Quote:Kris: I wish I knew the whole story. I don't. There is no word game intended. What I posted is what I know and it is from a reputable source. I don't think either party would want the specifics of the deal debated on a fire truck photo web site. If the principals of either organization what to post the details it is their choice. The statement of "a lack of a proven design" was clearly known by both parties from the start. And I stand by my original statement that there were issues on both sides and apparently the most reasonable resolution was to terminate the contract.
Jim,
What I'm thinking happened here is CFD needed new trucks but didn't want to refurb the Snorkel booms. They looked at the tea leaves and thought Snorkel was dead. So out goes a spec which hopes to capture the essence of a Snorkel.
Rosy looked at the spec and decided they could deliver something close and thought the prestige and field experience with CFD would pay itself back. They probably also thought without Snorkel around they would get some leeway in what their product might and might not do compared to Snorkel.
Now in the end Snorkel is alive no matter what the opinion of Smeal is, you can get a new Snorkel. CFD starts to look at a brand new design or lets back out and go the way we're used to. I'm thinking just logistically speaking backing out of a deal with or without a good reason had to start looking good to them. Lets face it no matter how good the Rosy product was or similar there would have to be all new learning and training implemented. Where as an updated Snorkel should be similar enough that most any new training could be done in a few hours one would think.
Like I said before I don't think you or NPFD801 intended any word game. That squarely goes on the shoulders of CFD & Rosy (And all other mfg's out there). It didn't work that's fine it happens, but they both should be open and upfront about it. Why didn't it work out, is a simple question. That should be answered so any other dept or mfg can make a fair decision if they want to deal with either group in the future.
Example #1: CFD demands were unrealistic to what Rosy said they would or thought they could build and deliver after digging into the design stage? That case Rosy comes out looking good.
Example #2: Rosy over promised and couldn't deliver what they said they could, thinking Snorkel was dead and CFD would have no other choices?
After twelve years of selling 8 brands for 1 dealer both of the above examples are quite probable. A mixture of the two is more than likely truth.
There really is no responsible reason for either to not say why it didn't work. What harm is going to come from the truth coming out? Unless one or the other lied or intentionally deceive the other. It should be public domain as they are working for the public and if it's a case of the department being in the wrong changes need to be made. On the other hand if Rosy intentionally deceived they should be barred from bidding in the future.
Really here I'm thinking no malice from either side. I can't blame CFD if they decided they would rather stay with what they have and know all too well. On the other hand I can't blame Rosy for attempting to bring something new to the market for CFD and backing away if they didn't think they could make it work with CFD expectations in the end.
Kris
Facebook
Google
Reddit
Twitter