By Tom Mettler

While the name Fire Apparatus Manufacturers’ Association (FAMA) might imply the membership is limited to fire truck builders, a majority of the membership consists of companies that make the wide variety of components that are attached to the fire trucks.

All the major fire pump manufacturers are members, and we participate significantly in FAMA’s work with National Fire Protection Association (NFPA) technical committees. In this article, I will describe recent changes in pump testing and how they impact fire apparatus performance.

Old Pump Test Requirements

NFPA 1901, Standard for Automotive Fire Apparatus (2009 ed.), required the pump manufacturer to perform and provide certification for a 500-pound-per-square-inch (psi) gauge pressure hydrostatic test of the pump body. The standard also separately required that the entire intake and discharge piping system be capable of withstanding a hydrostatic gauge pressure of 500 psi. Tank-to-pump and tank-fill lines were excluded from this requirement on the tank side of valves in those lines. The “Apparatus Pump System Certification” section of the 2009 edition required pumping tests to be carried out at 100, 70, and 50 percent of rated capacity. Depending on the capacity rating, the highest net pump pressure of these tests was either 200- or 250-psi gauge pressure. The manufacturer’s predelivery test also required a piping hydrostatic test at a gauge pressure of 250 psi.

New Pump Test Requirements

NFPA 1901 (2016 ed.) includes additional requirements for fire pumps that are capable of developing discharge pressures greater than the pressure at which they were hydrostatically tested. It also established a new requirement for pump manufacturers to establish a new rating for all fire pumps related to discharge pressure. The new rating is the maximum discharge pressure capability (MDPC) rating and is defined in the standard as the maximum permissible discharge gauge pressure at which the fire pump can be operated. If the MDPC rating of a pump exceeds the hydrostatic test pressure, the pump manufacturer must subject the pump to a hydrodynamic test during which the discharge pressure equals or exceeds the MDPC rating for a minimum of five minutes. The hydrodynamic test involves operating the pump so that the pump discharge structure and connected piping and valves are pressurized to the MDPC rating value while the intake piping, intake valves, and intake structure of the pump are not subjected to this pressure. When the hydrodynamic test is required, the pump manufacturer is required to provide a certificate of completion for the hydrodynamic test.

The 2016 edition also includes new pressure capability requirements for plumbing that address the MDPC rating of the pump. The new requirements separately address the discharge piping system, the aerial waterway and master stream waterway, and the intake piping system. The entire discharge piping system, including valves, drain cocks, and outlet closures, is required to withstand a hydrodynamic discharge pressure of 500 psi or 100 psi over the MDPC rating, whichever is greater. Excluded from these requirements are tank-fill lines on the tank side of the valve and compressed-air foam system (CAFS) piping and components that include valves that permit isolation from the discharge pressure.

The aerial waterway and master stream waterway on the discharge side of valves in those lines and CAFS piping and components are required to withstand a hydrostatic pressure of 250 psi. Likewise, the entire intake piping system, valves, bleeder valves, and intake closures, excluding the tank-to-pump line on the tank side of the valve, are also required to withstand a hydrostatic pressure of

By Tom Mettler

While the name Fire Apparatus Manufacturers’ Association (FAMA) might imply the membership is limited to fire truck builders, a majority of the membership consists of companies that make the wide variety of components that are attached to the fire trucks.

All the major fire pump manufacturers are members, and we participate significantly in FAMA’s work with National Fire Protection Association (NFPA) technical committees. In this article, I will describe recent changes in pump testing and how they impact fire apparatus performance.

Old Pump Test Requirements

NFPA 1901, Standard for Automotive Fire Apparatus (2009 ed.), required the pump manufacturer to perform and provide certification for a 500-pound-per-square-inch (psi) gauge pressure hydrostatic test of the pump body. The standard also separately required that the entire intake and discharge piping system be capable of withstanding a hydrostatic gauge pressure of 500 psi. Tank-to-pump and tank-fill lines were excluded from this requirement on the tank side of valves in those lines. The “Apparatus Pump System Certification” section of the 2009 edition required pumping tests to be carried out at 100, 70, and 50 percent of rated capacity. Depending on the capacity rating, the highest net pump pressure of these tests was either 200- or 250-psi gauge pressure. The manufacturer’s predelivery test also required a piping hydrostatic test at a gauge pressure of 250 psi.

New Pump Test Requirements

NFPA 1901 (2016 ed.) includes additional requirements for fire pumps that are capable of developing discharge pressures greater than the pressure at which they were hydrostatically tested. It also established a new requirement for pump manufacturers to establish a new rating for all fire pumps related to discharge pressure. The new rating is the maximum discharge pressure capability (MDPC) rating and is defined in the standard as the maximum permissible discharge gauge pressure at which the fire pump can be operated. If the MDPC rating of a pump exceeds the hydrostatic test pressure, the pump manufacturer must subject the pump to a hydrodynamic test during which the discharge pressure equals or exceeds the MDPC rating for a minimum of five minutes. The hydrodynamic test involves operating the pump so that the pump discharge structure and connected piping and valves are pressurized to the MDPC rating value while the intake piping, intake valves, and intake structure of the pump are not subjected to this pressure. When the hydrodynamic test is required, the pump manufacturer is required to provide a certificate of completion for the hydrodynamic test.

The 2016 edition also includes new pressure capability requirements for plumbing that address the MDPC rating of the pump. The new requirements separately address the discharge piping system, the aerial waterway and master stream waterway, and the intake piping system. The entire discharge piping system, including valves, drain cocks, and outlet closures, is required to withstand a hydrodynamic discharge pressure of 500 psi or 100 psi over the MDPC rating, whichever is greater. Excluded from these requirements are tank-fill lines on the tank side of the valve and compressed-air foam system (CAFS) piping and components that include valves that permit isolation from the discharge pressure.

The aerial waterway and master stream waterway on the discharge side of valves in those lines and CAFS piping and components are required to withstand a hydrostatic pressure of 250 psi. Likewise, the entire intake piping system, valves, bleeder valves, and intake closures, excluding the tank-to-pump line on the tank side of the valve, are also required to withstand a hydrostatic pressure of

By Bill Adams

Buyers and sellers should be aware of a subtle transformation occurring in the competitive bidding arena for fire apparatus.

Selling and purchasing fire trucks may never be the same. Apparatus manufacturers, their dealers, and end users are embracing the concept of purchasing apparatus through one of the many national sales cooperative contracts (co-ops). In this article, co-ops include national, state, and regional contracts.

Random samplings of apparatus manufacturers’ Web sites found more than a dozen co-ops listed. In no order of preference or recommendation, they are Defense Logistics Agency (DLA); United States General Services Administration (GSA); Houston-Galveston Purchasing (HGACBuy); BuyBoard National Purchasing Cooperative (BuyBoard); Fire Chiefs Association of Massachusetts (FCAM-MAPC); Florida Sheriffs Association (Florida Sheriffs); Louisiana Multiple Award Schedules (LaMAS); New Jersey State Contract; Ohio State Term Schedule (OSTS); Pennsylvania State Contract (COSTARS); and FireRescueGPO and NPP.GOV Contract. Other states that also have or are soon to implement a form of cooperative purchasing co-op are too numerous to list. There appears to be no rhyme or reason for why some apparatus manufacturers list co-ops on their Web sites and others do not. Soon they all will.

Each co-op has its own online explanation of what it does, how it does it, and the benefits of using it. Read them very carefully; they’re not all the same. Pundits and commentators have their own descriptions. Mine is simplified: Co-ops solicit the bids and everyone can buy at the same price.

Regardless of a co-op or vendor’s claim of meeting all legal bidding protocols, the ultimate consent or authorization rests with each purchaser’s political subdivision whether it be at a state or local level. Be aware that there may be written contractual covenants between the authority having jurisdiction (AHJ) and purchasers-including independent volunteer entities-when taxpayer monies are expended. Additionally, there’s the possibility that a city council, a board of fire commissioners, or a fire department’s hierarchy may nix a cooperative purchase and mandate a local and formal public bid opening-regardless of whether or not other local entities have used co-ops. It’s legal to do so. Apparatus purchasing committees should verify at every level whether a co-op purchase is both legal and permissible. Doing so in writing may save grief and aggravation later.

Two Sides

It is unfortunate, but essential, that any discourse concerning apparatus purchasing be explained in detail to reflect the multitude of viewpoints and attitudes in the marketplace. Occasionally political correctness is a victim. I believe there is a preferred vendor for the vast majority of apparatus purchased today regardless of whether or not the preference is subtle or obvious. Manufacturers and dealers (aka vendors) look at selling apparatus from opposing viewpoints-one where they are the preferred vendor and one where they’re not. These perspectives are readily obvious in the cooperative purchasing field. Overwhelmingly, dealers would not speak on the record when discussing cooperative purchasing. Off the record, they spoke plenty. If they are the preferred dealer in a co-op purchase, life could not be any better. If they are not the preferred dealer, they decline comment or say the process is flawed.

Purchasers using co-op purchasing wholeheartedly embrace the concept. Surprisingly, some fire departments are unaware of it. Industry experts, pundits, and commentators normally expound on the positives for everything being discussed because readers seldom want to hear the downside of any topic including cooperative purc

By Bill Adams

Buyers and sellers should be aware of a subtle transformation occurring in the competitive bidding arena for fire apparatus.

Selling and purchasing fire trucks may never be the same. Apparatus manufacturers, their dealers, and end users are embracing the concept of purchasing apparatus through one of the many national sales cooperative contracts (co-ops). In this article, co-ops include national, state, and regional contracts.

Random samplings of apparatus manufacturers’ Web sites found more than a dozen co-ops listed. In no order of preference or recommendation, they are Defense Logistics Agency (DLA); United States General Services Administration (GSA); Houston-Galveston Purchasing (HGACBuy); BuyBoard National Purchasing Cooperative (BuyBoard); Fire Chiefs Association of Massachusetts (FCAM-MAPC); Florida Sheriffs Association (Florida Sheriffs); Louisiana Multiple Award Schedules (LaMAS); New Jersey State Contract; Ohio State Term Schedule (OSTS); Pennsylvania State Contract (COSTARS); and FireRescueGPO and NPP.GOV Contract. Other states that also have or are soon to implement a form of cooperative purchasing co-op are too numerous to list. There appears to be no rhyme or reason for why some apparatus manufacturers list co-ops on their Web sites and others do not. Soon they all will.

Each co-op has its own online explanation of what it does, how it does it, and the benefits of using it. Read them very carefully; they’re not all the same. Pundits and commentators have their own descriptions. Mine is simplified: Co-ops solicit the bids and everyone can buy at the same price.

Regardless of a co-op or vendor’s claim of meeting all legal bidding protocols, the ultimate consent or authorization rests with each purchaser’s political subdivision whether it be at a state or local level. Be aware that there may be written contractual covenants between the authority having jurisdiction (AHJ) and purchasers-including independent volunteer entities-when taxpayer monies are expended. Additionally, there’s the possibility that a city council, a board of fire commissioners, or a fire department’s hierarchy may nix a cooperative purchase and mandate a local and formal public bid opening-regardless of whether or not other local entities have used co-ops. It’s legal to do so. Apparatus purchasing committees should verify at every level whether a co-op purchase is both legal and permissible. Doing so in writing may save grief and aggravation later.

Two Sides

It is unfortunate, but essential, that any discourse concerning apparatus purchasing be explained in detail to reflect the multitude of viewpoints and attitudes in the marketplace. Occasionally political correctness is a victim. I believe there is a preferred vendor for the vast majority of apparatus purchased today regardless of whether or not the preference is subtle or obvious. Manufacturers and dealers (aka vendors) look at selling apparatus from opposing viewpoints-one where they are the preferred vendor and one where they’re not. These perspectives are readily obvious in the cooperative purchasing field. Overwhelmingly, dealers would not speak on the record when discussing cooperative purchasing. Off the record, they spoke plenty. If they are the preferred dealer in a co-op purchase, life could not be any better. If they are not the preferred dealer, they decline comment or say the process is flawed.

Purchasers using co-op purchasing wholeheartedly embrace the concept. Surprisingly, some fire departments are unaware of it. Industry experts, pundits, and commentators normally expound on the positives for everything being discussed because readers seldom want to hear the downside of any topic including cooperative purc

By Bill Adams

Buyers and sellers should be aware of a subtle transformation occurring in the competitive bidding arena for fire apparatus.

Selling and purchasing fire trucks may never be the same. Apparatus manufacturers, their dealers, and end users are embracing the concept of purchasing apparatus through one of the many national sales cooperative contracts (co-ops). In this article, co-ops include national, state, and regional contracts.

Random samplings of apparatus manufacturers’ Web sites found more than a dozen co-ops listed. In no order of preference or recommendation, they are Defense Logistics Agency (DLA); United States General Services Administration (GSA); Houston-Galveston Purchasing (HGACBuy); BuyBoard National Purchasing Cooperative (BuyBoard); Fire Chiefs Association of Massachusetts (FCAM-MAPC); Florida Sheriffs Association (Florida Sheriffs); Louisiana Multiple Award Schedules (LaMAS); New Jersey State Contract; Ohio State Term Schedule (OSTS); Pennsylvania State Contract (COSTARS); and FireRescueGPO and NPP.GOV Contract. Other states that also have or are soon to implement a form of cooperative purchasing co-op are too numerous to list. There appears to be no rhyme or reason for why some apparatus manufacturers list co-ops on their Web sites and others do not. Soon they all will.

Each co-op has its own online explanation of what it does, how it does it, and the benefits of using it. Read them very carefully; they’re not all the same. Pundits and commentators have their own descriptions. Mine is simplified: Co-ops solicit the bids and everyone can buy at the same price.

Regardless of a co-op or vendor’s claim of meeting all legal bidding protocols, the ultimate consent or authorization rests with each purchaser’s political subdivision whether it be at a state or local level. Be aware that there may be written contractual covenants between the authority having jurisdiction (AHJ) and purchasers-including independent volunteer entities-when taxpayer monies are expended. Additionally, there’s the possibility that a city council, a board of fire commissioners, or a fire department’s hierarchy may nix a cooperative purchase and mandate a local and formal public bid opening-regardless of whether or not other local entities have used co-ops. It’s legal to do so. Apparatus purchasing committees should verify at every level whether a co-op purchase is both legal and permissible. Doing so in writing may save grief and aggravation later.

Two Sides

It is unfortunate, but essential, that any discourse concerning apparatus purchasing be explained in detail to reflect the multitude of viewpoints and attitudes in the marketplace. Occasionally political correctness is a victim. I believe there is a preferred vendor for the vast majority of apparatus purchased today regardless of whether or not the preference is subtle or obvious. Manufacturers and dealers (aka vendors) look at selling apparatus from opposing viewpoints-one where they are the preferred vendor and one where they’re not. These perspectives are readily obvious in the cooperative purchasing field. Overwhelmingly, dealers would not speak on the record when discussing cooperative purchasing. Off the record, they spoke plenty. If they are the preferred dealer in a co-op purchase, life could not be any better. If they are not the preferred dealer, they decline comment or say the process is flawed.

Purchasers using co-op purchasing wholeheartedly embrace the concept. Surprisingly, some fire departments are unaware of it. Industry experts, pundits, and commentators normally expound on the positives for everything being discussed because readers seldom want to hear the downside of any topic including cooperative purc