best practices for environmental project teams - s. massey (elsevier, 2011) ww

Contractors would not earn award feeon the value of scope growth, which usually amounted to 8–10% of the physical progress.The Navy established a front-end Contractor role similar to an

Best Practices for Environmental

Project Teams

Best Practices for Environmental

Project Teams

Stephen Massey

Amsterdam • Boston • Heidelberg • London • New York • Oxford Paris • San Diego • San Francisco • Sydney • Tokyo

The Boulevard, Langford Lane, Kidlington, Oxford OX5 1GB, UK

Radarweg 29, PO Box 211, 1000 AE Amsterdam, The Netherlands

First edition 2011

Copyright # 2011 Elsevier B.V All rights reserved

No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system or transmitted in any form

or by any means electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording or otherwise without the prior written permission of the publisher Permissions may be sought directly from Elsevier’s Science & Technology Rights Department in Oxford, UK: phone (þ44) (0) 1865 843830; fax (þ44) (0) 1865 853333; email: permissions@elsevier.com Alternatively you can submit your request online by visiting the Elsevier web site at http://elsevier.com/locate/permissions, and selecting Obtaining permission to use Elsevier material

British Library Cataloguing in Publication Data

A catalogue record for this book is available from the British Library

Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data

A catalog record for this book is available from the Library of Congress

For information on all Elsevier publications

visit our web site at elsevierdirect.com

Printed and bound in Great Britain

ISBN: 978-0-444-53721-8

Chapter 1: Best Practices for Environmental Project Teams 1

Historical Overview of the Defense Environmental Restoration Program (DERP) and Lessons Learned 2

National Economic Stimulus 5

DoD Pressure to Decrease Studies and Increase Site Cleanups 5

Measuring Performance 6

DoD Contracting Obstacles to Accelerating Cleanup 7

DoD Component Competition 9

Single Technology Focus 9

“Silver-Bullet” Technologies 10

Poor Technical Document Quality 10

Bigger Is Better 11

DERP ER Programs Shifts Focus to “Site Closeout” 11

New DERP ER Emphasis on “Remedial Process Optimization” 12

“Red and Unsustainable Remediation?” 13

DoD Components Expedite Technology Optimization Policies 13

New DoD ER Acquisition Strategy 15

Shift in Government and Contractor Quality Management 16

Green and Sustainable Remediation 16

Contractor Environmental Project Team Challenges 17

Environmental Restoration Project Manager, Inc 19

Chapter Overviews 19

Chapter 2: Understand Your Government Client Business Model 23

Business Model Elements 23

Constructing the Government ER Service Provider Business Model 24

NAVFAC Environmental Restoration (ER) Service Provider Business Model 25

Federal Requirements that Establish Basis for Environmental Restoration Programme 25

Programme policies 26

Navy Environmental Restoration Process and Progress Reporting Metrics 26

v

Navy Programme Progress Reports and Execution Plans 29

Navy Guidelines for Achieving Site Closeout 29

Navy ER Work Groups and Programme Initiatives 30

Green and Sustainable Remediation 32

Client Contract Vehicles for Procuring Environmental Restoration Services 33

Chapter 3: Implement a Flexible Environmental Quality Management System 35

Features of a Flexible Company EQMS 36

Company Level 36

Programme Level 39

Project Level 41

Contractor QA and QC Staffing 43

Performance-Based Program/Project Tutorial 45

Quality Control Plan 48

Work Processes 48

Monthly QC Report 49

Project Website 53

Functional Inspection Plan 54

FIP Implementation 55

Government Performance Assessment 56

Sample Project Performance Evaluation Policy 58

Chapter 4: Develop and Utilize User-Friendly Project Websites 61

Brief Synopsis of Microsoft SharePoint 61

Fine-Tuning the Role of Collaborative Project Websites: Simpler is Better 66

Understanding the Perception of Website Value from the User Perspective 67

Company Operations Managers 67

Customer RPM 68

Company Resource Organization Managers 69

Program Managers (and Project Management Office Managers) 69

Project Managers 69

Project Team Members 70

Website Organization 72

Obtaining your Project Websites 73

Project Websites Improve the Efficiency of Teaming 73

Project Website Templates 75

Key Website Features 76

Project Correspondence Log 77

Company and Client Policies that Prohibit Public Access to Project Information 81

Identify Website Location: Intranet or Extranet The Extranet Options Might be Provided by Your Company, and is the Only Option Provided by a Web-Hosting Provider 83

Which Project Team Members Will Function as

“Site Administrators?” 84

Three-Tier Website Structure: PMO, Base, Project Task Orders 84

Organize Project Website to Support Work Plan Development and Other Submittals Required Prior to Field Mobilization 85

Develop the Website “Required Records List” for the Project 86

Teach People How to Map the SharePoint Project Website to Their “My Network Places”, and Use Web Folders Option to Manage Files 89

Assist Analytical Laboratories with SharePoint 90

Partner with Your Government RPM to Provide Private Web Pages to Regulatory Agencies 90

Be Patient with Operations Managers and Other Senior Managers 91

Provide Project Team Members with Three-Ring Binders 92

Chapter 5: Developing Superior Proposals 95

Contractor Challenges 96

Lack of Awareness of Client Execution Plan 97

Limited Pre-RFP Activities 97

Lack of Time to Prepare a Proposal 99

Difficulty Defining and Estimating Project Scope 100

Lack of Time for Competitive Bid Process 100

Obtaining Internal Risk Board Approval 101

Providing a Competitive Price 101

Government Land Mines 102

RFP Language that Shifts Legal Risk to the Contractor 103

How Governments can Improve the Prices and Value They Obtain on Fixed-Price, Performance-Based MACs 112

Government Goals 113

Best Practices 122

BCT Culture Influence on Base Capture Plans 122

Contractor Base Capture System 124

Base Capture Plans 125

Site-Specific Capture Process 127

Proposal Development Process Improvement 128

Learn How Each Government Environmental Service Provider Agency Evaluates Proposals (Grading Process) 128

Avoid Using Proposal Content Boilerplates 133

Understand and Effectively Implement the Discriminator Discipline 134

Learn How to Feature the Most Important Win Theme: Flexibility 140

Design Proposal Sections in an “Evaluator-Friendly” Format 143

Replace the Popular Proposal Development Rule “Feature–Benefit–Proof” with “Feature–Benefit–Caused By–Proof” 144

Chapter 6: Develop Superior Project Work Plans 147

The Five Predictable Stages of the Contractor Technical Document Quality Learning Curve on Major Environmental Restoration Programs 153

Contract Start up (Time Frame: Basic Contract Award Through Month 6) 153

Cause Drivers 154

Problem Recognition by Client (Month 6–9) 154

Cause Drivers 155

Contractor Response and Recovery Plan Development (Month 9–12) 155

Cause Drivers 156

Improvement Phase (Month 12–24) 156

Cause Drivers 157

Breakthrough (Month 36–60) 157

Cause Drivers 157

Summary 158

Lessons Learned and Best Practice Recommendations for Contractors 159

Screen New Employee Candidates for Their Technical Writing Skills 159

Accurately Estimate Work Plans and Other Technical Documents 160

Approach Technical Documents with the Same Degree of Commitment as Proposals 162

Sample Project Work Plan Development Interfaces 163

Sample Work Plan Development Process Flow 165

Inadequate Project Manager Planning Usually Leads to Various Inefficiencies 166

Managing Technical Document Development (Assignments, Tracking, and Status) 169

Technical Document (and Work Plan) Process Development Guidelines 172

Technical Authorship and Reviewer Guidelines During Document Preparation and Technical Reviews 174

Guidelines for Executive Summary for Final Reports 175

Establish Final Report Structure, Content, and Assignments Before the Project Mobilizes 177

Leadership Commitment 177

Chapter 7: Implement Rigorous Scope Management Tools 179

Process Overview 183

Base-Wide Risk Register 186

Project Scope Register 186

Scope Variance Communication Log 188

Contract Scope Mutual Understanding Meeting 190

Key Takeaway Points: Flexible Project Scope Management 191

Why are Government ER Service Providers Using These Fixed-Price, Performance-Based Multiple Award Contracts (PB-MACs) on Poorly Defined ER Scopes? 192

Award Fee Is Not a Project Team Motivator 193

Base Tenant Clients Tend to Be Naı¨ve with Project Scope 194

The Critical Importance of Timely Notification in Response to Problems 195

Role of the Field Work Variance 196

Field Work Variance Process 197

Request for Information 199

Managing Scope on Government Cost-Reimbursable Contracts for Environmental Remediation Services 200

Hypothetical Case Study: The Production-Driven Contractor 200

Misconception: Cost-Reimbursable Contracts Make It Easier to Manage Scope 205

Chapter 8: Effectively Control Field Work 207

Option 1: Develop Simplified QC Plan Based on a Popular Quality Standard 208

Option 2: Try Implementing the Three Phases of Control 208

Welcome to Environmental Project Work 211

Three phases of control¼ Three phases of effective supervision 212

What do my supervisors do? 212

What is a supervisor according to the Ontario ministry of labour? 213

Break the project scope into tasks 213

Develop, Implement, and Improve Checklists 218

Project Task Leader Involvement, Assignment, and Turnover 219

Project Organization 222

Lean Contractor project organizations 222

Task Leader QC Involvement 224

Guidelines for assigning Task Leader/QC/SSHO Specialists 225

Procedures for Performing the Three Phases of Control 226

QC Documentation 228

Project QC Forms that Support the Three Phases of Control Process 229

Preparatory Phase Checklist 229

Common Pitfalls 229

Sample Project Team Interfaces 230

Effectively Planning and Implementing the Three Phases of Control for Subcontracted Work 232

Chapter 9: Implement Cause Analysis to Generate Solutions 235

Practical Applications for Cause Analysis on Environmental Projects 238

Quality Control and Quality Assurance 239

Safety 240

Project Management 240

Response to Client Contract Deficiencies 241

Proposal Development 241

Screening Issues for Significance 242

Root Cause Analysis Misconceptions 244

Role of Cause Analysis in Risk Management 245

Cause Analysis Methods 246

Cause Analysis Fundamentals 248

Step 1: Define the Problem 248

Step 2: Map Causes 251

Step 3: Identify and Implement Solutions 258

Hypothetical Case Study: Expansion Joint Rupture 259

Understanding Ishikawa (Fishbone) Diagram Limitations for Cause Analysis 259

The Influence of Culture on Project Team Actions and Inactions 260

How Environmental Project Cultures Evolve 261

Client Project Managers Develop Loyalty Towards the Contractor Project Manager and Project Team People: Not the Company Brand 262

Cultural Factors Commonly Emerge During Cause Analysis 262

Role of the “Mental Risk Register” 263

Mechanistic Approaches to Work 264

Base Cleanup Team Culture 265

Hypothetical Case Study: Hazardous Waste Treatment Plant 268

Sample Cause Analysis Plan 271

How to Build Higher Level Support for Cause Analysis 272

Introductory Cause Analysis Awareness Training 272

Chapter 10: Design User-Friendly Work Processes for Project Teams 275

Process Attribute Descriptions 277

Helps Company Qualify for Contract Opportunities 277

Enables Program and Project Teams to Pass Audits 278

Protects Company from Litigation 278

Provides Users with Timely Recognition of High Risk Conditions and Unacceptable Results (e.g Information and Data) 279

Captures Performance Improvement Metrics 281

Process Ownership by Program or Project Team 283

Effective Processes Shift Focus from Procedure Narrative to the Process Summary and Procedure Components 285

Five-Phase Process Design Improvement Approach 288

Phase 1: Segment Procedure Components into Separate Document Control Units 288

Phase 2: Priortize Procedures for Improvement 290

Phase 3: Improve Forms or Checklists (for Each Process) 290

Phase 4: Create Process Summary (for Each Process) 292

Phase 5: Improve Procedure Visuals and Training Aids 292

User-Friendly Work Packages 293

Index 297

Best Practices for Environmental

Project Teams

continuously improve competitiveness and performance on environmental restoration (ER)projects This book is primarily directed at project team members such as Project Managers,Engineers, Geologists, Chemists, and resource staff who support one or more project teams(e.g QC Managers, Health and Safety Managers) Best practices described in this book can beimplemented by smaller Contractors who directly compete with larger Contractors They canalso help specialty subcontractors seeking to team with large or small prime Contractors.Contractor-perspective insights can help Government Environmental Restoration ServiceProviders obtain lower prices and better value for their ER funds, and help regulatory agenciessupport ER continuous improvement

The United States Department of Defense (DoD) is the most influential driver of change,competition, and continuous improvement in our industry They are the largest global buyer of

ER services For over three decades, they pushed the “bleeding edge” of ER cleanups within thecomplex and rigid legal framework DoD has amassed the most global experience in theirongoing pursuit of best value cleanup They have spent billions of public tax dollars over thistime period Through 30 September 2009, DoD identified 21,333 Installation RestorationProgram (IRP) sites and 86% of these sites are designated as “Response Complete” [DefenseEnvironmental Restoration Program’s Annual Report to Congress, Fiscal Year 2009 (April2010)] DoD estimates the cost-to-complete (CTC) for IRP sites to be 6.4 billion USD and3.8 billion USD for the emerging Military Munitions Response Program (MMRP) cleanup.This body of experience represents thousands of mistakes and lessons learned

In 2002, DoD Component agencies (e.g Air Force, Army, and Navy) tasked with ER beganchanging their acquisition strategy to foster broad competition for contracts They continuouslyimproved their methods of contracting to obtain lower prices for services and began

shifting risk to Contractors The increasing competition to win contracts led to lower Contractorbids, much leaner project team staffing, lower profit margins, and higher risk One projectplagued with problems and cost overruns can quickly erase the profits from several projects thathave achieved project objectives and satisfied the customer Contractor senior managers arenow asking, “How can we win more contracts and avoid disaster projects that erase slim profitsfrom other projects?”

Best Practices for Environmental Project Teams DOI: 10.1016/B978-0-444-53721-8.00001-4

# 2011 Elsevier B.V All rights reserved.

1

This book summarizes ER best practices based on lessons learned over a 15-year period, from

my DoD Contractor perspective as a practitioner at the programme management level.Collectively, the ER Contractor community contributed to accelerating the DoD learning curvewith numerous mistakes and process improvements We have made more mistakes in ourindustry than any other global industry in the world – not because we are less capable orcommitted to success We work in the most complex industry in the world Variability is thenorm, which is why experienced DoD ER Remedial Project Managers (RPMs) are the mostskeptical professionals in the world Beware of the Contractor proposal that assumes everythingwill go as planned Each ER project is different due to the complex mix of variables (contracts,regulatory requirements, contaminants, geology, and technologies)

U.S taxpayer funds have been put to good use Our ecosystem is a safer and cleaner place due

to our life-long contributions and commitment to continuous improvement Other

Governments, their Government ER Service Provider organizations, regulatory agencies,project teams, and academia can capitalize on lessons learned and best practices featured inthis book This chapter provides a historical overview of the Defense EnvironmentalRestoration Program (DERP) and lessons learned, including editorial viewpoints from myContractor perspective It concludes with a summary of environmental project teamchallenges and best practice topics covered by Chapters 2 through 10

Historical Overview of the Defense Environmental Restoration

Program (DERP) and Lessons Learned

The United States Department of Defense (DoD) began their Defense EnvironmentalRestoration Program (DERP) in the 1980s under the Installation Restoration Program TheDoD Environment, Safety, and Occupational Health Network and Information Exchange(DENIX) website contains a comprehensive library of historical documents This section draws

learned from my Contractor perspective The DoD has done an outstanding job of documentingthe DERP journey

The DERP Annual Report to Congress, FY 1997, contains a graphic that describes the

“Evolution of the Defense Environmental Restoration Program” (see Figure 1.1) In previousdecades prior to the 1970s, the DoD, along with the United States Department of Energy (DoE),was polluting their facilities, land, and groundwater with the same lack of awareness as manycorporations

a

http://www.epa.gov/history

research, monitoring, standard-setting, and enforcement activities to ensure environmentalprotection EPA’s mission is to protect human health and to safeguard the natural

environment – air, water, and land – upon which life depends For more than 30 years, the EPAhas been working for a cleaner, healthier environment for the American people”

In 1980, Congress passed the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, andLiability Act (CERCLA), also known as Superfund This law requires responsible parties

to clean up releases of hazardous substances in the environment The 1986 SuperfundAmendments and Reauthorization Act (SARA) refined and expanded CERCLA, and formally

U.S Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) established

Secretary of the Army designated as the executive agent for FUDS properties

Early years of DERP: period of tremendous change and reaccomplishment of previous studies to meet new statutory requirements

DERP matures: period of rapid growth, lessons learned, accomplishments, and accelerated strategies and initiatives in response to base closures

Maintaining DERP momentum and stability with reduced funding: development and application of

a risk-based approach to sequencing work

Successful devolvement of DERA funds from the Office

of the Secretary of Defense to individual Components (except the Defense Logistics Agency and the Defense Special Weapons Agency)

Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) enacted

Environmental Legislation and Regulations

DoD Activities

CERCLA enacted

Executive Order 12316 signed, delegating responsibility for conducting CERCLA response actions to federal agencies

Hazardous and Soild Waste Amendments enacted (amended RCRA)

SARA enacted (formally established DERP)

Executive Order 12580 signed, delegating CERCLA authority to DoD

Defense Base Realignment and Closure Act of 1988 and 1990

National Oil and Hazardous Substances Pollution Contingency Plan revisions promulgated

Oil Pollution Act revisions promulgated

National Defense Authorization Act of

1997 enacted, requiring devolvement of DERA funds

The Road

to Site Closeout

Figure 1.1 Evolution of the Defense Environmental Restoration Program.

established DERP and funding for the programme through the Defense EnvironmentalRestoration Account (DERA).

RCRA and CERCLA were written before any significant DoD and industry ER site cleanupexperience was gained The popular U.S slang expression for this is “putting the cart ahead ofthe horse” U.S laws are drafted and available for public comment However, at that time,nobody knew if the environmental legal framework would enable an efficient process andapproach for implementing site cleanups Strict Government and Contractor compliancewith these laws paved the way for project work plans that would be voluminous, detailed,inflexible, and costly to change The laws required an interactive process with various time-consuming regulatory agency document reviews The laws also required public involvementand comment Nobody would disagree with the necessity of engaging public involvement But

it adds more time to the process Government attorneys review documents before they areprovided to the regulatory agencies The legal process is rigid, time-consuming, and assumes astatic and predictable site cleanup process

During the 1980s, Congress recognized that DoD no longer needed some of its installations andsubsequently authorized five rounds of base realignment and closure (BRAC) in 1988, 1991,

1993, 1995, and 2005

DoD activities from 1975 to 1995 focused on searching for contaminated properties, studyingthe problems, and writing reports Figure 1.2 shows the level of funding from 1984 to 1997,including the amount funded to BRAC

Figure 1.2 The level of funding from 1984 to 1997 Source: Defense Environmental Restoration

Program Annual Report to Congress, FY 1997.

National Economic Stimulus

The multi-billion dollar projected cost-to-complete DoD and DoE cleanup that emerged in thelate 1980s and early 1990s created a new “environmental cleanup industry” that attractedseveral large corporations Corporations and small businesses made substantial investmentsinto “innovative site cleanup technologies” At that time, the industry had an aura of

“gold-rush” prospecting because Government and corporations were looking for “silver-bullet”technology remedies Many optimists perceived that if the United States can put a man on themoon, then certainly we could meet the challenge of developing innovative technologies toclean up contamination A variety of speciality subcontractors and analytical laboratoriestargeted the growing ER industry Rapid economic growth corresponded with cyclicaldownturns and downsizing in domestic industries, such as petroleum exploration, nuclearpower plant construction, and aerospace National symposia and conferences attractedscientists, engineers, and regulatory professionals from other countries who were

committed to cleaning up contaminated sites

Universities were caught off guard by the rapid emergence of the environmental cleanupindustry Good professional salaries, interesting projects, extensive research and development,and working outdoors in scenic locations offered very appealing career opportunities forscientists and engineers The resultant high corporate demand lured many scientists andengineers to join companies that were positioning their capabilities and resources to help clean

up the environment Professionals who transferred from other industries leveraged theirexperience and college educations in Geology, Chemistry, Engineering, and Biology To thisday, very few senior professionals in our industry began their college education with the goal ofdoing this type of work, and most take pride in contributing to a cleaner earth

DoD Pressure to Decrease Studies and Increase Site Cleanups

In the mid-1990’s, the U.S Congress, public, and communities threatened or impacted bycontaminated DoD properties thought too much funding was being spent on “studies” and notenough on “site cleanups” The DERP was under pressure to transition the

Program Annual Report to Congress, FY 1995, contains the following quote from

President Bill Clinton:

“Environmental experts from EPA, DoD, and the state will work together, and a

professional cleanup team will be stationed at every site.”

–President Clinton, July 1993

describes a series of monumental changes to the DERP, such as “Accelerating Cleanup”,

“Fast-track Cleanup Moves Ahead”, and “Strengthening the Program” DoD published

Successes and Challenges, 1993–1995

Measuring Performance

DoD developed “Measures of Merit” to measure progress towards goals Newly

developed measures provided crucial feedback needed to develop and adjust programmerequirements and budget projections, as well as determine whether established goals reflectedfiscal reality

Three separate categories of Measures of Merit were developed to assess site remediationprogress from one discrete time period to the next, generally at the end of each fiscal year:Relative Risk Reduction This measurement applied only to DERA and BRAC sites thatwere ranked using the relative risk site evaluation framework DoD classified sites ashaving a high, medium, or low relative risk; response complete; or no further actionrequired

Progress at sites Gauging the progress of restoration efforts was still a critical measurethat required status reports on particular phases of investigation, design, cleanup, orresponse complete determinations at specific sites

Milestones Accomplished This Measure of Merit tracked the number of sites where cleanupaction had been taken and relative risk had been reduced in one or more media Thismeasure of merit was applied to sites funded by both the DERA and BRAC accounts toprovide another view of the progress in the restoration programme

Measures of Merit allowed DoD to more accurately measure and report progress towardscleanup goals as well as fundamental efforts to protect human health and the environment.Measures of Merit were hailed by DoD as a “breakthrough initiative that greatly enhancedDoD’s ability to monitor the performance and progress of the restoration program”

Figure 1.3 is a common graphic used by DoD to show the relationship between DoD

Installation Restoration Program Phases/Milestones with EPA CERCLA Phases/Milestones.(Defense Environmental Restoration Program Annual Report to Congress, FY 2009.)DoD ER performance metrics were inconsistent with EPA performance metrics DoD,under significant pressure to accelerate cleanup and demonstrate progress, forged aheadwithout EPA The only measures that had merit from the EPA perspective were thoseestablished by law: CERCLA and RCRA Table 1.1, compares DoD, RCRA, and

CERCLA Phases, Milestones, and Terminology It shows the inconsistencies that existbetween Remedy-in-Place and Site Closeout Note how “Site Closeout” is not recognized

by CERCLA

DoD Contracting Obstacles to Accelerating Cleanup

From 1994 to 1999, DoD components (Army, Navy, and Air Force) felt significant publicand congressional pressure to transition a higher percentage of their ER budgets from studies

to site cleanup Each was using large cost plus award fee (CPAF) contracts to execute thesite cleanup phase on their multi-billion dollar environmental restoration programmes

Government paid the Contractor to establish a Program Management Organization (PMO)

to interface with the Government and assist with accelerating studies to cleanup

DoD Component ER Service Provider organizations were approaching site cleanup with aconstruction industry model, which backfired miserably on ER projects The constructionmodel caused sites to get bogged down in the study phase due to the substantial time and effort

technical packages for site cleanup (e.g reports, design drawings, maps, and specifications).Many technical packages were impressively well written, elaborate packages based on a limitednumber of analytical samples that were unrepresentative of site contamination (e.g plumecharacteristics) The cleanup phase was commonly based on numerous erroneous technical

Figure 1.3 DoD CERCLA environmental restoration phases and milestones.

assumptions regarding the type and volume of site contamination, and many CPAF contractsexperienced continual scope changes and scope growth Contractors would not earn award fee

on the value of scope growth, which usually amounted to 8–10% of the physical progress.The Navy established a front-end Contractor role similar to an Architect–Engineer (AE), known

as the CLEAN Contractor, to investigate and characterize the site, and then (if sites required

Table 1.1 Comparison of DoD, RCRA, and CERCLA Phases, Milestones, and Terminology DoD IRP Phases/Milestones

Site Discovery

PA/SI Completion

Remedial Investigation (RI)

Interim Remedial Action

Relative Risk Reduction

Feasibility Study (FS)

Record of Decision

Remedial Design (RD)

Remedial Action (RA)

Remedial Action Construction

(RA-C)

Remedy in Place (RIP)

Last Remedy in Place (LRIP)

Response Complete (RC)

Long Term Monitoring Post Closure Permit

NPL Deletion Operation and Maintenance Five Year Review as needed Post-Closure Permit Expiration Corrective Action Process

& Maintenance (O&M) [depending on remedy]

Final RA Report [individual sites/OUs] or NPL Site Completion/Final Close Out Report [all OUs/entire installation]

Remedial Action Start through Completion

Remedial Action Start

Closure Plan Implementation and Groundwater Cleanup

Remedial Design (RD)

Closure Plan Approval and Post Closure Permit Issuance

Statement of Basis/Corrective Action Decision (CAD)

Record of Decision Public Comment

Feasibility Study (FS) Closure Plan Corrective Action Plan (CAP),

Corrective Measures Study (CMS)

Interim/Stabilization Measures Interim Remedial Action (IRA)/

RCRA Facility Assessment National Corrective Action Prioritization System (NCAPS)

Hazard Ranking System (HRS) National Priorities List (NPL)

Preliminary Assessment/Site Inspection Completion

EPA RCRA Phases/Milestones Closure and Post-Closure Permits

(Waste in Place)

Corrective Action

Source: Department of Defense

Reporting Conventions (Restoration

Management Information System;

Management Guidance for DERP)

Source: 40 CFR Chapter I, Parts

(COULD INCLUDE REGULATED UNITS)

EPA CERCLA Phases/Milestones

cleanup) develop technical package deliverables for the Navy (design drawings, maps, plans,specifications) CLEAN was a misnomer acronym because the role resembled STUDY – not sitecleanup The Navy bundled the technical package deliverables in the Request for Proposal(RFP) for a separate Remedial Action Contract (RAC) The CLEAN as AE role quicklychanged when the Navy realized the approach consumed too much time and lacked flexibility.For example, the time and effort required to characterize the site and develop the technicalpackage deliverables commonly exceeded the time and effort to clean up the contaminated site.Thus, the RAC Contractor role evolved into a design–build Contractor for site cleanups, and thescopes of work for cost-reimbursable cleanup evolved to become “performance based”.Performance-based contracts did not prescribe “how” to clean up sites They contained enoughsite characterization information for the RAC Contractor to develop design–build technicalpackages and work plans, supported by technical assumptions to define contract scope,contamination types, and quantities RAC Contractors started to augment their construction-oriented workforce with scientists and engineers to review site characterization data, evaluatetechnology options, and develop work plans for design–build field execution The Navyemphasized getting into the field By giving the RAC Contractor design–build freedom andresponsibility, site cleanups could be started sooner Also, removing the AE oversight roleenabled the Navy Remedial Project Managers (RPMs) to deal directly with the RAC

Contractor Costly contract modifications and change orders were minimized

DoD Component Competition

The U.S Government DoD Component Service Provider (Army, Navy, and Air Force)competition started on 1 October 1996, when DoD Components became responsible for

Restoration Program, Annual Report to Congress (FY 1997) documented the competition withindividual DoD Component reporting supplements, each entitled “DERP FY1997 ReportCompetition – (Insert DoD Component Name) Cleanup Status and Progress” Each reportedtheir cleanup progress relative to the same metrics

This competition was excellent timing for Contractors anxious to start site cleanup The

DoD components were under substantial pressure to start cleaning up sites They listened

to Contractor recommendations on how to streamline the studies and accelerate the schedule

to start cleanup Along the way, Contractors and the Government learned some tough lessons.Single Technology Focus

be effective in cleaning up site contamination This single-remedy approach (e.g excavation,thermal treatment) was sometimes effective for leaking Underground Storage Tank (UST) sites

involving shallow soil contamination But it backfired on sites containing more complex geology,groundwater contamination, and certain contaminants of concern (C of Cs) UST sites withshallow soil contamination provided Contractors and Government ER Service Providers withmany early wins for accelerating site cleanup.

The Contractor project team single technology focus extended to a narrow focus on thephysical site cleanup, with a lack of consideration to developing the final report duringfield execution Contractors were narrowly focused on cleaning up the physical contamination,not developing data and documents that would be essential for a high quality final reportdeliverable Contractors were commonly not focused on exit strategies and site closeout, andthis extended to Government ER Service Provider RPMs Government ER Service Providerinitiatives to accelerate site cleanup focused on two things: (1) maximizing the amount of fundsspent on cleanup and (2) maximizing the number of Remedies-in-Place Generating multiplesite exit strategies and achieving site closeouts were not the goals

“Silver-Bullet” Technologies

Contractors and technology subcontractors pitched their “silver-bullet” innovative

technologies to Government ER Service Provider RPMs Technology capabilities werefrequently overstated in proposals, and project work plans assumed the selected technologywould achieve remedial action objectives Many Government ER Service Providers RemedialProject Managers (RPMs) started to become skeptical of embellished technology claimsbecause the norm was technology underperformance or failure

Poor Technical Document Quality

The sense of urgency to get to the field and accelerate site cleanup caused Contractors to rushthe development of project work plans Work plans were frequently sloppy and requiredextensive Government review They commonly had mis-spelt words, gaps in logic, poorformatting, and led to numerous Government and regulatory agency comments seekingclarification Many Government ER Service Providers Remedial Project Managers (RPMs)became irritated with Contractors and downgraded their award fee Many Contractors ProjectManagers were critical of the document quality “nit-picking” because they claimed theirproject teams did not need professional quality technical publications with perfect grammar toclean up sites Bear in mind that many Contractor project teams engaged in cleanup consisted ofnumerous construction and earthwork veterans who did not perceive the need for high qualityproject work plans To them, it did not matter if the project work plan contained incorrectcorrect regulatory terminology and acronyms – those things had no bearing on their sitecleanup needs

Many Government ER Service Providers Remedial Project Managers (RPMs) and

regulatory agencies had very high document quality expectations that arose from the era

of gold-plated study documents Consequently, most Contractors, feeling the pain of

their award fee downgrades, began to hire away professional geologists, engineers, andchemists and Contractors engaged in studies They desperately needed to build a staff ofscientists and professionals who could write design-build project works plans and othertechnical documents

Bigger Is Better

The DoD ER push to accelerate site cleanup fed the Contractor desire for “bigness”

Bigger technology was better Bigger technology meant faster and cheaper site cleanup.Bigger meant more yellow-iron, bigger Soil Vapor Extraction Systems, and bigger thermaltreatment units It did not take long for everyone to realize that bigger was not better, andmeant a bigger bust when technologies underperformed Many erroneous technical

assumptions were routinely made regarding site conditions that decreased technologyeffectiveness

In the pursuit of accelerated cleanup, many Contractors constructed full-scale remedialaction systems that were overkill for the site, without any thought given to optimization(predated optimization concept) One of these large scale projects in 1996 involved ayoung Navy RPM in San Diego by the name of Mr Richard Mach Jr He was assigned tomanage a full-scale Soil Vapor Extraction project at an active Navy installation in SanDiego It was a huge SVE system and it was burning through his project budget quickly.His project performance evaluations had a recurring “technology optimization theme”,and he downgraded project performance evaluations for not recognizing and

implementing optimization opportunities in a timely manner He built on his RPM

experience and helped teams to develop the technical optimization guidelines for the Navy

Mr Mach went on to become a significant driver for technology optimization in the DoD ERindustry

DERP ER Programs Shifts Focus to “Site Closeout”

TheDefense Environmental Restoration Program, Annual Report to Congress (FY 1997) was the firstreport to establish a focus on “site closeout” The introduction conveys the shift: “In reporting on theDERP’s status in FY97, the focus is on the road to Site Closeout”

The report contains a section entitled, “The Road to Site Closeout”, which states,

After more than a decade of effort and billions of dollars of expenditures, the Defense

Department’s environmental cleanup program is moving with increasing rapidity toward

Site Closeout at a majority of its installations and sites The initial focus of the program

was on finding the sites with problems (site identification), deciding how best to handle

cleanup at these sites (remedy selection), determining which sites to clean up first (risk-based prioritization), and beginning the cleanup process (remediation design and beginning con- struction) Today the Department’s progress can be measured by the number of Remedies in Place (RIP) and the number of sites categorized as Response Complete (RC), which indicate that sites are reaching the last milestones in the often lengthy cleanup process The phrase

“Road to Site Closeout” highlights DOD’s objective of completing the cleanup program.

Figure 1.4 shows the relationship of these milestones, and shows response complete and sitecloseout can take place at any time during the process

New DERP ER Emphasis on “Remedial Process Optimization”

Identifying and Implementing Expedited Remediation Approaches, introduced the concept ofRemedial Process Optimization It states:

DoD strives to maximize limited program resources by conducting environmental restoration activities in the most efficient and expedient manner possible One tool that has been extremely helpful in evaluating and improving site remediation processes so that maximum risk

reduction is achieved for each dollar spent is remedial process optimization Remedial

process optimization is a systematic, iterative process that assesses remediation efforts to

enhance technical effectiveness and reduce overall site cleanup costs This process evaluates remedial processes for overall system effectiveness, taking alternative remedial approaches and new technologies into consideration Remedial process optimization offers multiple

benefits, including the evaluation of remedial progress through data collection and

Remedy in Place Remedial Action

Construction

Start Milestone Complete

Remedial Action Operations

Response Complete

Long-Term Monitoring

Site Closeout

Figure 1.4 The relationship of these milestones.

established cleanup goals; the acceleration of site transfer; reduced operation, monitoring, and maintenance costs; and superior protection of human health and the environment.

Remedial process optimization is cyclical in nature and is designed to ensure that cleanup goals are met fully and efficiently.

“Red and Unsustainable Remediation?”

Shortly after the turn of the century, DoD Component leaders started evaluating fundingallocation trends from 1998 to 2001 and became alarmed at the increasing percentage of DERP

ER funds consumed to simply sustain remedies in place, such as pump and treat The total cost

to operate and maintain installed remedies (i.e sustain remedies), combined with the total DoDComponent programme support cost, was rapidly increasing

For many installed remedies, The Road to Site Closeout had no end in sight If this trendcontinued, the DERP ER Program would become unsustainable – annual DERP funds for eachDoD Component will be consumed by Program Support combined with the open commitments(cost) to operate and maintain passive Remedies-in-Place

DoD Components Expedite Technology Optimization Policies

Program (DERP), in September 2001 Section 20 gave DoD components the requirement toestablish technology optimization policies It requires DoD Components to continuallyoptimize remedies Following issuiance of this document, leaders from each DoD Componentstarted developing their respective technology optimization policies and technical guidancedocuments

For example, the Navy issued a 1 October 2003 policy memo that stated the following:

As the Navy/Marine Corps have progressed through implementation of the Installation

Restoration (IR) Program and begun the Munitions Response (MR) Program, many sites

have advanced through the remedy evaluation, selection, design, and construction phases and are undergoing Remedial Action Operation (RAO) and Long Term Management

(LTMgt) This has shifted a growing proportion of the available Environmental Restoration Navy (ERN) and Base Realignment and Closure (BRAC) funds to these long-term site

cleanup commitments Continued monitoring of many of these remedies has indicated that remedies selected are not meeting cleanup objectives as planned Further evaluation of

specific sites has revealed several areas where optimization efforts could be applied to

ensure the most appropriate remedies are screened, evaluated, selected, designed, and

properly operated/maintained, and that options are available to modify systems to ensure cleanup objectives are met in a timely, cost effective manner These results prompted the need for further optimization direction Section 20 of the Management Guidance for Defense Environmental Restoration Program (DERP), September 2001, requires the Components to

continually optimize remedies This policy outlines the Navy/Marine Corps efforts to be

conducted to ensure all remedies are continually optimized through evaluation of all

available data at each phase of the project.

The Navy Policy also contained a “Special Technical Issue”:

Since 1998, Navy, other DoD Components, and the Environmental Protection Agency

(EPA) have been conducting evaluations of the effectiveness of “pump and treat” systems

to address groundwater contamination Consensus of all parties is that pump and treat systems are rarely the optimal alternative for groundwater response actions Therefore, any plans

to install new pump and treat systems on Navy and Marine Corps installations requires

approval from Headquarters (HQ) at the Naval Facilities Engineering Command (NAVFAC) This requirement applies to all “pump and treat” systems (remedial and removal actions)

where groundwater is removed from the sub-surface by pumping or other means, treated

above ground in any way, and discharged in any way (i.e off site disposal, sewer systems, re-injected, etc.) In order to receive the NAVFAC HQ approval, the IR Manager shall forward

a summary of the site background, the conceptual site model (CSM), the remedial action

objectives, a listing of the technologies screened for the site, a summary of the alternatives analysis, and a statement of why “pump and treat” is the most appropriate technology to

be used at the site, including a life cycle cost analysis (net present value and total site cost) and exit strategy NAVFAC HQ will provide a written approval/dis-approval response to the

IR Manager based on review of this submittal.

DoD ER Components wanted RPMs and Contractors to adopt an “exit strategy” mentality.The new Government philosophy could be summed up as follows, “We value site closure and

Flexible Contractor technical approaches and the ability to articulate exit strategies becamethe common Contractor proposal win theme This influenced the RPM perception of bestvalue Contractor proposals, project work plans and regulatory documents evolved from ashort-term focus on achieving “Remedy in Place” to a flexible technical approach to achievesite closure The transition to “Performance-Based Multiple Award Contracts” with an emphasis

on optimization reinforced the importance of a flexible approach to managing project scope.The DoD Navy Component “Optimization Work Group”, led by Mr Richard Mach, drafted the

1 October 2003 Navy optimization policy and published the following optimization guidelinesthat can be downloaded for no cost on the Navy (NAVFAC) website:

Closeout Process (March 2006)

Guidance for Optimizing Remedy Evaluation, Selection and Design was first published in April

2004 and was recently updated It was groundbreaking work that introduced numerousoptimization concepts and guidelines It described the “Treatment Train Concept”, andprovided examples of how exit strategies can be developed for each target treatment zone

It sensitized project teams to the economics of remediation It also introduced guidelines fordeveloping a “Flexible Record of Decision (ROD)”

New DoD ER Acquisition Strategy

The (2002 to Present) emphasis on technology optimization corresponded with a majorshift in DoD ER Component Acquisition Strategy The DoD Acquisition Strategy shiftstarted in 2002 CPAF contracts produced reasonable and consistent profits with negligible riskfor a few large Contractors Consequently, many smaller Contractors lobbied the U.S Congressthat the environmental restoration programme had become a welfare programme for largebusiness (it did not matter that most CPAF contracts required over 60% of the work to besubcontracted among small businesses) Congress, in turn, directed the DoD to spread theenvironmental restoration workload and dollars to more Contractors, with an emphasis on smallbusiness Contractors

DoD components responded by scaling back CPAF contracts They changed their acquisitionstrategy to involve more Small Business Contractors, increase competition, and createaggressive goals for using fixed price contracts The DoD Components emphasis shifted toPerformance-Based Contracting, as described in the Federal Acquisition Regulations, Part 37,Service Contracting Specifically, Subpart 37.6 pertains to Performance-Based Contracting.One very popular contract vehicle to emerge was the fixed price Performance-Based, MultipleAward Contract (PB-MAC) On PB-MACs, the Government starts with an open competitionamong Contractors for a “seat at the table” PB-MACs are competed as Unrestricted (LargeBusiness), or Small Business The objective is to hire three to six Contractors who will

compete with each other on a case by case basis for contract task orders (CTOs) (i.e projects)DoD components who were accustomed to working with three to five large Contractors andtheir funded “Program Management Offices (PMOs)” prior to 2002 were suddenly dealing with25–35 Contractors including many small businesses with no PMOs Proposal evaluationsbecame routine

PB-MAC Requests for Proposal (RFPs) feature a “performance based” statement of work, alsoknown as a Performance Work Statement (PWS) The PWS summarizes desired projectobjectives, important schedule milestones, deliverables, historical information and data.The PWS includes a table to specify performance standards, results, and metrics The PWSdeliberately avoids prescribing “how” the Contractor shall perform the work PB-MACsprovide competing Contractors with the freedom to formulate a flexible, design–build technical

approach, explain the exit strategies, and “sell” the benefits within the results-orientedPWS framework The Contractor’s project quality control plan includes procedures fortracking and reporting performance and results relative to the PWS metrics.

Contract Task Order values range from 100 K to 30 million USD, with most in the 2–5 millionUSD range Total PB-MAC capacity is commonly 100 million USD Contractors are required

to bond the work Sometimes the selection criterion is best value In other cases it is low price.The DoD transition to PB-MACs provided Contractors with more flexibility on how toapproach proposals, technical approaches, work plans, staffing, and metrics on projects It alsoprovided Project Managers with more flexibility to make scope adjustments during projectexecution

Shift in Government and Contractor Quality Management

From the early days of the DERP ER Program, the DoD Components embraced the U.S.Army Corps of Engineers standard for Construction Quality Control The most fundamental

CQM Contractor QC referred to the Contractor Quality Control Representative Government

QA referred to the Government Quality Assurance Representative CQM referred to

Construction Quality Management PB-MACs place 100% CQM responsibility on the

CQM With this change, the Government is proclaiming: “We’re not going to exert any effortmaking sure your performance and results meet contract requirements – that’s your

responsibility” The Government QA role shifts to performance assessment

Green and Sustainable Remediation

(September 2010) to fuel the green and sustainable remediation movement On 10 August 2009,

Green and Sustainable Remediation Practices in the Defense Environmental RestorationProgram Each DoD ER Component Service Provider started developing GSR guidancedocuments and tools For example, the Air Force developed the Sustainable Remediation

Component representatives participate in industry initiatives such as the Sustainable

Remediation Forum (SURF) The Interstate Technology & Regulatory Council (ITRC)established a GSR Team ER Service Provider organizations commonly develop their ownguidelines, “brand” their tools just like corporations, and develop their own acronyms.Many organizations, including the U.S Federal Government and DoD Components, haveembraced GSR They are working hard to develop guidelines and tools for the ER industry

In the future, GSR, like technology optimization, will be considered throughout the ER projectlife cycle to identify opportunities to minimize adverse environmental impacts (e.g greenhousegas emissions), natural resource consumption, energy usage, and maximize recycling Forexample, DoD ER Components and Contractors will implement the Sustainable Remediation

The most intriguing aspect of the global ER GSR initiative is the complete lack of awareness

framework for effectively implementing GSR on ER projects Many of these organizations,such as the U.S federal government, are currently implementing an ISO-14001 EMS [Refer toDefense Environmental Restoration Program Annual Report to Congress (FY2009), Chapter 2,Environmental Management Systems] According to the report:

facilities

facilities

Effective implementation of the ISO-14001 EMS prevents pollution and decreases operations

logical, and cost-effective way to implement GSR Going one step further: The DERP ERemphasis over the next decade will be annual site-specific life cycle analyses of installedremedies relative to performance objectives Performance objectives can range from

protectiveness to unrestricted site release The ISO-14001 EMS provides a consistent

framework and methodology for effectively implementing the life cycle analysis process,which can incorporate GSR screening As of this print, DoD Components do not intend toutilize an EMS to implement their installation restoration program

Contractor Environmental Project Team Challenges

Contractors, Project Managers, and their project teams now face several challenges caused byintensified competition and higher risk:

project objectives, desired results, and key schedule milestones Contractors propose theirtechnical approach to achieve the results, outcomes, and schedule Contractors areuncompensated for PMO key personnel (even though required by contract), proposaldevelopment, and face stiff price competition for awards

receive less than 1 month to evaluate most RFPs, understand site conditions, evaluatepotential technical remedies, identify risks, prepare proposals and cost estimates, and

obtain approval from senior management to submit a proposal This time crunch also makes

it very difficult to obtain competitive bids from subcontractors

Managers and technical staff are expected to write proposals, obtain input from

subcontractors, prepare cost estimates, articulate the risk factors and countermeasures toupper management, and execute the awarded project on schedule and within budget

and engineers, specialty subcontractors, an increased emphasis on timely data evaluation,and the ability to expedite changes in a safe and controlled manner

anticipate, perform, and document scope adjustments during field execution

fewer project team staff; in turn, fewer staff have expanded responsibilities such as healthand safety and quality control

on subcontractors Many subcontractors do not pay close attention to the statement of work,lack expertise in quality control, and must be controlled

Customer QA Representative as “a second set of eyes” to make sure contract requirementsare met, field staff are adhering to project plans and procedures, nonconforming materialsare rejected, reports are reviewed, etc

provide early recognition and timely communication of issues including recommendedoptions Otherwise, they may be labelled as “reactive” by the customer

that contract performance and results meet requirements Otherwise, payments may bedelayed or invoices may be marked down

envision using collaborative project websites to manage their project tasks, deliverables,and records Now project teams routinely develop and use websites without assistance fromInformation Technology specialists This is a disruptive change to managers and

professionals who prefer collaboration by e-mail

challenges listed above, the Contractor Project Manager must run a safe project, and meetthe targeted (“as-bid”) profit margin Winning repeat business substantiates customersatisfaction

These challenges reflect a maturing industry with stronger competition and higher risk.Environmental project teams are now tasked with a broader range of responsibilities with lessstaff As recent as 5 years ago, project teams had dedicated Superintendents, Project ControlsEngineers, Project Quality Control Representatives, Project Health and Safety Officers, andProject Accountants Most Project Managers would also claim they had more technical supportand more administrative assistants to help prepare and manage documents and records.Environmental Restoration Project Manager, Inc.

If you are an ER Company Inc employee who supports several Project Managers, and want toget a good laugh, ask a PM, “How are things going at (PM’s Last Name), Inc.” Most times youwill be greeted with a smile and laugh because that is how they usually feel They are 100%responsible and accountable for their project team success, and winning follow-up projects.Most PMs would rather have it this way PMs prevail by thinking and acting like small businessowners, and helping their customers meet project objectives If they are not thinking like smallbusiness owners, they need to be

Chapter topics selected for this book target ER Project Manager, Inc., and project teamprofessionals The Project Manager cannot do it all Their professional staff need to broadentheir skills For example, in baseball, a five-tool player is one who excels at the following:(1) hitting for average, (2) hitting for power, (3) base running skills and speed, (4) throwingability, and (5) fielding abilities Professional baseball players rarely excel at all five.Consequently, five-tool players are highly valued free agents The same applies for ERprofessionals A skill deficiency relative to any chapter topic will decrease your value to ERproject teams PM, Inc needs someone to provide support on each skill Why not you? Do notlimit your utilization opportunities and ER career to being a two- or three-tool player.Fewer tools cause lower labour utilization Lower labour utilization means your name will be

on the project or Company furlough list when times get tough Seize the opportunity to increaseyour value by broadening your skills because you never know when you might need to become

a free agent But if you do, you want your professional resume to appeal to the growingmarket of PM Inc.’s who are competing to attract and retain talented project team members.This book summarizes a series of best practices based on lessons learned that will help Contractorproject teams continuously improve competitiveness and performance on ER projects

Chapter Overviews

Chapter 2: Understand Your Government Client Business Model

Each Government Environmental Restoration (ER) Service Provider conducts business

differently, even within the same agency This chapter provides guidelines for profiling andunderstanding the Government ER Service Provider business model, which dictates

“How we conduct business” or “How Contractors are expected conduct business with us”.The Environmental Restoration (ER) Service Provider Business Model and cultural characteristics

flow down into Contractor processes Contractor Project Managers and teams need to

understand the Government ER Service Provider business model in order to become betterconsultants Each Government Environmental Restoration (ER) Service Provider business modelinfluences how Contractor project teams tailor and implement best practices described inChapters 3 through 10

Chapter 3: Implement a Flexible Environmental Quality Management System

ER Contractors must establish and implement a flexible environmental quality managementsystem (EQMS) to adapt to specific Government ER contract types and special initiatives such

as performance-based contracts The Company quality manual should be based on ISO-14001,Environmental Management Systems (EMS), but should be referred to as the Company

“EQMS” in proposals and literature ISO-14001 provides an ideal framework for effectivelyimplementing performance-based contracts, and adapting to evolving Government ERprogramme contract requirements

Quality plans for performance-based contracts must integrate into the Government’s

performance assessment and evaluation cycle Contractor project teams implement workprocesses, Functional Inspection Plans, process improvements and a Monthly QC Reportprocess that demonstrates Performance Work Statement (PWS) requirements and performancestandards are being met Contractors are responsible for providing the Government withdefensible objective evidence to substantiate higher performance evaluations and award ofcontract incentives

Chapter 4: Develop and Utilize User-Friendly Project Websites

In just 15 years, from 1995 to 2010, information technology has completely transformedthe way the Government and ER project teams communicate, develop, and manage

information E-mail was a breakthrough in collaboration Now Microsoft SharePoint projectwebsites can be rented for as little as 10 USD/month from professional web-hosting companies.Many Project Managers with extensive website experience view a small number of project

Project Correspondence Log for managing contractual communication, are described in thischapter However, the transition to paperless web collaboration is counterproductive toproject teams in the field Their productivity is maximized with a well-organized set oftraditional three ring-binders

Chapter 5: Develop Superior Proposals

The Government transition to Performance-Based Multiple Award Contracts (PB-MACs) hascaused proposal development to become a routine Project Manager and team activity.Contractors mobilize proposal development professionals and expertise to win the Basic

ER Program Contract Then Project Managers and teams are expected to develop superior

project proposals and win projects Many have not received practical training on pre-proposalcapture planning, discriminator development, and proposal writing They might not recognizethe importance of understanding how Government Technical Evaluation Boards scoreproposals Unfortunately, the challenge to develop superior proposals is compounded whenthe Government squeezes Contractors with a 3- to 4-week proposal due date This chapterprovides Project Managers and teams with practical guidelines for developing superiorproposals and includes recommendations for Governments ER Services Providers who seek

to obtain better value and lower Contractor prices

Chapter 6: Develop Superior Project Work Plans

Technical document quality was a major Contractor discriminator opportunity in the 1990s.And it remains near the top of Government ER Service Provider wish-lists today Interviewyour Government ER Service Provider Remedial Project Managers (RPMs) and they willconfirm this fact While Contractors continually strive to differentiate their value proposition

on many proposal factors that have become neutralized in the maturing competitive market,many continue to underestimate the competitive advantage opportunity that exists for technicaldocument quality Your company cannot rise above the competition without a leadershipcommitment, mission, and plan to become the undisputed leader in technical document quality.The chapter provides programme and project teams with guidelines to develop superior projectwork plans and technical documents On most ER projects, technical document quality makesthe first and last impression on your Government ER RPM

Chapter 7: Implement More Rigorous Scope Management Tools

Government ER RPMs value scope flexibility on all ER projects including fixed price,without triggering modifications that increase the total contract value But if ContractorProject Managers and teams struggle to effectively manage scope, their projects willexperience substantial cost overruns The competitive challenge to Project Managers is clear:learn how to maximize flexibility without losing control This must be done at each ERproject phase: proposals, technical approaches, work plans, and field execution Flexibleproject scope management requires Contractor ER programmes and project teams toimplement better scope communication tools and processes to manage scope Tools such asthe project correspondence log, basewide risk register, project risk register, scope register,scope coordination and mutual understanding meeting, and scope variance communicationlog enable proactive scope management and customer satisfaction without loss of control.Chapter 8: Effectively Control Field Work

This chapter describes enhancements to an ER-proven model called the “three phases ofcontrol” for effectively controlling field work The team approach described in this chapter is

which has been used for several decades by the DoD ER Components (this standard can bedownloaded at no cost from the internet) Leaner project teams must implement a streamlinedapproach that engages the multiple team members The Project QC Manager and ProjectManager designate a “Task Leader/QC/Safety Specialist” for each task on the projectschedule This includes high risk support tasks that involve safety, permits, and regulatorycompliance Each task, termed as a “Definable Feature of Work,” represents a three-phaseinspection unit Project managers can break tasks into smaller DFW control units if justified

by task risk and complexity Supervisors can use three phases of control for any task.Chapter 9: Implement Cause Analysis to Generate Solutions

Government organizations can achieve better prices and better value environmentalservices), is an enabling technique for generating solution opportunities in an industry whereflexibility is valued and failures are commonplace The value of cause analysis stands farabove any other process improvement tool Government ER Service Provider RPMs areinherently skeptical of Contractor claims They value risk management, flexibility, andmultiple solution options – all enabled by effective cause analysis Cause analysis willcontinue to be indispensable for major project problems that jeopardize the contract.However, leaders who limit the application to a crisis, or erroneously view cause analysis as

an exhaustive exercise, are failing to capitalize on a major opportunity to improve

performance Cause analysis training offers the best return on investment for any training youcan provide ER Project Managers and teams

Chapter 10: Design User-Friendly Work Processes for Project Teams

User-friendly work processes achieve the following objectives: (1) eliminate narrativeverbiage, (2) maximize the use of visuals, and (3) break the procedure into components toenable flexibility and process improvement Project teams are busy They do not have time

to read procedural verbiage This chapter provides guidelines for designing user-friendlyprocesses and checklists that cause project teams to think Thinking project teams succeed onprojects Doer project teams become complacent, mechanistic, and reactive to problems onprojects Processes must be clearly visible to project team members, not buried within theexcess verbiage of procedure narratives

Understand Your Government Client

Business Model

“Government Client Business Model” This phrase sounds like an oxymoron If your driven” mission is to help your Government Environmental Service Provider clients succeed,you must strive to define, understand, and effectively implement their respective business models.Your service is an extension of their programme policies, goals, installation cleanup plans,and site-specific cleanup objectives But one basic obstacle complicates your learning curve:Most government clients do not acknowledge they have a business model Consequently, itremains a nebulous mystery that is subject to interpretation Contractor best practices cannotachieve their potential without developing and implementing flexible systems and processes thatcan be tailored to each Government Environmental Service Provider’s business model

“customer-This chapter provides guidelines on how to piece-together (i.e profile) a GovernmentEnvironmental Service Provider Business Model Consider constructing a business model foreach targeted Government Environmental Service Provider client Each DoD EnvironmentalRestoration (ER) Service Provider organization implements a unique business model, andevolves their own approach for doing business Although each DoD Environmental Restoration(ER) Service Provider organization shares common higher level DoD values and goals(e.g efficient, protective, and cost-effective site closeouts), they are not required or expected toagree on “how to” specifics For example, the Army, Navy, and Air Force might not share acommon perspective and approach to risk-based site cleanups, scoping site cleanups tomatch land use, and the implementation of life-cycle cost analysis concepts Government RFP’sfor ER contracts assume competing contractors are familiar with how they do business.Business Model Elements

The Government ER Service Provider Business Model is the foundation of Contractorknowledge Multiple Base Cleanup Team Cultures are the next higher level The top level isSite-Specific Intelligence (for individual sites on the base) Collectively, these are shown in

seek an advanced understanding of these elements

For example, Chapter 5, Developing Superior Proposals, describes the importance of

understanding the Base Cleanup Team (BCT) Culture and gathering site-specific intelligence.Base Cleanup Teams operate within the contracting and administrative business model of their

Best Practices for Environmental Project Teams DOI: 10.1016/B978-0-444-53721-8.00002-6

# 2011 Elsevier B.V All rights reserved.

23

parent organization (i.e Government Environmental Service Provider organization).

hopes, fears, and biases

Several top-performing Government Environmental Service Provider Remedial Project Managers(RPMs) operate like successful small business owners who effectively implement the businessmodel They excel at each level Some deliberately approach their projects as if they (as individualland owners) are the Potential Responsible Party for the site They give Contractor project teamsthe impression that every site cleanup dollar being spent is from their own bank account.Contractor Project Manager site-specific intelligence gathering will become increasinglyimportant as Government Environmental Service Provider RPMs increase their use of life-cycleanalysis concepts for scoping, assessing, and reporting sites The importance of conducting life-cycle cost analysis increases once “protectiveness” of human health and the environment isachieved (e.g DoD “Response Complete”) Simply stated, the site is no longer a threat

Response Complete and Site Closeout protective of the limited funding available, or is the complete Site Closeout cost-prohibitive? It is never too early for Government EnvironmentalService Provider RPMs and Contractors Project Managers to begin life-cycle analysis andperiodically assess the economic feasibility of trying to achieve future land use objectives.Constructing the Government ER Service Provider Business ModelEach country and Government ER Service Provider organization develops and implementstheir unique business model, which must be understood by Contractor project teams Forexample, the following 8 business model characteristics apply to the U.S DoD components:

cost-to-Figure 2.1 Business Model Elements.

1 Federal Requirements that establish the basis for Environmental Restoration Program.

the driving force behind the programme, and flow down through component organizations

metrics, (which do not mirror the regulatory process);

4 The U.S Department of Defense, Component-Specific, Environmental Restoration (ER)Service Provider Programme Progress Reports, and Execution Plans;

5 The U.S Department of Defense DoD, Component-Specific, Environmental Restoration(ER) Service Provider guidelines for achieving site closeout;

6 The U.S DoD, Component-Specific, work groups and programme initiatives;

7 The U.S DoD, Component-Specific, management information systems (e.g intranet),software, databases, and processes for conducting business;

8 The U.S DoD, Component-Specific, acquisition strategy and contract vehicle types for

Performance Based Multiple Award Contracts) This also includes acquisition plan andapproach for awarding contracts to Small Businesses

This is not an all-encompassing list Any business model characteristic, which defines

“How we conduct business” or “How Contractors are expected conduct business with us”,

is part of the business model

The eight business model characteristics listed above will be summarized for the Navy (NavalFacilities Engineering Command) They influence how the Navy conducts business, and whatthey expect from Contractors Several basic business model features are not covered in thisexample, such as their organization chart, the role of specialty support organizations forprojects involving radiological and munitions contamination (e.g., Navy Radiological AffairsSupport Office; Naval Sea Systems Command, Naval Ordnance Safety and Security Activity),their internal budgeting cycle, important rules dictating how they classify and obligate contractfunds, etc This business model example will help you develop your own

NAVFAC Environmental Restoration (ER) Service Provider

Business Model

Federal Requirements that Establish Basis for Environmental Restoration ProgrammeDoD conducts cleanup in accordance with the following federal requirements:

Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA)

Source: United States Defense Environmental Program Report to Congress, Fiscal Year 2009,Prepared by the Office of Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition, Technology andLogistics (April 2010).

Programme policies

DoD developed policies and guidance to meet the above federal requirements, including:

Eligibility”

Defense Environmental Restoration Program (DERP)”

Source: United States Defense Environmental Program Report to Congress, Fiscal Year 2009,Prepared by the Office of Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition, Technology andLogistics (April 2010)

The NAVFAC website currently organizes 14 files for Department of Defense Policy andGuidance and 38 files for Department of the Navy (DoN) Policy and Guidance

Navy Environmental Restoration Process and Progress

Reporting Metrics

Each Contractor should understand the site Environmental Restoration Process path andclient progress reporting metrics that apply to the site they are targeting prior to the RFP This isimportant because not all phases or milestones are necessary for each project, and site closeoutcan be achieved at multiple stages throughout the project life cycle

2010), describes the major steps in the Navy ER programme, which encompasses both theInstallation Restoration and Munitions Response programmes In addition to RCRA andCERCLA frameworks, several Department of Navy (DoN) installations conduct remediationprojects under state-led Underground Storage Tank (UST) cleanup programmes State USTprogrammes guide cleanup at most petroleum hydrocarbon-contaminated sites UST

programmes are delegated to the state level, as part of RCRA, and may incorporate

requirements that are more stringent than Federal UST regulation Although RCRA, UST, anda

Throughout FY 2009, 1 October 2008 to 30 September 2009, DoD continued to update the DERP Manual, which will supersede the 2001 Management Guidance for the DERP.

Table 2.1 Major Steps in the Navy ER Programme

Preliminary Assessment (PA) The PA is a brief assessment that uses available historic

information to determine the probability of and possible locations of potentially contaminated areas.

physical inspection of potential sites and, depending

on site type, would include soil, surface water, sediment and/or groundwater sampling.

characterizing the site (including nature and extent of contamination), determining the regulatory requirements, and conducting a baseline risk assessment for human health and the environment.

the FS to identify and analyze the range of remedial actionoptions available at a givensite RPMscanreferto several United States Environmental Protection Agency (U.S EPA) guidance documents associated with preparation of an FS, such as Guidance for Conducting Remedial Investigations and Feasibility Studies under CERCLA, Interim Final (U.S EPA, 1988): http://www.epa.gov/ superfund/policy/remedy/sfremedy/rifs/overview.htm Engineering Evaluation/Cost Analysis (EE/CA) Non-time critical removal actions and interim

remedial measures require completion of a less comprehensive feasibility review called an EE/CA More information can be found in the U.S EPA Guidance on Conducting Non-Time Critical Removal Actions under CERCLA-OSWER Publication 9360.0-32 (1993a).

background information on the site, the preferred remedial approach, and the rationale behind its selection The ROD is completed after a Proposed Plan (PP) has been drafted and released to inform the public and obtain comments on the preferred remedial approach The U.S EPA Guide to Preparing Superfund Proposed Plans, Records of Decision, and Other Remedy Selection Decision Documents provides more detailed information on the recommended outlines and content for PPs, RODs, Explanation of Significant Differences (ESD), and ROD Amendments (U.S EPA, 1998).

An Action Memorandum is the abbreviated form of a decision document for removal actions, except that the ActionMemorandumisonlyrequiredtobesignedbythe installation Commanding Officer, and not by the

regulatory agencies.

Continued

Table 2.1 Major Steps in the Navy ER Programme—Cont’d

An improved ROD is a traditional ROD that provides the full rationale for remedy decision in a concise document through the use of streamlined text, figures, and tables with appropriate references to supporting documentation in the administrative record (AR) The improved ROD must comply with CERCLA and the NCP and follow U.S EPA guidance The distinguishing characteristics of an improved ROD are a consolidated outline, detailed references to

AR documents that substantiate the information presented, and concise text with maximum use of tables and figures, including a graphic CSM, to summarize key information in formats that are easily interpreted by most readers More information on improved RODs is available on the Navy improved ROD Web portal at: http://www.ert2.org/

t2RODPortal/id¼home.

which includes preparation of technical work plans,

drawings, and specifications.

Remedial Action Construction (RA-C) RA-C is the part of the remedial action phase in which

a construction Contractor cleans up the site or builds and installs a remediation system, and demonstrates that the system is functioning as designed.

which indicates that the remedial action has been successfully constructed or implemented, and has been demonstrated to be functioning as designed Remedial Action Operations (RA-O) RA-O is the part of the remedial action phase in which

the ongoing cleanup work takes place, including O&M support and ongoing monitoring to ensure that the system is operating properly and successfully Some sites are cleaned up during the RA-C phase (e.g excavation), and therefore may not require RA-O.

met and the site no longer represents an unacceptable risk to human health and the environment.

following RC to ensure that conditions at the site continue to be protective of human health and the environment This could include additional monitoring, land use controls (LUCs), and 5-year reviews.

use, unlimited exposure (UUUE) and there is no expectation of further funds to be expended at a site.

CERCLA processes for site remediation are similar, the terminologies for each project phaseare different, as shown in Table 2.2 These are not necessarily linear steps–not all phases ormilestones are needed for every project The Navy implements site cleanup metrics based onsite cleanup status.

The Navy uses a “NORM/Cost-to-Complete Database” to prioritize sites and track cleanupprogress Since NORM is a database, it could be included in the business model category fordatabases However, NORM is an internal Navy database and Contractors do not uploadinformation to NORM

Navy Programme Progress Reports and Execution Plans

The Navy publishes programme plans that provide valuable insights into their ER programme,

Transfer Five-Year Program Plan for Environmental Restoration (2010 to 2014) Additionally,the Navy Base Cleanup Teams implement installation-specific execution plans

Navy Guidelines for Achieving Site Closeout

Closeout Process (March 2006) The purpose of this guide is to outline a consistent approachfor Navy Remedial Project Managers (RPMs) to follow in recognizing and documentingspecific milestones for achieving site closeout This guide identifies the particular documentsthat are needed at appropriate stages of the closeout process to record agreements andconcurrence of regulators This guidance addresses closeout documentation requirements forvaried regulatory frameworks, the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation,and Liability Act (CERCLA), the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA), and theUnderground Storage Tanks (UST) Programmes Samples of concurrence letters and Record ofDecision (ROD) language are provided in the appendices to assist RPMs in preparing

Table 2.2 RCRA, UST, and CERCLA Processes for Remediation of Contaminated Sites

Inspection (PA/SI)

Corrective Measures