One of our Anonymous colleagues sent in this question:
I am curious about thoughts on agency vs. contract pilots, specifically in the smokejumper program. There is some fear that if everything ends up under DOI, given their current model, that FS agency smokejumper pilots may be relieved of their positions while being replaced by contract pilots/aircraft. Are agency pilots that stay in their area of operations long term, gaining and passing on institutional knowledge of the mission and locale worth keeping around? Are contractors actually cheaper in the long run? Should agency aviators step out of the way and not be bothered about losing their fed jobs and doing the same thing for a contractor with fewer benefits and more time away from home? You might have guessed where my bias is, but I’m truly open to others’ honest (and hopefully kind) opinions on the subject.
Boy howdy, does that bring back memories of many discussions! Most recently my concerns about seed orchard manager and reforestation positions being farmed out as temporaries to NGO’s. Of course, contracts are not grants, but the impacts to the workforce can be the same. I’m not sure that has ever been explored, but I think GAO could probably take a look at employees vs. contractors vs. granting and check out various measures of efficiency.
My experience is almost entirely with vegetation work, so I don’t know how widely applicable that would be to aviation. But here goes…
When I entered the FS scene, timber sales were contracted. There are folks out there who remember more. Cone collection and planting contracts could be force account (employees) or contracts. The contractors tended not to reside in local communities.. and tended to be the lowest bidders. Of course, in some cases, the contracts were cheap because the contractor was taking advantage of people who weren’t legally in the country and there were horror stories about how some were treated. The problem of what it takes to be the “lowest bidder” and what shortcuts are taken via safety or quality maybe can’t be quantified.
What is “inherently governmental”? Would a successful Ranger District just be three people, a Ranger, a contracting officer and a grants and agreements person? But as we’ve seen, recently the FS has granted funds for outside groups to administer federal contracts, which seems like it should be “inherently governmental.” It’s all very puzzling and seemingly inconsistent.
What’s the value of knowledge and experience and where should it be placed in employees? There may be no right answer, just what works currently with some idea of costs and risks.
What do others think?
“Would a successful Ranger District just be three people, a Ranger, a contracting officer and a grants and agreements person?” Combine the CO and grants employees into one position and DOGE will be happier.
To be fair, what Admin sent hundreds of mills out to NGOs and then couldn’t afford to hire temps?
I’m somewhat concerned that in some eyes, DOGE has become one of those abstractions that may keep us from looking at the fact that some things they are doing are not all bad, and that previous Admins of both parties had plenty of opportunity to work on such topics and chose not to. There has been no serious effort since the National Performance Review 30 years ago.
Pushing for governmental efficiency by way of reduced budgets which force contracting everything while pretending that institutional knowledge and professional experience don’t have value is a great way to set up land managing agencies for failure.
If certain parties can create the impression of incompetence of government employees and agencies, then it becomes much easier to proclaim the grand experiment of government holding and managing the people’s lands (National Parks and National Forests, etc.) for the “greatest good of the greatest number in the long run” is a failure.
At that point and while trying to manage a HUGE NATIONAL DEBT LOAD, perhaps short-sighted citizens will allow the people’s lands to be put up for sale to the highest bidder. Sale of those lands could pay down a lot of the national debt.
Who would have the capital to purchase the land? There are many billionaires and cash rich corporations that would snap up the crown jewels in a split second. Especially if it is made to look like its just a few spots with high value that can generate huge revenue so that the politicians won’t raise your income taxes or decimate retirement savings or eliminate promised health care. In the short term, it will look and sound great. Especially to the ever-growing urban population that rarely, if ever, gets to enjoy visiting those lands in person. They do not understand where their (clean, usable) water originates or where the lumber for their apartment building came from or where the oxygen they breath came from or where the carbon dioxide is removed from the atmosphere. Access to the less productive or profitable lands could also become blocked or available for a fee (not subject to political oversight).
Re-evaluate every proposed “efficiency”, under-funding, reorganization, as possibly a good idea OR as step one in the grand scheme to enable the greatest land grab of all times.
My experience; most fixed wing pilots we flew with were Agency employees, or at least Feds. Helicopters are almost always contract, but FS helicopter pilots are out there, right now. As for contract vs force account, contracting is almost always cheaper, mainly due to the benefits. The sweet spot is to continue to maintain the local knowledge within the FS while utilizing contract help for the heavy lifting.
Good Neighbor is a mix of governments and contracting authority, handled through Grants and Agreements but taking on the structure of contracting! Then, we have the Stewardship Contracting, with both timber sales components (IRTC) vs service as (IRSC), both strictly non-federal personnel.
So I guess it depends on finite dollars and quantifiable targets….