CFSAC - DCRA out, ACL in?

This is the same organization that ran IPSC provincials and nationals (?) and the CFSAC pistol matches. Apparently the competition criteria included previous national level match experience.

The line up for range staff forms on the left ....
 
DCRA has ran it last year (that's the only one I know about) so it's not the first time civilians have run a military competition.
Click to expand...

(and the year before, didn't they?)

I know but it should be rubbed into the face of every statist ,looser (too incompetent to find a real job ) politician who thinks otherwise
 
Well, no. Actually rubbing that in the face of ANYONE will have guys like me unable to compete. I'm a ci..civ...ci..ci.......just a regular joe.
 
Parker-Hale Mike said:
If you look into the history of CFSAC the DCRA has run it more years than the military has by a landslide.
Click to expand...

Yes Mike very true . I suspect a lot changes for the better on how the matches are run .I can only hope that this results in increased participation in NSCC I suspect it will yield those results
 
Due to some responses in this thread, and a PM I recieved, I'd like to clarify that yes, I knew CFSAC was a military-only competition.

My messed up comment was originally directed to a political concern that I have that if civilian competition in other forms such as Service Rifle is curtailed, we will lose any leverage we have and AR-15s etc will be banned from civilian possession.

Making noise about civvy's and civvy organizations concerns me, yet if we DON'T speak up, they'll say AR-15s have no sporting purpose. It's a bit of a Catch 22 (no pun intended) in our present anti-gun climate.

It was late, I editted a bunch out, and left you all the inadvertent impression that I wanted to compete at CFSAC. I was extrememly unclear. Sorry. :)

Anyway, carry on.....!
 
Someone got the RFP around?

Government rules always allow the loser to have a debrief to figure out why they lost. If you are sooooooooo nosy you can always file a FOI to figure out the gritty little details, just for the sake of gossipping.
 
I just spoke with one of the parties. What info the loser gets is so limited to be of no value so a FOI is required to know what went wrong. It sounds like there were a lot of little issues that added up to the decision, right or wrong and a number of flaws in the selection process. Perhaps the two parties should get together on this as the DCRA has a lot of experience the others don't have. It would seem the gov is paying more money for less range experience but better verbose. I do however wish them an excellent match because if they screw up it will make all civilians look bad when it comes to running this sort of thing with the miltary and it could be an end to civilian involvement.
 
Ian Robertson said:
I just spoke with one of the parties. What info the loser gets is so limited to be of no value so a FOI is required to know what went wrong. It sounds like there were a lot of little issues that added up to the decision, right or wrong and a number of flaws in the selection process. Perhaps the two parties should get together on this as the DCRA has a lot of experience the others don't have. It would seem the gov is paying more money for less range experience but better verbose. I do however wish them an excellent match because if they screw up it will make all civilians look bad when it comes to running this sort of thing with the miltary and it could be an end to civilian involvement.
Click to expand...

You may have hit the nail on the head Ian. Two sets of paperwork on the table. One decision. Although the principles may be competing businesses, there is a limited pool of knowledgible workers. As I posted a while back, the line for range staff signups forms on the left.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom