www.crs.gov | 7-5700
June 19, 2018
The Army’s Modular Handgun Procurement
The Army Modular Handgun System (MHS) is a weapon
system produced by Sig Sauer that is to replace the Beretta
M9/11 pistol, which has been used by the U.S. Army since
1986. The MHS will fire a 9mm bullet and comes in two
sizes, full and compact. The Army is also procuring
customized ammunition to increase accuracy and reliability
over the life of the handgun.
The Army launched its effort to replace the Beretta in 2004,
adopted the Capabilities Production Document from the Air
Force in 2013, released the Request for Proposal in August
2015, and awarded a contract in January 2017.
The Contract
The MHS contract with Sig Sauer is a 10-year, firm-fixed-
price, indefinite delivery, indefinite quantity contract with a
cap of $580 million. A firm-fixed-price contract provides a
unit price that is not subject to any adjustments based on the
contractor’s costs in meeting the contract requirements.
Indefinite quantity means the Army can order as many or as
few units as it requires, up to the $580 million contract cap.
To date, the Army has obligated approximately $8 million.
Under the terms of the contract, the Army cannot release
unit price data. However, the contract sets the price for the
handguns, associated ammunition, supporting accessories,
training devices, and technical data.
The purchase of one MHS includes spare magazines,
instructions, weapon-specific tools, a holster, and
ammunition pouches. The separate training device kit
allows the use of man marker rounds and blanks during
training situations. The ammunition and suppressor kits’
prices are fixed and they are available for purchase through
the contract.
Planned Quantities
The Army currently plans to buy 238,215 systems. A
breakout of the number of full size versus compact versions
to be purchased is based on the Army Modified Table of
Organization and Equipment per unit. The ammunition
quantities are to be comparable to the required amount per
Army Standards in Training Commission.
The other military services intend to use the Army’s
contract to buy weapons. The Air Force announced that it
will buy 130,000 compact weapons and the Navy intends to
field 70,000 compact versions of the weapon. While the
Marine Corps has not officially announced its intentions,
the proposed FY2019 budget has allotted funds to buy
35,000 compact systems.
Previous Replacement Effort: A 13-Year
Process
The Army started a replacement program for the Beretta in
2004 (then-called the Future Handgun System). Shortly
thereafter, the Department of Defense decided to combine
this effort with the U.S. Special Operations Command’s
Combat Pistol program. This combined effort resulted in
the Joint Combat Pistol program. The Army eventually
removed itself from this program in September 2006 to
pursue its own effort.
Criticisms of the Procurement Process
Frustrated with the extended time the procurement of the
handgun had required, Army Chief of Staff General Mark
Milley reportedly stated in a March 10, 2015, address,
“We're not figuring out the next lunar landing. This is a
pistol. Two years to test? At $17 million? You give me $17
million on a credit card, and I'll call Cabela's tonight, and
I'll outfit every soldier, sailor, airman and Marine with a
pistol for $17 million. And I'll get a discount on a bulk
buy.”
Echoing frustration over how the procurement was being
executed, a report from Senator John McCain, America’s
Most Wasted: Army’s Costly Misfire, highlighted a number
of issues, including length of procurement effort, length of
time the Beretta had been in service, lack of clarity within
the request for proposal (RFP) regarding weapon caliber,
and concerns over having a single vendor for both the
weapon and ammunition. Ultimately, the report
recommended the suspension or cancellation of the RFP
until the caliber issue was resolved. (The RFP was not
cancelled.)
The May 2017 Section 809 Panel Interim Report also
criticized the Army’s handgun procurement for the length
of the procurement process from start to finish, number of
pages in the request for proposal, and the cost of proposal
development which reportedly led some leading weapons
manufacturers to decline to compete for the contract.
Counterpoint
In responding to an inquiry by the Congressional Research
Service about the various criticisms, the Army discussed
the time required and complexity of the MHS process. The
Army explained that the entire process was focused on
vendor inclusion, flexibility, and presenting the opportunity
for industry to present multiple submissions utilizing a wide
range of technologies. They emphasized that the intent was
always to get the best equipment to the soldiers.
Some observers argue that acquisition statutes and
regulations exacerbated the procurement process through
