UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

                      WASHINGTON. O.C. 20460
                        SEP -
                                   OSWER Directive #9202.1-06
SUBJECT:
PROM I
Initiatives to Streamline the Alternative Remedial
Contracting Strategy  (ARCS) Contracts' Ajrard  Fee
Process

Timothy Fields, Jr.,  Director
Superfund Revitalization Office
TO I
David J. O'Connor, Director   f^
Procurement and Contracts Management ~D

Addressees
                                                    sion
Purpose

      The purpose of this directive  is  to  delineate changes  to
the ARCS award fee process which will streamline the current
system for evaluating contractors' performance.

Background

     In October of 1991, the Agency  issued a  report by the
Administrator's Task Force on  implementing the ARCS contract*..
Several recommendations contained  in this  report discussed
improvements needed to the award fee process  currently used  \.
the ARCS contracts.  Among these the most  significant includt-

          "....Contractors' accomplishments with regard to
          lowering program management costs and  adherence to
          national targets would receive significant
          consideration in the award fee process."

          "Regional Administrators,  in  cooperation  with the
          Office of Administration and  Resources Management  a.»d
          the Office of Solid  Waste  and Emergency Response,
          should establish regional  or  zonal  teams  to evaluate
          and report within 120 days on recommendations to
          streamline the award fee system  with particular

-------
          attention to the paperwork burden and  issues of
          national consistency.  Teams should also be charged to
          examine the Performance Index Rating Score to determine
          if it is the best tool to capture performance and
          translate it into a criterion for the  assignment of new
          work."

     Region II, serving in the capacity as the lead Superfund
Region, engaged in an extensive workgroup effort to evaluate the
current award fee process and make recommendations for
streamlining burdensome areas.  The recommendations were
submitted to the Acting Acquisition Manager for  Superfund on
June 8, 1992, and she took these recommendations to the ARCS
Council for deliberation and consensus.  The Council members
reached agreement on the majority of the recommendations at the
June 18, 1992 Council meeting.

Objective

     The key decisions made by the ARCS Council  are summarized in
the following sections:

*  Contractors* Self Evaluations

     Contractors' self evaluations will be limited in length and
scope to enable the Performance Evaluation Board to focus on the
most critical areas where their input is needed.  Region-specific
limitations will be determined by each ARCS Regional Management
Team (RMT); however, each Region should ask for  at least one page
for program management, two pages for key highlights on remedial
planning, a very short summary of remedial design and
construction and a matrix of scores for work assignments which
are to be evaluated in the period.  Packages should not exceed
ten pages in length.  However, in cases where performance
problems are evident, the contractor's self-evaluation may
contain an appendix that states their views and  corrective
actions taken.

*  Threshold for Bvaluatioa of Work Assignments

     Each Regional RMT will establish a threshold number ot nours
for evaluation of work assignments.  Consideration should be
given to the significance of the work assignment and the
administrative burden associated with its evaluation.  A general
guideline for RMTs to consider is 80 hours of work performed
within the period.  Some work assignments below  this level may
need evaluation and each PEB should determine which areas Call
into this category  (i.e., unsatisfactory performance, etc.)

     The fee associated with work assignment hours not evaluated
will be included in the calculation of the available award (••

-------
for that period.  These un-evaluated hours will receive a
"satisfactory" rating (unless there is knowledge of the contrary,
which would require an evaluation per statement above) and will
be included in the calculation of the contractor's recommended
award fee.  This process ensures that the contractor will not
have to forego the possibility of receiving award fee for hours
legitimately worked under the contract and will eliminate
administrative burdens of "carrying hours" into the next
performance period.  Guidance on the threshold shall be
distributed by the RMT to all Work Assignment Managers (WAMs).


Use of the ARCS Tracking system

     The Council strongly encourages use of the ACT system to
calculate award fee pools.

•  Calculation of the Performance Index Rating Score (PZR8) and
Inclusion of Program Management

     The Council determined that program management will be
evaluated and included in the PIRS calculation.  It will be
calculated as 25% of the PIRS and this will be done consistently
across all ten Regions.   Fee Determination Official will ensure
that this method is used by each PEB in calculating the PIRS.
Regions may choose to use either whole or partial points in their
initial ratings calculations.

LAN Generation of Forms

     In Regions where the computer systems capabilities exist,
the Council decided that use of computer-generated forms is
acceptable.

Contents of Packages Provided to the PEB

     The Council determined that each board member should receive
a package including all information regarding work assignments
with high and lov ratings.  In addition, ratings where the WAN,
the Project Officer (PO) or the contractor's self-evaluation
disagree are alsc to be included    ..* PEB snowlJ .-1«r*ys
encourage WAMs to attend the PEB as observers and to  provide
input during discussions of their work assignments.  All program
management and closeout work assignment information should also
be included.  One complete set of evaluations for all work
assignments must be made available as a reference document for
the board in case issues are aired at the meeting or questions
arise with regard to the material.  Quality of the material is to
outweigh quantity requirements.

-------
Debriefing of Contractora

     The Council determined that tha Ragiona may continue to
follow thair currant practicaa of dabriafing contractors.  Thay
must occur promptly following tha maating  (within approximately
two weeks).  However, an additional requirement determined by the
Council will be that each Region'a senior management  (Division
Director or designated Deputy) must meet at leaat annually with
each contractor to discuss the contractor's overall performance
in the Region.
Elimination of the Second Pat,* of the Performance Bvduatija
Report (PER)

     The Council felt the second page of the PER should be
retained.  The PEB and the Fee Determination Official  (FDO) gain
valuable information from the ratinga included in the key areas
(e.g., schedule, cost control, etc.).

Delegation of Fee Determination Offieial Authority

     The council felt that the impact of the recommendations of
the Agency's Standing Committee on Contracts Management could not
yet be evaluated.  After the issuance of the committee's report,
the Council will decide upon delegation of FDO authority to the
Region's Senior Procurement Official on a case-by-case basis.

Contents of the Fee Determination Package Provided to the
Contractor

     The Council determined that each contractor should be
informed of the PEB's findings in a consistent manner.
Therefore, each package (sample is attached) should contain the
following:

          FDO letter
          Modification to the contract
          PEB report
          Regional evaluation summary

Implementation

     Changes to the award fee proceaa will be implemented
immediately.  Those changes that impact the contractor
(identified by an *), will be effective as of the next evaluation
period, contractora need to be informed accordingly.

Attachment

-------
Addressees:

     Directors, Waste Management Divisions
       Regions I, IV, V, and VII
     Director, Emergency and Remedial Response Division
       Region II
     Directors, Hazardous waste Management Divisions
       Regions III, VI, VII and IX
     Director Hazardous Waste Division
       Region X
     Assistant Regional Administrator,
       Regions I-X

cc:  Directors, Environmental Services Divisions
       Regions I-X
     Rich Guimond
     Bruce Diamond
     Sylvia Lovrance
     Henry Longest
     OERR Division Directors
     OWPE/CED Division Director
     Regional Waste Management Branch Chiefs
     Regional Removal Managers
     Bill Topping, PCMD
     Carolyn Anderson, PCMD
     ARCS Contracting Officers
     ARCS Project Officers

-------
                 UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

                                    REGION 5
                           77 WEST JACKSON BOULEVARD
                              CHICAGO. IL 60604-3590
          25 1992

                                                                 MOC-1QJ
Subject:                       Determination of Award Fee For Evaluation
          Period Nine

Dear Mr. Gau:

As the Fee Determination Official for the ounttact cited above,  it is my
responsibility to determine the amount of award fee to be awarded to your
company under this contract.

Performance Evaluation Period Nine was from May 1, 1991 through  October 31,
1991.  The award fee  pools for this period are as follows:

     Program Management        $

     Remedial Planning

       Phase I Prime  & sub LOE
       Phase I Subpool          	
     Total Available            $

Z an awarding you a total of $          as the amount ccnnensurate with the
ojuality of your oonaany's performance during this period.  As detailed below,
this represents     \ of the total award fee pool available  for the period.
this is based on the Performance Evaluation Reports submitted to the Board
Your perforasnoe in yiujias management activities was rated
expectations" during this performance evaluation period; and your overall
performance  in remedial planning activities was rated "satisfactory.11  One
work assignment, was given an "outstanding" rating and fourteen work
assignments  received a rating of "experts expectations."
Specific oaments regarding individual work assignments can be found in the
attached "ARCS Region V Evaluation Sunnary."
                                                                            ^>: e : - j

-------
                                      -2-


There were no work assignments  (VUt)  conpleted during this evaluation period
and therefore no phase II award fee  earned.

In my last Award Fee Determination letter I dlsoresert how .      .  had
effectively addressed problems  noted in the previous period.
program management performance  continues to iaprove.  I am pleased to see that
          program management costs have decreased  % (excluding equipment)
from the last evaluation period.   The steps taken by         to reorganize  its
Program Management Office indicates  to  me that         is taking positive
measures to lower program management cost.  It was also noted that
initiated negotiations with three  of its four team subcontractors  to change
the subcontracts from cost-plus-aweL.-d fee to cost-plus-fixed  fee oortiacts  in
an effort to reduce administration hours.

      ~ has continued to iaprove its coordination with the CLP  program which
had been a problem in the past.  Invoices and progress reports  are submitted
in a tinely manner.  Ihe quality,  accuracy and format of  the  information
provided in these documents has continued to be improved.  The  number of  sites
which received higher than satisfactory performance  ratings,  during this
evaluation period, indicates not only good technical  abilities  but better
overall prograi
       . has been given an "exceeds expectations'* rating in program management
and must now work to not only maintain that rating through the present period,
but iaprove on that rating.          vust scrutinize all aspects of program
management to find more cost efficient methods of performance.          should
continue to monitor work with the CLP program to insure accurate paperwork and
good coordination.  Also, you must aggressively seek out Small Disadvantaged
Business in order to meet the SDB goals established in your contract.

Ine details of the total earned award fee are as follows:

               Program Management    $         '  (  .%)

               RemnrHal Planning
                 Ruse I UX.          $           (   %)
                              (WA 12)             (I)
                 Phase I Subpool              ..   (   0
                              (WA 12  	  (   I)
              Tttal Aw "rt Earned     »

-------
                                      -3-
Enclceed with this latter  is a nodi ficat ion to Contract            which
authorizes you to submit a voucher for payment of award fee earned.  A final
invoice reflecting the "Earned Award Fee" amount oust be submitted for each
work assignment completed  during this evaluation period as presented above.
Also enclosed is the Pertonance Evaluation Board Report which provides
further comments on the Board's evaluation.

Sincerely yours,
    »lyn N. Anderson, Acting Chief
Regional Contract Management Branch
Procurement and Contracts Management Division

End

-------
     .MOMENT,
   Seventy-six  (76)
• iSSuEO
                                     See Blk  16C
                                                                           Hi. 10    I *«o-l;''-.ci  ./
                              cooe
                                                      ; AOMiN.sTtP.fo
                                                                                /•
                                                                                        cooc
    J.S.  Bivironnental Protection  Agency
   Contracts  Section (MOO-IOJ)
   77
                                        . CATlON OP CONTRACT/OROI
                                                                          10*. OATEO I»*M ITS* It)

                                                                               MBV 28. 1988
                         1 1  THIS ITEM ONLY APPLIES TO AMENDMENTS OP SOLICITATIONS
    Th» 4OO«« numOtr«d
Of«r| (f^tt

HI 8*
                       O< !«•• •"Wn0"'«

                     1ft.
« Ml fort" in Item 14 Th« now md 0*11 nci'M


     10 C

       »«• o' trt« arm
                 to tn« M<
                                                                                               ACKNOWLEO
            By WO*'«t« l«iitr or icwgrtm M«««I inclwdn •
MCNT TO BE R6CEIV60 AT TM£ PLACE DESIGNATED FQfl TH£ RECEIPT OF OFFERS PfllO* TO THE nOU« ANO DATE SPECIFIED MAY «£Su
IN fcSJECTlON OF VOUB OFFER if By virtue o< m* •ir«nom«ni vow Ottirt to cntnp «n oH«r tktMv fcO*".n« iwcn en«ngt may M >n«c Dv
                     or Mltv m«tM r|f«rtnco to 0« MliCiUlion md t"H t»*»nfl«*ont ma •» roaiiMd Or«' to
11. ACCOUNTING ANO APPMOPHIATION DATA
                                            N/A
                     13 THIS HEM APPLIES ONLY TO MODIFICATIONS OF CONTRACTS/ORDERS.
                        IT MODIFIES THE CONTRACT/ORDER NO  AS DESCRIBED IN ITEM 14
      TM|» CMANGC OMOCA Ift ISSWCO
      TMACT OMOC* NO IN iTCM 10A
                                        TO ItHClft cyMenry; TMT CMANOCS »*T
                                                                             IN ITCM 14 ANC MAOC ir»
    • TMC ACOVC NUMMHCO CONTHACT/OAOtH 19 MOOlCiCO TO •C"bCCT THE AOMlNiSTHATivC CMAN6CS <*** W <1«n««»
      •»»ro»rwfio* «•«. »!• J SCT POUT** IN ITCM 14. PURSUANT TO TMf AuTMOMlTV OP PAR 41 101OI
                                                                                                » »«»"««
    C TMIS SUP*kCMCNTAk AOMKKMCNT It KNTCMCO INTO PURSUANT TO AuTMOAlTV OP
         unilateral,  pursuant to Clause B.3,  Award Fee (EPAAR 1552.216-70) (Apr. 1984)
E. IMPORTANT Contractor
                            n not.
                                      n rtq>jif«0 to «ipn thit docu»n«nt and
                                                                               coo-« to the
                                                                                               office
                                .4AT-.6N i
The purpose of this modification is to authorize  the Contractor to submit invoices
following  award  fee anounts:

1.   During Performance Evaluation Period No. Nine,  May  1,  1990  through October 31,
the contractor earned award fees as follows:

                        Progran Management               s
                        PamnrHnl Planning
                          Phase I  LOG
                          Ruse I  Sub Pool
                                                                                              for the


                                                                                              1991,

$

A NAMC ANO TITLE of SIGNCM rntt o' p'tnu
I»«~CONTMACTO«/OF'CNOM
'« at H'to* ikiMa'n«4 'o i
-------
Modification No. Seventv-aix (76)
to Contract No.
Fog* 2 of 5
2.  The text of Contract Glaus* B.6,  ESTIMATED OUSTS AND FEES,
is revised to read:

"a)  Program Management

                             	             CHANg IK          	
                             ESTIMATED        ESTXMA3ED          TOTAL
                           COSTS AND  FEES    COOTS AND FEES      ESTIMATED
                            TOV MOD  75        BY THIS MOD      COSTS AND  FEES

Estiutad Cost             $3,341,184.00       $     0.00        $3,341,184.00
Maxima Award
Fee Pool Still
Available

emulative amount
of Award Fa*
MArdfld through
10/3V91
 (Estimated Cost +
 B&M Fa* + Award
 Tm Available +
 Award Fee Awarded)
Total PTOgraa              $3,522,919.65       ($         )       $3,514,935.41

-------
  dification No. Seventy-six (76)
to QJ ILL act NO.
     3 of 5
b)  Rpmnrtlal Planning

                             	            CHANGE IN
                             ESTIMATED         ESTIMATED          TUDtL
                           CDffIS AND FEES    uuGfTS AND FEES     ESTIMATED
                             THV MX) 75          BY THIS MOO     COSTS AND FEES

Estiaated Cost            $14,241,719.00       $      0.00   $14,241,719.00
Maxiaa Award
Pea tool stUl
Available

emulative amount
of Award Fee awarded
through 10/31/91
Prime Contractor's
fixed rate laboratory
support  ceiling
TX3tal Remedial            $17,978,360.74    •  ($         ')    $17,977,002.65
Planning amount
 (Estimated Cost +
Base Fee + Award
Fee  Available +
Award Fee Awarded +
 fixed rate laboratory
support ceiling)

-------
Modification Ho. Savtty-six (76)
to Contract No.
     4 Of 5
c)  Subcontracting Pool

                          	              CHANGE  ZN
                          ESTDATED         ESTIMATED          TOTAL
                        COSTS AND FEES    COSTS AND FEES     ESTIMATED
                          THRU HDD 75      BY THIS  HDD     COSTS AND FEES


Estiaated Cost        $142,857,143.00      $     0.00      $142,857,143.00
Maxima Award
PM Pool Still
Available

emulative amount
of Award Fee awarded
through 10/31/91
Total Subcontract-    $149,999,088.44       (         )     $149,999,061.44
ing Pool amount
(tttioatad Oovt +
BaM Paa * Award
Pw Available *
Award Pa* Awarded)

-------
  dification No. Seventy-six  (76)
to Contract No.
     5 of 5
d)  Total contract
                          	              CHANGE  IN
                          ESTIMATED         ESTIMATED         TOTAL
                        COSTS AND FEES    uu£T£ AND FEES     ESTIMATED
                          THFU MOO 75      BY THIS  MOO    C06T5 AND FEES

Estimated Cost        $160,440,046.00        $    0.00    $160,440,046.00
Maxima Award
Fee Pool still Available

Cumulative aacunt
of Award Fee awarded
through 10/3V91

Prime Contractor'*
Fixed rate laboratory
support ceiling
Total Estimated       $171,500,368.83     $    ('       )   $171,490,999.50
Contract amount
(Estimated Coat *
Base Fee + Award
Fee Available +
Award Fee Awarded +
fixed rate laboratory
         selling)
a)  This contract will be modified to reflect the* award fee as award fee
determinations are made.  There shall be NO base or award 'ee applied to tJv
print contractor's fixed rate  laboratory support.  There shall be NO award
fee applied to the prime contractor's mobile laboratory acquisition costs.

f)  The Subcontracting Pool, although listed separately within this clause
for purposes of clarity, is a  subelement of the Remedial Planning portion
of the contract."

-------
                   PERFORMANCE EVALUATION BOARD
                    CONTRACT NUMBER

                    EVALUATION REPORT NUMBER 9
               May l, 1991 through October 31, 1991

Performance  Evaluation  Board  (PEB) Members:

     Gail Ginsberg  for  David Ullrich, Chairperson
     Norm Niedergang
     Rick Karl
     Pat Bamford  for Elissa Speiznan

other Participants:

     Brigitte Manzke     Martin Sandoval     Ton  Short
     Jodi Traub          Ton Mateer          Cynthia Wakat
     Carl Norman         Patricia Vogtman '   Stephen Nathan
     Ray Johnson         Peggy Hendrixson

INTRODUCTION

On  December  4,  1991,  Region's  V's Performance  Evaluation Board
(PEB) met to  determine the performance ratings for the ninth rating
period  of  the ARCS                         Inc.  Contract.   The
Project Officer (PO) presented the recommended  ratings for program
management as  well  as  individual technical performance.   This
report represents the deliberations and findings of the PEB.

PROGRAM MAKAOEMENT

Current Work Load

Activities this semester included providing program management to
41  technical work assignments on this contract.   Seven  new work
assignments  were  awarded   during   the   semester.      Kickoff
meetings\conference  calls were  held  on  all  of  the  new  work
assignments.   EPA believes this practice is mutually beneficial to
both parties.

Change of Project Personnel\Reoroaniiation

Effective June, 1991,           Program Management Office (PMO) was
reorganised.   Two  positions  were  eliminated  -  the  cost  and
scheduling engineer position and  the  Sheboyan  Operations  Manager
position.  The Chicago Operations Manager, Mr. Tom Dalton,  assumed
the  cost and schedule responsibilities.   Mr.  Roman Gau,  ARCS
Project Manager,  and Mr. Brian Klatt assumed the responsibilities
of  the  Sheboyan  Operations Manager  as part of their  current  ]ob
duties.  In addition to  the elimination of two positions,  work was
redistributed to shift some of the administrative duties  to lower
personnel classifications.   This reorganization  appears  to  have
lowered program management costs for the evaluation period.   See

-------
discussion of Program Management  Costs.

In  September,                                  was  purchased  by
Wheelabrator  Technologies,  Inc.  (WTZ) .   wTI  is  a publicly  held
corporation where  57%  of its stock is owned by Waste  Management,
Inc..  Waste Management  has been  a  client of          for  a  number
of years, and our Agency has not assigned  any work to        where
EPA believed  there might be  a Conflict of Interest  (COZ) .  There
could be a potential COZ should any of the PRPs on existing  work
assignments hire Waste Management,  INC.  for Superfund  activities.
Wheelabrator  Technologies is not  the  PRP  on any of  the  work
assignments assigned to  Donohue.


     ams Management Costs
Through  the  end  of  October,  1991,   the  contractox  expended
$           under  program   management.    The  average  program
management  cost,  excluding  equipment,  from May  1,  1991 through
October 31,  1991  decreased  % from  the previous semester - from
$       to $      . The number of program management  LOE decreased
  %  -  from       LOE  hours  to     . LOE  hours.   The  number of
Remedial LOE decreased   %   - from         to

           contract with  each  of  its  four Team Subcontractors
provides  for  cost-plus-award-fee  (CPA7) .            found  that
administering the  CPAP required  a  considerable amount of Program
Management  LOE  in  developing  award  fee evaluations,  funding
letters, and processing follow-up invoicing by Team Subcontractors
and requested  approval to  change the CPAF to cost-plus-fixed-fee
(CPFF)  Contract for three of its Team Subcontracts in an effort to
reduce PM LOE.   EPA consented to this request on November 1, 1991.

Limitation of Funds

The contractor continues to notify  U.S.  EPA when it expects  to
reach  75%  of  the  funding expenditure  limit in  compliance  with
Section B.7 of their contract.  The contractor and EPA have worked
together to successfully ensure that       . did not exceed hours
and dollars authorized in any of the work assignments.

fTumimrr flubcomtract Report

The  contract requires that  EPA review  and  consent  to all  cost
reimbursement, time 6 materials,  and  fixed price pool subcontracts
over  $25,000.     In  accordance  with  this requirement,
requested  consent for  Modifications   1  &  2  with  its  pool
subcontractor,  Environmental  Engineering  4  Remediation,  Inc.
regarding the South Andover  Site.  EPA approved these requests.

Through  the end  of October,           awarded  $728,557 to  pool
subcontractors  of which $382,988  was awarded  to  Small  Business
Enterprises  (SBE)  and  $52,317  was  awarded to Small Disadvantage*!
Business Enterprises  (SDBE) .  Through the end of this evaluation

-------
period,  the contractor's utilization was as follows:

                     Sfi               SOB
          Goals       %                  %
          Actual      %                  %

These  percentages  have  exceeded  the  ratings  for  the  previous
semester -    %  for  SBE  and :   %  for  SOBE.     '        has
significantly exceeded its SBE goal  and has made a notable  effort
to «eet  its SOBE goal.

   lity  Assurance/CIiP Lab Coordination
Approximately  250  samples  were processed from the  Torch  Lake site
and another 900 were processed from the Himco Dump Site.  During
this evaluation period,  a  new ta^pling  coordinator %as brought on
board.  There were some communication problems initially; however,
these were quickly resolved. Any errors were readily corrected and
documented  in the file.         has become proactive in scheduling
samples and notifying EPA  of any potential  complications.

Monthly Progress Reports/Invoices

Monthly progress reports and invoices continue to  be submitted in
a timely  manner and  are of high quality.   The monthly progress
reports are, for the most  part, very  well written and  accurate.
They  address discrepancies between  activities which occur  in  a
given month but are invoiced in another.  The schedules are clearly
laid out.  The invoices provide very  detailed information and vary
few errors  were noted.   The number of LOB and dollars invoiced is
consistent  with the  hours and costs  identified  in  the monthly
progress  reports.


Past Areas  of Concern

In our previous evaluation, no areas of  concern were specifically
identified.  Although none have  been specifically identified for
this rating period, EPA always welcomes continued efforts  to reduce
program management costs. Again, the Agency  is pleased to  see these
costs have  been reduced, and encourages         to seek ways to
further reduce  costs.
The overall program management rating for this evaluation period is
"exceeds expectations."  The contractor has demonstrated it has the
motivation and organizational skills to make positive changes in an
effort  to provide  better contract  management.    The contractor
remains responsive to EPA needs; has submitted original and revised
work  plans  that are,  for the most  part,  clearly  written  with
detailed  cost analysis;  has  successfully  complied with contract
requirements, such as, reporting and notification requirements; and
has  improved its  coordination with CLP.   The overall technical

-------
performance  of the work  assignments  has improved eince previous
rating period  which may ba  partially  attributed  to better program
management.   Based on the  performance  for this period, Region V
recommends  that      of  the  available  award fee be awarded for
program management this semester.  This estimated dollar amounts of
the available  and recommended award fees for this period are given
below.  This estimate will  be confirmed  by  the CO prior to award.

          Available

           $
Evaluation of  the overall technical performance  for this period
includes 41 active work assignments listed on the attached Regional
Evaluation Summary  (RES) .  Five work assignments have been closed
to date.  Of the 41 work assignments,          has the lead on five
fund-lead  RZ/FS  work  assignments;  nine  RZ/FS  oversight  work
assignments; ten RO oversights; fourteen separate work assignments
for   Community  Relations;   one   work   assignment   for   Design
Znvestigation; one work assignment for  RO negotiation support; and
one work assignment for Risk Assessment.

For this semester, the ratings for the 41 work assignments are as
follows:

          Outstanding                1
          Exceeds Expectations      14
          Satisfactory              25
          Marginally Satisfactory    1

Of the  25 work assignments that received a satisfactory rating,
16 had  less than 50 hours expended during the evaluation period.
The  number  of work  assignments  that  received  a  higher  than
satisfactory rating increased  from eleven to fifteen.   The  table
below identifies those work assignments by site name and type which
received a higher-than-satisfactory rating:

          Torch Lake               WAI 2          RZ/FS
          Allied Chemical          WAI 8          RO O
          Hi-Mill Manufacturing    WAI 11         RZ/FS O
          Himco Dump               WAI 17         RZ/FS
          South Andover            WAI 20         RZ/FS
          ormet                    WAI 23         EA
          Alsco Anaconda           WAI 24         RD O
          Torch Lake               WAI 25         CR
          Berlin & Farro           WAI 26         CR
          Cross Brothers           WAI 31         RD O
          Auto Zon                 WAI 32         RZ/FS 0
          Columbus Old City LF     WAI 33         RD o
          South Andover            WAI 39         CR
          Allied Chemical          WAI 42         RD/RA 0

-------
Pleas*  see  the attached  ARCS  Region  V  Evaluation  Summary  for
specific  comments  regarding each work assignment.

Based on. the performance  for this semester, Region v  recommends
that  100%  of  the  available  award  fee  be awarded  for  overall
technical performance with the exception of Mound Plant.  Region V
recommends that    of the award fee be available for Mound Plant.

The  available  Phase  Z award fee was identified  on the  attached
Phase Z Award Fee Allocation Matrix submitted by          for all
work assignments for the ninth rating period.

                     Available     Percent    Recommended
                Phase I Award Fee Awarded    Phaaa I Award  Fee

Mound Plant        $                   %          $
All other WAS    $                  100%        $

The Contracting Officer will verify the available amount of Phase
Z fee prior to  award.

flneaAal         gaatim  Pool
All  work  assignments,  except  Mound  Plant,  utilizing  special
subcontracting  pools  were  rated  as  satisfactory  or  higher.
Therefore, the PEB awards   % of the available award fee associated
for Mound Plant and  100%  for all others work assignments with the
special subcontracting pool.

                     Available     Percent    Recommended
               Phase I Award Fee  Awarded   Phase I Award Fee
Mound Plant          $49.10            %              $22.10
All others       $1,819.67         100%           $1,819.67
                        •
These estimates will be confirmed by the Contracting Officer prior
to award.
There were no WACRs during this evaluation period,

-------
Pg«yOMtXMCl IMPBl aXTIMO BCORB  (PIMi
In consideration of the overall technical performance on 41  active
work assignments,  the  PIRS  is  .%.   The actual calculation  (PIRS
raw  total divided by  the  actual  LOE  total)  is  shown  on the
following page.

-------
                                ARCS REGION V EVALUATION SUMMARY
                                • ^•^•« ^»^ ^m ^ ^ ^^ •*•* ^ •» •••»^^^»^«»^^B^ •• ^ ^^»^» •• «M ^MBM

                                        {CONTRACT NO.:
3NTRACTOR:
                              PERFORMANCE EVALUATION PERIOD
PA PROJECT OFFICER:  Patricia Vogtman
________....—......———.-.——..—————..——————••———-
DNTRACTOR PROGRAM MANAGERS Ro»an Gau

BRFORMANCB EVALUATION KEYS
                                                                             : May 1, 1991
                                                                           >«»^^«MM W •••••^^••••••^••^MtVft^*

                                                                           TO: October 31, 1991
SITE
NAME
WORK
ASSIGNMENT
NUMBER
NUMERIC
RATING
COMMENTS
a in Street,
IN
                01-5LD3
                FS
orch Lake,
II
                02-5LS8
                RI/FS
The ROD was signed in March, 1991 and the contractor  has been
available for negotiation support.  However, minimal assistance
has been needed.  A Unilateral  Order  is expected to be  issued
within a couple of months and t» e work  assignment will  be  closed
out at that time. The overall performance was satisfactory.

The semester has been very active for this work assignment.
The  contractor submitted   the  final   draft  Baseline Risk
Assessment (RA) for OU I fc 2, and the RI Reports for OU  II and
OU III, conducted field sampling for sediment and surface watei
samples along the Keweenaw Waterway, and initiated the OU I and
.OU  III Feasibility  Study  (FS).  The  contractor demonstrated
excellent ability to provide personnel with technical expert is.
in   all   areas  (especially   in  field  work   planning  ami
implementation); sound  project  planning and management  skills
shown  through  prompt submittal  of RI  and RA reports and theii
ability to conduct excellent fivild work.  The level of technical
quality  of field work  and documents has  enabled the WAM  to
manager  the  project more  effectively  and  make well-informed
decisions.  The contractor has  been flexible and responsive  to
the  needs  of  the project  and requests of the WAN.  There is 
-------

SITE
NAME
WORK
ASSIGNMENT
NUMBER

NUMERIC
RATING


COMMENTS
Rockwell Inter.
MI
03-5L1B
 (RI/FS O)
Adams Plating
MI

Willow Run,
MI
04-5LDJ
(RI/PS)

05-5L61
(RI/FS O)
Union Carbide
OH

Senna Iz Dump,
til

Allied Chen.
OH
06-5PF4
(FS O)

07-5NJ3
(CR)

08-SPE4
(RO O)
 Arcanum  Iron,
 OH
09-5N96
  (CR)
   %    Minimal activity at this site during the semester.  The
        contractor updated the site information repository and performed
        routine administrative tasks.  Work was timely and conducted in
        a manner which conserved work assignment funds.   Site  manager
        maintained good contact with the RPM.  Overall performance was
        satisfactory.

N/A     HACR


  %     Minimal activity at this site during the evaluation period.
        The contractor  attended a  meeting with  EPA and  the  PRP  to
        discuss the PRP's RA. The contractor has maintained good  contact
        with EPA, and has also been able to arrange  for  staff  members
        to attend PRP meetings with EPA on  very  short notice.  Overall
        performance was satisfactory.

N/A     HACR
N/A     WACR
  ft     The contractor conducted field oversight, including
        installation of test borings and geophysical testing.
        also prepared technical comments regarding groundwater, capping
        pre-design,  and  barrier  wall  pre-design.    The  quality  oi
                  technical work has been strong.  All work has been
        performed on schedule,  often with  little or no advance warning.
        The PRP at this site has commented to EPA about the high quality
        and strong experience of the field oversight staff.  The fiel«i
        oversight staff has provided constructive  comments  and input
        while  out  in the  field.   The  overall  performance  exceeded
        expectations.

  %     The contractor incorporated comments from the CRC, RPM and
        the  Ohio  EPA on  the  revised  Community Relations  Plan  and
        submitted it  to the Repository.   The contractor has kept in

-------
SITE
NAME

WORK
ASSIGNMENT
NUMBER

NUMERIC
RATING

COMMENTS

Hi-Mill
MI
Hi-Mill,
MI
10-5P9Q
 (CR)
11-5P9Q
 (RI/PS O)
Mound Plant,
OH
12-5PFA
(RI/FS O)
touch with the CRC and the RPN to ensure the project was on
track.  All  functions have been Managed effectively to Minimize
tine. The HAM felt         could have provided  More direction
to  the  site  Manager  in  preparing the CRP.  The  overall
perforMance was satisfactory.

MiniMal activity other than periodic coMMunication with the
CRC and RPM to check on project status.  Also Mailed an updated
NPL to the Repository. PerforMance has been satisfactory.

The contractor reviewed and provided coMMent on the PRP*s
work plan, sampling plan. Quality Assurance Project Plan (QAPP) ,
Ecological  Inventory  AssessMent Work Plan  and Mini-QAPP  foi
taking  split  samples.     The review  of documents was  done-
thorough ly and all  deliverables  were  provided on ci  ahead  ot
schedule.  The contractor was always available, ev  D on short
notice, to respond to questions or provide review.  E.forts wen-
made  by the contractor  to cut costs  whenever possible.  The
overall perforMance exceeded expectations.

The contractor reviewed and provided coMMents on several
technical MCMOS related to the Baseline RA,  PS,  work plans for
operable units and scoping docuMents.   The contractor attended
Meetings  with   the  HAM  and  continued   field   preparation
activities.  This work assignMent was rated "satisfactory"  in
project  planning,  technical  coMpetence  and  effort  and  .»
"marginal" rating in the  reMaining categories - schedule & cost
control, reporting  and resource utilization.  On  the positive
side, the contractor was responsive to changes in the scope 01
work  related to  field  work and  health and  safety  issues.
Comments provided on risk assessment were* thorough and useful.
Some of the comments regarding tech memos and scoping document:.
were  satisfactory;  others were  only marginally  so.   Review
comments were submitted on time.  On the negative side, error:.
were noted in  the monthly progress reports.   Another concern wa:.
the  "unreasonable"  number of hours  being  charged  to  project
management.

-------
SITE
NAME
WORK
ASSIGNMENT
NUMBER
NUMERIC
RATING
COMMENTS
                                        Management hours charged to the project did not decrease with
                                        decreasing work load.  EPA met with the contractor  on October
                                        3, 1991 to discuss the WAN's concerns.   In an  effort to remedy
                                        the problem,         reassigned a new site Manager the following
                                        week and agreed in  their  response to EPA's Performance Event
                                        Report to  address  EPA's  concerns.   The  overall  rating  was
                                        •arginally satisfactory.
South Andover,
NN
 13-5N45         .%
Desigr. Investigation
      During this semester, the contractor completed the
      hydrogeochemical evaluation of the groundwater medium, compiled
      technical   memoranda   and   submitted   the   draft   Design
      Investigation.  Since this report is still under review, EPA is
      unable to  evaluate its quality.  The  overall  performance was
      satisfactory.
Peerless PI,
MI
 14-5LG2
 (Rl/fS)
)%     The contractor prepared and submitted the draft and  final  RI;
      draft and final Baseline RA and the Alternatives Array Document
       (AAD).          also initiated the FS. The contractor submitted
      a work plan revision to include soils as well as groundwater in
      the RI  and  PS.   The Contract  Pricing Proposal to reflect thr
      additional media seemed on the high side and originally included
      the use of high level personnel performing data entry. This was
      questioned and later changed, but it should not have  been there-
       in  the  first place.    The  quality of  the  deliverables is
       satisfactory.  The contractor has been in constant contact  with
       the WAN to discuss issues that come up with regard to potential
       remedies, ARARs, cleanup standards.  Overall EPA is pleased  with
       the  technical quality of  this work assignment,  but does not
       believe that  the contractor  is doing all that  could  be done to
       minimize costs, e.g., use of  higher level personnel than really
       required, holding meetings when conference calls could do. Tin-
       overall performance was  satisfactory.

-------
SITE
NAME
WORK
ASSIGNMENT
NUMBER
NUMERIC
RATING
COMMENTS
  erless PI,


  mco Dump,
  I
15-5LG2
(CR)


16-5L4J
 (CR)
 imco Dump,
17-5L4J
Union Carbide
OH
18-5Pr 4
 (FS O)
Very little activity.  Performance was satisfactory.
Very little activity. The contractor sent
to  both  information  repositories  and
justification and  work plan revision  for
funding in order to complete the Community
identified in the original work plan.  The
was satisfactory.
Indiana NPL updates
sent  a   letter   of
 additional LOE  and
Relation Activities
overall  performance
During this semester, the contractor evaluated the Phase I field
data, and is currently in the process of developing the RA and
the RI Report.  However, the RI will not be finalized until the
data  from  the September  Phase  II  field  investigation  is
evaluated and incorporated into these documents.   The phase'11
field investigation included,  imong others activities, surface
water and sediment sampling, wetlands delineation,  monitoring
well installation,  cap soil chemistry and geotechnical samples,
The contractor  has provided excellent technical direction to EPA
in   planning   for   and  implementing   the  Phase   II   field
investigation.          was extremely responsive to requests by
EPA Quality Assurance Section for revisions to the QAPjP to keep
the project on  a tight schedule.  Communication is open and the-
contractor has  been very responsive to requests by the WAM.  The
contractor has  done an excellent job in coordinating efforts at
this  site  between          ami local  and state agencies.  The
overall performance exceeded expectations.

The contractor performed RI/F:  field oversight from May
through August,  1991,  reviewed and  provided comments on  th«-
PRP's  Ecological  Field Survey, Treatability Study, and
Groundwater  Model  Report.   The  site  manager  used   stafr
efficiently to maintain costs  especially for field oversight.
Documents  reviews  and progress  reports  were  always  timely.
However, the project needs strong management

-------
SITE
NAME
WORK
ASSIGNMENT
NUMBER
NUMERIC
RATIMO
COMMENTS
 LI led Che»,
 fl

 . Andover,
 N
19-5PE4
(EA)

20-5F45
 RI/PS
Jnion Carbide
DH
Anderson Devel-
opment ,  MI

Ormet Corp,
OH
21-5PPU
(CR)


22-5PF8
(RI/FS TA)

23-5LIZ
 (EA)
        to tie  in  all of the  different  coraenta tram the  respective
        reviewers to ensure cohesiveness, appropriateness,  and to give
        overall direction to the project.  The overall performance was
        satisfactory.

N/A     WACR


  %     During this evaluation, the contractor prepared and submitted
        the draft and final copies of the RI  Report,  baseline RA,  AAD,
        and the FS.         : was able to  prioritize activities so that
        all tasks related to the RI and  FS were  performed  in a timely
        manner  in spite  of  delays of approximately four and one half
        months which occurred due to the  EPA's indemnification process
        and  late receipt  of  CLP  lab data  from  U.S.  EPA's  Quality
        Assurance Section.  In July, the  site manager left  the company
        and the new site  manager readily  adapted to the project and was
        able to schedule  the personnel with the necessary expertise ami
        the ability to work  long hours in order  to complete the tasks
        in a very tight schedule.           was extremely responsive to
        the   Agency's  needs   and  provided  regular  support   and
        communication.             was able   to   produce  exceptional
        documents which needed little revision. The overall  performance
        was outstanding.

  %     The contractor completed the site update fact sheet  in May.
        No  further  activities, other than routine maintenance,  took
        place.  Overall performance was satisfactory.

N/A     WACR


  %     The contractor revised the RA, most notably the air modeling
        portion  of  the  RA.           also reviewed  the draft FS  to
        determine  whether  appropriate   use  was  made of  the  RA  in
        evaluating remedial alternatives and provided technical

-------
BITE
NAME
WORK
ASSIGNMENT
NUMBER
NUMERIC
RATING
COMMENTS
Lsco Anaconda,   24-5P1Y
1              (RD/RA O)
orch Lake,
I
25-5LS8
(CR)
assistance to the HAM during conference calls.   The contractor
seemed to have thought out and considered every aspect of the
situation prior  to revising  the  baseline RA.   Knowledge  ot
cleanup standards for the site was clearly demonstrated.   The
contractor an excellent job of incorporating  EPA comments into
the Baseline  RA.   If any  comments  seeded inappropriate,  the
contractor explained  its  rationale  for such a  determination.
The contractor  provided excellent  technical  support  to  WAM
during Meetings and conference calls. The overall  performance
exceeded expectations.

The contractor reviewed and commented on the PRP's Derivation
of Clean-up  Levels,  draft QAPP, Health  *  Safety  Plan,  Field
Sampling Plan, and Closure Plan.          met  with contractor
to  discuss  the   upcoming  submittal  of  the  RA  work  plan.
           overall  performance  has  exceeded  expectations.
Comments  submitted  demonstrated  exceptional   knowledge  oi
regulations and procedures.  They were of high quality, thorough
and clearly written.           was  responsive  to WAN's requests
for  a  quick turnaround  of  documents.   Deliverables  were
submitted either early or on schedule.  The overall  performance
exceeded expectations.

EPA held a public meeting on October 17, 1991, to discuss the
status of the site to date, e.g., results of the RI  for OU I and
the field work for OU II t III. In preparation for the meeting.
the contractor placed the announcement  in the  newspaper,  laid
out the fact sheet using desktop publishing and had it printed
for the October mailing. The contractor also  prepared 13 coloi
overheads for the public meeting and updated  the repository a:.
appropriate.  Although there was not a lot of work  done during
this evaluation period,  the work  that was completed  was  doru-
very well.   The  Pact Sheet  looked  very professional  and  tin-
overheads were of excellent quality.  Both materials were very
helpful in helping the public understand the  issues and statu-.
of the Torch Lake Site.  The deliverables were completed ahead
of schedule. The  overall performance exceeded expectations.

-------
SITE
NAME
                    WORK
                 ASSIGNMENT
              NUMERIC
Berlin Par,
HI
 26-5P41
  (CR)
Berlin Far,
MI

Savanna Army
IL
 27-5B41
Neg Support

 28-5PY9.
(RI/PS RD/RA)
                                   The contractor prepared draft fact sheet regarding the
                                   revised Proposed Plan for the Berlin & Parro  Site.   After the
                                   fact sheet was edited by EPA, the contractor laid out the fact
                                   sheet, reproduced it, and  sent  it to everyone on the Mailing
                                   list.  The contractor also  arranged for  the services of the
                                   court reporter and placed the ad announcing the Proposed Plan.
                                   The  contractor  finished the tasks ahead of  schedule.    The
                                   graphics for the  fact sheet and the public hearing  were done
                                   very well.  The work  assignment  is projected  to  come in  under
                                   budget. The overall performance exceeded expectations.

                                   The only activities were administrative.  Overall performance
                                   was satisfactory.

                                   Very limited activities have taken place during the
                                   performance period other than the completion and approval of a
                                   revised  work  plan and scheduling  of  personnel  for  field
                                   oversight.  Donohue is  awaiting  formal approval  of  the Army's
                                   work plans to begin field oversight activities for the facility
                                   RI/PS, Operable Unit RI/FS-RD/RA, and Operable Unit Removal. No
                                   problems   were   encountered  technically.               acted
                                   responsively once the RPM followed up on revising the oversight
                                   work plan.  This work plan was revised and approved in a short
                                   time-frame.  One error was noted in the monthly billing,  i.e.,
                                   travel costs were erroneously billed to the project.  Contractoi
                                   must ensure invoices contain accurate information. The overall
                                   performance was satisfactory.
                                                   8

-------
SITE
NAME
WORK
ASSIGNMENT
NUMBER
NUMERIC
RATING
COMMENTS
 •b Orch,
 29-5PP2
(RI/FS-RD/RA O)
uto Ion
I
 30-5PC4
 (RD O)
ross Brothers
L
 31-5P86
 (RD O)
>%      The  major work conducted  by         this reporting  period
       consisted of  RI/FS  document  review and field oversight of the
       phase  l RI field work at the Explosives/Munitions Manufacturing
       Areas  Operable  Unit  (OU  III).  Field  activities  included
       oversight  for the  excavation  of 25 test pits,  collection of
       surface water, groundwater, sediment, and soil samples and the
       installation  of Monitoring wells.              strengths this
       period included  the' timeliness  of   the  identification and
       resolution of a change to the field schedule which impacted the
       contract  assumptions and  budget.    This  was resolved  in an
       expeditious manner. The        site manager worked closely with
       the  HAM  to  ensure  that the  costs of  field  oversight were
       controlled.             primary  weakness this period was the
       inadequacy of the         person who conducted oversight  tours
       2  and  4  about contacting the W*M and,  if he did call, did not
       leave  a comprehensive message.   The RI progress reports are of
       good quality and clearly outline  the progress of work activities
       in the field, unanticipated occurrences,  problem resolution and
       documentation of field changes.   The  overall performance was
       satisfactory.

 I      There  was very  little activity during  this period.   The
       contractor did provide expertise  on air modeling. This expertise
       was  instrumental in identifying and resolving an air modeling
       problem  that  was contained in  the  PRP's work  plan.  The overall
       performance was satisfactory.

 %      EPA  disapproved the PRP's original RD  Workplan in May.   A new
       contractor  was  brought  on  boa^d.  By  using  an  interactive
       approach between the PRP's contractor and EPA's contractor to
       resolve  issues raised during  the  technical  review  of the new
       RD/RA work plan, EPA was able to  approve the RD work  plan.  What
       began as a dismal six months ended  with the prospect  of a timely
       and  successful  PRP  lead  RD/RA at this  site.

-------
SITE
NAME
WORK
ASSIGNMENT
NUMBER
NUMERIC
RATING
COMMENTS
 uto  Ion
 I
32-5PC4
(RD O)
>ld City  LF
[N
33-5PK2
(RD O)
The contractor reviewed the PRP's draft FS and provided
comments to the Region.  In addition to providing conventa,  the
contractor prepared a suggested guidance document regarding MONK
ARARs to assist the PRPs in completing the FS.  In spite of  the
efforts to help the  PRPs  sub*it an approvable FS, it  has  not
happened.  The  PRPs,  however, have hired another  contractor.
This site is scheduled for a second quarter ROD. If the PRPs do
not submit an acceptable  FS  by agreed upon due dates,  EPA is
considering a site work take  over.  The FS  contents  submitted
by the  contractor were practical  and identified  significant
omissions   in   the   work  product.     The  contractor   was
proactive/innovative  in eliciting NDNR  ARARs  that  had be^en
problematic  in  obtaining.  During this period,  the site  was
reassigned to another manager.  The new site manager assumed  his
new duties without problem  and little, if any, down time  was
noted.  In  all meetings, the site  manager  has been very
professional and  has exhibited a  wealth  of  experience  and
knowledge.  The overall performance exceeded expectations.

Contractor reviewed and submitted comments on "Data
Evaluation and Action Levels  for Landfill Loading  Activities"
and the "Draft Technical Supplement to the Feasibility  Study.*'
The contractor has done a very good job in  producing  quality
deliverables well  within the prescribed  budget.   A  maximum
amount of work  has been realized with using a reasonable amount
of LOE.  The contractor has exhibited a fairly high  degree of
responsiveness  in  submitting deliverables  within tight time
frames.  Contractor has also maintained regular contact with  WAM
in  planning  and   anticipating  upcoming  work.  The  overall
performance exceeded expectations.
                                                 10

-------
8ITB
NAME
WORK
ASSIGNMENT
NUMBER
HOMERIC
RATING
COMMENTS
 f&or  Industrial  34-5P2W
 I                (RD  )
 orthernaire
 lating, MI
 ovaco
 I
35-5P83
(RD O)
36-5ND8
 (CR)
Cross Brothers
IL
United Scrap
     OH
37-5P41
 (CR)
38-5NH5
(CR)
*%     Reviewed and provided comments on PRP's Remedial Design
      Additional Studies  Report and on the MDNR's  comments on this
      report.  The site manager made  a  2-day visit to  the site to
      observe pilot  testing  activities.   Comments  submitted by the
      contractor were clear, concise and  technically competent.  On
      the few occasions when the NAM requested  information from the
      contractor, the information was gathered promptly and submitted
      to the NAM. The overall performance was satisfactory.

I     Same comment as above. Contractor is currently using  a 60/40
      ratio for invoicing costs on Northernaire Industrial and Kysor
      Industrial.

t     The contractor wrote the draft fact sheet.  After  the draft,
      was edited by EPA,  the contractor created graphics  for the fact
      sheet and overheads, laid out the fact sheet, reproduced it, and
      sent it to everyone on the mailing  list.   The contractor also
      arranged for the  court  reporter,   placed  ads announcing th<>
      proposed amendment  to  the ROD and the signing of  the amended
      ROD.  This work assignment was successfully completed  on a very
      tight schedule because the contractor was well  organized and had
      the expertise  to accomplish the  tasks as  directed  by the WAM.
      The  contractor  was very responsive in  meeting the  WAN's
      requests.   The  contractor displayed  flexibility  in meeting
      changing deadlines  and last minute      changes in plans. Th.
      overall performance was satisfactory.

*     Very little activity.  Only maintenance items such as
      updating the mailing list and repository were done.  Performance
      was satisfactory.

'%     The contractor  incorporated comments  from  the RPM, CRC. and
      the OEPA regarding  the CRP, finalized the document and sent it
      to the repository.   All functions have been effectively managed
      to minimize time.  The contractor kept in touch with the CRC ami
      the RPM to make sure the project was on track.  The final CRP wJ:.
      well written and accurately reflected comments submitted by th«-
      EPA and the o°PA.   The overall performance is satisfactory.

-------
BITE
NAME
WORK
ASSIGNMENT
NUMBER
NUMERIC
RATING
COMMENTS
iouth Andover
IN
39-5F45
 (CR)
fcuto Ion
Auto Ion
HI
Allied Chemical
OH
40-5PC4
 (CR)
41-5PC4
 (CR)
42-5PE4
 (CR)
Union Carbide
OH
43-5PF4
(RI/FS O)
f%
The final CRP was well written and accurately reflected comments
submitted  by  EPA and the OEPA.  The overall  performance  is
satisfactory.

The contractor produced two fact sheets - an 8-page RI and a
12-page Proposed Plan, made the arrangements for the public
meeting placed ads in the newspaper,  secured the services of the
court reporter, updated the mailing list, and the  repository.
This project was on a "fast track" in  order to meet a  first
quarter ROD.  In part, through excellent organizational skills,
the  contractor was able  to successfully complete the  tasks
assigned on time or ahead of schedule. The overall  performance
was exceeds expectations.

The contractor submitted a work plan for OU I Community
Relations.   The work  plan was submitted by the agreed  to Hue
date and was approved with no  revisions.  Overall  performance
was satisfactory.

The contractor submitted a work plan for OU II Community
Relations.   The work  plan was submitted by the agreed  to due
date and was approved with no  revisions.  Overall  performance
was satisfactory.

This is a new work assignment.  The development of the work
plan was on a tight schedule in order to facilitate the review
of the PRP's RD/RA Work plan.  EPA received  a preliminary work
plan within 20 days of acceptance of the work assignment and n
final within  30 days.   The assumptions in the work  plan were
well documented.  Contractor's LOE estimate was within  7% ot
EPA*s IGE.  The site  manager  >-as  been very  enthusiastic about
this project and worked very  quickly to produce  an approvable
work plan. The overall performance exceeded expectations.

New work assignment.  Submit!jl of the work plan was delayed
until 30 days after receipt  of  PRP's  work plan.  The overall
performance was satisfactory.
                                                  12

-------
SITE
MANE
WORK
ASSIGNMENT
NUMBER
NUMERIC
RATING
COMMENTS
iegelberg
ntwood LF
lied Chemical
44-5PA6
 (RD O)

45-5PF1
  (RD O)

46-5PE4
(CR)
                                New work assignment. Held kickoff Meeting.
                                performance was satisfactory.
                                                                                 Overall
                                New work assignment.  Held kickoff Meeting.  Submitted draft
                                work plan to EPA.  Overall performance is satisfactory.
                                New work assignment.  Held kickoff meeting.
                                performance was satisfactory.
                                                                                  Overall
     -V
    eXrx
ProjectJOfficer Signature
                                           11

-------