Safety and Ground Rules






Where is the first aid kit?
Where are the exits?
Where do we assemble if ordered to
evacuate the building?
Where is the nearest fire extinguisher?
Where are the restrooms?
Cell phone to vibrate or off.
Sometimes it is hard
to resist flipping the
switch just to see
what happens…….
Sometimes change
happens.
Competitive Sourcing
Wildland Fire and Aviation
Star Trek “First Contact” 1996
Resistance
is Futile
You Will Be Assimilated
The battle to save the
future has begun
FY 2006
Aviation and other airborne activities.
FY 2007
Dispatch/Coordination System.
Fire and Aviation Training.
FY 2008
Fuels Management Program.
FY 2009
Safety and Occupational Health.
Including fire and aviation safety.
Fire Preparedness Program. Includes
initial attack.
Type
of
Study
Feas.
FTEs Feas.
Start
Date
500
10/05
Feas.
End
Date
03/06
Study
Start
Date
TBD
Loc.
(State)
S-Wide*
Type FTEs
of
Study
Feas. 300
Feas. 300
Feas.
Start
Date
09/06
03/07
Feas.
End
Date
03/07
09/07
Study
Start
Date
TBD
TBD
Loc.
(State)
Type
of
Study
Feas.
FTEs
Feas.
Start
Date
09/07
Feas.
End
Date
03/08
Study
Start
Date
TBD
Loc.
(State)
Type
of
Study
Feas.
FTEs
Feas.
End
Date
03/09
Study
Start
Date
TBD
Loc.
(State)
150
Feas.
Start
Date
09/08
Feas.
500
11/08
05/09
TBD
S-Wide*
500
S-Wide*
S-Wide*
S-Wide*
S-Wide*
Part 1 – Forces of Change
for Fire & Aviation Mgt.
a.
b.
c.
d.
e.
FAIR Act inventory
Competitive Sourcing
IFPM
Foundational Doctrines
Fire Planning Analysis Program
Part 1 – Forces of Change
for Fire & Aviation Mgt.
 FAIR
ACT:
– The Federal Activities Inventory Reform
(FAIR) Act of 1998 requires each head of
an Executive Branch agency to maintain
an inventory of commercial activities.
– The inventory is used to select activities
for competition.
– The Act requires competitions.
CAUTION
 There
will be a test!
(The answer is Eisenhower but
don’t tell anyone else but you and
me)
Part 1 – Forces of Change
for Fire & Aviation Mgt.
 Competitive
Sourcing:
– (CS) is one of five of the President's
Management Agenda (PMA) items.
– CS is implemented through OMB
Circular A-76 (revised 5/2003).
Part 1 – Forces of Change
for Fire & Aviation Mgt.
– The 2004 revised A-76 emphasizes
competition over the longstanding
general principle of reliance on the
private sector to perform commercial
functions.
– This was a big change…..
Part 1 – Forces of Change
for Fire & Aviation Mgt.
– The new emphasis is on selection of
the best service provider, public or
private, as determined through
competition.
– This allows for Government and
Private competitions of individual
commercial activities, and produces
the best overall (mix) program for
the Government and the public.
Part 1 – Forces of Change
for Aviation Management
 Foundational
Doctrines.
– “Solid foundational doctrine will provide
a filter through which our executive
leadership team can view all aspects of
the FAM program, and provide an anchor
for their decisions.”
Part 1 – Forces of Change
for Fire & Aviation Mgt.

Fire Planning Analysis Program:
– Meet multiple fire management
objectives as the decision criteria.
– Display the most cost effective
organization for any budget allocation.
– Will display tradeoffs between meeting
resource objectives for any given
budget.
Part 1 – Forces of Change
for Fire & Aviation Mgt.

Planning:
– FPA produces the best “interagency”
organization at any given budget level.
– CS will maintain the capability of the FPA
but may change the mix of Locations /
FTEs / Equipment. (Ex: 3 engines for 1
helicopter)
Part 1 – Forces of Change
for Fire & Aviation Mgt.

IFPM
– Competency descriptors for key positions.
– Minimum qualification standards.
– Supplemental Standards for the GS-401
series, the selected series for professional
fire management positions.
FAIR Act
Fire Planning
Analysis
Competitive
Sourcing
FAM
MANAGERS
Foundational
Doctrines
IFPM
FAIR Act
Exhibit 300
Funding
Submission
Competitive
Sourcing
NFAEB / NIAC
Strategic
Plan
AVIATION
MANAGEMENT
Aviation
Foundational
Doctrine
Fire Planning
Analysis
Program
IFPM
Part 2 - Understanding Process
 Understanding the
Differences between:
a.
b.
c.
Privatization
versus
Outsourcing
versus
Competitive Sourcing
Part 2 - Understanding Process

Privatization
– Privatization is the government exiting from a
business line, selling the assets and no longer
responsible or in control of the work or the
goods to be delivered.
– There is no government versus private sector
competition in this process.
– We are not using the privatization process.
Part 2 - Understanding Process

Outsourcing.
– Outsourcing is not competitive sourcing.
Outsourcing is when the government buys a
product or service from the private sector.
This is often for common products and
services.
– Example: making light bulbs & non-profits.
– We are not using the outsourcing process.
Part 2 - Understanding Process

Competitive sourcing.
– CS requires public and private sector competition
to improve value.
– CS is applied to commercial activities (FAIR Act)
– CS can result in performance by the Public
Sector (Agency or reimbursable provider) or
Private Sector (taxable or non-profit).
– There are no FTE reduction goals in the CS
process, (there may be FTE increases or
reductions based on the outcome of the
competitions).
Part 2 - Understanding Process

We are using the competitive sourcing
process as directed in Circular A-76.

What is the answer to the test?

WHY?
Part 2 - Understanding Process

Competitive Sourcing
–Identifies the scope of work to
be competed (Preliminary
Planning)
–Defines the work to be done
(Performance Work Statement)
Part 2 - Understanding Process
–Develops how the work is to be
done (Agency Tender and
Proposals)
–Compares proposals and tenders
to determine savings (Technical
and Price Evaluation)
Part 3 – The Process
a.
b.
c.
The FAIR Act Inventory
The Feasibility Study
The A-76 Process
FAIR ACT
Part 3 – The Process

FAIR Act inventory definitions
“IG”
– Inherently Governmental is a function
that is so intimately related to the public
interest as to mandate performance by
Government Employees such as governing
monetary transactions and entitlements
(awarding contracts) or enforcing the CFRs
(law enforcement).
Part 3 – The Process

FAIR Act inventory definitions
“Commercial Code A”
Indicates that the commercial activity is
eligible, but not appropriate for private
sector performance pursuant to a
written determination by the CSO.
Part 3 – The Process

FAIR Act inventory definitions
“Commercial Code B”
The commercial activity is suitable for a
streamlined or standard competition.
Part 3 – The Process



Does it matter which code you are in the FAIR
ACT inventory when the Commercial Activity is
identified for feasibility studies?
NO – the entire business unit is studied.
Inherently governmental and other “residual”
activities are initially included in the study.
FEASIBILITY STUDIES
Part 3 – The Process

The Feasibility Study is a tool for preannouncement A-76 study planning, which
establishes logical study parameters and a solid
foundation for executing an A-76 study.
– The Feasibility Review presents a full set of
recommendations on the scope of the study, mission
impacts and risks, the estimated savings, study type
and proposed timeline.
– Feasibility Study is often not releasable because it is a
Procurement document
Part 3 – The Process

Management is conducting feasibility studies
to develop a fair and effective method for the
competitive sourcing of the identified
commercially available functions that would
provide a good return on investment.

Are you in the telephone book?

Can another agency do the job?
Part 3 – The Process

The studies ask the following types of
questions:
– Is there a market in the private sector for the
activity? If so, would potential bidders be
interested?
– What is the potential for future savings?
– Is the work in scope severable from other
activities?
Part 3 – The Process

Depending on the answers to the questions
it may be determined that particular fire &
aviation activities or functions are not good
candidates for competition.
Part 3 – The Process

In other words…….
A Feasibility Study can stop a
competition, IF it determined by the
team that:
- It is a skill we need in Government
- There are no obvious savings
- A reorganization is recommended
before proceeding (ASC) – OR -
Part 3 – The Process
A-76
 Business Process Reengineering
 High Performing Organization
 As Is
 Other
 Mix

Part 3 – The Process

In the case of the Aviation Program:
– Aircraft
– Pilots
– Airtanker Bases
– Helicopter Program Managers (HIPS / HOS)
– Helicopter Crews
– Smokejumper Program
– Infrared Program
– Leadplane / ASM Program
– Non-Fire Aviation Linked Programs
Part 3 – The Process

Support Components
– Contracted Aircraft
– Contracted Personnel
– Facilities
– WCF Program including Maintenance
Inspectors.
Part 3 – The Process
Remember!
A Feasibility Study can recommend:
–
–
–
–
–
An A-76 Competition
Business Process Reengineering (BPR)
High Performing Organization (HPO)
To remain As Is (AI)
Or a combination of the above or Other
A-76 COMPETITIONS
Part 3 – The Process

A-76 Process
Once the Feasibility Study has identified
an area to be competed; Preliminary
planning is completed to allow for the
public announcement.
Part 3 – The Process

A-76 Result
– Competition between the Agency, public
reimbursable sources (other agencies),
and private sector (taxable or nonprofit)
A-76 Streamlined Process
Preliminary Planning
Make Public
Announcement
(Start Date)
65 FTEs or Less / 90-135 Days
Develop Cost
Estimate
Make
Performance
Decision
(End Date)
Perform Post
Competition
Accountability
Award
Contract OR
Issue
Agreement
A-76 Standard Process
Preliminary Planning
Make Public
Announcement
(Start Date)
Develop And
Issue
Solicitation
Receive Offers
And
Tenders
Perform
Source
Selection
Develop Offers
And
Tenders
Make
Performance
Decision
(End Date)
Any size / 12-18 Months
Perform Post
Competition
Accountability
Award
Contract OR
Issue
Agreement
Part 3 – The Process

If the A-76 process and subsequent
competition only produces one bid,
that being the Government, the
Agency will require a determinations
as to why and either resolicit or
implement the MEO (recognizing that
the average efficiency and / or cost
savings is 20 to 30 percent).
Part 4 – By Example

FIREWALLS
– Input yes!
– Rumor NO!
– Specific Information – No as too
much distribution of specific plans
can be “accidentally” leaked to
potential contractors or the media.
– TRUST YOUR SUBJECT MATTER
EXPERTS!
Part 4 – By Example

Some things to think about…
Part 4 – By Example

The Fire Planning Analysis Program
has removed interagency boundaries
so that all federal fire resources are
taken into account for initial attack.
Q? Does the “standard” mix of crew,
engine, aircraft and other contractors
meet this new challenge or can we use
the A-76 process to improve?
Part 4 – By Example



In 2004, a relatively statistically normal
aviation use year nationally, we spent
$124,598,099.10 for aircraft.
We spent approximately $13,500,000
on personnel and support costs.
If we create a 10% efficiency savings
through this process the aviation
program will have saved 14 million
dollars.
Part 4 – By Example

Can we use the A-76 process to identify
faster pressurized aircraft with larger
capacities to consolidate smokejumpers
/ helitack into a More Efficient
Organization?
Part 4 – By Example


Using the MEO process could we
identify a standard helicopter
platform for each type?
And then tie it to an Exhibit 300 for
Funding?
Part 4 – By Example

Over 96% of our aviation activities are
already contracted. Should we look at
reverse A-76s (that is look at what is being
contracted now that may come into
Government operation and ownership?)
Helicopters? Airtankers? ATGS Aircraft?
If a significant cost savings can be shown
then..
Part 4 – By Example
Part 4 – By Example

What about the contracting process?
Many forests contract for the same type of
aircraft as the next forest (ATGS Platforms –
etc.).
Can a cost savings be found by consolidating
contracting Regionally? Nationally? By
Contracting with another Agency?
Dispatchers – Do they have to see the smoke?
What about India National Call Centers……
Part 4 – By Example

What about the Organization?
Dispatchers – Do they have to see the
smoke? What about India National Call
Centers……
Do pilots have to be located everywhere?
Can one Fire Director direct more than
one geographic area?
Can there be a Hot Shot Town USA?
Part 5 Current Information

The Aviation 50 SMEs met for a week
and produced:
– An As Is document for each area
– A To Be draft for each area
– Identified a common Function list for
each position
– Identified 897 positions to study (about
500 FTEs total).
Part 5 Current Information



Each attendee got a letter
The Contractor is working on a
presentation product for the Team
And a communication plan with Rose
Davis at NIFC
Part 5 Current Information


The next step is identification of 5 Line
Officers who will sit opposite of the 5
SMEs and review the data and follow
the Office of the Chief Financial
Officer’s letter of direction for the
completion of a Feasibility Study in the
Forest Service.
This will take 6 months.
Out
of the box
is now
the edge
of the box!
Bob Kuhn
(801) 725-5988