Coincidentally I ran across this piece about improving government by Francis Fukuyama this morning. It’s written as a letter to Elon Musk.
There is another type of deregulation that needs to occur, however, if the government is to be made more efficient. People blame the bureaucracy for over-regulating the private sector, but the bureaucracy itself is over-regulated. Americans have never trusted the government, and over the decades have piled up a mountain of rules that bureaucrats must follow. An example of this are the Federal Acquisition Regulations (FAR), which contains hundreds of pages of rules that government procurement officers must follow before they can acquire anything from an F-35 fighter to office furniture. Hiring new employees is also extremely difficult; my students often have to wait months before getting a job interview for an open position in the federal government. There are, moreover, a lot of DEI requirements that don’t necessarily reward merit, rules that I’m sure a Trump administration would be happy to torch.
Many conservatives believe that government bureaucrats have too much discretionary authority and use it to enact a liberal agenda, thereby eluding democratic control. This does occur in some instances. But the real truth is rather the opposite: bureaucrats spend way too much of their time complying with hundreds of rules mandated by Congress, rather than using their independent judgment to make decisions that lead to good results for citizens. They need to be liberated from these constraints, and have their performance judged by the outcomes they achieve rather than how risk-averse they are. This is, of course, how Silicon Valley and the private sector operate.
Perhaps that is the reason that when the Forest Service needed to do the Wildfire Strategy, it decided to build capacity in the private sector (specifically the NGO sector) because it believed that the FAR and hiring were too big a barrier to… getting the work desired by Congress done. But like anything, that raises its own set of issues. Today we’re going to look at timber sale contracts.
Again, I am not against the NWTF and other NGOs; I think they do great work, and I hope we remain friends. But I think we need to ask questions about how best- financially and quality of work-wise- for the USG to achieve its goals. Below is a request for proposals for a contract to do harvest inspection, that is, a contract to inspect a contract, competed out by an NGO which got its $ via a non-competed grant.
So we used to hire people to do the work. Now we give grants (without apparent competition) to large organization compete or hire people to do the work. Now I am sure that the FS is still inspecting the inspectors and has ultimate authority, but we have to wonder about the trade-offs of doing it this way. Hire a temporary inspection helper directly, vs. send the money via NWTF to a contractor.. G&A folks send $ to and track NWTF, NWTF does a competition, (skills desired seems outside of FS control), awards and manages contract.. seems like unnecessary layers of paperwork to me. Which is the more likely approach from the standpoint of the person who does the work? Would they rather have a federal job?
Notice how sending the bucks via grant obviates those pesky FARs, and USAJOBs and screening and timing hassles (and experience and education requirements?) and also took some percentage off the top. The FS thought the tradeoff was worth it, and maybe the FS still does.
But I think it points to something broken in the federal system itself. It’s not that I don’t trust the ENGO’s involved, but why should people less trusting not wonder whether it could turn into the same kind of cronyism that all those rules were intended to regulate against?
Here are the other stories I’ve heard on the timber sales topic:
A contracting firm made up of old FS folks seems to be getting much of the work (not clear if it’s doing the work or inspecting).
FS sale administrators being told that they can’t visit the worksite without an NGO rep being available.
Anyway, here’s an RFP for a timber sale inspection assistant.
Statement of Work:
Selected contractor will provide the following:
Conduct an on-site inspection and sale administration support to NWTF approximately one to two times per week during active operations (or as feasible, needed and requested by NWTF). Inspection findings, operations progress and any observed concerns per the contract will be documented in the agreed-to format and shared with NWTF (as well as with USFS and Purchaser) via email.
o Provide contract specifications compliance assistance and site review to NWTF and purchaser.
o Spot-check unit boundary compliance.
o Spot-check timber utilization including occasional load checks (However USFS and NWTF will facilitate all timber scaling and accounting).
o Spot-check slash treatments.
o Spot-check leave tree damage.
o Equipment inspections.
o Report observed petroleum spills.
o Ensure CO Best Management Practices for Water Quality are followed.
o Spot-check erosion control measures (Appendix G).
o Spot-check to assist in communication only of observed system and temporary road conditions (however USFS will facilitate all new temporary road construction and closure, detailed reviews of T-specification compliance, official road signage, official roads inspections for maintenance and closure and communication to Purchaser).
o Provide communication assistance between NWTF, USFS and Purchaser/Harvester for routine field related concerns (However it is likely that additional regular communication between these partners will also be necessary for adequate contract service).
o Provide inspections support to NWTF through these systems, however official correspondence will be between NWTF, USFS and Purchaser.
o Track actual completed acres via Avenza/GPS and provide updates to NWTF monthly or upon completion of units.
• Conduct sale administration support to NWTF and USFS as authorized in the Delegation of Authority (Exhibit D) as needed and requested by NWTF during inspections.
o Review and approve all landings and skid trails through inspection form. Map all approved landing locations. Purchaser will be required to maintain adequately spaced (i.e., 100 feet, except
where converging at landings and where otherwise constrained by terrain) skid trails. Selected contractor has the discretion to blanket-approve skid trail locations by description to gain overall
operational efficiency, if the Purchaser consistently adheres the following objectives:
▪ Logs will be skidded with leading end free of ground to reduce ground disturbance.
▪ Skid trails shall not be less than 100 feet apart, except where converging near landing
locations or where otherwise dictated by terrain.
▪ Skidding operations may only occur when soils are dry, soil moisture is below the plastic limit (water content at which soil starts to transform from kneadable-plastic to rigid or
brittle) or when soils are protected by at least one (1) foot of packed snow or two (2) inches of frozen soil.
▪ Re-use existing skid trails, wherever practicable.
▪ Damage to advance regeneration and residual live trees is minimized.
o Stream crossing locations for all skid trails require site-specific approval from the harvest inspector.
o Mark damaged trees for removal as needed.
• Coordinate inspection and administration support work with USFS and NWTF to ensure efficient and valuable inspection and administration support services.
• Provide other regular communication including unit progress to NWTF, USFS, Purchaser or partners as needed and requested by NWTF.
******************************
Yes, I did a LOT of that in my 14 seasons of experience in Timber Sale Administration. 10 years of that was as a Temporary/Term employee, who was delegated much more authority to write reports, make agreements and document activities.
I have this piece of ‘brain sludge’ from those days when I wrote-up approval/agreements for the loggers:
“The landing and skid trails are approved and agreed to, as flagged on the ground and shown in this report.”
I would then draw the skid trail layout, with notes about any problem spots or requirements. As a “Harvest Inspector” (designated in the Operating Plan), I was officially delegated those extra authorities and title. Of course, the title didn’t mean anything outside of the contract. On some of my projects, I wouldn’t see the Sale Administrator for days (they had other projects and other Harvest Inspectors who needed guidance.)
Thanks for this, Larry. I find this so confusing. When I read the FAR on inherently governmental.. I get this.. but maybe it’s in the small print somewhere?
https://www.acquisition.gov/far/subpart-7.5
(12) In Federal procurement activities with respect to prime contracts-
(i) Determining what supplies or services are to be acquired by the Government (although an agency may give contractors authority to acquire supplies at prices within specified ranges and subject to other reasonable conditions deemed appropriate by the agency);
(ii) Participating as a voting member on any source selection boards;
(iii) Approving any contractual documents, to include documents defining requirements, incentive plans, and evaluation criteria;
(iv) Awarding contracts;
(v) Administering contracts (including ordering changes in contract performance or contract quantities, taking action based on evaluations of contractor performance, and accepting or rejecting contractor products or services);
(vi) Terminating contracts;
(vii) Determining whether contract costs are reasonable, allocable, and allowable; and
(viii) Participating as a voting member on performance evaluation boards.
I hope I didn’t confuse anyone. I always worked as a Forest Service Temporary, until I joined TEAMS Enterprise (a government experiment that still exists) as a Permanent Seasonal. For some Sale Administrators, I did 95% of the fieldwork, writing up reports, and accepting work from the loggers. Purchasers Reps didn’t like me, because I was very thorough on inspecting the work.
I didn’t get to do the monetary stuff until I detailed as a Sale Administrator.
Excellent work on this and some great questions! On its face it doesn’t seem to make sense or pencil out. Is this going on because as you say, it may be a way to avoid some of the red tape that the FS has to deal with in its internal operations? An end around? That could be part of it.
I am curious how employees feel about some of these grants and agreements? Do they feel it is taking work away from them? Do they think it is all on the up and up? Will it take a whistleblower to expose what is going on? I too am not against NGO’s doing some of this work, I am just uncomfortable with the scale of it.
My sense is that there was recognition it would be impossible to spend all the money/get all the work done with the agency workforce so funds were shoved into large agreements for expediency. It’s not clear to me what work got accomplished via the keystone agreements and whether it was cost effective or done well. With the agency’s Equity Action Plan, and the focus of viewing agency actions through an equity lens, it’s unclear how the development of these high dollar agreements with a few NGO’s was done equitably.
A. To me, “equitable” is one of those words (abstractions) that can mean whatever anyone wants it to mean. People talk about it as if we agree on what it is, but we never have open conversations about it.
I took this a different way, and was wondering if this was on track, or have I jumped track?
Like, what in the heck are we (FS) doing? You mean we use NGO’s to do the work that A-76 identified as inherently government, to get away from FAR, OPM and USA Jobs? No wonder the FS went broke; what are the “FS Regulars” doing in the meantime, AgLearn?
Can’t have a FS employee on site without an NGO rep? Good grief, time to pee on the fire and call the dogs, this thing (our old Forest Service) is done……. FS employees are wringing their hands over a Trump victory and what that means to federal workers, crap like this, they have good reason!
TSW Watching the Watcher
I am deep in the middle of this as the chair of the Four Corners Chapter of the Association of Consulting Foresters (ACF), which as its name implies covers the Four Corner States and Wyoming. There are 8 full time members, 4 candidate members, 3 retired members and 3 associate members in Four Corners ACF. Many active members of Four Corners are retirees of the Forest Service including a regional forester, forest supervisor, forest staff officers and district rangers.
ACF membership has educational standards for professional natural resource competency and a rigorous vetting process for practicing members. Nationally, there are approximately 750 members in 38 states and growing.
The ACF has been in discussions with the National Wild Turkey Federation (NWTF) to provide professional forestry services for their forestry operations; however, no agreement has been reached. The big difference between the attached RFP from NWTF and what ACF would offer is educational requirements and professional expertise. No where in the NWTF RFP is there an educational requirement for forestry, no less natural resources. So, no competency requirement based on the science and practice of forestry. ACF members have an average of 30-years of professional forestry experience. Who knows what the RFP awardee will have in terms of education and experience, since it is not required. ACF membership includes names of firms that are widely recognized in and out of the forestry circle.
NWTF is not alone in subverting the Federal Acquisition Regulations (FARs). The National Forest Foundation (NFF) a Congressionally established foundation is inserting itself in operations on Colorado private land along with the alphabet soup of Federal and State agencies under the guise of cross-boundary work. Unfortunately, with all the swirl of agency and environmental non-government organizations (ENGOs) swarming to work both sides of the “fence” the private landowner’s interest is not represented. When one looks at the websites of the ENGO(s) there are few if any personnel with formal forestry education. The NFF Colorado coordinator has a background of wildland fire fighting coupled with a law degree and worked for an organization that is a serial lawsuit litigator against the United States.
In one Colorado case that I am familiar with, the NFF operated on both sides of the “fence,” in a lodgepole pine ecosystem, with little to no plan to remove harvested logs from the private land. Indeed, the private land log decks were not sorted by species, making it difficult for the private landowner to sell the heterogeneous decks. Abandoning the log decks which include lodge pole pine is an open invitation for mountain pine beetle. The activity slash management is decidedly a “Yugo” approach for the private land using a lop and scatter technique, in a “wildfire crisis landscape.” The federal side of the “fence” received a “Cadillac” approach with hand and machine piling for more robust slash disposal. Ostensibly, these government and private lands are within a Colorado “wildfire crisis landscape.” One feature these government/ENGO efforts fail to address is private landowner forest management plans that can provide a property tax benefit under the Colorado Forest Ag Program and responsible land and forest stewardship for 10-years or longer. ACF forester involvement would fully and completely represent the interests of the private landowner in these “cross boundary” endeavors now and in the future and provide a check on the excesses of government and its ENGO partners.
In all situations ACF its member firms and members stand ready to consider partnerships at any level to assist in meeting goals of “Cross Boundary” forestry.
Joe Reddan, Chair
Four Corner Chapter of Consulting Foresters (ACF)
“So we used to hire people to do the work. Now we give grants (without apparent competition) to large organization compete or hire people to do the work.”
This is called “Hollow Government” (or “Hollow State”) and it is doing precisely what is intended: taking government funding and directing it out of government to private entities. You see, contracting with the free market is always “more efficient” than when government workers do things, those lazy, free-loading, freedom-squashing bureaucrats.
This trend has been an increasingly dominant force in how the USG provides services since at least the Reagan era, and certainly will not be reversed in the next four years. I doubt anyone will be interested in “improving government efficiency” by allowing government to actually do things directly, with antiquated restrictions removed/updated, with funding for actually appropriate staffing levels in all the understaffed agencies. Where’s the profit in that?
But I don’t think for a minute that folks in ENGOs are about profit. They are trying to help. This specific outflow was established during the Biden Admin. So I’m not clear what you are saying. Maybe.. there’s a whiff of crony NGO-ism. but crony NGO-ism is about political rewards not profit. I don’t think that about American Forests, nor TU, nor the NBC.
Word of caution . . . don’t underestimate NGO budgetary incentives. Although “profit,” per se, is not (supposed to be) a part of the NGO lexicon, like all bureaucracies, NGOs follow the money. Success doing so translates to generous compensation packages for NGO CEOs and staff.
For example, CEO compensation packages at American Forests and Trout Unlimited are $430k and $463k, respectively. Although these two CEOs run corporations that are a minuscule fraction of the U.S. Forest Service’s budget and labor force, they get paid more than double the Chief’s SES salary of $212k. An increasing fraction of this compensation is paid directly from government grants and agreements, i.e., by taxpayers.
That’s a good point, Andy. And I think that there can be a groupthink of institutional aggrandizement such that “we are doing Gaia’s work so clearly there should be more funding.. to us.” If you didn’t believe that, you probably wouldn’t work there.