Navy No Longer Contracting out?

[JustaMedic]

For years and years the government has slowly switched over one department after the next to contractors, and from the beginning of time the fire dept has always been at risk of the same.

I heard recently that the gov. (navy in particular) has realised that contracting is not necessarily cheaper. Ive also heard that the USNA is considering canceling some of their contracts and rehiring gov employees.

Any truth to this? If so this should help secure the FD from going contract.

Good luck guys.

[Lt 46]

DOD Firefighters were protected under a permanent moratorium passed in 1987. As of today, it's illegal to contract out fire protection. What we are seeing is the government is assuming liability and cutting engine companies, and talking of running 3 people instead of 4 on each piece.

Certain entities in the government didn"t get their way on contracting out, so by cutting companies, and reducing safe staffing levels, this seems to be the direction we are heading. We are told the cost of war necessitates drastic cuts for everyone, not just the Fire Service.

Our public works was contracted out in December 03, Fort Meade's public works was recently contracted out. The government's stance is that contracting out saves money, but several GAO reports have surfaced that clearly indicate otherwise. In the near horizon we have base closures looming thanks to the BRAC commission. Here in Annapolis we lost the Naval Radio Transmitter Facility, and the David Taylor Research Center in 1996. Some installations have gained with re-alignment, some have lost with closures. It's all about politics and votes.

[JustaMedic]

True. But as I understand it, public works, as well as some of the other departments that the naval academy in specific have already contracted out are under scruteny and those in charge are reconsidering its benefits. Word has it that some dapartments will be reverting back to GS positions.

Its funny how they cant spend a few bucks to hire the necessary personnel to staff your equipment properly, but yet how much did they spend on repairs, replacements, upgrades and modifications after the hurricane. BILLIONS, and how much of that was truely necessary? Did all that work get assigned to the low bidder? Seems to be like its a big risk to take staffing engines minimaly, especially at the USNA, where theres how many 2,3,4 thousand midshipmen? HUGE RISK!.

I think there only saving grace on that issue is the likelihood that Annapolis City and Anne Arundel County units are so close and will surely offer aid when its needed.

[Lt 46]

Theres talk of reversing back to GS positions, BUT, the Navy never likes to admit they were wrong in the first place. As always, the government gos for the low bid on everything, regardless of quality of workmenship or materials.

Example - The Academy awarded contracts on upgrades to our fire alarm systems several years ago, Of course it was the low bid that won, and of course we began having continuous problems about a year later, and upon further investigation, the contractor they hired used outdated / inferior equipment which barely met code, and out of business.

Solving the problem - The Academy went through several upgrades in the past two decades using the low bid method until they wised up, did not go low bid, but based the contract award to quality performance, and quality material. Think about how much the Navy would have saved (millions) if they
didn't go low bid, and the job was done right the first time.

Damage Control - The story went, not that we got what we payed for, but "we have to constantly upgrade to keep up with the code updates"

Another example - The last new pumper we recieved was a Pierce on an International. The Navy purchased several of these chasis's which were sitting for two years. The Navy kept Pierce to the bare minimum to turnout a cheap economical pumpers for front line service. This engine sat in our qtrs for 8 months before warrenty work was performed before being put in service.

Update - The engine is out of service more then its in. Alot of issues with it. And we arn"t the only ones. Several other depts. have the same problems. Go figure, the low bid again !

[pgtick20]

the CNI at a meeting prior to the final RIF in december made it very well known that the low staffing levels and the cutting of all basic services navy wide were cost cutting measures that the navy was willing to assume the liability for. in other words, there maybe 4000 mids, but bancroft didnt burn before, now there are sprinklers and alarms so it really wont burn now so why do we need all those firefighters? if one fire truck can cross staff an ambulance, why cant two? these are the thought processes of the upper eschelon in the region.

tj