LAPD adopts FN509 as new duty pistol

[Shumba]

You need to consider the fact that LAPD is most likely getting much more than $150 per G22 trade-in. That is usually part of the program and you will see these turned in Gen 3 G22's get refurbished and sold on the used market.

As others have stated, many large agencies issue OR pistols but require the individual officer to buy their own red dot optic from a list of approved manufacturers (OCSD for example).

I agree that California agencies should only be able to buy "Safe" handguns that are on the Roster. Maybe that requirement would help make the stupid (back door gun control) Roster just go away.

[elSquid]

Interesting background on LAPD pistol selection.

http://www.lapdpolicecom.lacity.org/092915/BPC_15-0296.pdf

( Public report, so no copyright issue )



-- Michael

[Robert1234]

If they want to save money, just issue them 22LR handguns

That's still more expensive than having them continue using their perfectly serviceable, current handguns.

[Robert1234]

Sometime in 2010, members of FTS, who were responsible for firearms related training, became concerned that Glock was prone to malfunctions

Glock is a lot of things, to a lot of people, but "prone to malfunctions" isn't one of those things.

[Dr. Peter Venkman]

Glock is a lot of things, to a lot of people, but "prone to malfunctions" isn't one of those things.

https://www.gunsholstersandgear.com/2011/09/07/glock-gen4-recall/

They are not perfect.

[elSquid]

Glock is a lot of things, to a lot of people, but "prone to malfunctions" isn't one of those things.

Glock has had the odd speedbump or two. The one that always comes to my mind:

Way back when NYPD went to pistols, there were problems with their G19s. NYPD was so annoyed by the so called "phase 3 malfunctions" and Glock corporate's lack of interest in fixing the problem that they almost replaced the G19s with Rugers....

https://web.archive.org/web/20050120084954/http://www.thegunzone.com/glock/phase3.html

: shrug :

-- Michael

[Pupulepeter]

You are equating perfection with low bidder?

Government purchases = low bidder unless it's a toilet for the Space Station or security for legislators.

How do you think Glock got the contract in the first place?

[SharedShots]

How do you think Glock got the contract in the first place?

You missed the point. That Fn got the contract doesn't mean Glock isn't as good or somehow Glock quality is less than FN.

In the end, no one except groupies care what the LAPD uses and the typical gun buyer doesn't go into a store and ask "do you have that LAPD pistol?" Few people outside of gun forums like this one bother to think about it.

Groupies, yeah they might swoon over what the LAPD picked but there are better choices and individuals have that choice they just pay with their own money.

[newbutold]

There should be single-action 6-guns available for officers that aren't really proficient with firearms. Stray bullets flying are no bueno.

[Mute]

Glocks in general work well, but the ones that LAPD had experienced issues that you'd only see if you were servicing a large number of them that were in circulation with daily duty use. The LAPD had some legitimate complaints about Glocks lack of response on these issues.

[SharedShots]

Glocks in general work well, but the ones that LAPD had experienced issues that you'd only see if you were servicing a large number of them that were in circulation with daily duty use. The LAPD had some legitimate complaints about Glocks lack of response on these issues.

Thats probably true of every pistol ever made where large numbers of them are in service.

Most pistols aren't fired outside of qualification and training. I am not a Glockster fan but they are used world wide in numbers greater than what LAPD uses so sometimes its the user and not the maker.

When lack of response is an issue its you get what you pay for and therein comes the problem with low bidder. Think FN is going to be heads and tails better at communication after the contracts are signed and checks are cashed so to speak? Every time someone contacts the manufacturer that is money.

You aren't getting first rate anything with low bid selections. Anyone who has ever dealt with even contractors knows what happens, nothing is free and low bids come with costs in other areas. Budgets and procurement is like that, different line items. Rarely is the purchasing looked at with an eye to the total cost of ownership. Budget money available in one section can be shifted over to another to cover higher costs for associated aspects of ownership even though the cost to purchase the pistols only was lower.

Low bid selection quite often ends up with far greater costs than higher bids that included soft costs not part of the low bid.

A higher bid might include training for support staff but isn't part of the actual specs for the pistols. Since its training that money comes from a different budget but you might end up paying for it with the low bid whereas the higher bid includes it even when it's not explicitly called out. H&K often does this. So the cost of total ownership can be less for a higher bid contract than the low bid. However, procurement often doesn't look at it that way because of how budgets are setup and where the buckets of money get moved around.

[Robert1234]

Thats probably true of every pistol ever made where large numbers of them are in service.

Most pistols aren't fired outside of qualification and training. I am not a Glockster fan but they are used world wide in numbers greater than what LAPD uses so sometimes its the user and not the maker.

When lack of response is an issue its you get what you pay for and therein comes the problem with low bidder. Think FN is going to be heads and tails better at communication after the contracts are signed and checks are cashed so to speak? Every time someone contacts the manufacturer that is money.

You aren't getting first rate anything with low bid selections. Anyone who has ever dealt with even contractors knows what happens, nothing is free and low bids come with costs in other areas. Budgets and procurement is like that, different line items. Rarely is the purchasing looked at with an eye to the total cost of ownership. Budget money available in one section can be shifted over to another to cover higher costs for associated aspects of ownership even though the cost to purchase the pistols only was lower.

Low bid selection quite often ends up with far greater costs than higher bids that included soft costs not part of the low bid.

A higher bid might include training for support staff but isn't part of the actual specs for the pistols. Since its training that money comes from a different budget but you might end up paying for it with the low bid whereas the higher bid includes it even when it's not explicitly called out. H&K often does this. So the cost of total ownership can be less for a higher bid contract than the low bid. However, procurement often doesn't look at it that way because of how budgets are setup and where the buckets of money get moved around.

Now I'm not a business person, but I know a little bit about the municipal bidding process. Yes the gun purchases are a product of low bid, but all bids must meet the requirements set forth in the scope of work. This is a set of requirements each bidder must comply with in order for their bid to be accepted (this is just to be allowed to bid, not have your product selected).

One can write a scope of work and tailor it to whatever product you want by calling for specific features.

Ambi mag catch (ambidextrous, not reversible), you just eliminated Glock and a bunch of others.

Ambi slide stop, same thing, you just eliminated a bunch of manufacturers.

Extended magazines, not add on extensions but mag tubes that hold a specific number of rounds, again you just eliminated almost everyone but Sig and FN (Glock's 32 round mags don't count, nobody's walking around with one of those in a pistol in their holster).

My point is that low bid doesn't mean you're going to end up with the cheapest gun out there, it usually means you're going to end up with exactly the gun you call for in your scope of work. And it's always been easier for public safety departments to go sole source for these things based on some nebulous requirement, remember they're selling their "needs" to a woefully ignorant, and usually pretty low intelligence level city council/city manager/mayor. How else do you think little, podunk cities like Hayward end up with four (4) hook & ladder fire trucks, an armored police truck, Harley Davidson motorcycles (seriously, is anyone else still using these ridiculously expensive, incredibly poor performing bikes for their police anymore?)...

[Rover]

A higher bid might include training for support staff but isn't part of the actual specs for the pistols. Since its training that money comes from a different budget but you might end up paying for it with the low bid whereas the higher bid includes it even when it's not explicitly called out. H&K often does this. So the cost of total ownership can be less for a higher bid contract than the low bid. However, procurement often doesn't look at it that way because of how budgets are setup and where the buckets of money get moved around.

If you bid a government contract and include anything not explicitly required, you're either throwing away the chance of winning the bid, or chance to make money on that aspect down the road. Items not explicitly requested cannot be used to justify awarding a contract.

Government contracts are awarded based solely on the criteria laid out in the RFP, by law. If they award a contract to the "better value" more expensive firearm in your scenario, it'll go to court and they'll be forced to rebid the contract. That's why most requirements include the after sales support, otherwise they can get locked into a system for which they'll end up paying through the nose for that support.

If procurement and support come from two different budgets, the total value of the contract would include both, and in the proposal they'd delineate which line item came from which budget, that's an issue for accounting, not purchasing to sort out.


Another poster mentioned it, but if an agency wants a very specific winner, they have to craft the requirements such that only the gun/plane/tank/underwear they want can win. Then you just hope nobody modifies their product to meet the specification you specifically wrote to eliminate them, adding a safety or something similar.

I've won and lost a lot of government contracts, it's a super straightforward process, but there's also a million weird facets to it all.



It's pretty widely known that Sig has been slashing their support prices to get the p320 adopted by any military or LEO organization they can, and banking on the guns rarely being used so that underpriced support doesn't come back to haunt them. I imagine that's what Sig did with the LAPD as well, but maybe FN slashed service and sales price because they really, really wanted to win a contract. Maybe Sig quit slashing their service prices due to the drop safety debacle. Unless we see both the requirements and all the proposals, we'll never really know how the ultimate decision was made.


The 509 is a fine gun, and should more than meet the LAPD's needs, of the finalists it's one of 2 I'd happily carry, so congrats LAPD on your new fancy gun us pleebs aren't allowed to buy.

[Robert1234]

If you bid a government contract and include anything not explicitly required, you're either throwing away the chance of winning the bid, or chance to make money on that aspect down the road. Items not explicitly requested cannot be used to justify awarding a contract.

Government contracts are awarded based solely on the criteria laid out in the RFP, by law. If they award a contract to the "better value" more expensive firearm in your scenario, it'll go to court and they'll be forced to rebid the contract. That's why most requirements include the after sales support, otherwise they can get locked into a system for which they'll end up paying through the nose for that support.

If procurement and support come from two different budgets, the total value of the contract would include both, and in the proposal they'd delineate which line item came from which budget, that's an issue for accounting, not purchasing to sort out.

Another poster mentioned it, but if an agency wants a very specific winner, they have to craft the requirements such that only the gun/plane/tank/underwear they want can win. Then you just hope nobody modifies their product to meet the specification you specifically wrote to eliminate them, adding a safety or something similar.

I've won and lost a lot of government contracts, it's a super straightforward process, but there's also a million weird facets to it all.

It's pretty widely known that Sig has been slashing their support prices to get the p320 adopted by any military or LEO organization they can, and banking on the guns rarely being used so that underpriced support doesn't come back to haunt them. I imagine that's what Sig did with the LAPD as well, but maybe FN slashed service and sales price because they really, really wanted to win a contract. Maybe Sig quit slashing their service prices due to the drop safety debacle. Unless we see both the requirements and all the proposals, we'll never really know how the ultimate decision was made.

The 509 is a fine gun, and should more than meet the LAPD's needs, of the finalists it's one of 2 I'd happily carry, so congrats LAPD on your new fancy gun us pleebs aren't allowed to buy.

"it's a super straightforward process, but there's also a million weird facets to it all"

Best, and most true line in your whole post.

As frustrating as it must be to deal with this process as a bidder, it's even worse for the person responsible for writing the RFP, especially if you have a conscience...

[robert101]

Post #9 nailed it. Off roster for the every day citizen but police officers are welcome to have the department dejure. No problem treading on citizens. Look, I'm a firm believer in the work and support the sacrifice of our law enforcement. They deserve the best. BUT, so do we. Stinking State that chooses to step on us at every turn. Vote that Grusome guy out. it is a start.