Modular Fighting Rigs: CF seeking 3 combos, 1600-1800 each

[The Bread Guy]

This, from MERX:

The department of National Defence has a requirement for three (3) different systems of modular fighting rigs with components and specialized pouches. The systems have to be military off the shelf or commercial off the shelf and in accordance with the Purchase Description dated September 2009.

Firm Quantity:
This requirement is for System A which includes quantity 180 C9 gunner kits, qty 280 commander kits, qty 90 M203 gunner kits, qty 230 pistol kit, qty 12 marksman kit, qty 180 confined space kit, qty 850 rifleman kit. System B which includes quantity 850 rifleman kits, qty 280 commander kits, qty 90 M203 gunner kits, qty 230 pistol kits, qty 12 marksman kits, qty 180 confined space kit. System C which includes quantity 850 rifleman kits, qty 280 commander kits, qty 90 M203 gunner kits, qty 230 pistol kits, qty 12 marksman kits, qty 180 confined space kits, qty 180 C9 gunner kits. Requirement also includes specialized and medical pouches.

(....)

Delivery requested: To commence as soon as possible and be completed by 31 (M)arch 2010.

As usual, some interesting background from the bid document:

The Afghanistan operation introduced significant changes to the Army's Tactics, Techniques and Procedures (TTPs) in order to adapt to the asymmetric characteristics of the threat presented by the operation. These changes have imposed considerable changes on the way in which soldiers fight, the way they select what fighting load is necessary for the mission, the way they carry their load, and their ability to frequently adapt their load to different missions.  Consequently, the current Tactical Vest (TV) has proven inadequate to respond to this requirement, and requires immediate replacement.

4. Recent operational experience has generated many observations concerning the inadequacy of the TV. The complaints have centered on the inability of the infantry soldier to configure pouches and pockets, and to personalize for ease of use for assigned tasks/roles (e.g.
C7 M-203 gunner; C-9 gunner, etc) and on the capacity of the pouches. 

Specifically, the TV has the following deficiencies:
4.1. It does not provide soldiers the ability to carry the required amount of mission specific ammunition, in order to conduct mission specific tasks.

4.2. It does not provide the modularity that soldiers require in order to prepare their equipment for mission specific tasks.

4.3. It does not provide a platform that facilitates easy access to ammunition.

It appears there's three combinations of kit:

System A consists of five main components including three front panel assemblies and two back yokes. The front panel assemblies and the back yokes are compatible and interchangeable. Torso Circumferential sizing is accomplished through the number of PALS/MOLLE columns. Torso height adjustment is done through adjustments to the shoulder straps. There is a Front and Back Ballistic Plate carrying capability. System A offers easy donning and doffing via front side release buckles.

System B is made of three main components. Main components are a split panel (both left and right) including two supplementary shoulder straps to support the split panel when used alone and a waist strap to support the front panel and stabilize the load, and a back yoke. A collection of matching pouches and equipment holders, have also been identified to ensure design compatibility.

System (C) consists of two main components. This design consists of a front chest rig panel with a bib style harness which can be worn up or down and accommodate a front ballistic plate. This front panel can be worn on its own. Load capacity can be increased by the addition of the Chest Rig Back panel which can also accommodate a back ballistic plate. A collection of matching pouches and equipment holders have also been identified to ensure design compatibility.

A bit more here.

 

[BDTyre]

My platoon was given a little guide (part of which was blatantly printed off of websites) outlining I think 3 or 4 options.

The first batch is from SORD (an Aussie company) and the final option was for the TT MAV.  We were told we could go ahead and purchase these options, or  wait and see...rumour mill says January for a trial issue.

 

[Farmboy]

rumour mill says January for a trial issue.

These rigs aren't even due to be finished being delivered until March.

The tender also allows for substitutes, all of which will be judged on quality and price.  So they could end up with the TAG MOLLE Split Chest rig from me or MOFCR from CP Gear or a knock off from Fellfab (which is more likely), and a mix of pouches from different suppliers.

 

[Matt_Fisher]

These rigs aren't even due to be finished being delivered until March.

The tender also allows for substitutes, all of which will be judged on quality and price.  So they could end up with the TAG MOLLE Split Chest rig from me or MOFCR from CP Gear or a knock off from Fellfab (which is more likely), and a mix of pouches from different suppliers.

Whilst the tender does allow for substitutes instead of name brand products, the substitutes must have meet the essential technical design specifications as outlined in the tender.  Seeing as how SORD uses a propriety variation on the PALS system which is patented, and that this unique system is spec'd in the tender, it's hard for somebody to bid on the System A or C component of the tender without either a license from SORD to build the pouches with that system, or to submit a bid withSORD stuff itself, or to build the stuff themselves with no license agreement and risk legal action by SORD.

Conceivably Systems B (The Tactical Tailor stuff) and D (HSGI and CTOMS pouches) could be built by just about anybody, but when you consider that the tender specifies that all bidders must also provide material samples of all articles in the respective system they're bidding on, the timeframe is quite limited.

 

[Jarnhamar]

I can't really make heads or tales of all that System A system B talk.

TO dumb this down, we're looking at 3 seperate styles of modular "tacvests"?
Are these made to order or will they be aftermarket chestrigs?

The SOAD and TT Mav are possible choices??

Do we have any pictures of what's being tested or anything?

 

[PaulD]

Because these foreign-designed rigs will have to be manufactured in Canada, how much additional cost will getting the license to fabricate them incur?

 

[The Bread Guy]

I can't really make heads or tales of all that System A system B talk.  TO dumb this down, we're looking at 3 seperate styles of modular "tacvests"?

From my read, I understand it'll be 3 different combos to be purchased, between 1600 and 1800 per combo.  I'm guessing that will give troops the option to choose (or commanders the option to dictate, I suppose). 

Are these made to order or will they be aftermarket chestrigs?  The SOAD and TT Mav are possible choices??

The bid mentions "military off the shelf" and "commercial off the shelf", so I'll take that to mean aftermarket rigs could be acceptable - if that's the case, I think it would be pretty hard to keep a competitive price making custom-made rigs.

Do we have any pictures of what's being tested or anything?

No graphics I've seen - the best I could do is the 60 page PDF excerpt from the bid document outlining what will be part of which rig.

 

[Farmboy]

A competitive bid...............

.........that specifies exact attachment methods for the pouches  ???

It allows for substitutions, but not on the attachment method, so Tactical Assault Gear, Blue Force Gear, London Bridge Trading, HSGI (in some cases), Blackhawk, SOTech, 215Gear, ATS, Paraclete, ICE Tactical, CP Gear are all out of the question unless they change their attachment system.

So you have one Canadian company that is supplying SORD.  Should get a competitive price alright  :

 

[Fusaki]

Seeing as how SORD uses a propriety variation on the PALS system which is patented, and that this unique system is spec'd in the tender, it's hard for somebody to bid on the System A or C component of the tender without either a license from SORD to build the pouches with that system, or to submit a bid withSORD stuff itself, or to build the stuff themselves with no license agreement and risk legal action by SORD.

How does SORD's attachment system differ from regular MOLLE?

About 3/4 down this page is a review of SORD's Freefall Rig, with Blackhawk, SOTech, and Maxpedition pouches attached:
http://www.militarymorons.com/equipment/2ndline2.html

In this discussion on LF.net, there's no mention of compatibility issues between SORD gear and the MOLLE standard:
http://lightfighter.net/eve/forums/a/tpc/f/2106044761/m/7011040681?r=7011040681#7011040681

 

[Farmboy]

How does SORD's attachment system differ from regular MOLLE?

It doesn't. Everyones webbing is 1.5" except for Drop Zone and LOF which is 1.75".


What differs, is on their pouches, and many other manufacturers pouches, is the attachment method.

HSGI, CTOMS, TT use malice clips

TAG and Paraclete use a strap that tucks under itself

Eagle, LBT and most knock offs of them use a strap with push button

SORD, TAD and Oakley use a strap with velcro closure

Blue Force Gear uses a cross between the TAG and SORD style

Drop Zone and LOF use snake straps

Some other pouches like don't come with anything letting you choose between malice, Tac Ties and Speed Clips.

They will all work with each others systems except for Drop Zone and LOF whos vests won't accept pouches larger than 3 MOLLE colums

 

[Fusaki]

It doesn't. Everyones webbing is 1.5" except for Drop Zone and LOF which is 1.75".


What differs, is on their pouches, and many other manufacturers pouches, is the attachment method.

Thanks for the explanation.

So where is the conflict between SORD rigs and pouches from other manufacturers?  What you've posted suggests that (aside from DropZone gear) any MOLLE or PALs style pouch will mount.

 

[Matt_Fisher]

Thanks for the explanation.

So where is the conflict between SORD rigs and pouches from other manufacturers?  What you've posted suggests that (aside from DropZone gear) any MOLLE or PALs style pouch will mount.

If you read the tender document, it states that no deviations or variances will be tolerated from the design characteristics of the articles specified.  Meaning that if you were to bid on the System A (SORD SCS fronts and back and pouches), System B (Tactical Tailor stuff), System C (SORD Chest Rig front and back and pouches), or System D (High Speed Gear and CTOMS pouches) that the pre-award samples you must provide along with your bid paperwork must be clones of the original proucts they built the spec on, i.e. webbing type, PALS attachment method, interior pocket details, etc.

 

[Jarnhamar]

A competitive bid...............

.........that specifies exact attachment methods for the pouches  ???

It allows for substitutions, but not on the attachment method, so Tactical Assault Gear, Blue Force Gear, London Bridge Trading, HSGI (in some cases), Blackhawk, SOTech, 215Gear, ATS, Paraclete, ICE Tactical, CP Gear are all out of the question unless they change their attachment system.

So you have one Canadian company that is supplying SORD.  Should get a competitive price alright  :

Is anyone really shocked over this?
Thinking no.

After 10 years of crying about out POS tacvst and probably thousands of those 'this piece of kit doesn't work' forms soldiers have filled out, the CF finally decide soldiers need a better set up.
Sadly I see the 'business'  end slowing everything down and screwing stuff up.

 

[PaulD]

...the pre-award samples you must provide along with your bid paperwork must be clones of the original proucts they built the spec on, i.e. webbing type, PALS attachment method, interior pocket details, etc.

Will TT, HSGI, and SORD be getting any royalities from this?

 

[Matt_Fisher]

I would assume that if any of their products which are specified for this tender have any associated applicable patents, or other such intellectual property, then some sort of license/royalty arrangement would have to be made by the bidder/contractor.

 

[Matt_Fisher]

I was just informed by the PWGSC official in charge of this procurement that it's currently cancelled and awaiting re-tendering, because none of the bidders were deemed to be compliant with the technical specifications.  A new delivery date (later than March 31st) will be determined by DND as they do the re-tender paperwork.

 

[Old Sweat]

Have I missed something? The forces did a trial, selected the stuff they wanted, circulated all sorts of paper and wrote the RFP. Is the non-compliance of the bidders because of technical reasons, inability to deliver in the time frame requested, too expensive or what?

Can the government do anything right? This is not a trick question.

 

[Loachman]

This was explained in previous posts.

I can only see this as a good thing. Perhaps a little extra time will give the writers a chance to get the specifications right this time.

 

[The Bread Guy]

A bit more from the Ottawa Citizen, shared in accordance with the "fair dealing" provisions, Section 29, of the Copyright Act.

.... Sources told Defence Watch that none of the bidders met the evaluation criteria and as such were deemed non-compliant, specifically in reference to providing proof of the equipment requested being in service with an ABCA (America, Britain, Canada, and Australia/New Zealand) military force.

The Modular Fighting Rig (MFR) is a load-bearing piece of equipment that allows individual soldiers the flexibility to tailor their equipment and ammunition as dictated by their task and mission.

Defence Department spokeswoman Nancy Cook confirmed to Defence Watch that the project had hit a snag. “DND received four bids from industry on the original MFR Request for Proposal, however, all four bids were deemed non-compliant,” she explained.

A new request for proposals will be issued in the “near future”, Cook said. Sources say that the department hopes to have the new RFP out by the end of the year.

Cook said the procurement strategy will remain the same for the MFR; the design feature requirements/essential characteristics will not change.

However, DND will clarify the requirements in the request for proposals. “The new RFP will include a bidder's checklist and more detailed technical evaluation criteria,” Cook said.

The request for delivery will be spring 2010, she added ....

 

[Farmboy]

the design feature requirements/essential characteristics will not change.

  :