OSWER Directive Initiation Request
9242.3-08
2. Originator Information
Mame of Contact Person Mail Code • Office
Sc Document Center Coordinator ' OS-245 '. OERR
»eoncne Ccce
I 202-260-9760
3. ~i!
Revision of Policy Regarding Superfund Project Assignment Between Alternative
Remedial Contracting Strategy Contractors and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
9242.3-08
4 Sumrrar/at Gifec:/.« r::-jse aref statenent at s.rsosei
Revises the policy for assigning Superfund remedial work to EPA Alternative
Remedial Contracting Stratsgv (.ARCS) contractors and the U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers (USAGE). AWBEHC UBRARy UA '
Superfund remediation
6a. ^
3 -o
,-' No
Yes What 2irec:ive (numoer. title)
: Yes What sirective inurroer :*!el
-•
•• or
Corrmert
8. Document to be distributed to States by Headquarters? i [Yes
This fleauest M««ts OSVVgfl Olr«ctlv»s System Pormjt Standards.
sar-p j.-a .re ;l --C^-.
Ca\e
Henry L. Longest II, Director
Office of Emergency and Remedial Response
December 10, 1991
EPA Form 1315-17 (R«v. 5-87) Previous eflitions ace ccsciete.
AWBERC LIBRARY
U.S. EPA
26 W. MARTIN LUTHER KfNG Of?.
CINCINNATI, OHIO 45263
OSWER OF'VER OSWER C
VE DIRECTIVE DIRECTIVE DIRECTIVE
-------
"i
I UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
* WASHINGTON. D.C. 20460
OFFICE OF
SOLID WAST6 AND EMERGENCY RESPONSE
"EC I 0 |99| OSWER Directive 19242.3-08
MEMORANDUM
SUBJECT: Revision of Policy Regarding Superfund Project
Assignment Between Alternative Remedial Contracting
Strategy Contractors and the U.S^A^my Corps of
Engineers
FROM: Henry L. Longest II, Director
Office of Emergency and Remedial}] Response (OS-200)
TO: Director, Waste Management Division
Regions I, IV, V, VII, and VIII
Director, Emergency and Remedial Response Division
Region II
Director, Hazardous Waste Management Division
Regions III, VI, and IX
Director, Hazardous Waste Division
Region X
PURPOSE
To revise the policy for assigning Superfund remedial work
to EPA Alternative Remedial Contracting Strategy (.ARCS)
contractors and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USAGE).
BACKGROUND
In a memorandum dated February 29, 1988, I outlined the
USAGE'S role in the Superfund Program. The memorandum provided
the criteria for assigning remedial design and remedial action
work to ARCS contractors or the USAGE. The criteria divided
remedial actions into three categories:
Small - less than $5 million.
Medium - between $5 and $15 million.
Large - greater than $15 million.
•••••:ycledPape
-------
- 2 -
These categories were used to determine which projects would be
assigned to the ARCS contractors and the USAGE. Small projects
could be assigned to ARCS contractors for both remedial design
and remedial action. The remedial design for medium projects
could be assigned to either an ARCS contractor or the USAGE at
the region's discretion. Medium size remedial actions were to be
assigned to the USAGE. USAGE was to be assigned the remedial
design-and remedial action for large projects.
In response to a Washington Post article criticizing the
ARCS contract process, Administrator Reilly formed a Task Force
to investigate the allegations. While the Task Force found no
fraud, it did make a number of recommendations to improve the
ARCS contracts. One recommendation was to modify the ARCS/USAGE
work assignment policy to increase ARCS contract utilization.
OBJECTIVE
To revise the ARCS/USAGE work assignment criteria.
IMPLEMENTATION
In accordance with the Task Force recommendations the
following guidelines shall be used in assigning future work to
either ARCS or the USAGE: - .. _ .....
Remedial design assignments for projects of any estimated
value may be made to either ARCS contractors or the USAGE at
the Regions' discretion.
Remedial actions estimated at less than $15 million may be
assigned to either an ARCS contractor or the USAGE for
construction management.
• Remedial actions estimated at greater than $15 million
should be assigned to the USAGE for construction management.
Assignment of projects to ARCS or USAGE should not be based
solely on remedial action value. Regional personnel should
consider the specifics of the project and, based on the following
criteria, select the best vehicle for that project.
Evaluation of Site Characteristics - Size and location of
site; proximity to industrial, commercial and residential
populations; proximity to ecologically sensitive areas; and
level of uncertainty in extent of soil and groundwater
contamination and waste quantities.
Evaluation of Selected Remedy - Amount of soil excavation
required; need for major earth construction such as slurry
walls or clay caps; on-site soil treatment or plume
-------
- 3 -
contaminant or stabilization; ground water or plume
contaminant; use of innovative technologies and
uncertainties in technical performance; and need for
continuous federal on-site presence.
Local/Public Interest - Citizen/environmental group
activity; and state/local government concerns.
Experience/Regional Infrastructure - EPA experience and
capability; and USAGE district office experience and
capability.
Capability/Capacity of Contractors - ARCS contractors'
ability to manage project and capacity/time remaining in
contracts.
Conflict of Interest - Issues with specific ARCS contractor.
Site Needs for Unigue USAGE Procedure - Exposure to
significant change orders and claims; need for long-term
continuity at site; real estate acquisition needs; and
special contract administration issues.
If an ARCS contractor receives the remedial design task for
a project which the USAGE wil-1 later be assigned the role of
construction manager,, the USAGE should be given a technical
assistance assignment to participate in the development of the
design package.
------- |