InvestorsHub Logo
Followers 4
Posts 297
Boards Moderated 0
Alias Born 05/18/2021

Re: TEEROY post# 51438

Thursday, 09/23/2021 1:22:48 PM

Thursday, September 23, 2021 1:22:48 PM

Post# of 53792
A bit of context:
In July/August, there were two opportunities posted to sam.gov

1) Soldier Virtual Trainer (info only) - https://sam.gov/opp/67edca669a1245ab82f0015e1f3648b0/view

This SVT Info Only requirements said SVT would require either instrumented weapons (drop in kits) or simulated weapons.

2) Request for Information - Soldier Virtual Training (SVT) - https://sam.gov/opp/8ac50b97de234ea2b9a1b97ad69dc4c3/view

This was the official RFI, again, stating requirements for SVT to use instrumented weapons (drop in kits) or simulated weapons.

----

Now yesterday this SVT RFI#2 (https://sam.gov/opp/531d5cb6ef4747da87a52bfa908a09c1/view) was issued and it's specific to instrumented weapons only. My question is, if the prior RFI already included the requirement for instrumented weapons or simulated weapons, why did the Army release this RFI#2 essentially repeating itself? My thoughts are:
1) The Army wants to use instrumented weapons and too many responses to RFI#1 included simulated weapons.
2) The Army is not happy with current instrumented weapon capabilities (i.e. VirTra's) and wants more info.

I lean more towards #1 and less #2 because from what I can find in market research, nobody really does instrumented weapons and simply does simulated weapons due to the added capabilities available.
Volume:
Day Range:
Bid:
Ask:
Last Trade Time:
Total Trades:
  • 1D
  • 1M
  • 3M
  • 6M
  • 1Y
  • 5Y
Recent VTSI News