Loading...
2. Award Bid - Self-Contained Breathing Apparatus - Fire DepartmentBACKGROUND: In the spring of 2002, the Kalispell Fire Department applied for a grant to purchase twenty-six self-contained breathing apparatus. This grant was received in the fall of 2002 and was a 90/10 split, with the City required to provide ten percent of the funds. We anticipated that costs could go up an additional ten percent and included those funds in the grant request. However, federal requirements for self-contained breathing apparatus were changed on January 1, 2003. The cost for self-contained breathing apparatus increased 24 percent. Currently, we have several air bottles that are within days or months of their expiration dates. Bottles expire after 15 years, and cannot be used after that time. Because of this increase in costs, the Kalispell Fire Department has applied for additional funding through the grant program. While it is likely that we will be receive additional funding, we will not know for some time whether we have been successful. We intend to pursue the purchase of twenty-one self-contained breathing apparatus and two rapid intervention units. This allows us to purchase the very minimum number of packs needed and stay within our budget. We will wait to purchase any of the additional equipment until we are awarded additional funding. RECOMMENDATIONS: We recognize that while the bid is not the lowest, it is imperative that we purchase breathing apparatus that best meets the needs of the city and that helps provide working conditions that allow our firefighters to be the most efficient and safe possible. It is recommended that Council award the SCBA bid to General Fire Apparatus, Inc., Spokane, Washington, in the amount of $82,893.00. FISCAL EFFECTS: As indicated above, our current budget reflects the amount necessary to purchase 21 units. Additional funding requirements will be supported by filing an addendum to our original grant. ALTERNATIVES: As recommended by Council Respectfully submitt Jimmy G. Stewart Assistant Fire Chief/Fire Marshal Chris A. Kukulski City Manager / Iowaiui i� ii of of m m iii iii m Kalispell Fire Department Ave ;• •'Telephone 0 •i Kalispell,r 990••406-758-7952 TO: Randy Brodehl, Fire Chief FROM: Eric Becker, SCBA Committee Chairman DATE: April 15, 2003 SUBJECT: Bid Recommendation This letter is concerning the SCBA committee's recommendation for the purchasing of new SCBAs. It is our recommendation to purchase twenty-one (21) complete MSA SCBAs. MSA was not the lowest bid but the Committee Review and Summary explains why MSA best met the needs of Kalispell Fire Department for quality and safety. We also recommend that additional communication equipment be purchased at this time. However, due to the new NFPA standards, SCBA prices have increased twenty-four (24) percent and we would not be able to remain within the budget. An addendum will be submitted to the U.S. Fire Administration requesting additional funds due to this unforeseen increase. These funds will be used to purchase the additional equipment as soon as possible. The additional cost needed is approximately $15,000. Please review the bid comparison below and the attached Committee Review and Summary. SCBA (Qty 21) to include: -Pack/Frame -Facepiece with mic / bracket -45 min cylinder x 2 Fit Test Equipment 60 min cylinder (Qty 2) for RIT packs Bauer Regulator and Adapters Additional. Tools Total: MSA $80,850.00 $95.00 $1,698.00 $250.00 Dry $75,862.50 $125.25 $1,547.20 Scott * $68,436.01 $5.22 $2,068.54 $1,005.63 $0.00 $352.00 $2,000.00 $82,893.00 $77,886.95 $73,515.40 * Wheatland Fire Equipment (Scott SCBAs) did not meet the bid specifications. Price shown is for 30 min cylinders, which are considerably cheaper. Price does not reflect accurately what was specified. Assisting The Community In Reducing, Preventing, and Mitigating Emergencies" Survivair $65,877.00 $132.00 $1,182.00 $257.00 $165.00 $67,613.00 KALISPELL FIRE DEPARTMENT 312 Ist Ave. E., Kalispell MT, 59901 (406) 758-7760 U.AA To whom it may concern: This document is the Self Contained Breathing Apparatus Committee review and summary. As you may already know the Kalispell Fire Department has received a F.E.M.A grant to purchase new SCBA equipment. Currently the Kalispell Fire department uses M.S.A belt mounted regulator style units. All units utilized the low-pressure bottle systems of different styles. The majority of these bottles are due to be out of service approximately 4/2003. The packs themselves are a different array of ages with a limited few being under 5 years of age. Only a limited few have an integrated pass device with a majority of them being a belt -mounted firefighter on pass device. The SCBA committee was formed to review prior needs and wants regarding SCBA's and also future needs and or wants. The following list of needs was identified as critical elements for our SCBA decision: 1. Quantitative fit test based on a pass/fail result. A quantitative fit test shall be done using a Porta Count system. 2. The need for improved fire ground communications has been identified in every fire response critique held to date. Our inability to communicate effectively on the fire ground when wearing SCBA's is continually identified as a safety issue. 3. Improved Pass alarms (pre -alerts, activations, integrated) would enhance fire fighter safety. Our current equipment pre -alerts and activates unnecessarily, which increase the noise level and decreases our ability to communicate effectively. Numerous false activations desensitize fire ground personnel to the real possibility of a firefighter in distress. 4. Since fire ground activities can be physiological, psychological and environmentally difficult and sometimes long in duration the operational use and comfort of SCBA shall be tested. 5. Overall performance of SCBA such as manual pass activation, straps and buckles, audibility, visualization of gauges etc. shall be evaluated. A pre bid evaluation process was then designed to assess the ability of SCBA manufactures to address these concerns. Seven manufactures responded, presented their equipment, and loaned their equipment for use in our evaluation process. The seven manufacturers were MSA, SCOTT, CAIRNS AIR, DRAEGER, SURVIVAIR, ISI and INTERSPIRO. Some manufactures where eliminated prior to field and technical evaluations based on other fire departments findings and evaluations. • A W-11104"I I V, I , vp 1. Quantitative fit testing: Personnel who were chosen for fit testing represent the hard to fit candidates. A Port -A -Count device was used with a trained administrator performing the test. The OSHA standard of 500 PPM was utilized on a pass/fail result. Add on appliances were allowed such as spider straps, head nets, silicone style masks, etc. to achieve a pass rating. 2. Field evaluation: Personnel who were chosen for the field evaluations were a cross section of personnel in the Kalispell Fire Department. A series of six tasks designed to simulate fire ground activities was performed (see field evaluation form). This part of the test was subjective in nature, with each participant evaluating each unit's covering, comfort, fit, hardware, PASS, communications, and overall performance with respect to our stated needs. 3. Technical evaluation: The technical evaluations were to be performed by the SCBA committee. The technical evaluation mimics primarily the field evaluations and reviewed maintenance concerns and ease of use. All warranty and service information was reviewed. The technical evaluation scores (to be review later in this report) did not include a grading on warranty and service information. The warranty information will be included later in this report also. MSA's equipment met and or exceeded the requirements of Title 29, part 1910.134 of the Code of Federal Regulations. MSA also met and or exceeded the requirements of fire fighting SCBA as specified in NFPA 1981, 2002 edition. No negative reviews and or comments were reported in the field evaluations. The radio interface equipment provided the best speech quality evaluated. Evaluators preferred the MMR slide regulator offered by MSA over all of the other manufactures options. MSA also offers a chest strap preferred by a majority of the old school firefighters. One problem noted in the reviews was that the HUD was intermittent however, findings in the technical evaluations found that this was the normal operation of the HUD unit. The HUD unit displays cylinder pressure reading in 25% increments. The MSA has the option of HUD being on full time at the users preference. Radio interface equipment has the ability to be easy on easy off which will be very valuable to the Kalispell Fire Department with a limited communications budget. No false pass alarms were noted in any evaluations. 2 SCOTT'S equipment met and or exceeded the requirements of Title 29, part 1910.134 of the Code of Federal Regulations. SCOTT also met and or exceeded the requirements of fire fighting SCBA as specified in NFPA 1981, 2002 edition. Some evaluators had difficulty achieving and keeping a proper face to mask seal. All candidates passed a quantitative fit test prior to evaluations. Some evaluators reported that the masks were uncomfortable to wear for long amounts of time. Communications with interface equipment rated poorly. Transmissions were garbled and the audible earpiece was located posterior to the ear making it difficult to hear communications in a noisy atmosphere. Voice amplifiers worked well and transmitted well. All communication equipment was easy on and easy off. Evaluators found during fields evolutions that for some reason the regulator would stick and chatter possibly due to the cold temperatures and condensation in regulator assembly. In talking to the Scott representative, we found that this is not normal operation of the Scott S.C.B.A and no conclusion was found for why it was happening. In the S.C.B.A committees opinion this proved to be a large safety issue considering we are in a colder climate. In the committees opinion SCOTT had the best pass device on the market. Hardly any instances of false activation were reported plus the audio ability of the device is excellent. DRAGER'S equipment met and or exceeded the requirements of Title 29, part 1910.134 of the Code of Federal Regulations. Drager also met and or exceeded the requirements of fire fighting SCBA as specified in NFPA 1981, 2002 edition. It was reported by the evaluators that the PASS device had a very low audio and with certain down firefighter positions was not audible at all. The pack was found to be very comfortable and the communications to be very good to excellent. The interface equipment could be detached and reattached but not as easily as the MSA and the SCOTT devices. Concerns of false transmissions with the communication equipment due to false or unnoticed push to talk actuations were reported by evaluators. The push to talk button was similar to the MSA version however was not protected in any way. The Drager unit has a nice feature of telemetry available with its pass device. It also has the capability of telling you how many minutes of air are available to user and can communicate with a base unit in events of firefighter down or evacuation alarms. Another downside to the Drager unit is the fact that they have a one size fits all mask, which could lead to difficulty fit testing individual firefighters in the future. Drager's communication equipment was not as "user friendly" in the aspect of easy on easy off. The interface equipment was pretty much married to the mask of which it was installed. It could be removed however for cleaning and maintenance. 3 SURVIVAIR'S equipment met and or exceeded the requirements of Title 29, part 1910.134 of the Code of Federal Regulations. Survivair also met and or exceeded the requirements of fire fighting SCBA as specified in NFPA 1981, 2002 edition. Evaluators found the pack to be uncomfortable to wear and the pass device was big, bulky, and not easy to actuate in comparison to other units evaluated. Communications rated poorly with interface equipment. All in all nothing really stood out one-way or the other with this unit. You will find below the numerical point standings and percentage points in both the technical evaluation and field evaluation for all units participating. The name headings are links to that manufacturer's web sight to be used for additional information. FIELD EVALUATION SCORE SHEET (see attached S.C.B.A. Field Evaluation) TASK 1 TASK ITASK 2 3 TASK 4 TASK 5 TASK 6 TOTAL FOUND PERCENT BASE MSA 102.5 198 158.5 105.5 48 46 658.5 84.42% DRAGER 98.5 175 140.5 99.5 51 47 611.5 78.40% SCOTT 88.5 179.5 139.5 88 51 46 592.5 75.9E% SURVIVAIR 92.5 162 123.5 85.5 41 43 547.5 70.19% TOTAL POSS 120 PTS 240 PTS 180 PTS 120 PTS 60 PTS 60 PTS 780 PTS TECHNICAL EVALUATION SCORE SHEET REVIEW 1 REVIEW 2 REVIEW 3 REVIEW 4 REVIEW 5 REVIEW 6 REVIEW 7 REVIEW 8 REVIEW 9 REVIEW 10 TOTAL FOUND PERCENT BASE MS -A 37 43 46 43 38 44 0 48 36 44 379 84.22% 29LGE-R 39 45 40 42 42 33 0 42 39 44 366 81.33% 2Q_0TT 40 42 . 41 38 41 44 0 30 45 35 356 79.11% SURVIVAIR 37 40 36 33 36 26 0 20 25 36 289 64.22% TOTAL POSS 50 I 50 50 50 50 50 0 50 50 50 I 450 LI The following scores revealed the percentages of tested units to be in this order. 1. MSA with percentage bases of 84.42 for field exercises and 84.22 for technical review. 2. Drager with percentage bases of 78.40 for field exercises and 81.33 for technical review. 3. SCOTT with percentage bases of 75.96 for field exercises and 79.11 for technical review. 4. Survivair with percentage bases of 70.19 for field exercises and 64.22 for technical review. One other aspect not seen above is the warranty and services available from each distributor. Enclosed in the following pages you will find all of the warranty information along with the services available from each distributor. COMPONENT WARRANTY COVERAGE MASK LIFE FAULTY WORKMANSHIP/DEFECTS Hub 1YEAR MANUFACTURERS WARRANTY COMMUNICATIONS 1YEAR MANUFACTURERS WARRANTY REDUNDANT ALARM 1YEAR MANUFACTURERS WARRANTY 1CM 3 YEARS MANUFACTURERS WARRANTY MASK BLANK 5 YEARS AGE DETERIORATION —FACE HARNESS 5 YEARS AGE DETERIORATION NOSE CUP 5 YEARS AGE DETERIORATION BREATHING TUBE 5 YEARS + AGE DETERIORATION 3year cycle 8year cycle 15year cycle PARTS $416.24 $104.06 N/A LABOR $132.00 $33.00 N/A FLOW TEST $350.00 $350-00 $175.00 COST PER PACK $898.24 1 $487.06 1 $17500 TOTAL FOR 21 PACKS $18,863.04 1 $10,228.26 1 MSG's recommended frequency of overhaul is based on use of the SCBA. Three categories of usage and corresponding preventative maintenance recommendations have been developed that range from overhauling once every fifteen years to overhauling once every three years. 5 The Kalispell Fire Department would fall into the middle category of usage, which requires one overhaul every eight years and a flow check annually. The cost of ownership for a SCBA under this maintenance schedule is $487.06 (based on a fifteen year life cycle) or $32.47 per annum. Currently the Kalispell Fire Department receives its service from General Fire of Spokane for the MSA products already in use. COMPONENT WARRANTY COVERAGE PRESSURE REDUCER 15YEAR DEFECTS/FAULTY HARNESS ASSEMBLY 8 YEAR DEFECTS/FAULTY ELECTRONIC EQUIPMENT 1YEAR DEFECTS/FAULTY PER YEAR PARTS $0.00 LABOR $0.00 FLOW TEST $55.00 COST PER PACK $55.00 TOTAL FOR 21 PACKS $1,155.00 Scott's warranty and cost of ownership is very good. They only require service/overhaul when a piece fails. This overall dramatically reduces the cost of ownership. In fact, they state that the only costs that we should have is the cost of flow testing. NFPA recommends flow testing annually, however SCOTT only requires a flow test bi-annually to maintain warranty. It is the feeling of the SCBA Committee that overhaul maintenance is costly but is a good margin of safety to prevent a piece from failing and we do not necessarily agree with the SCOTT manufacturers way of thinking in this regard. rol COMPONENT WARRANTY COVERAGE PRESSURE REDUCER LIFE DEFECTS/FAULTY HARNESS ASSEMBLY 12 YEAR DEFECTS/FAULTY ELECTRONIC EQUIPMENT LIMITED DEFECTS/FAULTY HEADS UP DISPLAY 2 YEAR DEFECTS/FAULTY 20 YEAR LIFE 6 YEAR 12 YEAR 18 YEAR 20 YEAR TOTALS PARTS $160.90 $165.40 $165.49 $1.80 $493.59 LABOR UNKNOWN UNKNOWN UNKNOWN UNKNOWN UNKNOWN FLOW TEST $330.00 $330.00 $330.00 $110.00 $1,100.00 COST PER PACK $490.90 1 $495.40 $495.49 $111.80 1 $1,593.59 TOTAL FOR 21 PACKS $10,308.90 $10,403.40 $10,405.29 $2,347.80 $33,465.39 Survivair requires an overhaul every six years and a filter replacement every year after the first overhaul. The overhaul cost for the kit not including labor is stated to be $160.00 and a filter cost of $.90. Once again, this does not include any labor cost. Survivair also requires and annual flow test at an estimated cost of $55.00 per pack. Therefore, this would put the cost of ownership for the Survivair Panther series pack at $492.00 for a life of 20 years. This amount does not include a flow test cost of $1100.00 per pack for a 20- year life. Combining the cost would amount to $1592.00 per pack for a 20-year life not including labor. 193 ZYWATU" 01 1 A ' ' • At time of report summary conclusion, no Dragar information was available. Some warranty information was included with the Draper Bid however, no cost analysis was included. It did state however that no overhaul was needed for the 1" and 2' stage regulators. There will be the annual flow test charge of $55.00 per pack per year. COMPONENT WARRANTY COVERAGE MASK N/A NOT STATED HUD N/A NOT STATED COMMUNICATIONS N/A NOT STATED ICM/PASS 2YRS MANUFACTURERS WARRANTY HARNESS N/A NOT STATED 2ND STAGE REG 5 YRS MANUFACTURERS WARRANTY 1ST STAGE REG 15 YRS MANUFACTURERS WARRANTY 7 CONCLUSION It is the intention of the SCBA Committee to do a fair and just evaluation of prospective SCBA manufacturers and their products. A list of needs was established and evaluation tasks performed from that basis. After testing, MSA was found to be far superior in firefighter safety, quality, features, and technology compared to the other manufacturers. The cost of life for the MSA units is not the least expensive however they are very user friendly and had the highest percentage ratings in the field evaluations and the technical evaluations. The communication qualities of the M.S.A. units are far superior to the rest of the candidates, and as mentioned before communications is a primary safety concern for the Kalispell Fire Department. The M.S.A. units are dependable and very comfortable. Currently we use M.S.A. S.C.B.A. equipment and have for many years. The quality of service and warranty work has been very satisfactory and we feel that we have a good working relationship with said business. M.S.A. proved itself in our field evaluations as being the most reliable and the user -friendliest product. It is the conclusion of the S.C.B.A. Committee that the S.C.B.A. bid be awarded to M.S.A. M Kalispell Fire Department SCBA Field Evaluation - Firefighters will be fit test with each manufacturer's mask prior to evaluation. - Firefighters will receive an in-service on each SCBA prior to evaluation. - Firefighters will be in full PPE throughout entire course. - Firefighters will have time for questions and concerns before evaluating a SCBA. - Events are not timed, firefighters should move at normal fire ground pace. - Firefighters will work in teams of two, each evaluating a different SCBA - The firefighter on the captain's side will be referred to as Firefighter A. The firefighter in the company officer's seat will be referred to as Firefighter B. - Each firefighter will evaluate all SCBA manufacturer's represented. - Firefighter will fill out an evaluation form immediately upon completing the course. - The course should be completed as follows: Task 1 Two firefighters don SCBA from seat brackets, with mask hanging. Firefighter A will dismount and pull 3" supply line to hydrant and charge. Firefighter B will attach supply line to inlet, set up pump, and pull an 1 3/4" hand line to door. -Break if needed - Task 2 Both firefighters will don mask and breath supplied air. They will then extend a charged hose line to upstairs room with simulated smoke and heat. They will do a primary search of the upstairs apartment while crawling. Firefighters should be in constant communication with each other using manufacturer's voice amplifiers. After finding downed firefighter (with a demo SCBA) they will drag him to stairwell platform. Firefighters will then withdraw with hand line. -Break if needed - Task 3 Both firefighters will switch to breathing ambient air. Then remove 24ft. extension ladder and ladder 2°d story window on A side. They will both grab a tool, check air pressure gauge, switch to supplied air, and enter 2" story window. After entering room, firefighter B will use communication equipment, i.e. "Command, interior", "We have found seat of fire and contained it, we still have heavy smoke and heat, request vertical ventilation at corner BC, do you copy?" -Break if needed- Task 4 Firefighters will take turns doing a ceiling pull with pike pole and a wall breach with an axe or sledge. Communications should be used during and between exercises. Time for each exercise should be at least 2 minutes. -Break if needed - Task 5 Firefighters will doff mask and switch each other's bottles while SCBA is still on the back. -Return to station Task 6 Firefighters will take SCBA into compressor room with lights out and door closed. Firefighters should check ease of visualizing bottle gauge, SCBA gauge, and heads -up display.