Tough Questions that need answers for the industry

Once again during this fire season our industry has faced another season of great challenges.

We watched fires burn in Texas and were frustrated they would not accept our services to assist with protecting their homes, lives and resources due to budget issues in Texas.

We watched as “Agency Only” resource orders came out one after the other as our resources sat idle, some of us just a few miles from the fires.  

We listened as we were told repeatedly that:

• we are too expensive
• Agency personnel had not had fire assignments in the past two years and needed to get their proficiency levels up all the while knowing  that we too need the assignments for our upper level management and trainers to stay current and that we are the best value for call when needed resources.

I heard from many of you across the United States and shared your frustrations. I know that many of you contracted your local contracting folks as well as some of your congressional folks out of frustration.

Some of our members did get out for a few days, but was it enough to recoup your costs and make it worth the effort to continue to contract out your resources?

We did get to share your concerns with some upper level management within the Forest Service recently and we asked some tough questions.

The biggest thing we shared with them is potential loss of jobs in this industry.  We field a workforce of up to 20,000 firefighters nationwide and based on our survey we stand to lose up to 50% of them if we don’t see enough work to justify the costs of doing business with the federal agencies.  A loss of 10,000 jobs and the economic impact of dollars no longer spent in these small rural communities would be catastrophic. Below are some of the questions we asked.

1. How many contracted pieces of water handling and heavy equipment do they think they can realistically utilize on a regular basis in an average 10 year cycle?

2. If they can determine that number, they need to consider contracting it with a “True Best Value” agreement.  One that awards for DPL based on some of the following criteria:

·         Company Work History

·         Financial History

·         Personnel Capabilities

·         Safety & Training Programs

·         Equipment Quality

·         Past Performance History

These are just a few of the factors that should be considered in order for the taxpayer and the agency to get the “best value” for their dollar.

3. Do the folks making the dispatch decision on fires know that the number placed on the 2009 Standard Worksheet for private resources are “All Inclusive” numbers and that the agency costs on that sheet are “Direct Costs” only.    Also we provided them with two examples showing that over a 180 day fire season we are the better value when they need us.

And we discussed the need for some day guarantees’ for slow fire seasons in order to help our member companies at least recoup their costs for meeting the contract requirements for that year.  Things such as insurance, training, and equipment changes.  This will ensure that our resources continue to be available when they are needed.

Times are changing across all industries in the United States and times are hard for all of us, but we think making some of these changes will save money for the taxpayers and the agencies.  At the same time it will allow our member companies to make some sound business decisions.  We will continue to follow up on these discussions and work to move our issues forward.

We have heard your frustrations and we are working to try to create a better work relationship with our client, the federal agencies.

I want to thank all of you for providing input on your concerns, and trusting elected representatives on the NWSA Board of Directors to carry those concerns to the appropriate folks.

Visit NWSA website at http://www.nwsa.us or email us at info@nwsa.us