1. #1
    Forum Member

    Join Date
    Jan 1999
    Location
    North East Wi. USA
    Posts
    261

    Default funding the same items twice

    Hello to all,

    I know that's its generally understood and believed that you can only be funded for the same items once in the AFG program. For example turnout gear funded 10+ years ago that you can not apply for turnout gear again and expect to get funded.

    My question: is that in the program guidance somewhere? I have never seen it and have always excepted it as fact.

    I am assuming that's one of the reasons they ask you to list your previous grants as part of the application process.

    Thanks

    SBLGFD

  2. #2
    Forum Member

    Join Date
    Feb 2002
    Location
    Cypress, TX
    Posts
    1,720

    Default

    It's not listed specifically, more that there are statements to the age of items, maybe some statements here and there about previous awards in general. Most of it has to do with the argument end of things and the perceived competitiveness of repeat apps.

    After all, the first grant was supposedly funded because the Financial Need section included how this was a one-time need and the applicant would be able to handle ongoing replacement costs. So even if it's been 10+ years, what happened to the PPE replacement plan that was supposed to have been put in place after getting funded that time?

    It's a hard question to overcome, and of course situations change. Replacing previously replaced equipment has been done here and there, and when there's been turnover it's been done also. By turnover I mean that the people the gear was bought for aren't there anymore so the gear is newer but no one fits in it. Also seen/done a bunch where the department grew, seen several go from 15-20 members up to 30-40+ with the new bodies all wearing old gear.

    So it's not so much that repeats can't be done, it's just that they're not as inherently competitive in the arguments as those that weren't awarded before. The numbers may be the same but someone that's been funded for PPE before has a lot more explaining to do than those that haven't. Done right for the right reasons, it can hit.

  3. #3
    MembersZone Subscriber
    ktb9780's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    Auburndale, FL
    Posts
    6,094

    Default

    I agree with Brian here also. It is not an "absolute" rule and there are circumstances which would make the application competitive. I.E. You had a tornado destroy your building or a fire burned down your station and all equipment. Suffice it to say that your argument for financial need will have to be overwhelmingly compelling to accomplish that.
    Kurt Bradley
    Fire/EMS/EMA Grant Consultant
    " Never Trade Skill for Luck"

  4. #4
    MembersZone Subscriber
    LVFD301's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Posts
    4,001

    Default

    Exactly. During Peer review, your app will be checked for if it meets the age limit, over 12 on turnouts if I remember, then it was looked at to see why the department had not planned for replacement in their regular budget. If there where extenuating circumstances like tornado and no insurance, or just simply no funding and unsuccessful fund raising, then the grant was most likely scored higher. If not shown why the department could or did not plan, then it would most likely be scored lower.

    If you scored anything but excellent or very good, it is pretty much figured you would not be successful.

  5. #5
    Forum Member
    jhl81791123's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Waterford, MI
    Posts
    155

    Thumbs down

    We were awarded new SCBA in 2005. Having joined forces with the Pontiac Fire Department in 2012, we now have 2 different SCBA systems. We applied in 2012 for new SCBA to replace those 2005 units, as Pontiac's were newer than ours. We were denied.

  6. #6
    Forum Member

    Join Date
    Feb 2002
    Location
    Cypress, TX
    Posts
    1,720

    Default

    That's because you may have different brands or models but all SCBA built to the NFPA 1981-2002ed and newer are all fully interoperable: UACs/RIT connections. That's the only determining factor in the definition of SCBA interoperability. Not masks, cylinders, or anything else because swapping either of those things is frowned upon and not done for liability reasons in a lot of places. SCBA have a 15 year lifetime so by design they're meant to last 2-3 standard changes depending on when they were bought in between revisions.

    Hence the reason spare cylinders and portable cascades and/or compressor systems are the better solution if short on air regularly at incidents.

  7. #7
    MembersZone Subscriber

    Join Date
    Aug 2002
    Location
    PA
    Posts
    26

    Default

    So based on the explanations above, how does a fire company justify getting funded to replace a dozen SCBA and cylinders that were purchased in 2004 and are now only ten years old without the extenuating circumstances of cataclysmic event. Just curious? ?

  8. #8
    Forum Member

    Join Date
    Feb 2002
    Location
    Cypress, TX
    Posts
    1,720

    Default

    Are you asking how to get it done? Or how someone else did it?

    If it's the first one, like anything else back up the reason that's the greatest need and knowing that they'll wonder why you didn't plan ahead, answer that question within the narrative.

    If it's how someone else did it already, check their app? All these grants are FOIA, copies can be had even if the department won't give them up. Of course ask first, but if they didn't stretch anything and still got awarded then they hit the review table at the right point in time.

  9. #9
    MembersZone Subscriber
    ktb9780's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    Auburndale, FL
    Posts
    6,094

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by fyrchef51 View Post
    So based on the explanations above, how does a fire company justify getting funded to replace a dozen SCBA and cylinders that were purchased in 2004 and are now only ten years old without the extenuating circumstances of cataclysmic event. Just curious? ?
    You are not being very clear about what your circumstances are here? Were the existing SCBAs funded via an AFG grant award in 2004?
    Kurt Bradley
    Fire/EMS/EMA Grant Consultant
    " Never Trade Skill for Luck"

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

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

Similar Threads

  1. LDH and some other items
    By ENG5TRK in forum Federal FIRE ACT Grants & Funding
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 05-01-2010, 09:38 AM
  2. Congress Passes FY 2008 DHS Appropriations Funding: Includes Increased Funding for FI
    By bigJ164019 in forum Federal FIRE ACT Grants & Funding
    Replies: 4
    Last Post: 12-21-2007, 01:52 PM
  3. Bar Items...
    By tyler101 in forum The Off Duty Forums
    Replies: 11
    Last Post: 09-30-2005, 04:00 PM
  4. POV Items
    By JDJ5702 in forum West Virginia
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 04-19-2004, 12:07 AM
  5. WTC Items
    By mjboom in forum Meet and Greet
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: 08-13-2002, 02:49 PM

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