Click to edit Master title style

Click to edit Master subtitle style

PBC Lessons LearnedA Contractor’s PerspectiveJune 29, 2005Tushar TaleleARCADIS GFPR Program Manager

Lessons Learned – Some Impressions

Not everyone within the DOD or within key stakeholder organizations are comfortable with / supportive of a GFPR – PBC approachDoD’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?

Sites selected for PBC generally not discussed with regulatory agencies in advance to assess agencies assessment of priority for actionLimited, 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 RIPRegulatory community (often understaffed) not “thrilled” with concept of DESMOA funding as an opportunity for them to enhance capabilitiesTrue partnering concept not routinely or effectively employed between the DOD and regulatory communityProcess efficiencies need to be established - meet both regulatory needs but also enhance ability to process information

Regulator Considerations

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)

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

Decision Documents et al

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

Insurance Considerations

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 OROR 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.