Remedial Design and Remedial Action Statement of Work - CLU-IN

Report
Kate Garufi, EPA HQ
Purpose
Focus on EPA-lead RD/RA projects
Communicate the importance of
considering RD/RA project delivery early in
the RD scoping process
 Change the “stovepipe” paradigm for
scoping EPA-lead RD and RA projects
 Discuss big picture considerations when
developing your RD and RA SOW
 Discuss 3 RD/RA examples


 Project delivery considerations
 SOW development considerations
2
Outline
Overview of the Remedial Acquisition
Framework
 RD/RA Project Delivery Strategy
 Statement of Work

 Overview
 Developing the RD SOW
 Developing the RA SOW

Examples
3
4
Existing Contracts

Superfund RD and RA services
delivered primarily through:
 Interagency Agreements;
 Cooperative Agreements; or
 EPA Remedial Action Contracts (RACs)

RACs provide “cradle to grave” support
for the remedial program
 Direct RD support
 Subcontract RA
5
Remedial Action Contracts
Regionally awarded and administered
 Single solicitation/single award contracts
 At least two per Region
 Work Assignment (WA) or Task Order
(TO) ID/IQ Contracts
 TO/WA Process

 Generally Cost reimbursable
 No competition between RAC firms
6
Remedial Acquisition Framework

EPA contracts will not longer be “cradle to
grave” contracts
 Separate design and remedial action activities
 Design/bid/build

EPA contracts
 Design and Engineering Services (DES);
 Remediation Environmental Services (RES);
and
 Environmental Services and Operations (ESO)

EPA may still leverage other Federal
Agencies and States through IAs and CAs
7
Major Changes that Impact RPM
role (and SOW development)
National Contracts
 Competition at the task order level
 Direct contracting for remedial action

EPA –
CONTRACTING PARTY
- RPM
- Contracting Officer
RA Contractor – Constructor
• Construction Superintendent – On-Site Rep
8
Additional information on RAF
The revised Sources Sought/Request for Information
(SS/RFI) has been posted to Fed Connect and Fed
Biz Opps.
https://www.fbo.gov/index?s=opportunity&mode=form&i
d=65baba2015ea27c769ad82435b941d0e&tab=core
&_cview

The posting invites vendors to review documents at
the OAM web link:
http://www.epa.gov/oamreg01/region3/SOL-R3-1300006/index.htm


Final Remedial Acquisition Framework document is
still in draft. Expected to be released in Spring 2014.
9
10
11
What is a RD/RA Project Delivery
Strategy?

Strategy includes decisions regarding:
 Design type (detail of specifications)
 Remedial action contracting strategy
○ Procurement approach
○ Remedial action contract type

MUST be discussed and considered
early when scoping the design
12
Role of RPM in the Project
Delivery Strategy


RPM can influence all components of the
RD/RA project delivery strategy
Now that EPA is moving towards directly
contracting for remedial action services, RPM
involvement is scoping project delivery early in
the design in critical
 Communication with contractors on design schedule
and funding constraints/requirements
 Communication with HQ on RA funding needs
(timing and dollars)
 Communication with EPA contracting office (type of
RA contract, timing of award, etc)
 Communication with design contractor on phasing
project components, if needed
13
Why is Design Type Important for
Delivery of a Remedial Action?

The type of remedial action contract vehicle
should have an impact on the types of design
specifications needed
 Specifications are an integral part of the remedial
action contracting package
 Specifications describe the technical requirements to
be met by the RA contractor and the criteria for
determining whether these requirements have been
met.

All three components (design specifications,
procurement method and contract type) should
be considered BEFORE the design
requirements are scoped
14
Remedial Design
The purpose of the design is to provide
technical requirements (plans and
specifications) that provide an adequate
level of information needed for the
remedial action contractors to provide
technical approach (with labor/skill mix)
and cost proposals
 In general, the design is the basis for the
statement of work for the remedial
action.

15
Types Remedial Design
Specifications

Detailed (Prescriptive)
 Outline exactly how the remedial action
contractor should perform the activities

Performance-based
 Focus on outcomes or results rather than a
process
16
What type of specifications are
Superfund remedial designs?
Superfund remedial designs generally
include a combination of detailed
specification and performance-based
specifications
 This is due to some requirements that
must be met related to:

 Government regulations on procurement
with Federal dollars;
 Environmental/construction standards; or
 Environmental regulations (ARARs)
17
Remedial Action Contracting
Strategy

Procurement Approach
 Sealed bid
 Two-step sealed bid
 Negotiated

Remedial Action Contract Type
 Firm Fixed Price
 Fixed Rate
 Const Reimbursable
 Time and Materials
18
What RA contracting strategy is
right for my project?



It depends!!!
When scoping the design, keep the end in mind.
RA delivery considerations that may directly impact
the design:






Certainty of the site characterization
Site complexity
Management effort
Financial risk (EPA and contractor)
Cost Control
In general, a detailed design will be done at some
point in the RD/RA process – it is your decision on
“where” it is done:
 RD contractor
 RA contractor
19
Relationship Between Site
Characterization Certainty and Cost
Cost
Increasing
Certainty Increasing
20
Matching Site Type to Appropriate
Contracting Strategy

Determine level of certainty associated
with site characterization
 High certainty = less flexible strategy
 Low certainty = more flexible strategy

Determine the complexity of the site and
the remedial action
 Simple = less flexible strategy
 Complex = more flexible strategy
21
Less
Management
Effort
More
Management
Effort
More Flexible Strategy
Less Flexible Strategy
Considering Management Effort
22
Considering Financial Risk

Borne primarily by the contractor
 Fixed price contracts

Shared by contractor and government
 Time and material contracts

Borne primarily by the government
 Cost reimbursement contracts

Less certain site characterization and
increased site complexity require
government to share financial risk
23
More
Cost
Control
Less
Cost
Control
More Flexible Strategy
Less Flexible Strategy
Considering Cost Control
24
How on earth do I track all of this
stuff??

Use a project risk register!
25
26
27
What is a Statement of Work
Definition: Description of the specific
service or tasks a contractor is required
to perform under a contract
 This presentation and the examples will
focus on the development of a task
order SOW for either RD or RA

28
Why is the SOW so important?
The SOW is the pivotal acquisition
document for goods or services
 The SOW is the key factor to determine
the task order type; OR the SOW should
comport with desire task order type
 Key document for contactor preparation
of cost and technical proposals

29
Why is the SOW so important?
Facilitates proposal negotiations and
competition, as appropriate
 Establishes conclusive baseline to
evaluate proposals; and
 Establishes the standards to which you
can gauge the contractor’s performance

30
Different types of SOWs

Prescriptive

Performance-based
31
Prescriptive SOW
Requirements are described in terms of
processes or tasks
 Government instructs the contactor
when, where, and how
 In general, does not address desired
end result
 Change in scope requires modification
to the contract document

32
Performance-Based SOW






Requirements described in terms of end result
(measurable outcome) versus how to get there
Provides a basic, top level objective(s) of the
acquisition
Enable assessment of work performance against
measurable performance standards
Contractor provides labor mix and skill set solutions
to fulfill the requirement
Used when the Government intends to provide
maximum flexibility to each offeror to propose an
innovative approach
Change is scope and adjustments to the process
without modification as long as goals are met
33
34
Scoping the RD SOW

The information contained in the RI/FS,
ROD and any subsequent investigation
activities should serve as the initial building
block for developing the RD SOW
 Identify remedial action objectives, cleanup
levels
 Identify technologies and level of detail under
which the remedy is described
 Identify level of site characterization conducted
during the RI/FS
35
Developing the RD SOW

Five key remedy implementation items
that should be included in the SOW:
 The treatment system or technology;
 Performance standards;
 Any points of compliance;
 How to demonstrate compliance/completion;
and
 Schedule
36
Developing the RD SOW
In general, the SOW for executing the
remedial design is considered
performance-based.
 Strongly encouraged that EPA has a
scoping meeting with the contractor after
award to discuss RD/RA project delivery
strategy
 The type of design specifications
(prescriptive versus performance-based)
must be understood by all stakeholders
before the design work begins

37
RD SOW Best Management
Practices
Include your technical team in the scoping
of the RD!
 Write the SOW with enough flexibility to
allow for changes to the contractor work
plan without modifications to the SOW or
task order document
 Keep a risk register. Track assumptions
made during the RI/FS, ROD and the RD
scoping meeting. As data is collected and
design proceeds, additional information
may require a change to the RD/RA project
delivery strategy.

38
Two RD delivery methods

EPA contracts directly with the designer
 EPA contractor
 USACE, State, or Tribe does work in house

EPA does not contract directly with the
designer
 USACE contracts with designer
 State/Tribe contracts with designer
39
EPA contracts directly with the
designer
EPA –
CONTRACTING PARTY
- RPM
- Contracting Officer
Design Contractor
• Design Engineer
40
RD SOW components for EPA
contracts


Introduction (5 musts!)
General Requirements





Schedule
Project Planning and Support
Site-specific plans
Community Relations
Pre-design investigation
 Data Acquisition
 Sample Analysis
 Data Evaluation and Support


Treatability Study
Design Deliverables
 Preliminary/Intermediate/Prefinal and Final

Post Remedial Design Support
41
EPA does not contract directly
with the designer
EPA
Contracting Party:
USACE
State/Tribe
RD Subcontractor
• Design Engineer
42
RD SOW components for IAs and
CAs
Introduction (5 musts!)
 General Requirements

 Schedule
 Site specific plans
 Reporting





Pre-design Investigation
Procurement of RD subcontract
Subcontract management support
Contractor oversight and reporting
Project Closeout
43
Considerations when scoping the
RD SOW for IAs and CAs
The USACE or State/Tribe will develop the
SOW for the design contractor
 Important that the RPM discusses the
planned project delivery with the USACE or
State/Tribe prior to developing the design

 Critical to ensuring deliverables comport with
contracting strategy (and available funding)
 Want to avoid any need for re-design (or
deliverables not used) by the entity procuring
the remedial action contract!
44
45
46
Scoping the RA SOW
The technical plans and specifications
should drive the content of the RA SOW
 Develop SOW objectives that comport with
design and account for uncertainties
 The 100% design should be reviewed to
determine:





Detail of design specifications
Points of compliance/completion
Schedule
Any project phasing (if applicable)
47
Developing the RA SOW

The objectives of the SOW should match the detail in the
design
 For an SOW with detailed design specifications, the RA SOW
should focus on implementing the design. Any changes will
result in a change to the design and the RA SOW.
 For an SOW with a more performance-based design, the RA
SOW should focus on the end goal and metrics to evaluate
progress and completion of the task

Problems with performance-based SOW and a detailed
design
 Detailed design instructs – know your site complexities and
uncertainties
 Performance objectives may not be met by detailed design if site
conditions or assumptions made during the design change
 May require design/SOW changes during the RA
48
RA SOW Best Management
Practices


Consider planned remedial action contracting
strategy (procurement approach and contract type)
when writing the SOW
Understand site assumptions and uncertainties
 Revisit and update the risk register and evaluate
assumptions made in design
 Evaluate likelihood of changing site conditions
 Ensure contract allows for these changes (should they
occur – and they often do!)

RA contactors understand environmental
remediation and risk – if RD/RA contracting strategy
provides for a high degree of contractor financial risk,
contracts will:
 Account for risk in cost proposal; or
 May not bid on a project
49
Two delivery methods

EPA contracts directly with the remedial
action contractor

EPA does not contract directly with the
designer
50
EPA contracts directly with the
remedial action contractor
EPA –
CONTRACTING PARTY
- RPM
- Contracting Officer
RA Contractor – Constructor
• Construction Superintendent – OnSite Rep
51
RA SOW components for EPA
contracts - prescriptive


Introduction
General Requirements
 Project Planning and Support
 Community Involvement
 Site specific plans

Project Requirements
 Management
 Implement design
 QA/QC


Deliverables
Schedule
52
RA SOW components for EPA
contracts – performance-based
Introduction
 General Requirements

 Project Planning and Support
 Community Involvement
 Site specific plans

Performance Requirements
 Technical
 Project Management
Deliverables
 Schedule

53
EPA does not contract directly with
the remedial action contractor
Old RAC model
 USACE or other Federal Agency (IA)
 State or Tribe (CA)

EPA
RPM
CONTRACTING PARTY
RAC Contractor
USACE
State/Tribe
RA Subcontractor – Constructor
• Construction Superintendent – OnSite Rep
54
RA SOW components for IAs and
CAs


Introduction
General Requirements









Schedule
Project Planning and Support
Community Involvement
Site specific plans
Procurement of subcontract
Subcontract management support
Detailed resident inspection
Cleanup Validation
Project Closeout
55
Considerations when scoping the
RA SOW for IAs and CAs
The USACE or State/Tribe will develop the
SOW for the remedial action contractor
 Important that the RPM discusses the
planned project delivery with the USACE or
State/Tribe during the development of the
design

 Critical to ensuring deliverables comport with
contracting strategy and Agency or state
requirements and to avoid procurement delays
56
57
Overview
3 Projects
 Group survey to determine RD/RA
project delivery strategy
 Given the RD/RA project delivery
strategy, discuss:

 RD SOW development
 RA SOW development
58
Things to Consider

RD/RA Project Delivery Strategy considerations:






Site characterization
Site/remedy complexity
Contract flexibility needs
Cost control considerations
Oversight needs
RD SOW development considerations
 Preliminary design investigation needs
 Treatability study needs
 Design deliverable needs

RA SOW development considerations
 Is prescriptive SOW appropriate?
 Might a performance-based SOW be more appropriate?
59
Project #1

Residential yard contaminated with lead
 Result of aerial deposition (smelter)
 Well defined nature and extent of
contamination

Remedy calls for excavation of two feet
of contaminated soil and backfill
 Well defined and/or less complex remedial
technology
60
Project #2

DNAPL contamination present in
saturated zone under an abandoned
building
 Nature and extent of contamination not well
defined

Remedy calls for thermal treatment of
source zone
 Remedy goal: Reduce source area by 90%
61
Project #3

PCB contamination in St. Lawrence
River
 Heavy tidal influence
 Heavy boat traffic

Remedy includes dredging on PCB
contamination > 50 ppb and capping of
PCB contamination < 50 ppb
62
Helpful References



OSWER 9355.0-43, Guidance for Scoping the Remedial Design,
March 1995.
http://www.epa.gov/superfund/cleanup/pdfs/rdra/scopingrd.pdf
OSWER 9355.0-04B, Remedial Design/Remedial Action
Handbook, June 1995.
http://www.epa.gov/superfund/cleanup/pdfs/rdrabook/table.pdf
Other relevant RD/RA guidance
http://www.epa.gov/superfund/cleanup/rdra.htm
63
64

similar documents