Why register? ...To Enhance Your Experience
+ Reply to Thread
Page 3 of 3 FirstFirst 123
Results 41 to 48 of 48
  1. #41
    Forum Member Rescue101's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2001
    Location
    Bridgton,Me USA
    Posts
    8,162

    Default

    We made the error on our platform of "over"speccing if you will. We had three active bidders,of which Smeal was the most responsive and followed the bid spec almost exactly. Pierce,Sutphen, and E-one failed to bid,in part I believe due to our published spec.No surprise, the bid was awarded to Smeal and we're MORE than happy with the finished product. I'm in full agreement to write a GOOD GENERIC spec that covers the items you need and get your bid packs back.ANY of the competent builders today will deliver you a GOOD,sound,servicable rig as long as you do your homework correctly in Bid Spec and Pre-build.If you go with a mfg specfic spec, you will severely limit yourself and the competitive bid process. NOT a good idea.Won't happen here again. T.C.


  2. #42
    Forum Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    710

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by LeadOff View Post
    We were told that there were some mistakes or miscalculations made in the original bid and they requested it be relooked. What I think it meant was that we need to sharpen-up the pencil quite a bit. To be fair to the other bidders, we also gave them the same opportunity to revise their bid if they wanted to but they declined.
    Sorry,

    But it's like neiowa islandfire03 said. A bid is a bid. Legally, they have to cannot change the bid. The only way around this is if all the bids are rejected and the project is re-bid (giving all other bidders a chance to "sharpen their pencils" too.

    That is why they called it a SEALED BID.

    C6
    Last edited by Command6; 01-17-2010 at 05:47 PM.

  3. #43
    Forum Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    710

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by LeadOff View Post
    We only allowed this since our company DOES NOT have to go with the low bidder (thank God!) but we would have to fully justify why we would go with a higher bid to the company membership for approval by vote.
    I would suggest that you also be able to justify your decision to the community you serve; that is if you want to retain their support. They need reassurance that you are good stewards and using the resources they provide you wisely.

    Quote Originally Posted by LeadOff View Post
    It was very interesting to see how much Pierce lowered their bid. Now we have a much better idea as to how much some of those guys will PAD that bid so they can get that big fat commission.
    I agree with your decision. The question I ask myself is, "Do we really want to do business with a company that tried to fleece our department, then cut the price when they got caught trying to do it?"

    C6
    Last edited by Command6; 01-17-2010 at 05:57 PM.

  4. #44
    Forum Member islandfire03's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Posts
    2,564

    Talking

    Quote Originally Posted by LeadOff View Post
    We only allowed this since our company DOES NOT have to go with the low bidder (thank God!) but we would have to fully justify why we would go with a higher bid to the company membership for approval by vote. In this particular case, we did end up going with the low bid anyway. It was very interesting to see how much Pierce lowered their bid. Now we have a much better idea as to how much some of those guys will PAD that bid so they can get that big fat commission.
    I am not a promoter of low bid purchasing requirements. Our specs state " we will award the contract to the most responsive bidder with the least amount of exceptions taken to the published specification". As it turned out on 2 recent purchases both bids did go to the low bidder based on them most closely meeting our requirements. They both offered a product that closely met our requirements and didn't try to sell us what we didn't want.

    That and the fact that one of the other bidders was trying to build a new house on our purchase. It wasn't even a pierce dealer. open and fair competition in bidding keeps all the players honest, and working hard to earn your business.

    The fact that they wanted to drop large amounts from the original bid tells me they figured you for pigeons that were an easy pluck.
    Last edited by islandfire03; 01-18-2010 at 08:25 AM.

  5. #45
    Forum Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Monroeville, PA USA
    Posts
    327

    Default

    Since this thread was started...a few more articles have made their way into print concerning this very subject.... one, in my opinion, prooves that Kool-aid at some time been consumed by the chief. In that article, did it not show the pierce was more expencive, but in the article it stated that "a source from within the department who wiched not to be named" stated that if they do purchase the Pierce they will have to build an extension to the apparatus bays to house it.... the Sutphen, not only cheeper, would fit with no alterations.
    The second article...was about the city in general...and how it is in financle distress, barely making ends meet, and looking towards filing for ACT 47 with the state.
    For those who may/maynot remember, Pittsburgh filled for and recieved AT 47 status a few years back.... in laymens terms, The city files backruptcy (sp) and the state apoints an oversight board to aid the city in getting back on it's feet.
    So you have a finiancaly strapped city, that if it buys the Pierce will not only pay more money but have to add on to their firehouse......did i mention they were fianancaly strapped?

    Sounds like they have a new stronger "formula" for the Kool-Aid....
    It takes a little intelligence to enjoy humor,satire & wit, but none to be offended by it.

    It take more than a new Leather Helmet to make you a good officer

  6. #46
    Forum Member Bones42's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2001
    Location
    Pt. Beach, NJ
    Posts
    10,671

    Default

    Being in NJ and speccing for a truck has become fun for some. I read some posts here and now know why I have so many legal experts reviewing our bid specs.
    "This thread is being closed as it is off-topic and not related to the fire industry." - Isn't that what the Off Duty forum was for?

  7. #47
    MembersZone Subscriber
    Join Date
    May 2000
    Location
    SW MO
    Posts
    4,249

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by rm1524 View Post
    Catch -

    I heard that you guys are going back to commercial cab engines? Is that true?

    Oh I did see some of the demo trucks what you guys had in, some of them looked pretty slick. Guess I should have stop and looked at them. Then I could have told you what we want at station 8.
    That's the word. We'll find out before too long I hope. We're supposed to start working on an engine spec as soon as this truck gets awarded.

  8. #48
    Forum Member FWDbuff's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Location
    Pee-Ayy!
    Posts
    7,389

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by RoofTopTrucky View Post
    Since this thread was started...a few more articles have made their way into print concerning this very subject.... one, in my opinion, prooves that Kool-aid at some time been consumed by the chief.
    The second I read that "the Chief did not want to discuss it in public" I knew that it was not beer in the pitchers at the meetings with the salesman.
    "Loyalty Above all Else. Except Honor."

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

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

Similar Threads

  1. World Of Fire Report: 10-28-05
    By PaulBrown in forum World of Fire Daily Report
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 10-31-2005, 07:44 AM
  2. World Of Fire Report: 10-22-05
    By PaulBrown in forum World of Fire Daily Report
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 10-25-2005, 06:52 AM
  3. World Of Fire Report: 08-04-05
    By PaulBrown in forum World of Fire Daily Report
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 08-06-2005, 09:25 AM
  4. World Of Fire Report: 01-29-05
    By PaulBrown in forum World of Fire Daily Report
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 01-30-2005, 01:32 PM
  5. Really good article on Worcester
    By Dalmatian90 in forum Firefighters Forum
    Replies: 6
    Last Post: 12-06-2004, 01:45 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