UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENC
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20460
JUN -8 IS95
j.S. Ef-A, RcGiON V
WASTE MANAGEMENT DlVISIO.1
OFFICE OF. THE DIRECTOR
OFFICE Of
SOLID WASTE AND EMERGENCY
RESPONSE
OSWER Directive #9242.3-08A
MEMORANDUM
SUBJECT: Clarification of Policy Regarding Work Assignments
to the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USAGE)
PROM: Stephen D. Luftig, Acting Director
Office of Emergency and Remedial Response
TO: Director, Waste Management Division
Regions I, IV, V, VII
Director, Emergency and Remedial Response Division
Region II
Director, Hazardous Waste Management Division
Region III, VI, VIII, IX
Director, Hazardous Waste Division
Region X
Director, Environmental Services Division
Regions 1, VI, VII
PURPOSE
During a recent round of senior management visits, there
were comments and questions about OSWER Directive 9242.3-08
(attached). This memorandum clarifies the substance and intent
of the directive and provides the Regions with additional
flexibility, as requested.
BACKGROUND
In February 1988, OERR issued a directive providing criteria
for assigning Remedial Design and Remedial Action (RD/RA) work to
Alternative Remedial Contracting Strategy (ARCS) contractors and
the USAGE, which stated that construction management of RAs
exceeding $5 million in estimated cost should be assigned to the
USAGE. OSWER Directive 9242.3-08, dated December 10, 1991,
revised that policy by increasing the RA cost ceiling for ARCS
contracts to $15 million. It also provided other criteria to
consider when assigning RD/RA tasks to the USAGE or ARCS
contracts.
S»cycl»
-------
The reason for this approach was to foster some brokering of
workload between the USAGE and ARCS and keep them both viable as
delivery mechanisms for Superfund work. At the time, we also
felt it would be prudent to gain experience on smaller projects
using the newly developed arrangement for construction under the
ARCS contracts.
CLARIFICATION AND IMPLEMENTATION
While I suggest that you continue to use the USAGE for
larger, more complex remedial actions, you are not precluded from
considering alternative contracting methods such as ARCs or the
Response Action Contracts (RACs).
Criteria that may warrant consideration of an EPA contract
vehicle in lieu of the USAGE include: scheduling constraints,
USAGE'S inability to respond to EPA's requirements, conflicts of
interest (such as cases where the USAGE or Department of the Army
is a Potentially Responsible Party at a site), or where the
specialized services of a given contractor are required.
ARCS and RAC contractors may perform design for projects
with a projected construction cost greater than $15 million.
However, we suggest use of the USAGE for technical support
through an interagency agreement (IAG) under this scenario.
Additionally, while I feel that the policy we have been operating
under is still sound, I want to afford Regions the flexibility to
use tools that help meet our goals for a more efficient program.
Therefore, effective immediately, RA projects in excess of $15
million may be assigned to ARCS or RAC contracts contingent upon
Headquarters consultation.
I hope this explanation of our past policy and the new
provision is clear. Please contact John Blanchard at (703) 603-
9031 to arrange for a consultation.
Attachment
cc:
Elliott Lavs
Tim Fields
Walter Kovalick
Joanna Gibson, OPM
------- |