[quote name='edburke' timestamp='1335302872' post='482869']
That statement was nothing more than a definition of "FDNYism" for those that were wondering what it was referring to. If you read it all the way through, it goes way beyond due diligence to the taxpayers, it pretty much says that if you want to be able to claim that you provide rigs to the FDNY, you're gonna pick up the cost of everything the FDNY does to it.
[/quote]
This is actually a really interesting conversation to me (but keep in mind, I'm a dork, so that could be why). I tend to disagree with you. If FDNY's specs require bidders to basically pick up the cost of everything they do, then the bidder should build that into the cost of the rig. Take KME, for example, since apparently they've got the low bid here. If they haven't properly built all of these costs into their bid, and they end up losing money on the deal, how is that FDNY/NYC's fault? Seems like KME should have done a better job researching their contractual requirements prior to bidding. FDNY is just taking advantage of a company that didn't do their homework. Sucks for KME, but oh well. It seems like this is exactly what we as taxpayers should be demanding of our government -- getting multiple bids, picking the lowest one that meets spec, and holding the businesses to their contract.
Am I missing something?
That statement was nothing more than a definition of "FDNYism" for those that were wondering what it was referring to. If you read it all the way through, it goes way beyond due diligence to the taxpayers, it pretty much says that if you want to be able to claim that you provide rigs to the FDNY, you're gonna pick up the cost of everything the FDNY does to it.
[/quote]
This is actually a really interesting conversation to me (but keep in mind, I'm a dork, so that could be why). I tend to disagree with you. If FDNY's specs require bidders to basically pick up the cost of everything they do, then the bidder should build that into the cost of the rig. Take KME, for example, since apparently they've got the low bid here. If they haven't properly built all of these costs into their bid, and they end up losing money on the deal, how is that FDNY/NYC's fault? Seems like KME should have done a better job researching their contractual requirements prior to bidding. FDNY is just taking advantage of a company that didn't do their homework. Sucks for KME, but oh well. It seems like this is exactly what we as taxpayers should be demanding of our government -- getting multiple bids, picking the lowest one that meets spec, and holding the businesses to their contract.
Am I missing something?
Facebook
Google
Reddit
Twitter