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
                                  OSWER  Directive #9242.3-08A
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

     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.


     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
     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.


     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.


Elliott Lavs
Tim Fields
Walter Kovalick
Joanna Gibson, OPM