SAC meeting 4/19/05
1
Northern Rockies Strategic Action Committee (SAC)
Meeting Notes, April 19 and April 20, 2005
MT DNRC Fire and Aviation Conference Room, Missoula, MT
and Teleconference
In Attendance on 4/19/05
Committee Members:
Tim Murphy, NRCG Contractor Liaison
Roberta Whitlock, USFS, NRCG Business Committee
Kevin Erickson, USFS, NRCG Equipment Committed
Nancy Gibson, USFS NRCG Training Committee
Kathy Elzig, BLM, Dispatch (via Teleconference from NRCC)
Bruce Swick, MT DNRC, Contracting (via Teleconference from Helena)
Mark Romey, USFS, Operations Committee
Committee Members Absent:
Kathy Benson, USFS Contracting
Marci Giblin, DNRC Business Mgmt.
Private Individuals:
Joe Degan, Northern Rockies Wildfire Contractors Association (NWRCA)
Dave Russell, NRWCA
Tim started the meeting by providing some general information on pending activities and
issues.
• Kevin will be detailed into Tim’s NRCG position, while Tim is on a NTE 120-day
detail to Northern Rockies Operations position.
• Kevin and Tim will take the lead in developing a response to the comments received on
the draft document defining roles and responsibilities of agency, fire department and
private sector contractors under the Best Value contracting system.
• Roberta will take lead on the white paper to be presented to NRCG requesting funding
for implementation of the EATiS contractor computer database. We’ll do some
brainstorming at this meeting to help with the development of the white paper. Roberta
and Tim will make the presentation to NRCG.
• Martin Prather, from the FS National IT staff, or Starla Grill Natl. Contracting Comm.
may come to the May SAC meeting, or Roberta and Tim may meet with Martin about
EATiS implementation.
The committee discussed organization and content of the EATiS white paper. The basic
issue is that a system is needed to efficiently and effectively manage information to meet
the needs of all agencies, contracting officers, fiscal managers, contractors and incident
managers. EATiS also has the potential to interface with other inter-agency applications
SAC meeting 4/19/05
2
like ROSS. Notes from this discussion were provided to Roberta and Kathy Elzig, who
will use them to develop the presentation for NRCG.
Task and Working Group Updates:
Dispatch – Kathy Elzig: She is continuing on the task of determining how many and
what types of contract equipment are needed. Determining which 2003 equipment
resources were private, and which were agency, by review of resource orders, is proving
to be more challenging than expected. Kathy will need to make calls to local units to get
clarification. Do we really even need to gather more specific numbers from past use?
Maybe the zones/units themselves will be the best source of estimated needs. Our
question may be more about distribution across the zones, rather than trying to figure out
the need of the total GAC. There is agreement that in the best value contract process, the
numbers of bids and awards will not be limited. Therefore, it was decided we won’t
continue reviewing historical use data, since it won’t provide us any needed information.
The committee had lengthy discussion about how zones should be defined for dispatch
and management of best value contract resources. There is some thought that there should
be different zones from the existing dispatch zones. Kathy Elzig (dispatch) and Mark
Romey (operations) will continue working on the task of developing the ordering and
dispatching processes.
Equipment – Kevin: Another 37 equipment inspectors attended training last week. The
total over the last four years is approximately 250. Inspectors are dispersed across the
GAC all the way from ID to ND. There may still be an issue with inspectors meeting the
5109.17 standards for EQPI. There also seems to be an issue with some Federal
contracting officers not accepting inspections of non-Federal (State) inspectors. The best
value contracts will be interagency contracts, so hopefully this will be resolved. Kevin
expressed the need to assure that fire management has an accurate awareness of
additional contracting and administrative needs, including personnel and funding. We
have increasing numbers and complexity of contract resources, and a decreasing
workforce. Roberta brought up the possibility of establishing inspection and contracting
teams, who would complete inspections and contract preparation across the GAC.
Commitment and support from NRCG will be necessary to accomplish work needed to
establish and administer these contracts. The same is true for administration at incidents.
Participation must be interagency (state inspectors, etc). We think that initially best value
contract inspections will need to be done by an Agency. There may be opportunity for
some inspection to be done by contract inspectors, preseason. Financial commitment
from NRCG will be absolutely necessary to implement the best value contract project.
We’ll carry this discussion forward to the May meeting, tied into discussion about
describing workload and who will accomplish it.
Training – Nancy: Roberta will send Nancy copies of work on the “COTR” position
from the National-level committee. Comments to the draft revision of the 310-1 are
currently being solicited by IOS working team. One task is submission of COTR
SAC meeting 4/19/05
3
package to IOS Working Team. Nancy will bring the package to SAC for review, and
possibly pass it to the IOS WT. Roberta will confirm whether NRCG business
committee will be making input to 310-1. After some discussion, it was agreed that
contractor performance evaluations from the 2005 fire season, will be mailed to NRCC.
Instructions and the mailing address will be added to the evaluation form. Evaluations
from 2005 will be collected at NRCC, but their appropriate use within the best value
contracting process, if any, is to be determined later. A letter of intent and instructions
will be provided to contractors, teams, and line personnel (evaluators). The group
continued its discussion about how to get evaluations done within the constraints of the
incident operations environment, time limits, etc.
Operations – Mark: Mark has done outreach to find an operations person from the
Forest level, to help Kathy Benson in developing the rating system for the contracts. He
has gotten no response yet. He’s also waiting for final comments on the draft evaluation
form.
Conference Call with Roy Montgomery (PNW Blue Ribbon Task Force):
We developed some questions to ask Roy on today’s conference call. The questions have
to do with EATiS operations and implementation. Roy suggested we ask these questions
of Terry Brown, and Tim agreed we’ll hold them till Terry comes over in May.
1) EATiS data entry costs/time – did PNW do analysis of costs?
2) Where had PNW already demonstrated EATiS? (GACC’s ?, R-4?)
3) What were thoughts on doing a joint proposal to NRCG and PNWCG at GACC
meetings, to take advantage of timing in requesting national funds?
4) Martin Prather – had he been provided a presentation on EATiS?
5) Had the National ROSS group been provided a presentation of EATiS?
Roy gave the group a brief update on task work and accomplishments by the Blue Ribbon
Task Force working groups. Some highlights:
• They are continuing completion of draft projects, including the final touches to the Best
Value Criteria. These will be presented to PNWCG for approval April 20, 2005.
• They are finding the dispatching subject possibly more complex than anticipated.
• They will implement evaluations using the ICS-224, with a numerical cross-walk
Evaluation data will be entered into a database that will link to EATiS. Final tests and
adjustments to that database are in process.
• The COTR task book has been accepted by PNWCG, and will be implemented this
summer in qualifying new COTR’s. It was also used in the COTR training conducted
this spring.
Other information on Blue Ribbon’s progress is detailed in their meeting notes and
documents.
Roberta went over some planned topics and discussion for the May SAC meeting. An
invitation has been extended to Terry Brown (PNW) to talk to us more about EATiS, and
SAC meeting 4/19/05
4
answer our questions. Northern Regions’ director of acquisition has also been invited
and is supportive of our project. We are hoping Martin Prather will be here, but if he
can’t Roberta will at least be able to bring us more information after presenting the white
paper to him. She suggests that it would be helpful for NR and PNW contracting
officers to meet, but it may not be possible at the May SAC meeting. PNW is beginning
to pull together anticipated costs of implementing the system they are designing. They
are encountering the same challenges as we are, in reduction of workforce and funding in
fire management, as well as fiscal and other support infrastructures. Hopefully, Terry
will be able to provide us with copies of what will be presented to PNWCG relative to
costs anticipated for task implementation.
Roberta told us that one person from Northern Rockies attended COTR training at PNW.
We are waiting to see what will happen with this position nationally, before determining
what training we might do here. We will look to those folks who have had inspector
training as potential COR’s, COTR’s.
May SAC Meeting (17th): Sue Prentice, Terry Brown, Martin Prather, Mary Clark
In Attendance on 4/20/05
Committee Members:
Tim Murphy, NRCG Contractor Liaison
Kathy Benson, USFS, Contracting
Kevin Erickson, USFS, NRCG Equipment Committed
Nancy Gibson, USFS NRCG Training Committee
Kathy Elzig, BLM, Dispatch (via Teleconference from NRCC)
Bruce Swick, MT DNRC, Contracting (via Teleconference from Helena)
Mark Romey, USFS, Operations Committee
Roberta Whitlock, USFS, NRCG Business Committee
Committee Members Absent:
Marci Giblin
Private Individuals:
Joe Degan, Northern Rockies Wildfire Contractors Association (NWRCA)
Dave Russell, NRWCA
Bill Nooney, NRWCA
Tim reviewed today’s agenda:
1) Contracting Officer concerns, and contractor input from meetings. Kathy Benson and
Roberta will explain what we’re doing to address contracting officer concerns. Tim will
share some questions, concerns, and input from various meetings.
2) Business and Operations committee updates
3) Contractor input
SAC meeting 4/19/05
5
Business:
Bruce, Roberta, Kathy Benson, Tim, Laurie Hammers, and Sue Prentice met to
summarize concerns from Forest Service acquisition management. Kathy Benson
explained that there are significant differences in Montana State and Forest Service bid
and award processes. The State’s meetings and processes are open, while Forest
Service’s are proprietary. Bruce says the State is allowed by law to follow federal
agencies’ laws and requirements. In this case, it means FS or BLM could be primary the
primary contracting officer, and MT would co-sign. Bruce feels that since the SAC is
developing the bid package, evaluation process, etc., the actual contracting officer duties
are not a “big deal” for the State contracting officer. The conclusion of the meeting was
that we will be able to work through the different agency requirements. Sue Prentice &
other NRCG CO’s will attend the May SAC meeting. Sue is also talking with other FS
contracting officers, and helping to address their concerns. She is helping to give them
perspective and understanding of the best value process SAC is developing, which is
somewhat different from the DOD best value process that most of them are more familiar
with. The May SAC meeting will have participation from FS contracting officers,
particularly from eastern Montana. Kathy Benson will disseminate SAC notes to the
interagency contracting officer community. Do we need additional formal contracting
officer participation on SAC? Kathy Benson says she’s talked with Sue Prentice, and it
seems probable we’ll have a FS contracting officer to help evaluate the bids. However,
FS contracting officer participation on the committee on a regular basis is not likely due
to shortage of money and workforce. Ann Vogt (BLM) will be working on KB’s group
which is developing the evaluation checklist and package. Kathy Benson’s workgroup
will include interagency participation. She will pose the question to Mary Clark (BLM)
whether she wants to participate on the SAC, as well as the evaluation development
working team. Mary may also have suggestions for who might want to participate from
BIA. BIA participation will be very helpful in light of Tribal/Sovereign Nation changes
and tribal interest in developing contract crews and water-handling equipment.
Tim suggested Bruce could talk to Marci Giblin to get information on Idaho Department
of Lands contracting processes and requirements. Marci was the IDL contact, and is no
longer a member of the SAC. Tim explained that the new “Six-Party” Agreement does
give all 12 signing entities approval to enter into agreements, develop operating plans,
etc. Kathy Benson pointed out that the actual payment process for interagency contracts
and agreements will need to be worked out, and may be complex. We’ll need to develop
contractual language to describe the instrument(s) of payment. Kathy Elzig mentioned
that in PNW’s discussions, there is a difference between best value “agreement” and best
value “contracts”. Kathy Benson says the EERA and “best values” should be called
“agreements”, since a “contract” has a guarantee. It is an “agreement”, until the vendor is
called out/given an assignment, then it becomes a “contract”.
Additional Issues (we won’t work on resolving these at this meeting, only identifying
them):
SAC meeting 4/19/05
6
-- Severity for 2005 – different agencies will be handling severity differently. Agency
definitions of “emergency” and “severity” will affect contracting, and we need to keep in
mind and evaluate how it will specifically affect development of the best value
agreements.
-- A single company with multiple pieces of equipment or multiple crews: will they be
required to commit a specific crew to specific piece of equipment? Will points be
determined based on the composition and qualities of the entire crew, or “key
individuals”?
-- How will best value deal with multiple typing, and will agreements be written for
multiple typing? Will the rotations and priorities be specific to type?
There is an assumption that National template will be the basis of our agreements, since
National contracts are discontinued, but FS Regions will be required to use the template.
We don’t anticipate this to be a problem for us.)
Roberta asked if we can require private engines to meet same the configurations,
requirements, and standards as FS engines. The consensus is that FS requirements and
configurations are safety-based, and private resources should meet the same safety
requirements. Kevin reminded us that all FS regulations follow “1906” requirements
(pretty much). Can we test, check private equipment to those same standards?
Dave Russell feels strongly that private equipment should be required to meet 1906
specifications and more stringent safety specifications than are currently required. An
example: PVC pipe.
The SAC did a “Round Robin” to surface any new issues or concerns:
Bruce is wondering if it might be worthwhile to send out an interim memo about where
we (SAC) are, describe our progress, etc.?
Tim says meeting notes are posted on web. The vendors say they share
information in their various newsletters and other venues.
DaveRussell says their Association membership is growing. They are working on
developing affiliations of individual associations, and will have non-profit status.
Roberta: we had talked about using contract and EERA mailing lists to contact private
vendors.
Tim is hoping that by late fall ’05, we will have at least a skeleton proposal to post
on the internet, send to contractors. We need the National template before we can make
much progress.
Bruce, Kathy Benson and contracting folks will review the existing draft template
to begin the process of determining what adaptations will be necessary to make the
agreement workable as an interagency agreement. We will use the draft template to
begin development of a “package” proposal for review by agencies and contractors. The
task line shows June 1, to have the standard contract clauses developed. Kathy Benson
feels the standard clauses as developed for MT/Federal porta-potty contract will probably
work. They’ll have a draft to the SAC committee for review by early June. The draft
will include very rough dispatch processes and other required information.
SAC meeting 4/19/05
7
Kevin says reactions, receptivity to our best value proposal varies from good to
catastrophic.
Kathy Benson feels it’s a “negative” that we are having wide-ranging discussions
about something that isn’t developed in draft form yet. We need to reassure everyone
that there will be ample opportunity for comment from the public, and everyone.
Dave Russell: When the package/solicitation is released, with help from “PTAC”
the NRWCA will be reviewing it in a workshop format, via power point, open to the
public, in order to try to “head off” questions, and problems. NRWCA would like SAC
participation in the workshop. They anticipate it will be two or three days, possibly in
November. The workshop will include an overview of how to fill out forms, how to bid,
and how to complete all necessary paperwork. Would we want to include an overview of
EATiS?
We anticipate the draft of the solicitation/pre-proposal will be out in October of 2005.
The solicitation may be out in November. NRWCA will host a workshop tentatively
12/6-8 to update contractors on BVC.
Upcoming SAC meetings:
May 17-18:
1000 NRCG BOD conference call
1100 SAC Meeting (at DNRC) agenda items:
• Visiting EATiS expertise, Terry Brown (see questions above reserved from 4/19
conference call)
• Contracting participation, issues (see above discussion for names, topics)
• Performance evaluation form and process (Mark and Nancy)
• Workload/fair share description/discussion – NRCG BOD rep here for this?
COTR position
June 7,
1000 teleconference (Nancy will coordinate)
September 19-21:
9/19 1000 - 1700
9/20: 0800 – 1700
9/21: 0800 - 1500
October 17-18:
10/17 1000 - 1700
10/18 0800 – 1500 (NRCG bus committee meets the following 2 days)
Nov. 15-17:
11/15 1000 - 1700
11/16 0800 – 1700
11/17 0800 – 1500
SAC meeting 4/19/05
8
Dec. 13-15:
12/13 1000 – 1700
12/14 0800 – 1700
12/15 0800 - 1500
Tim: Since participation at meetings by NRWCA has been consistent, cautions that we
don’t build perception that there is a relationship between NRWCA, different than other
contract entities or individuals.
Public comment:
David Russell: Would like to thank Bruce and Roberta for their attendance at the
contractors’ meeting in Bozeman. It went very well. NRWCA has over ninety member
companies now. He wants to emphasize that they don’t want to argue with Montana Fire
Wardens or Chiefs, and that they realize we all need to work together. The Association is
just trying to show what they think are their rights. We want to resolve issues in a
professional manner. We need to maintain our relationships as we all work together.
Tim: SAC business group assigned the task of defining roles Federal, State, Local
Govt. & Private Contractors to the DNRC business committee. Tim ; two contractors
were solicited to help in that task (John Bennett, Dave Russell or Bruce Suenram).
Ted Mead ; 2 Wardens / Cheifs will be solicited ( tom M. & Brett W.) Fire Wardens
and Chiefs also submitted comments on the draft document. Tim advised he will be
meeting with Ted Mead (DNRC), Roberta, Kevin & Bruce relative to the document
and the comments.
David Russell: He’s still asking the question about whether local government (fire
departments) will be able to bid on the best value contracts.
Tim: The answer is not certain yet. We still need to determine and resolve Federal
and State requirements & restrictions. County laws may have an influence as well.
Some departments may have the ability to bid/participate through a non-government
entity such as firefighters’ associations. They may bid using equipment the
association owns (equipment previously owned by a fire department). Roberta stated
Federal agencies cannot contract with other Govt. agencies. Bruce will check with
DNRC & IDL legal staff & report back in May.
David Russell: As a MOU holder, the he needs to address the issues relative to selfcertification. NRCG needs to take a hard stand on that. MOU holders should be
required to have a stamp with their MOU number on it, similar to a notary public,
which is to be used on any document. People who are self-certifying are not being
audited. Another big issue for us is the workshop for contractors mentioned earlier.
We want to be the vehicle for providing information, and educating contractors. We
need to set a date. We have tentatively discussed 12/6, 7, 8.
SAC meeting 4/19/05
9
Tim: Participation by SAC members is yet to be determined.
David Russell: Once more thanking SAC on behalf of contractors, for their effort,
hard work, and in-depth thought.
Tim asked the SAC group, “How are we doing? Is our model working?”
Overall, the committee feels we are making good progress.
Roberta says that tying to PNW Blue Ribbon work, is making all the difference, and
has strong support from FS acquisition management, and others. We need to continue
to follow their work as closely as possible. NRCG is the key to our success. We
need their support in funding, and otherwise. Tim will seek NRCG BOD participation
for the May SAC meeting. Kathy Benson will see if Sue Prentice can bring
acquisition management buy-in with her to the May meeting.
Kevin and Kathy Benson stress that we really need the National contract template
soon. Kathy Benson also re-emphasized the need for extensive, quality input from
operations folks. She reminded us that a template is only a template, and can be
modified to meet our needs. However, some issues will need to be resolved at the
National level, because resources are used nationally. A couple of those issues are
the age limit of equipment, and two-wheel vs. all-wheel capabilities.
Kevin will acquire the latest draft of the National template, and provide it to the
committee for review.
Tim reminds us that he assumes each SAC member is contacting the appropriate
PNW folks with specific task issues or questions. He thinks that at some point, we
will probably want to attend another PNW meeting.