By Bill Adams
I believe there are three reasons to expedite the purchase of a new fire truck. Two are valid, and one isn’t.
The first and easiest to justify is when an emergency purchase is warranted to replace an essential rig that is unexpectedly and permanently placed out of service. An example would be when a department’s sole aerial ladder is no longer serviceable, a spare rig is not available, and mutual aid is not feasible. Second is when the purchasing authority has to expend funds within a certain time frame, such as with grant monies or when job-specific budgeted funding may expire (you don’t use it, you lose it). The last and perhaps a controversial reason is political. A member of the authority having jurisdiction (AHJ) or the fire department hierarchy may want a “feather in the cap” for electoral purposes. Let’s get a new rig on order or delivered before the elections; I need the votes. That is a crass statement and a calculated maneuver but one not unheard of. In most other instances, the purchasing process plods along at a pace convenient to the fire department. These are the instances addressed herein.
Apparatus purchasing committees (APCs) have been known to labor for well over a year to develop a set of purchasing specifications. That time frame is common in departments that purchase infrequently as well as in departments that do not have an administrative staff devoted to apparatus procurement. Unless it is a scenario similar to the three mentioned above, the AHJ seldom badgers an APC to step up the pace. No one seems to care about the length of time required to develop a set of specifications provided that the department specs exactly what it needs and wants. APCs are usually encouraged to take their time and get it right. Kudos to committees that investigate and evaluate.
NFPA 1901
National Fire Protection Association (NFPA) 1901, Standard for Automotive Fire Apparatus, Annex B, sentence B.3—Obtaining and Studying Proposals states, “When the specifications are complete, they should be distributed to apparatus manufacturers and contractors with a request for bids or proposals to furnish the specified apparatus. The request should specify a date, time, and place for the formal opening of the bids. This date should allow at least one month for the engineering departments of apparatus manufacturers to study the specifications and estimate the cost of the apparatus. More time could be required if engineering drawings of the proposed apparatus are required.” NFPA 1901 also states, “This annex is not part of the requirements of this NFPA document but is included for informational purposes only.”
Fire Apparatus Purchasing Handbook, by William C. Peters, states, “Most would agree that unless specifications are extremely complicated, 30 days should be sufficient and fair for all bidders to complete their work. If bids are accepted by mail, the time frame should be slightly longer to compensate for this process.”
The 30-day time frame, while generally accepted as a norm, is to my knowledge not a written requirement of any regulatory agency. No one knows where the historical 30-day figure originated or why it was chosen. It may be one of those unchallenged fire service traditions that has never been questioned. It should be.
Unawareness or Deceit?
After the technical nuts-and-bolts portion of purchasing specifications is completed, the front sheets (aka the boilerplate), including the basic legal requirements, are usually addressed. This is when and where the 30-day time frame is normally integrated