|
|
Post by FirstDue312 on Sept 16, 2008 10:00:34 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by thelurker on Sept 16, 2008 17:57:39 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by papacheese on Sept 17, 2008 9:27:32 GMT -5
Oh good...a State generic specification fire truck....the possibilties are simply endless. I'm positive that will make everything good.
Before people weigh in with their thoughts and opinions, I'd highly recommend that they download and read the entire 61 page report, including the appendix, which makes for fascinating reading. Like most things in life, the truth is never quite as tittilating as rumor and inuendo.
|
|
|
|
Post by thelurker on Sept 17, 2008 12:06:48 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by thelurker on Sept 17, 2008 12:09:03 GMT -5
Oh good...a State generic specification fire truck....the possibilties are simply endless. I'm positive that will make everything good. Before people weigh in with their thoughts and opinions, I'd highly recommend that they download and read the entire 61 page report, including the appendix, which makes for fascinating reading. Like most things in life, the truth is never quite as tittilating as rumor and inuendo. Papa do you have a link to that report?? |
|
|
|
Post by voyager9 on Sept 17, 2008 14:04:25 GMT -5
Report can be found here: www.state.nj.us/sci/pdf/Firetrucks%20Final%20Report.pdfI can imagine that writing a technical spec for something as complex as new apparatus can be tough and in a lot of cases there is nowhere to turn for assistance but the manufacturers themselves. Makes for a rather self-fulfilling situation. "Please tell us what to tell you to make for us".. In that case having a third party that is available to assist in crafting the specification may be worthwhile. I shutter to imagine if it gets too far beyond that, however. State oversight, monitoring, and "technical assistance" would add another layer of bureaucracy and log-jam an already slow process. It also wouldn't fix the problem. It's not like government agencies aren't susceptible to lobbying, bribes..etc. My fear would be that it would just move a bad process to a higher level. |
|
|
|
Post by papacheese on Sept 18, 2008 4:45:45 GMT -5
No matter how open-minded you are or how "generic" the spec is, there will always be differences in the products and services offered..that's life. If one manufacturer offers a feature that it's competitors do not, would that mean you can't request it because you're narrowing the field of bidders? That's asinine; what would be the incentive to design and engineer an improvement?
It would be great if you could order an apparatus off a standardized menu, but that's not possible - every jurisdiction has it's own unique needs that have to be addressed: cost, finacing, design, capacities, horsepower...the list is endless. Each of the manufacturers invest considerable amounts of money trying to produce something that will attract a buyer to their product...they're going to be different; it just depends on whether you think the differences are worth the extra money. The old sayings "You get what you pay for" and "There's no such thing as a free lunch" are still applicable. ESPECIALLY for something like this. Bottom line: price should be just one of several decision factors...
Just the mere thought of the State "standardizing" engine specs is enough to make me shiver...they can't seem to get simple things right, much less something as complex as an engine.
|
|
|
|
Post by smthborenzzle on Sept 18, 2008 5:48:11 GMT -5
I currently work for the State. Most of the equipment they buy on bid is crap. It doesn't hold up well because it was the cheapest. You get what you pay for. I think a resident wouldn't mind paying a few extra dollars for a well crafted truck that will last at least 20 years. I'm not totally against a little transparency in the process but I hope the dept's don't get stuck with trucks they don't want and without features they truly need.
|
|
|
|
Post by voyager9 on Sept 18, 2008 7:59:51 GMT -5
If one manufacturer offers a feature that it's competitors do not, would that mean you can't request it because you're narrowing the field of bidders? I agree that if there is a feature you need you should be able to include it in the bid. You shouldn't have to craft a spec to the lowest common denominator. At the same time the manufacturers tend to "name" parts of their build process or techniques as features. E-One may have a "Split rail thingie frame" while Pierce uses a "Torque frozen rail merge frame" (or course I made those up). If a FD's spec is crafted to explicitly name a "Torque frozen rail merge fram" then it shouldn't be any surprise that only one vendor can bid w/out exception. Is there really a difference between the two? Is one truly required over the other? Again, we're not talking some unique feature the end-user will use but some subtle difference in the internal components or manufacturing process. |
|
|
|
Post by voyager9 on Sept 18, 2008 8:45:12 GMT -5
A couple things struck me while reading the report. I've never been on an apparatus committee so maybe it's just my ignorance..
To me it seems those are all valid issues to consider when buying a new truck. If you've worked with the dealer before and are familiar with their products it could save money in the long run with respect to training, service, maintenance..etc. Going with a complete unknown has risks that should be at least marginally accounted for. Similarly if all of your existing fleet is one manufacturer then there are additional savings for parts...etc. I don't think those topics weigh as high as technical features and cost, but they do count for something.
I'm of two minds here. I can see how there is a conflict of interest, especially if the individual gets a sales commission. On the other hand you also have an individual who has a lot of expertise in that area and could contribute a lot to the process. Who would you rather have specing your new truck.. 6 guys who ride on the truck but have never built one.. or someone who does it for a living and knows what to look out for.
I'm just saying that the report seems to say that the individual should have NOTHING to do with the process. I think that while there are potential risks, it also forces the department to ignore a whole lot of experience.
"Required to register with the DCA"? Because of my side/day job? Excuse me? What exactly is the DCA going to do with this list? To me this seems excessive. I volunteer/work for the local FD and because of my day/side job I have to register my name and other personal information on the off chance there could be a future conflict of interest? BS...
First.. inappropriate 9/11 reference..
Second.. maybe its just me but this hints and an ulterior motive. It really sounds like DCA wants to insert themselves directly into the process as the sole controller of the bids, specs, and vendor dealing. We go to them, the review our "request" and select the vendor and truck we want.. we get whatever they give us.. looks good on paper but I can't see it working out well.
Again, maybe its my ignorance...
|
|
Reverend
Forum Lieutenant
"Well done is better than well said" BF
Posts: 84
|
Post by Reverend on Sept 18, 2008 14:25:04 GMT -5
I am sure that the State didnt have any preditermined spec in mind when they bought all of Camdens Seagraves a couple years back. Im sure that Seagrave was the low bidder. No F'in way. Their are problems... and nothing should be done illeagally. The first thing that should happen is that Departments stop duplicating equipment as well as buying trucks with every damb gimick device and accesory. Think of what you saw at Wildwood. Huge trucks, preconnected bumper mounted blitz fires, hydraulic tools everywhere, the list goes on. As usual we are our own worst enemy, now the STATE is going to fix us & and we are going to let them. It is like calling the scrapman to fix your car.
|
|
|
|
Post by papacheese on Sept 19, 2008 5:05:02 GMT -5
Based on voyager's extensive comments, I'd have to say he took the time to read the entire report.....it ain't exactly what it claims to be, is it?
He makes a good point about similiar things called by different names; but that's where we have to see through the smoke and make adjustments.
Did you notice that the SCI finally states that there was nothing illegal and no wrongdoing in any of the transactions? Did you notice that statement is buried deep inside the report and not exactly emphasized? Did you notice that the people they trashed got to rebutt the report, but that their replies are in miniscule type, two to a page, and sideways (so it's harder to read on a computer screen?). Also notice that each of the rebuttals provides evidence that the report's assertions are BS, yet they didn't cite them in the final edit.
I especially love the cover page" "Alarming Contracts! Fixed Bids!"
Excuse me, aren't fixed bids illegal and your report states noting illegal was done? Do you think they're trying to sensationalize things a bit?
Sorry - this was a complete and total hatchet job without any substantiation, published for the sole purpose of advancing someone's agenda. Having been in a performance based sales position in my past, I especially love the report's undertone that making a commission is somehow immoral or unsavory.
Here's the best part: whether you like the people cited or not, whether you think they're good people or not, the SCI basically just trashed their reputations and ended their careers - mind you when by their own admission, nothing was illegal. And sadly, there's nothing they can do to correct this gross miscarriage.
Give me an f'ing break...
|
|
|
|
Post by thelurker on Sept 19, 2008 15:17:03 GMT -5
WOW...'nuff said
|
|
|
|
Post by papacheese on Sept 20, 2008 4:43:29 GMT -5
Sorry, lurker....one of the by-products of getting old and crotchety is a diminishing tolerance for nonsense.
|
|
|
|
Post by voyager9 on Sept 20, 2008 6:51:48 GMT -5
Sorry, lurker....one of the by-products of getting old and crotchety is a diminishing tolerance for nonsense. Don't forget getting up at 4:30am and posting on the Interweb.. |
|
|
|
Post by papacheese on Sept 20, 2008 16:14:27 GMT -5
LOL...was it THAT early? Sheez...I need start having a nightcap or something....
|
|
|
|
Post by chief3102 on Sept 21, 2008 6:57:13 GMT -5
All I can say is WOW !. Talk about a bunch of lawyers putting together a long winded report to justify their lofty "commission" at the state. They probably go home and look at their shiny tin badges with their pants around their ankles. I read the entire report, several times in fact. Like Papa said, if you read closely they eventually admit the the exercise was an enormous waste of time and money, but in the usual State issued lawyerese (good word) buried their mea culpa under 10 pounds of shit. Do Fire Departments choose what truck they want prior to putting the truck out to bid. ABSOLUTELY! Why should you go through all the time and expense of putting a truck together and then settle for a Yugo because they were the low bid. States response is "well Mr Fire Chief, seem to me that they meet the requirements. It's got wheels. That there bucket in the back can hold water. Ladder rack on the roof. Put a couple of garden hoses in the trunk. Yep Mr Chief, that there is a FIRE TRUCK cause I work for the State and I said so. Also.let's talk about the DCA taking oversight. Just how long do you think it will take to have them review and approve your set of plans for a new truck if you choose not to buy their cookie cutter version? They keep cutting personnel and at this time they can't even perform the jobs that they are supposed to do. (But they all do look cute running around with their pants bloused in their boots, with their oak leaf cluster lapel pins and "State Fire Marshall" labeled cars.) Give me a break please. I will testify that I personally am a Pierce fan, tried and true. I think I can justify spending a few extra dollars up front when the same truck will last at least 30 years in my house. the last ladder truck replaced in 2008 was a 1964 that was refurbed in the 70's. I think the taxpayers got their money's worth! Bottom line is if you read the report, they absolutely bash certain departments for not taking the low bids because of exceptions. the truth was that the stated exceptions were many times not proprietary items, the manufacturer merely stated that they would not build the truck the way they wanted it. And the items were "safety" items to boot. Ending this diatribe finally, let the SCI look at the DCA and the Governor's office if they really want to look into shameful spending, waste and mismanagement. My head hurts.....  |
|
Reverend
Forum Lieutenant
"Well done is better than well said" BF
Posts: 84
|
Post by Reverend on Sept 21, 2008 10:14:19 GMT -5
All I can say is WOW !. Talk about a bunch of lawyers putting together a long winded report to justify their lofty "commission" at the state. They probably go home and look at their shiny tin badges with their pants around their ankles. I read the entire report, several times in fact. Like Papa said, if you read closely they eventually admit the the exercise was an enormous waste of time and money, but in the usual State issued lawyerese (good word) buried their mea culpa under 10 pounds of shit. Do Fire Departments choose what truck they want prior to putting the truck out to bid. ABSOLUTELY! Why should you go through all the time and expense of putting a truck together and then settle for a Yugo because they were the low bid. States response is "well Mr Fire Chief, seem to me that they meet the requirements. It's got wheels. That there bucket in the back can hold water. Ladder rack on the roof. Put a couple of garden hoses in the trunk. Yep Mr Chief, that there is a FIRE TRUCK cause I work for the State and I said so. Also.let's talk about the DCA taking oversight. Just how long do you think it will take to have them review and approve your set of plans for a new truck if you choose not to buy their cookie cutter version? They keep cutting personnel and at this time they can't even perform the jobs that they are supposed to do. (But they all do look cute running around with their pants bloused in their boots, with their oak leaf cluster lapel pins and "State Fire Marshall" labeled cars.) Give me a break please. I will testify that I personally am a Pierce fan, tried and true. I think I can justify spending a few extra dollars up front when the same truck will last at least 30 years in my house. the last ladder truck replaced in 2008 was a 1964 that was refurbed in the 70's. I think the taxpayers got their money's worth! Bottom line is if you read the report, they absolutely bash certain departments for not taking the low bids because of exceptions. the truth was that the stated exceptions were many times not proprietary items, the manufacturer merely stated that they would not build the truck the way they wanted it. And the items were "safety" items to boot. Ending this diatribe finally, let the SCI look at the DCA and the Governor's office if they really want to look into shameful spending, waste and mismanagement. My head hurts..... Chief the cure for the common firehouse headache is more gold in your diet. So approach your nearest DFS rep and peel off an oakleaf. The saying is "things are worth their weight in gold....." GOLD DOSN'T WEIGH THAT MUCH it just costs alot. See my point. |
|
|
|
Post by chief3102 on Sept 21, 2008 16:08:46 GMT -5
;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D
Amen Rev, AMEN !!!!!
|
|
|
|
Post by papacheese on Sept 22, 2008 11:01:58 GMT -5
I'm still chuckling over 02's diatribe....he has a knack for slicing the pepperoni nice and thick! LOL.
Not to beat a dead horse, but I get the distinct feeling from reading through the reports and such that:
1) DCA is not exactly...how can I word it?... enthusiastic about the concept of them administering fire truck bids.
2) That the DFS shares that certain lack of zest as well
And, I might add, rightfully so. Fire trucks never have, never are, and never will be a commodity that can be "standardized" and offered out to bid with a reasonable expectation that you will receive an acceptable product.
|
|
