Running The Numbers On DHS’ Ammo Purchases

[n2sooners]

I provided you a response from the Department of Homeland Security on Saturday concerning the large number of rounds of ammunition that they are soliciting for. I continue to leave it up to the reader to determine if they think DHS’ response is truthful or not. However, their response came just two days after they solicited for 360,000 more .40 caliber hollow point bullets. DHS told us these are for training purposes and, in fact, these are being sent to the Federal Law Enforcement Training Center in Artesia, New Mexico, which is the same location that 240,000 hollow points were sent to last month. However, I want to provide you with more details that DHS has put in print and ask some questions.

Senator Tom Coburn (R-Ok) says that DHS has not purchased anymore ammunition than they have previously. “I think if you go through it (the purchases) without fear and actually make a judgment, I think they’re doing exactly what they need to do.” Coburn has a good history of pointing out the wasteful spending of government and I don’t believe for a second that he is attempting to cover for DHS.

However, that does not explain why within the past year there have been solicitations for “up to” nearly 2 billion rounds when according to Peggy Dixon, spokeswoman for the Federal Law Enforcement Training Center in Glynco, Ga, her training center and others like it that are run by DHS use as many as 15 million rounds every year, mostly on shooting ranges and in training exercises. The argument that it keeps costs down doesn’t make sense if you are only purchasing between ten and twenty percent of what you are soliciting for.

Over the past three fiscal years, DHS has purchased over 361 million rounds of ammunition, according to them, but they still have nearly 264 million rounds in inventory at the beginning of FY2013 and are ready to spend $37,263,698 on more ammunition this year. In other words, at the end of three fiscal years they still maintained 73% of the total number of rounds purchased over the prior three years. While I can certainly understand maintaining a small percentage of supply, I don’t understand the amount still on hand after these purchases. It could be that they had larger quantities before 2010.

However, DHS has claimed that they do not maintain ammunition, but use it. The numbers say something different.

Granted, I do not have information prior to FY2010, which would greatly help is ascertaining what exactly is going on with ammunition purchases, there is one question that stand out to me above others. Since DHS has nearly 264 million rounds on hand, why do they need to purchase ammunition at all for at least two years? After all, in 2012, they only purchased a little over 103 million rounds.

Also, while I understand the need to carry hollow points, for training full metal jacket ammunition is just fine and should be at a lower cost to tax payers.

While these numbers are not the 1.6 billion that have been solicited, they are still large quantities of ammunition. DHS could not provide me with the information to go further back than FY2010, which would be necessary to give an completely accurate account of their purchases over the past decade to compare with their current inventory. If anyone has that information or where it can be obtained, I’ll revise this article. However, I wonder if there should not be an independent audit of the ammunition purchased. What say you?

Full Story

I didn't quote the whole story. There are a bunch of images with how the ammunition is distributed and even though they claim they use all they buy, their own numbers say they don't. But it's hard to draw any conclusions without more than just three years of data.

 

[SMS]

Good stuff. At least someone is finally digging into the numbers and getting away from the rote "DHS is buying 1.6 or 2 billion rounds of ammo", even though the author still doesn't quite grasp the concept or mechanics of IDIQ.

I would be interested to see what exactly happened with their "component inventory" at the beginning of the fiscal year. Some of that could be as a result of FY '13 purchases coming in on top of surplus '12 stock. Interesting.

I'm not surprised they are spending more this fiscal year, but buying less ammo. A quick look at ammo prices proves that to be a no-brainer.

 

[skycitadel]

The following I read over at http://www.shtfplan.com/headline-ne...s-available-on-the-commercial-market_03262013 . It certainly seems plausible to me.


"A US-based weapons manufacturer and defense contractor recently confirmed that this is, in fact, part of a broader gun control plan when he shared his insider knowledge with well known talk radio show host Michael Savage:

What Homeland Security is doing here is they’re issuing a contract to buy up to that amount of ammo if they want it…

It’s a way to control the amount of market that’s available on the commercial market at any time.

If they go to the ammo manufacturers and say give me 50 million rounds, give me another 30 million rounds… if they periodically do this in increments, they’re going to control how much ammo is available on the commercial market.

As part of their contract it stipulates in there that when the government calls and says give us another quantity, that everything they make has to go to the government priority one before any of it goes to the commercial market.

So, if they get nervous, all they have to do is use that contract that they have in place… and they just say ‘give us some more.’

…

In the contracting world it’s called an IDIQ contract… Indefinite Delivery, Indefinite Quantity… By issuing these contracts the government gets priority. All they have to do is call up…"

 

[SMS]

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

 

[WessonOil]

Thse type of bids are common throughout the government, both state and federal.

It avoids the expense of having to go out on bid all the time.

Often times it also allows a vendor to slightly increase their price during the course of the contract, should the raw materials go up substantially.

 

[SMS]

Thse type of bids are common throughout the government, both state and federal.

It avoids the expense of having to go out on bid all the time.

Often times it also allows a vendor to slightly increase their price during the course of the contract, should the raw materials go up substantially.

Yup.

And when you look deeper at their 264 million round "stockpile" at the beginning of the fiscal year, it's really not that much (we often have a problem grasping the size and scope of things in this country. It is huge).

With nearly 130,000 armed personnel under the DHS umbrella, that comes out to just over 2,000 rounds of ammo, per person, for a year's worth of training, operations, and reserve.

I've got more than that in my closet for each firearm I own...LOL.

 

[Honeybee]

Married to a former government employee and I am told that when an agency has a budget they have to use up all the money in the budget or it goes away, they can even be given a smaller budget the next year because they didn't need as much the year before.

 

[WessonOil]

Married to a former government employee and I am told that when an agency has a budget they have to use up all the money in the budget or it goes away, they can even be given a smaller budget the next year because they didn't need as much the year before.

Absolutely true.

 

[bpsooner]

Here is a thought. Let's reduce their budgets.

 

[tweetr]

With nearly 130,000 armed personnel under the DHS umbrella, that comes out to just over 2,000 rounds of ammo, per person, for a year's worth of training, operations, and reserve.

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.