STANDARD REVIEW PROCEDURE (SRP)
The USDA Forest Service is authorized to loan property
to State foresters under cooperative agreements (Cooperative Forestry
Assistance Act of 1978, PL 95-313). This property remains titled to the
Forest Service and must be accounted for (inventoried) regularly and used
within program guidelines. The review process is designed to identify
areas of program weakness before they can become problems. Also, because
FEPP is a cooperative program, identifying shortfalls on the part of the
Forest Service is an important component of the review process.
A plan to correct weaknesses is the second major
component of the review. Setting realistic completion dates for actions
and establishing a followup process is part of that. The third component
is identifying the commendable actions or processes that keep the FEPP
program active and productive. These will be shared with other States.
Each State should be considered for a review at not less
than 3-year intervals. There are several good reasons the Forest Service
might choose not to do a review. These reasons include but are not limited
to:
- The State recently thoroughly audited or reviewed the
FEPP Program, and the report reflected no reasons that a Federal review
would be considered necessary.
- The State forestry agency using FEPP has an outstanding
internal control system that was recently tested and was found to be
working as intended.
- Forest Service personnel with FEPP responsibilities
work closely with the State forestry agency and are personally aware
that FEPP is being used and managed properly.
- A functional assistance trip was made to the State
by any of the Forest Service staff having responsibility for FEPP (State
and Private Forestry, Fire Staff; Acquisition Management); if the documented
results of the trip indicated that the State program was working as
needed.
- A formal review of related programs dealt significantly
with FEPP and identified no problems. An example might be a property
management review of the region/area that looked closely at the management
of FEPP property.
The decision whether a Federal FEPP review is required
should be made jointly by representatives of the three Forest Service
staffs responsible for FEPP. The decision should be documented and made
part of the State's record with the Forest Service.
The State forester
may have FEPP included in State reviews of the fire program, procurement
program, property program, or other State reviews.
Forest Service direction for Cooperative Forestry Assistance
Reviews is found in FSM 1460; three levels of reviews are described:
- Cooperative Management Review (CMR): A review
conducted by the top line officers of the State forestry agency and
the Forest Service to evaluate the organizational and administrative
environment in which the cooperative forestry programs operate, including
the managerial processes of both the State and the Forest Service.
- Cooperative Program Review (CPR): A Forest Service
and State review team examine all cooperatively funded activities that
contribute to a single program in the State. A CPR may be conducted
of one or more closely related activities within a cooperative forestry
assistance program.
-
Technical Assistance and Service
Trips: These may cover a single activity or an entire program.
Service trips and other forms of technical assistance may result from
either a State request or a perceived need by the Forest Service.
Reviews are performed by personnel from the State forester's
office and the regional office of the Forest Service. The review team
should include, as a minimum:
- The regional/area FEPP manager
- The State FEPP manager
- The Forest Service regional/area PMO
- A representative of the fire unit if the FEPP program
is administered by a State staff unit other than the fire unit.
- The regional aviation officer (if the State has FEPP
aircraft)
- The State aviation manager (if the State has FEPP aircraft)
Desirable team members include:
- The fire chief
- A representative from a sister State
- A representative from a local fire department
Before visiting State offices, the following information
should be gathered:
It would be helpful for the state agency to research these questions and be prepared to answer them at the beginning of the review.
- How many rural fires were in the state last year?
- How many VFD's does the stae have agreements with for FEPP?
- Who approves acquisitions and disposal of FEPP items?
- Is there a letter on file with the Forest Service from the State Forester for these appointments?
- How often are agreements updated with recipients of FEPP?
- How does the state notify the users of FEPP that the property belongs to the Forest Service?
- Does the state repair/rehab FEPP equipment for the VFD's?
- Does the state have a system to ensure equipment is put into service for fire fighting?
- Is there a time limit for a VFD to repair/rehab property?
- Does the state require vehicles to be painted certain fire colors?
- Does the state or VFD cannibalize salvage items for FEPP parts?
- Are requests for cannibalization submitted to the Forest Service prior to removal of parts?
- How does the state develop the Acquisition Plan?
- How many active screeners does the state have?
- Are the screeners paid or volunteers?
- Do screeners screen for the entire state or for certain geographic areas?
- Does the state have a priority system for assigning property?
- Who modifies property information in FEPMIS?
- Do District Managers have access and use FEPMIS?
- How often does the state conduct a 100% physical inventory?
- How is the inventory conducted - by whom?
- Are the FEPMIS inventory worksheets used? Are they being signed by the reviewer? Is the reviewer a state employee?
- Who updates the inventory date in FEPMIS? Does it match the date the property was inventoried?
- Are inventory records kept for a minimum of 5 years?
- Is property reported as excess in a timely manner? (within 3 months)
- Are change of status forms completed correctly with all pertinent information?
- Do VFD's use GSA as a source for equipment, PPE, ect?
The review documentation shall be in the following format.
Comments and commendations should be added where appropriate.
A. Review team participants' names and titles
B. Description of the scope and impact of the FEPP program
on the state's fire program.
C. Itinerary
D. Complete the following checklist. On the "Critical
Item" list, any "NO" response requires an action item. Any "NO" response
on items 1 through 12 requires notification to the Washington Office
of the Forest Service, and a written plan to make corrections. If the
plan is not followed, the Forest Service should consider suspending
new acquisitions until the situation is corrected.
| CRITICAL ITEM |
YES |
NO |
| 1. Are physical inventories being
conducted every 2 years? |
__ |
__ |
| 2. Were items selected for sampling
found in the expected locations? |
__ |
__ |
| 3. Were items selected for sampling
found in proper program use? |
__ |
__ |
| 4. Is the State providing receipt
copies of transfer orders to the Forest Service with complete information? |
__ |
__ |
| 5. Were the selected transfer
document audit trails complete, including the internal transfers? |
__ |
__ |
| 6. Are the physical inventory
results being reconciled with the Forest Service inventory? |
__ |
__ |
| 7. Is the Forest Service entering
property inventory information correctly and promptly? |
__ |
__ |
| 8. Does the State have a formal
disposal process? |
__ |
__ |
| 9. Is the disposal process being
followed consistently? |
__ |
__ |
| 10. Is there a formal process
in place to resolve concerns identified during reviews or audits? |
__ |
__ |
| 11. Have action items from the
last review/audit been cleared? |
__ |
__ |
| 12. Does the State have a formal
process for ensuring proper programmatic use of FEPP? |
__ |
__ |
| 13. Are there written agreements
with each local fire department for the use and care of FEPP? |
__ |
__ |
| 14. Are those agreements current,
with signatures that are still valid? |
__ |
__ |
| 15. Do the agreements cover all
the equipment? |
__ |
__ |
| 16. Has all unused or neglected
equipment been reported for disposal? |
__ |
__ |
| 17. Were the inspected items appropriately
stored and maintained? |
__ |
__ |
| 18. Is equipment identified as
FEPP? |
__ |
__ |
| 19. Is there a formal process
for assignment of equipment? |
__ |
__ |
| 20. Is the formal process for
assignment being followed consistently? |
__ |
__ |
| 21. Are screeners' cards current? |
__ |
__ |
| 22. Is rehabilitation being accomplished
in a timely manner? |
__ |
__ |
| 23. Is modification done properly
and safely? |
__ |
__ |
| 24. Does the State have a way
to ensure liability insurance is carried on all vehicles? |
__ |
__ |
| 25. Do screeners have access to
the FEPP Desk Guide? |
__ |
__ |
| 26. Does the State process for
signing out warehoused property, whether to local fire department
personnel or to State employees, provide assurance that program
rules are being followed? |
__ |
__ |
| 27. Does a paper audit of State
noninventoried property records indicate that the State knows where
it is, and takes proper steps to be sure that it remains in service
or is disposed of properly? |
__ |
__ |
E. A "NO" on the Standard Item checklist MAY require
an action item:
| STANDARD ITEM |
YES |
NO |
| 1. Is the State forester knowledgeable
about the FEPP program and State responsibilities? |
__ |
__ |
| 2. Does the State clearly justify
unusual requests? |
__ |
__ |
| 3. Is there regular contact between
the State forestry staff and local firefighters? |
__ |
__ |
| 4. Does the State have regulations
and policies in place for the FEPP program? |
__ |
__ |
| 5. Does the State use electronic
screening/freezing to facilitate acquisition? |
__ |
__ |
| 6. Are permissions obtained prior
to cannibalization? |
__ |
__ |
| 7. Are cannibalizations completed
within 18 months and the carcasses disposed of properly? |
__ |
__ |
| 8. Are boneyards, if any, kept
to a minimum? |
__ |
__ |
F. For States with FEPP aircraft, also complete
the "Aircraft Critical Item" list. Any "NO" response requires an action
item and requires notification to the Washington Office of the Forest
Service, and a written plan to make corrections. If the plan is not
followed, the Forest Service should consider suspending new aircraft
and aircraft parts acquisitions until the situation is corrected.
| ITEM |
YES |
NO |
| 1. Are use logs accurate and up-to-date? |
__ |
__ |
| 2. Are records for flight-safety-critical
and other time/life parts kept accurately? |
__ |
__ |
| 3. Are undocumented scrap parts
being sufficiently destroyed to prevent unauthorized movement into
private hands? |
__ |
__ |
| 4. Is the use of aircraft within
the 90/10 rule? |
__ |
__ |
| 5. Are maintenance records in
compliance with FAA regulations? |
__ |
__ |
G. Attach a narrative explaining each "NO" response.
H. With the State, complete an action plan. Each
"NO" item from the Critical Item List and the Aircraft Critical List
(for States with FEPP aircraft) must be addressed. Each "NO" item from
the Standard List must be noted, and if no action is needed, an explanation
should be included.
At a minimum, Action Plans will include the following:
- Item list identification
- Scope of concern
- Action required
- Responsible party
- Due date
- Target date for final closure.
Closure should normally require no more than 6 months.
The review may not be closed out until all actions have been completed
and documented. Failure by the State to complete action items may be grounds
for suspension of program. Failure by the Forest Service to complete action
items may be grounds for disciplinary action.
Last Update May 17, 2006
|