I am sure there was a more indepth article, when the contract was being considered it was the hot topic of the day in the disaster community and being discussed everywhere. That was the only one I could find without doing an extrensive search.
Probably, and I'm not asking that you look for more. It's just that the article you linked actually might have a workable plan, albiet one that would need to be described in much greater detail before it could be considered an option and would probably still need to be revised. Again, while it may not have been the best option, it is a valid question to ask; why duplicate a service that is allready being provided, though using different resources? Really, I was just curious about the comment you made; didn't seem to match what was reported.
I am not on the inside decision making process of it, but I think it may have been a requirement because no unified command and control exists within the fire service. (and you know every white hat who sent a unit would think thay had to contribute)
Actually, what I meant wasn't that a database would be required in the RFP, but that one would need to be used to actually track the resources available, the resources being used, where they were, etc etc. There's probably better ways to do it, and (if AMR was the one who got the contract) they probably have developed/had one of their own.
You also need to rememeber, wildfires are not structural fires. And I mean that beyond the most obvious ways. The logistics and structure involved in large fires really isn't that different than what's involved in a disaster; yes, different resources would need to be mobilized, but the process and command/control would be very similar. Anecdotally as I have no way of knowing if this is true, many of the advisors that were brought in to NYC after 9/11 to help coordinate the responce (the total responce, not just the fire side) where people from wildfire groups.
I think the logistics (what really mitigates disaster) and oversight of a multiple agencies with independant operating standards would have been a nightmare.
That would be no different than using a bunch of non-fire EMS providers from different agencies. Even if it was all AMR employees, they still use different policies/procedures for each operation so the same problem would arise.
Again, while it would be different, since the resources needed would be much different than what's in use, using a system that is allready in place for similar events and works pretty well...why not duplicate it?
Also, you need to look at what the RFP was asking for; transport capabilities. While there may have been more to it, all that was asked for in the article you posted was the ability to move large numbers of people.
Finally, because of the nature of disaster response, mobilizing a bunch of transport ambulances without the ability to provide onsight medical care both during and immediately after, is totally useless.
A private company also has the ability to immediately increase its staffing.
Could you imagine what would happen if post disaster 100 or so medics needed to be recruited for the the duration of operations?
It would take the fire service months to even run their hiring process.
Not to mention who is picking up the tab for these units to be out of their primary community? Wear and tear on the vehicles, etc?
But again, while there may have been more to the RFP, all that I can see being asked for IS the ability to transport patients. More is needed, and that might not have been reported by the author of the article, but it does make a bit of sence that there would be 2 seperate contracts; 1 for transport, and 1 for static medical deployments. While the same group might get both, and coordination between the two would be needed, they are 2 different things to worry about.
The staffing is an issue. I know after Deepwater blew AMR went on a hiring frenzy to get people to the gulf to staff their aid stations. But...depending on exactly who would have been in charge if the ROSS system was used...there are a lot of firefighter/paramedics out there, and a lot of fire department ambulances. Increasing staffing beyond that would be an issue though. You also need to remember that, the system set up for wildfires that uses the ROSS database referenced includes many, many, many non-FD resources. No reason it couldn't here either.
Believe me, I'm not saying that the fire service should have been awarded the contract and put in charge. To be honest knowing what I do (which ain't much), that one article doesn't even make a lot of sense; there is so much info missing it's ridiculous. My only points are that your comments just didn't seem to add up from that 1 article (and if there were others you were reading then I understand) and that it's a valid question; why not look at adapting a similar system that is allready in place to disaster responce?
