A note on DJ wording

[BC79er]

Since there is more than one thread on this I'll stick it here so that all see it:

DJ wording is not hard lined on Peer Review denials. The letter is computer generated based on conditions, ie the scores of each section.

If the application's score in 1 or 2 of the 4 categories is lower than the average score of awarded applications then the DJ mentions those sections. So lacking on cost-benefit, or financial need, or daily operations improvement, etc.

If the average in 3 sections was lower then it's the "generally lacking in one or more categories" pitch. In all 4 sections it's been varying between saying all categories and one or more.

Above average statements kick in when it was close but just not close enough.

Again, these are relative statements, so on its own the narrative might be tight but since it's a game of how you stack up with everyone else asking for what they're asking for if they're ahead of you then it uses the term "lacking" not really meaning what Webster truly defines it as. Here it means others just scored higher. Hundreds of apps have been deemed "lacking" one year and fly right into an early award the next. We have at least a dozen trucks that were computer denied last year and awarded this year, same with some equipment.

Don't get frustrated, polish and resubmit, especially if you still can't afford to buy whatever it is in local funds.

[BSFD9302]

Since there is more than one thread on this I'll stick it here so that all see it:

DJ wording is not hard lined on Peer Review denials. The letter is computer generated based on conditions, ie the scores of each section.

If the application's score in 1 or 2 of the 4 categories is lower than the average score of awarded applications then the DJ mentions those sections. So lacking on cost-benefit, or financial need, or daily operations improvement, etc.

If the average in 3 sections was lower then it's the "generally lacking in one or more categories" pitch. In all 4 sections it's been varying between saying all categories and one or more.

Above average statements kick in when it was close but just not close enough.

Again, these are relative statements, so on its own the narrative might be tight but since it's a game of how you stack up with everyone else asking for what they're asking for if they're ahead of you then it uses the term "lacking" not really meaning what Webster truly defines it as. Here it means others just scored higher. Hundreds of apps have been deemed "lacking" one year and fly right into an early award the next. We have at least a dozen trucks that were computer denied last year and awarded this year, same with some equipment.

Don't get frustrated, polish and resubmit, especially if you still can't afford to buy whatever it is in local funds.

Thanks Brian. You are the first person that I have received a good explanation from. I have called AFG and went through 3 people and didn't get an explanation of what that meant (i scored above average in all 4 but had the lacking term). I will resubmit pretty much the same thing with a few tweaks. Although I really do not know about what to do with the taker app.

Are any of your courses close to Eastern KY? Kurt, what about you?

PS It will still be frustrating. I hate failing!!!!

[BC79er]

Nothing on the board right now but we take the course anywhere we're invited. Shoot me an email if you want more info about hosting, or visit our web site for the email link: www.vickersconsultingservices.com, brianv@vickersconsultingservic es.com

[ktb9780]

Thanks Brian. You are the first person that I have received a good explanation from. I have called AFG and went through 3 people and didn't get an explanation of what that meant (i scored above average in all 4 but had the lacking term). I will resubmit pretty much the same thing with a few tweaks. Although I really do not know about what to do with the taker app.

Are any of your courses close to Eastern KY? Kurt, what about you?

PS It will still be frustrating. I hate failing!!!!

Same situation as bc79er here guy. The late DJs spoiled all my workshops and technically nothing was planned for this late figuring that we would be wellinot the grnat applciation period by now. I have my partner teaching on on May 11-12 in Seattle and that's it. Don't wait so long next year guy, we just did one in Lousiville last month, missed you there.

[onebugle]

Recieved a second email on our station grant per my request that was submitted on 4/12. Same identical email except for the following:

Unfortunately, FEMA was not able to offer funds to many worthy applicants, including your fire department, because your application did not match up well in relation to the funding priorities and rating criteria for the FY 2009 ARRA SCG Program.

Which replaced the following:

Unfortunately, FEMA was not able to offer funds to many worthy applicants. Many Applicants were not considered because the application did not match up well in relation to the funding priorities and rating criteria for the FY 2009 ARRA SCG Program.

[dfd701]

OK, So what does it mean when you get turned down twice in one week for the same grant? Just got another DJ for the same SCG. It came a few hours ago. The other one was last Friday. What in the world is going on up there? Has someone hacked into their server and just playing with us?

[ktb9780]

OK, So what does it mean when you get turned down twice in one week for the same grant? Just got another DJ for the same SCG. It came a few hours ago. The other one was last Friday. What in the world is going on up there? Has someone hacked into their server and just playing with us?

Was tlaking on phone to a client today who got it while we were talking and that was his second rejection notice for FSC. Who knows what is going on up there in Obama land.

[centralfire]

after requesting an explaination how long does it usually take to get a reponse. I got some e-mail after i submitted the request but it was blank...as if it was a reciept for submitting the request.

[jjchief1]

Since there is more than one thread on this I'll stick it here so that all see it:

DJ wording is not hard lined on Peer Review denials. The letter is computer generated based on conditions, ie the scores of each section.

If the application's score in 1 or 2 of the 4 categories is lower than the average score of awarded applications then the DJ mentions those sections. So lacking on cost-benefit, or financial need, or daily operations improvement, etc.

If the average in 3 sections was lower then it's the "generally lacking in one or more categories" pitch. In all 4 sections it's been varying between saying all categories and one or more.

Above average statements kick in when it was close but just not close enough.

Again, these are relative statements, so on its own the narrative might be tight but since it's a game of how you stack up with everyone else asking for what they're asking for if they're ahead of you then it uses the term "lacking" not really meaning what Webster truly defines it as. Here it means others just scored higher. Hundreds of apps have been deemed "lacking" one year and fly right into an early award the next. We have at least a dozen trucks that were computer denied last year and awarded this year, same with some equipment.

Don't get frustrated, polish and resubmit, especially if you still can't afford to buy whatever it is in local funds.

We applied for an SCBA Refill Station. This is what they said in our denial letter.
A panel of your fire service peers reviewed your application. Using the information that you
provided throughout your application, the panelists assigned scores to four elements of your
application narrative: (1) clarity of the project description, (2) demonstration of financial
need,(3) demonstration of benefits to be derived from the grant funds, and (4) effect on daily
operations. The peer review panel's scores indicate that your application was generally good,
but it was determined that your existing fleet of vehicles was sufficient to respond adequately
to your department's call volume. A full description of the application review process is
included in the AFG Program Guidance
We didn't apply for a vehicle. So does this mean what we carry on our trucks is sufficient and do not need to refill them? I'm confused....

[BC79er]

Looks like that solid low-bid software contracting at its best...

[onebugle]

Deleted duplicate post.

[ktb9780]

No, IMHO it means you have a definite error and as such, it demands a specific explanation from AFG. Ths is without a doubt represenative that there is something seriously flawed with the DJ process this year or the manner in which the DJ letters were relased. There are just too many examples of similar type problems existing this year.

I have watched these forums for the past several days and the responses and inquiries from departments are indicative that something is drastically different from the last 4-5 years in the manner and method of rejection here. It makes no sense at all and defies all past logic associated with this program

I have been and still am, without a doubt, one of the biggest, staunchest supporters of this program and I have ALWAYS stated that I believe that the program was the best run program that the US Govt offers as far as a grant program is concerned but, this year's AFG is beyond "reasonable or logical" comprehension.

The current administration, and yes Mr. President I am directing this at your policies and administration, is demanding transparency and accountability from its awardees. Sir, I respectfully request that you likewise demand that same level of transparency and accountibility from FEMA on what is going on here.

The post 9/11 commission stated catagorically that the primary failure during 9/11 and the problem which demanded the government's attention the most, was "interoperable" communications. The most basic definition of "interoperable communication" means to interface amongst ourselves seemlessly for the highest efficiency. Interoperability must start at the very top; I contend that at this juncture the top half is not communicating with the bottom half at all! Follow your own edicts, quit treating us like children and communicate clearly with us.


OK off my soapbox, sorry for the rant but it needed to be said.

[onebugle]

after requesting an explaination how long does it usually take to get a reponse. I got some e-mail after i submitted the request but it was blank...as if it was a reciept for submitting the request.

My request for an explanation on the original email on our station grant took 7days. Guess what.....the wording was changed just to make it a little more "personal", but otherwise the same email. See my post #5.

[SWFD22]

My request for an explanation on the original email on our station grant took 7days. Guess what.....the wording was changed just to make it a little more "personal", but otherwise the same email. See my post #5.

Last year I had a similar experience. Got the DJ, requested more information, got a longer email with many more words, but not really any more information on my app.

[BC79er]

Marc, the simple answer is humans are involved. One Peer table doesn't see the same thing another one does, some are more generous than others, some want more information than could ever be put in a narrative. Communication between humans will always be a mystery as long as they keep making humans...

[jam24u]

No, IMHO it means you have a definite error and as such, it demands a specific explanation from AFG. Ths is without a doubt represenative that there is something seriously flawed with the DJ process this year or the manner in which the DJ letters were relased. There are just too many examples of similar type problems existing this year.

I have watched these forums for the past several days and the responses and inquiries from departments are indicative that something is drastically different from the last 4-5 years in the manner and method of rejection here. It makes no sense at all and defies all past logic associated with this program

I have been and still am, without a doubt, one of the biggest, staunchest supporters of this program and I have ALWAYS stated that I believe that the program was the best run program that the US Govt offers as far as a grant program is concerned but, this year's AFG is beyond "reasonable or logical" comprehension.

The current administration, and yes Mr. President I am directing this at your policies and administration, is demanding transparency and accountability from its awardees. Sir, I respectfully request that you likewise demand that same level of transparency and accountibility from FEMA on what is going on here.

The post 9/11 commission stated catagorically that the primary failure during 9/11 and the problem which demanded the government's attention the most, was "interoperable" communications. The most basic definition of "interoperable communication" means to interface amongst ourselves seemlessly for the highest efficiency. Interoperability must start at the very top; I contend that at this juncture the top half is not communicating with the bottom half at all! Follow your own edicts, quit treating us like children and communicate clearly with us.


OK off my soapbox, sorry for the rant but it needed to be said.

Nice broadside Kurt and right on target.

Now come about and give'em another blast.

[jam24u]

Looks like that solid low-bid software contracting at its best...

See,

I hope FEMA and AFG understand that low bid is not always the right bid.

Adhering to that policy I know has cut out a lot of abuse and kickbacks, but then again, there are often guards against it getting too far out of hand. Besides some of our most liberal congressmen do quite well avoiding that policy.

(my meds must be kicking in)

[lieutenant7]

So here is a question. I was successful on 5 AFG's and 1 CEDAP and the last 3AFG's I got DJ's in the very late stages of the AFG's. The way I am writing them hasn't changed much and I feel I pose a compelling legitimacy for award, but am I getting the DJ's because we have already received so many grants or do I just need to change my writing style? Any insight would be great. Thanks in advance.

Marc

[dfd701]

So here is a question. I was successful on 5 AFG's and 1 CEDAP and the last 3AFG's I got DJ's in the very late stages of the AFG's. The way I am writing them hasn't changed much and I feel I pose a compelling legitimacy for award, but am I getting the DJ's because we have already received so many grants or do I just need to change my writing style? Any insight would be great. Thanks in advance.

Marc

It may not be anything you did wrong. I still think they are scrapping the whole thing and try to get it back on track for the up coming year, when ever that is.

[BC79er]

Marc, the simple answer is humans are involved. One Peer table doesn't see the same thing another one does, some are more generous than others, some want more information than could ever be put in a narrative. Communication between humans will always be a mystery as long as they keep making humans...