Click to edit Master title style PBC Lessons Learned A Contractor’s Perspective June 29, 2005 Tushar Talele ARCADIS GFPR Program Manager It is that time again to start the Strategic Planning Process. Click to edit Master subtitle style

Lessons Learned – Some Impressions Not everyone within the DOD or within key stakeholder organizations are comfortable with / supportive of a GFPR – PBC approach DoD’s interest in PBC has prompted “interesting” responses from the marketplace: Qualified staff are the brunt of recruiting frenzy (both in commercial and federal sectors) Substantial amount of “mis-information” being spread to raise unnecessary concerns Insurance markets (liability transfer indemnification) limited due to growing demand

Lessons Learned – Varying Perspectives Varying levels of understanding in client organizations which limit full value of GFPR – PBC offerings. Examples: Decision Documents (lack of standardized approach is adding time in some cases) What is the review process (who reviews and what are their roles) – Said differently, who has what authority to say what? How long should it take? Milestone Payments (who defines performance / decides acceptability)? Varying groups with highly different backgrounds (reference frames) called upon to fill role of COR When is a regulator-issued NFA NOT a contractually acceptable NFA? Are milestones realized upon document submissions or approvals? (who must approve?) Do interim remedies count as remedy implementation if approved by regulators and likely to serve as final remediation approach?

Regulator Considerations Sites selected for PBC generally not discussed with regulatory agencies in advance to assess agencies assessment of priority for action Limited, if any, involvement in PBC proposal evaluations / awards (no opportunity to temper expectations or impact flawed approaches) Changes in key personnel (eg. concerns over perception of dramatically increased work-load) will impact aggressive schedules for RC and / or RIP Regulatory community (often understaffed) not “thrilled” with concept of DESMOA funding as an opportunity for them to enhance capabilities True partnering concept not routinely or effectively employed between the DOD and regulatory community Process efficiencies need to be established - meet both regulatory needs but also enhance ability to process information

A Shift in Paradigm PBC approach can be a tough paradigm shift for the existing team working on an installation This is especially true for DoD personnel who may not have sufficient guidance to know how much latitude they can and should extend to contractors Regulators wary as to motives for change in contracting approach “Is DoD looking to shirk their responsibilities and abandon sites to contractors and regulators?” Transition from previous contractors can be tenuous at best Delays in the timely completion of work by the previous contractor (no incentive to accelerate / facilitate transition)

Decision Documents et al Land Use Controls Out of step with private sector, but getting better… Delays closure, especially at RCRA sites as document reviewers struggle with issues that have been open and “debated” amongst other stakeholders for extended periods of time Review of Decision Documents Review comments not always consistent with intent of PBC contract What $$$ to show as cost for remedy? Delayed reviews impact RC and/or RIP date

Insurance Considerations Is meaningful and value-added insurance really available to Small Businesses attempting to take lead PBC responsibilities at some sites? Why require insurance limits in the amount of 1X bid price? (Where is the value in this “default” requirement?) Why require insurance and bonding? Available limits and insurance protection durations dramatically reduced by withdrawal of re-insurers and questions over the viability of long-term insurance policies Policy terms and conditions are an excellent indicator of the strength of a contractors proposal Higher premiums and greater attachment points (large buffers) are indicative of greater risks and likely flaws in technical approaches and contingency measures

The Challenge of Measuring Progress and Value How is PBC – GFPR progress best measured? Activities complete (sites closed) vs. milestones achieved (may not always be consistent) How will the DoD define value going forward? Is it best value OR technically acceptable – low cost? If best value  how does one objectively evaluate and compare a broad spectrum of value offerings (with potentially highly variable components)? If technically acceptable  low cost; how does one best establish minimum technically acceptable performance thresholds?

Other Issues of Interest Potential changes in incremental funding constraints – what kind of challenge might such changes pose? Additional costs likely to be born by the contracting entitities response to: Decentralization of USACE contracting vehicles designed to accommodate PBC-GFPR projects (more IDIQ proposal submission required) USACE seemingly looking to include PBC contracting terms in broader IDIQ solicitations – for contracts that would address a broader suite of needs The temptation to compromise on the technical adequacy of a proposal because it may offer a dramatic price reduction.