ASG Mtg Notes Apr 06 



Meeting Notes
Alsea Stewardship Group
10 April 2006 Yachats Commons
                                        

Attendees: Elmer Ostling, Mike Kennedy, Dan Segotta, Bill Blackwell, Bill Helphinstine, Ray Hughey, Wayne Hoffman, Jim Adler, Chandra LeGue, Doug Shaller, Paul Thomas, Paul Engelmeyer, Fran Recht, Joe Rohleder, Diane Henkels, Meredith Savage, Chuck Willer, Karen Strohmeyer, Andrew Kittel, Rick Muir, Ed Johnston, Marcus Kauffman, Linda Johnston

The meeting was called to order by the facilitator, Marcus Kauffman.
The group introduced themselves.
March meeting notes were reviewed and approved with changes on pgs 1 & 2
Marcus reviewed the agenda.

Forest Service Best Value Evaluation Criteria:

- Review recommendations and comments:

Marcus reviewed notes he passed around plus some of the comments of the people who responded. The Forest Service does not want to be the middleman in the thins as this happened in two previous sales and it did not work out. Although a Congressman proposed “brokering”, it is not a workable situation. The premise is “separate logger from logs.” The value of the logs and the value of services are separate. Current guidelines are not the same as the pilot guidelines, which were in place previously.

Factors: A). Local economic impact; B). Price; C). Technical approach; D). Capability & past performance. Weighting can be just for these two sales (Buck & Cascade), using this as a template with the ability to adjust as we go along. Commentary included some choice in bidding by contractors, i.e. do logging but not culverts, etc. Dan stated they look at a project & if something can be obviously done by the equipment there, it goes in as mandatory. Other things can be optional. Generally contractors will do optional jobs. Most of those who bid sub out part or much of the work. Many contractors are construction type. Optional work can be done after logging with retained receipts. Andy suggested we be lenient and not penalize for some parts a contractor is not able to do, wanting to see contracts work. Dan stated there are very qualified timber administrators to help prevent future problems, also factoring in past performance & bonding. It needs to be simple enough for contractors to respond and easy enough for decisions to be made. Purchasers are asked for complaints & comments.

Per Dan, RFP’s are too complicated, between 30 & 60 pages now. We shouldn’t get too detailed in what we ask for in that it restricts the ability of those responding. Andy thought the Roundtable information might be helpful. Also, be aware of the cost of submitting a proposal, as small business does not have the staff. Chuck suggested taking a look at these current RFP’s, helpful critique? Use this stewardship in addition to regular bid proposals. Wayne stated that bidders were buyers of logs in the Siuslaw. Those companies hired out or contracted. Use this strategy? Set it up so locals can do. Or, limit each factor to “x”pages, leaving technical approach with no limits. Look at representative contracts? Proposals? The question was made to leave guidelines as is for these 2 projects. Possibly pare down for local contractors? Larger companies can hire locals as subs? Marcus said their experience is small contractors do not have the money for larger bonding. Dan said the FS accepts “rolling bonds”, helping smaller operators. Cascade is a smaller project; Buck is too big for small contractors. It was suggested we stick with the general contracting format, leaving factors alone for now & not breaking them down into sub-factors, but letting the RFP’s do that.

Safety is in past performance category. Length of employment a factor? Dependable labor is an issue. The performance we are interested in is on-the-ground, sales, yarding, culverts, etc. The FS adds key personnel to be listed. Is there a choice of subcontractors? Are they locked in? Past proposals always listed one sub-contractor’ could list 3 contractors.

It was questioned if we are OK with factors & weighting so we can move on. Headquarters of firms hire and train local workers. Does this assure the quality of local people & companies? Can treatment of workers be built into the contract? Shoddy contractors will not be able to compete with RFP’s. General wages? See what can be included in a contract. Monitoring is an actual economic benefit to workers, when we have retained receipts. Raise number of points on past performance? Start up business? If make past performance higher weight, this will knock out new companies. Past performance can be related business experience; not preclude those with no past record. FS looks at Federal contract work for experience; this is a different world. Marcus moved to accept the standards the way they are for these 2 sales; Andy 2nd. Passed.

- Local: definition for contractors/subcontractors:

In general, favor communities within the project area. Counties?

Zone 1-local area: defined by the Alsea Stewardship Project Area boundary, not the actual stewardship sale areas, or within 20 air miles of the project site. Points up to 100%.

Zone 2-quasi-local area: Discussion of outside being “0” points. Suggestion for some points for circle just outside Zone 1; have some economic benefit. Suggested 45 air miles from Alsea Stewardship Project Area boundary. Points up to 25? 50? Some contractors & subcontractors are dislocated; have Dan report back on where the contractors have been used in the past. Suggestion exclude urban areas? County areas are considered local by many folk. These guidelines send out a message; would like to see this happen. The final decision is tabled for Zone 2 until we hear back from Dan Segotta. A scoping letter is passed out with timeline.

Stewardship Guiding Principles:

Craft goals and objectives to help BLM/FS know what we want to see. Going through this each time is not necessary. It was suggested Marcus make up a list of past projects completed & add in what was discussed. We already worked on goals and objectives; do these needs to be site specific for projects? Marcus - prioritize those things talked about, benefits, goals and objectives in Stewardship plan already agreed on. We can make judgment calls on a case-by-case basis. Marcus will pull out goals and objectives from the application to see if those are sufficient; if not we can plan more. Chuck mentioned county payments in stewardship areas? Stick with the legislation; beware of no stewardship contracts, only traditional regarding money for counties.

Next Meeting Agenda Topics:

-     Finish up Zone 2
-     Proxy guidelines
-     BLM further work on BLM goals, etc.
-     Western Alsea Project, Paul Thomas
-     Revisit goals & objectives

Next meeting is Monday, 22 May, 6-8 pm, Alsea Library

West Alsea planning websites

 


Northwest Forest Plan
<http://www.reo.gov/library/reports/newsandga.pdf>
<http://www.reo.gov/library/reports/newroda.pdf>

Siuslaw Forest Plan
<http://www.fs.fed.us/r6/siuslaw/projects/forestplan1990/index>

Lower Alsea Watershed Analysis
<http://www.or.blm.gov/salem/html/planning/l_alsea_wa/low_alsea_wa.pdf>

Siuslaw NF Roads Analysis Report www.fs.fed.us/r6/siuslaw/projects/forestplanning/roadanalysis/index <http://www.fs.fed.us/r6/siuslaw/projects/forestplanning/roadanalysis/index>

West Alsea Planning Project (being established)
<http://www.fs.fed.us/r6/siuslaw/projects/nepa/index.shtml>