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
------- |