Quiet
Banned
I'm not ready to put the tin foil hat on, but I definitely would like to see a better accounting of this. On it's face it seems excessive but...
IDK if 3,500 rounds is a lot or a little for each and every agent, but this department may need to have an "initial inventory" and be able to ensure at any point during the 5 years that they're not caught out in any potential shortage situation, they may be replacing ammo that has been outdated. And yes, they may be planning for a surge in need, too.
If you were running the organization (I know, I know. NONE of YOU would be for various ethical and moral and philosophical reasons) you might be looking to ensure that you had a strong and steady supply of ammo. After all, it's not your money, and "use it or lose it" is de rigueur in the .gov
- - - Updated - - -
IDK if 3,500 rounds is a lot or a little for each and every agent, but this department may need to have an "initial inventory" and be able to ensure at any point during the 5 years that they're not caught out in any potential shortage situation, they may be replacing ammo that has been outdated. And yes, they may be planning for a surge in need, too.
If you were running the organization (I know, I know. NONE of YOU would be for various ethical and moral and philosophical reasons) you might be looking to ensure that you had a strong and steady supply of ammo. After all, it's not your money, and "use it or lose it" is de rigueur in the .gov
- - - Updated - - -
"Use it or lose it."Another possible cause would be to inflate their budgetary needs to justify maintaining their current budget levels / expanding their budget levels at a time when The American People and Congress are demanding budget cuts. "We made a commitment to purchase this ammunition and armored vehicles, so if you cut our budget we'll need to slash personal costs rather than being able to cut back on a hundred million dollars per year in ammunition purchases.