oEPA
$!•!••
Environment*!
ot
So>'d
DIRECTIVE NUMBER: 9242.2-02
TITLE: Site Specific Contracting For Removals
APPROVAL DATE: 4/10/89
EFFECTIVE DATE: 4/10/89
ORIGINATING OFFICE: OERR/ERD/ROB
Q FINAL
D DRAFT
CTATllC ( ] A" Pendln8 OMB approval
STATUS: [ ] B- Pending AA-OSWER approval
i ] C- For review &/or conment
[ ] D- In development or circulating
REFERENCE (Other dOCumtnU): headquarters
DIRECTIVE DIRECTIVE
-------
United Slates environmental Protection Agency
. Washington. DC 20460
OSWER Directive Initiation Request
1. Directive Numoer
9242.2-02
2. Originator Information
Name of Contact Person
Bruce Engelbert
i Mail Coae
Off
WD/ROB
llelepnore Coae
• ^7-7.188
3. Title
Site Specific Contracting fro Removals
4. Summary o< Directive (include onef sutement of purpose)
Provides direction on use of site specific contracts for removal actions.
.Keywords Superfurd.CEROA.SARA
i«. does This Directive Superseae Previous Oirective(s)?
b. Does It Supplement Previous Oirectrve(s)?
No.
No
V«s Whtt direetiv* (numd«r. title)
>
Yea What directive (number, till*)
Draft Level
A - Signed by AA/OAA
B - Signed by Office Director
C - For Rwi** & Comment
D-ln
•
8. Document to be distributed to States by Headquarters?
X
Yn
•^^M^B
No
This Request Me«U OSWEfl
Directive* System Format Standards. /
9. Signature of Lead Office Directives Coordinator /f*j£f^~// ^- j j s
KJ&&O cs&rt-^STfT^*-^
Betti VanEpps OERR Directives CoordinatcMy
10. Name and Title of Approving Official
Henry L. Longest II, Director, OERR
Data
4/10/89
Date
4/10/89
EPA Form 1315-17 (Rev. 5-87) Previous editions are opsolete.
OSWER OSWER OSWER O
VE DIRECTIVE DIRECTIVE DIRECTIVE
-------
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20460
APR I 0 1989
OFFICE OF
SOLID WASTE AND EMERGENCY RESPONS
OSWER Directive #9242.2-02
MEMORANDUM
SUBJECT:
FROM: \
TO:
Purpose
Site -Specific Contracting for Removals.
Henry L. Longest II, Director^ UJ-M'
Office of Emergency and Remedial- Response^
David J. O'Connor, Director
Procurement and Contracts Management Division
Environmental Services Division Directors
Regions I, VI, VII
Waste Management Division Directors
Regions I, IV, V, VI, VIII
Emergency and Remedial Response Division Director
Region II
Hazardous Waste Management Division Directors
Regions III, VI
Toxics and Waste Management Division Director
Region IX
Hazardous Waste Division Director
Region X
This memorandum provides direction on the use of site-specific contracts
for removal actions .
Background:
A key component of the removal response strategy is site -specific
contracting. Site-specific contracts are desirable because they promote
competition, which leads to getting the best cleanup price possible for
removal actions. The removal program has made minimal use of site-specific
contracts. In FY'88, no site -specific contracting was done. In FY'87, only 4
of the 256 removals started used this approach.
-------
-2-
In FY'86, after an Inspector General audit of the Emergency Response
Cleanup Services (ERGS) contracts and congressional hearings, a new removal
contracting strategy was developed. The plan called for:
- Large zone ERGS. These contracts would ensure adequate capability
to respond to emergency and time-critical releases.
- Regional ERGS (mini-ERCS). These contracts would supplement the
zone ERGS, but would not have such strict minimum response times.
The smaller size of these contracts would help to open up competition
and get more companies involved in the program.
- Site-specific contracts. These contracts would get the government
the best cost in those situations where the time for competition
is available. In order to help reduce the necessary lead time,
a strategy of technically pre-qualifying contractors (PQOPS) is
being established. Again, the small and well defined nature of
site-specific contracts will help to increase the number of companies
participating in the program.
Objective:
This memorandum is intended to encourage the use of site-specific
contracting in as many removal actions as the circumstances allow. Right now,
many good opportunities for site-specific contracting are being overlooked.
In each of these cases, we could be saving valuable funds, as well as ERGS
capacity, that could be used for other removal actions. In non-emergency
situations, a Region should always consider whether there will be time and
resources to do a site-specific contract. The Regional removal program should
work with its contracting officer (CO) to decide the best contracting approach.
Site-Specific Criteria:
Site-specific contracts are contracts, competed through an EPA CO, to
obtain carefully defined cleanup services. Regions should consider the
following factors when deciding whether or not to do a site-specific contract.
1. Lead Time -- Generally, a site-specific contract will take about four
months to compete. Many removal actions are emergencies or must be started
in less than four months. But 15 to 20 percent of removal actions,
including most of those involving an alternative technology, have a
sufficient planning horizon or will last long enough so that some portion of
the work can be done through a site-specific contract. During the update of
the removal Superfund Comprehensive Accomplishments Plan (SCAP) each
quarter, you should give serious consideration to possible site-specific
-------
-3-
contracting candidates. We understand that not all sites in the SCAP, with
a scheduled start date beyond four months, are good candidates, since they
may be low priority projects that are likely to be deferred or not done at
all. In some cases, it will make sense to do site-specific contracts at
actions that start out as emergencies. If the cleanup work will take a
substantial amount of time, as is often the situation when a $2 million
exemption is granted, perhaps it will be practical to do the latter stages
of the work site-specifically. Except in very unusual circumstances, any
removal where an Engineering Evaluation/Cost Analysis is necessary should be
done through a site-specific contract.
2. Cost -- The larger the action, the greater the potential for savings if a
site-specific contract is used. Actions that will cost less than $500
thousand are probably not good candidates for site-specific competition.
Actions costing over $2 million should generally have some component of the
work that is done on a site-specific basis.
3. Complexity -- Actions, or parts of large actions, that are relatively
straightforward and uncomplicated, are the best candidates for site-specific
contracting. Since site specific contracting requires being able to write a
clear statement of work, unusual or poorly defined situations should be
handled through the ERGS mechanisms. For example, a site that has a lot of
unidentified materials should probably be done through ERGS, at least up to
the transportation and disposal phase of the work. On the other hand, if
the action is basically excavation and disposal or incineration, and the
contamination type and amount is well understood, a site-specific contract
may make sense.
4. Management - - Site-specific contract preparation and management will require
CO assistance and a small amount of program FTE beyond what an ERGS action
would require. Consequently, the projected dollar savings should outweigh
the extra staff time that must be invested. This determination should be
made in consultation with the appropriate CO, who should always be in on
major contracting choices in non-emergency situations. In FY'90, Regions
will get a small increment of FTE just for site-specific contracting. Also,
the Environmental Response Team (ERT) and its Response Engineering and
Analytical Contract are usually available to provide support in developing
the statement of work for a site-specific contract.
Implementation:
In non-emergency situations, Regions should start with the assumption
that a site-specific contract is the way to proceed. Site conditions,
resource constraints or other factors may quickly convince the On-Scene
Coordinator (OSC) that a zone or Regional ERCS contractor is the better
response route. Where there is a site-specific potential, an early discussion
with a CO is important. The CO can help sort through the schedule and steps to
see if the approach is feasible. All of the Regions already have or soon will
have their own CO, so this consultation will be relatively easy.
-------
-4-
If the response will be done through a site-specific contract, the OSC is
responsible for writing the scope of work, organizing any necessary technical
evaluation of the offerers, and serving as project officer on the contract.
The CO will take care of managing the advertisement, bid review, negotiations
and actual award of the contract. Clearly, the process will take some
additional OSC time (a rough estimate is 40 to 120 hours beyond what the
project would probably take under ERGS). The ERT is often available to
provide assistance in preparing the scope of work. And once the PQOPS pools of
technically qualified contractors for incineration and fixation are in place
later this summer, there will be time savings in the technical review process.
In many cases, particularly those involving alternative technologies, the small
incremental OSC time commitment is well worth the overall cost savings on the
project.
Conclusion:
Site-specific contracts, under the right circumstances, can save
considerable funds that can be used for other removal actions. There are no
mandatory requirements or quotas for site-specific contracts. This approach
should only be used where Regions believe that the removal action schedule and
work requirements can be met. There are many instances where this will be the
case, so the removal program needs to make a greater commitment to using site-
specific contracts in the future.
------- |