JA FUSRAP_Redacted.pdf

JUSTIFICATION FOR OTHER THAN FULL AND OPEN COMPETITION:

SOLE SOURCE ACQUISITION OF ADDITIONAL TIME AND RESOURCES

TO CONTINUE ON-SITE REMEDIAL SERVICES FOR

THE FORMER DUPONT CHAMBERS WORKS SITE,

DEEPWATER, NEW JERSEY

1. Contracting Agency: The contracting agency responsible for this action is the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE), Philadelphia District, International and Interagency Services/Environmental Programs Branch, 100 Penn Square East Wanamaker Building, Philadelphia, PA 19107.

2. Description of Action: The USACE Philadelphia District requests to issue a modification to contract No. W912BU-17-D-0018, a Single Award Task Order Contract (SATOC) for remediation services at the DuPont Chambers Works (DPCW) Formerly Utilized Sites Remedial Action Program (FUSRAP) Site with Sevenson Environmental Services, Inc. (Sevenson), a small business. The purpose of the modification is to increase the base SATOC capacity by $45,000,000 from $75,000,000 to $120,000,000 and extend the base SATOC ordering period by 24 months, from 9-25-2022 to 9-24-2024. The base SATOC was awarded as a small business set aside with full and open competition among small business. The remediation portion of the SATOC is Cost Plus Fixed Fee (CPFF) although the base SATOC also allows for firm fixed price (FFP) task orders in appropriate circumstances. This action will serve as a bridge contract and will only be utilized until the Multiple Award Environmental Services (MAES) contract award (solicitation number W912BU22R0017) is completed and a task order can be issued from the MAES contract to take over the DPCW FUSRAP work along with sufficient time for preparation of project related documents, mobilization, potential delays and a period for contractor overlap during the transition from Sevenson to the MAES task order awardee at the DPCW FUSRAP site.

3. Description of Supplies/Services: This J&A is to facilitate continuation of remediation services at the DPCW FUSRAP site in support of the USACE Philadelphia District�s requirement without interruption to address residual radioactive contamination at the DPCW site under the FUSRAP program. The current base contract was awarded with a maximum value of $75,000,000 and has a five-year period of performance from 9-26-2017 to 9-25-2022. Upon approval of this J&A, a modification will be accomplished to extend the period of performance by 24 months to end on 9-24-2024 and the base contract capacity will be increased by $45,000,000 to $120,000,000. The $45,000,000 increase in contract capacity is the amount necessary to continue work through the end of 9-24-2024 given the estimated work rate of Sevenson.

The need for 24 months following completion of the base contract on 9-25-22 is based on the following estimates: 5 remaining months of additional time from the end of the Sevenson Contract period of performance to award the MAES contract acquisition already underway (estimated in February 2023), 3 months to award a new task order off of the MAES contract to take over the DPCW FUSRAP work (estimated in May 2023), 10 months for the new contractor for the regulatory closure effort at the project site, which is the former DuPont Chambers Works site. The CONTRACTOR shall be responsible for work that will provide site closure in coordination with USACE for the FUSRAP hazards in accordance with all applicable Federal, State and local regulations. The CONTRACTOR will not be responsible for removal of other potential Hazardous, Toxic and Radioactive Waste (HTRW) contaminants (either on the FUSRAP site or off the FUSRAP site) unless they are mixed with FUSRAP contaminants. The CONTRACTOR shall be responsible for all excavation and disposal costs necessary to remediate this site. The CONTRACTOR shall assume that transportation and disposal of radioactively and chemically contaminated soils will be within the scope of this contract, although the Government may at a later date choose to have the transportation and disposal costs contracted separately.

Refer to Appendix A for a complete copy of the current SATOC scope. In accordance with Task Orders issued within the scope of the DPCW FUSRAP SATOC Sevenson is currently performing numerous critical on-site remediation activities including: (1) the excavation of soil with total uranium concentrations above the remediation goal of 65 picocuries/gram (pCi/g) that also happens to be highly chemically-contaminated; (2) The physical management of excavated material containing non-FUSRAP hazardous substances that are commingled with FUSRAP-eligible contaminants; (3) The transportation of excavated soils by rail to an off-site, permitted disposal facility; (4) The recovery of water and non-aqueous phase liquids from excavation activities; (5) The operation of a complex on-site water treatment facility; (6) a sophisticated monitoring system for air emissions (7) a very comprehensive system for monitoring hazardous chemical exposure by excavation personnel, (8) The performance of final status survey reports to verify that completed remedial action areas meets the soil remediation goal; and (9) The implementation of strict health and safety measures to prevent exposure from hazardous chemical and radioactive emissions emanating from the excavation and temporary storage of contaminated soils. All of these work activities will continue with the award of the J&A along with similar remediation services at the site on any newly discovered contaminants and material until such time as a task order is awarded from the MAES contract and work is transitioned to the new contractor.

4. Authority Cited: The statutory authority permitting the sole sourcing of services is FAR

6.302-1, 10 U.S.C. 3204(a)(1), �Only one responsible source and no other services will satisfy agency requirements�.

5. Reason for Authority Cited: As is further detailed below, the basis for the one responsible source request is a result of the change of conditions at the DPCW FUSRAP site based off the discovery of additional types of contaminants and volume of contaminated soil/groundwater as a result of technological advances and additional site investigations which increased the project complexity, cost, duration, and liability risk to the Government compared to what was originally anticipated. It was originally anticipated that the current SATOC awarded to Sevenson along with subsequent task orders would be able to complete remediation and site clean-up. However, the late discovery of the additional chemical contaminants and FUSRAP material starting around December 2020 and still continuing to this day have made it impossible to complete all work under the existing SATOC and require a new contract to complete remediation work on the DPCW FUSRAP site, which is the MAES contract and subsequent task order under the planned MAES contract currently being procured. These unexpected changes pose significant potential health and safety risks to the public with related Environmental Justice concerns as well as significant financial impacts to the Government if the ongoing remediation activities are halted while waiting for the next contract to be executed. This action is a follow-on contract for the continued provision of highly specialized remediation services and award to any other source would result in substantial duplication of costs to the Government that is not expected to be recovered through competition and also would result in unacceptable delays in fulfilling the agency�s and site owner�s requirements. Both the substantial duplication of costs and unacceptable delays each on its own merits justify this action. It is neither cost-effective nor realistic to expect another contractor to perform remediation during the interim period until a new contract can be awarded. Without continued provision of remediation services, the Government would need to award a �caretaker� O&M contract which would not advance the site remediation, and this alternative is not viable for the reasons discussed previously.

5(a). Background: Under FUSRAP, USACE is cleaning up sites with contamination resulting from the Nation�s early atomic energy program. FUSRAP was initiated in 1974 to identify, investigate and, if necessary, clean up or control sites throughout the United States contaminated from these Manhattan Engineer District (MED) and early Atomic Energy Commission (AEC) activities. Both the MED and the AEC were predecessors of the U.S.

Department of Energy (DOE). Congress transferred administration and execution of FUSRAP cleanups from the DOE to USACE in October 1997, at which time the USACE assumed investigation and remediation responsibilities of the Chambers Works Site from the DOE. This program follows the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA) process which includes the site inspection, Remedial Investigation/Feasibility Study (RI/FS), finalizing a Record of Decision (ROD) to determine a remediation strategy, Remedial Design/Remedial Action (RD/RA), construction completion, and follow-up for potential site reuse and/or redevelopment. This process typically requires many years and sometimes decades to complete. Following completion of the RI/FS and RD/RA phases of work and two to five years of post RA monitoring, site operations and maintenance (O&M) and site responsibility are transferred back to the DOE.

Site Location and History: The site is located within the 680-acre Chambers Works property in Deepwater, New Jersey. The former DPCW property is currently an active chemical manufacturing facility owned and operated by The Chemours Company (formerly operated by E.I. DuPont De Nemours and Company). Operations in the area began in 1892 when a smokeless gunpowder factory was constructed. Since that time, operations at the Site have included the production of dyes, freon, tetraethyl lead, aromatic chemicals, and elastomeric polymers. As a result of the historic activities conducted on-site, the site groundwater and soil are contaminated with organic and inorganic chemical constituents. In addition to the chemical manufacturing, the site was used during World War II for the research and development and production of radiological materials that contributed to the development of the atomic bomb. In detail, from 1942 to 1947, the MED and AEC contracted with DuPont to process uranium compounds and uranium scrap to produce uranium tetrafluoride, uranium hexafluoride, and a small quantity of uranium metal. The MED activities were transferred to the AEC in 1946 and DuPont continued AEC research until late 1947. In 1948 and 1949, AEC conducted radiologic surveys of buildings and surveys and decontamination of building surfaces consistent with the standard practices at the time. After completing these activities, AEC released the buildings back to DuPont in 1949 with no restrictions and MED operations ceased at the site. We now know that after the AEC free release, radioactive contamination still existed in those buildings above the 65 pCi/g cleanup levels. The standard practice at Chambers Works following the conclusion of MED activities was to demolish former buildings and utilize the rubble from the buildings as fill material at many different areas across the site (see Figure 2). The radioactive rubble deposition areas were not thoroughly documented and finding these historical burial areas decades later to properly investigate and remediate has been very challenging.

In January 1997, DuPont filed a lawsuit against various U.S. Government agencies regarding Potentially Responsible Party (PRP) determinations for both radiological FUSRAP and non- FUSRAP contamination at nationwide locations which included the DPCW site. In August 1998, the USACE and DuPont executed a License (Real Estate) Agreement providing access to the DPCW site to perform FUSRAP activities. In October 1998, the USACE and DuPont executed a General Release Agreement removing FUSRAP activities at the DPCW site from DuPont�s nationwide litigation against the government for a cleanup cost recovery for a variety of contaminants alleged to have occurred as a result of government contracts.

Environmental Site Investigations: In addition to the early radiological surveys discussed above that were conducted associated with building demolition activities, the DOE conducted additional radiation surveys and investigations in the 1970s and 1980s. In March 1977, Oak Ridge National Lab (ORNL) on behalf of DOE conducted radiological surveys of the Site and identified elevated concentrations of uranium. At that time, the DPCW site was designated as a FUSRAP site. In 1983, more focused radiological surveys were conducted by Bechtel National, Inc. (BNI) for DOE at six areas. The six areas included: 1) Building J-26 Area; (2) F Corral Parking Area; (3) Building #845 (interior and exterior); (4) East Burial Area; (5) Lagoon A; and

(6) Central Drainage Ditch. Later, the USACE performed a Remedial Investigation which determined that Building J-26 and Lagoon A did not require remediation. Analytical results collected indicated that uranium-238 (U-238) was the major contaminant with concentrations up to 4,380 picocuries per gram (pCi/g). The remaining areas were identified as being above regulatory limits. Subsurface contamination was found at depths greater than 3 meters and the impacts to groundwater could not be quantified. The predominant contaminant of concern identified at that time was U-238, which was present in both soil and groundwater.

Typ

As noted above, the DOE conducted initial environmental investigations, and the USACE took over all environmental studies and investigations when the Site was transferred to USACE from DOE in 1997. After assuming the management and administration of the FUSRAP, USACE initiated site investigations at six Areas of Concern (AOCs) (see Figure 3). USACE organized the AOCs into three Operable Units (OUs) so that a phased investigation could be conducted.

The USACE conducted a significantly more comprehensive Sitewide Remedial Investigation (RI) between 2002 and 2007 and the Final Baseline Risk Assessment and Final Remedial Investigation (RI) Reports were published in 2009 and 2011 respectively. The Feasibility Study (FS) and Proposed Plan were completed in 2012 after regulatory agency review.

Previous RA Work: In October 1997, USACE assumed responsibility for the remediation of the site from the DOE. Between October 1997 and December 2012, USACE conducted the following: disposed of contaminated metals off-site from MED building 845; performed phased multi-media RIs at the three site radiologically-contaminated site OUs to determine the nature and extent of FUSRAP contamination; completed a Baseline Risk Assessment to assess the risk posed to human health and the environment by these materials; conducted post-RI groundwater monitoring in 2012 that indicated the presence of aqueous uranium at lower concentrations than those found during the Sitewide RI; completed an FS, and issued a Proposed Plan (PP) in December 2012. The PP was used to identify the OUs and AOCs plus the preferred remedial alternative, and this document was released for solicitation and incorporation of public comment (see Figure 3).

Current Remedial Action Contractor Accomplishments: Sevenson started on-site RA activities in 2017 and significant progress has been made on-site throughout that period of performance. Since starting work on the project, Sevenson has worked a total of manhours on this project throughout the entire COVID pandemic without one lost work time incident. In Fiscal Year (FY) 2020, Sevenson continued to treat contaminated wastewater from remedial activities and executed on-site soil remediation. Over cubic yards (CY) of material were remediated in AOC1, AOC2, and AOC6. The contaminated material, some of which was hazardous, was transported off-site for disposal. In FY 2021, Sevenson continued remedial activities and removed and disposed over CY of additional FUSRAP-related materials. The wastewater treatment plant has treated 12.5 million gallons of heavily contaminated water from construction activities.

Increased Project Complexity and Remediation Requirements: The scope of on-site remediation work has changed significantly in terms of both complexity and extent of contamination requiring removal leading to a substantial increase in the length of time needed to complete the project. The major factors contributing to increased complexity include the requirement for sheet-pile walls within the SWMU5 area, implementation of increased measures to control fugitive emissions from higher levels of chemical contamination than previously known and increased disposal costs for the thermal remediation of the co-mingled chemical contamination. The unexpected additional chemical contamination has also triggered the requirement for additional personal protective equipment and monitoring for field personnel, higher sampling and analysis costs to characterize chemicals in excavated material, additional measures to safely handle and manage the material on-site, and more extensive wastewater treatment measures. A significant factor impacting the increase in extent of material requiring removal was the unexpected addition of AOC4 for remediation due to a persistently high level of radiological contamination encountered in a monitoring well which led to further investigation and subsequent identification of additional areas in AOC4 that required remediation. Another factor contributing to the increase in the amount of material was a need to consistently excavate to a depth that is even deeper than what was required in AOC6. Supporting activities required to address these scope changes include increases in engineering and design work, permitting and regulatory consulting, and internal USACE labor and expenses. Implementation of measures to work safely throughout the COVID 19 pandemic have also contributed to the already complex situation.

In recent years, the use of new innovative contaminant delineation and digital technologies has improved efficiencies and identified large areas of previously unrecognized radiological contamination throughout the site. The discovery of a significant quantity of additional FUSRAP radiological contamination and the unexpected presence of new comingled highly hazardous non-FUSRAP contamination at much higher levels than previously known to exist on-site has significantly impacted the project schedule and budget.

This material was anticipated to be able to be adequately remediated under the DPCW FUSRAP SATOC and its estimate formed the basis of the current DPCW FUSRAP SATOC. However, since Sevenson has taken over at the site in September 2017, Sevenson has removed of material as of 01-24-2022.

marked changes in excavation techniques including the need for sheeted excavations near the Delaware River that require more time and money in order to conduct the work safely and effectively (see Figure 4).

The original waste profile sampling effort was scoped to test every 4,500 CY of soil for Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) constituents to determine if the soil was hazardous. Given the recent findings and significantly high concentrations of comingled non- FUSRAP contamination found in soils, a new sampling strategy was required that includes alternate methods of handling and separation of soil piles, sampling significantly smaller volumes (400 CY) for RCRA analysis, conducting further tests for a broad spectrum of underlying hazardous constituents, then ascertaining the waste treatment requirements prior to disposal. As a result, the laboratory costs for these analyses have increased significantly from per year. In addition, to appropriately characterize, segregate, and store the hazardous soil separate from the non-hazardous soil, an additional Waste Transfer Facility (WTF) was needed at a cost of and a nearly doubling of manpower cost to operate.

Overall, this new waste management strategy resulted in an additional of cost. In conjunction with this, because of the significant hazardous comingled DuPont contamination, the cost for disposal increased significantly. The additional excavations also led to increased quantities of groundwater and, with it, the need for more groundwater storage tanks, heat tracing and associated costs. An additional cost related to the new transfer facility is the increased volume of hazardous wastewater being collected by the additional waste transfer area. The volume of water requiring treatment from the waste transfer areas has increased more than three times from the previous volume.

Additional unexpected costs incurred throughout the course of this remediation include the following: upgrades of odor and vapor control measures; new trailers due to benzene vapor intrusion into USACE employee work areas and COVID concerns; increase in security to safely and effectively excavate in more secure areas; USACE payments for railroad car movement after DuPont relinquished control of the site to Chemours; the hiring of Chemours-approved electrical subcontractors; site flooding, and repairs associated with the damage caused by flooding. COVID-19 specific costs include the need for additional PPE, increasing trailer sanitization, and abiding by the protocol stating that laborers who are unable to receive Chemours site-specific training must be escorted by an employee that has completed this training, resulting in limited work hours.

The previously referenced innovative contaminant delineation and digital technologies that were not available at the time of the initial Sitewide RI conducted between 2002 and 2007 or the finalization of the ROD in August 2013 which resulted in the identification of additional radiological contamination requiring remediation once they were available and implemented at the site. The contamination was a result of the spreading of radioactive building demolition material following World War II, discussed above, to many different areas across the site. This caused a very heterogeneous, difficult to delineate, distribution of the radiological contaminants which pose risks to human health and ecology that the team is now working to mitigate. This newly discovered contamination has resulted in increased labor costs due to increasing numbers of health and safety personnel and laborers required on-site, as the need for higher levels of PPE tends to increase the time necessary for remediation due to donning, doffing, ensuring adequate breaks for staff, etc.

New Contamination Impacts on Base Contract Weekly Expenditure: Due to different logistical challenges of the newly identified contamination (e.g., high water levels, hazardous soil conditions, etc.), the method of remediation had to change as Sevenson was not able to perform a traditional dig and haul excavation with trenches and open pits; instead, braced excavation techniques including sheet-pile cells are required. As a result, additional engineering design was needed, sheet pile labor crews (dockworkers) and cranes were required, and the process has slowed excavation and restoration. These were not conditions anticipated during the base contract award.

To provide for the ongoing protection of the environment and the safety of the adjacent community and on-site Chemours workers, Sevenson is required to continuously operate the wastewater treatment plant to allow for the timely treatment of the wastewater produced by the RA taken at the Site and that the plant effluent meets the NJDEP permit requirements. It should be noted that much of the plant was built by Sevenson and they have determined how to operate this plant under changing conditions and heavy chemical loads of varying constituents.

5(b). Justification: The requirement for the sole source modification is based upon the fact that continued provision of highly specialized services is imperative since substantial duplication of costs to the Government would be encountered that would not be recovered through competition as well as the unacceptable delays in fulfilling the agency�s immediate requirements until such time as the work can be successfully transitioned to the follow-on contractor. It is neither cost-effective nor realistic to expect another contractor to perform remediation during the brief interim period until a new contract can be awarded; due to start-up costs, phase-in, transfer of Government Furnished Property (GFP), recruitment and staffing of the project. The cost and delays calculations are based on a comparison of the chosen method utilizing this J&A as a bridge contract until a new contract can be awarded along with the costs for a new contractor to mobilize and begin working on site compared to letting the current contract expire, awarding a �caretaker� contract to maintain the current state of the site, and having no active remediation on site until the MAES contract and subsequent task order can be awarded.

As described previously, the on-site remediation work is significantly more complex and extensive than originally known. Once the additional remediation work was discovered that exceed the current SATOC, the MAES contract acquisition which was already underway was identified as the tool to take over the DPCW FUSRAP work, and all FUSRAP work will be transitioned to the MAES contract as soon as possible. The projected 24 month timeline of activities following completion of the current base contract on 9-25-22 includes an 5 months past that date to award the MAES contract (estimated in February 2023), 3 months to award a new task order to take over the DPCW FUSRAP work (estimated in May 2023), 10 months for the new contractor to complete project related documents and mobilize to the site (estimated in March 2024), and a 6-month overlap for contractor transition to ensure proper continuity of critical services (from March to September of 2024). If the transition to the new contractor is completed before the 24 month J&A period expires, the remaining time and contract capacity provided by this J&A will not be used. However, the need to continue remediation services during the J&A period required to award the replacement contract is imperative to the continued operations on the site, to mitigate time and cost impacts to the project and, more importantly, prevent risk or injury to on-site workers (government workers, contractors and on-site Chemours employees) from open excavations and fugitive chemical emissions from excavated and stockpiled material as it is neither cost effective nor realistic to expect another contractor to perform services during this interim period. The original contract currently underway was awarded to the on-site RA contractor, Sevenson, from a competitive small business set aside.

Sevenson will continue to bill the Government at the Fee from their original CPFF contract through the period of performance for their current contract, which extends through 9-25-2022.

Contracting under the J&A will include a similar fee. Current wage rates will be used for all new Task Orders.

Within the realm of safety, Sevenson has gained valuable specific site experience on minimizing dangerous emissions with foaming/misting operations along with excavation and stockpiling strategies. For example, Sevenson uses different foaming agents for different scenarios based on experience at the site. Sevenson has also determined the optimal misting additives to control site odors and vapor. Successfully minimizing and monitoring toxic volatile organic chemical vapors and odors (which are both a nuisance and a health hazard) is a key component to the project since uncontrolled releases of vapors can impact both on-site workers and residents.

Residential exposure to fugitive emissions takes on added significance from an Environmental Justice perspective as a lack of experience from a new contractor or interruptions in services while a new competitive contract was being solicited could yield problems with emissions.

From a cost and interruption in workflow perspective, there are potential increased Waste Water Treatment Plant treatment costs to handle Per and Polyfluoroalkyl Substance (PFAS) contamination in effluent water as a result of rapidly evolving state requirements for surface water (note that PFAS contamination has been identified at the site). There are also potential issues with disposal facilities accepting soil contaminated with PFAS (which is present at the site) in addition to the typical suite of site contaminants due to evolving regulatory requirements for PFAS contamination. Only one facility in the U.S. is currently capable of taking railcars of site waste due to the mix of chemical and radioactive waste. Delays in remediating the site could result in the loss of viable disposal sites due to possible future regulations for PFAS. There will also be additional financial costs to the Government in man hours and resources to bring a new contractor up to speed at the site without this sole source modification.

From a stakeholder�s perspective, delays in project execution would negatively affect the relationship with the current landowner due to a further delay in project completion as well as a delay the date at which the landowner can sell or lease all or part of the property impacted by the Government�s MED program. Note that the landowner previously sued the Government over inaction at this site. That suit was dropped when the USACE actively started working at this site.

The owner could take legal action again if they are not satisfied with the remedial progress at the site. There could also be potential New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection (NJDEP) permit violations in the event that USACE could not self-perform operation of a temporary WWTP during a shutdown, which would negatively impact public confidence in the USACE�s ability to protect human and environmental health. USACE does not have the ability to self-perform these operations. Overall, these delays would create a perception among stakeholders that the Government was unable and/or unwilling to operate this remediation project in an efficient manner that sufficiently protects human and environmental health and minimizes cost to the taxpayer. The caretaker alternative, required to provide for security, limited monitoring for public and site worker health and safety, very minor infrastructure repairs, and responses to site issues after damaging weather events, would result in a delay of at least 15-months to the project as a result of the time needed to award the MAES Task Order and the need for remobilization and startup. The 15 months is based on the anticipation that current funding running out in May 2022 and a 15-month period lasting until August 2023 will be the bare minimum needed for a new contractor to be on site and begin performance. That leaves an estimated 3 months for contractor mobilization after the award of the task order of the MAES in May 2023. This is an expedited period which is not normally in the governments best interest absent extradentary circumstances, and therefore, for purposes of estimating the 24 month contract extension requested in this J&A as a more optimal period was selected. For purposes of this J&A the 15 months were utilized as a basis for estimating the costs to the Government for substantial duplication of costs as that is the minimum that is expected assuming everything is optimal and the new contractor is capable of an expedited mobilization to be on site and fully performing after contract award. Overall, the substantial duplication of costs to the government, based on this 15-month period, which is not expected to be recovered through competition is of the cost of the action as further discussed in section 5(c).

While the financial concerns are important quantifiable justifications, the potential negative impacts from public and client perception problems and Environmental Justice issues are immeasurable in terms of dollars and days. Considering all these important factors, continuation of remedial activities with the current contractor without an interruption in services is ample justification for this sole source modification.

5(c). Alternatives: Place Work on Hold Until a New Contract is Awarded: Similar to what happened when the contract ended in 2015 USACE could place remediation work on hold pending the award of a new contract which is currently underway through the MAES acquisition and its subsequent planned task order which is currently anticipated for May 2023. If this were done a contract to monitor the site to ensure environmental compliance would be required in the interim. Based on historic numbers it is estimated that this type of contract would cost approximately for the 15-month period it would be needed. If this alternative were selected, an additional demobilization and re-mobilization would be required. This additional mobilization work is approximately . Between the contract to monitor the site and remobilization costs, this would result in a total of of the value of continuing remediation services with Sevenson and which is considered a substantial duplication of cost to the Government that is not expected to be recovered through competition as these costs would do nothing to further the goal of obtaining full remediation at the site since it would just maintain the status quo. Further, this would delay obtaining full remediation at the DPCW FUSRAP site by at least an additional 15 months until the new MAES contract and subsequent task order could be awarded plus the additional mobilization time. Full clean-up that continues to progress at the DPCW FUSRAP site is critical to the agency�s mission and the additional 15 months is deemed an unacceptable delay which would stop USACE from fulfilling its mission requirements to clean up the site and protect the public. Because of environmental issues at the site there is no other viable alternatives.

5(d). Impact: The impact of an interruption would result in undue financial impacts in the amount of and liability risk to the government as explained above in section 5(c). An example of costs in delay occurred in 2015 when the Government chose to allow the previous contract to expire anticipating a much quicker follow-on award and the following impacts were realized:

Resulted in potential safety hazards to the public and on-site workers for three years with open excavation areas remaining on-site until a new RA contractor contract was put in place, leading to increased potential health risks to area residents and on-site workers through exposure to fugitive emissions from chemical contamination;

Financially impacted the Government in the cost of equipment that was no longer useable after three years of shutdown;

Financially impacted the Government in the cost in bringing equipment up to code;

Financially impacted the Government due to the cost in man hours and resources to bring the new contractor up to speed on site conditions and activity planning within the operating procedures of the active industrial facility where work is being performed;

Financially impacted the Government for the cost of the interim caretaker contractor.

Note that the caretaker contractor performed no remediation.

Negatively impacted the USACE relationship with the landowner Increased USACE liability due to water-filled partially excavated areas left open.

Placed the Government at a liability risk of receiving multiple permit violations with State and Federal Regulators as the Government did not have the available manpower and resources to self-operate the on-site WWTP; and

Generated a potential community perception that USACE was unable and/or unwilling to operate this remediation project sufficiently to protect human and environmental health.

before the 24 month J&A period expires, the remaining time and contract capacity provided by this J&A will not be used. It is neither cost-effective nor realistic to expect another contractor to perform remediation during the brief interim period until a new contract can be awarded; due to start-up costs, phase-in, transfer of Government Furnished Property (GFP), recruitment and staffing of the project. Instead, the Government would likely have to award another �caretaker� O&M contract which would not advance the site remediation which is not a viable option for the reasons discussed above.

The current base contract with Sevenson will run out of contract capacity at or around May 2022 although the contract period ends in September 2022. The timing for the award of the MAES contract would cause a stoppage of work without some interim measures. A new MAES task order and new contractor would require another stoppage of work unless there is an overlap of the two separate contracts to allow for effective transfer of essential remediation services which cannot be halted due to their criticality to the agency�s mission. This overlap or transition will take at least six months, because one of the contractors will be demobilizing while the other will be mobilizing. A training and transfer period will be required for bo contractors of the wastewater treatment plant, Waste Transfer Areas, Chemours on-site training and the engineering closeout documents required when Sevenson completes an AOC. This overlap or transfer period would allow the project to continue meeting the excavation, financial, and program matrices.

6. Efforts to Obtain Competition: Market research, in the form of a Sources Sought, for the follow-on contract was conducted, details of which are in the market research section of this document (paragraph 8).

6(a). Notice of Intent to Sole Source: Notice of intent to sole source was published on 22 December 2021 for a 15 day period.

6(b). Effective Competition: The original contract was awarded in an open competitive bid process through a small business set aside and a Sources Sought posting was conducted in the form of beta.SAM.gov posting page for the MAES contract. It is neither cost effective nor realistic to procure another contractor to perform work during the contract extension period due to reasons provided in paragraph 5d.

6(c). Subcontracting Competition: Subcontractor competition requirements are included in the existing prime contractor contract and will continue during the contract extension period, as well as on the follow-on contract.

7. Actions to Increase Competition: While no competition can be sought for this bridge contract with Sevenson, competition will be utilized on the follow-on contract. The MAES contract will be a MATOC and task orders including the one for DPCW will be competed on the MAES contract. Based on the results of the market survey for the follow-on contract which will be a task order issued under the MAES contract. The follow-on contract will be competitively bid amongst the highly qualified pool of small business contractors under the MAES contract. In the interim it is neither cost effective nor realistic for another contractor to perform work during the brief interim period; due to start-up costs, phase-in, transfer of GFP, recruitment and manning.

8. Market Research: Market research for the MAES was conducted to solicit industry feedback and interest for the proposed MAES procurement, in the form of a Sources Sought posting in SAM.gov, Society of American Military Engineers (SAME) Conferences and Symposia.

USACE Philadelphia has communicated that a competitive process will be followed for the follow-on MAES Task Order.

Given the ongoing MAES contract acquisition, it is neither cost effective nor realistic to expect another contractor to perform remediation during the brief J&A period; due to start-up costs, phase-in, transfer of GFP, recruitment and manning.

9. Interested Sources: Sevenson is the only known source capable of providing the service within the required timeframe which is the basis for the �One Responsible Source� requirement in this J&A. An intent to sole source was published on 22 December 2021 and was closed for comments on 6 January 2022 and no responses were received.

10. Other Factors: Causes leading to additional time and resources requirement: The added complexity of the excavation work and the elevated chemical contamination levels

This elevated utilization rate combined with the identification of additional areas of contamination have resulted in an overall increase in project costs.

Efforts taken to avert situation: USACE Philadelphia District began to actively work on a competitive contract acquisition process for the follow-on contract MAES in October 2020 as soon as it learned that the existing SATOC would not be able to complete remediation on the site.

Harm to the Government: In the event of a shutdown in work by the current contractor, the Government would be negatively impacted both financially and from a public relations perspective. Readily quantifiable financial impacts are estimated at $8.5 million.

1.

2. The estimated cost to the Government for an interim caretaker would be and,

3. The estimated cost to the Government for a new contractor to mobilize to the site and bring the WWTP back on-line would be .

Note that the interim caretaker action is an estimated period of at least 15-months with no active progress towards site remediation.

Contract No. W912BU-17-D-0018 is currently expiring on 9-25-2022. This SATOC was awarded through a competitive process awarded as a small business set aside and the remediation portion of the SATOC is CPFF.

See response in paragraph 5 above for explanation of the changed circumstances.

Subcontractor competition requirements are included in the existing prime contractor contract and will continue during the contract extension period.