Dear John ?

[slackjawedyokel]

Could leaving the additional funding catagory blank as opposed to entering zeros in those collumns cause the computer to fail our app ?

[bummer]

Did it say that you completed 100% of the document?

[slackjawedyokel]

Yes sir it did --- just grasping at straws.

[bummer]

Then I don't believe you have any trouble there. Good luck!

[ffp8106]

we got the dear john.....request for scba's was rejected. second year in a row.

[ktb9780]

we got the dear john.....request for scba's was rejected. second year in a row.
I cannot get an email back to your repsonse it is being blocked so call me at 800-992-0272 Ext 1

[slackjawedyokel]

Too late for lucj we got our DJ --- average 11 year old bunker gear--- would have thought we would have at least made the review.

[FFCOPEMT]

Kurt;

Just curious, do you have any insight as to whether any of the DJ's were from any that made it through the computer scoring? I know those that didn't were the first DJ's to go out, but it would seem they have already developed their list of who is in, who is out, and who is on the bubble. It would make sense that they would notify the rest of their bad fortune, but then again this IS the federal Govt.

We went for SCBA's this year but I haven't heard anything as of yet. No link, no questions, no DJ, so I will assume we are still hanging in there. We were successful the last 3 years running, but before I get flamed, they were all for very small requests that wouldn't add up to many of the single awards. This is the largest request we have made by far. From what I have seen over the past few years, the more you can narrow the scope of your request, the better chances you have. For the most part they would rather award 1000 departments 100 dollars each, than one department at 100,000.00.

For those that got DJ's, keep trying. We were not successful the first year either, but we decided to get serious and attend a couple of grant seminars. You can't imagine how much it helped.

[WestonFire22]

Just curious, but had anyone else heard that if you have received awards in the past years, that was counted "against" you this year? Maybe trying to get more first time awardees? Just something I heard on another list.

Bruce

[onebugle]

Based on the 21 awards that my state has recieved that is not holding true. Three are first time winners, the rest have recieved grants in the past.

[bummer]

Past awards have nothing to do with receiving further awards. This was told during the seminars. Good Luck.

[FFCOPEMT]

I'm not sure if it is an 'official' position, but I know two departments that were awarded apparatus last year and have already gotten DJ's this year. I looked at their aps and thought they were fairly good. The haven't taken delivery of their new rigs yet, so they didn't get thrown out for having too new equipment. I'm betting there is some scoring criteria for those that have been awarded previously.

[BC79er_OLDDELETE]

Prior apps don't mean anything, each year is autonomous.

The only thing prior awards would do is hold up a new award if the prior one wasn't being handled properly, ie progress reports, etc, etc. Extensions due to backorders or delayed deliveries do not count in this sense since it is out of the control of the department.

And since the game changes every year a DJ or award one year for one type of project is no indication of a result in the following year(s). Asking for less money sometimes increases chances, but if you ask for too little then the question (computer calc & Peer) arises of why you can't afford it on your own. The sword has many edges.

[WCVFD300]

Rumor from criteria development is previous winnings may be penalized next time around.

So much for a competitive grant, huh?

[BC79er_OLDDELETE]

They've been trying that all along, hasn't been more than a rumor. Mainly because if departments that have many high priority needs follow the guidelines to a T then they can only fix one per year. Of course that would mean that everyone follow the guidelines, but most of that fight is getting people to read them in the first place. I know people that have applied all 6 years and still haven't read them. So with the scoring being weighted to award the highest priority requests that closely meet the guidelines, it will all filter down without any changes anyway.

Something like that would turn it into a welfare program, which is not the purpose of grant programs. If welfare is what is wanted, then every department should just get a check from DHS for $2 times each resident in their district. Would save a lot of time and money with applications and support staff. Wouldn't solve any problems either.

[waterboy1]

Riddle me this batman... If previous awards don't matter, then why do we have to tell what was awarded in previous years? Specific details

[BC79er_OLDDELETE]

DHS verifying that you aren't asking for the same thing, and that they are closed out. That's why they are after the narrative and not actually part of the statistical piece that the computer checks. 99% of the time Peer doesn't look at them either, and if they do there's nowhere to score it on their sheet as one of the metrics.

[BC79er_OLDDELETE]

Just to add to an old thread it says right in the FAQs on the DHS site that previous awards will not be part of any decision making criteria. In Peer or during Tech Review. Found that the other day while poking around.