1. #1
    MembersZone Subscriber
    ameryfd's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2003
    Location
    Wisconsin
    Posts
    598

    Default Different sort of Reduction

    One dept. I write for just got a strange reduction request.

    I wrote for new PPE and a new gear washer. We requested 32 sets of head to to gear with the exception of boots. We only requested 10 sets of boots because we do have 22 pairs that are compliant. ALL the other gear is 0% compliant. (actually the rest of the PPE is hand me downs from other depts that replaced their gear with AFG funds).


    The reduction request said that "after market research and due to the age and condition of your compliant gear, we will not fund any PPE with this request"

    I'm not sure what they are talking about. The entire theme of the narrative talked about the old PPE and that all this dept has been able to afford is 22 pairs of boots.

    It seems really odd to cut ALL PPE because of some compliant boots. It will take the grant from a $68,000 request to a $11,000 request.

    My question is....do you think they intend to not fund ALL PPE from that statement or just the compliant, and is there a way or even a chance they'd listen to an explaination of what this reduction would do to the scope of the grant?

    I'm at a loss here

  2. #2
    MembersZone Subscriber

    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Posts
    3,761

    Default

    Give your FPS a call and get a full explanation. Based on what you have posted, my interpretation is all of the PPE, not just the boots, has been eliminated.

    What was the age and condition of the PPE that you applied for? Did you check the wrong age and conditions (by mistake) when filling out the application?

  3. #3
    FH Mag/.com Contributor

    Join Date
    Feb 2002
    Location
    Cypress, TX
    Posts
    7,288

    Default

    Got one that said 8 years is compliant and they were reducing it. Age is one of the primary determinants on paper, but condition based on an NFPA 1971 inspection is the real determinant. Have the gear officially inspected and certified that it can't be worn safely might be the course of action since it does look like they're saying it's not old enough to not be compliant.

  4. #4
    MembersZone Subscriber
    ktb9780's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    Auburndale, FL
    Posts
    6,144

    Default

    I had a similar problem with a client last year who quoted thw wrong box when staying what percentage had compliant PPE and they reduced him to just the membres he had no gear for although the gear on his other fire fighters was 15 years of age. It was a tech error and we requested it agian this year and got awarded everything but they would not allow changing the technical error.
    Kurt Bradley
    Fire/EMS/EMA Grant Consultant
    " Never Trade Skill for Luck"

  5. #5
    MembersZone Subscriber
    ameryfd's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2003
    Location
    Wisconsin
    Posts
    598

    Default

    Here's the answers I gave them

    GLOVES: 32 requested, 0% Compliant, all current are 6 years old.
    HOODS: 32 requested, 0% compliant, 25 hoods are 11 years old and 7 members do not have hoods.
    COATS: 32 requested, 0% compliant all coats are 12 years old or older.
    PANTS: 32 requested 0% compliant, all pants are 12 years old or older.
    BOOTS: 10 pairs requested. 69% compliant (we have 22 compliant sets). of the 10 pairs requested, they are all between 3 and 5 years old.

    ALL pants and coats were donated from FD's who had recieved grants for new ones, thus they were already deemed "unsafe".

    I emailed my grant specialist and said if we only were approved for the extractor/washer it would basically negate the entire scope of the grant. Our narrative focused on the PPE and the washer was an add-on to keep new PPE compliant and clean.

    Whadda think?

  6. #6
    FH Mag/.com Contributor

    Join Date
    Feb 2002
    Location
    Cypress, TX
    Posts
    7,288

    Default

    Think someone on their end mis-read something.

  7. #7
    MembersZone Subscriber
    ktb9780's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    Auburndale, FL
    Posts
    6,144

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by ameryfd View Post
    Here's the answers I gave them

    GLOVES: 32 requested, 0% Compliant, all current are 6 years old.
    HOODS: 32 requested, 0% compliant, 25 hoods are 11 years old and 7 members do not have hoods.
    COATS: 32 requested, 0% compliant all coats are 12 years old or older.
    PANTS: 32 requested 0% compliant, all pants are 12 years old or older.
    BOOTS: 10 pairs requested. 69% compliant (we have 22 compliant sets). of the 10 pairs requested, they are all between 3 and 5 years old.

    ALL pants and coats were donated from FD's who had recieved grants for new ones, thus they were already deemed "unsafe".

    I emailed my grant specialist and said if we only were approved for the extractor/washer it would basically negate the entire scope of the grant. Our narrative focused on the PPE and the washer was an add-on to keep new PPE compliant and clean.

    Whadda think?
    There is something else worng here but I can't tell without looking at it. Why don't you give me a call and lets go over this on the phone. 863-551-9598 direct number.
    Kurt Bradley
    Fire/EMS/EMA Grant Consultant
    " Never Trade Skill for Luck"

  8. #8
    MembersZone Subscriber
    ameryfd's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2003
    Location
    Wisconsin
    Posts
    598

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by BC79er View Post
    Think someone on their end mis-read something.
    Anything other than emailing them that can be done?

    And Kurt, thanks, I'll give you a buzz.

  9. #9
    FH Mag/.com Contributor

    Join Date
    Feb 2002
    Location
    Cypress, TX
    Posts
    7,288

    Default

    I'd call them and ask where the criteria came from to remove all PPE. Normally these reductions come from something Peer saw and recommended, but sometimes someone at DHS makes the determination. Based on what you've posted I can't see any reason to reduce. Wouldn't be the first time someone got their wires crossed.

  10. #10
    MembersZone Subscriber
    ameryfd's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2003
    Location
    Wisconsin
    Posts
    598

    Default

    Got a reply back, they said the would add all the PPE back in. All's well that end's well.

  11. #11
    MembersZone Subscriber

    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Posts
    3,761

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by ameryfd View Post
    Got a reply back, they said the would add all the PPE back in. All's well that end's well.
    Congrats on the reversal.

  12. #12
    Forum Member

    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Posts
    51

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by ameryfd View Post
    Got a reply back, they said the would add all the PPE back in. All's well that end's well.
    That's great news amery! Congrat's

  13. #13
    MembersZone Subscriber
    ktb9780's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    Auburndale, FL
    Posts
    6,144

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by ameryfd View Post
    Got a reply back, they said the would add all the PPE back in. All's well that end's well.

    Good for you guy!
    Kurt Bradley
    Fire/EMS/EMA Grant Consultant
    " Never Trade Skill for Luck"

  14. #14
    Forum Member

    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Long time no Sea
    Posts
    2,253

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by ameryfd View Post
    Got a reply back, they said the would add all the PPE back in. All's well that end's well.
    Man, talk about good news. very interesting. thanks for telling us.

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Similar Threads

  1. Reduction help
    By FFEMT284 in forum Federal FIRE ACT Grants & Funding
    Replies: 6
    Last Post: 01-23-2008, 10:43 AM
  2. This is Sort of a Serious, Sort of Not Quite So Serious Question
    By MalahatTwo7 in forum Firefighters Forum
    Replies: 20
    Last Post: 06-20-2007, 11:39 PM
  3. Question about the reduction
    By fireguy919 in forum Federal FIRE ACT Grants & Funding
    Replies: 16
    Last Post: 09-19-2005, 05:25 PM
  4. Got a $20,000 Reduction...
    By firegod101 in forum Federal FIRE ACT Grants & Funding
    Replies: 21
    Last Post: 09-02-2005, 04:23 PM
  5. Hazard Reduction?
    By Fireguy57 in forum Fire Wire
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 06-19-2000, 11:34 AM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts

Log in

Click here to log in or register