1 / 69

USDA Forest Service Competitive Sourcing Program Office of Management and Budget Briefing June 28, 2006

USDA Forest Service Competitive Sourcing Program Office of Management and Budget Briefing June 28, 2006. USDA Forest Service Briefing Agenda. Agency Competitive Sourcing Overview Fleet Management Feasibility Study Recommendations

loring
Télécharger la présentation

USDA Forest Service Competitive Sourcing Program Office of Management and Budget Briefing June 28, 2006

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. USDA Forest Service Competitive Sourcing Program Office of Management and Budget Briefing June 28, 2006

  2. USDA Forest Service Briefing Agenda • Agency Competitive Sourcing Overview • Fleet Management Feasibility Study Recommendations • Geospatial Service and Technology Center Feasibility Study Recommendations • Aviation and Airborne Activities Feasibility Study Update • Communication Competitive Sourcing Competition Update • Outstanding Issues • Summary 2

  3. CS Overview: FY 06 FAIR Act Inventory • Submitted to USDA May 26, 2006 • Provided justifications for all positions coded Inherently Governmental or Reason Code A • Inherently Governmental: 7% • Commercial Reason Code A: 13% (includes 2% developmental positions) • Coding for Fire-related positions is consistent with that used by the DOI, under the “fire matrix” adopted by both agencies

  4. Competitive Sourcing Overview: General Green Plan Direction and Guidance • The current Forest Service draft Green Plan, dated January 17, 2006, describes how the Agency plans to address the competitive sourcing initiative outlined in the President’s Management Agenda (PMA). • The Plan speaks to competitive sourcing activities the Agency will initiate and complete over a 5-year period (FY05-09). • The plan is aggressive and was written without consideration of Congressional limitations on spending for Competitive Sourcing activities • The agency is working on an updated FY06-10 Green Plan 4

  5. General Green Plan Program Goals • Increase the cost-effectiveness of Forest Service programs, keeping in mind that cost and effectiveness are equally important. • Position the Forest Service to effectively compete when competition is determined to be the best alternative. • Be sensitive to the effects of competitive sourcing on agency personnel. Throughout the process maintain communication, provide means for employee input and appropriate involvement, and provide effective means to facilitate personnel transitions. • Avoid doing things that would adversely affect the agency’s overall ability to function effectively and efficiently. • Organizational performance accountability is the focus. Our interest is to articulate in the most non-self-interested way, what services we provide, for what reasons, to what standards (quality and quantity), at what costs, for what audiences, and based on those audiences’ feedback, how well those results (outcomes/outputs) are being achieved. We value real-time assessment that is not based on self-generated criteria. 5

  6. General Green Plan Direction and Guidance • Feasibility Study: The feasibility study enables the agency to make an informed decision on whether a function is likely to benefit from competition, and whether the next logical step would be to conduct Business Process Reengineering (BPR).  At the same time, a feasibility study allows for expedited execution and maximum savings during an actual public-private competition by beginning to determine the program scope, mission impacts and risks, resource requirements, estimated savings, study type, impact analysis, and timeline in advance.  In the event that a competition takes place, the feasibility study allows the Agency to develop blueprints for ensuing a successful competition prior to announcement. This component is required by USDA policy. (USDA OCFO 2004-001) • Benchmarking and Subject-Matter Industry Research is included in the feasibility study. This provides critical information on program and service performance standards, costs comparisons, function/activity/process definitions, organizational structures, and program delivery models. 6

  7. General Green Plan Direction and Guidance • Data Calls – A data call is recommended during the feasibility study. It is necessary to complete workload analysis; describe workflow and processes; describe as-is organization structures; validate positions currently providing services; and level of current organizational investment. It also later serves as the basis for determining affected positions and/or employees, if and as reorganizations are implemented. As such, the data call must be completed at a fairly granular level in order to provide sufficient information and support business decisions. • Cost Accounting – Like other programs, all costs (staff, travel, training, contract assistance, etc.) associated with competitive sourcing activities are tracked and reported on an on-going basis, quarterly, and/or annual basis. • Example: FY 2006 Cost Projections: • $ 675,000 Staff (4 FTEs) and general program management • $ 730,200 Competition – Communications – (130 fte) • $ 79,000 Feasibility - Fleet Management – (135 fte) • $ 166,900 Feasibility - Geospatial Technology – (95 fte) • $ 473,000 Feasibility - Aviation Management – (500 fte) • $2,123,900 7

  8. General Green Plan Direction and Guidance • Program Budgeting – Annual budget projections are based on cost trends in the Federal sector and any existing funding (Appropriations and/or USDA) directions. The average cost of competitive sourcing studies in the Federal sector is $3200-$5200 per FTE studied. The cost is largely dependent on the technical complexity of the function and the number of FTEs involved. These averages are used to determine initial budget requests and adjustments as necessary during the feasibility process. • Performance and Accountability Monitoring – Results monitored in three ways: • Costs • Expenditures • Operating cost reductions • Labor • Number of positions • People in positions • Service/products • Changes and improvements • Outputs (short-term) • Outcomes (long-term) 8

  9. General Green Plan Accomplishments To Date FY 2002 Activities: Competitions/Cost Comparisons: End User Support Center (HelpDesk) (150 FTE) FY 2003/2004 Activities: Competitions/Cost Comparisons: Maintenance (1357) (Most remained in-house) (3 Contracted) IT Infrastructure (1200) (Remained in-house) Job Corps (946) (Remained in-house) Content Analysis Functions (41) (Remained in-house) 9

  10. General Green Plan Accomplishments To Date FY 2005 Activities: Feasibility Studies: 1 completed (5/05) - 750 FTE – Communications MEO Implemented: 1 implemented (2/05) – IT Infrastructure CS Studies Reviewed: 2 completed – (7/04) R5 Road Maintenance and R5 Fleet Maintenance BPRs: 2 Finance - Completed (10/05) – 1175 FTE – Reduction of 502 FTE by 9/05 Projected Savings: $38 Million Annually – ROI 2.5 years – 2007 Human Resources – Ongoing – 808 FTE – Reduction of 117 FTE by 9/05 Projected Savings: $22 Million Annually – ROI 3.5 years – 2008 Overall Savings/Operating Cost Reductions: $20.2 Million $117 Thousand - R6 Olympic NF Roads Maintenance (8 FTE) (8 Months) $1.6 Million – R5 Fleet Maintenance (59 FTE) (7 Months) $1.7 Million – R5 Roads Maintenance (66 FTE) (15 Months) $16.8 Million – IT Infrastructure (1200 FTE) (11 Months) – Reduction of 292 FTE by 9/05 10

  11. What is the Forest Service Doing? FY 2006 Activities: Competitive Sourcing Studies: 1 Initiated – 130 FTE Communication Activities – 06/06-04/07 Feasibility Studies: 3 Initiated - 730 FTE Aviation Activities (500) - (10/05--12/06) Fleet Management Services (135) - (11/05--05/06) Geospatial Service and Technology Center (95) - (10/05—05/06) CS Study Reviews: 1 Initiated – IT Infrastructure Organizational Efficiency Studies: 4 Planned (05/06-09/06) Regional Offices State & Private Forestry Research and Development Washington Office Deputy Structure 11

  12. What is the Forest Service Doing? FY 2006 Activities: CS Joint Study Charters: 1 Initiated Charter with DOI approved Fire Management functions are the initial areas of interest Final study areas to be determined jointly FY 2006 Saving/Operating Cost Reductions (2ndQ): $45 Thousand - R6 Olympic NF Roads Maintenance $144 Thousand – R5 Fleet Maintenance* $745 Thousand – R5 Roads Maintenance $8.6 Million – IT Infrastructure *Significant performance failures on the part of the service provider led to Termination for Default May 1, 2006. Temporary measures are in place to avoid disruption in service. 12

  13. Potential Appropriation Restrictions – FY07 • Recent House Appropriations language in H.R. 5386 caps FY07 agency competitive sourcing activities at $2.5MM. • Specifically includes all costs attributable to developing, implementing, supporting, managing, monitoring and reporting on competitive sourcing. • Prohibits the agency from using FY07 funds for any competitive sourcing activities relating to wildfire management or wildfire suppression programs. • Requires that agency fire fighting capability and personnel fire qualifications be considered in carrying out any competitive sourcing involving Forest Service employees.

  14. Potential Appropriation Restrictions – FY07 • The funding cap will severely limit the number and size of competitions and feasibility studies that the agency is able to conduct and will prevent the agency from meeting its “Green Plan” goals. • The Aviation Activities feasibility study that is currently under way may have to be deferred. • Implementation of the results from any FY07 studies may have to be deferred as a result of cap limitations.

  15. Competitive Sourcing – FY07 (Planned in current draft Green Plan dated January 17, 2006) Total Agency Commitment: 6,600 FTE – Feasibility Studies -Implement recommendations from FY 06 feasibility studies -Complete Communication Activities study initiated in FY06 Computer Application Development – 750 FTE NEPA Information Collection & Analysis – 1100 FTE Dispatch/Coordination System – 300 FTE Fire and Aviation Training – 300 FTE Lands – 500 FTE International Programs and IITF – 100 FTE Law Enforcement – 600 FTE Environmental Compliance Monitoring Activities – 2000 FTE Minerals and Geology – 500 FTE Strategic Planning and Analysis – 100 FTE All State and Private Forestry Activities – 350 FTE 15

  16. FY 07 Planned if House Language holds • Fund CSPO to continue program management, including oversight and monitoring of current and past studies • Complete Communication Activities standard A-76 study initiated in FY06. Initiate implementation immediately upon completion and complete implementation as possible within constraints imposed by cap. • Complete Aviation Activities Feasibility study if not prohibited by the Congress. • Computer Application Development Feasibility Study: Initiate by 9/06 and complete 3/07. • NEPA Information Collection & Analysis Feasibility Study: Initiate approximately 2/07. May be phased to allow completion in FY08. • Implement recommendations from FY 07 feasibility studies, as possible within constraints imposed by cap

  17. Competitive Sourcing – FY08 Implement Recommendations and Results of FY07 studies Complete Activities deferred from FY 07 due to funding limitations Current Agency FY08 Green Plan Commitment: 6,700 FTE – Feasibility Studies Fuel Management Program – 500 FTE Technology and Service Centers – 200 FTE Procurement – 1000 FTE Forest and Rangelands – 3,000 FTE Research Program – 2,000 FTE 17

  18. Competitive Sourcing – FY09 and beyond Implement Recommendations and Results of FY08 studies Complete Activities deferred from FY 07-08 due to funding limitations Current Agency Green Plan Commitment for FY 09: 6,400 FTE – Feasibility Studies The “Green Plan” update is underway. The revised draft will consider potential funding and other limitations and will include the flexibility to perform additional studies if the cap is increased or removed. 18

  19. CSPO Accountability Monitoring • Monitor performance for all periods stated in the solicitation. • Implement Quality Assurance Surveillance Plans • Record the actual cost of performance by performance period • Retain the solicitation and any other documentation from the competition as part of the competition file (FAR 4.8) • Monitor, collect, and report performance information. Consistent with FAR Subpart 42.15, for purposes of past performance evaluation in a follow-on competition.

  20. Reporting • Internal and External Reporting – Program results and costs, including study costs and results, are reported regularly: • Annually – Section 647(b) Division F of the Consolidated Appropriations Act (FY 2004, P.L. 108-199) - end of the fiscal year • Quarterly – USDA PMA reports – end of each quarter • On-going – Internal managerial engagement and general workforce education and information sharing • Independent review and assessment (Other agency, NAPA, PwC, etc.) 20

  21. Fleet Management Feasibility Study Completed May 12, 2005

  22. Current State of Fleet Program • 30,000+ pieces of equipment valued over ½ billion dollars ($500,000,000) • 800+ people performing Fleet Management activities • 188 FTE’s = extensive fragmentation • $14,200,000 Forest Service cost of fleet management • $12,700,000 DoL estimated cost of fleet management • Conclusion: There are opportunities for improvement of the management function, but little immediate savings available under current management model.

  23. Components of Fleet Program • Maintenance • Ownership • Management • Program Management and Administration • Equipment Management • Driver/Operator Program • Policy Development, Implementation, and Interpretation • Technical Expertise and Advice • Fleet Credit Card Program • Interface with Business Operations • Finance and Accounting • Property and Inventory Management

  24. Maintenance • Fleet Maintenance was not considered within the charter of the Feasiblity Study Team • Fleet maintenance was recently studied • Most is presently contracted (+/- 75%) • When the ownership question is answered, maintenance may need to be revisited

  25. $ Ownership $ • We recommend further analysis to determine ownership viability • Request for Information (RFI) through FedBizOpps to determine if the private sector is interested and capable of providing vehicles and equipment to the FS. • 4,000 pieces of fire equipment are being studied during FY 2008 • Potential for efficiencies and savings • There is no all encompassing single, comprehensive vehicle and equipment inventory • EMIS (Equipment Management Information System) • Property System • Under $5,000 it is in neither (unless categorized as sensitive)

  26. Fleet Management

  27. Recommendations (In sequential order of priority – 4 Step Approach) 1. Conduct an independent Fleet inventory analysis: Analysis to include comparisons with industry standards for composition mix, utilization, safety, etc. 2. Issue RFI for Ownership recommendation: Identify private sector interest in FS Fleet ownership and management. RFI contains multiple options of different ownership scenarios, wet or dry fleet provisions, etc. 3. Begin preliminary BPR to develop and establish a unified Fleet Program: “Right Size” the fleet; standardize rules, procedures and purchases; develop Vehicle Allocation Methodology 4. Perform BPR or A-76 Competition: Based on the results of the RFI and the Fleet Inventory Analysis, a decision will then be made on how to proceed for one or more of the Fleet functional areas

  28. Next Steps • Communication Plan released on April 25, 2006 • Study completed and transmitted to the Chief and the ELT on May 12, 2006 • Feasibility Study Report forwarded to USDA on May 16, 2006 • Briefed Executive Teams in May and June • Chief’s review process ongoing; decision expected in Summer 2006 • Implement the decision Summer 2006 • Transition meeting between Management Representative Team and future BPR teams • Team/Project Leader to be Identified • FS CSPO support and coordination assigned • Begin RFI and Fleet Inventory analysis

  29. Geospatial Service & Technology Center (GSTC) A-76 Feasibility Study Recommendations and High Performing Organization (HPO) Proposal

  30. Who is GSTC? • Mission • Provide technical support services to users of geospatial data and technologies. • Produce and disseminate geospatial information. • GSTC produces and maintains geographic data and maps across the National Forest and Grasslands and adjacent lands covering approximately 18% of the US. • GSTC is a dynamic, field-oriented service organization, continuing to meet customer needs in a cost-effective manner. • A recently competed Futuring Effort using BPR processes resulted in recommendations to expand services to meet customer needs without increasing funding.

  31. Feasibility Study Recommendations • Implement the GSTC Futuring Effort recommendations. • Seek High Performing Organization (HPO) recognition. • These recommendations allow GSTC to provide better cost-effective customer service now and save $500,000 in A-76 competition costs.

  32. A-76 Competition An A-76 competition was not recommended because: • The Feasibility Study evaluation factors indicated that an A-76 competition was not warranted. • Two estimates of private sector costs were significantly higher than GSTC costs: Federal salary model is approximately $1.3 to $1.8 million dollars less than the private sector models estimates.

  33. A-76 Competition (continued) An A-76 competition was not recommended because: • GSTC recently completed a Futuring Effort following BPR methodologies which addressed: • performance gaps • increased outputs • use of latest technology • meeting the needs of a growing number of customers in a cost-effective manner. • Over 35% of GSTC’s current work is accomplished by contractors using a variety of contract types including: • A&E (Brooks Act) • competitive negotiation • 8a (small disadvantaged business).

  34. A-76 Competition (continued) An A-76 competition was not recommended because: • OMB is proposing a “new line of business” for government geospatial services. • Competition would decrease productivity and may impact critical services and products. • NRCS conducted an A-76 competition on a similar unit and had no private sector bidders.

  35. BPR Futuring Effort • BPR Futuring Effort initiated by GSTC in Spring 2004, provided recommendations to: • Reorganize GSTC to a matrix organization • Continue to incorporate advances in technologies • Aggressively meet changing customer expectations and requirements • Increase operational efficiency. • BearingPoint Inc. provided BPR training and assistance. • BPR Futuring Effort completed September 2005. • Recommendations endorsed by NFS Directors, Deputy Regional Foresters, Assistant Station Directors, and GSTC Steering Committee.

  36. Why implement an HPO Now? • GSTC has reduced FTEs from 101 in FY00 to 63 in FY06. • GSTC has reduced budget by 8% in 2 years – this reduction is actually greater when inflation is considered. • GSTC has increased volume and mix of services and products to meet field requirements. • Management has kept an eye to the future. GSTC has continuously improved efficiency and conducted management reviews: • Steering Committee (17 members) – meets twice a year • Feasibility Study Completed – 2006 • BPR Futuring Effort Completed – 2004-2005 • WO Detached Unit Review – 2002 • NAPA Study – 1998 • Numerous earlier studies

  37. High Performing Organization The Forest Service believes that GSTC should be recognized as a High Performing Organization (HPO). • Over the past five years GSTC has expanded services while reducing its budget and number of federal employees. • GSTC has continued to leverage technology to expand the availability and suitability of geospatial products and services. • This HPO Proposal is projecting approximately $1 million in annual savings without conducting an A-76 competition. • Savings will exceed estimates of potential savings that an A-76 study might produce.

  38. GSTC HPO Designation (continued) • GSTC will continue to provide quality public service and products in the best interest of the Forest Service and our customers. • Performance Metrics have been developed to measure and validate HPO success. • Quality Assurance Surveillance Plan (QASP) is complete and will be implemented. • Performance standards are identified in Letter of Obligation (LOO). • QASP and LOO will be used to evaluate GSTC performance across requirements relative to performance standards. • Performance will be reported quarterly. • Provides opportunity to implement model HPO and benchmark for future.

  39. Feasibility StudyofAviation and other Airborne Activities

  40. Aviation Business Unit • The feasibility study is underway and is expected to be completed on 12/2006. • The Study is reviewing all components of the business unit; personnel, contractors, buildings, vehicles, tactics, aircraft and non-fire related missions.

  41. 3/06 - Four Data Calls Completed • Requested Information: • Number of Personnel in Aviation • Scope of Contracted Resources • Position Functions • Existing Agency Owned Aircraft The calls returned approximately 7,000 pages of data.

  42. Smokejumpers Helitack Base Managers Support Air Tactical Forest Aviation Officers WO & Regional Aviation Management Pilots Maintenance & Airworthiness Inspectors Program Specialists 3/06 - Seventy Subject Matter Experts (SMEs) representing 12 functional areas within aviation reviewed the data (03/06) and established: • Approximately 1,700 personnel are represented in the aviation business unit study:

  43. 3/06 - Seventy Subject Matter Experts (SMEs) representing 12 functional areas within aviation reviewed the data (03/06) and established: • 95% + of Fixed and Rotor Wing Aircraft is Contracted. • This indicates a possible in-sourcing component of the study. • (A-76 competition of contracted aircraft and services for go/go go/co co/go).

  44. 3/06 - Seventy Subject Matter Experts (SMEs) representing 12 functional areas within aviation reviewed the data (03/06) and established: • Functions and sub-tasks by position by geographic area were verified. • Developed the “As-Is” and Future “To-Be” Assessment drafts of the Feasibility Study for review by the Study Team.

  45. Team Status • The study team Senior Leadership was designated by Chief Bosworth (05/06) and includes: • Three Deputy Regional Foresters • One Forest Supervisor Mary Wagner, Deputy Regional Forester, Intermountain Region Is the Team Leader.

  46. Team Status • Senior Subject Matter Experts Include: • Five Regional Aviation Officers • WO National Aviation Operations Officer

  47. Business Needs Development Identified • Six Basic Business Areas: • Each of these areas have a distinct mission and direct product that support the firefighting mission of the Forest Service and other agencies who follow the National Fire Plan.

  48. The Business Areas Include: • Aerial Delivery of Firefighters • Aerial Detection and Command & Control • Aerial Fire Suppression – Airtankers / Helitankers • Aerial Resource Support (Natural Resource Mgt.) • Contract Quality Assurance / Support • Program Management

More Related