PRIVATIZATION: SOME PRACTICAL REALITIES
BY DENNIS KUBICKI, P.E.
Federal agencies, state and local governments, and private organizations are increasingly focused on identifying activities that can be performed effectively by others at less cost. The term “privatization” has been applied to this process, although many of these operations are currently performed by “private” contractors. These contractors are facing more aggressive competition by firms claiming to be able to achieve the same capability more efficiently.
This “privatization/increased competition” initiative is now encompassing organizations that provide emergency services. It is prompted in part by the perception that the budgets of fire departments and ambulance services may be excessive. The privatization initiative is also stimulated by the representations of potential competing organizations. An additional factor is the lack of a complete understanding by some budget officials of the multiplicity of responsibilities and activities that constitute an emergency services organization, as well as the potential repercussions of diminished emergency response capabilities on the safety of the community.
The risk in implementing this initiative without sufficient forethought is that, in the absence of comprehensively definitive compliance criteria and explicit performance measures, a significant reduction in emergency response capability may result. This could have potentially severe consequences for the health and safety of the public should a major emergency occur.
This assessment is not meant to denigrate privatization or to imply that greater efficiencies cannot be achieved within the realm of emergency services. In fact, across the country fire departments are scaling back personnel levels, activities, and purchases significantly. Such reductions, however, should be based on a rational technical basis that reflects a reasonable assessment of community hazards, emergency scenarios, personnel constraints, and the limitations of cooperative assistance, in addition to the host of nonemergency activities that are within the scope of the responsibility of the fire department. Such activities include training, building inspections, equipment testing and maintenance, mutual-aid commitments, and fire prevention activities, among others.
PERFORMANCE CRITERIA
Increasingly within the Federal Government, contracts delineating the performance expectations for emergency services organizations are stipulating conformance with industry standards as the sole measure of effectiveness. For example, the U.S. Department of Energy has recently adopted a “Necessary and Sufficient” initiative under which its maintenance and operating contractors are permitted to define for themselves the criteria under which site fire departments are to operate. Typically, the new contracts feature language that mandates conformance with the National Fire Protection Association (NFPA) codes and standards as well as the applicable requirements of the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) featured in 29 Code of Federal Regulations, Part 1910.
Basing the performance of emergency services organizations as part of a privatization initiative on conformance with NFPA and OSHA standards or the criteria developed by the Insurance Services Organization (ISO) is insufficient, however. That is because these standards and other applicable criteria do not address comprehensively all of the aspects of the organization and functioning of a fire department and related organizations.
For example, NFPA Standard 1500, Standard on Fire Department Occupational Safety and Health Program, requires that a minimum of four trained firefighters be pres-ent before interior structural firefighting commences. However, neither this standard nor others that are applicable to fire departments address the number of trained emergency responders who would be required to effectively respond to the spectrum of potential emergencies typical of an average community. Four trained firefighters would not be sufficient to deal with a building fire that involves a casualty requiring medical assistance because of the competing demands for personnel to suppress the fire as well as attend to the injured. Nor would four be sufficient if a fire required deploying multiple hoselines or involved search and rescue activities.
The OSHA General Industry Standards focus on the safety of individual firefighters rather than address the broader issue of staffing vs. effectiveness.
The ISO Fire Suppression Rating Schedule would credit higher levels of personnel in conjunction with staffing of engine and ladder companies, and so on. ISO Public Protection Classifications would not be an efficient tool in the evaluation of competing bids from contractors under a privatization initiative because of the inability to fairly judge the effectiveness of a potential competitor against the existing capabilities of the in-place fire department. An additional factor for federal fire departments is the lack of existing ISO classifications for federal sites.
Similarly, industry standards do not directly address the timeliness of emergency response–specifically, how long should it take for the first-due company to arrive at the scene, taking into account the time associated with alarm handling, travel, and access? As basic a consideration as this is, timeliness of response is a critical parameter in evaluating the effectiveness of competing proposals for emergency services under a privatization initiative. Unless expected response times are explicitly defined as a performance measure, a potential competitor could structure a proposed response capability featuring more delayed responses (including fewer companies and stations) and thereby undercut other bidders or the existing emergency services organization.
Other considerations relevant to this issue include the number, type, and age of mobile apparatus (including replacement cycles). Unless these parameters were clearly and comprehensively defined, a potential competitor under a privatization initiative could develop a lower bid by unjustifiably reducing the numbers of apparatus, eliminating necessary specialized apparatus, and allowing equipment to age beyond reasonable service lives. Such actions would certainly cut costs, but they would have noticeable adverse consequences on the effectiveness of emergency response.
In addition to tangible issues, such as personnel and apparatus, a number of intangible factors significantly affect costs and thereby affect the process used to judge the suitability of alternatives under a privatization initiative. Such factors include, but are not limited to, personnel`s training and experience, the extent of fire prevention activities, maintenance programs, public outreach activities, and mutual-aid commitments. Again, the point is that, unless the scope of these activities is clearly defined in terms of measurable performance parameters, competing organizations would be able to tailor their bids on the basis of reduced levels of activities or levels of personnel qualification.
BASELINE NEEDS ASSESSMENT
Consideration of alternatives to the current emergency services capability under a privatization initiative must ensure that a fully capable organization will exist to effectively respond to anticipated emergencies in a timely manner. One method to help achieve this goal and also to establish a technical basis for future budgeting and planning is to develop a baseline needs assessment. This goes beyond a typical fire department organizational statement or risk management plan to define the minimum required capabilities of the fire department based on a range of anticipated scenarios. The assessment also addresses the nonemergency activities that are also the responsibility of a fire department. It answers the following questions:
What is needed?
Why is it needed?
When is it needed?
What is the performance measure?
Are there potential areas for greater efficiency?
THE ROCKY FLATS ASSESSMENT
The following simple example is offered to illustrate one element of the process. It is based on an actual baseline needs assessment developed by the Department of Energy for the fire department protecting its Rocky Flats Environmental Technology Site (RFETS) near Boulder, Colorado.
For fire suppression, the process starts with a determination, based on engineering analysis, of the most demanding fire scenario facing the fire department. This determination considers the size, construction, hazards of occupancy, and available protection for an individual building or complex of buildings. At RFETS, this is a large industrial operations-type building complex that is protected by an automatic sprinkler system, among other safety features. It also considers a credible scenario and the resources necessary to effectively deal with it. The particular scenario assessed was a working fire with a casualty requiring medical assistance. The resulting needs were determined to be four pieces of mobile apparatus (two engines, one ambulance, and one incident command unit) and 12 firefighters.
The associated performance measure was that the fire department must be capable of deploying two charged hoselines and flow at least 300 gallons per minute within any fire area within 15 minutes of initial receipt of an alarm.
Note that in several respects, the planned response did not always conform with NFPA standards. Where such standards were not followed, appropriate justification was provided. Also, the needs assessment included planning for a simultaneous second response. For larger fire departments, multiple responses would have to be assessed based on past history and trending analysis.
Additional analyses were performed to determine minimum needs for the following fire department missions:
emergency medical services;
hazardous-materials incident response;
technical rescue;
emergency fire system isolation and stabilization;
fire system trouble and supervisory investigation;
fire hydrant flow testing and maintenance;
fire prevention building inspections;
fire preplan development;
fire watch and controlled burn services; and
training, certification, and physical fitness.
For each mission, a listing of the minimum resources required was developed, along with a written rationale and a specific performance measure. The latter was considered critical to judge current and future effectiveness. An aggregate total of the time expended by the fire department for each of these activities was determined from run records and other data.
This type of information, along with any other unique operational or organizational factors, can be used to develop a request for proposals for any emergency services organization in conjunction with a privatization initiative in a manner that will help ensure that competing proposals are both prepared and judged equitably.
Beyond that, the results of a needs assessment can also be used as a comprehensive technical basis to support annual budget requests and as a tool to assess the current effectiveness and efficiency of fire department operations and related programs.
ANOTHER SELF-ASSESSMENT TOOL
The National Fire Service Accreditation Program, developed by the IAFC Accreditation Task Force and available from the International Association of Fire Chiefs, is a mechanism for guiding a fire department, regardless of its type and size, in examining every program and service it provides.
The Fire and Emergency Services Self-Assessment Manual, a component of the program, contains six sections: Overview, Concepts and Objectives, Self-Assessment Manual, Categories and Criteria, Resource and Information Collection Guide, and Appendices (which contain information on special topics such as OStandards of Cover,O OElements of Response Time,O ODe-veloping a Master or Strategic Plan,O and a Glossary. It facilitates the process of self-accreditation, enables a department to identify areas of strengths and weaknesses, and assists in the development of short- and long-term strategic plans.
For additional information, contact Andrea A. Walter, Special Projects Coordinator, IAFC, at (703) 273-0911, ext. 310; fax: (703) 273-9363. n
DENNIS KUBICKI, P.E., is a fire protection engineer with the Office of Environment, Safety, and Health at the U.S. Department of Energy. His responsibilities include developing fire safety policy for DOE emergency response forces. He has almost 25 years of fire protection experience and is the chairman of the DOE Fire Safety Committee.
