New Jersey Begins Delivery of Free TICs

[no_name_FF]

In a big press conference today, Governor Whitman delivered the first fifty Bullard TICs to FD's in New Jersey. This is a part of the program to have every FD in New Jersey outfitted with a TIC (or more than one) for free.

The State Legislature has appropriated approximately 7.5 million dollars for TIC aquisition this year. Bullard was the low bidder at about $7,500 per unit.

FD's have the option of taking the free unit or seeking $$ to purchase a different unit. The State is issuing the TIC's based upon the order the applications are received.

It appears that 1,000 units will be issued or grants provided this year. The Legislature has indicated that it will continue to fund the program.

------------------
The above is MY OPINION only and not that of anyone else. I am not representing any organization in making a post here!!!!

[FireTIC]

Is it strange to anyone, that the low bidder (actually, $7,695.00) is not fulfilling his contractural obligations (they did'nt even meet the bid spec.). They were to provide cameras at a rate of 100 per month. They only delivered half that amount. Does the Div. of Fire Safety think this is a joke.

Unfortunately politics as usual.

The DFS has stated that a reimbursement would take longer than a free camera. What the heck is that all about? Somebodys yanking the fire service here.

[FireFLIRMgr]

How do we know who is responsible for the delay? Is it state-buerocracy, or is it slow delivery by Bullard? With such a high profile situation, one would think that Bullard would pull out all the stops to get these cameras in service.

Greg Hall
FireFLIR

[TIMan]

Hello All,

Greg, thanks for stopping to think and stating what just might be the obvious. I should probably have just let this ride but I think a comment like this is the kind that can cause problems if not addressed.

First of all Bullard is delivering the cameras as desired by the State of New Jersey. Another batch of 50 will be shipping any day now. The cameras will be delivered in lots of 50, every other week. Contrary to popular belief this is not a black and white deal, but one that is changing daily. This is largely due to the fact that Bullard is trying to accommodate departments by upgrading cameras with features such as transmitters before they are shipped. Not something required by the contract, but something that is being dealt with none the less. The bottom line, no problem on delivery !

As far as not meeting the spec, the first 50 are delivered and we have orders for 150 more, so I would guess someone thinks it meets the spec.

As far as a delay in getting reimbursed, talk to the state.

New Jersey has done an outstanding thing, but being this large and the first of its kind I would expect it to have a few glitches. However I do not believe anything is going wrong that is really that far out of line, if it is then I stand corrected.

Good Luck, Be Safe,
"TIman"

[This message has been edited by TIMan (edited April 21, 2000).]

[Halligan84]

FireTIC -

Someone else in another forum stated they have been waiting for a while for their new ISG because ISG is delivering 800 to the navy. Same problem?

My understanding is that the DFS wanted to encourage departments to take the camera and get it into service. I believe reimbursements will be done last.

[FireTIC]

Halligan84,
ISG has experianced other than normal delays in shipping as of the past few months. I believe this is in part to manufacturing set-up in the US. As for the US Navy, I wasnt aware of an order for cameras.
Also, some FD's are counting on those monies in order to payoff the camera that is either on order, or will be on order soon. Why is the DFS holding any money?

TIMan,
Now we all know what happens when a state bureaucrat THINKS.
I would like nothing more than to debate the purchase specification with you, But I won't.

[TIMan]

Hello All,

Nice rumor on the US Navy, wonder who started that one? The whole thing has caused a lot of uproar, but it looks like it is going to end with a whimper. According to the last word I received the Navy is not going to place one single order to replace all of the NFTIs in service. Instead they are going to identify units that passed all of the testing and allow each ship or command to purchase whatever they like, whenever they like. Does not make a lot of sense to me, but if it makes the Navy happy so be it. If any of the Navy folks would like to clarify or elaborate fell free.

Good Luck, Be Safe,
"TIman"

[no_name_FF]

Hey TIMan,

How does the NJ State Bid unit work with the truck mount? Does the unit charge the battery inside the unit or only the spare? If it charges one inside the unit, are changes needed to the case for plug in?

As to other comments/questions... The State of NJ, from what I understand, needs to tell Bullard how many cameras will be needed this year sometime soon. Therefore, they are filling requests for units before reimbursements. Remember, they are working with "limited" funds, although the Legislature has pledged future funding. Anyone who ordered a TIC "counting" on the State money was foolish.

Also, from what I understand, the final award of the bid was made in late March, so Bullard is on schedule with delivery. Also, the State wanted to have a picture fest with the cams so they told Bullard to ship ASAP a group of 25 or more. Originally, they were only giving away 25 last week. More came in and they increased it.

NOTE TO NJ FDS: GET YOUR APPLICATIONS IN TODAY!!!! LET ME EMPHASIZE, TODAY TODAY TODAY. APPLICATIONS RECEIVED LAST WEEK HAVE A THIRTEEN (13) MONTH DELIVERY TIME!!!!

------------------
The above is MY OPINION only and not that of anyone else. I am not representing any organization in making a post here!!!!

[FireFLIRMgr]

I too would like to know where the rumor that ISG is delivering 800 cameras to the Navy came from. I am pretty sure this is not true. Keep in mind that the ISG camera is no longer the only camera that satisfied the Navy evaluation criteria.

Greg Hall
FireFLIR

[FireTIC]

Re ISG:
I do not know where the rumor started with regard to the U.S. Navy, But they do not have an order as of now. I verified the info. earlier this week. ISG did however receive an order from the Australian Navy for 200 cameras, which probably contributed to some delays.

no_name_FF,
If the State of New Jersey purchased all hand held cameras with the 7.5 million, they could only purchase 974 total (not including reimbursements). Which should only take 10 months at a rate of 100/month. I realize some are being outfitted with transmitters before delivery, but why should it take 13 months to deliver. I was told only half the applications were in at this time.

I personally know of at least 100 cameras in service prior to the bid, so this should take less time to complete.

FireFlir, Cairns:
Has anything been done on the re-bid for helmet mounted cameras? I was told it would be done again soon (this was stated after those bids were thrown out).

Alas, someone has opened the door on the Navy re-evaluation. This second evaluation was not sponsored by the navy in any way. Some unsuccessful manufacturers from the original evaluation PAYED to have the test done again by the navy. I have not seen the results, but i saw a letter from one of the manufacturers stating they passed. I am not sure, but I heard the test criteria was changed to accomodate the passing grade.

Does anyone have the test criteria and pass/fail information?

FRD

[no_name_FF]

I don't know where exactly the 13 month figure came from, I was just told by a neighboring company that that was what they were told when submitting application.

It may have to do with larger cities/towns applying. My understanding is that first go round is one per town per every 25,000 people. This unnamed company is the third company in 40,000 town to apply.

Newark, Trenton and Camden will get multiple cameras in one shot.

[TIMan]

Hello All,

These are some FACTS, not just speculation or rumor, about the second "Navy Evaluation".

The testing was conducted by Qua-Delta, the same company who did the first round of testing.

The criteria were identical for both rounds of testing.

The 3 units that passed were then sent on to ships for further evaluation.

If anyone would like to see the results they are on the Bullard TI web site.

Yes the companies who went through the second round of testing had to pay for it, but that was because the Navy figured out they should not be paying Qua-Delta for their services when the manufacturers would. I find it curios the Navy would be interested in test results if they were not the same as the original.

If you really think you need to see the Navy evaluations, then go ahead. I know that there are hundreds of evaluations that have been conducted by land based depts, so I would recommend you check with them and see what they have to say.

I have learned my lesson about being anything but clear on comments made here. Opinions are great and always welcome, when they are identified as such. There is no such thing as stupid question. However putting information here that was “heard” from somewhere can be very dangerous. I think a lot of excellent information is passed on daily in this forum, but I also think it can serve as place for additional BAD information to be added to the sea of bad information that already exists on thermal imaging.

Do what you think you need to, but just remember, anything posted here can quickly become the word on the street. With so few sources of good information on thermal imaging to verify what is going around, things can get out of hand quickly.

Good Luck, Be Safe,

“TIman”

[FLIRFF]

FireTIC:

The NJ Div of Fire Sfaety was interested, at least at first, in a rebid of the hands-free TICs. Unfortunately, what they were most interseted in is a price that matched more closely to Bullard's bid. I believe a price like that is too low for us or Cairns to swallow. Cairns has fixed pricing from Marconi and we can't make a microbolometer camera that cheap. If Bullard was able to bid their MX back then, you would have seen a significantly HIGHER price.
Bottom Line: "You Get What You Pay For!"

KK

P.S.

TiMan,

What is included, as far as training, with the NJ cameras?

[FireFLIRMgr]

NAVY EVALUATION - JUST THE FACTS

Off the subject a bit, but a couple of people have commented on the US Navy evaluation. Some of the stuff is true, some false. I represented my former employer in the first evaluation, and I gave the initial product presentation. I represented FLIR in the second evaluation, and also gave that presentation. The presentations were held in the same place, and in front of many of the same people. QUADELTA did indeed coordinate both evaluations, and the test criteria for both evaluations were virtually the same. So PLEASE DISMISS THE IRRESPONSIBLE RUMOR THAT THE TEST CRITERIA WAS CHANGED TO ACCOMODATE PASSING.

Did manufacturers pay for this evaluations? Some did, but not all. Here is a quote from the report:

"Federal Policy allows initial evaluations of NDI/COTS items to be undertaken at Government expense under certain circumstances, but bars the Government from paying under other circumstances, including re-evaluation of items previously evaluated that were deemed not acceptable."

The bottom line is that if you participated the first time free, you have to pay for a re-evaluation the second time. Not all the manufactures in the 2nd evaluation had participated in the first, so not all of them paid. (I GUARANTY IT). According to QUADELTA, both the Navy & TIC manufacturers requested another series of tests.

Finally, I do not convinced that the Navy evaluation criteria totally fits land-based fire fighting, so I would recommend that this test be used as a referrence. AS many have said here on the forum, do your on tests. Make sure your choice supports your department's philosophy and SOP's.

Greg Hall
FireFLIR Product Manager

[FF.FOREVER]

I was the one that said we had been waiting along time for our camera because of the NAVY! We ordered the camera early December. He told us it would be here the middle of Janurary. WE just got the camera on April 28th. We asked why so long and the rep told us all the cameras were on backorder because of the NAVY! I guess it was for the good because we got the new ISG with the Digitek in it. That's the scoop

[FireTIC]

To all concerned,
I firmly believe the first navy test did not go as well as the navy planned, with only one manufacturer passing all test criteria. Possibly the reason behind the second test. Why should anyone be concerned with a non-land-based evaluation? For the simple fact that navy firefighting is the worst possible situation for a firefighter.

FireFLIRMgr,
Please explain what you mean by "virtually"
the same test criteria.
I do agree that the navy evaluation should be used as a reference. Everyone should perform thier own test, and select the camera THEY like best.

Maybe the above strand should be posted as a new topic.

FRD

[FireTIC]

FlirFF,
I thought that price was only a concideration for selection, not the entire reason for selection. I suggest the helmet camera manufacturers make a call to the Div. of Fire Safety before all the funding is gone. This money is for all Thermal Imaging Cameras, not just hand helds.

FRD

[FLIRFF]

FireTIC:

Price was supposed to be only one of many factors regarding the selection process. Unfortunately, when the Bullard bid came in several thousand dollars lower than the next closest "legitimate" bidder, pricing realistically became the only factor! We were low bidder on the hands-free system but that didn't matter because we were far higher than Bullard. Maybe next time we'll produce a simple and inexpensive BST with no video capacity so the state can compare apples to apples.

The "call" has been made to the state. The result was the same. Life goes on......

KK

[FireTIC]

FireFLIRmgr,
I'snt it more irresponsible to post half-truths on the Second Navy evaluation? If the Navy evaluation is not important to land-based fire fighting, why participate?
I'll answer this question for you: If you realize the fact that Navy firefighting has a relevance to land-based fire fighting, now these manufacturers can say "ME TOO".
Everyone should note that no "hands-free systems were not included in the first evaluation, so my post regarding a Passing grade did not apply to all TI manufacturers.
I agree some information in the "first round" were probably not appropriate for all firefighting situations, Such as: carry case-size and weight,etc... But have manufacturers changed the carry case for the navy in order to get a passing grade? You still need to answer this question!

To All,
Do not buy brand X because Company Z has one. Buy the camera that suits YOUR departments needs. DO YOUR OWN EVALUATION. Not the manufacturers, not the dealers, not company Z's. If anyone wants an impartial test criteria, I can send you one that was put together by a government agency (not by a dealer or manufacturer).
If anyone wants me to get the manufacturers together for a LIVE BURN, let me know, or contact them directly. They will put you in contact with the local dealer.

LET THE GAMES BEGIN, or, LETS GET READY TO RUMBLE. (I hope i don't have to pay a royalty now).

FRD