PROJECT NAME
ANALYSIS OF AGENCY VERSUS CONTRACTOR COSTS FOR FIREFIGHTERS, EQUIPMENT, AND FACILITIES

WORK PERFORMED UNDER CONTRACT No. 53-9A72-1-1Q004

Work Order No. 02-01

CONTRACTOR

FIRE PROGRAM SOLUTIONS LLC

Estacada, Oregon

STUDY TEAM

 Daniel E. Winner

Donald Carlton

Executive Summary

This study was commissioned by the USDA Forest Service national Aviation and Fire Management Staff to obtain information to be used regarding the implementation of a future workforce strategy.  Accurate data was needed for the agency cost of operating firefighting modules as Government hired and staffed resources.  Accurate data was also needed for the cost of contracted resources.

The key objective of the study was to create a method to display and compare costs of providing agency versus contract personnel and resources, using some general resource types.  This study obtained actual cost data for a Type 6 engine module, a prevention unit, a twenty (20) person Type II hand crew, and a ten (10) person hand crew.  These costs were collected from modules operated in fiscal year 2001 on the Coronado National Forest in Region 3, the Cleveland National Forest in Region 5, and the Wenatchee National Forest in Region 6.

The study team was not able to find any locations that contracted for a prevention unit in 2001.  The Sawtooth National Forest contracted four Type 6 engine modules from one contractor, the Okanogan National Forest contracted for one Type 6 engine module, and the Wallowa-Whitman National Forest contracted two Type 6 engine modules from two separate contractors.  The Willamette forest contracted for two ten (10) person hand crews and the Wallowa-Whitman forest contracted for five (10) person hand crews.  The Willamette forest contracted for one twenty (20) person hand crew.  Daily costs for these contracted resources were used in this study.

The study methodology and the cost categories were developed using standard Federal Government wide cost comparison techniques prescribed in Office of Management and Budget Circular A-76.  The annual cost to operate similar modules by the Forest Service and by contractors is shown in the following table.  The costs shown are the total costs obtained by using the Circular A-76 process and methodology.  The costs include actual expenditures, overhead assessments, and other A-76 charges to the Forest Service and the contractor costs in order to make valid cost comparisons under Circular A-76.

                                                          Module Annual Operating Costs*

*Costs are based on and normalized to a 120-day fire season and availability period.

The results from this study indicate that the Government could obtain Type 6 engine modules for preparedness activities from contractors at a cost savings to the Government.  Based on a very small sample of twenty person hand crews, contractors may be able to provide some of those modules at a cost savings to the Government.  The small sample of ten person hand crews indicates that Government operation would be more cost effective.
Introduction

This study was commissioned by the USDA Forest Service national Aviation and Fire Management Staff in order to obtain information to be used regarding the implementation of a future workforce strategy and facilities needed to support that desired future organization.  To assist with the objective of ensuring that a range of alternatives and costs are considered in this effort, accurate data was needed for the total agency cost of operating firefighting modules as Government hired and staffed resources.  Accurate data is needed for the total cost of personnel, equipment, and facilities for both contracted resources and Government operated modules.  This study was performed in fulfillment of Work Order No. 02-01 of Contract No. 53-9A72-1-1Q004. 

The intent of this study was to:

1. Create information that will assist in a determination of the balance between agency employee hires and contract hires necessary to provide an adequate initial attack wildland fire suppression force, a large fire suppression support force, and maintain an adequate agency workforce that provides replacements as attrition takes place.
2. Create a method to display and compare costs of providing agency versus contract personnel and resources, using some general resource types.
3. Provide an effects report from three national forests regarding a proposed Forest Policy to shift facilities costs onto functional accounts responsible for construction and maintenance of Forest Service owned facilities.

This study obtained actual cost data for a Type 6 engine module, a prevention unit, a twenty (20) person Type II hand crew, and a ten (10) person hand crew.  These costs were collected from modules operated in fiscal year 2001 on the Coronado National Forest in Region 3, the Cleveland National Forest in Region 5, and the Wenatchee National Forest in Region 6.  Field visits were made to each forest by the study team to collect actual module cost data.

Contractor provided module cost data was collected from the Sawtooth National Forest in Region 4, and the Okanogan, Willamette and Wallowa-Whitman National Forests in Region 6.  The study team was not able to find any locations that contracted for a prevention unit in 2001.  The Sawtooth National Forest contracted for four Type 6 engine modules from one contractor, the Okanogan National Forest contracted for one Type 6 engine module, and the Wallowa-Whitman National Forest contracted for two Type 6 engine modules from two separate contractors.  Daily cost data for four contracted engine modules was obtained from the forests and the contractors involved and used in this study.  The Willamette forest contracted for two ten (10) person hand crews and the Wallowa-Whitman forest contracted for five (10) person hand crews.  Daily costs for five ten (10) person hand crews was used in this study.  The Willamette forest contracted for one twenty (20) person hand crew.

A complete discussion of the cost study methodology and data collection procedures is found in Appendix E-1.  The appendix describes how actual cost data was collected and how certain cost categories were developed using standard Federal Government wide cost comparison techniques prescribed in Office of Management and Budget Circular A-76.  The expenditure and cost data collected for the Type 6 engine modules is found in Appendix A.  Spreadsheets were developed that contain all the actual fiscal year 2001 expenditures and the other costs that have been developed using the cost comparison process found in Circular A-76.  The engine module on the Cleveland National Forest analyzed was a Type 3 engine with five (5) persons seven days per week coverage.  In order to make this engine comparable to a Type 6 engine module, some of the expenditures for staffing were taken out in order to make this module cost comparable to a Type 6 engine staffed with three (3) persons seven days per week as described on page four of Appendix E-1.

The expenditure and cost data collected for the ten and twenty person hand crews is located in Appendix B.  The hand crew analyzed on the Coronado National Forest was a nine (9) person hand crew operated five days per week.  In order to make this hand crew comparable to a ten (10) person hand crew operated seven days per week, expenditures for five additional seasonal employees was added based on the prorated cost of the original four seasonals on the crew.

The expenditure and cost data for the prevention units analyzed is found in Appendix C.  The study team was unable to locate any contract provided prevention units in fiscal year 2001.  The module costs of the Government operated prevention units will be presented in this report, but a cost comparison with contractor provided modules was not possible.

The cost data that was collected for all contracted modules has been summarized in Appendix F-1.  Appendix G contains the spreadsheets where all of the cost data has been summarized and prepared for discussion and display in the report.  These spreadsheets will be used to display the results of the cost comparison.

Type 6 Engine Module Cost Comparison

The costs to operate Government operated Type 6 engines were obtained from a sample of three engines staffed on three national forests in 2001.  The detailed spreadsheets that were filled out are in Appendix A-1, A-2, A-3, and A-4.  The total cost by major cost category to operate these engines is shown in Appendix G-2 and in Table No. 1.  The daily cost is also shown in Table No. 1.  An adjustment was made to the Type 3 engine costs on the Cleveland National Forest engine 34 to make it comparable in personnel to a Type 6 engine. 

Table No. 1

In order to obtain average costs for the three sample engines by the major cost categories, a normalized fire season of 120 days was used.  It was assumed in this study that the engine modules would be staffed for this period of time out of preparedness WFPR funds.  The daily cost based on the number of days staffed in 2001 was obtained and then multiplied by 120 which is the number of days in the length of fire season chosen for this study.  This normalized average cost was used to conduct the cost comparison between the Government operated engines and the Contract engines.  The normalized fire season costs by major cost category is shown in Appendix G-2 and Table No. 2.  The values in the average costs column of Table 2 were used to perform the cost comparison with contract engines over the same 120-day hypothetical fire season.

The contract Type 6 engine daily costs and the days that they were on contract in 2001 are shown in Appendix G-1 and in Table No. 3.  The average daily cost to operate contract engines was $846.83.  This cost was obtained from averaging the cost of four engine contracts.  The cost to operate a contract engine over a 120-day season is $101,619.60.  The detailed cost comparison procedures are described in Appendix E-1 in the cost category 7 through 13 descriptions.  This cost comparison process is patterned after the Federal Government policy guidelines contained in Circular A-76.  The process requires that a cost of contract supervision be added to the actual contract costs.

Table No. 2

Table No. 3