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

-------