House Nat'l Security Committee ?'s for Record

[Aimee Houghton <aimeeh@igc.org>]

From: Aimee Houghton <aimeeh@igc.org>
Subject: House Nat'l Security Committee ?'s for Record

****** WARNING: THIS IS A VERY LONG FILE ******

Sherri Goodman's Response to House Nat'l Security ?'s For The Record

-------------- Enclosure number 1 ----------------
QUESTION FOR THE RECORD
HOUSE NATIONAL SECURITY COMMITTEE
PROCUREMENT SUBCOMMITTEE
AND
READINESS SUBCOMMITTEE
ENVIRONMENTAL SECURITY PROGRAMS
MARCH 21, 1996

QUESTION NUMBER 1
____________________________________________________________________________

ROCKY MOUNTAIN ARSENAL

 Mr. Bateman: How will the anticipated cost of implementing the Record 
of Decision at the Rocky Mountain Arsenal impact the Army's ability to 
fund other DERA cleanups, including those at formerly used defense sites?

 Ms. Goodman: Funds expended on the Rocky Mountain Arsenal will not be 
available for other program requirements; consequently, implementing the 
Record of Decision may delay cleanups elsewhere and extend the life of 
the Army's cleanup program. It is not anticipated that funding the 
Rocky Mountain Arsenal cleanup will result in the Army's inability to 
perform cleanup requirements that are legally mandated or necessary to 
respond to imminent hazards. However, it may be necessary to 
re-negotiate some cleanup schedules associated with Federal Facility 
Agreements and corrective action permits if the Army's budget requests 
are not fully supported by Congress. Finally, funding of Rocky 
Mountain Arsenal requirements should have little or no impact on 
Formerly Used Defense Sites (FUDS) cleanups, because requirements for
FUDS are separately programmed by the Department of Defense and are 
not included in the budget requests for the Army active sites cleanup 
program.

 QUESTION FOR THE RECORD
 HOUSE NATIONAL SECURITY COMMITTEE
 PROCUREMENT SUBCOMMITTEE
 AND
 READINESS SUBCOMMITTEE
 ENVIRONMENTAL SECURITY PROGRAMS
 MARCH 21, 1996
 
 QUESTION NUMBER 2
________________________________________________________________________

 FFERDC RECOMMENDATIONS

 Mr. Bateman: Representatives of your department have signed on to 
the soon-to-be released Final Report of the Federal Facilities 
Environmental Restoration Dialogue Committee. Among its recommendations 
is a call for full disclosure of discrepancies between field-defined
requirements and budgets proposed up through the military's organizational 
structure. Do you intend to implement this recommendation? Would it 
help if Congress endorsed this approach or modified applicable laws?

 Ms. Goodman: The recommendations in the Final Report of the Federal 
Facilities Environmental Restoration Dialogue Committee (FFERDC) focus 
strongly on building consensus on cleanup priorities and budgets at 
early stages of the budget process at the local installation level. 
The Committee believes that if the regulators and other stakeholders 
have made a good faith effort but have not succeeded in accommodating 
federal fiscal constraints in setting cleanup priorities, Executive 
Branch decision makers should request full funding. The process 
endorses full disclosure of any discrepancy between OMB budget targets 
and the funding needed to meet an agency's cleanup obligations. The 
Committee believes the Executive Branch should make every effort to 
prevent such a discrepancy. 
 The Department of Defense intends to implement the recommendations 
of the FFERDC Final Report through policy issued by DUSD(ES) and the 
Components. Our principal focus will be to use the relative risk 
approach for sequencing work in conjunction with legal commitments
and to plan and balance programs within a set of fiscally constrained 
criteria. Stable funding with devolvement will allow the Components to 
make funding choices since they will have responsibility, 
accountability and funding for their environmental restoration programs. 
If the Components identify shortfalls to meet legal agreements in their 
budget submissions to OSD, OSD's policy is to address funding through 
the normal budgeting process, to include asking the Components to 
identify offsets for any shortfalls.
 The Department of Defense is moving forward on the recommendations 
in the final report and modification of existing laws or Congressional 
endorsement is not necessary for our implementation of this approach. 
However, Congressional support of stable funding would help reduce 
concerns about DoD's restoration budget.

 QUESTION FOR THE RECORD
 HOUSE NATIONAL SECURITY COMMITTEE
 PROCUREMENT SUBCOMMITTEE
 AND 
 READINESS SUBCOMMITTEE
 ENVIRONMENTAL SECURITY PROGRAMS
 MARCH 21, 1996
 
 QUESTION NUMBER 3

________________________________________________________________________

 DOD RANGE RULE

 Mr. Bateman: The Defense Department is proposing to identify and 
develop presumptive responses for all domestic closed, transferred, and 
transferring military munitions ranges. How many properties is that 
likely to cover, and what acreage? Using current, proven technology,
what is the likely range of costs for such a program?

 Ms. Goodman: First, let me define what is meant by "presumptive 
response." We used this term in the February 20, 1996 draft of the DoD 
Range Rule. A "presumptive response" will be an interim, safety based 
measure designed to minimize the explosives safety risk to the public
and to any installation employees until a final determination is made on 
end-use and response measures. This interim measure would receive 
periodic recurring reviews to determine if it is still protective. For 
example, a presumptive response could involve controlling access to the 
site by installing a fence after a surface sweep. Following 
implementation of the presumptive response, additional evaluations will 
be carried out. These could include an evaluation of the technical
feasibility of further remedial actions, a site specific risk assessment, 
and a site specific response evaluation. The intended end-use of the 
property would be considered during these subsequent steps, and the 
public and the regulators will be fully involved during the process.
 The preliminary estimate for the number of properties that may be 
covered by presumptive responses is about 1300 sites (ranges), 
including formerly used Defense sites known or suspected to have 
unexploded ordnance (UXO). The size of these sites vary from a few 
acres to thousands of acres, with an estimated total of about 7.5 
million acres. 
 It is premature to establish a cost for the Range Rule because we have 
not yet determined which exact sites of those in the preliminary 
inventory would be subject to the requirements of the Rule. Although a 
cost impact analysis is being developed as part of the rulemaking process, 
the results are not available yet. Once the Range Rule is finalized, 
we will be better able to track requirements for its implementation. 

 QUESTION FOR THE RECORD
 HOUSE NATIONAL SECURITY COMMITTEE
 PROCUREMENT SUBCOMMITTEE
 AND
 READINESS SUBCOMMITTEE
 ENVIRONMENTAL SECURITY PROGRAMS
 MARCH 21, 1996
 
 QUESTION NUMBER 4
____________________________________________________________________________
 
 INITIATIVES TO STREAMLINE THE CLEANUP PROCESS
 
 Mr. Bateman: We have heard that the Department of Defense has 
sponsored or is taking part in numerous initiatives designed to respond 
the national frustration over the high cost and slow pace of cleanup. 
Could you describe some of those efforts, including but not limited to: 
a) The Air Combat Command's Streamlined Oversight project (piloted at 
Langley Air Force Base in Virginia); b) the Western Governors 
Association's Interstate Technology and Regulatory Cooperation Working 
Group; and c) the California Military Environmental Coordination
Committee's "Efficiency in Sampling" process action team.
 Ms. Goodman: (a) "Variable Oversight" is a partnering effort 
involving Headquarters Air Combat Command, Langley AFB, Region III EPA, 
State of Virginia environmental regulators, and the community through 
the Restoration Advisory Board (RAB). Earlier agreements focused
on data-gathering requirements and methods. All sites requiring 
environmental cleanup were reviewed and assessed to determine the 
appropriate level of regulatory oversight. The variable oversight 
partners realized, however, that not every site presents the same risk 
to health or the environment, nor do they necessarily present a similar 
level of complexity. Consequently, under variable oversight, 
regulatory effort is targeted at priority high-concern sites and those 
requiring complex or innovative cleanup actions. This initiative is 
expected to reduce the time needed to institute cleanup actions at 
Langley AFB by 60%, and to reduce the cost by 10%. Air Combat
Command is beginning a training course this summer to help other 
installations implement this initiative.
 (b) The Interstate Technology and Regulatory Cooperation workgroup 
was formed in December 1994 as a subgroup of the Federal Advisory 
Committee to Develop Innovative On-site Technologies (DOIT). The 
workgroup is made up of representatives of 22 states, tribal and
public stakeholders, industry, and federal agencies. The focus of the 
workgroup has been on increasing interstate cooperation in the testing, 
demonstration, evaluation, verification and deployment of innovative 
environmental technologies. Agreements, protocols, and procedures
have been established for interstate transfer and acceptance of data 
related to the performance and cost of demonstrated technologies. This 
cooperation eliminates repetitive efforts to gain acceptance of 
innovative technologies that are more effective, cost less, or faster 
than traditional cleanups.
 (c) In response to the demand for efficiencies in the cleanup 
process, the California Military Environmental Coordination Committee 
prepared a Remedial Project Manager's (RPM's) guidance document 
entitled "Field Analytical Measurement Technologies, Applications
and Selection." The purpose of the document is to promote the 
application of field analytical measurement technologies to reduce the 
cost and time of cleanups by reducing the need for laboratory analysis 
and mobilization of equipment and contractors. Initial applications 
of this innovative approach are being used at closing bases to expedite 
base closure, as well as at active installations. Based on trial 
experience in California, DoD will determine whether the guidance
has national application. The process action team that prepared the 
document included representatives from DOD, DOE, EPA Region 9, State of 
California regulatory agencies, and industry.

 QUESTION FOR THE RECORD
 HOUSE NATIONAL SECURITY COMMITTEE
 PROCUREMENT SUBCOMMITTEE
 AND
 READINESS SUBCOMMITTEE
 ENVIRONMENTAL SECURITY PROGRAMS
 MARCH 21, 1996
 
 QUESTION NUMBER 5
______________________________________________________________________________

 PROGRESS IN ESTABLISHING RESTORATION ADVISORY BOARDS

 Mr. Bateman: Please summarize your progress in establishing 
Restoration Advisory Boards. How many are in place, by region, state, 
and Defense Component?

 Ms. Goodman: The Department is pleased to report that as of September 
30, 1995, 251 installations were participating in Restoration Advisory 
Boards (RABs). The following tables provide breakouts by DoD 
Component and EPA Region. Several DoD installations that are located 
in close proximity to one another have decided to form joint RABs; as 
a result, the number of RABs formed is 221. On March 11, 1996, DoD 
provided the Restoration Advisory Board Report to Congress for Fiscal 
Year 1995. It describes DoD progress toward establishing RABs and 
details how RABs have contributed to the cleanup process.

Installations Participating in a RAB

DoD Component Number Participating 

Army 28
National Guard Bureau 1
Navy 101
Marine Corps 3
Air Force 107
Defense Logistics Agency 5
Formerly Used Defense Sites 6

TOTAL 251

Table Attached
[Note: I have not attached the table in this electronic version. 
If you would like the table, please notify me and I will fax it to you 
directly.]

 QUESTION FOR THE RECORD
 HOUSE NATIONAL SECURITY COMMITTEE
 PROCUREMENT SUBCOMMITTEE
 AND
 READINESS SUBCOMMITTEE
 ENVIRONMENTAL SECURITY PROGRAMS
 MARCH 21, 1996
 
 QUESTION NUMBER 6
______________________________________________________________________________

DEFENSE AND STATE MEMORANDUM OF AGREEMENT (DSMOA) PROGRAM

Mr. Bateman: You are on the record opposing cuts in the Defense 
State Memorandum of Agreement program. What has been/is likely to be 
the impact of such cuts?

Ms. Goodman: We expect that beginning later this fiscal year we will 
experience one or more of the following:

 * State and territorial technical support slowed.
 * Remedial action design, and construction, and initial operations 
 delayed.
 * State participation in Restoration Advisory Boards reduced or 
 curtailed.
 * Partnering and the trust that has been established between the 
 states and the Military Departments jeopardized.
 * Near-term budgeting by states and territories disrupted. States 
 and territories need to plan for their resource needs at least a 
 year ahead. This situation could result in:
 - Loss of important institutional knowledge and a weakening of 
 existing partnerships with the Military Departments due to 
 transfer of state personnel to other programs where adequate 
 funds are in-place; and 
 - Termination of DSMOAs.
 I. Program costs to the Military Departments increased. States 
 may withdraw from DSMOA and resort to enforcement and litigation or 
 to a cost-recovery system to recoup costs for regulatory support. 
 These less than desirable alternatives to cooperative decision making
 would likely delay cleanup and could increase oversight costs by as 
 much as 25 percent.

 QUESTION FOR THE RECORD
 HOUSE NATIONAL SECURITY COMMITTEE
 PROCUREMENT SUBCOMMITTEE
 AND
 READINESS SUBCOMMITTEE
 ENVIRONMENTAL SECURITY PROGRAMS
 MARCH 21, 1996
 
 QUESTION NUMBER 7
____________________________________________________________________________
 
LEGAL OBLIGATIONS AND DEFENSE AND STATE MEMORANDUM OF AGREEMENT
 FUNDING
 
 Mr. Bateman: In FY96 DoD requested $1.622 billion for DERA. 
Congress appropriated $1.411 billion, $211 million below the amount the 
Defense Department and the Administration said was needed to meet 
minimal legal obligations and undertake an adequate cleanup including
minimal new technology development.
 The estimated DERA request for FY97 is aggregate $1.333 billion. 
With requested funding for FY97 almost $300 million below that 
requested for FY96, what is DoD doing to guarantee that reduced DERA 
funding does not affect agreements made with the states under the Defense
State Memorandum of Agreement and other obligations?

 Ms. Goodman: The decrease in the FY97 budget request for DERA results 
partly from shifting funds to the Base Realignment and Closure (BRAC) 
account for BRAC 95 bases. The Department is constantly striving to 
maximize environmental restoration efficiency. However, reductions in 
funding do not reduce the amount of work or associated cost required to 
meet legal obligations. It simply takes longer to meet legal obligations; 
potential exposure to environmental contamination is prolonged; and 
overall costs may actually increase due to inefficiencies resulting
from funding reductions.
 Decreases in the FY96 funding, combined with the impact of reductions 
in prior years, slow the process and delay final completion of the 
cleanup program. Some sites will receive less funding than previously 
planned and others will be delayed to future years. In some cases projects
at high relative risk sites scheduled for award in late FY96 were shifted 
to FY97. Also, projects that included medium and low risk sites were 
deferred. 
 The Military Departments are working with state and federal regulators 
in several states to adjust schedules and delay work at sites where 
environmental commitments had previously been made. The Military 
Departments are emphasizing the results of the relative risk analyses
completed in FY 1995 and seeking relief on low relative risk sites in 
most cases. Commitments of all types are being reviewed. We 
anticipate that the use of the relative risk model, combined with
this review of commitments, will allow us to execute within the funds 
available and still provide protection of human health and the environment.
 The Military Departments are also working to renegotiate commitments 
made at Third Party Sites where they are just one of the responsible 
parties paying for the cleanup actions. These sites present a unique 
problem because the work is not controlled by DOD people and the
commitments were made several years ago when the cleanup budget was 
expected to be much larger than it is today. With the significant 
reduction in the overall cleanup program, Third Party Sites commitments 
are being evaluated in the same manner as sites on our installations.
 Our FY 1997 DERA budget request includes sufficient funds to meet 
requirements in our legal agreements. Note that funding for cleanup at 
bases that were included in the fourth round of BRAC are now budgeted 
in that account. The Military Departments are following DOD guidance
to implement relative risk within the context of legal agreements. 
Relative risk provides a basis for dialogue with regulatory agencies 
and public stakeholders on sequencing work at installations,
recognizing that there are not sufficient funds available to fund all 
requirements in the same year. The relative risk approach provides for 
a structured approach and provides discipline in executing our program 
by focusing on "worst first."
 The Defense and State Memorandum of Agreement (DSMOA) and Cooperative 
Agreement (CA) Program was developed to enhance state and territory 
involvement in the cleanup of DoD installations, specifically through 
the environmental restoration and BRAC programs. It is a valuable tool 
for DoD. However, in order for this tool to be effective the DSMOA and CA
program must be adequately funded and not restricted by caps that are 
not related to the work effort. A basic premise of the DSMOA program 
is that states and territories are reimbursed for services they provide 
in support of DoD restoration activities. In addition to fostering 
improved relations between the states or territories and DoD, this 
program supports the DoD-wide goals of achieving more efficient cleanup 
and developing new partnerships to address environmental restoration 
problems specific to or typical at DoD sites. 
 A limitation in the National Defense Authorization Act For Fiscal Year 
1996 placed a ceiling on funds available for reimbursement under the 
DSMOA Program in FY96. Conference Report language in Section 321 of 
the Act limits reimbursable agreements to $10 million in FY96, subject
to increase, however, upon certification by the Secretary of Defense to 
Congress that a higher limit is essential. The Department is in the 
process of certifying to Congress that $10.9 million from DERA funds 
already appropriated will be needed for the DSMOA Program in FY96.
 We are working to build long-term relationships with our stakeholders. 
With the prospect for stable funding, we are building a schedule to 
complete our entire program, based on reducing risk to public health 
and the environment. DoD is committed to completing cleanup at all sites 
that pose a threat to human health and the environment. A stabilized 
funding approach is the best way to demonstrate this commitment, making 
the relative risk approach more acceptable.

 QUESTIONS FOR THE RECORD
 HOUSE NATIONAL SECURITY COMMITTEE
 PROCUREMENT SUBCOMMITTEE 
 AND
 READINESS SUBCOMMITTEE
 ENVIRONMENTAL SECURITY PROGRAMS
 MARCH 21, 1996
 
 QUESTION NUMBER 8
_____________________________________________________________________________

 PLANS FOR DEVOLVEMENT

 Mr. Bateman: In the planning for devolvement how will DOD and the 
service branches insure that there is stakeholder input into the 
process? What are the plans for making the report on devolution public?

 Ms. Goodman: Devolvement is a change in account structure internal to 
the Department of Defense. Full integration of the environmental 
restoration program into the planning, programming, and budgeting 
system (PPBS) at the Component level will bring the institutional
checks and balances of that system to bear. Including environmental 
restoration in Component program and budget reviews will allow 
restoration requirements to compete with other mission requirements, 
improve the planning and execution of the restoration program and lead 
to broader support within each Department for environmental restoration 
needs. Components build their plans for execution of the program based 
on goals to reduce risk to human health and the environment and to meet 
legal requirements. 
 Other stakeholders, in addition to regulators, are now deeply involved 
in the process to cleanup military installations. Restoration Advisory 
Boards (RABs) are an integral part of the program. A RAB is a group 
comprised of DoD, regulators, and community members formed to act as a 
forum for discussion and exchange of information between agencies and 
the community and to provide an opportunity to review progress with 
decisionmakers at DoD installations. RABs are involved in reviewing 
and commenting on relative risk site evaluations and other
program factors that are used to develop restoration program requirements.
 The Devolvement Report has been submitted to Congress and is available 
as a public document. It is also being added to our Home Page so it 
will be available to individuals with Internet capabilities.

 QUESTION FOR THE RECORD
 HOUSE NATIONAL SECURITY COMMITTEE
 PROCUREMENT SUBCOMMITTEE
 AND
 READINESS SUBCOMMITTEE
 ENVIRONMENTAL SECURITY PROGRAMS
 MARCH 21, 1996
 
 QUESTION NUMBER 9
____________________________________________________________________________
 
 FENCED DERA APPROPRIATION
 
 Mr. Bateman: This year an attempt was made to transfer funds 
allocated for DERA to funds for the Bosnia mission. Will DOD guarantee 
that, given the reduced budget for environmental restoration, there 
will be no further attempts to "take down the fences" that currently protect
DERA appropriations?

 Ms. Goodman: The Department has never permitted DERA funds to be used 
to pay for other than environmental cleanup activities, nor have we 
proposed reprogramming those funds for other purposes. On one 
occasion, however, Congress rescinded $300 million (Public Law 104-6 of
April 10, 1995) from the FY 1995 Environmental Restoration, Defense 
appropriation to provide emergency supplemental funding "to preserve 
and enhance the military readiness of the Department of Defense for the 
fiscal year ending September 30, 1995, and for other purposes." 
DoD strongly supports a fenced account in the year of execution to 
ensure that the level of funding Congress authorizes and appropriates 
for DERA is spent only on environmental cleanup.

 QUESTIONS FOR THE RECORD
 HOUSE NATIONAL SECURITY COMMITTEE
 PROCUREMENT SUBCOMMITTEE
 AND
 READINESS SUBCOMMITTEE
 ENVIRONMENTAL SECURITY PROGRAMS
 MARCH 21, 1996
 
 QUESTION NUMBER 10
________________________________________________________________________

 EFFECTS OF DEVOLVEMENT ON CLEANUP

 Mr. Bateman: DOD has gone ahead with its plan to devolve DERA 
appropriations for FY97, in advance of the report requested by the 
Authorization bill. What has been the effect of devolvement so far 
this year? What will the effects of devolvement be on the future of the
cleanup?

 Ms. Goodman: The Military Departments have incorporated the 
environmental restoration requirements into the Planning, Programming 
and Budgeting System (PPBS) process, DoD's internal development and 
review process. The FY97 President's Budget has been developed in a
devolved environment. 
 With devolvement, the responsibility, accountability, and funding all 
lie with the individual Components. Each Component evaluates whether 
there is sufficient funding to support cleanup based on relative risk, 
or to meet the commitments in signed legal agreements with regulators. 
The primary benefit of devolvement is that it will bring to bear all of 
the institutional controls of DoD's internal budget development and 
review process. We expect more rigor to be applied into the 
development and assembly of the program and budget.
 ODUSD(ES) will continue to provide active oversight to the program 
through policy making, goal setting, and performance measurement 
leading to a consistent program appropriately sized to deal with the 
environmental restoration problems resulting from past activities.


 QUESTION FOR THE RECORD
 HOUSE NATIONAL SECURITY COMMITTEE
 PROCUREMENT SUBCOMMITTEE
 AND
 READINESS SUBCOMMITTEE
 ENVIRONMENTAL SECURITY PROGRAMS
 MARCH 21, 1996
 
 QUESTION NUMBER 11
____________________________________________________________________________
 
 FORMERLY USED DEFENSE SITES
 
 Mr. Bateman: The FY97 budget states that responsibility for 
environmental restoration at Formerly Used Defense Sites has been 
changed from the Army to the DoD. Why was this shift made and what 
does it mean?

 Ms. Goodman: The responsibility for the Formerly Used Defense Sites 
(FUDS) Program has always been and will continue to be the 
responsibility of DoD. The Army is our "Executive Agent" for the 
Program and the Army has assigned the Corps of Engineers responsibility 
for execution of the Program. All of this remains the same under the 
FY 1997 budget. 

 QUESTION FOR THE RECORD
 HOUSE NATIONAL SECURITY COMMITTEE
 PROCUREMENT SUBCOMMITTEE
 AND 
 READINESS SUBCOMMITTEE
 ENVIRONMENTAL SECURITY PROGRAMS
 MARCH 21, 1996
 
 QUESTION NUMBER 12
_____________________________________________________________________________
 
 IMPLEMENTING FEDERAL FACILITIES ENVIRONMENTAL RESTORATION
 DIALOGUE COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS

 Mr. Bateman: What is the schedule and how does DoD plan to 
institutionalize the Consensus Recommendations and Principles for 
Improving Federal Facilities Cleanup developed by the Federal 
Facilities Restoration Dialogue Committee?

 Ms. Goodman: DoD strongly supports the fourteen Principles for 
Environmental Cleanup of Federal Facilities. I believe that we are 
already adhering to them in carrying out the restoration program. For 
example, Principle 9--Consideration of Human Health and Environmental 
Risk in Cleanup Decision Making, is a long-standing tenet of our 
program. The committee recommendations regarding advisory boards have 
largely been implemented. We recognize, however, that we may need to 
develop supplemental guidance in areas such as advisory board
education and training and capacity building for stakeholders to 
ensure that the DoD Components are operating consistently. A Technical 
Assistance for Public Participation rule is now being developed by a 
DoD/EPA working group to provide funding to community members of
Restoration Advisory Boards. Other committee recommendations, such as 
those regarding funding and priority setting, will require implementing 
guidance. We will work with the DoD Components to develop it. Because 
Army, Navy, and Air Force representatives were involved in developing 
the final report recommendations, I expect DoD to be able to make rapid 
progress. We would anticipate including these new procedures in the 
Defense Environmental Restoration Program Management Guidance, due 
later this year.

 QUESTION FOR THE RECORD
 HOUSE NATIONAL SECURITY COMMITTEE
 PROCUREMENT SUBCOMMITTEE
 AND
 READINESS SUBCOMMITTEE
 ENVIRONMENTAL SECURITY PROGRAMS
 MARCH 21, 1996
 
 QUESTION NUMBER 13
____________________________________________________________________________
 
 FEDERAL ACQUISITION STREAMLINING ACT
 
 Mr. Bateman: Section 1004 of the Federal Acquisition Streamlining 
Act of 1994 created a statutory preference scheme for making multiple 
awards of delivery order contracts and subsequent competition of 
individual tasks or delivery orders. What impact has this preference
for multiple awards had on environmental contracting within the 
Department of Defense?

 Ms. Goodman: Subpart 16.5 of the Federal Acquisition Regulations 
(FAR) implements Section 1004 of the FASA and expresses a preference 
for multiple awards when using indefinite-quantity contracts. FAR 
Subpart 16.504(c)(1) states further that multiple awards should not be 
made is one or more of six circumstances apply.
 Contracting officers are expected to exercise sound business judgement 
and use full flexibility the FAR provides when awarding contracts for 
environmental remediation.
 The multiple award method of contracting can be advantageous when 
acquiring products or services because there is a capable contractor 
available if the selected contractor cannot perform. No resolicitation 
is necessary and time and money are saved. Subsequent competition of 
individual trask or delivery orders can also be advantageous in terms 
of getting best price. These "competitions" are very limited in 
nature. They are not formal competitions subject to the rigors of FAR, 
nor are they subject to formal protest by the bidders. This limited 
competition costs very little in terms of time. Program managers may 
be required to put in a little more effort up front under a multiple 
award method, but it should result in better value overall.

 These are times when multiple award contracting is not advantageous. 
Because of the nature of environmental remediation, with its 
uncertainties and potentially staggering fines for noncompliance, 
contracting officers must determine, on a case-by-case basis, the 
appropriate contracting method suited to each individual set of 
circumstances. The Army, Navy and Air Force all feel that FAR 
Subpart 16.504(c)(1) provides adequate flexibility for their 
environmental remediation contracts within the multiple award 
requirement.