y§z)
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL
Catalyst for Improving the Environment
Site Visit Report
American Recovery and
Reinvestment Act Site Visit of the
Tower Chemical Superfund Site,
Clermont, Lake County, Florida
Report No. 11-R-0431
Augusts, 2011
**
-------
Report Contributors: Safiya Chambers
lantha Maness
Michael Rickey
John Trefry
Cover photo: Excavation of soils and sediment at the Tower Chemical Superfund site in
Clermont, Lake County, Florida. (EPA photo)
Hotline
To report fraud, waste, or abuse, contact us through one of the following methods:
e-mail: QIC Hotline@epa.gov write: EPA Inspector General Hotline
phone: 1-888-546-8740 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue NW
fax: 703-347-8330 Mailcode 8431P (Room N-4330)
online: http://www.epa.gov/oig/hotline.htm Washington, DC 20460
-------
I
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Office of Inspector General
At a Glance
11-R-0431
Augusts, 2011
Catalyst for Improving the Environment
Why We Did This Review
The U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, Office of
Inspector General, conducts site
visits of American Recovery and
Reinvestment Act of 2009
(Recovery Act) funded projects.
The purpose of the visits is to
confirm compliance with selected
Recovery Act requirements. We
selected the Tower Chemical
Superfund project in Clermont,
Lake County, Florida, for review.
Background
EPA awarded a fixed price
contract under the Recovery Act to
Polu Kai Services, LLC, to clean
up contaminated soils at the Tower
Chemical Superfund Site. This
remedial action consisted of
excavating, transporting, and
disposing of soils contaminated
with pesticides and other
composites, and restoring the
excavated areas. The value of the
contract was $4,197,177.
con
For further information, contact
our Office of Congressional,
Public Affairs and Management
at (202) 566-2391.
The full report is at:
www.epa.qov/oiq/reports/20117
20110803-11-R-0431.pdf
American Recovery and Reinvestment Act
Site Visit of the Tower Chemical Superfund
Site, Clermont, Lake County, Florida
What We Found
We conducted an unannounced visit at the Tower Chemical Superfund site in
Clermont, Lake County, Florida, on July 12-13, 2010. We toured the project
site, interviewed contractor and subcontractor personnel, and reviewed
documentation related to Recovery Act requirements. We also visited the
contractor's office in Virginia and EPA Region 4 to interview personnel and
review files.
Based upon our site visit, we did not identify any issues that would require
action from Polu Kai Services, LLC, or the U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency.
-------
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20460
THE INSPECTOR GENERAL
Augusts, 2011
MEMORANDUM
SUBJECT: American Recovery and Reinvestment Act Site Visit of the
Tower Chemical Superfund Site, Clermont, Lake County, Florida
Report No. ll-R-0431
FROM: Arthur A. Elkins, Jr. ,, JAM (s - l/^f*"^{ J
Inspector General
TO: Gwendolyn Keyes Fleming
Regional Administrator, Region 4
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
This is our report on the subject site visit conducted by the Office of Inspector General of the
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). The report summarizes the results of our site visit
of the Tower Chemical Superfund Site in Clermont, Lake County, Florida.
We performed this site visit as part of our responsibility under the American Recovery and
Reinvestment Act of 2009 (Recovery Act). The purpose of our site visit was to determine the
contractor's compliance with selected requirements of the Recovery Act pertaining to EPA
Contract No. EP-R4-10-01. EPA used Recovery Act funds of $4,197,177 for the contract.
The estimated direct labor and travel costs for this report are $124,388.
Action Required
Because this report contains no recommendations, you are not required to respond to this report.
The report will be made available at http://epa.gov/oig. If you or your staff have any questions
regarding this report, please contact Melissa Heist, Assistant Inspector General for Audit, at
(202) 566-0899 or heist.melissa@epa.gov: or Robert Adachi, Director of Forensic Audits, at
(415) 947-4537 or adachi.robert@epa.gov.
-------
Purpose
The purpose of our unannounced site visit was to determine whether the
contractor for the Tower Chemical Superfund Site project complied with selected
requirements of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (Recovery
Act), P.L. 111-5, pertaining to U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)
Contract No. EP-R4-10-01. We also evaluated the reasons for limiting contract
competition to small business 8(a) contractors and awarding a fixed price
contract.
Background
On October 28, 2009, EPA awarded a fixed price contract under the Recovery Act
to Polu Kai Services, LLC, to provide remedial services at the Tower Chemical
Superfund Site, Operable Unit 3, located in Clermont, Lake County, Florida.
These remedial services consisted of excavating, transporting, and disposing soils
contaminated with pesticides and other composites, and restoring the excavated
areas. The contract addressed steps in the Record of Decision, dated
September 14, 2006. EPA began cleaning up the Tower Chemical Superfund Site
in 1983.
EPA issued a nationwide Invitation for Bids to Small Business Administration
8(a) contractors. EPA received 23 bids between $2.8 and $8 million. The
government's independent estimate was about $8 million.
EPA has modified the contract 19 times to correct accounting issues, replace key
personnel, provide technical direction, order optional quantities, and add new
work and additional excavation capacity. The contract has increased from the
original amount of $2,639,060 to $4,197,177. The principal reason for the higher
cost was an increase in the amount of contaminated soil being removed. EPA
prepared two Justifications for Other Than Full and Open Competition and
performed price analysis to increase the contract's scope and price.
Scope and Methodology
Due to the time-critical nature of Recovery Act requirements at the time of our
site visit, we did not perform this assignment in accordance with generally
accepted government auditing standards. We did not perform certain steps that
would allow us to obtain information to assess the contractor's internal controls
and any previously reported audit concerns. As a result, we do not express an
opinion on the adequacy of the contractor's internal controls or compliance with
all federal, state, or local requirements.
We conducted our unannounced site visit at the Tower Chemical Superfund Site
on July 12-13, 2010. We also visited the subcontractor and employment agency
for temporary personnel working on the site. During our visit, we:
11-R-0431
-------
1. Toured the proj ect
2. Interviewed contractor, subcontractor, and temporary personnel
3. Reviewed records maintained by the contractor, subcontractor, and
temporary employment agency on the following matters:
a. Buy American requirements under Section 1605 of the Recovery
Act
b. Wage rate requirements under Section 1606 of the Recovery Act
c. Limits on funds and reporting requirements under Sections 1604
and 1512 of the Recovery Act
We visited the contractor's office in Virginia to interview senior managers and
obtain records. On August 16-19, 2010, we traveled to Region 4 to interview the
contracting officer and review procurement records. We also interviewed the
project officer for the remedial action at the Tower Chemical Superfund Site.
Results of Site Visit
Based upon our site visit, we did not identify any issues that would require action
by Polu Kai Services, LLC, or EPA. We have summarized our results below.
Buy American Requirements
We did not identify any issues regarding Section 1605 of the Recovery Act, which
requires that all iron, steel, or manufactured goods be produced in the United
States, unless certain exceptions apply. The remedial action at the Tower
Chemical Superfund site consisted of excavating, transporting, and disposing of
soils contaminated with pesticides and other composites, and restoring the
excavated areas. We were told that the only material purchased was the sand used
to backfill the excavated areas. The contract did not call for the use of any iron,
steel, or manufactured goods.
Wage Rate Requirements
The contractor complied with Section 1606 of the Recovery Act. We interviewed
all employees at the Tower Chemical Superfund Site on July 13, 2010, to collect
information on compensation, job duties, training, and qualifications. We
compared the wages paid on the certified payroll to the Davis-Bacon Act Wage
Determination included in the contract. We found that all employees were paid
wages and fringe benefits equal to or above the Davis-Bacon rates prescribed in
the contract.
11-R-0431
-------
Limits on Funds and Reporting
Based on our review of the contract's statement of work and a visual inspection of
the work being performed at the Tower Chemical Superfund Site, we concluded
that the contract complied with Section 1604 of the Recovery Act, which states
that no Recovery Act funds can be used for any casino, other gambling
establishment, aquarium, zoo, golf course, or swimming pool.
We concluded that the contractor complied with its responsibilities under
Section 1512 of the Recovery Act, which requires reports on the use of funds and
the number of jobs created or retained. We reviewed the 2010 second quarter
report prepared and submitted by the contractor to the federal reporting website,
as instructed by the contract. Based on our review, the information included in the
report met Recovery Act requirements.
Contract Matters
EPA decided to award a fixed price contract to a small, disadvantaged firm based
on sealed bids. This decision was based on recommendations in the Recovery Act
and guidance from the Office of Management and Budget and EPA. EPA selected
the lowest responsive, responsible bidder. In addition to being a certified 8(a)
contractor, the selected contractor was a Service Disabled Veteran Owned Small
Business, a Small Business Administration Small Disadvantaged Business, and a
Native American (Hawaiian) owned business.
The contract has increased from the original amount of $2,639,060 to the current
value of $4,197,177. The principal reason for the higher cost was an increase in
the amount of contaminated soil being removed. The EPA contracting officer
prepared two Justifications for Other Than Full and Open Competition to increase
the contract's scope. The contracting officer used price analysis to determine that
the negotiated price increases were fair and reasonable.
The EPA project officer stated that although there was extensive soil testing
before the project started, it still was not possible to estimate the exact quantity of
contaminated soils needing removal on an excavation project of this nature. The
project officer was satisfied with the work being done under the contract.
The contractor awarded a large fixed-price subcontract in excess of $2 million.
The subcontract contained the same work as the prime contract. Almost half of
the subcontract cost was to pay for the estimated transportation and disposal costs.
Both the prime contractor and subcontractor obtained personnel to work on the
Tower Chemical Superfund Site from a temporary employment agency. Based on
interviews and background checks, these temporary employees were experienced
in environmental construction and met hiring criteria.
11-R-0431
-------
We could not determine whether the contractor complied with the limitations on
subcontracting clause in the contract, which required the contractor to expend at
least 50 percent of the cost of contract performance incurred for personnel on
"employees of the concern." At the time of our site visit, work on the contract was
not complete and a limits on subcontracting determination could not be done until
the contractor completed all work. Secondly, such a determination would be
dependent on whether the contractor and subcontractor retained complete cost
records for a fixed-price contract, which they were not required to do. An
examination of any cost records maintained by the contractor or subcontractor
was beyond the scope of this assignment.
Recommendations
We have no recommendations.
Agency Response and Office of Inspector General Comment
On July 21, 2011, we held an exit conference with representatives from EPA
Region 4 and Polu Kai Services, LLC to discuss the conclusions in the report.
Since there were no recommendations, we did not require or receive comments to
the draft report.
11-R-0431
-------
Status of Recommendations and
Potential Monetary Benefits
POTENTIAL MONETARY
RECOMMENDATIONS BENEFITS (in $OOOs)
Planned
Rec. Page Completion Claimed Agreed To
No. No. Subject Status1 Action Official Date Amount Amount
No recommendations
0 = recommendation is open with agreed-to corrective actions pending
C = recommendation is closed with all agreed-to actions completed
U = recommendation is undecided with resolution efforts
11-R-0431
-------
Appendix A
Distribution
Office of the Administrator
Regional Administrator, Region 4
Director, Office of Acquisition Management
Agency Followup Official (the CFO)
Agency Followup Coordinator
General Counsel
Associate Administrator for Congressional and Intergovernmental Relations
Associate Administrator for External Affairs and Environmental Information
Audit Followup Coordinator, Region 4
Assistant Regional Administrator, Region 4
Director, Superfund Division, Region 4
Public Affairs Officer, Region 4
President, Polu Kai Services, LLC
11-R-0431
------- |