In Utah, Good Neighbor projects  focused on the repair of fire-damaged trails and watershed protection and  restoration. Colorado Good Neighbor Projects Focused on Fuel Reduction

In Colorado, 38 projects were conducted under Good Neighbor authority  from fiscal year 2002, after the authority was granted, through fiscal year  2008. These projects primarily focused on fuel reduction. Good Neighbor Projects Are Generally Governed by State Procedures, but Projects Involving Timber Sales Also Incorporate Certain Federal Requirements

State procedures are used for projects that involve service contracts,  which include most Good Neighbor projects to date, while projects that  include timber sales incorporate both state and federal requirements. Neither BLM in Colorado nor the U.S. Forest Service in  Utah has developed written procedures for conducting Good Neighbor  timber sales, primarily because neither agency has sold timber under the  authority. However, such procedures could help ensure accountability for  federal timber if these agencies conduct such sales in the future. We examined CSU’s and the Utah agencies’ contracting requirements  concerning three fundamental principles of government contracting— transparency, competition, and oversight. Agencies in both states are generally required to award a contract to the  lowest-priced bidder who meets the requirements set forth in the  solicitation for bids for contracts, except in certain circumstances, such as  when contracts are sizable enough to require a request for proposal—in  which the state requires bidders to address additional criteria in their bids,  such as technical requirements—or when strong justifications for not  choosing the lowest bidder can be documented by the contracting officer. We did not compare Colorado’s timber sale requirements with those of  BLM, or Utah’s with those of the U.S. Forest Service, because neither BLM  in Colorado nor the U.S. Forest Service in Utah has conducted timber  sales under Good Neighbor authority to date, and neither BLM in Colorado  nor the U.S. Forest Service in Utah has developed written procedures for  doing so. The use of Good Neighbor authority also increased the effectiveness of  fuel reduction treatments in areas that include federal, state, and private  ownership and helped to maximize the degree of wildland fire risk  reduction per dollar spent on the project, according to agency officials. Challenges in Conducting Projects Include Lack of Understanding of the Authority and Concern about Adequacy of State Contract Procedures

Federal and state agencies have also encountered challenges in using  Good Neighbor authority, including a lack of understanding of the  authority that has complicated partnerships between federal and state  officials. According to their Good Neighbor authorizing  legislation, the U.S. Forest Service and BLM in Colorado may permit CSFS  to perform watershed restoration activities on federal lands when the  agency is carrying out similar and complementary activities on adjacent  state or private lands. Specifically, the U.S. Forest Service should  collaborate with Colorado and Utah, and BLM should collaborate with  Colorado, to document information such as (1) the types of projects that  have proven to be successful uses of the authority; (2) how differences in  the authority’s scope within each state have affected project selection;   (3) how project planning and implementation responsibilities have been  divided among federal and state project partners; and (4) the costs and  benefits associated with using Good Neighbor authority to conduct  projects, including any project efficiencies and cost savings that have  resulted from the authority’s use. Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and Methodology

Our objectives were to determine (1) the activities conducted under Good  Neighbor authority, including the number, type, and scope of projects  undertaken; (2) the federal and state guidance, procedures, and controls  being used to conduct Good Neighbor projects, including contracting  requirements and timber sale procedures; and (3) the successes,  challenges, or lessons learned, if any, that have resulted from the use of  Good Neighbor authority. Our review of Good Neighbor authority included  obtaining documentation and holding meetings and discussions with the  U.S. Department of Agriculture’s Forest Service and the Bureau of Land  Management (BLM), the two agencies that have implemented Good  Neighbor authority; the Colorado State Forest Service (CSFS) and the  Utah Division of Forestry, Fire and State Lands (UDFFSL), the two state  agencies that have conducted Good Neighbor projects; and Colorado State  University (CSU) and the Utah Division of Purchasing, the agencies in  each of these states generally responsible for administering service  contracts for each state’s forest service.
Why GAO Did This Study

In 2000, Congress authorized the U.S. Department of Agriculture's Forest Service to allow the Colorado State Forest Service to conduct certain activities, such as reducing hazardous vegetation, on U.S. Forest Service land when performing similar activities on adjacent state or private land. The Department of the Interior's Bureau of Land Management (BLM) received similar "Good Neighbor" authority in 2004, as did the U.S. Forest Service in Utah. Congress has also considered the authority's expansion to other states. GAO was asked to determine (1) the activities conducted under the authority; (2) the federal and state guidance, procedures, and controls used to conduct Good Neighbor projects; and (3) successes, challenges, and lessons learned resulting from the authority's use. To do so, GAO reviewed Good Neighbor project documentation and interviewed federal and state officials.

What GAO Found

Fifty-three projects were conducted under Good Neighbor authority through fiscal year 2008, including 38 in Colorado and 15 in Utah, with most of the projects (44 of 53) conducted on U.S. Forest Service land. These projects included hazardous fuel reduction on about 2,700 acres of national forest and about 100 acres of BLM land, mostly in Colorado, and the repair of firedamaged trails and watershed protection and restoration in Utah. Together, the two agencies spent about $1.4 million on these projects, split almost evenly between the two states. Although most projects involved contracting for services such as fuel reduction, some projects involved timber sales in which contractors purchased timber resulting from their fuel reduction activities. These timber sales occurred only in Colorado and totaled about $26,000. State procedures are used in conducting Good Neighbor projects that involve service contracts, while projects that include timber sales incorporate both state and federal requirements. Both Colorado and Utah have contracting requirements that generally address three fundamental principles of government contracting--transparency, competition, and oversight. For example, both states solicit competition among bidders and generally require service contracts to be awarded to the lowest-priced bidder meeting the contract criteria. State requirements were generally comparable to federal procurement requirements. When Good Neighbor projects involve timber sales, state procedures incorporate certain requirements that help the U.S. Forest Service account for state removal of federal timber. The U.S. Forest Service and Colorado are currently supplementing their joint Good Neighbor procedures to ensure that additional accountability provisions are included in future timber sale contracts. Neither BLM in Colorado nor the U.S. Forest Service in Utah has developed written procedures for conducting Good Neighbor timber sales, primarily because they have not sold timber under the authority. Such procedures could help ensure accountability for federal timber if future projects include such sales. Federal and state officials who have used Good Neighbor authority cited project efficiencies and enhanced federal-state cooperation as its key benefits. For example, the agencies cited their ability to improve the effectiveness of fuel reduction treatments in areas that include federal, state, and private ownership. Federal and state agencies have also encountered challenges such as a lack of understanding of the authority and complicated processes for approving Good Neighbor agreements. Agency officials and others also noted several factors to consider when conducting future Good Neighbor projects, whether in Colorado, Utah, or other states that may be granted the authority--including the type of projects to be conducted and the type of land to be treated. While the agencies are not required to document their experiences in using the authority, officials contemplating future use of the authority could benefit from such documentation--including information on successes, challenges, and lessons learned to date.