Running The Numbers On DHS’ Ammo Purchases

[TedKennedy]

I think what you are missing here, and what I have not seen anyone moot in this controversy, is the obvious: what business has the federal government arming 130,000 personnel? Law enforcement personnel. Clearly, if ammunition purchases by federal agencies become significant in what you correctly describe as an unimaginably huge national economy, then federal agencies simply have far too many armed personnel!

Stated more rigorously, name for us the enumerated power that permits arming federal law enforcement personnel against domestic citizens at all. I can't put my finger on one. I can, however, argue that arming federal troops with military weapons (while under the NFA unconstitutionally denying exactly the same arms to citizens), and using US Army personnel to train these federal troops in military tactics, to be employed against domestic citizens, violates at least the spirit of the Posse Comitatus Act.

That's how the government enforces the laws. You will pay your taxes, put out your cigarette, put on your seatbelt and shut up.
And if you claim that ain't freedom, you're un-American.

 

[SMS]

I'm not "missing it". It's just an entirely seperate argument and/or discussion topic.

They have armed personnel. They are going to buy ammunition for them.

Want to have a conversation or debate about the need for so many armed folks, rock on. But going about it by complaining about ammunition purchases and pouring over spreadsheets in regard to same is not the best way IMHO.

(.04 percent of our population engaged in armed law enforcement at the federal level including the defense of our borders and ports etc...is not alarming to me. Maybe it is to you. Still a good point of conversation though. I do think some consolidation is needed to allow for better oversight and control. Every 3-letter fed agency doesn't need it's own contingent of LEOs)

 

[Sanford]

... even though the author still doesn't quite grasp the concept or mechanics of IDIQ.

Well ... if DHS has any reasonable idea whatsoever about how much they need, they really shouldn't be using an ID/IQ contract anyway.

 

[Shadowrider]

Not all IDIQ contracts have government priority clauses in them.

Here's a link to one of the biggest DHS IDIQ contracts: I haven't looked through all 91 pages yet, but I haven't found a priority clause other than one saying FLETC has priority over other DHS orders. Maybe someone else can find it in there.

https://www.fbo.gov/index?s=opportu...8adb7fe40b7489fbbf5b86eaa0e&tab=core&_cview=1

I haven't looked at the link, but I have seen a few .mil contracts in my past career at various companies. I can't recall one ever not having an increased priority clause in it. As a matter of fact ours all stated that in times of national emergency they could capture every bit of our manufacturing capacity or as much as they deemed necessary. I'm sure it varies depending on the product's nature, procurement codes or something but we were making machined aircraft parts mostly. We did do some M2 bolt assemblies from time to time over the years too at one of them and several variants of the Vulcan chain gun receivers at another. I would assume that ammunition procurement would be similar.

Edit: Now that I think about it, all my experience was originated from DOD. It wouldn't surprise me if DHS is totally different.

 

[SoonerP226]

Well ... if DHS has any reasonable idea whatsoever about how much they need, they really shouldn't be using an ID/IQ contract anyway.

I don't see how you can make even an educated guess when so much of what you have to do is dependent on the unknowable--namely, the actions of others unknown. After all, the Border Patrol and the Coast Guard are both under DHS; do you think there's a reasonable way to know how much ammunition either of those agencies will need to fulfill their training and interdiction duties this year? If Border Patrol agents run across Zetas in the Arizona desert, they might expend a few hundred rounds of ammunition in a few minutes, but they might go days or weeks without firing a round outside the training facilities; you just can't account for those sorts of wild swings...

 

[SoonerP226]

BTW, Cam Edwards covered this on last Friday's edition of Cam & Co (March 22nd). The NRA actually looked into it (particularly as it relates to the ammunition shortage) and didn't find anything nefarious. It was fairly early in the episode, as I recall, and is worth a listen. http://www.nranews.com/podcast.xml

 

[Sanford]

... you just can't account for those sorts of wild swings...

Government requirements contracts are "supposed to be" based on average rather than peak utilization. But then again government contracting is pretty much broken across the board anyway because of all of the conflicting rules, regulations, and meddling trying to "fix" it (not to mention all of the "creative interpretation" trying to work around them).

 

[SMS]

Not only is contracting broken, but the budget has been broken for years. Even if DHS did have a solid handle on their needs, running on CRs and budget extensions doesn't make it easy to just buy what you need for the whole year. Having an IDIQ at least gives flexibility to purchase, when funds become available, and based on need. That's why my shop uses a big IDIQ.

 

[reddog1]

I think you all need to WAKE UP.

 

[SMS]

I think you need to realize that I love you.