A year after the U.S. Energy Department’s Office of Environmental Management initiated its end-state contracting model, confusion remains over exactly what that approach involves, whether leadership is still behind it, and if staff is ready to execute.
These are among the key takeaways Tuesday when DOE’s Environmental Management Advisory Board formally adopted a report on human resources needed to implement the end-state model. The report stresses the need for better communication on the goals and procedures for the contracting approach.
The approach is “to pivot from process-based” 10-year contracts held by a prime contractor toward “more effective utilization of limited funding” to speed nuclear cleanup and reduce risk through more task-oriented and up-to-date work scopes that reflect current environmental conditions, said advisory board member Carol Johnson during the Washington, D.C.-based conference call meeting.
The call provided time for public comments, but none were offered. Johnson co-chaired the subcommittee that drafted the report.
Critics of the traditional DOE procurement system say it has grown stale, with prime contractors winning long-term awards in which the scope of work was often determined years in advance. They say end-state will emphasize an approach in which tasks can be set on a rolling basis, allowing cleanup to better meet current environmental and funding conditions.
The Energy Department’s new model is based around increased use of indefinite-delivery/indefinite-quantity (IDIQ) contracts that the Department of Defense has used extensively. It offers higher fees to provide incentives for vendors to complete remediation faster, while DOE gains additional flexibility in setting milestones as work proceeds.
But at the DOE nuclear cleanup office, there “is not a common understanding” of the end-state approach, according to the report. Agency headquarters, Environmental Management fields offices, contractors, and regulators will all need to understand the program if it is to succeed, the board said.
The end-state contracting model was launched under former Assistant Secretary for Environmental Management Anne Marie White, who resigned under pressure in June. Major contracts at the Hanford Site in Washington state, expected to be awarded in coming months, will be the first crop to implement that approach. “An explicit re-affirmation from EM senior leadership of its continued commitment is important to ensure unity of effort to maintain momentum and deliver the expected benefits,” according to the report.
At the outset of the meeting, DOE Senior Adviser for Environmental Management William (Ike) White cited end-state contracting as an innovative means toward faster remediation of contaminated sites. But the staffing issue is vital, he added.
“No matter how good the idea is, if you don’t have people to implement it, you are only going to get so far,” White said.
As a result of an “aging federal workforce” the DOE is experiencing a number of retirements, and the agency might have to look for ways in which to hire new people faster, according to the report.
In addition, the Environmental Management office must address potential skills gaps in areas such as procurement and contract management, according to the report, which says the Pentagon and the Army Corps of Engineers provide extensive training for contracting officers. Ensuring the necessary expertise is difficult at a time of federal brain drain driven by hiring freezes and the anticipated retirement of many longtime DOE employees in the near future.
Deputy Energy Secretary Dan Brouillette said Thursday he supports the end-state contracting model. Brouillette is the White House nominee to become the new energy secretary once Rick Perry’s previously announced resignation takes effect Dec. 1. Brouillette made the comment Thursday at the conclusion of a two-hour nomination hearing by the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee.
The advisory committee approved the report in a 10-0 vote at the meeting, formally submitting it to Office of Environmental Management leadership. The Federal Advisory Committee Act does not require the Energy Department to formally respond to the board’s recommendations although it typically does, a source said.
ExchangeMonitor Reporter Dan Leone contributed to this article.
