SUPERFUND
DESIGN
and
CONSTRUCTION
From: Hazardous Site Control Division
To- EPA Regional Offices
Update
February 1989
Vol. 3, No. 1
VALUE ENGINEERING
Circular No. A-131, issued by the
Office of Management and Budget
on January 26,1988, requires the
use of Value Engineering (VE),
when appropriate, by Federal
Departments and Agencies to
identify and reduce nonessential
procurement and program costs.
Value Engineering is a specialized
cost-control technique that uses a
systematic and creative approach
to identify and reduce unjustifiably
high costs in a project without sacri-
ficing the reliability or efficiency of
the project.
VALUE ENGINEERING
DURING DESIGN
It is the responsibility of the party
contracting for design to have the
VE screening and review con-
ducted. The review may be con-
ducted by the contracting party, the
reviewing agency, the designer, or
an individual or firm with the
requisite expertise.
The VE review is different from a
classical design review of the
project. The design review concen-
trates on functional aspects such
as whether the design works, is
sufficiently reliable, and meets the
designer's contractual obligations.
VE, on the other hand, is focused
on reducing the investment neces-
sary to achieve those functions. It
should be noted that the focus of
VE does not preclude the VE team
from identifying technical errors or
omissions and alerting the designer
so these problems can be taken
into consideration during the design
review.
The VE review should be sched-
uled so as to minimize the impact
on the design schedule. If the VE
workshop and decision-making
process are structured to avoid
adding time to the schedule (i.e.,
not on the critical path), then the
only potential schedule impact
would be caused by a design
change resulting from the VE pro-
cess and not from the process itself.
A design change and its associated
cost are part of the decision-making
process of accepting or rejecting
the VE recommendation.
VALUE ENGINEERING
DURING CONSTRUCTION
The VE incentive clause, found in
the Federal Acquisition Regulation
(FAR) at 52.248-1, is included in
federal construction contracts over
$100,000. REM and ARCS firms
may choose to include the clause in
their subcontracts for construction,
even if not directed to do so by
EPA's contracting officer. States
and claimants under mixed
funding may also choose to use a
similar clause in their construction
contracts.
The VE incentive clause provides
the opportunity to the constructor to
use its unique knowledge and
construction experience as a basis
for submitting a Value Engineering
Change Proposal (VECP). The
VECP is the constructor's proposal
to change contract requirements in
such a way that the price of the
contract is reduced. To have a valid
VECP, the constructor must submit
the following information:
• A description of the proposed
change and the contract require-
ment
• An itemization of the contract re-
quirements that must be changed
• An estimate of the performance
costs that will be reduced if the
proposal is adopted
• A prediction of any saving the
change may have on operations,
maintenance, or equipment
• A statement of time by which the
proposal must be implemented
by the party contracting for
construction
(continued on page 2)
Reaching the '175' RA Start Goal
r175
-100
Status as of
February 1989
Deadline October 16. 1989
-------
Value Engineering (continued from page 1)
Savings resulting from the change sediments by a process that
proposal are normally shared on a eliminates dewatering through
55-45 basis between the construc- construction of a low dike; and
tor and the contracting party after modification of the sediment
the constructor is reimbursed for its treatment process
cost of implementing the change
Prior to approval of the VECP, the
party contracting for construction
should consult the designer regard-
ing any impact on the design. The
contracting party should also
consult EPA regarding any impact
on the Record of Decision (ROD),
basis of design, or design develop-
ment criteria.
VALUE ENGINEERING
AT THE MARATHON
BATTERY SITE
At the Marathon Battery site, the
ROD specified dredging and
chemical fixation of waste material
contaminated by heavy metals.
Early in the design’s development,
a 40-hour VE study was conducted,
and the following changes were in-
corporated into the site design:
• Removal of contaminated marsh
Redirection of stormwater
Restoration of the marsh
Reduction in the amount of
temporary storage for fixated
sediments from 6 acres to 1.75
acres
The VE cost $60,000 compared to
a savings of $8 million. Since the
VE was done in parallel with the
design, there were no delays in the
project schedule due to the VE
process.
VALUE ENGINEERING AT
THE HELEN KRAMER SITE
At the Helen Kramer site (an 84-
acre landfill), the ROD specified a
landfill cap, a slurry wall, leachate
collection, and pretreatment. Upon
the recommendation of the NE
firm, EPA directed that a VE study
be conducted to evaluate the slurry
S
•
.
walls and subsurface drain after
submittal of the 35 percent design.
As a result of the VE study and
EPA review of its findings, the
following changes were incorpo-
rated into the Helen Kramer site
design:
• Elimination of a deep, upgradient
slurry wall construction plan
• Elimination of an upgradient
subsurface drain construction
plan
• Addition of a slurry wall on the
eastern side of the site, between
the landfill and an adjacent
stream
The VE cost $330,000 compared to
a savings of $2.6 million. The VE
delayed site remediation approxi-
mately 9 months during investiga-
tion of issues and review of study
findings.
Further assistance on how to
activate a VE team on a project can
be obtained through Tom Whalen,
HSCD, 202/382-2457.
COOPERATIVE AGREEMENT RECIPIENTS NOT REQUIRED TO
HOLD BID PROTEST HEARINGS _____________________
J. Kent Holland, Jr.
Wickwire, Gavin & Gibbs, P.C.
In August 1988, the South Adams
County Water and Sanitary District,
Colorado—a Superfund cooperative
agreement recipient—dismissed a
construction bid protest without a
hearing. The protestor appealed to
EPA, asserting that South Adams
County had wrongfully deprived the
protesting company of its right to a
hearing. EPA dismissed the appeal
on the grounds that EPA regula-
tions do not require cooperative
agreement recipients such as
South Adams County to provide a
hearing and, in fact, ‘ado not spell
out any specific manner in which
the recipient must consider the
protest.” EPA found that South
Adams County had considered the
protest and issued a protest
decision, thereby meeting the
minimum requirements under EPA
regulations.
In its protest to South Adams
County, the protesting company,
which was second lowest bidder,
claimed that the lowest bidder was
not responsive to minority business
enterprise requirements. In discuss-
ing these requirements, EPA
explained that the solicitation for
bids had made compliance with
MBE requirements a matter of
bidder responsibility rather than
responsiveness. Consequently,
good faith efforts could be demon-
strated after bid opening. Most
significantly, EPA explained that co-
Bridgeport Rental & Oil Services is
located east of Bridgeport in Logan
Township, Gloucester County, New
Jersey. The site contains about
100,000 cubic yards of PCB-con-
taminated sludge, lagoon sedi-
ments, soil, and debris that are
slated for thermal destruction
The two-step sealed bidding
(TSSB) method of solicitation was
operative agreement recipients may
review issues raised by a protestor
and dismiss unmeritorious protests
without further consideration
This case is important because it
demonstrates that a cooperative
agreement recipient may exercise
discretion in resolving bid protests
and that (subject to applicable state
and local requirements) it is not
necessary to delay the procurement
process by conducting a hearing•
used. This procurement method
combines elements of both sealed
bidding and negotiation. The
objective of TSSB Step 1 is to
encourage contractors to submit
proposals for alternative ap-
proaches. Those proposals deter-
mined to be technically acceptable
can then be used as the basis of a
(continued on page 4)
BRIDGEPORT BID PROTEST
2
-------
TRI-STATE PLATING SITE BID TABULATION
Bids have been received by an EPA REM Contractor
for the Tn-State Plating expedited response action in
Region V. The work contemplated includes
• Decontamination of masonry, steel, and other above-
ground building components by steel blasting
• Demolition of a one-story, 5,000-square-foot ma-
sonry building and transportation of its rubble to an
offsite landfill
• Drilling of approximately 400 linear feet of soil
borings with continuous split-spoon sampling
• Design and installation of excavation shoring and
bracing
• Excavation, stabilization, transportation, and disposal
of 3,000 cubic yards of contaminated concrete
foundations and soil at an approved secure landfill
• Procurement, transportation, and installation of ap-
proximately 3,000 cubic yards of clean fill to be used
in backfilling the proposed excavation
Sealed bids were solicited and read on December 28,
1988. Eight bids were received. The bids ranged in
price from a tow of $1,742,143.64 to a high of
$3,185,875. The engineer’s estimate was $2,816,811.
Heritage Remediation/Engineening, Inc., the lowest
bidder, was awarded the contract.
Key
NA Not Apphcable
LF Linear Feet
VSF VerltcaI Square Feel
BT Buk Ton
BCY Bulk Cubic Yards
CV Cubic Yard
IS Lump Sum • Rounded to the Nearest Dollar
“•AclualBdlotal
Bonds and Insurance
UNIT PRICING BREAKDOWN
Site Preparation
Decontamination Pad
Estimated
Quantity
NA
Unit Prices
Engineer’s
Estimate
LS
NA
NA
IS
Heritage Remediatlon!
Eng., Inc.
LS
IS
Decontamination, Demobtion, Transportation, and Disposal 0 1 Aboveground Struciures
Grading, Seeding, and Closeout
Subsurface Investigation
Excavation, Transportation, and Disposal of Contaminated Foundations and Soil
First
NA
LS
• Next
NA
0. H. Materials
Corporation
LS
15
LS
NA
IS
IS
IS
400 IF
IS
Shoring and Underpinning
Soil Stabihzation
Backfdling of Excavation
First
LS
2875/IF
IS
Is
IS
IS
• Next
7612/IF
2,700 BCY
3,300 BCY
1,850 VSF
30 Ton
IS
85/IF
326 99/BCY
326 99IBCY
96 35 /VSF
241 50/BT
194 6418CY
184 05 / BCY
6097NSF
244 11/ST
2,70 0BCY
3,300 BCY
226/BCY
225/BCY
20 90 /’/SF
192/ST
23 86/CY
23 86/CY
Bonds and Insurance
18 38 CY
21 06/CY
COMPARISON OF ENGINEER’S ESTIMATE TO TWO LOWEST BIDS
MobdizationiDemobiliza t i on
Site Preparation
11 25/CY
11 25/CY
Decontamination Pad
Heritage Remediation/
Eng., Inc.
$
Engineer’s
Estimate
$ 60.950
250,137
75.279
17,250
92,702
18,400
11,500
Decontamination, Demolition, Transportation, and Disposal of Aboveground Structures
Grading, Seeding, and Cbseout
Subsurface Investigation
Excavation, Transportation, and Disposal of Contaminated Foundations and Soil
First
• Next
31,137
140,356
44,606
31 .520
71,223
20,917
30,448
0. H. Matertats
Corporation
$ 77,575
21,700
264,340
14,100
69,880
31,120
34,000
Shoring and Underpinning
Soil Stabibzation
Backhlling of Excavation
First
Next
Total
882,873
1,079,067
178,248
525,528
607,365
112,795’
7,245
610,200
742 C0
38,665
7,323’
64,432
78,738
$ 2,816,811
5,760
49,626
69,300
$ 1,742,14364”
30,375
37,127
$ 1,777,34000
I
-------
Bridgeport Bid Protest (continued from page 2)
sealed bid in Step 2. The off eror
bids on his own proposal.
The Army Corps of Engineers
(COE) completed Step 1 of the
solicitation in early August 1988.
Chemical Waste Management
(CWM) had submitted two propos-
als: one for onsite incineration of
wastes and a second suggesting
use of the Basic Extraction Sludge
Treatment process (BEST) to
separate oily wastes onsite before
removal for offsite incineration. The
COE decided to exclude CWM’s
proposal containing the BEST
process on the grounds that the
BEST technology had not been
sufficiently demonstrated to justity
its use at the Bridgeport site. CWM
protested the COE decision.
The CWM protest, filed at the GAO
on August 12, 1988, maintained
that the COE decision was arbi-
trary, unreasonable, based upon
unstated evaluation criteria, and
contrary to the Comprehensive En-
vironmental Response, Compensa-
tion, and Liability Act (CERCLA).
(CERCLA encourages the develop-
ment and use of alternative treat-
ment technologies.)
GAO denied the protest on Decem-
ber 13, 1988. GAO ruled that it was
reasonable for COE to reject
CWM’s proposal because there
was insufficient data to establish
the BEST technology’s ability to
meet the government’s production
and schedule requirements.
BIOREMEDIATION OF HAZARDOUS WASTE SITES
A workshop on the application of
biotechnologies at hazardous waste
sites for engineers and scientists
will be held on the dates shown in
the box at right.
This two-day workshop will provide
attendees with the information
needed to assess the viability of
biosystems for the treatment of
hazardous wastes and to imple-
ment onsite remediation. The
workshop focuses on:
• Identification of the necessary site
or waste characteristics to utilize
biological treatment
• Evaluation of the role of treatabil-
ity tests in assessing performance
• Application of appropriate reactor
and/or in situ treatment
• Evaluation of pre- and post-
treatment operations and life
cycle design
There is no fee for attending the
workshop. However, registration
will be limited and filled on a first-
come, first-served basis, with pref-
erence given to state and regional
personnel.
For additional information call:
PEER Consultants P. C.
Dayton, Ohio
(513) 252-1222
UPCOMING WORKSHOPS
March 28-29, 1989
Atlanta. Georgia
Aprii 11-12, 1989
Dallas. Texas
April 25.26, 1989
Seattle, Washington
May 16-17, 1989
Boston. Massachusetts
May 24-25, 1989
New York, New York
June 7-8, 1989
Chicago, iiiunous
June 21-22, 1989
San Francisco, Caiifomia
Hazardous Materiais Treatment Technologies
(FTS 8-382-2997)
March 14 to March 17 Region IX
SCHEDULED TRAINING
Apni 4 to Apni 7
- Region II
Apni 17 to Apni 21
Apni 17 to Apni 21
May 9 to May 12 Region I
Hazardous Materlais Incident Response Operations
(FTS 8484-7537)
Region i
Region iV
Apni 10 to ApnI 14
ApnI 10 to Apni 14
May 1 to May 5
Air Survelilance for Hazardous Materlais (FTS 8-382.2997)
March 20 to March 24 Region Vii
ApnI 17 to Apni 21
Cincinnati. Ohio
Edison, New Jersey
Cincinnati, Ohio
Region V
Personnei Protection and Safety (FTS 8-684-7537)
March 20 to March 24
Apnl 3 to Aprii 7
Envlronmentai Risk Assessment (FTS 8-382-2997)
Apni 4 to Aprii 7 Region Iii
May9to May12
Region Vii
Apni3toApni7
Region Vi
Region VI
Sampling for Hazardous Materials (FTS 8-255-2270)
Region i
Apni 11 to Apni 13 Region VII
May9toMay l l RegionV
Introduction to Ground-Water investigation
(FTS 8.383-2997)
April 18 to Apni 20 Region Vi
ABOUT THE UPDATE
For comments, ideas, submissions, or questions about the Update, please contact Karen Locke at FTS 8-382-7997 or commercially at
(202) 382-7997 For copies, contact EPA’s Public information Center at FTS 8-382-2080 or commercially at (202) 382-2080
4
------- |