David Wunderlin

Today’s fire departments across the United States and around the world must respond not only to their emergency calls for assistance but also to the challenges in the ever-changing global economy.

Fire departments are continually impacted by budget constraints, and they face such hurdles as reduced staffing, extended vehicle replacement schedules, and station closures, to name a few. Most, if not all, organizations have been through some really trying times in the past few years. As leaders in the fire protection industry, we must consider doing more with less instead of slipping into the somewhat misleading viewpoint of the “new normal.”

1 Many departments have found that the smaller chassis not only are more maneuverable, allowing for an expedited response, but also are more economical in initial purchase cost, fuel, maintenance, and insurance. These smaller chassis are also much safer to operate. (Photos courtesy of Maintainer Custom Bodies.)

One plan of attack of late for increasing efficiency and reducing operational costs is to “downsize response.” This is a call for making a transition from the long-standing approach that “bigger is better.” Historically, we have designed apparatus for “all hazards” response types. Remember the quint? It is now a reality that departments must continually refine their approach to incident response and operations. To make this comprehensive transition, departments need to evaluate their historical data and identify a new strategy for their apparatus requirements, developing designs based on what would characterize the majority of their initial response criteria.

Equipment Needs Evaluation

With this type of process, departments must create a complete evaluation of the equipment they need to carry and how to strategically place that equipment. The initial step is to define the mission and qualify the priorities based on the historical data. Some basic key factors for evaluation include the following:

• What functions will the new apparatus be required to perform?
• How many riding positions will need to be accommodated?
• What kind of terrain is the response area?
• What style body best lends itself to the overall operation?
• Does the body style allow access in and out with the equipment required to be carried?

Understandably, departments must be realistic in evaluating their needs. They must determine what is necessary to get the job done, including transporting both personnel and equipment to and from the incident. More times than not, agencies faced with developing a plan to downsize their response arrive at a conclusion that, ultimately, the vast majority of responses can be addressed by a vehicle that is substantially smaller. The trend is to use smaller rescue and quick-attack vehicles fo

David Wunderlin

Today’s fire departments across the United States and around the world must respond not only to their emergency calls for assistance but also to the challenges in the ever-changing global economy.

Fire departments are continually impacted by budget constraints, and they face such hurdles as reduced staffing, extended vehicle replacement schedules, and station closures, to name a few. Most, if not all, organizations have been through some really trying times in the past few years. As leaders in the fire protection industry, we must consider doing more with less instead of slipping into the somewhat misleading viewpoint of the “new normal.”

1 Many departments have found that the smaller chassis not only are more maneuverable, allowing for an expedited response, but also are more economical in initial purchase cost, fuel, maintenance, and insurance. These smaller chassis are also much safer to operate. (Photos courtesy of Maintainer Custom Bodies.)

One plan of attack of late for increasing efficiency and reducing operational costs is to “downsize response.” This is a call for making a transition from the long-standing approach that “bigger is better.” Historically, we have designed apparatus for “all hazards” response types. Remember the quint? It is now a reality that departments must continually refine their approach to incident response and operations. To make this comprehensive transition, departments need to evaluate their historical data and identify a new strategy for their apparatus requirements, developing designs based on what would characterize the majority of their initial response criteria.

Equipment Needs Evaluation

With this type of process, departments must create a complete evaluation of the equipment they need to carry and how to strategically place that equipment. The initial step is to define the mission and qualify the priorities based on the historical data. Some basic key factors for evaluation include the following:

• What functions will the new apparatus be required to perform?
• How many riding positions will need to be accommodated?
• What kind of terrain is the response area?
• What style body best lends itself to the overall operation?
• Does the body style allow access in and out with the equipment required to be carried?

Understandably, departments must be realistic in evaluating their needs. They must determine what is necessary to get the job done, including transporting both personnel and equipment to and from the incident. More times than not, agencies faced with developing a plan to downsize their response arrive at a conclusion that, ultimately, the vast majority of responses can be addressed by a vehicle that is substantially smaller. The trend is to use smaller rescue and quick-attack vehicles fo

David Wunderlin

Today’s fire departments across the United States and around the world must respond not only to their emergency calls for assistance but also to the challenges in the ever-changing global economy.

Fire departments are continually impacted by budget constraints, and they face such hurdles as reduced staffing, extended vehicle replacement schedules, and station closures, to name a few. Most, if not all, organizations have been through some really trying times in the past few years. As leaders in the fire protection industry, we must consider doing more with less instead of slipping into the somewhat misleading viewpoint of the “new normal.”

1 Many departments have found that the smaller chassis not only are more maneuverable, allowing for an expedited response, but also are more economical in initial purchase cost, fuel, maintenance, and insurance. These smaller chassis are also much safer to operate. (Photos courtesy of Maintainer Custom Bodies.)

One plan of attack of late for increasing efficiency and reducing operational costs is to “downsize response.” This is a call for making a transition from the long-standing approach that “bigger is better.” Historically, we have designed apparatus for “all hazards” response types. Remember the quint? It is now a reality that departments must continually refine their approach to incident response and operations. To make this comprehensive transition, departments need to evaluate their historical data and identify a new strategy for their apparatus requirements, developing designs based on what would characterize the majority of their initial response criteria.

Equipment Needs Evaluation

With this type of process, departments must create a complete evaluation of the equipment they need to carry and how to strategically place that equipment. The initial step is to define the mission and qualify the priorities based on the historical data. Some basic key factors for evaluation include the following:

• What functions will the new apparatus be required to perform?
• How many riding positions will need to be accommodated?
• What kind of terrain is the response area?
• What style body best lends itself to the overall operation?
• Does the body style allow access in and out with the equipment required to be carried?

Understandably, departments must be realistic in evaluating their needs. They must determine what is necessary to get the job done, including transporting both personnel and equipment to and from the incident. More times than not, agencies faced with developing a plan to downsize their response arrive at a conclusion that, ultimately, the vast majority of responses can be addressed by a vehicle that is substantially smaller. The trend is to use smaller rescue and quick-attack vehicles fo

By Bill Adams

Most commentaries enunciate the positive side of apparatus purchasing, where everyone is happy and the delivered rig is the best thing since apple pie, sunshine, fresh air, and sliced bread.

That’s not always the case. There are manufacturers, dealers, and purchasers who wish they’d never heard of each other. Vague verbiage in purchasing specifications is usually the root cause of hard feelings. Many times dissimilarities between buyers’ expectations and what sellers are proposing do not come to light until the preconstruction conference (see “Apparatus Purchasing: The Prebid Conference,” March 2012, Fire Apparatus & Emergency Equipment). That could be too late if the purchasing contract has already been signed and the buyer-seller relationship is rocky to begin with.

In political subdivisions, after a formal contract is finalized, changes to it-no matter how slight, small, or insignificant-may result in change orders and unanticipated costs. That can cause undue grief and aggravation between buyer and seller. Relations can become contentious, especially if the buyer didn’t want the seller’s rig in the first place. When funding for the apparatus purchase is subject to stringent political oversight, fire departments may be placed in a precarious position if they must approach “city hall” for additional funding.

Bidding Scenarios

There are two common bidding scenarios. The first is when true competitive bids are sought. The other is when the bidding process is used as a legal formality to award a contract to a prechosen manufacturer. No one likes to admit the latter happens, but it does. And, it happens quite often.

This article addresses one portion of the bid evaluation process. Often, only a cursory examination of submitted proposals is done prior to a contract award. Many times, ensuring compliance to major and readily obvious specification requirements and a low bid price are the bases for an award. Included are having the proper pump size, tank capacity, chassis components, hosebed layout, number of piping connections, type of generator, compartment sizes, and overall dimensions. The nitty-gritty minute details are seldom addressed until the preconstruction conference. That can be problematic.

Apparatus purchasing committees can be under intense scrutiny by the powers that be to accept the lowest bid regardless of what some construe as relatively minor details. Although those seemingly minor details and interpretations of purchasing spec and proposal verbiage appear trivial and inconsequential, a cumulative number can result in a disastrous delivery. If the troops hate the rig before it’s ordered, they’ll probably hate it for as long as it is in service.

Meetings

When you are purchasing a new rig, prebid conferences with prospective bidders are not common although they are highly recommended. They are very beneficial when purchasers seeking competitive bids write open specifications that are not extremely detailed. After awarding a purchasing contract and before actual manufacturing begins, conducting a preconstruction meeting with the successful bidder is standard practice. Most purchasing specifications require one. Most manufacturers demand one.

What’s seldom considered but can be equally as important as the aforementioned meetings is conducting a comprehensive “preaward” meeting with the apparent successful bidder. It is imperative when the preferred bidder is not being awarded the contract. Held after a bid opening and before the contract signing, a purchaser will have the opportunity to ensure the successful bidder has met every last written detail of the specifications. It also affords the bidder an opportunity to ensure the purc