Presentation is loading. Please wait.

Presentation is loading. Please wait.

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.

Similar presentations


Presentation on theme: "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."— Presentation transcript:

1 Kate Garufi, EPA HQ

2 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

3 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 4

5 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

6 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

7 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

8 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

9 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 &_cviewhttps://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-R3-13- 00006/index.htm  Final Remedial Acquisition Framework document is still in draft. Expected to be released in Spring 2014. 9

10 10

11 11

12 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

13 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

14 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

15 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

16 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

17 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

18 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

19 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

20 Relationship Between Site Characterization Certainty and Cost Cost Increasing Certainty Increasing 20

21 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

22 Considering Management Effort Less Management Effort More Management Effort Less Flexible Strategy More Flexible Strategy 22

23 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

24 Considering Cost Control More Cost Control Less Cost Control Less Flexible Strategy More Flexible Strategy 24

25 How on earth do I track all of this stuff??  Use a project risk register! 25

26 26

27 27

28 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

29 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

30 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

31 Different types of SOWs  Prescriptive  Performance-based 31

32 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

33 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 34

35 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

36 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

37 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

38 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

39 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

40 EPA contracts directly with the designer 40 EPA – CONTRACTING PARTY - RPM - Contracting Officer Design Contractor Design Engineer

41 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

42 EPA does not contract directly with the designer 42 EPA Contracting Party: USACE State/Tribe RD Subcontractor Design Engineer

43 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

44 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 45

46 46

47 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

48 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

49 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

50 Two delivery methods  EPA contracts directly with the remedial action contractor  EPA does not contract directly with the designer 50

51 EPA contracts directly with the remedial action contractor EPA – CONTRACTING PARTY - RPM - Contracting Officer RA Contractor – Constructor Construction Superintendent – On- Site Rep 51

52 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

53 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

54 EPA does not contract directly with the remedial action contractor  Old RAC model  USACE or other Federal Agency (IA)  State or Tribe (CA) 54 EPA RPM CONTRACTING PARTY RAC Contractor USACE State/Tribe RA Subcontractor – Constructor Construction Superintendent – On- Site Rep

55 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

56 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 57

58 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

59 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

60 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

61 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

62 Project #3 62  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

63 Helpful References  OSWER 9355.0-43, Guidance for Scoping the Remedial Design, March 1995. http://www.epa.gov/superfund/cleanup/pdfs/rdra/scopingrd.pdf 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 64


Download ppt "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."

Similar presentations


Ads by Google