COR TASK GROUPCOR TASK GROUP

FINDINGSALTERNATIVE STRATEGIES

RECOMMENDATIONS

TASK GROUP DELIVERABLESTASK GROUP DELIVERABLES

Describe the current situation Develop alternative strategies to

implement an effective COR program Develop a risk analysis for each

alternative strategy Describe program management roles

and responsibilities

FINDINGSFINDINGS

The current situation is organizationally inconsistent, with the following general characteristics:

– Lacks dedicated program managers

– Forces National CO’s into dual roles

– Heavy reliance on a multi-agency seasonal workforce that may not meet current standards

FINDINGSFINDINGS

Current Situation – Continued

– Heavy reliance on COR designation by position

– Will require an estimated $10mm investment in training to meet current agency standards

ALTERNATIVESALTERNATIVES

Alternative I – Minimal Change

– Maintains the current system, but requires all personnel with COR duties meet current and future certification requirements

ALTERNATIVE IALTERNATIVE I Pros

– None

Cons– Reduces capacity– Requires significant

$– Retains dual role for

CO’s– Relies on seasonal

wkfc.– Inefficient use of

CORs– Requires greatest #

of CORs

ALTERNATIVESALTERNATIVES

Alternative II – National Retardant Template

– Adds program managers

– Adds significant duties for the ACOs

– Provides for designated CORs (by ACOs) for each National Contract

ALTERNATIVE IIALTERNATIVE II

Pros– National consistency– Improved oversight– Consistency at GA

from ACOs– Provides Pgm mgmt– Decreases # of

CORs– Meets all

requirements

Cons– Increased workload

for ACOs– May require

additional staffing (Pgm Mgrs)

– Some additional training required for Pgm Mgrs to become CORs

ALTERNATIVESALTERNATIVES

Alternative III – Modified Retardant Template

– Identical to Alternative II, except the GA ACO is eliminated from responsibilities

ALTERNATIVE IIIALTERNATIVE III

Pros– National consistency– Improved oversight– Provides Pgm mgmt– Decreases # of

CORs– Meets all

requirements– Decreased workload

for ACOs

Cons– May require

additional staffing– Additional training

required for Pgm Mgrs to become CORs

– Less efficient feedback mechanism

– Increased workload for some NCOs

ALTERNATIVESALTERNATIVES

Alternative IV – the 2 Model Alternative

– Maintains the current aviation model for aviation resources, and adds a services model for all others

– Only real difference between the two is the role of the GA ACOs (retain current responsibilities)

ALTERNATIVE IVALTERNATIVE IV Pros

– Retains current aviation model

– Least change alt.– Doesn’t affect ACO

workload– Improved oversight– Provides Pgm mgmt– Decreases # of

CORs– Meets all

requirements

Cons– Additional training

required for Pg. Mgrs to become CORs

– Nationally inconsistent organization

ALTERNATIVESALTERNATIVES

Alternative V – the ICS Alternative

– Follows the ICS Model and places National contracts under ICS areas of functional responsibilityOperationsLogisticsFinance

ALTERNATIVE VALTERNATIVE V Pros

– Places each contract under correct functional area

– Fewest # of Pgm Mgrs

– National consistency– Improved oversight– Decreases # of

CORs– Meets all

requirements

Cons– Requires some re-

organization – Nationally and Geographically

– Additional training required for Pgm Mgrs to become CORs

ALTERNATIVESALTERNATIVES

Elements common to all Alternatives (except Alt. I)– Program Manager– One stop shopping– Lead COR (Pgm Mgr) coordinates all other

program CORs– Provides technical expertise– Provides a qualified cadre of CORs– Eliminates COR designation by position– Eliminates COTR position

ALTERNATIVE RISK ANALYSISALTERNATIVE RISK ANALYSIS

Risks of no change:– Increasing costs of

training/certification/maintaining currency of CORs

– Reduction in capacity (non-federal personnel)

– Inadequate oversight– Continued dual responsibility for NCOs– Increasing numbers of claims– Government being placed at risk

ALTERNATIVE RISK ANALYSISALTERNATIVE RISK ANALYSIS

Adoption of recommended alternative will:– Reduce costs for certification/training– Increase payment accuracy/timeliness– Reduce claims– Reduce congressional inquiries– Comply with agency policy– Redistribute the workload– Protect our financial interests and public

trust

ALTERNATIVE COSTSALTERNATIVE COSTS

Costs of maintaining status quo:– Estimated at $10mm every 2 years– Long term, these will increase– Ineffective use of the workforce– May not be receiving the goods and

services being paid for– We cannot afford improperly

administered contracts

ALTERNATIVE COSTSALTERNATIVE COSTS

Costs of Change:– Properly trained and qualified COR

workforce is more cost effective– Costs will include:

Training of PI’s, and Program LeadersRe-organization/staffing costs

– Result: more effective and efficient organization

RECOMMENDATIONRECOMMENDATION

Alternative V – The ICS Alternative

– However, adoption of any of the alternatives, except alternative I, will be successful if properly staffed and managed.

IMPLEMENTATIONIMPLEMENTATION

Key items that need to be addressed:– The number of CORs/contract in each GA– ID the ICS positions with PI responsibilities– Develop Implementation Plan that includes

a workload analysis– Review and amend training curriculum to

reflect changing responsibilities– Develop and implement a review process

to ensure desired results are achieved

CURRENT STATUSCURRENT STATUS

Director’s March memo:– Implement a hybrid of Alt II and III– Implementation to begin in FY 2008– Implementation tasks include:

ID available training and determine need for additional non-aviation COR training

Analyze contracts/programs to determine the role of ACOs.

CURRENT STATUS - CONTINUEDCURRENT STATUS - CONTINUED

– Implementation Tasks – continuedAnalyze current contracts and

determine COR needs–Number–Location

ID Program ManagersDevelop a process for COR

certification for National Contracts