Thread: Scott Scba

  1. #51
    Forum Member

    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Location
    Somewhere
    Posts
    478

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by BC79er View Post
    That's the way it should be done. Ideally evaluations are done before bids are done, or at the same time using different people. Even better, do them before you even apply.

    Just out of curiousity, Draeger hasn't passed the test yet for 2007 according to SEI (www.seinet.org). Did they give a timeline for passing? Still only showing ISI, MSA, Sperion (Survivair), and both Scotts as compliant.
    We recently went through the same evaluation process. We brought in the same 4 brands of packs and our evaluators preferred the Draeger pack. Draeger thought they would have their 2007 cert nailed down by the end of January. Now it is a day to day thing. My Chief had a conference call scheduled today to talk to them about the status. I felt that one of the things that may have affected the evaluation is that we have been using Draeger for 20 years. The guys threw the pack on and every thing felt familiar, but better. The other packs they had to go through orientation on the controls for each of the packs and never felt really comfortable.

    Scott was our number 2. If Draeger doesn't come through with the letter in the next couple months, we will be switching to Scott.

  2. #52
    Forum Member
    medic190's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2001
    Location
    Stuyvesant Falls, NY
    Posts
    329

    Default

    Just remember an estimate or a promise of when they will pass testing and become certified can get you into trouble. An APR manufacturer I know of promised my employer they were positively reviewed and would be getting their cert "before the end of the year" Now, almost two full years later, they are STILL not certified and their product has been pulled from further testing. We had to go out and spend a boat load more money to replace these non-compliant items and now are trying to get rid of them. The manufacturer won't take them back because they have been issued out, opened and inventoried (two full years ago) and we're out the money.

    SO: the moral of the story is - if it is not in writing, it didn't happen. If they don't have the cert when you place the order, assume they won't get it. What happens if, by chance, you order and receive the packs and then they don't get the cert? AFG funds spent on non-compliant equipment - they might require you to pay them back: you'd be left holding the bag...

    My suggestion - if you want those packs and can wait to order them until they actually have the hot little paper in hand, wait. If you need to place the order now - buy one that has the cert: why risk loosing the funds?

  3. #53
    FH Mag/.com Contributor

    Join Date
    Feb 2002
    Location
    Cypress, TX
    Posts
    7,288

    Default

    Per Presidential Directive #5 grant money can't be spent on non-NFPA certified equipment, and per NFPA until the certificate is issued by the testing agency a pack isn't compliant until that happens. So they can't assemble any packs until the test is passed. You can order but make sure that nothing happens until they are passed. Also check your bid spec to make sure you didn't have a delivery requirement. If they haven't passed yet you have a delay until they can build a pack from that date since they aren't allowed to manufacture anything until the cert is out. So if you have a set delivery date and you're within 30 days I doubt anyone could get something through the assembly line that quickly. If they can, great, no problems. If not, you'd have to do something else, either rebid, or award #2.

  4. #54
    Forum Member

    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Location
    Somewhere
    Posts
    478

    Default

    We were awarded the grant in January.

    We haven't spent any money or awarded any bid yet.

    We figure we can afford to give them a couple months to see what happens.

    The plan is order packs May 1st. If Draeger has the NFPA certificate in hand, we will order Draeger. If they don't have it yet, we will order Scott.

  5. #55
    FH Mag/.com Contributor

    Join Date
    Feb 2002
    Location
    Cypress, TX
    Posts
    7,288

    Default

    Yes, you have plenty of time to wait it out. Those awarded back in July/August are running out of time though. No extensions will be granted on pack because of waiting on a vendor to pass the test, already heard that come down. Since something exists that meets the standard we don't have an argument according to wait on a brand name. Hopefully they get it done soon, same with the ALF bankruptcy. Too much other stuff to worry about than having to handle more admin issues.

  6. #56
    MembersZone Subscriber

    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Posts
    3,745

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by kd7fds View Post
    We were awarded the grant in January.

    We haven't spent any money or awarded any bid yet.

    We figure we can afford to give them a couple months to see what happens.

    The plan is order packs May 1st. If Draeger has the NFPA certificate in hand, we will order Draeger. If they don't have it yet, we will order Scott.

    Just curious on the bid.

    1) Was this a formal bid process for the SCBA?

    2) If so, how is it that Draeger's bid was not disqualified for not being NFPA compliant?

    3) You stated the bid has not been awarded. Typically, a bid has an expiration date if not accepted. Do you believe Scott will honor their bid 5 months from now?

  7. #57
    Forum Member

    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Location
    Somewhere
    Posts
    478

    Default

    1. Yes
    2. Bid Spec was written that upon delivery the pack had to be NFPA compliant.
    3. We have talked to the Scott Rep and they are willing to honor the bid.

    Heck, the department is a Draeger department and wanted Draeger to be able to compete, so they wrote the spec to give Draeger a chance to show us their pack. The bid was also written as a performance specification. The actual hands on evaluation had a higher weight in the scoring than price. 3 packs (Draeger, Scott, MSA) were within $200 per unit of each other. The Survivair Pack was almost $6500

    I did feel the evaluation of the packs was very fair. We had 15 people evaluate the different packs. No one knew the prices of the packs except the Chief. Each person was given a set of criteria to judge that was identical for each pack, comfort, weight, controls, donning procedures, changing an air tank, basic cleaning, how understandable they were over the radio. We also set up an obstacle course where they had to crawl, climb a ladder, drag a hose, go through entanglements.

    Each person completed all the different tests using each of the 4 packs. The order each person wore the packs was randomized. Each vendor had the oppurunity in the two weeks leading up to the test to hold a 3 hour training session on their pack with the evaluators. The local Survivair Rep did not bother to hold a training session.

    We had a lot of faith that we were going to finally get these packs this year. We spent 4 months developing our plan

  8. #58
    Forum Member

    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Northwest PA
    Posts
    327

    Cool Big Brother is Listening

    After posting the other day of our bid opening price, and then mentioning the awarded distributer, I was talking to the distributer the next day and he had been contacted by the corporate office, good or bad I'm not sure, but they are obviously watvhing theis forum. So HELLO!! and welcome to the party!

  9. #59
    FH Mag/.com Contributor

    Join Date
    Feb 2002
    Location
    Cypress, TX
    Posts
    7,288

    Default

    Well that's just upper mgmt. The real Big Brother monitors these forums also.

  10. #60
    Forum Member

    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    NJ
    Posts
    224

    Default

    kd7fds, any word on what Draeger said on this? We placed our order on the promise Draeger would be meeting the standard. Thanks.

  11. #61
    Forum Member

    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Location
    Somewhere
    Posts
    478

    Default

    they are still in a waiting mode.

    We were talking last night and wondering what kind of backorder issue they may or may not be developing.

    Scott Rep came by last night and sweetened the deal, offered us enough extra 2nd stage regulators, at no extra cost, so that each fire fighter would have a mask and a regulator. Made the offer because we asked asked about cross contamination

  12. #62
    Forum Member

    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    NJ
    Posts
    224

    Default

    Brian--I think our grant close out date is early July 2008. What does this mean? Does this mean we have to have "completed" the grant process by receiving the equipment, or if we have it ordered and it is in the production process by July 2008, will we be fine? If not, at what point do we have to punt on Draeger and go with option 2? And again, we thought the "hard" part of the grant process was over.

    Quote Originally Posted by BC79er View Post
    Per Presidential Directive #5 grant money can't be spent on non-NFPA certified equipment, and per NFPA until the certificate is issued by the testing agency a pack isn't compliant until that happens. So they can't assemble any packs until the test is passed. You can order but make sure that nothing happens until they are passed. Also check your bid spec to make sure you didn't have a delivery requirement. If they haven't passed yet you have a delay until they can build a pack from that date since they aren't allowed to manufacture anything until the cert is out. So if you have a set delivery date and you're within 30 days I doubt anyone could get something through the assembly line that quickly. If they can, great, no problems. If not, you'd have to do something else, either rebid, or award #2.

  13. #63
    MembersZone Subscriber

    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Posts
    3,745

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by JD1234 View Post
    Brian--I think our grant close out date is early July 2008. What does this mean? Does this mean we have to have "completed" the grant process by receiving the equipment, or if we have it ordered and it is in the production process by July 2008, will we be fine? If not, at what point do we have to punt on Draeger and go with option 2? And again, we thought the "hard" part of the grant process was over.
    This is the email that you will recieve 1 month before the end of the POP. This explains the process.

    Our records indicate that your grant in approaching the end of the performance period. By the end of your performance period you should have completed the entire scope of work contained in your award. You have 90 days from the end of your period of performance to pay any debts encumbered during your period of performance. Once the scope of work is completed, and all debts have been paid (within 90 days of the end of your performance period), you should complete the closeout requirements. These requirements are a final financial status report and a final performance report. These reports should be submitted on-line through the AFG eGrants system, https://portal.fema.gov. You must select the option under the Action column entitled Closeout Grant. Instructions for closeout are provided in the closeout module on-line.
    Brian posted this awhile back about SCBA awards.

    Here is what I got from DHS on the 2007 compliance issue and waiting for vendors to pass tests.

    Not word for word, but the sentiment is that you'll be hard pressed to be approved for an extension because you waiting/are waiting for a specific manufacturer to pass the tests. Brand name means nothing to interoperability because it's a UNIVERSAL connection, so since there are models on the market that have passed compliance and can be purchased/ordered now, you might not get an extension to your award. Meaning if it's not done in 12 months it is someone else's award to then spend in an excess fund award after you lose it.

    Check with your local FPS if you have any questions/concerns.
    Last edited by onebugle; 02-18-2008 at 12:35 PM.

  14. #64
    FH Mag/.com Contributor

    Join Date
    Feb 2002
    Location
    Cypress, TX
    Posts
    7,288

    Default

    JD, as Bugle posted if they get it in time to deliver so that you can make the required reports on time then you can stick with them. If it doesn't look like that's going to happen by June I'd be looking elsewhere otherwise you'll forfeit the award.

  15. #65
    Forum Member

    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    NJ
    Posts
    224

    Default

    Great. We are in a real bind. All the other vendors were over the $5,000.00 limit per pack. What is the latest we should wait until before cancelling our current order and moving on to the next vendor? In other words, if we were to order from SCOTT or MSA, we should have our order placed by when to receive it by July 9, 2008. End of March?

  16. #66
    FH Mag/.com Contributor

    Join Date
    Feb 2002
    Location
    Cypress, TX
    Posts
    7,288

    Default

    I think most of the rest are looking at 4-6 week delivery time if even that long. Some vendors have stock for immediate delivery.

  17. #67
    MembersZone Subscriber

    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Posts
    3,745

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by JD1234 View Post
    Great. We are in a real bind. All the other vendors were over the $5,000.00 limit per pack. What is the latest we should wait until before cancelling our current order and moving on to the next vendor? In other words, if we were to order from SCOTT or MSA, we should have our order placed by when to receive it by July 9, 2008. End of March?
    JD1234,

    You are now 7 months into the grant without any clear picture from Draeger on when their SCBA will be compliant or delivered. Do you believe that will change in the next month? At some point you will have to sever ties with them and move on before it's too late.

    If you decide to change companies, the order should be done sooner than later, just in case of delays from the other companies to fill the order.

    My suggestion is to contact your FPS for guidance (if you haven't already). Explain the situation to them. It's better to get them on board now, than waiting the 11th hour to do so.

  18. #68
    Forum Member

    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Posts
    386

    Default

    The information provided by my original post was inaccurate. Drager's new breathing apparatus are undergoing testing currently and are anticipated to ship in May.
    Last edited by rfd599; 03-16-2008 at 07:42 PM. Reason: Inaccurate Information

  19. #69
    Forum Member

    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    NJ
    Posts
    224

    Default

    rfd, thanks very much. That give us some degree of comfort and confidence that things will turn out OK. I guess Draeger is experiencing a downside of doing a nearly complete redesign of their SCBA, rather than a minor overhaul to meet the new spec.

  20. #70
    Forum Member

    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Posts
    386

    Default

    Drager's new breathing apparatus is anticipated to ship in May.
    Last edited by rfd599; 03-16-2008 at 08:25 PM. Reason: Inaccurate Information

  21. #71
    Forum Member

    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Posts
    790

    Default

    The NFPA deal with PD #5 is intersting. CEDAP gave away AMKUS tools, but amkus only has a couple of tools that have met the NFPA rating. Things that make you say HMMM. Brian, Bugle whats the opinion on this? My tool rep brought that point out a few weeks ago. The feds won't allow us to buy tools that have not met approval, yet they can distribute them.

  22. #72
    MembersZone Subscriber

    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Posts
    3,745

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Limeforever View Post
    The NFPA deal with PD #5 is intersting. CEDAP gave away AMKUS tools, but amkus only has a couple of tools that have met the NFPA rating. Things that make you say HMMM. Brian, Bugle whats the opinion on this? My tool rep brought that point out a few weeks ago. The feds won't allow us to buy tools that have not met approval, yet they can distribute them.
    If you look at it, the 2 grant programs are designed for 2 entirely different groups. The AFG for firefighters, requiring purchases to meet the standards. CEDAP is primarily for LE with some fire departments recieving an award, but with no set standard to meet (as far as I know).

    The PG addresses the directive, but in the context of being NIMS compliant.

    Interesting situation though. The fire service has standards to live by, but LE doesn't? But again they carry guns and we don't.

  23. #73
    FH Mag/.com Contributor

    Join Date
    Feb 2002
    Location
    Cypress, TX
    Posts
    7,288

    Default

    Bugle hit about the same argument I've heard on it. Besides the other one that possibly no one realized that Amkus didn't meet NFPA at the time they were chosen, but not sure if it was in the RFPs or not. If it wasn't in the RFP then they couldn't exclude the bid without redoing the whole thing (ie time delay). Could have been snowed by a rep too, a few departments have had that happen with people telling them they are NFPA compliant and really aren't.

    When I get a free moment I might peruse the RFP for tools for the 2008 and see if it's in there.

  24. #74
    Forum Member

    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    Spotswood, NJ
    Posts
    47

    Default

    We are getting awarded Friday for SCBA's. I specified SCOTT SCBA's in my grant request, do I need to get bids from other brands or just bids from 3 SCOTT vendors in my area since SCOTT was specified?

  25. #75
    FH Mag/.com Contributor

    Join Date
    Feb 2002
    Location
    Cypress, TX
    Posts
    7,288

    Default

    It's up to you, DHS can't get involved in bidding requirements as to what they say in them. You are not held to name brands in the grant apps, just what meets the NFPA standard.

    But as long as your local bidding rules allow it you can specify brand name, part #'s, service metrics, etc, in your bid. At that point maybe only 1 or 2 can bid, and such is the nature of business, not everyone can meet the bid. Or you can just pull state contract bid too, depends on which one is better. Sometimes that saves time but not money, sometimes both.

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

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

Similar Threads

  1. Scott SCBA
    By fugittk in forum New Web Site Announcements
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 10-20-2006, 10:30 PM
  2. Scott Scba - H.u.d/s.o.g
    By JAFA62 in forum Fireground Tactics
    Replies: 8
    Last Post: 04-25-2006, 03:28 PM
  3. Scott SCBA
    By Firefighter430 in forum Firefighters Forum
    Replies: 8
    Last Post: 02-01-2004, 08:52 AM
  4. Scott or MSA scba
    By engine121 in forum Firefighters Forum
    Replies: 18
    Last Post: 06-19-2001, 09:22 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

Log in

Click here to log in or register