By Bill Adams
The fire chief’s “office” met several times with the apparatus purchasing committee (APC) to define its expectations for the new vehicle and to establish the parameters for the committee to follow. Depending on a department’s size, the chief’s office could be an administrative staff, a formal planning committee, a gaggle of white coats, or just the chief. After receiving their directions, the APC held numerous meetings with apparatus manufacturers (OEMs) and their vendors, inspected new apparatus deliveries, attended trade shows, and visited several OEMs’ facilities. After reporting their findings to the chief’s office, the committee was given instructions for writing the purchasing specifications for the new rig.
An oft-repeated quote misattributed to an infamous former world leader is, “Those who vote decide nothing. Those who count the votes decide everything.” When writing purchasing specifications, that quote could be revised to “The APC decides nothing. Who writes the specifications decides everything.”
PUTTING PEN TO PAPER
Writing misleading purchasing specifications can be accidental or intentional. There is no accusation of either. Fire department personnel, vendors, OEMs, and professional specification writers alike can write a disingenuous document. No one is singled out. No one is accused. Ambiguous and misleading wording can be found in the boilerplate as well as in the technical specifications. Also known as the front sheets, boilerplate is that part of the document that defines the rules and regulations bidders must follow. In political subdivisions, it’s called the legalese. APCs don’t always pay close attention to the front sheets. They should. It is unfortunate if responsible bidders are rejected because of noncompliance with a minor nonfirematic requirement in the front sheets.
An APC can develop a brief yet comprehensive specification for a proposed apparatus only to see it neutered—either accidentally or purposely—during the final writing process. The person physically writing the document has first dibs at altering it. Many times, an APC only briefly—if at all—has the opportunity to examine and possibly edit the spec writer’s final product. More often than not, APCs blindly accept whatever document the writer produces. That is an injustice to the system. It borderlines being remiss. The intent of the APC’s work and its decisions could be distorted prior to the document heading through the formal chain of command for approval.
APPROVAL PROCESS
Purchasing specifications often pass through multiple hands before being published for public bid. The aforementioned fire chief’s office normally reviews the document. In some political subdivisions, the document must pass through a purchasing department’s bidding formalities. There’s always the possibility of the mayor’s office (politicians) dipping into it. And, last but not least, attorneys along the line might add their two cents to the document.
Not everyone in the purchasing approval process speaks “fire truck” language. Some overseers whose intentions may be honorable might feel obligated to add or change verbiage just because they can or think they should. Verbiage can be defined as a bunch of unnecessary words (gobbledygook) similar to undefinable verbs and adjectives. Buyers, beware: Some of that superfluous wording can grievously alter the document and the resulting purchase. There is no accusation it is done on purpose. But, it could be. Someone in the chief’s office might want a Maxim. The head of the purchasing department might prefer a Hahn. The attorney’s brother-in-law might sell Crown Coach. The specification writer could have have an affinity for Peter Pirsch. There might be a personal preference for or against a particular body material or a local vendor or a genuine animosity against the fire department itself. Again, there is no insinuation. Just be aware.
Be cognizant of the fact that in political subdivisions there could be a multitude of agencies vying for a share of available appropriations. During the purchasing process, the parks and recreation department, the library, the schools, department of public works, and law enforcement may have more friends and influence in city hall than the fire department. Tread carefully.
TRUST BUT VERIFY
It is irrelevant if purchasing specifications are proprietary, generic, open, or performance-based. It doesn’t matter if they are subtly intended to favor a particular vendor. It’s also irrelevant if they’re intended to eliminate a certain vendor or product—as unethical and possibly illegal as both might be in the public bidding arena.
Anywhere during the approval process, wording may have been purposely inserted or modified to change the intent of the document. Purchasers should be aware that vendors always read between a specification’s lines to interpret any hidden objective of the purchaser. Skepticism weighs heavily in a vendor’s decision to bid. Although unfathomable to some purchasers, slanted verbiage in a specification can be interpreted by a vendor as, “Go away—we don’t want your fire truck.”
The APC should look for any changes in wording made during the approval process. If changes are questionable, ask why. That is the APC’s obligation. After a document has been finalized and put to bid, the APC should still review it. An addendum to the specifications might be in order. Hopefully, foxes are not guarding the henhouse. Deceptive starts with the letter “D” as well as a number of its meanings. Some examples follow:
Distraction means to confuse or not tell all the facts. The APC’s specifications read, “The compartment shall be 25 × 30 × 30 inches.” What if someone changed the requirement to “… no less than about 22,500 cubic inches” or to “… no less than approximately 13 cubic feet of space” and added, “The purchaser reserves the right to choose the compartment dimensions that best suit its purposes.” The fire department could end up with any size compartment. Hope everything fits as intended.
Degrading means humiliating or unbecoming. The specifications read, “Bidders that do not have a full-service center within 50 miles of the purchaser’s location shall be deemed incapable of providing the level of service expected.” Do vendors 51 miles away have inferior service?
Disparaging means judgmental and unfavorable. The APC’s specifications read, “The successful bidder shall be capable of providing 24/7/365 on-the-road emergency service.” If someone adds “… with no less than four service trucks,” would many vendors be disqualified? What’s wrong with only two or three? By chance, does the preferred vendor have four?
Deception means a ruse or a trick. Based on valid and documented issues with various body materials, the APC agreed to a specific material for the body construction. Someone added in the boilerplate: “Exceptions to the body material will be allowed providing they are listed and explained to the satisfaction of the authority having jurisdiction (AHJ).” Note that it specifically says the AHJ accepts or rejects the exceptions. The APC, fire chief, or fire department might get to make recommendations but, in most cases, the AHJ signs the check and gets the final say. Hope you like its choice.
Demeaning means belittling or condescending. The specs read: “After careful and extensive research, the purchaser believes extruded aluminum construction is the most superior method for fire apparatus bodies. Formed aluminum construction as well as other metallic and nonmetallic materials will not be acceptable.” That vilifies a lot of manufacturers.
Delusional means not being realistic. The specifications read, “All custom apparatus builders can break, form, shear, and weld metal. Therefore, there shall be NO exceptions allowed for the exact dimensions specified herein.” If you believe that, go into a Cadillac dealership and ask them to build you a Ford.
Disingenuous means misleading or dishonest. The APC’s specs read, “Bidder shall provide a list of no fewer than 12 fire departments with similar apparatus.” It might be overly restrictive if someone changed it to “… no fewer than 12 fire departments within 50 miles.” How were the quantity and mileage decided? Does the 50 miles favor a particular manufacturer?
REALITY
Every APC has the obligation to specify the apparatus with components that will best serve the fire department. And, if doing so justifies using some of the examples shown above, so be it. Do what you have to do to ensure quality, design, engineering, and workmanship. The intent is to illustrate how the APC’s work might be accidentally or nefariously altered during the final specification writing and approval process. 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.
