The Department of Energy would do well to reduce the number of cleanup contractors at the Hanford Site in Washington state, according to the Hanford Advisory Board. It prepared advice at its June 9 meeting intended to help DOE provide the best value for taxpayers, improve workforce safety, reduce workforce stress due to contract changes, nurture small business, and support the community. The advice was sent to DOE in a letter, and the department is expected to send the board a letter in response.
Department officials at Hanford are preparing requests for proposals for a number of contracts for cleanup of the former plutonium production site. The tank farm contract held by Washington River Protection Solutions will expire in September 2018 if it is granted a final two-year extension as expected. CH2M Plateau Remediation’s contract for Central Plateau cleanup also is set to expire at the end of fiscal 2018 and Mission Support Alliance’s contract for site-wide support services should expire a year later.
The advisory board recommended that the infrastructure scope now assigned to Mission Support Alliance and the remaining river corridor scope under Washington Closure Hanford be combined into the central Hanford contract. Washington Closure’s contract expires at the end of this fiscal year and CH2M already is expected to pick up its remaining work. The board’s proposal would reduce the number of prime contracts under the Richland Operations Office by two. Some board members also were interested in combining the tank farm contract into the central Hanford contract, but an act of Congress requires that work to be kept separate under the Office of River Protection. Fewer senior management structures and consolidated administrative costs would save money, the board said. There also would be better integration of site activities and more consistency in engineering, safety, and training practices, it said.
The board failed to reach consensus on a proposal to allow contracts to be extended up to 20 years rather than the current standard of 10 years for cleanup projects. But the letter to DOE still said that increasing the potential for contract duration would have several advantages. “In my history of 30 years out on the reservation, the biggest, most costly deterrent to progress on cleanup is contract change,” said board member Jerry Peltier.
Each new contractor needs several months to get up to speed, the board said. Fewer transitions would reduce stress on employees and their families caused by job uncertainty. If contracts lasted longer, contractors would be more willing to take up new technologies with longer-term payoffs, such as technologies to clean up the deep soil contamination in central Hanford. Longer contracts also would reduce the strain on DOE and contractor resources, particularly as 16 prime contracts across the DOE complex are up for bid between now and 2018, the board said. The advisory panel also recommended a fixed-price payment for the transition period between old and new contractors to encourage a short transition based on a detailed plan. A shorter transition period also would reduce uncertainty for workers.
Hanford contractors have not always treated small business subcontractors fairly, the board said. Prime contractors at times failed to pay subcontractors promptly and have issued fixed-price contracts and then not reimbursed subcontractors for design changes, it said. Prime contractors also have bid small work scopes rather than multiyear subcontracts that would allow small businesses to invest in the projects, the board said. It recommended that DOE specify that contract payments would not be authorized if small business subcontract payments are not current. Contractors should be required to submit plans for small business subcontracting to be evaluated in their bid packages, the board said.
Previous DOE requests for proposals have asked contractors to define how they would help the communities they join. “This included a substantial amount of contract allowable community support costs,” the board’s letter of advice said. “This practice has faded since it reduced the money for cleanup, yet the communities are still in close proximity to the current site risks and are impacted by the strains on the infrastructure.” Current contractors do not invest enough money in Hanford-area communities given the lucrative fees they collect, the board said. A credit of 3 to 5 percent in the evaluation scores of potential contractors for community commitment would be meaningful in ensuring their support to communities, the board said. Commitments could address needs such as improvements to help with commuting impacts on local roads, education of the future workforce, or economic development.
The board additionally called for strengthening DOE oversight of the contractors by hiring registered professional engineers and certified contract managers who meet or exceed contractor qualifications. Health and safety oversight could be emphasized by requiring that fees be withheld for retaliation against whistleblowers or for violations that create a serious risk to health or the environment. Adding an oral exam to the bid process could provide DOE with a better idea of potential contractors’ commitment to safety as bidders answer questions under pressure about what they would do in different scenarios, the board said. It also recommended that key personnel named in potential contractors’ proposals be required to remain on the job for at least three years.
