cor task group findings alternative strategies recommendations
TRANSCRIPT
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