United States
Environmental Protection
Agency
Off ice of
Solid Waste and
Emergency Response
Publication 9200.5-4011
December 1990
CORAS Bulletin
Office of Emergency and Remedial Response
Office of Program Management OS-240
Intermittent Bulletin
Volume 1 Number 10
FINANCIAL MANAGEMENT RESPONSIBILITIES OF EPA
PROGRAM STAFF: REVIEW OF CONTRACTOR FINANCIAL
REPORTS AND ONGOING MONITORING
(Fourth in a Series)
This article continues a series on financial
management responsibilities under Superfund cost-
reimbursement contracts that was initiated in the December
1988 edition (Number 2) of the CORAS Bulletin. The first
article presented an overview of the various responsibilities,
the key players, and the various Superfund cost-
reimbursement contracts. Each of the subsequent articles
discussed, in more detail, the major areas of responsibility.
The second article, which was published in the May 1989
edition (Number 4), presented a discussion of the review and
certification of invoices. The third article, published in the
September 1989 edition (Number 5), addressed evaluation
of contractor work plans. This article, the fourth in the series,
focuses on the review of contractor financial reports and
ongoing monitoring of contractor financial performance.
The financial management responsibi lities that are
presented in this series of articles relate to Superfund cost-
reimbursement contracts such as Remedial Planning
(REM), Field Investigation Team (FIT),Technical Assistance
Team (TAT), Alternative Remedial Contract Strategy
(ARCS), Environmental Services Assistance Team (ESAT)
contracts and Management Support Contracts. The
program staff responsible for oversight of these contracts
include the Project Officer (PO), the Deputy Project Officer/
Regional Project Officer (DPO/RPO), and the Work
Assignment Manager. For the purpose of this article, the
term "contract monitor" will be used to refer to these program
staff as they share responsibility for financial monitoring and
contract oversight.
Responsibility for Monitoring
Contractor Financial Performance
It is the responsibility of all Federal employees to
monitor efforts of contractors to prevent waste of public
funds and to obtain the required contractor services in the
most efficient manner and within the amount budgeted.
Cost-reimbursement type contracts require a great degree
of financial oversight since the contractor has less incentive
to control costs than underfixed price contracts. Under cost-
type contracts, the contractor is generally entitled to
compensation for costs incurred in doing the work, provided
costs are 'allowable,1 'allocable,1 and 'reasonable.' 11 cost
overruns occur and the government has been aware of the
situation through monthly reports or invoices and does not
take action or is silent, the government may be deemed as
encouraging the work and therefore obligated for
reimbursing the contractor for the additional costs.
Therefore, It Is critical on all cost-reimbursement
contracts that the contract monitors regularly review
the financial progress of the contract and identify any
problems to the Contracting Officer (CO).
Review of thefinancial progress of contractor efforts
has become particularly important in the Superfund program
as a result of the expansion of the fund that occurred under
SARA, the decentralization of contract management
responsibilities from Headquarters to the Regional offices,
the increased external oversight, and the continuing impor-
-------
tance of cost recovery efforts. Each Superfund PO is
responsible for reviewing the monthly financial reports and
identifying any problems to the CO. The work assignment
manager is responsible for reviewing financial progress at
the work assignment level through review of work
assignment-specific invoices, technical and financial
progress reports submitted by the contractor, and reporting
any problems to the PO.
A common misconception of program staff is that
financial review is not important because auditors will review
the contract costs and identify any problems. Although an
audit will be conducted, auditors can only identify costs that
are not "allowable" or "allocable" under the contract; they do
not have the knowledge to identify or question the
"reasonableness" of the costs. Only the contract monitors
can evaluate the costs in relationship to the technical
progress of the assignment and thus determining the
reasonableness of the costs. In addition, identification of
problems concerning increasing costs or depletion of
resources can be accomp-lished best by the contract monitor
who is most knowledgeable about the technical
requirements of the assignment and the reasonableness of
costs required to efficiently perform the work.
To monitor contractor financial performance
adequately, the contract monitor should use both the
contractor invoice and monthly progress reports. The
second article in this series provided a discussion on review
and certification of contractor invoices. Many of the
evaluation considerations presented in that article and the
accompanying exhibit, "Checklist for Voucher Review", are
also relevant to review of progress reports. This article,
however, will focus specifically on use of the financial
information provided in monthly progress reports to assist in
evaluating contractor financial performance.
Content of Monthly Progress Reports
Under cost-type contracts, the contractor is
required to submit monthly technical and financial progress
reports. Superfund cost-reimbursement contracts are
typically term form (level of effort) contracts. In accordance
with the EPA Acquisition Regulation, progress reports under
these contracts must provide specific information
concerning contract financial status including:
1. actual costs and direct labor hours expended
during the current reporting month,
2. cumulative costs and direct labor hours ex-
pended from the effective date of the contract
through the last day of the current reporting month,
3. estimated costs and direct labor hours to be
expended during the next reporting period,
*. average cumulative incurred cost per direct labor
hour compared to average cost per direct labor
hour derived from the estimated cost of the
contract, and
5. actual costs and direct labor hours incurred for
each work assignment issued and estimates of
costs and staff hours required to complete each
work assignment.
Additional reporting requirements may be specified in the
contract. Within these requirements, considerable
flexibility exists in the format and content of the monthly
reports. The contract monitor may request a specific format
or more detailed information; however, if this requires
additional effort on the pan" of the contractor to produce the
report, there may be an additional cost to the government.
The contract monitor should weigh the value of the
additional information against the cost of obtaining that
information before requesting the information from the
contractor. The monitor must request the minimum
reporting Information necessary to adequately
determine the reasonableness of costs. The contract
monitor should work with or through the CO to be sure that
the requested information is within the scope of the
contract.
The first step in reviewing the financial reports is to
become familiar with the specific format and contents of the
report, including understanding how the different costs are
reported. Different contracts will vary as to what makes up
the costs under different cost categories and how the
various costs relate. For example, on one contract costs for
photocopying may be included in otherdirect costs while on
other contracts these costs may be included in G&A or
indirect costs. An understanding of how costs are reported
may be obtained by reviewing the contract requirements
and by contacting the CO for assistance in determining this
information.
Review of Monthly Progress Reports
Once the contract monitor understands the content
of the reports, the monitor has several tools that allow
comparison and evaluation of the costs. These include:
1. contractor invoices;
2. technical progress reports;
3. previous monthly financial reports;
4. previous monthly financial reports projections;
5. estimated costs provided in the technical direction
documents (TDD), technical information docu-
ments (TIDS), or work plans; and
-------
6.
knowledge of comparative or similar costs.
The contract monitor should use all of the tools available to
review and evaluate the financial performance of the
contractor. Once the contract monitor is familiar with the
format of the reports and the various tools available on his or
her assignment, identification of potential problems will not
require a significant amount of the contract monitor's time
each month.
When the contractor invoices on a monthly basis,
the period covered by requests for contract financing
payments (invoices) must be the same as the period for
monthly progress reports required under the contract. If the
contractor submits invoices more frequently than monthly,
one invoice each month must have the same ending period
of performance as the monthly progress report. Where the
cumulative amount on the monthly progress reports
differs from the aggregate amount per the invoice
covering the same period, the contractor must provide
a reconciliation of the difference as part of the payment
request (Invoice). Do not hesitate to ask your contractorfor
explanations.
The financial reports should also be evaluated in
relation to technical accomplishments on the contract. The
technical progress during the reporting period should be
described in detail in the technical section of the monthly
progress reports. Based on the financial data provided in the
progress report, the work assignment manager can
compare the actual costs and direct labor hours incurred to
the estimates required to complete the assignment. This
comparison will provide an idea of the financial progress of
the assignment in relationship to the percentage of technical
completion, highlighting situations where resources may be
depleted before technical completion.
Review of the costs in relationship to technical
progress will also help identify any costs which do not appear
to be supported by technical accomplishments during the
current or any previous reporting period. For example, if the
contractor reported expenditures for laboratory services but
no laboratory samples had been taken according to the
technical reports, the co ntract monitor should question these
costs. Due to the fact that financial reports may only include
expenditures that have been invoiced and subcontractor
costs that have been billed, costs resulting from the techni-
cal accomplishments may not appear in the same monthly
report as the related technical activities. However, reporting
of the expenditures may lag behind the reporting of the
technical activities, not vice versa. When any doubt exists,
ask your contractor for an explanation.
Monthly expenditures can also be compared against
those reported in previous monthly financial reports. This
will help identify any major fluctuations in costs. When the
contract monitor identifies fluctuations, he or she must then
determine why the costs are out of line. The contract monitor
must first understand and consider fluctuations which result
from different stages in the life cycle of the contract, i.e.,
startup, ongoingortermination (see example below). Once
these variations are considered, the contract monitor should
review any circumstances that would cause deviations such
as variations in billing cycles or late invoices from subcon-
tractors. If the contract monitor cannot identify the cause of
the fluctuation or the fluctuation does not seem justified, the
problem should be discussed with the PO or the CO.
Monthly QDC$ = ODC per Labor Hours
LOE
1230
260
240
220
200
'30
'60
40
20
00
30
50
40
20!
0
FES
MAR
OCT
MOV
One of the most important tools for reviewing
financial progress is the estimate of resources required
under the contract or work assignment. Depending on the
type of contract, estimates of labor hours and costs may be
provided in the individual work assignment, the TDD, the
TID, or the work plan. These estimates should be used to
compare actual expenditures of resources against pro-
jected expenditures. Actual expenditures under each cost
category should be compared to the budget for that cost
category. This will identify excess expenditures in specific
categories, such as other direct costs or equipment, which
might warrant further investigation. Since some of these
costs may be small in comparison to other costs, it may be
easy to overlook them. This is particularly true when the
contractor submits a long list of equipment purchases such
as often occurs during the start-up phase of a contract.
These costs, however, may add up to substantial amounts
over the term of the contract and should be reviewed
thoroughly.
-------
Estimates of labor hours required should also be
compared to actual hours expended. Based on the data
required in the monthly report, the PO can compare the
average cost per labor hour for the contract against the
estimated cost per labor hour. This will highlight situations
where higher labor categories are being used than planned
and will identify potential depletion of funding before hours
are expended. Although the monthly reports may not
provide this information on a work assignment basis, the
work assignment manager can perform this comparison by
simply calculating the estimated and actual average cost per
labor hour.
Corrective Actions
The contract monitor should not hesitate to re-
quest additional Information from the contractor if he
does not understand any of the costs. Requests for
additional information may involve changes to the monthly
reports or simply an explanation of specific expenditures or
a request for back-up documentation to support the costs.
All requests for additional information should be coordinated
with the PO.
The contract monitor may identify several types of
problems which require corrective actions, including:
1. unauthorized premium overtime,
2. inefficient use of contractor resources,
3. minor growth trends in expenditures,
4. premature depletion of contract resources, and
5.
unnecessary travel or equipment.
The type of corrective action required depends on
the severity of the problem. Potential problems and the ac-
tions required to correct each are illustrated in the exhibit
following this article. As soon as the contract monitor iden-
tifies a potential problem, he or she should notify the PO and
the CO.
If the contract monitor believes that the contractor is
spending more than is reasonably required to accomplish
certain portions of the work, the PO should request an expla-
nation or more backup from the contractor and can suspend
payment of the amount in question, if warranted. After
reviewing additional information, if the contract monitor be-
lieves there is a general problem with the expenditures, he
might be able to identify potential opportunities to correct the
problem, including improvements in the effectiveness and
efficiency of the contractor's efforts. The contract monitor
should attempt to persuade the contractor to adopt these
changes. Remember, expert contractors will always, have
an explanation for everything. It is your job to be perceptive
and to look for smoke. Keep asking "Why" until the smoke
clears. An example of this situation might be if a contractor
was expending considerable labor resources but not able to
complete tasks according to schedule. Further review of
monthly financial progress reports and additional informa-
tion requested from the contractor might highlight an ineffi-
cient or inappropriate use of labor. This might indicate a
potential lack of expertise required to complete the work.
If corrective actions will not prevent funding deple-
tion before the end of the work assignment, the contract
monitor should review the scope of the work assignment and
determine the need for additional funding. A potential
solution might be to amend the scope of work underthe work
assignment to match remaining funds. However, unless the
work is no longer required, this would necessitate a new
work assignment as well as additional funding to complete
the work. An alternative solution would be to determine the
funding needed to complete the work and amend the exist-
ing work assignment to add funds. In order to determine the
funding needed, the contract monitor should develop a
budget for the remaining work. This can be accomplished
using the same techniques as used to develop the original
budget. Techniques for this will be discussed in a future
article. The contract monitor should ensure that problems
with funding depletion are identified as early as possible.
Contracting activities require considerable lead-time, par-
ticularly if a new work, assignment must be awarded. This
may have significant impact on the ability to complete the
work within the established schedule.
Cost-reimbursement contracts generally contain a
clause that requires the contractor to notify the CO when
costs are expected to exceed the contract amount within 60
days or when the total cost of performance will exceed or be
substantially less than estimated. Although this require-
ment exists, the contract monitor should not rely on this no-
tification to identify problems with funds depletion. The
notification may not be required at the work assignment
level and therefore, will only help identify problems with the
contract as a whole. Additionally, the 60-day notification
may not provide sufficient time to take corrective action.
The most important thing to remember in reviewing
financial performance of contracts is that it is the responsi-
bility of the contract monitor to identify any problems and to
work with the PO and CO to take corrective action as soon
as possible. This will prevent waste of public funds and
ensure that EPA obtains the necessary contractor services
within the required parameters.
-------
CONTRACTOR FINANCIAL MONITORING
Potential
Problem
Action
Needed
Key Tools for Identification:
• Invoices
• Technical Progress
Reports
Growth Trends in
Expenditures
Key Tools for Identification:
• Financial Progress
Reports
• Estimated Costs
(TDD, TID, or work
plan)
Corrective
Actions
Request additional
information
Changes in
contractor
operations
Inefficient Use
of Resources
Potentially
suspend payment
- labor usage
• travel
- ODC's
Analyze cause of
growth
Reprioritization of
work
Review scope of
work
Amend scope of
work and award
new assignment
Premature
Depletion of Funds
Determine budget
for remaining
work
Amend funding
Key Tools for Identification:
• Technical Progress
Reports
• Estimated Costs
(TDD, TID, or work
plan)
-------
UPDATE ON THE LONG TERM
CONTRACTING STRATEGY FOR
SUPERFUND
The Task Force developed a final recommended
strategy in August. The Deputy Assistant Administrator was
briefed on August 30, and the Assistant Administrator signed
the final document on Septembers. The strategy provides a
design for the portfolio of Superfund contracts over the next
ten years.
The Strategy is built on several key principles. It
supports the integration of fund and enforcement-lead
activities and enhances competition by creating smaller
contracts. The strategy also provides mechanisms for
greater flexibility, improved oversight and cost management
and giving Regions full responsibility for the majority of the
new contracts.
A press advisory and Commerce Business Daily
notice have been published on the strategy. CORAS has
briefed HWAC, the Office of the Inspection General, the
General Accounting Office, and staff of the Senate and the
House of Representatives.
An implementation framework was approved by
OERR, PCMD and OWPE and was issued on December 18,
1990. Memos requesting appointment of: Designated Leads
for Contract Components; Members of the Advisory
Committee to review implementation plans and oversee
implementation; and Regional Liaisons to oversee Regional
implementation efforts, have been sent to the effected
entities. A meeting of the Advisory Committee will be
sechediiled at the end of January or the beginning of
February.
For additional questions or Information
regarding the Long Term Contracting Strategy, call
Linda Garczynskl on 475-7273.
CONTRACT RELATED MEETINGS, CONFERENCES, AND TRAINING
Title
Date
Location
Contact
FIT Site Assessment
Conference*
2nd Annual CORAS Conference
ERCS DPO/CO Conference
ARCS PO/CO Conference
Jan 13-15. 1991
Jan 15-17, 1991
Feb 25-28. 1991
Feb27-Mar 1. 1991
Santa Fe. NM
Santa Fe. NM
David Cook
FTS 475-8106
Kay Waters
FTS 245-4025
Atlanta. GA Patricia Tidwell (RRCS)
Marriott-Marquis FTS 382-2688
Doretha Vaughn (PCMD)
FTS 475-8233
Scott Fredericks (ARCS)
FTS 308-8346
Design &c Construction Issues
at Hazardous Waste Sites
May 01-03. 1991 Dallas. TX
Scott Fredericks
FTS 308-8346
If you are interested in receiving back issues of the CORAS Bulletin, please call Jalania
Ellis, FTS 475-8533 or EMAIL5488.
Please note that EMAIL numbers have been added to the "Key Regional Personnel in
Superfund Contract Management" chart. If yours is not on it please notify Jalania.
-------
ICORRS BULLETIN BORRD
HAZARDOUS SITE EVALUATION
DIVISION
The Site Assessment Branch will hold its Na-
tional Site Assessment Conference during the week of
January 14,1991, in Santa Fe, NM.
Development of guidance for implementation
of the FIT/ARCS contract strategy has begun. Regional
and Headquarters contacts for this effort are attached.
For additional Information regarding the
FIT/ARCS contract strategy, please contact John
Holllster on 475-9748.
PROCUREMENT & CONTRACTS
MANAGEMENT DIVISION
ARCS AWARD FEE EVALUATION PERIOD
EXTENDED
Bill Topping, Chief of the Remedial Action
Branch and Fee Determination Official for the 45 ARCS
contracts, agreed to the extension of the ARCS award
fee evaluation period from 4 months to 6 months. Bill
responded to a recommendation submitted by the
Remedial Award Fee Task Force (RAFT) which had
evaluated the initiative and determined that converting
to a semester period for ARCS award fee would offer a
considerable reduction in administrative effort involved
in the award fee process without reducing its
effectiveness as an incentive to superior contractor
performance. Bill noted that significant improvement in
the quality and timeliness of the award fee process had
added additional merit io the RAFT recommendation.
Regional contracting offices are currently-implementing
the change which will be effective with the evaluation
semester which began November 1.
For additional Information, please contact
Ann Hamann on 382-6289.
-------
FIT/ARCS ADMINISTRATION SUBWORKGROUPS
Equipment
Name
Gail Nabasny
Karen Flournoy
John Hollister
Invoicing
Nancy Barmakian
Ann L. Hamann
John Hollister
Region
5 (FIT RPO)
7 (S.A Chief)
HQ (FIT PO)
1 (ARCS PO)
HQ (PCMD ARCS)
HQ (FIT PO)
FTS
Phone #
353-1056
276-7782
475-9748
833-1719
382-6289
475-9748
FTS
FAX #
353-6775
276-7063
252-0524
833-1662
245-3880
252-0524
Email #
EPA 9722
EPA 5083
EPA 9170
EPA 30228
EPA 5083
Program Management
Don Smith
Gail Nabasny
Karen Flournoy
Joanne Labaw
Ann L. Hamann
Award Fee Plan
Keith Mills
Steve Nathan
Pat Bamford
Doug Frazer
John Comstock
1 (FIT RPO)
5 (FIT RPO)
7 (S.A Chief)
10 (ARCS PO)
HQ (PCMD ARCS)
4 (ARCS PO)
5 (ARCS PO
5 (ARCS CO)
9 (FIT RPO)
HQ (CORAS)
833-1648
353-1056
276-7782
399-2594
382-6289
257-7297
886-5496
886-2400
484-2338
245-4026
833-1662
353-6775
276-7063
399-0124
245-3880
257-5206
353-6775
353-1879
484-1917
245-3847
EPA 9722
EPA 9069
EPA 30228
'EPA 95019
EPA 9543
EPA 5484
Tracking and Reporting
John Hollister HQ (FIT PO)
Work Distribution
475-9748 252-0524 EPA 5083
Nancy Barmakian
Fran Harrell
Doug Frazer
Ann L. Hamann
Scott Fredericks
1 (ARCS PO)
4 (FIT PRO)
9 (FIT RPO)
HQ (PCMD ARCS)
HQ (ARCS Chief)
833-1719
257-2930
484-2338
382-6289
398-8346
833-1662
257-4464
484-1917
245-3880
308-8350
EPA 9170
EPA94005
EPA 30228
EPA 5487
-------
FIT/ARCS ADMINISTRATION WORKGROUP
Name
Nancy Barmakian
Don Smith
Ben Connetta
Amy Brochu
Fran Harrell
Keith Mills
Steve Nathan
Gail Nabasny
Pat Bamford
Karen Flournoy
Doug Frazer
Joanne Labaw
Ann L. Hamann
Tom Sharpe
John Hollister (chair)
Scott Fredericks
John Comstock
Alternates:
Debbie Morrey
Sheila Kelly
Greg Ham
Linda Martin (chair)
Barbara Driscoll
Gerry Snyder
Dave Cook
Region
1 (ARCS PO)
1 (FIT RPO)
2 (SAM)
2 (FIT RPO)
4 (FIT PRO)
4 (ARCS PO)
5 (FIT RPO)
5 (FIT RPO)
5 (ARCS CO)
7 (S.A Chief)
9 (FIT RPO)
10 (ARCS PO)
HQ (PCMD ARCS)
HQ (PCMD FIT)
HQ (FIT PO)
HQ (ARCS Chief)
HQ (CORAS)
7 (ARCS PO)
HQ (PCMD ARCS)
FTS
Phone #
833-1719
833-1648
264-6696
340-6802
257-2930
257-7297
353-1056
353-1056
886-2400
276-7782
484-2338
399-2594
382-6289
475-8746
475-9748
398-8346
245-4026
FTS
FAX#
833-1662
833-1662
264-6192
340-6622
257-4464
257-5206
353-6775
353-6775
353-1879
276-7063
484-1796
399-0124
245-3880
245-3880
252-0524
308-8350
245-3847
Email #
EPA 9170
EPA 94005
EPA 9543
EPA 9722
EPA 9069
EPA 30228
EPA 5083
EPA 5487
EPA 5484
276-7782
382-3200
276-7063
245-3880
PA WORK ASSIGNMENT WORKGROUP
3 (FIT RPO)
5 (SAM)
6 (SAM)
8 (FIT RPO)
HQ (FIT PO)
597-8229
353-9486
255-6740
330-7540
475-8106
597-9890
312-886-7160
655-6460
330-1647
252-0524
SI WORK ASSIGNMENT WORKGROUP
Sharon Hayes
Ben Conneta
Mario Villamarzo
Bill Messenger (co-chr)
Paul LaCourreye
Debbie Flood (co-chr)
Steve Caldwell
1 (SAM)
2 (SAM)
4 (SAM)
5 (SAM)
9 (SAM)
10 (SAM)
HQ (SA Chief)
833-1709
264-6696
257-5065
353-1057
484-2345
399-2722
475-8195
833-1662
264-6192
257-3035
886-7160
848-1078
399-0175
252-0524
-------
KEY REGIONAL PERSONNEL IN SUPERFUND CONTRACT MANAGEMENT
Contract
Headquarters
(PO. DPO it possible)
Region 1
ROM
ARCS
ERCS
TAT
FIT
TE3
ESAT
REM 1 - Tracy Loy, EMAIL5201
REM II • Benjamin Hamm, EMAIL5513
REM III -
REM IV - Chris Walling, EMAIL
REM V - Chris Walling, EMAIL5209
Scott Fredericks. EMAIL5487
Zone 1 - Patricia Tidwell, EMAIL5511
Zone 2 - Reg 4 Is PO
Zone 3 - Reg 5 Is PO
Zone 4 - Tim Grier, EMAIL30021
Zone 1 - Pat Hawkins. EMAIL551 1
Zone 2 - Karen Tomimalsu. EMAIL30026
Zone 1 - John Hollister, EMAIL5083
Zone 2 - Dave Cook. EMAIL50BO
Zone 1 - Jack Jojokian, EMAIL
Zone 2 - Jean Wright. EMAIL
Zone 3 • Marlene Lemro, EMAIL
Zone 4 - Nancy Deck. EMAIL
Lynn Beasley, EMAIL5449
Zone 1 - Reg. 1.2.3, & 5
Zone 2 - Rug. 4.6.10. & HQs
Nancy Barmakian
U.S. EPA - HCP - CAN 7
JFK Federal Building
Boston. MA 02203
833-5797
EMAIL9170
Nancy Barmakian/
Diane Kelly
U.S. EPA - HCP - CAN 7
JFK Federal Building
Boston. MA 02203
833-5797
EMAIL9170
John Carlson
U.S. EPA
60 Westvlew Street
Lexington, MA 02173
(617)860-4513
EMAIL
John Carlson
U.S. EPA
60 Westview Street
Lexington. MA 02173
(617)860-4513
EMAIL
Don Smith
U.S. EPA - HSS - CAN 7
JFK Federal Building
Boston. MA 02203
833-1648
EMAIL
Rick Leighton
U.S. EPA - CAN 7
JFK Federal Building
Boston. MA 02203
833-1654
EMAIL9156
Scott Clifford
U.S. EPA
60 Woslview Street
Lexington, MA 02173
(617)860-4631
EMAIL
Region 2
Shaheer Alvi
U.S. EPA
26 Federal Plaza
New York. NY 10278
264-2221
EMAIL9202
Shaheer Alvi/
Jill Hacker
U.S. EPA
26 Fedeial Plaza
New York. NY 10278
264-2221
EMAIL9202
Norm Vogelsang
U.S. EPA
Woodbridge Avenue
Edison. NJ 08837
342-4346
EMAIL
Norm Vogelsang
U.S. EPA
Woodbridge Avenue
Edison. NJ 08837
342-4346
EMAIL
Amy Brochu
U.S. EPA
Woodbridge Avenue
Edison. NJ 08837
340-6802
EMAIL
Cathy Moyik
U.S. EPA
26 Fedeial Plaza
New York, NY 10278
264-8123
EMAIL9206
Joseph Hudek
U.S. EPA
Woodbridge Avenue
Edison, NJ 08837
340-6713
EMAIL
Region 3
Region 4
James McKenzie
U.S. EPA
841 Chestnut Street
Philadelphia. PA 19107
597-3229
EMAIL9303
Jerome Curtin/
Jim McKenzie
U.S. EPA
841 Chestnut Street
Philadelphia. PA 19107
597-3229
EMAIL3036
Rich Fetzer
U.S. EPA
841 Chestnut Street
Philadelphia, PA 19107
597-1395
EMAIL
Rich Fetzer
U.S. EPA
841 Chestnut Street
Philadelphia. PA 19107
597-1395
EMAIL9324
Greg Hamm
U.S. EPA
841 Chestnut Street
Philadelphia. PA 19107
597-8229
EMAIL
Elaine Spiewak/
Nancy Cippola
U.S. EPA
841 Chestnut Street
Philadelphia, PA 19107
597-8183
EMAIL
Terry Simpson/
Dan Slizys (CRL Actng)
U.S. EPA
839 Bestgale Road
Annapolis. MD 21401
(301)266-9180
EMAIL93018
Ken Myer
U.S. EPA
345 Courtland St., NE
Atlanta, GA 30365
257-2930
EMAIL
Matt Robins
U.S. EPA
345 Courtland St., NE
Atlanta. GA 30365
257-2930
EMAIL9428
Carol Monell
U.S. EPA
345 Courlland St., NE
Atlanta, GA 30365
257-2930
EMAIL9490
Carol Monell
U.S. EPA
345 Courtland St.. NE
Atlanta. GA 30365
257-2930
EMAIL9490
Fran Harrell
U.S. EPA
345 Courtland St., NE
Atlanta. GA 30365
257-2930
EMAIL
Ken Myer
U.S. EPA
345 Courtland St.. NE
Atlanta, GA 30365
257-2930
EMAIL
Bobby Carroll
U.S. EPA
Station Road, ASB
Athens. GA 30613
250-3309
EMAIL9434
-------
KEY REGIONAL
Contract [Region 5
PERSONNEL IN SUPERFUND CONTRACT MANAGEMENT
[Region 6 |Region 7
| Region IT
[Region 9~
JRegion 10
REM
ARCS
EROS
TAT
FIT
TES
ESAT
Gail Nabasny
U.S. EPA
230 South Dearborn St.
Chicago, IL 60604
353-1056
EMAIL
Steven Nathan/
Pat Vogtman/Carl Norman
U.S. EPA
230 South Dearborn St.
Chicago, IL 60604
866-5496
EMAIL95019
Charles Brasher
U.S. EPA
230 South Dearborn St.
Chicago, IL 60604
353-
EMAIL
Duarie Heaton
U.S. EPA
230 South Dearborn St.
Chicago, IL 60604
353-1788
EMAIL
Gail Nabasny
U.S. EPA
230 South Dearborn St.
Chicago. IL 60604
353-1056
EMAIL
Lorraine Kosik
U.S. EPA
230 South Dearborn St.
Chicago, IL 60604
353-6431
EMAIL
Jay Thakkar
U.S. EPA. (5SCRL)
536 South Clark St.
Chicago, IL 60605
886-1972
EMAIL
Helen Newman
U.S. EPA
1445 Ross Avenue
Dallas, TX 75270
255-6720
EMAIL
Carlene Chambers/
Eve Bass
U.S. EPA
1445 Ross Avenue
Dallas. TX 75270
255-6720
EMAIL9698
Chris Peterson
U.S. EPA
1445 Ross Avenue
Dallas, TX 75270
255-6720
EMAIL
Chris Peterson
U.S. EPA
1445 Ross Avenue
Dallas, TX 75270
255-6720
EMAIL
Ed Sierra
U.S. EPA
1445 Ross Avenue
Dallas. TX 75270
255-6720
EMAIL
Karen Witten
U.S. EPA
1445 Ross Avenue
Dallas, TX 75270
255-6720
EMAIL
Michael Daggett
U.S. EPA
10625 Fallstone
Houston, TX 77099
730-2107
EMAIL
Karen Flournoy
U.S. EPA
726 Minnesota Avenue
Kansas City, KS 66101
276-7782
EMAIL9722
Debi Marey
U.S. EPA
726 Minnesota Avenue
Kansas City. KS 66101
276-
EMAIL
Ron McCutcheon
U.S. EPA
726 Minnesota Avenue
Kansas City. KS 6610)
276-
EMAIL
Paul Dohetty
U.S. EPA
726 Minnesota Avenue
Kansas City. KS 66101
276- .
EMAIL
Peter Culver
U.S. EPA
726 Minnesota Avenue
Kansas City, KS 66101
276-7707
EMAIL
Maureen Hunt
U.S. EPA
726 Minnesota Avenue
Kansas City, KS 66101
276-7722
EMAIL
Harold Brown
U.S. EPA
726 Minnesota Avenue
Kansas City, KS 66101
757-3881
EMAIL
Gregg Hargreaves
U.S. EPA
999 18th Street
Denver. CO 80202
330-1287
EMAIL9832
Jeff Mashburn
U.S. EPA
999 18th Street
Denver. CO 80202
330-7156
EMAIL
Mike Zimmerman
U.S. EPA
999 18th Street
Denver, CO 80202
330-7134
EMAIL
Jim Knoy
U.S. EPA
999 18th Street
Denver, CO 80202
330-7162
EMAIL
Gerry Snyder
U.S. EPA
999 18th Street
Denver, CO 80202
330-7505
EMAIL
Sam Marquez
U.S. EPA
999 18th Street
Denver, CO 80202
330-7151
EMAIL
Steve Callio
U.S. EPA
999 18th Street
Denver, CO 80202
330-7509
EMAIL
Rob Stern
U.S. EPA
75 Hawthorne Street
San Francisco, CA 94103
484-2339
EMAIL99039
Rob Stern/
Matt Mitguard/Sherry Nikzat
U.S. EPA
75 Hawthorne Street
San Francisco, CA 94103
484-1440
EMAIL99078
Chris Weden
U.S. EPA
75 Hawthorne Street
San Francisco, CA 94103
484-2291
EMAIL99026
William Lewis
U.S. EPA - (T-4-8)
75 Hawthorne Street
San Francisco, CA 94103
484-2292
EMAIL99086
Doug Frazer
U.S. EPA - (T-4-8)
75 Hawthorne Street
San Francisco, CA 94103
484-2338
EMAIL
Judy Walker
U.S. EPA - (T-4-8)
75 Hawthorne Street
San Francisco, CA 94103
484-2334
EMAIL
Terry Stumph
U.S. EPA - (P-3)
75 Hawthorne Street
San Francisco, CA 94103
484-1534
EMAIL
Joanne LaBaw
U.S. EPA
1200 6th Street
Seattle, WA 98101
399-2594
EMAIL9041
Joanne LaBaw
U.S. EPA
1200 6th Street
Seattle, WA 98101
399-2594
EMAIL9041
William Longston
U.S. EPA
1200 6th Street
Seattle, WA 98101
399-1196
EMAIL
Carl Kitz
U.S. EPA
1200 6th Street
Seattle, WA 98101
399-1263
EMAIL
John Osborn
U.S. EPA
1200 6th Street
Seattle, WA 98101
399-0837
EMAIL
Mike Slater
U.S. EPA
1200 6th Street
Seattle, WA 98101
399-0455
EMAIL
Gerald Muth
U.S. EPA
1200 6th Street
Seattle, WA 98101
399-0370
EMAIL
------- |