Tom Bryant
Well-Known Member
The DHS is now holding approximately 1.6 billion bullets. from the artcle:
I wonder why? But I am afraid I know.
I wonder why? But I am afraid I know.
-
Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
DHS Buying More Bullets
- Thread starter Tom Bryant
- Start date
Two reasons I can see offhand --
1) "So we'll have 'em"' and
2)"So you won't""!!!
1) "So we'll have 'em"' and
2)"So you won't""!!!
Well....
...when you buy things in bulk, like this, it's because you are stocking up for a reason for which only the purchaser can answer. :flower:
But, it looks like they plan to have a need to discharge those little puppies in one form or another :tonofbricks:
...when you buy things in bulk, like this, it's because you are stocking up for a reason for which only the purchaser can answer. :flower:
But, it looks like they plan to have a need to discharge those little puppies in one form or another :tonofbricks:
As a major part of my professional employment, I read and respond to federal solicitations for services. The solicitations for material goods are very similar, although they are written in a bureaucratic-speak designed to meet a bunch of various laws and procedures established because of years of corruption and reform efforts.
This is a small-business set-aside solicitation for the potential purchase of large quantities of ammunition. The government is seeking the best prices for a master contract so that they can purchase all the ammunition they could possible want at a set price without having to solicit bids each time they go through a few thousand rounds.
The previous purchases that the conspiracy sites reference were explicitly solicitations for IDIQ (Indefinite Delivery/Indefinite Quantity) contracts where they allow for an absurdly high number of items over a set period so they don't have to go through the bidding process repeatedly. It is a way to efficiently purchase consumables at a reasonable price, thus making more efficient use of taxpayer dollars.
Just because they have contracted sources for these materials does not mean they have purchased anything - that's what "Indefinite Delivery/Indefinite Quantity" means. My firm has won IDIQ contracts on a number of occasions and has receive little, and in some cases, no request for services during the life of the contract.
To those who don't deal with it every day, the federal procurement process is nearly incomprehensible. It took me nearly a year in the business to really understand how it works.
What you have here is paranoia mixed with a lack of understanding of the federal procurement process.
This is a small-business set-aside solicitation for the potential purchase of large quantities of ammunition. The government is seeking the best prices for a master contract so that they can purchase all the ammunition they could possible want at a set price without having to solicit bids each time they go through a few thousand rounds.
The previous purchases that the conspiracy sites reference were explicitly solicitations for IDIQ (Indefinite Delivery/Indefinite Quantity) contracts where they allow for an absurdly high number of items over a set period so they don't have to go through the bidding process repeatedly. It is a way to efficiently purchase consumables at a reasonable price, thus making more efficient use of taxpayer dollars.
Just because they have contracted sources for these materials does not mean they have purchased anything - that's what "Indefinite Delivery/Indefinite Quantity" means. My firm has won IDIQ contracts on a number of occasions and has receive little, and in some cases, no request for services during the life of the contract.
To those who don't deal with it every day, the federal procurement process is nearly incomprehensible. It took me nearly a year in the business to really understand how it works.
What you have here is paranoia mixed with a lack of understanding of the federal procurement process.
Tom Bryant
Well-Known Member
So 1.6 billion bullets is our paranoia at work? You're gullible enough to work for the gov't.
I know Sep 30 is about 7 months away - but the govt goes on a spending spree the last week of the FY. Not sure how this fits in - but .....
I think you've misunderstood.
They have a contract to purchase UP TO that many rounds at a negotiated price. Having the contract does not mean they have purchased a single round. It is an administrative tool to purchase what they need, when they need it, at a negotiated price without having to go out for bids between each order.
The maximum quantity under the series of contracts would be 1.6 billion, but there's no way they've actually purchased that many.
Well, I guess we could say that the zero caused a buying spree, 'cept virtually all the stores are VERY, VERY low on inventory, & I sure do know a lotta people that have been wanting some lead????
Just a curious observation!
Just a curious observation!
Well, I guess we could say that the zero caused a buying spree, 'cept virtually all the stores are VERY, VERY low on inventory, & I sure do know a lotta people that have been wanting some lead????
Just a curious observation!
Just a curious observation!
Some hunters I know cannot buy the ammo they need. Stores are of stock. Several said they couldn't place an order at their local gun shop. Store no longer taking backorders because their sources cannot guarantee delivery.
Do the math.
Homeland Security is projecting they need this many rounds per person in the US of A.
Contracts are negotiated based on anticipation of needs. Without some reasonable expectation of service, to be rendered / received, valid terms of contract cannot be established.
In this case, manufacturer's have to gear up to fill orders, based on signed contract terms, when those orders are received.
If you determine that you need approximately 1.6 billon tomatoes and we sign a contract, I'd better plant those tomatoes in time for them to be ready to ship at harvest time. I'd be a fool to plant those tomatoes with no assurance that you will accept delivery. I've committed to you, unless your contract specifies that I can sell those tomatoes to anyone I please, at any time I please.
Do you know how many orders have already been placed to holders of those contracts? Without that knowledge, what has or hasn't been done is pure speculation, IMO.
That's because so many people are purchasing guns and hoarding ammo.
Have you been to a gun store lately? Lots of empty shelves. I went to the shooting range at my favorite local gun store last week and their gun display case was nearly empty. They are selling guns as fast as they can get them in.
All the talk about banning guns and putting special taxes on ammo has put people into a buying frenzy. Lots of first-time gun owners on the range too.
That's because of ammo hoarding. I had trouble buying ammo for my handgun recently. Walmart was completely out and the sporting goods person told me that every time they get an order, they barely have time to get it into the display case before it is sold. I called around and found some at Academy Sports and Outdoors and they told me they just put out a new shipment and I needed to hurry and come down before it all disappeared. My favorite gun store was packed with people and had about a tenth of its normal stock of handguns and ammo because of the huge demand for guns because of the talk of the gun ban.
Actually, no. That's the way normal people do business, but we're talking about the government here...
Government procurement lives and dies by IDIQ (Indefinite Delivery, Indefinite Quantity) contracts where they establish pre-negotiated rates for goods and services for multi-year terms (anywhere from a year to five years) so that when they place an order they don't have to go out for bids every time. These contract vehicles are standard practice and I deal with them every day. For consumables, they often put ridiculously high numbers as the maximum quantity so the capacity of the contract does not exceed the lifetime of the contract. On the services side, they tend to moderate that somewhat. For instance, our firm won a $50 million maximum capacity IDIQ contract last year for professional services over four years. We are two years into the contract and we have had about $750,000 work of work out of it. With the massive cutbacks in military spending, we are unlikely to get more than $1.5 million of work out of the contract before it expires. To someone who doesn't understand how these contracts work, it appears we have $50 million of guaranteed work. We don't. That particular contract provides $5,000 minimum fee which we have already earned.
A contract is not an order.
The manufacturers know the difference and the government will notify them of larger orders months in advance.
Nope.
Well it is based on an in-depth understanding of government procurement which the writers of these alarmist articles and most people who have posted on this thread apparently do not have. I've been involved in marketing my firm's services to the government for more than a decade and have read hundreds of these requests for contracts and have responded to them nearly a hundred times on the old SF254 and SF255 forms, as well as the current SF330. I'm considered the marketing expert in my 500+ person firm for these types of contracts.
I know that those who want to believe the government is buying rounds of ammunition so that Obama can "take over" and subdue all resistance will not be convinced of anything - no matter what the evidence - but I'm hoping that reason will guide the rest of you to consider that the source in the original post is not familiar with government procurement methods.
Tom Bryant
Well-Known Member
I think it's you who does not understand. We are faced with a government that wants to take away the weapons from it's own citizens and then purchase for Homeland Security, not security from foreign nations, 1. 6 billion bullets.
So why are they thinking they need to have that many? I have negotiated big purchase items before and those negotiated prices only last for a certain period of time. So, even if you are right, (and i think you're wrong), they must be planning on purchasing them sooner rather than later.
FYI, government agencies often share contracts. Other agencies can likely use this contract too. In the last few years, most of the contracts have been coming from Homeland Security and the GSA, and then they are shared.
I can see there's no convincing anyone.
These contracts don't necessarily mean that they are actually going to purchase anything close to the maximum capacity number. I guess that unless you deal with this all the time it doesn't make much sense.
Here's another thing to consider.
The request for proposal that they have issued is a "small business set aside", which means that only small businesses may pursue it.
There is no way that a small business would have the means to supply the maximum capacity of the contract in question.
The thing that people are missing here is that we are talking about GOVERNMENT procurement, but people are reading this like a contract between private enterprises. Government procurement is not like a procurement between private firms. The government, as a lawmaker with an enormous amount of spending power, gets the write the rules in its favor. Furthermore, bureaucrats who write these Requests for Proposals, are not necessarily tied to reality when it comes to quantities. They are not considering realistic numbers, but simply numbers that will ensure they will not be held responsible if a contract reaches capacity before it expires and the government has to go through another expensive selection process. There is every incentive to make the numbers huge since the government will only buy what it needs during the length of the contract - not the maximum capacity.
The request for proposal that they have issued is a "small business set aside", which means that only small businesses may pursue it.
There is no way that a small business would have the means to supply the maximum capacity of the contract in question.
The thing that people are missing here is that we are talking about GOVERNMENT procurement, but people are reading this like a contract between private enterprises. Government procurement is not like a procurement between private firms. The government, as a lawmaker with an enormous amount of spending power, gets the write the rules in its favor. Furthermore, bureaucrats who write these Requests for Proposals, are not necessarily tied to reality when it comes to quantities. They are not considering realistic numbers, but simply numbers that will ensure they will not be held responsible if a contract reaches capacity before it expires and the government has to go through another expensive selection process. There is every incentive to make the numbers huge since the government will only buy what it needs during the length of the contract - not the maximum capacity.
Tom Bryant
Well-Known Member
With this, I am out.
In other words, we're just not smart enough to understand. If we knew what you do, we would know that the gov't is really looking out for our best interests and that we should trust them.
In other words, we're just not smart enough to understand. If we knew what you do, we would know that the gov't is really looking out for our best interests and that we should trust them.
No, that's not what I'm saying at all.
Government procurement is very much a counter-intuitive thing. I deal with it every day. Most people never have to deal with it at all. It takes a while to understand how it works. It's not about intelligence at all.
I never said anything of the kind. Just because I'm not worried about this (because of what I understand about the procurement process) does not mean that I think the government is benign or working for the best interests of the people.