usda forest service competitive sourcing program office of management and budget briefing june 28,...

USDAForest Service

Competitive SourcingProgram

Office of Management and Budget Briefing

June 28, 2006

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

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

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

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

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


• 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


• 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

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

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

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

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

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.

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.

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

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

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

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

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.

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

Fleet Management Feasibility Study

Completed May 12, 2005

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.

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

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

$ 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)

Fleet Management

Primary Functions FTE’s Forest Service Estimated Baseline Costs

Program Management and Administration 43 2,900,875

Equipment Management 62 4,204,932

Driver/Operator Program 26 1,733,557

Policy Development, Implementation and Interpretation

13 918,870

Technical Expertise and Advice

32 2,143,606

Fleet Credit Card Program12 816,548

Base Cost sub-TotalOverhead (12%) TOTAL

188 12,718,3881,526,207

14,244,595

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

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

Geospatial Service & Technology Center (GSTC)

A-76 Feasibility Study Recommendations and High Performing Organization (HPO) Proposal

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.

Feasibility Study Recommendations

1. Implement the GSTC Futuring Effort recommendations.

2. 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.

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.

Private sector model 1 –

Dept. of Labor

$6,913,920

Private sector model 2 –

Mixed Average

$7,364,602

Federal salary model $5,575,846

A-76 Competition (continued)


– 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).

A-76 Competition (continued)


– 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.

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.

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

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.

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.

Feasibility Studyof

Aviation and other Airborne Activities

• 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.

• 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 approximately7,000 pages of data.

– 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:

• 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).


• 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.


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.

Team Status

Senior Subject Matter Experts Include: Five Regional Aviation Officers WO National Aviation Operations Officer

• 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.

• 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

• Each of the Six Business Areas will Examine:– Business Needs Assessment– Assumptions and Constraints– Market Research– As-Is Assessment– Future To-Be Assessment– Performance Gap Analysis– Civil Rights Impact Statement– Systems (Acquisition Strategy, Lifecycle, Requirements, and

Recommendations)

1. Aerial Delivery of Firefighters – This area includes the various methods to transport firefighters to the fire scene in a rapid method to engage a fire in the early stages to contain a fire and prevent the spread. Methods include the use of Helitack and Smokejumper resources to fight the identified fire in Initial attack to contain fires within 24 hours and for follow-on extended attack on wildfires

2. Aerial Detection and Command & Control – Includes the methods various existing use of Air Tactical Supervision Module (ASM), Air Tactical Group Supervisor (ATGS), Leadplanes, and Infrared technology.

2. Aerial Fire Suppression – Includes the use of airtankers and helitankers to provide large volume aerial delivery of approved fire retardants or suppressants on forest and range fires.

3. Aviation Support to Non-fire Natural Resources & Fuel Management Missions – Includes support to the overall Forest Service mission to maintain the forest health, nation’s water supply, recreation areas, timber resources, etc.

5. Aviation Contract Management and Quality Assurance – Includes the control and monitoring of all contract aviation services

6. Forest Service Aviation Program Management –Includes obtaining and maintaining effective aviation capabilities to compliment ground firefighter capabilities throughout the country to contain wildfires in conjunction with other Federal and State agencies.

Dispatch Business Unit&

Training Business UnitFeasibility Studies

• Dispatch and Training Studies– Planned to begin FY 07

– Expected Completion September 2008

Both studies will be Interagency(USDA and USDI)

• USDI and USDA Interpret Initial Steps to A-76 Differently.– USDA ~ Feasibility Study

– USDI ~ Preliminary Planning

The agencies have established an Interagency Board that will monitor and provide direction to the USDA FS and USDI Fire & Aviation Competitive Sourcing leads.

• The Interagency Board Will:– Determine which agency will lead the Feasibility and/or

Preplanning Team

– Approve the Scope of the Study

– Approve Membership of the Team

Costs associated with conducting the study will be shared between USDI and USDA FS.

• Dispatch Business Unit– FTE in dispatch positions within the USDA FS and the and

the USDI Bureaus represent approximately:

– 702 USDA FS FTE

– 371 USDI FTE

• Dispatch Business Unit– Includes Approximately

– 403 interagency wildland fire dispatch offices.– 60,883 incident qualified positions that are mobilized.– Mobilization of thousands of other resources including:

» Interagency Hotshot Crews & Type II Crews» Engines» Helicopters» Airtankers / Helitankers» Smokejumpers

The Subject Matter Expert (SME) Team Leader and a potential pool of SMEs have been identified from both agencies.

• Training Business Unit– Scope of Study will Include:

• Development and Delivery• Standards• Instructional Media and Task Books• Classroom and Computer Based Courses

– Covering 250+ incident qualification courses under the National Wildfire Coordinating Group

• Training Business Unit– Includes Approximately

• 22 USDA FS• 108 DOI FTE

– The USDI operates 8 national training centers.– USDA FS operates 7 smaller training centers.– Annual Course Development Includes:

• USDI - Approximately 100 Courses • USDA FS - Approximately 15 Courses

Communication Functions Competition

Communications Competitive Sourcing Competition Update

• A service-wide study to assess the feasibility of conducting an A-76 cost comparison on communication activities in the Forest Service was completed on June 30, 2005. The study:

– Estimated 750 FTEs associated with the Communications function

– Recommended a standard A-76 competition of 130 FTEs performing 21 communication tasks/activities

64


• To date:– Chief announced decision to compete activities in the

Communication function;

– A Study Team Lead was designated, training and preplanning conducted;

– A nationwide data call was completed to establish the scope of the activities under study and to identify and validate the FTEs related to those activities

– Preliminary planning report is complete. Activities under study have been selected.

65


• To date:– The Communications functions included in the study are:

• Photography Activities

• Web Posting Activities

– Study is national in scope. Includes Forest Service locations throughout the United States and Puerto Rico.

– The study will encompass approximately 133 FTEs and impact approximately 801 positions primarily in the 1035 Public Affairs, 1001 General Information, 2210 Information Technology, 463 Forestry Technician, 401 General Biological and 1084 Visual Information Specialist series.

66


• To date:– The Competition Officials for the study have been selected and

will be designated as required in the circular;

– June 29, 2006 is the scheduled announcement date in FedBizOpps;

– The Performance Work Statement will be established by October 2006; and the Most Efficient Organization (MEO) will be formulated by December 2006

– Announcement of the performance decision is planned for April 2007.

67

Summary

• The Forest Service is moving forward with Green Plan commitments:– Communication Competition

– GSTC HPO

– Fleet Feasibility Study Recommendations

– Aviation Activities Feasibility Study

– CAD and NEPA Feasibility Studies FY 07

– Ongoing monitoring of past studies

• Green Plan is being updated to reflect potential limitations imposed by Congress

For More Information?

Contact Hank Kashdan, Deputy Chief Business Operations – E-mail: [email protected] – Phone: (202) 205-1707

Contact Jacqueline Myers, Associate Deputy Chief Business Operations– E-mail: [email protected] – Phone: (202) 205-1690

Contact Teri Cleeland, Legislative Affairs Specialist – E-mail: [email protected] – Phone: (202) 205-1036

69

usda forest service competitive sourcing program office of management and budget briefing june 28,...

Documents

study type

guidancefeasibility

general green plan direction

agency personnel

successful competition

commercial reason code

cs overview

estimated savings