Northern Rockies Strategic Action Committee
For Private Fire Service Contracting
Meeting: January 17-19, 2006
AFD, Bob Marshall Room
Attendees: Tim Murphy, Kevin Erickson, Martin Schmidt, Rick Grady, Robert
Whitlock, Nancy Gibson, Pam Okon, Bruce Swick, Laurie Sonju, Debby Wesselius,
Kathy Elzig, Jim Newton, Frank Waterman & Bob Gilman (in & out)
Public: Troy Kurth - Rocky Mtn. Fire
January 17
IDL: Should honor the contract, under their own process, just like they honor a current
EERA. Different than MT, nothing that is requiring them to get to this point. Initially
will be doing pre-season EERA’s for water handling, not sure how they will evolve into
the best value. In MT, they will use EERA’s also, but they won’t be used until the best
values have been gone through. Right now, they were planning on using the NRCG
rates, will have to be negotiated for incident specific rates. Part of IDL is in Region 4,
using EatIS, but they don’t have best value criteria. Not anxious to have differences. If
IDL is going to use pre-season agreements, the dispatch process needs to be defined.
IDL wants to use the closest resource for IA, regardless if it’s best value or pre-season.
Solicitation says that IA is the exception, as long as all the safety requirements are met.
If the IA period is identified (using local agencies, fire department, etc.), then NRCG will
use the solicitation for other resources. The problem IDL will face, when they demob
resources that are close by, and we bring in resources from far away, they face a lot of
questions. This issue has potential to cause a lot of political grief. If the locals signed up
on incident agreements and the best values aren’t used, prepare to have some
congressionals. If the incident is going to be long term, should be using the agreements
in place. The IA period has a lot of variables; have to have some leeway for
documentation and decisions. Hesitant to put a time period (for example 24 hours)
because of all of these factors.
Solicitation does not require the local resource to be demobed. It is determined from the
IC and other factors on when those resources are demobed and best value is ordered. If
we do want the local released from the priority agreement, it needs to be part of the
solicitation.
Crossing off the sentence with the 24 hour statement and added that the IC will determine
when the resource will be demobed and best value ordered. Need to look at D-7.4.2,
page 27 of 88, agree it should be deleted.
For the purpose of the solicitation, a water tender is really a support water tender. If
NWCG comes out with a tactical water tender, there will be an added amendment. If a
water truck is needed, can be put on a local agreement, using Chapter 20. Need to figure
out what the rules are before it is inputted into EaTIS.
When a contractor submits his bid, they use their zip code for their DDP. If the zip code
overlaps dispatch zones, the CO can override which dispatch will be designated for that
piece of equipment.
Taking out the mandatory availability period and changing it to suggested availability
period (SAP). Adding that the contractor status themselves as unavailable if they leave
their DDP.
SAP will be June 15th through October 31st, adding that there is potential for fire needs
outside of the Northern Rockies outside of these dates.
Only dispatch personnel are authorized to place orders against this agreement.
4 locations for pre-proposal conferences (1900-2100):
Billings: March 6
Helena: March 7
Missoula: March 8
Coeur d’Alene: March 9
January 18, 2006
INSPECTIONS
Solicitation will close March 17, after 30 days. Will send out a list of inspection
locations and dates, with a letter to describe what the contractors need to bring along to
the inspection for the best value criteria. There is a pass/fail in EaTIS. Will try to
provide a variety of dates for the inspections, including week days and weekends.
Inspections will be April 8th through May 13th.
For busses, would like to suggest that they get their DOT paperwork before the
inspection. There are about 300 busses in the region. Not sure if we want to do these
inspections at the same time as the water handling equipment. Pre-award and inspections
are required nationally.
There are concerns about the equipment outside of water handling (Forest Service) and
potable water (BLM), which agency is taking care of these? Is it assumed that the Forest
Service will be taking the leads on this equipment also?
Need to get the FMO’s to support their people to be available as inspectors. They need to
support fire to get these inspections done. Will need to get some commitments from the
NRCG and Fire Managers to allow their trained inspectors time to do this.
A select core of inspectors will have access to EaTIS. After the inspections are done, it
will be the CO to give it a final look over. The contractor will input their business info,
the inspector (core leaders) will do the second role, by confirming the VIN, age, 4-wheel
drive, gallons, etc. They will also do the evaluations. The CO signs the agreement,
which sends an email to the contractor, where they sign it.
The 5 identified core leaders will have EaTIS access. Can get names identified to get
accounts in EaTIS for data input after the inspections have been done. Need to keep
track of our time spent on the inspections, including the EaTIS input, to take to NRCG.
The NRCG, through the Agency Administrators, needs to let the contracting, acquisition,
and fire people know the core people in each identified geographic area for these
inspections. A designation letter should be sent out that describes how these inspections
are going to be led and roles each player will do. This will ensure that the people and
processes are in place, at each inspection location. At this point, there is a gap in the
knowledge of what the expectations are. Roberta, Tim, Kevin, and Rick will come up
with a bullet statement to present to the NRCG.
EaTIS User Guide will be posted to the NRCG website by the end of the week. To get a
profile to EaTIS, need to have an eAuthentication profile.
APPENDIX D
We’ve been hearing that we need to raise the bar for FFT2, single resource boss. This
appendix is from the old national engine template. This is consistently higher than the
310-1 minimums, using the 15 operational periods and 3 wildfires experience for
contractors. Ops will look for comments for this, and send responses to Tim.
Would like to add that the contractors add a nozzle if they have foam. Also, to add a
number to the roof of their equipment to make it easier for air ops.
At this time, the EaTIS program will have some flexibility. The national direction will be
the minimum, with the flexibility of adding as we see fit. The best value will have
national requirements and standards that we will have to follow. This will come out from
acquisition in Washington.
With the point system, the inspection will be subjective. If there is an excellent, good,
fair, etc., it leaves a lot of space. Would prefer a pass/fail method. With the best value,
the better equipment with the low price will be at the top of the list.
Have issues with having age as a determining factor with best value. There is no
documentation to prove that age is an negative factor. Would like to push acquisition to
look at the age topic again. It seems it isn’t fair to our contractors. The contractor bears
the risk for the mechanical condition of his equipment. Don’t need to get into the nitty
gritty because it’s not a risk to the government. The age does not reflect the performance,
as long as it meets the minimum standards.