This commentary is strictly subjective with no factual data or interviews to substantiate the opinions expressed by a former apparatus dealer. Traditional fire apparatus purchasing methods may be changing. The interpreted trends are what active apparatus dealers may be encountering in today’s marketplace.
Apparatus dealers are basically upfront and honest. They have to be responsible businessmen (my gender-neutral term) or they could not remain in business for long. Most endeavor to do everything legally possible to secure a sale. Some may push those attempts to the limit, but it is doubtful many actually and purposefully cross the line into illegality.
Buying AND Selling
It appears the buying and selling process has gradually changed over the past decade. Most independent volunteer fire companies not subject to political oversight can still legally purchase whatever they want, when they want, and from whom they want without recourse. Apparatus procurement in political subdivisions has historically been through competitive bidding. The bidding process in the public arena has been, and continues to be, conducted in a highly regulated environment. It is subject to a multitude of state and local laws as well as rules and regulations that can vary from one jurisdiction to another. As an example, one political subdivision may not allow optional or alternate bids (aka proposals) while others will. Some jurisdictions may require multiple proposals for purchases over a certain dollar amount. That amount and even the number of proposals required can also vary. Some dealers may have to cope with bidding an identical product in different arenas while adhering to different rules. That’s hard.
A highly controversial regulation is one with language similar to the following: “The bid award shall go to the lowest responsible bidder without major exceptions.” Defining responsible and what a major exception is can be a daunting task for both buyer and seller. It could be a lawyer’s dream. The threat of litigation might delay a purchase for an inordinate amount of time. Confusing legal verbiage and the fear of a lawsuit have influenced timid decision makers to award a contract to the lowest bidder regardless of that bidder’s actual compliance to the specifications. That’s not right.
Hypocritical dealers often prosper in such an environment. “Bid often and bid low” is their philosophy. That’s as disingenuous and dishonest as saying, “Bid often, bid low, and don’t bother with exceptions.” Accepting the lowest bid regardless of specification compliance can be detrimental to the procurement of fire apparatus best suited for the needs of the fire department. In some public bidding arenas, the fire department is the loser.
BIDDING ALTERNATIVE
Dealers and purchasers alike have embraced the various co-operative purchasing programs available to political subdivisions. Numerous articles have been authored about the co-op process and its advantages and disadvantages to both buyer and seller. No opinion is given here for either. Only perceived benefits to dealers are briefly addressed.
In the vast majority of apparatus purchases, the fire department knows exactly what apparatus it wants to purchase and from what dealer. Some purchasers reluctantly go through the bidding process as a formality to justify purchasing what has already been predetermined. That’s not right. It will not be readily admitted by either party because it reeks of collusion and restraint of trade. The media and the legal profession would thrive on any such allegation—true or not. That’s not right, either.
Some dealers may suggest a fire department purchase via a co-op purchasing program to eliminate the headaches of public bidding. They might claim it makes everyone’s life easier, although the major benefit could be for the dealer. Foremost is the savings in the time and expense spent in preparing legally correct bidding documents and detailed proposal specifications.
Another benefit is not having to comply with the sometimes arbitrary and often unrealistic time constraints imposed by indifferent bureaucrats. An example is preparing a proposal in an unreasonably short period of time from the publishing of a legal Notice to Bidders to the actual bid opening. Some uncaring bureaucrats are little more than administrative pen pushers who don’t know or could care less that a formal proposal for a fire truck may entail extraordinary time to provide detailed engineering, accurate blueprints, and untold time-consuming coordination with component parts suppliers. They must think the process is no different than purchasing a year’s worth of ink for their office copiers. Consequently, dealers may benefit from co-op purchasing as much if not more so than the fire departments.
Blissfulness to a dealer is when the fire department opts to work solely with the dealership to purchase via a co-op program. Utopia is when the fire department looks at a rig in the dealer’s brochure and says, “This one—that’s exactly what we want. Where do we sign?”
In all fairness to dealers, despite selling through a cooperative purchasing contract, the truly reputable and conscientious ones will explain in depth and detail to the apparatus purchasing committee (APC) all the technicalities and specifics of the apparatus being purchased. Those dealers are to be commended. Dealers that do not are not.
WHO WRITES THE SPECS?
When fire departments are compelled to follow the competitive bidding process, most rely on the expertise of dealers when preparing purchasing specifications. Usually just one dealer is consulted and is often called the preferred dealer or the favored dealer—but not publicly. Every dealer wants to be the chosen one.
Some fire departments are capable of writing their own purchasing specifications. Some just think they are. In almost every scenario, they will have to interact with a dealer or individual component parts suppliers. Model numbers change, parts and pieces may be discontinued, and new ones added. Regulatory standards may change or are in the process of doing so. Seldom acknowledged is that the majority of all purchasing specifications are written by a favored dealer. It is similar to lobbyists helping or actually writing proposed laws for elected politicians.
The chosen dealer often has free reign in writing a document that will ultimately reflect the product and one that likely will attempt to eliminate other manufacturers. Eliminate? Yes, it happens all the time. Sometimes it is very subtly done, but it does happen. That is a dealer’s job, and some are extremely successful in doing so. It is not uncommon for a dealer to provide a set of recommended purchasing specifications that are tighter than a coat of paint for the dealer’s apparatus. Purchasers should realize that, regardless of whoever actually writes the document, when the authority having jurisdiction (AHJ) promulgates it, they and indirectly the fire department own it.
Fire departments seldom have a problem with a chosen dealer’s specification verbiage. It’s usually the AHJ or the AHJ’s attorneys who do. Most elected politicians overseeing public purchasing are fearful of taxpayer reaction to questionable bidding practices. Attorneys protect them.
If challenged, dealers that unpretentiously write proprietary purchasing specifications will humbly change any verbiage that is questioned. But it will only be the challenged verbiage that the dealer cannot justify to the AHJ’s satisfaction. Co-op purchasing helps alleviate such confrontations.
WRITING METHODOLOGIES
There are various methods used when writing suggested purchasing specifications. The most common is to include a plethora of technical facts and figures as well as self-promoting verbiage and unnecessary verbatim passages from regulatory requirements that can utterly confuse most readers. In some instances, a fire department doesn’t know or really care what most verbiage means, especially when the preferred dealer wrote the specifications. The department assumes the dealer knows what they want.
It is feasible that a nonfirematic-oriented AHJ, such as a Village Board, can be overwhelmed by the size and technicalities of the document. It might assume the fire department did a great job in researching and preparing the document and might just let the document be published as written.
Another method, not as popular, is to write a comprehensive but extremely abbreviated document that everyone on the APC can understand. It is one where there is no doubt what is being said. This abbreviated document is very much like the stripper sheets used by many dealers. If the dealer can influence the APC to accept an item on the stripper, the more likely it is the APC will accept proprietary verbiage in the full-blown and lengthy purchasing specifications that might follow.
The last method is to suggest purchasing through a co-operative purchasing program where both parties do not have to contend with writing specifications and public bidding. It’s easy. As previously mentioned, some people prefer to just point to a picture and say, “I want that one.” Dealers will gladly fill in all the blanks later. That’s really easy for them, too. And it could be very profitable.
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.
