Printable View
If possible, please post the information on what your line items were reduced to. We have always understood that head-to-toe gear was maxed at $2,000 - but I'm understanding that this year they have raised that to $2,100 per set. I'm sure others have been increased as well.
Some of us are already planning for 2007 and I'd be curious to know what amounts they are currently using.
Specifically, I saw someone get a reduction for airpacks and a compressor. Any help there?
SLY4420, Here are the reduction amounts that we received this year. The boots are wildland boots.
"While reviewing your 2006 Assistance to Firefighters Grant Application, we found the cost of the requested boots ($280) and the Thermal Imaging Camera ($12,750) excessive. If awarded, FEMA would only fund $250 towards the purchase of the boots and $11,000 towards the purchase of the Thermal Imaging Camera. If this is agreeable to you please respond to this email indicating so."
Thanks Batt. It would be nice if we could compile a list here - I'm certainly willing to keep track of it if everyone contributes.
I have some with Head to Toe PPE at $2300. With most manufacturers putting on the DRDs in advance of the NFPA change, plus the price of Kevlar up because most is going overseas for body armor I don't think there was much choice in raising it.
Thing is, none of it really matters too much since pricing could change again for 2007 because they're adjusted annually based on market pricing. You still need to competitively price things at application time and add some fudge factor. But they (Peer and DHS) can smell when you just aim for the max. That's why they limited excess funds to $5K, to avoid people going high to get extra money.
Here is my bad news. Don't think I can buy the system alone for that price, yet alone have it installed on pumper.
Mr. Cozzolino,
While reviewing your 2006 Assistance to Firefighters Grant Application, we found the cost of the requested Compressed Air Foam System excessive ($78,525). If awarded, FEMA would only fund $40,700 towards the purchase of the Compressed Air Foam System. If this is agreeable to you please respond to this email indicating so.
The program office has indicated if you are awarded, we will fund the mobile radios at $4,000 for $120,000 instead of the $165,750 shown in your award application. The total project cost would be reduced from $1,282,025 to $1,236,275. The federal share would be reduced from $1,000,000 to $989,020. Your applicant match would be reduced from $282,025 to $247,255.
Also. Please provide me with the amount of the other federal grant you received in 2006 – a Search-Cam 2000 Victim Locating System. (This was a CEDAP award and the gentleman I talked with had no idea what CEDAP was or how it worked).
Should you be awarded this grant, you will need to have an audit conducted of all your federal funds received because you will have exceeded the $500,000 thresh hold. In a regional grant you still are the responsible party for all activity, records and equipment provided by the grant. You would be required to hire an audit firm that would conduct this audit under the provisions of the Single Audit Act and according OMB Circular A-133. Please assure us in your response to this email that you are aware of this provision and you do plan for such an audit if you should receive this grant.
Our helmets were cut from $240 to $200.........
Commercial Cab Tandum Axle Pumper/tanker Was Reduced From $285k To $250k
we did a vehicle spec for a rescue pumper and it came in at $302,500 we got reduced to $250,000
SCBA Mask with amplified voice reduced from $450 to $275 which basically means no amplified voice.
Odd that got cut on you. Was it mentioned about the voice amp in the narrative? Every SCBA award I did with voice amp went through with no problems.
This is an email we got on Thursday from our Airpack grant. We put in for 70 airpacks and 4 fill stations and the listed items below.
While reviewing your 2006 Assistance to Firefighters Grant Application, we found the cost/amount of the following items excessive: training for 4, accountability/I-pass systems, posicheck at $15,635, respirator dryer at $7,308, and SCBA tools 2 at $1,500. If awarded, FEMA would only fund for training for 2, 1 accountability system at $3,000, posicheck system at $10,000, and 1 set of SCBA tools. The respirator dryer will not be funded under the grant. If this is agreeable to you please respond to this email indicating so, as soon as possible.
We will obviously take th reductions.
Yes it was mentioned in the narrative.Quote:
Originally Posted by BC79er
That you wanted them or the associated benefits with having them? Sorry to keep asking, just want to clarify to figure out why they'd knock yours and no one else's.
We received a call from the FEMA specialist on 10/13. Our cascade/compressor system was reduced to $35000, we had requested $43000.00. The Scott 45min packs with HUD, Buddy Breathing system, mask and spare bottle was reduced to $5000 for each pack.
Not complaining about the reducution though.
I may not have painted enough of a picture as to the need of the amplified voice. I basically said the masks would have this option. The grant was for masks only, I am thinking if I would have been buying the complete packs It would not have been a problem.Quote:
Originally Posted by BC79er
Could be, if all you asked for was the masks then the amps were close to 50% of the requested funding so that could have been part of the request reasoning if they weren't also justified in the narrative.
That's also different than I was thinking, almost all of the ones I worked with are full SCBA purchases, and we only mainly went with voice amps on the apparatus seat count, not for the whole department. Easy enough to switch on and off masks in the truck or fireground, we've got that situation in my department. We don't have personal masks but not all of the truck masks have voice amps so we'll switch on the fly on scene. All of the masks have the mounts.
I applied for 65 sets of Wildland PPE, got an e-mail, stating 65 sets was excessive, however, if awarded, they would fund 63 sets, if I agree. Of course I agreed and replied same. I did a follow up call to the GMS just to satisfy my curiosity, as to why the reduction of 2 sets. The young lady told me that in my application I had stated that 2 of the current sets of PPE were still acceptable and met current standards. Honest answer, justified reduction, that is only $1152.00. She did say they have to get the most out of the funding they can, in order to provide for other departments.
This goes to show that all grant applications are reviewed in detail. The young lady was very customer friendly in our discussion. In ending my conversation with her, I thanked her and expressed appreciation to her and her co-workers for what they do in the back offices, to help the fire service.
chiefhba
The following is our reduction notification:
Upon reviewing your application, the budget was reduced by $24,000. The Program Office did not approve the ambulance cots for $24,000 indicated in the initial application. If awarded the Assistance to Firefighters Grant 06 the total project cost will be reduced from $62,714 to $38,714. The federal share will be reduced from $59,579 to $36,778. The applicant match will be reduced from $3,135 to $1,936. You must reply back to this email acknowledging said changes.
****
My question to those of you who seem to be in the know would be why this portion of the grant request would be completely eliminated. We went through a very tedious process in determining what we were going to reqeust and why it was important to what our goals and the cots were a significant part of a grant that was intended to address overall health/fitness of the crew in three major ways that were all related: 1) A fitness program to keep current crew members healthy and active longer 2) money for training to acquire additional EMTs and Paramedics to lessen the load on current crew and 3) new powered cots that would help to assuage one of the hardest parts of EMS calls which is lifting the fully loaded cots.
The narrative was well consrtructed and presented a very cohesive and well-thought-out plan to address what was a priority for the grants this year.
We are very happy to take whatever amount they are willing to award us, but I am just curious as to why the cots were eliminated.
Thanks for your thoughts!
Powered cots were most likely seen as excessive. Having lifted a 500lb patient with help from 5 others on the engine crew less than 3 weeks ago, I would have loved a powered 1 myself.
But with an average patient of 200lbs that shouldn't be a problem for a 2 person EMS crew. Proper lifting techniques and some basic physical fitness cost very little/nothing compared to the powered cots, and that may have been the view of the Peer Panel.
Especially since powered stretchers don't eliminate the possibility of a lifting injury. While it's the most common for a back injury to happen lifting a stretcher, I know people that have hurt themselves lifting the bags wrong, twisting ankles on loose gravel, wet steps, etc, etc. Plus what happens when they break on scene? Do they weigh more than a regular stretcher? Who's there to help lift that extra weight plus patient?
Just some thoughts from my angle on why it could have been dropped from what little I know from what you've said. Congrats on the rest of it though. :) Getting dough for an EMS agency in AFG is threading a needle.