FIRE concerns/thoughts from a local office perspective for OCFO consideration:
Ron Bersch

The original FIRE has matured from the standpoint of FM understanding and
skills in dealing with the core objectives, DA's are cognizant, somewhat more
sensitive to financial management issues, and objectives, and I would tend to
believe we have satisfied previously noted material audit weaknesses. If we
agree on this point, FIRE should be evolving in its objectives and scope in
recognition of the ever-changing FA environment.

A. I would like to propose the streamlining of Inactive Project reporting,
since the degree of risk has been mitigated. Rather than a detailed
quarterly report format, can we consider a macro level year-end report, which
discloses key performance information, can be at the Tier level? Creation and
retention of supportive documentation would not be threatened for audit
purposes.

B. Risk Assessment needs to be better defined and more uniformly structured for
FIRE purposes and integration into Division Office strategic/performance
planning. The RA should be the foundation for establishing a more nimble and
useful FIRE program. OCFO needs to compile all of FM risk assessments for FIRE
development and planning purposes. RA could readily identify program level
threats for effective mitigation through FIRE activities.

C. I'd like to propose a FIRE Advisory Board (FAB) with membership of OCFO, RC,
Division FM, and Program Office to consider matters of FIRE policy, scope,
objectives, and activities to be performed in an ongoing manner. FIRE needs to
be the dynamic core for FM performance. Issues that rise to program level risk
should be given consideration for FIRE attention, similar to Inactive Projects.