Leader

Collapse

Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

2010 PPE scoring question

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • 2010 PPE scoring question

    Hello again! I haven't posted in a real long time but I'm still reading.

    Question, I have three departments that I am helping for 2011 that all computer DJ'd in 2010 on PPE. One of the three I wrote for 2010 and it seemed rock solid. It is the only one I wrote that didn't make peer.

    I really can't seem to rationalize why these PPE applications didn't make peer? They were all very similar rural departments asking for 15-20 sets of PPE, call volumes around 10, populations around 2,500, all gear over 12 years old. I have always seen people in my area make peer in the past with this similar data.

    I remember people always saying they had rarely ever heard of PPE not making peer. As I read these applications over and over looking for something wrong, I can only think that the computer scoring or priority must have changed?

    Did anyone else see PPE applications computer DJ in 2010 that would normally have made peer in the past?

  • #2
    The most logical explanation is that there was $168M dollars less made available for awards from 2009 to 2010. Applications that may have made it through in the past simply didn't this year due to scoring. That call volume is most likely the reason.

    Not saying PPE isn't a high priority no matter what the call volume, it's very possible that too many other departments scored higher.

    Comment


    • #3
      I have a similar story. I helped 2 local FD's write for PPE, both under the magic number, with low to moderate budgets and pretty good call volume.

      One was asking for 20 sets to replace 20 year old gear that was donated to them used (10 years ago) That FD protects around 3,000 people in about 20 square miles which include 2 large propane & fuel tank farms, the county airport with passenger & commercial traffic and fuel on site, and 2 industrial parks among others. They have about$100,000.00, of which almost half is eaten up with the usual expenses (lights, heat, insurance, fuel, etc.) and a little over 1/4 going to loan repayments for their building and fire apparatus. They ran just under 200 calls last year and are on track to beat it again this year...

      The other FD had a similar story, but with slightly newer gear, about 5,500 people in 30 square miles of district and over 500 calls last year...

      Both got CDJ. I have been at a loss of what was changed that would reject these for PPE...

      Comment


      • #4
        Originally posted by medic190 View Post
        I have been at a loss of what was changed that would reject these for PPE...
        Only thing I can say is the same thing I said above. Less money available. There has to be a line where someone just flat out doesn't make the cut.

        The other factor is the specific funding parameters that are set for career, combination, and volunteer organizations. For example, 1/3 of the entire funding pot was required to be allotted to combination departments, so if you didn't fall in that category, you had to hope to make the cut of the other 2/3.

        Comment


        • #5
          Thanks Sly for your thoughts

          I plan to recommend they submit these again and improve the cost per use and cost per person ratio's by tightening up on the item costs, cutting the few misc. items in the 8-12 year range, improving the cost share to 10% and cutting my grant writing fee. Wait I work for free, LOL.

          Comment


          • #6
            Now you did say all gear was over 12 years old and now you mention some 8 years old. That alone could easily drag things down, but you've already got the right plan for 2011. We've already got an extra $15M next year which may help.

            I had a client working to replace 20 sets of PPE (all over 11) in 2008 get the big Computer DJ; dropped to 15 sets in 2009 and awarded Round 1. All depends on how that cost/benefit factor is scored by the computer and finding the magic number.

            Comment

            300x600 Ad Unit (In-View)

            Collapse

            Upper 300x250

            Collapse

            Taboola

            Collapse

            Leader

            Collapse
            Working...
            X