Prospective contractors have peppered the Energy Department with questions about two requests for proposals issued in February for the Hanford Site in Washington state.
The DOE Office of Environmental Management recently posted 75 questions raised by the contractor community about the potential 10-year, $13 billion Tank Closure Contract. The cleanup office posted another 28 questions and answers pertaining to the Central Plateau Cleanup contract, potentially worth $10 billion over 10 years.
Overall, the questions ran the gamut from clarifying issues in the procurement documents to addressing labor and benefit issues, use of subcontractors, potential conflicts of interest, and timing of task awards.
The Tank Closure Contract would be a follow-on to the $6.3 billion award that AECOM-led Washington River Protection Solutions began working in October 2008. It involves reducing risk posed by 56 million gallons of radioactive and chemical waste in 177 underground tanks at Hanford.
The Central Plateau business covers demolition of the Plutonium Finishing Plant and serving as prime contractor for waste management and environmental remediation near the Columbia River. The work is now handled by Jacobs subsidiary CH2M, which started its $5.8 billion contract in September 2008.
Both companies are working under extensions that expire at the end of September.
Bid proposals on the new contracts are due March 18. They are the first major RFPs to employ DOE’s much-discussed end-state procurement approach, featuring reliance on single-award, indefinite-delivery/indefinite-quantity (IDIQ) contracts.
The new contracting approach could have something to do with all the questions.
One questioner on the Tank Closure Contract sought to clarify when the contract transition is expected to begin. The Energy Department replied it expects the 60-day transition to start on Aug. 2, funded in fiscal 2019 dollars.
On Central Plateau, DOE was questioned whether the amount of high-hazard soils waste tonnage to be removed under one of the task orders is correct. The agency acknowledged the 8,032 tons cited in the procurement documents was incorrect. The revised total is 181.8 tons, or 2,785.9 cubic feet.
