decade due to the settlement, and Colt had every right to expect that to happen because it was the settlement agreement. What Colt did not have a right to do was gouge the American people on weapon price (or sell our own property back to us), and place our troops in further harms way by not ensuring they actually had the best and most reliable weapon. In 2009 FN Manufacturing, Inc., a potential supplier for the M4, challenged the legality of the sole source agreement (FN Manufacturing, Inc. v. the United States and Colt's Manufacturing Company, Inc., 44 Fed. Cl. 449 - FN Manufacturing is fully able to manufacture the M4 and has been ready for a while), but the courts upheld the agreement.
In the current competition to replace the M4 carbine (The improved carbine (IC) competition - current time table places competetion completion in 2013, current schedule has a contract awarded in October 2012, followed by more evaluations of the remaining contenders, lasting until March 2013 - supoposedly it was behind schedule and the competition was reslated to start in 2015, however, in May 2012 Army weapons officials announced the second phase of the Improved Carbine competition had begun and announced those who will move on to Phase II of the competetion. Those moving on to Phase II are FNH USA, Heckler & Koch USA, Remington Arms Company, Adcor Defense Inc, and Colt Defense LLC.) these are the current contenders:
Colt: CM901 multicaliber rifle (5.56mm – 7.62mm)
FN Herstal (FNH) USA: SCAR-L 5.56mm
HK (Heckler & Koch) USA: HK416 5.56mm.
Remington: Adaptive Combat Rifle (ACS) multi-caliber (5.56mm or 6.8mm from the same rifle by change of a few components which takes about 10 minutes).
Adcor Defense Inc: 5.56mm B.E.A.R.
Smith & Wesson and LWRC withdrew from the competition.
Contrary to belief there are other weapons in use with the U.S. military, and testing shows that (using 10 weapon lots - 10,000 round sand test):
The Colt M4 Carbine: 1 jam every 68 rounds (even being more than liberally lubricated). In addition all 10 of the M4 barrels failed and needed to be replaced, and a number of their parts needed replacement during the test.
The Heckler and Koch HK416: 1 jam every 257 rounds, 3.77 times more reliable than the Colt M4. None of the cold hammer forged HK416 barrels needed replacement. Is in use in current combat operations by US Special Forces.
FN SCAR: A newer U.S. Special Forces weapon (designed by SOSOCM) (has been curtailed in procurement due to budget). 1 jam every 265 rounds, 3.85 times more reliable than the Colt M4.
Note: Although the FN SCAR was curtailed in procurement for a time due to budget, procurement did eventually resume. The FN SCAR weapons consists of the 5.56mm and 7.62 SCAR rifles. They meet all the operational and fielding tests required by the testing program, the Colt M4 failed tests. The 5.56 version will be part of USSOCOM's main inventory, however, the choice between the 5.56 and the 7.62 caliber will be left to the discretion of the components of USSOCOM's Joint Command which is composed of Navy Seals, Army Rangers and Special Forces, USMC, and AFSOC, based upon depending on missions requirements. The allegations in the 2010 time frame that USSOCOM abandoned the 5.56 version of the SCAR rifle are not true, USSOCOM's decided to acquire the full FN SCAR line of weapon including the 5.56mm rifle. Even the best dropped Colt in favor of another manufacturers weapon.
In the 2003-2004 time frame, Delta Force had to turn to Heckler & Koch for fixes for problems with the Colt M4. In response, H&K replaced Colt's gas tube system with a short stroke piston system, and also reduced the heat problem created by the hot gases used to cycle the M4. Other changes were to the magazine and barrel, and a few other items. The final product was a rfile with a new H&K upper receiver and magazine, plus H&K's 4 rail system of standard "Picatinny Rails" on the top, bottom, and both sides. The 'upgraded' (with the H&K response fixes) weapon was tested and subjected to mud and dust without maintenance, and fired day after day. Despite this treatment, the rifle showed problems in only 1 of 15,000 rounds – fully 3 times the reliability shown by the Colt M4 in US Army studies.
Its true Colt has offered to supply improvements comparable in some ways to what H&K supplied, and its true the government rejected the Colt offer. The reason the offer was rejected was because the pricing for the Colt comparable-to-H&K improvements was outrageous compared to them not providing any real improvement as the H&K improvments did, and would require continuation of contract for a weapon supplier the Army has every intention to drop (given the history).
A December 2006 survey, conducted on behalf of the Army by CNA Corp., conducted over 2,600 interviews with Soldiers returning from combat duty. Of those interviewed, in relation to the Colt M4, 19% said they experienced stoppages in combat – 20% said they were unable to engage the target with the weapon during a significant portion of or the entire firefight after performing immediate or remedial action to clear a stoppage. The report adds that "Those who attached accessories to their weapon were more likely to experience stoppages, regardless of how the accessories were attached including via official means like rail mounts." This sure seems like a lot of stoppages and disabled weapons for the Colt M4 when compared to other manufacturers M4 platforms which have fewer stoppages and malfunctions.
According to colt their M4 works very well and is accurate when clean, this is true and is born out by in the field soldier testimony. However, what colt does not tell you but that in the field soldier will is once the weapon gets a little sand in it and dirty its basically all over for using the Colt M4 reliably. Combat is not a clean business, its dirty, long, arduous, and occurs in extreams from up close pure terror and horror to moments of fleeting contact at long distances and everything in between. Our current conflict is not on a firing range or in training or in a non-sand environment, and when a soldier is on the go or engaging the enemy there is little to no time to stop and clean a weapon. Other manufacturers of M4 platforms have taken this into account and make a platform designed from the troops use aspect and they continue to work the longest even if full of dirt and grime, when the Colt M4 just stops working. Colt sure does not seem to understand the soldiers view point very well and has not provided such real improvements as other manufacturers are using to improve the platform to continue working even if it is dirty and has sand in it. There are a few jokes about the Colt M4 that come to mind, in context with desert combat one that comes to mind is "The Colt M4 is a fantastic desert detector."
Now, why has procurement of the Colt M4 continued? The price increases, the lower quality and reliability compared to other manufacturers, refusal or delay to fix problems, and even troops that have died or been wounded as a direct result of a Colt weapon failing under combat conditions despite the weapon still being carefully and properly maintained, lubricated, and well within its life span. For example, On July 13, 2008, in the battle of Wanat in Afghanistan, 200 Taliban troops attacked the remote U.S. outpost. The Taliban was able to break through the U.S. lines, but it was not the Taliban that was fully responsible for killing and wounding most of the U.S. troops that day. Of those U.S. dead and wounded they were found with their Colt weapon torn down next to them where they had been trying to fix it, yet the weapon had been properly maintained and lubricated but still failed when needed most (this incident and many more have failed to receive press and involve the M-16 and M4 platforms, many troops have been "cautioned" against making statements about the weapon but some have spoken out - The Taliban attack at Wanat was finally repelled by artillery and aircraft).
So despite all this, why had procurement of the Colt weapon continued despite finishing last in competetition. Two main reasons, during each competetion from the original contract to present Colt undercuts the competition price (but later increases the price over time after selected) and lobby (which currently or recently includes Roger Smith, a former deputy assistant Navy secretary making $120,000 a year to lobby for Colt, Rep. Rosa DeLauro [D-CT, Appropriations]. Rep. John Larson [D-CT], Sen. Joe Liberman [I-CT, retiring] - guess where Colt Defense LLC is located, why of course in Hartford, CT). Its not any "quality or reliability" or any "Colt TDP" thats for sure because other weapons have beat it and can out perform it in real world, testing conditions, and in competition. Had it not been for these two main things Colt would not have a contract because they have not been able to reliably compete based upon performance, quality, and reliability alone.
Colt was the lowest bidder, so the saying that "You have the finest equipment in the world, just remember it was made by the lowest bidder" is true in this case except for the 'finest' part. Among all the lists used by procurement specialists with what things costs, I wonder what a better chance to stay alive shows up as costing on those lists, evidently such a thing does not show up on the lists because if it did the Colt M4 would not have been selected. (yes, of course there are a lot of things that go into procurement)
So, you want a "fighting weapon" or a weapon thats reliable with quality? Well, lets just say that when the chips were down for our nations heros in the most demanding and critical situation any person can encounter - or some of those heros asked for help in solving a problem that can save lives - Colts supposed "TDP following reliability and quality" was absent. Sure, any weapon can fail, but the Colt has been consistent in failing in tests against other manufacturers weapons and coming in last in competetion, Colts shows least amount of improvement while showing greatest reluctance to implement improvement, not being able to compete on performance/quality/and reliability alone, Colts indifference and smugness towards the military-law enforcement-civilian market, and without lobby and out bidding would never have been selected.
According to an email finally received from Colt (after being pinned down and arm twisted) describing the definition of Mil-spec and the Colt TDP: "MIL-SPEC and MIL-STD are actual sets of specifications and parameters that weapons accepted for military service must meet. The TDP is what we use to manufacture to meet the MIL-SPEC and MIL-STD for our military weapon only."
In case anyone did not know, and contrary to colt fan belief, the Army has the ownership of TDP data rights to the M4 for distribution to other sources of production (Army acquired ownership via license of the Colt TDP data in July 2009). Despite the insistance and false misrepresentation concerning the Colt TDP:
1. Colt can not use the TDP to produce a civilian weapon.
2. Colt does not exclusively hold ownership of the TDP data used for the manufacture of the M4 platform. The remainder in Colts TDP is their proprietary methods of how they meet the MIL-SPEC and MIL-STD for the military weapon only for a specific design. The Army is free to provide the TDP data for the M4 to any manufacturer. Any manufacturer can have their own proprietary methods for how they use the data to manufacture the military weapon for supply. Although not ownership in the property sense, its is ownership for the right to do something that can be freely used at any time.
The specs for the manufacture of all parts that go into the Colt M4 can be found in mil-spec/mil-std, it is not true that the much touted Colt TDP somehow is magically describing these things and no one else is allowed to know - the specs are right there in the mil-spec/mil-std.
It seems odd that "expert" people which profess to know every thing about the TDP and Colt and have these supposedly "insider" connections with Colt seem to fail to mention these little tidbits, guess it just kinda slipped their minds.
It is a 100% lie that mil-spec/mil-std does not matter because only the colt TDP can conjure up a weapon or that the colt tdp specs can only be used by colt. Unknown to many, and carefully side stepped or ignored or not talked about by colt fans and supposedly expert colt distributors and even colt, is the fact that any one has access to the colt TDP specifications. Yep, thats right, anyone that can use the internet and read has access to the colt TDP specifications. What is generally unknown, carefully side stepped, and not talked about is the fact that the colt TDP specifications were incorporated into the mil-spec/mil-std. You always see these arguments making the Colt TDP seem mysterious and then you have these 'experts' claiming mil-spec is just so things fit together and no one else can manufacturer a weapon without this mysterious colt TDP, then they start talking about the colt TDP. In reality, the specs for the Colt military weapon is simply the mil-spec/mil-std and thats all it is and its not some special mysterious TDP specifications that only colt can conjure a weapon from. The mil-spec/mil-std covers everything from inspection, to tolerances, to dimensions, to material, to coatings, to just everything that goes into a weapon. Any manufacturer that can read and is capable is able to manufacture a mil-spec/mil-std weapon that is equal to or better than a colt and have done so using the same exact specifications that colt uses in their mysterious tdp by using mil-spec/mil-std and have beat the colt weapon hands down by doing so. The rest of the colt tdp is their proprietary methods of how they manufacture to the mil-spec/mil-std and thats what they really license.
Colt distributors will probably step up trying to sell Colts now to avoid being stuck with stock if another rifle is selected. We have already seen some of the falsely misrepresentative sales pitch dogma here in this forum. With Remington supplying M4A1's to the military for half the price of what Colt supplied them at, people will possibly start seeing a Remington civilian version of the Remington military M4A1 at less cost than a Colt, this will leave distributors stuck with the higher cost Colts.
If the Colt was made with the TDP, and the Remington is made with the TDP, and the reason put forth by colt fans or "expert" distributors claiming Colt is a "Gold Standard fighting gun" is because it uses the TDP, this means that Remington would be the 'Gold Standard fighting gun'. I guess with a contract and TDP Remington can claim to be the premier manufacturer and supplier of "the best and most combat-proven weapon in the world", and in fact technically Remington could be the only one which can claim that because the U.S. military isn't buying from Colt.
Oh, before I forget, it would no longer be called the Colt TDP, Remington refers to it as the 'US Army's M4 technical data package'. Maybe the industry will start calling it the 'Remington TDP' ?
The Army is on a dual track path for replacement of the Colt M4. One track involves the current competition, the other track involves competing the M4 design with other manufacturers. An Army pre-solicitation for open source production of the M4/M4A1 created an interesting problem for Colt. If Colt did not bid low enough they could not expect to win the contract. However, if Colt's bid was significantly lower than their last contract price, Congress would probably be putting some very pointed and uncomfortable questions to Colt as to why their previous prices were so much higher. Given that Remington and other manufacturers are able to supply the M4 platform for at least half the cost of what Colt charges the government, given that companies have been lined up for years ready to manufacture and supply the M4, given there is no more sole source Colt contract, given Colts history of price gouging and at best "contentious" attitude towards supplying fixes and improvements, given that Colt has come in last in competition, given that Colt has failed in quality/reliability/function against other manufacturers weapons in both real world and testing, given that the Army owns the TDP M4 data and is shopping around for another manufacturer and supplier other than Colt, given Colts indifference and smugness with which they treat the military market, given that since 1997 76% of all Colt M4s in military issue have had to be replaced or upgraded because they are deliberately manufacured with a shorter reliability life span, given that Colts manufacturing capability is over stressed and they exist on the edge of bankruptcy and company failure and have since 1994, given that other manufacturers weapons are more dependable, it was not bound to be long before another manufacturers weapon was selected.
For those that do not know what a TDP is; TDP is an acryonym for '
Technical
Data
Package'. A
Technical
Data
Package is a generically encompassing item acquisition term used by the government and refers to a collection of information describing the adequate technical attributes to support acquisition of an item(s), the TDP is often applied in contracts between the government and a manufacturer supplier. Broadly, a TDP includes description of engineering and production, description of all applicable technical data such as engineering drawings, associated lists, product and process specifications and standards, performance requirements, quality assurance provisions, and packaging details. Any weapon that is officially adopted for use by the U.S. military has a TDP (a weapon does not need to be officially adopted to be in use in the military). Manufacturers awarded contracts for manufacture and supply have a version of the TDP that is specific to their manufacture processes for the specific item(s) they are contracted to manufacture and supply. The TDP for that item(s) can not be used to manufacture an item(s) other than what the TDP is for. TDP's involved in military contracts for military weapons are prohibited from being used for manufacture of civilian available weapons.
