Apparatus Purchasing: Apathy in Procurement and Specs, Part 3

Parts 1 and 2 described how firefighters can become disillusioned with the organization and the effectiveness of their fire department’s procurement process.

Some can be discouraged to the point that they do not want to participate with the apparatus purchasing committee (APC), hypothesizing everything is copacetic with the APC. Part 3 addresses the specification writing process, which can “make or break” a committee’s efforts. Included are internal topics that, although possibly detrimental to the process, many will not acknowledge let alone address.

The Truth

Most APCs do not have the expertise or experience to write a detailed set of purchasing specifications without outside help. Committees should interact with the manufacturers or dealers of complete apparatus and component parts to ensure they specify up-to-date and compatible components and they incorporate applicable safety standards into the document. Professional apparatus consultants and specification writers do so regularly. APCs that do not do so at their own peril and possible embarrassment.

Apparatus purchasing ought to be a two-way street of mutual trust between buyer and sellers—although the relationship can be contentious at times. A similar degree of reciprocal trust among committee members should exist. Prospective and actual APC members may become disillusioned when some on the committee believe as gospel whatever their preferred vendor may say. The same is applicable to the members themselves. Committee membership does not automatically bestow intellect, common sense, and unchallenged knowledge on an individual. Members are not immune from making mistakes and misstatements.

Tread Carefully

Federal, state, and local political subdivisions have written “rules and regulations” that must be followed when taxpayers’ monies are expended. It is the APC’s responsibility to know and adhere to those applicable to their locale. It can be embarrassing to write an “illegal” specification.

As mentioned, interaction between apparatus manufacturers (OEMs), vendors, and fire departments prior to and during the specification writing process is commonplace and almost an unwritten requirement. All parties should tread carefully. The news media thrives on subjects alluding to possible collusion, conspiracy, and bid rigging. Potential APC members may not want to put themselves in such a position. Some people dodge accountability at all costs.

Rules of Engagement

Long before a committee puts pen to paper to develop specifications, it and the authority having jurisdiction (AHJ) must honestly answer several questions (aka “soul searching”). The APC must receive directions. From a committee member’s perspective, it is not unreasonable to ascertain what the internal “rules of engagement” are before participating.

Has the APC been charged to determine the kind of rig to purchase, or has it been given free reign by the AHJ? For example, who determines if the ladder truck will be replaced by a quint? Will a rescue-pumper replace an existing rescue and pumper?
Is the intent to write a competitive specification?
Will the document be used in a formal (legal) bid in a political subdivision?
Is the objective to favor one particular manufacturer?
Will the document be used to eliminate nonfavored manufacturers?
Is the bidding process a formality to procure what the AHJ has predetermined?
Will a cooperative purchasing program be used?

It is important to note that after a committee has been working, its direction is often changed or influenced after interacting with and evaluating multiple OEMs. Examples include the following:

It may decide to favor a particular manufacturer.
It may propose purchasing a stock unit.
It may want to “eliminate” a specific manufacturer, process, or material.

That is not being wishy washy—it is a committee doing its job.

APC members must have open minds and be willing to adapt. Some may be overly apprehensive about reporting to the fire chief or the AHJ that the rig they want to purchase may not be the correct choice for the department. It could be too big, be too expensive, or not meet the fire department’s operational requirements. Prospective members may find those possibilities overwhelming and “not what they signed up for.”

OEMs and Co-ops

With few exceptions, fire apparatus manufacturers don’t appear to be disseminating in-depth technical data on their Web sites or in their brochures and literature. Today’s marketing and advertising seem to rely on quality photographs and catchphrases such as “top-of-the-line,” “first class,” “heavy duty,” etc. APC members seeking knowledge may become disillusioned.

Concurrently, purchasing through co-ops (cooperative purchasing programs) may have lessened the use of comprehensive and extremely detailed purchasing specifications. That can be frustrating for APC members seeking to compare products and educate themselves.

It is easy and takes little time and effort for an APC member to look at a couple of brochures, point at a photograph, and say that’s what we want. The bidding process, including writing the specifications, has been eliminated. If it works for the fire department, so be it. Apathy may have set in.

Inquisitive APC members can become frustrated and even disillusioned with co-op purchasing that eliminates the competitive bidding process. Conscientious and responsible APC members will still require detailed specifications be provided for co-op purchases.

The Spec Writer

The vast majority of fire departments that already know whose apparatus they want to purchase have a preferred manufacturer “help” write the purchasing specifications. Usually, they are extremely proprietary regardless of what the vendor claims. It is doubtful a vendor will willingly write a nonproprietary specification that other manufacturers can readily meet. As previously mentioned, purchasing is a two-way street of mutual trust and honesty between vendor and purchaser. It must exist between the APC and the specification writer whether it be a committee member, outside consultant, or preferred vendor.

Regardless of the technical particulars an APC agrees to, the person writing the purchasing specification determines what is or is not included in the document. Items can be accidentally or purposefully omitted, altered, or even added. APC members who have been “surprised” during past purchases may be reluctant to set themselves up for another in the future.

There is no inference that chicanery exists in every APC, with every spec writer, or with every vendor. However, mistakes can happen. It is possible to “trust but verify” without making an accusation. Timid APC members can always say, “I can’t find that in the specs. Please show me.”

PreBid Conference

A publicly held prebid conference is an excellent forum for committee members to ascertain if a purchasing specification is “what was decided on.” Vendors—and committee members—are usually careful and forthright when answering questions and evaluating a purchasing specification when sitting in the same room with their peers. Knowing that such a “checks-and-balances” process will be used may influence apprehensive firefighters to participate in apparatus purchasing and writing specifications.

A definition on checks and balances found at Investopedia.com states: “Checks and balances are various procedures set in place to reduce mistakes, prevent improper behavior, or decrease the risk of centralization of power. Checks and balances usually ensure that no one person or department has absolute control over decisions, clearly define the assigned duties, and force cooperation in completing tasks.” Good luck!

BILL ADAMS is a member of the Fire Apparatus & Emergency Equipment Editorial Advisory Board, a former fire apparatus salesman, and a past chief of the East Rochester (NY) Fire Department. He has 50 years of experience in the volunteer fire service.