Section 331 NDAA Process Overview Fairbanks North Star Borough, Alaska April 2014 Fairbanks North Star Borough • Luke T. Hopkins, Mayor • Barbara Johnson, Special Assistant Section 331 of the NDAA On January 3rd, 2013, the Intergovernmental Support Agreements with State and Local Governments Authority was signed i into llaw as S Section i 331 off the h Fiscal i l Year 2013 National Defense Authorization Act – Broadened the ability of the military to contract with state and local government – Purpose – to create efficiencies and/or reduce the cost of services 3 Section 331 – Potential Partners Alaska Military Installations • • • • • • Fort Wainwright* Fort Greely Eielson Air Force Base* Clear Air Force Station Joint Base Elmendorf-Richardson Elmendo f Richa dson ** US Coast Guard – Valdez, Kodiak, and Juneau * Within the Fairbanks North Star Borough ** Withi Within th the M Municipality i i lit off A Anchorage h 4 Alaska Military Installations For a geographic comparison, comparison and distance between military installations installations, note that Alaska is two and a half times the size of Texas. The Fairbanks North Star Borough is 7,444 sq. mi. just slightly smaller than the state of New Jersey. 5 Distance from Fairbanks • Fort Wainwright is within the City of Fairbanks • Eielson AFB is 26 miles • Clear Air Force Station is 78 miles • Fort Greely is 100 miles • Joint Joint-Base Base Elmendorf Richardson (JBER) - Anchorage is 362 miles 6 Alaska Military Hierarchy In times of war, Lt. Gen. Russell Handy is over the Air Force and Maj. General Michael Shields is over the Army. Lt. General Russell Handy JBER – Anchorage (over all Alaska Military - ALCOM) Maj. General Michael Shields JBER – Anchorage (over all Army - USARAK) COL Sidney “Cape” Zemp Fort Wainwright Brig. General Mark Kelly Eielson Air Force Base Fairbanks North Star Borough Fairbanks North Star Borough LTC Brian Speas Fort Greely y Lt. Col. Jennifer Jeffries Clear Air Force Station Outside the FNSB Outside the FNSB 7 Section 331 Core Committee G Government and d Mili Military L Leaders d • FNSB, City of Fairbanks, and City of North Pole • State of Alaska Department of Military & Veterans Affairs – Alaska Al k Ai Air Guard G d – Alaska Army Guard • U. S. Pacific Command – Eielson Air Force Base – Clear Air Force Station • U.S. Army Alaska – Fort Wainwright – Fort Greely • Joint Base Elmendorf-Richardson 8 Section 331 Workgroup Composition • • • • • • • • Fairbanks North Star Borough (FNSB) City of Fairbanks* City of North Pole* Fort Wainwright* Fort Greely Ei l Eielson Ai Air F Force B Base* * Clear Air Force Station Joint Base Elmendorf-Richardson (listen in) In addition several State of Alaska agencies participate *Located within the FNSB 9 Section 331 Process • June, 2013 – Formation of Core Committee (military and state and local government leaders) • Organization of 8 workgroups: public works, emergency services, communications, human resources, family support services, t transportation, t ti airport, i t and d procurement 10 Section 331 Process • July 7th – 21st, 2013 All workgroups met and produced 1 ½ to 2 pages of ideas for joint contracting t ti ffor goods d or services i • July 22, 2013 Core Committee met to hear the results of the meetings • Interim: I t i JJuly l – November, N b 2013 project specific work continued 11 Section 331 Process • November, 2013 – Public Works Workgroup chaired by Fort Wainwright focused on gravel purchases, elevator maintenance and fire alarm maintenance, systems – Submission of p proposal p to ACSIM – Chosen as one of 4 installations to assist in creation of a nationwide model d l ffor the th Army A • January through March, 2014 continuation of full workgroup meetings and focus groups 12 Section 331 Outcomes • Joint purchase of: – Gravel – Elevator Maintenance – Fire Alarm System services • Coal Ash Management – Coal Power Plants • Fort Wainwright • Eielson AFB • Clear AFS • University of Alaska Fairbanks • Private firms 13 Section 331 Outcomes • Coal Ash Project – Power p plants p produce significant g amounts of coal ash for disposal – Production of coal ash is nearly equivalent to the amount of solid waste going into the landfill annually – Public Works workgroup determination that there would be major issues for disposal within 3 years 14 Section 331 Outcomes • Coal Ash Project – FNSB ffunded d d a study t d to t examine i the amount of coal ash being produced and define solutions for management – Study y to be completed p on 3/31/14 / / – Potential options under review • Expansion p of the FNSB landfill to create a special area to contain it • Exploration of business use in road and rail beds as a stabilizer 15 Section 331 Outcomes • E-911 System Upgrade – FNSB contract – State of Alaska “piggy-backing” – Fort F t Wainwright W i i ht – initiated i iti t d a feasibility analysis • Law Enforcement f – Review of impact on City of Fairbanks police from pending Fort Wainwright deployments 16 Section 331 Outcomes • Shared use of regional oversized maintenance facility and specialized mechanics for emergency apparatus – City of Fairbanks building • Shared equipment – Concept of web based system for tracking availability • Shared cost for fly-in inspections 17 Section 331 Outcomes Joint purchases: • Oil @ $1 $1,500 500 a barrel • Polypropylene-glycol @ $1,200 a barrel • Fuel – FNSB and School District in joint contract – others can “piggy-back” • Vehicles – Review of specs and streamlining orders for savings 18 Section 331 Outcomes • Sexual Assault Focus Group • Interior Alaska Workforce Development Committee • Shared information – Job b postings – Online job fairs – Joint J i t Advertising Ad ti i – Family Support Services Events • Joint J i t ttrainings i i across all ll departments and organizations • Shared specialized project personnel 19 Section 331 - Focus Focus narrowed to two different types of contracts to create models: • Joint J i t contracting t ti ffor services i with ith all ll organizations’ required contract clauses – Elevator maintenance - joint contract with most local governments and military installations participating • Cooperative services agreement – Shared use of the City of Fairbanks’ oversized regional maintenance facility with the option of purchasing the services of their specialized mechanics • Most organizations are on overflow for their own oversized maintenance facilities – great interest in contracting 20 Section 331 -Model • Monterey Model – Major savings in providing services directly to military y installations • Monterey model doesn’t fit Alaska – Alaska composition • 3 local governments • 4 military installations – Very limited ability to share services – Challenges due to Public Works departments not being similar to the City of Monterey – Challenges due to distances between Fairbanks and military facilities • Savings g recognized g in Alaska will primarily be from joint purchases of goods 21 and services Streamline Process -External • Legislation to refine process to simplify Section 331 agreements and contracts across all parties: federal, federal state, state and local bodies • Ensure that regulations governing grant funds across the board allow latitude to share equipment and participate in jjoint p purchases 22 Streamline Process - Internal • Recognize the reduced level of risk for government to government agreements and contracts • Federal, state and local government - streamline their g internal approval processes and simplify for Section 331 • Review spending caps for internal approval for Section 331 agreements and d contracts 23 Streamline Process- Simplify p y • Waive the Federal Acquisition Regulations (FAR) to bring the federal government requirements on par with state and local requirements • Streamline the joint purchasing process so the Army and Air Force can “piggy-back” p ggy on other federal state and local contracts, i.e. accepting their procurement guidelines 24 Corporate Model for Shared Services • Are there lessons learned from the corporate model for shared services that could benefit Section 331? • Evaluate the corporate model when redefining the federal, state, and local laws for ease of contracting 25 Corporate Model for Shared Services Shared services is nothing new • Rewriting the Playbook for Corporate Partnerships (MIT) http://sloanreview.mit.edu/article/rewriting-theplaybook-for-corporate-partnerships/ • Rewriting India’s Shared Services Playbook y https://www.atkearney.com/paper//asset_publisher/dVxv4Hz2h8bS/content/rewritingindia-s-shared-services-playbook/10192 26 Corporate Model for Shared S Services i • The new paradigm for adaptive strategic partnering does not completely eliminate the need for contracts. • But, But organizations involved can adapt to changing circumstances, contracts are no longer the law governing the parties’ actions. ti • In practice, the negotiation process (during which both parties discuss what they expect and the value that they aim to create) is more important than the contract itself. itself 27 Joint Contracting – WSCA All authorized governmental entities in any y state are welcome to use Western State Contracting Alliance (WSCANASPO) cooperative contracts with the approval of that state's state s State Chief Procurement Official. Cooperative purchasing benefits states as well as cities, counties, public schools, institutions of higher education and other eligible g entities. 28 Joint Contracting – WSCA Since 1993, the Western States Contracting Alliance (WSCA) served as the primary cooperative purchasing arm of NASPO and encouraged, fostered, and guided participating members to work collaboratively in an effort to create true procurement cooperatives. WSCA-NASPO represents a unified, nationallyfocused cooperative purchasing program that will leverage the collective expertise and experience of WSCA and NASPO, aggregate the demand of all 50 states, the District of Columbia and the five organized territories, territories and their political subdivisions and other eligible entities, and help spur innovation and competition in the p marketplace. 29 Restrictions on Sec. 331 Grants – federal, state, and local money • Restrictions in the grant regulations specifying that: – Equipment must be used for its intended p purpose p doesn’t allow for sharing unless there is a Sec. 331 exemption – Grant G t ffunding di for f joint j i t purchases h may not be allowed without an exemption for Sec. 331 30 Restrictions on Sec. Sec 331 • Federal Acquisition Regulations (FAR) – cumbersome creating barrier to joint contracting for goods and services • Internal processes within federal, state and local governmentt are cumbersome b 31 St Streamlining li i th through hL Legislation i l ti • Enact legislation to streamline federal, state, and local government rules for funding sources used to implement Section 331 • Results - increased efficiencies in implementing p g contracts thereby incentivizing organizations g to p participate p 32 Next Steps p • Local and state government engage Congressional g Delegation g to foster changes streamlining the Section 331 process • Increased collaboration with Army and Air Force Section 331 leaders • Section S i 331 lleaders d sharing h i off lessons learned from other installations • Applying military suite of model agreements to projects underway 33 Conclusion Section 331 of the Fiscal Year 2013 National Defense Authorization Act is powerful tool, and the process of implementing it is resulting in a multitude of promising projects. But, legislative changes are necessary to simplify the contracting and agreement process to incentivize participation. 34
© Copyright 2024 ExpyDoc
