GLOCK UNDERBID BY SIG ON MHS: Statement on Glock MHS Protest Decision Released by GAO

Nathaniel F
by Nathaniel F

Since the Government Accountability Office’s decision to reject Glock’s protest of the Modular Handgun System contract award to SIG Sauer, the GAO has released a statement. The 17 page document outlines not only the reason for the GAO’s decision, but provides insight as to the deciding factors in the MHS contract award as well. Chiefly, the document reveals that SIG substantially underbid Glock, and that this – and not any technical difference between the competitors’ pistols – was the deciding factor in the contract award:

One of Glock’s key arguments in the protest was that they believed the US Army was obligated to award multiple contracts according to the wording of the initial solicitation, an assertion which the GAO rejected.

See photos of Glock’s MHS 19 and Glock MHS 23 Pistols here.

The document also included a chart outlining the evaluated characteristics of the two bids:

Note that the two biggest differences between the proposals were in licensing (where SIG rated “outstanding” across the board, vs. Glock’s “good” rating) and overall cost. Regarding the latter, SIG bid over 100 million dollars lower than Glock on total system package cost, recalling the $217 cost per pistol that the company reportedly is charging the US Army for M17 handguns.

The GAO further determined that Glock’s complaints that there was favoritism towards SIG, that the contract was awarded too early, and that the Army’s evaluation of the pistols was biased were unfounded. Importantly, the GAO rejected Glock’s complaint that the trials were ended too early, before the completion of the second phase, as the GAO determined that the Army only awarded contracts for the portions covered under the first phase of the evaluation.

Nathaniel F
Nathaniel F

Nathaniel is a history enthusiast and firearms hobbyist whose primary interest lies in military small arms technological developments beginning with the smokeless powder era. He can be reached via email at

More by Nathaniel F

Join the conversation
2 of 177 comments
  • DropGun25 DropGun25 on Jul 02, 2017

    So you guys think under bidding was negligent for Sig? They've just signed with USBP, soon USCBP and the other branches of Military. Where they may have broke even on the Army contract, they will print money because of other agencies and government branches that take the pistol. Not to mention the ammunition they will be providing and the accessories.

  • N0truscotsman N0truscotsman on Jul 02, 2017

    LOL anybody see the Glock submission on kitup?

    I guess the anti-glock crowd and their cheers of 'they didn't meet the requirements' were proven utterly wrong.