Congress Seeks Answers on Huge DHS Ammo Contracts

[Thunder71]

Maybe they should look into reloading, it would create jobs AND save money.

[jshuberg]

My guess (and it's only a guess) is that they order ammo from multiple different manufacturers. If this is the case, it would then stand to reason that when stating the maximum they might potentially order from any given manufacturer, that they would indicate the total number of rounds that they might need for that time period. This way they are not relying on any given manufacturer to supply them the ammo they need, but that if something were to happen (say a company going out of business, supply lines breaking down, etc) that they have the option of ordering all of the ammo they need from any one individual supplier. If you were to total up all of the "potential" order maximums, it would be significantly higher than what they would actually intend to order, or likely even what they have budget for.

It would be interesting to look at each of the individual contracts. I'd bet the maximum potential purchase amount is similiar for most of them. I'd also bet that this number is in the ballpark of what they've historically ordered, with some additional padding for unknown future events. Again, it's only a guess, but I'm certain that the 2 billion number contains a significant overlap and redundancy spread across multiple manufacturers. If they aren't doing this, their not being very smart.

So why wouldn't the administration just come out and state this very reasonable explanation? Because not doing so gives rise to the conspiracy theorists, many of which simply make the opposition look foolish. I'm sure Obama could have released his birth certificate during his first campaign, but by not releasing it gave rise to the "birther" movement, which was something they could ridicule and use as a distraction. My guess is that "leaked" memos that the FBI should consider Ron Paul supporters and war vets as potential terrorists are almost the same thing - disinformation. Something to get the opposition all worked up, to let the conspiracy theorists imaginations run wild so they can paint the opposition as nothing but Bigfoot and Elvis believers. Its counter-propaganda, and we should be cautious not to take the bait.

[NMRMN]

My guess (and it's only a guess) is that they order ammo from multiple different manufacturers. If this is the case, it would then stand to reason that when stating the maximum they might potentially order from any given manufacturer, that they would indicate the total number of rounds that they might need for that time period. This way they are not relying on any given manufacturer to supply them the ammo they need, but that if something were to happen (say a company going out of business, supply lines breaking down, etc) that they have the option of ordering all of the ammo they need from any one individual supplier. If you were to total up all of the "potential" order maximums, it would be significantly higher than what they would actually intend to order, or likely even what they have budget for.

It would be interesting to look at each of the individual contracts. I'd bet the maximum potential purchase amount is similiar for most of them. I'd also bet that this number is in the ballpark of what they've historically ordered, with some additional padding for unknown future events. Again, it's only a guess, but I'm certain that the 2 billion number contains a significant overlap and redundancy spread across multiple manufacturers. If they aren't doing this, their not being very smart.

That is a plausible explanation -- thank you for contributing! When I get some time I would like to investigate further the contracts. I would note that these contracts are bid on, so potentially the same supplier could bid on and win Multiple contracts...

My guess is that "leaked" memos that the FBI should consider Ron Paul supporters and war vets as potential terrorists are almost the same thing - disinformation. Something to get the opposition all worked up, to let the conspiracy theorists imaginations run wild so they can paint the opposition as nothing but Bigfoot and Elvis believers. Its counter-propaganda, and we should be cautious not to take the bait.

I think it is likely politically driven as well. I wonder whether the actual intention is to get people to develop conspiracy theory's and thus discredit or marginalize opposition. Perhaps. Either way, thats a pretty dangerous game...

[whiteox]

I'm with Shuberg with the exception that I doubt it was intentional.

I think Occam's razor is the best explanation. I doubt the conspiracy theory even occurred to them.

The fact that that a fringe element blew this out of proportion is a side benefit.

I suppose the DHS could try to explain, but why would they waste their time to reason with folks who didn't arrive at their beliefs through reason. The conspiracy theorists aren't going to be dissuaded, no matter what DHS puts out in the way of an explanation.

[Icmgwot]

(Where do you see the 2B+ number? I saw 1.6B used more often...)

A couple of thoughts based more on experience with budgeting far more mundane resources. (IT)

First off, jshuberg's last post is pretty good.

Secondly, the amount asked for is going to be the upper limit, not the average, nor the likely amount used. If you expect to use 10 of something, you contract for up to 15 or 20. So while the past ammo purchases are useful, a better measure would be past contracts. Because they may have asked for similarly inflated numbers.

And budgetary/growth projections for five years out are also often inflated. How much more hiring is possible? How much more training would they like to be doing? Again, they pick the highest numbers possible. Despite the fact that they won't actually hit it. And it compounds with the other inflation above.

Lastly, isn't it possible that DHS is caught up in the same panic as the rest of us? If they're worried that ammo might be hard to get, they may ask for more than they'll really need. Yeah, it sounds silly. But the rest of us are doing it, so why not them too?

All the above doesn't mean that the DHS isn't way too big, with too much power. Or that the federal government doesn't have too much power. Or that all the paranoia regarding terrorists isn't being turned internally on citizens. But I fear making the discussion about ammo kind of detracts from those more fundamental questions. We shouldn't be asking "Has the DHS bought too much ammo?", but "Does the government have too much power?".

On an unrelated note, NMRMN, I'd like to commend you on this thread. All too often, this sort of discussion degenerates very quickly. But you're level headed, your analysis is objective, and you're keeping the entire thread this way. Kudos.

[NMRMN]

(Where do you see the 2B+ number? I saw 1.6B used more often...)

I have seen both... 1.6B and also a more recent 450M. It would be helpful if we could compile a database of the different contracts for bid to clear some of these questions up.

A couple of thoughts based more on experience with budgeting far more mundane resources. (IT)
First off, jshuberg's last post is pretty good. Secondly, the amount asked for is going to be the upper limit, not the average, nor the likely amount used. If you expect to use 10 of something, you contract for up to 15 or 20. So while the past ammo purchases are useful, a better measure would be past contracts. Because they may have asked for similarly inflated numbers.

I agree, and I just saw an article today that talks about this, and I can't verify its accuracy:

DHS has no history of purchasing this much ammunition - ever: A Natural News examination of the FBO website; however, found that the government's bulk ammo purchases are fairly recent, dating back to this solicitation to purchase 1,000 rounds of .40 cal. "frangible" ammo in 2008. Frangible bullets are designed to break apart when they strike a hard object, like a wall. Government ammunition solicitations began to increase dramatically with this request for 50-75 million rounds in December 2010, eventually culminating in the billions of rounds now solicited, on order or set for delivery.

And budgetary/growth projections for five years out are also often inflated. How much more hiring is possible? How much more training would they like to be doing? Again, they pick the highest numbers possible. Despite the fact that they won't actually hit it. And it compounds with the other inflation above. Lastly, isn't it possible that DHS is caught up in the same panic as the rest of us? If they're worried that ammo might be hard to get, they may ask for more than they'll really need. Yeah, it sounds silly. But the rest of us are doing it, so why not them too?

See above for some idea about history of ammo purchases. They give some indication where to look for these numbers.

All the above doesn't mean that the DHS isn't way too big, with too much power. Or that the federal government doesn't have too much power. Or that all the paranoia regarding terrorists isn't being turned internally on citizens. But I fear making the discussion about ammo kind of detracts from those more fundamental questions. We shouldn't be asking "Has the DHS bought too much ammo?", but "Does the government have too much power?".

I agree, those are the bigger and ultimately more important questions... The ammo purchases could be the "canary in the coal mine", so to speak.

On an unrelated note, NMRMN, I'd like to commend you on this thread. All too often, this sort of discussion degenerates very quickly. But you're level headed, your analysis is objective, and you're keeping the entire thread this way. Kudos.

Thanks... I am trying to be objective... Disinformation from either side of a debate is not helpful. I have my biases, but I try to keep them out of the way for investigatory or analytical work. It is obviously a controversial topic, but one I believe warrants consideration, regardless of your politics or openness to conspiracy theory. At the very least, I believe questions should be raised about the size, mission and oversight of this department.

[NMRMN]

I'm with Shuberg with the exception that I doubt it was intentional.
I think Occam's razor is the best explanation. I doubt the conspiracy theory even occurred to them.

I think one would be surprised at the complexity of political and business or "marketing" strategy. Not to say you are incorrect, but I think it is prudent to consider all possibilities.

The fact that that a fringe element blew this out of proportion is a side benefit.

Not exactly "fringe" anymore... What benefits could you foresee?

I suppose the DHS could try to explain, but why would they waste their time to reason with folks who didn't arrive at their beliefs through reason. The conspiracy theorists aren't going to be dissuaded, no matter what DHS puts out in the way of an explanation.

I think the American public, the taxpayer, deserves an honest explanation, wether they believe it or not. Perhaps this question could be easily answered with a more detailed and official explanation of the procurement process.

[911scanner]

And you are the exception to the rule when compared with most LEO's.

I'm not a LEO, just a motivated civilian shooter. I apologize if I gave that impression.

I didn't think you were. Just pointing out that your personal experience referencing using 14,000 rounds/yr. does not even compare to a high percentage of LEO's usage.

Poor argument at best for assuming that each federal LEO would be close to your "motivated user" usage. You taking issue with a cop using 4,200 rounds per year for training vs. your 14,000 doesn't hold water, unless you're are referring to strictly tactical team usage.

If you said 1,400, I'd be less apt to stand up and take issue with you.

[NMRMN]

Decent article. Answers some good questions, the best of which came directly from the DHS to Sen Coburn -- not third party internet conjecture.

THE GREAT DHS AMMUNITION STOCKPILE MYTH

[Collector1337420]

"What we don't know keeps the contracts alive and moving.

They don't gotta burn the books they just remove them.

While arms warehouses fill and quick as the cells.

They rally around the family, with a pocket full of shells."

[farmerj]

I got the source numbers here.
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/ ... rength.htm
I am using these guys only as an example.

I took out the civilian numbers because they are not likely to be needing ammo for annual qualification.

Some assumptions:
EVERY service member MUST qualify annually. That is 40 rounds to qualify, 40 rounds to practice and 20 rounds to zero.
EVERY service member must have at least one combat load out of 210 rounds.

Even with 2,424,000 members, the DOD can BARELY justify 1.6 billion rounds over 5 years. And DHS wants to claim they need that for less than 100,000 LEO?

[XDM45]

"What we don't know keeps the contracts alive and moving.

They don't gotta burn the books they just remove them.

While arms warehouses fill and quick as the cells.

They rally around the family, with a pocket full of shells."

+100 Bulls on Parade!! Firing that up on my music server right now. You got that song stuck in my head.

[Erud]

"What we don't know keeps the contracts alive and moving.

They don't gotta burn the books they just remove them.

While arms warehouses fill and quick as the cells.

They rally around the family, with a pocket full of shells."

+100 Bulls on Parade!! Firing that up on my music server right now. You got that song stuck in my head.

Worst band ever.

Bunch of Che Guevara-loving communists.

[XDM45]

"What we don't know keeps the contracts alive and moving.

They don't gotta burn the books they just remove them.

While arms warehouses fill and quick as the cells.

They rally around the family, with a pocket full of shells."

+100 Bulls on Parade!! Firing that up on my music server right now. You got that song stuck in my head.

Worst band ever.

Bunch of Che Guevara-loving communists.

So don't listen to them. Problem solved.

[yukonjasper]

is it possible that the administration is using the law of supply and demand. By affecting the supply of ammo to the "streets" your effect is to drive up the cost and create scarcity. Granted there is also the benefit of padding their stockpiles, but there is an economic and psychological effect also. Many people have abandon certain calibers because they are expensive to shoot and because the availability of the ammo isn't there. Although an expensive proposition, the Government is really the only entity out there that has the "unlimited" resources to create an imbalance in the laws of supply and demand. The added benefit of pricing contracts that iare devoid of market forces allows them to operate the plan at a very consistent purchace pace.

They don't have to "take" your guns to render them inert except as a club or spear if you have a bayonette carrier.

Just offering another potential angle.