Making the Technical Service Provider Process Work

Remarks by Bruce I. Knight, Chief, Natural Resources Conservation Service,
at the National Alliance of Independent Crop Consultants Annual Meeting
Arlington, VA
January 17, 2003

Thank you, Stan (Winslow), and good afternoon, everyone. It is a pleasure
to be here today to talk a bit about where we are with implementing the
Technical Service Provider process. Your timing couldn't be better. I just
walked out of Technical Service Provider negotiations to be here and will
have to head back shortly.

I know you are all very interested in how this process will work. We at
NRCS are just as interested in making sure the process works well for you
and for farmers and ranchers everywhere. That's why we have been doing so
much to involve potential providers in setting up the process, including the
listening sessions NRCS conducted across the country last spring, the many
meetings with stakeholder groups, and our two national video conferences.
All of these efforts have helped us find out what producers and providers
want from a Technical Service Provider process.

Thank you for your interest and participation in developing the Technical
Service Provider process. Both Al Averitt and Ray Young were at the
national Technical Service Provider Summit we held in Washington in
December. NRCS staff members and I have met with Al, Ray, Allison Jones,
and others to discuss the needs and views of independent crop consultants on
how the process should work. We had a good meeting with all of the national
groups interested in the Technical Service Provider issue earlier this week.

I understand that the NAICC staff is working on your input for the formal
comments on the interim final rule, which are due February 19th. We have
already received some comments from individual members of NAICC. I look
forward to seeing your formal comments, and I promise that we will do
everything we can to make the process work for everyone, including
independent crop consultants.

THE IMPORTANCE OF
TECHNICAL SERVICE PROVIDERS

The Technical Service Provider process is very important to the successful
implementation of the farm bill. It is true that the farm bill authorizes
USDA to provide technical assistance through Technical Service Providers.
The goal of the Technical Service Provider process is to use private sector,
non-profit, and public agency resources to help get the job done. But, more
than that, the magnitude of the farm bill requires that we rely heavily on
technical service providers.

The farm bill is so big, we need lots of outside help to get the job done.
In fact, what we are doing is building an industry of certified conservation
professionals to help us get the job done and independent crop consultants
will be an important part of that industry.

Technical service providers will play an important role providing direct
technical assistance and delivering conservation activities under the new
farm bill. Remember, the more comprehensive those services, the more
valuable the role will be.

As I have said many times, Technical Service Providers will not replace NRCS
employees. NRCS will still have plenty to do, providing the service
landowners have come to expect, and fulfilling the inherent government
responsibilities assigned to our agency. Technical Service Providers,
including independent crop consultants, will be important because they will
expand our capabilities well beyond what we can do ourselves.


THE CONCERNS OF INDEPENDENT CROP CONSULTANTS

Today, I want to touch on a number of topics of particular interest to
independent crop consultants: compensation, structuring payments, conflict
of interest, and local and national roles in implementation.

Compensation

A lot of your questions with regard to compensation should be cleared up
soon, when we issue the amendment to the interim final rule. We are working
on that as I speak. The rule called for us to get this amendment out within
30 days, but it has taken a bit longer than that. Look for the amendment
soon.

The important thing about the amendment is that it will establish the
methodology for determining and adjusting the not-to-exceed rate for
payments. The intent is to let market forces determine what the government
and the landowner will pay for technical services. Competition in the
open market must keep us from paying more than is fair.

I realize independent consultants have concerns about competition from other
Technical Service Providers who allocate their costs differently. We are
striving for a competitive price discovery system that will work for all.
Structuring Payments

That is what I can share about the rate structure, but I know some of you
are also concerned about how and when the payments will be made. There is
little we can do to make payments before the work is complete. That is
simply the way traditional contracting works under Federal law.

But there are ways within the system to provide payments in a reasonable
time. We simply have to structure the work in such a way that we can pay as
soon as a well-defined task is complete. This is true whether you are
working directly for the Government or for a landowner. Keeping the tasks
sufficiently narrow is also good for the landowner, who shares in your
concern about having made up-front investments and then having to wait too
long to receive payments.

Making the system work well for everyone is a matter of using experience,
knowledge, and flexibility to structure the work and, thus, the payments
in the way that makes the most sense.

Conflict of interest

The simplest statement I can make about conflicts of interest is that
accountability, the certification/de-certification process, and the market
will act together to protect your interests in this regard. As independent
crop consultants, you rightfully regard yourselves as providing a
high-quality of service to your clients. Producers value your advice
because it is free from any bias that might come into play from connections
to particular other goods and services involved in conservation or
agricultural production.

You have four mechanisms in place to protect your interests as Technical
Service Providers:

First, the certification process ensures that anyone who becomes a technical
service provider is qualified.

Second, accountability and decertification systems guarantee that everyone
has to do the work at an acceptable level.

Third, supply and demand should result in a not-to-exceed rate that will
allow you to compete in the market place and earn a reasonable profit.

Fourth, your reputation for providing sound advice will get you work.
Landowners are smart enough to know what kind of advice they need and where
to get it.

Local and Federal roles in implementation

In terms of the roles of the national headquarters and local offices in the
technical service provider process, our guiding principle is that, whenever
practical, headquarters should set broad national criteria, and local
offices should implement the specifics. This concept is consistent with the
way NRCS has always done business. Local decisions and local responsibility
simply work best.

So far, much of the work has been national in nature. We worked with
national and local interests to craft the interim final rule. We have also
been working nationally on the amendment. We are working in the national
headquarters on umbrella agreements with the five major recommending
organizations, including NAICC, for certification of their members. We are
also working on new Memorandums of Understanding with NAICC and other
recommending organizations.

We are setting up a system to use the Federal Business Opportunities site on
the Internet FedBizOpps.gov to solicit or survey pricing information
from those who want to provide services. The FedBizOpps notices will be
posted soon and may cover suites of work, such as determining CRP
eligibility and doing preliminary work for EQIP and WRP.

Surveys will give us a chance to see what services are available and how
they are priced. The input comes directly from the marketplace, so the
prices are real. Surveys, combined with actual payment data, will also let
us gather current market data annually or even more often, so that we can
keep our payment rates current.

We also are setting up a Web site that will act as a registry for technical
service providers. This web site should also be up and running soon.


CONCLUSION

In conclusion, let me give you a few action items for your to-do list in the
remaining time before the Technical Service Provider process becomes a
reality:

First, be thinking about what services and rates you want to offer through
FedBizOpps. We will be able to award contracts for direct work as soon as
the interim final rule takes effect on March 1 provided we have our 2003
budget appropriation by then.

Second, register on our website when it becomes available, so you will be on
the appropriate lists of certified technical service providers this fall.

Third, keep up your good work for landowners on the ground.

If you do these three things, you should be well positioned to get your
share of the business of helping create the next golden age of conservation.
The technical service provider process will be good for the earth, good
for landowners, and good for your business.

Thank you.