FY 2000 proposal 199800800
Contents
Section 1. General administrative information
Section 2. Past accomplishments
Section 3. Relationships to other projects
Section 4. Budgets for planning/design phase
Section 5. Budgets for construction/implementation phase
Section 6. Budgets for operations/maintenance phase
Section 7. Budgets for monitoring/evaluation phase
Section 8. Budget summary
Reviews and Recommendations
Additional documents
| Title | Type |
|---|---|
| 199800800 Narrative | Narrative |
| 199800800 Sponsor Response to the ISRP | Response |
Section 1. Administrative
| Proposal title | Regional Forum Facilitation Services |
| Proposal ID | 199800800 |
| Organization | DS Consulting |
| Proposal contact person or principal investigator | |
| Name | Donna Silverberg |
| Mailing address | 4235 SW Corbett Avenue Portland, OR 97201 |
| Phone / email | 5032484703 / dsilverberg@cnnw.net |
| Manager authorizing this project | |
| Review cycle | FY 2000 |
| Province / Subbasin | Mainstem/Systemwide / Systemwide |
| Short description | Facilitate discussions of Regional Forum teams to enable more active and effective participation of all team members. Mediate conflicts as they may arise in and out of meetings and provide "process guidance" to improve decision making. |
| Target species | Multi |
Project location
| Latitude | Longitude | Description |
|---|
Reasonable and Prudent Alternatives (RPAs)
Sponsor-reported:
| RPA |
|---|
Relevant RPAs based on NMFS/BPA review:
| Reviewing agency | Action # | BiOp Agency | Description |
|---|
Section 2. Past accomplishments
| Year | Accomplishment |
|---|---|
| 1998 | Facilitated all Regional Forum teams beginning in June 1998 |
| 1998 | Facilitated resolution of issues at team level |
| 1998 | Reduced number of issues raised to IT for resolution from technical teams |
| 1998 | Improved decision making on mainstem hydroelectric issues |
Section 3. Relationships to other projects
| Project ID | Title | Description |
|---|
Section 4. Budget for Planning and Design phase
Task-based budget
| Objective | Task | Duration in FYs | Estimated 2000 cost | Subcontractor |
|---|
Outyear objectives-based budget
| Objective | Starting FY | Ending FY | Estimated cost |
|---|
Outyear budgets for Planning and Design phase
Section 5. Budget for Construction and Implementation phase
Task-based budget
| Objective | Task | Duration in FYs | Estimated 2000 cost | Subcontractor |
|---|
Outyear objectives-based budget
| Objective | Starting FY | Ending FY | Estimated cost |
|---|
Outyear budgets for Construction and Implementation phase
Section 6. Budget for Operations and Maintenance phase
Task-based budget
| Objective | Task | Duration in FYs | Estimated 2000 cost | Subcontractor |
|---|
Outyear objectives-based budget
| Objective | Starting FY | Ending FY | Estimated cost |
|---|
Outyear budgets for Operations and Maintenance phase
Section 7. Budget for Monitoring and Evaluation phase
Task-based budget
| Objective | Task | Duration in FYs | Estimated 2000 cost | Subcontractor |
|---|
Outyear objectives-based budget
| Objective | Starting FY | Ending FY | Estimated cost |
|---|
Outyear budgets for Monitoring and Evaluation phase
Section 8. Estimated budget summary
Itemized budget
| Item | Note | FY 2000 cost |
|---|---|---|
| Personnel | Lead facilitator at $150.00 p/h. 800 hours of meetings, preparation and work with participants. | $120,000 |
| Fringe | NA | $0 |
| Supplies | $1,500 | |
| Travel | Travel to meetings outside of Portland area only | $12,000 |
| Subcontractor | One or more assistant facilitators at $100 p/h. 500 hours | $50,000 |
| $183,500 | ||
Total estimated budget
| Total FY 2000 cost | $183,500 |
| Amount anticipated from previously committed BPA funds | $0 |
| Total FY 2000 budget request | $183,500 |
| FY 2000 forecast from 1999 | $0 |
| % change from forecast | 0.0% |
Cost sharing
| Organization | Item or service provided | Amount | Cash or in-kind |
|---|---|---|---|
| none | $0 | unknown |
Other budget explanation
Schedule Constraints: No known constraints
Reviews and recommendations
This information was not provided on the original proposals, but was generated during the review process.
Comment:
Recommendation: Do not fund. Include facilitation in specific activities as needed.Comments: This is a proposal to fund facilitation services for the regional forum. Although we recognize that facilitation may well be needed from time to time for difficult decisions and discussions, we have difficulty seeing why facilitation services are needed for routine activities and coordination of meetings. The proposal described some "facilitation" tasks that are standard responsibilities of meeting chairs and rapporteurs. For example: scheduling meetings, setting up conference calls, agenda time management and note taking. Facilitation should not be needed for such routine meeting tasks.
The proposal fails to establish why such services are necessary. The proposal does not fit the evaluation criteria. No evaluation of past success is presented other than a statement that forum members have expressed satisfaction with the services. We conclude it is unnecessary and wasteful to "pre-fund" 800 hours of expensive facilitation for routine meetings. It would make more sense for individual projects to pay for facilitation on an as-needed basis.
Our FY99 comments continue to apply: The proposal does not contain any evaluation of past success. This task does not have that much to do with the Fish and Wildlife Program. We question whether BPA should be a funding source for this purpose.
Comment:
Comment:
Technical Criteria 1: Met? NA -Programmatic Criteria 2: Met? NA - How are nonmembers being engaged?
Milestone Criteria 3: Met? NA - All critical entities not participating
Resource Criteria 4: Met? NA -
Comment:
Nonmembers are not being engaged. The value of facilitating an incomplete process is questionable. At this point, alternative funding sources should be explored. Due to budget constraints and emphasis of tasks, AFM suggests that the BPA Direct Program fund 50% of this project and the remaining funds be provided by the capital and reimbursable portion of the MOA.Comment:
Fund. This project does not fit a scientific review and should not be included in future ISRP reviews. It should receive appropriate administrative review and oversight. The response from the consultant includes a lot of information, such as evaluation of success or progress that should have been in the original proposal. The strong support for continuation of Facilitation Services by the Regional Forum's Implementation Team argues for funding. Apparently, the facilitation of consensus building and mediation of conflicts among team members contributes to the success of the Regional Forum. It is good that they use a consistent facilitator because the issues are complex and require a solid knowledge base.Do the budgets of the participating entities reflect a reduction in the costs of participation because facilitation is being contracted outside the participating entities? Minutes, emails, meeting setup are probably not a cost-effective use of facilitation services at the facilitator's rates. It is not clear what is charged.
Comment:
Comment:
[Decision made in 11-3-99 Council Meeting]