A.03.09_NWP_18-125_JA_Unusual_and_Compelling_Tug_Diane_Final_Redacted.pdf

Control # NWP-18-125

JUSTIFICATION AND APPROVAL

FOR OTHER THAN FULL AND OPEN COMPETITION

US Army Corps of Engineers, Portland District FAR 6.302-2 Unusual and Compelling Urgency

Non-Routine Recovery and Disposal of Sunken Tug in the Columbia River

1. CONTRACTING AGENCY:

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE), Northwestern Division, Portland District (NWP), 333 SW First Ave, Portland, OR 97208

2. DESCRIPTION OF ACTION:

In accordance with FAR 6.302-2 Unusual and Compelling Urgency, approval is requested for the award of a new time and materials service contract for recovery and disposal of the sunken tug “Diane,” which was located in the Columbia River in Oregon.

The contract was funded by FY18 Civil Works Operations and Maintenance appropriations and emergency funds from HQUSACE. The contract was awarded to Advanced American Construction, Inc. (AAC) on 28 September 2018, with a cost ceiling of $533,502.06.

This justification and approval is issued after-the-fact, pursuant to FAR 6.302-2(c)(1), as preparation and approval prior to award would have unreasonably delayed the acquisition.

3. DESCRIPTION OF SERVICES:

On 28 September 2018, NWP awarded a time and materials service contract to AAC for the removal and disposal of the sunken recreational tug Diane from the Columbia River Federal navigation channel near River Mile 143. The contract period of performance is 28 September 2018 to 30 November 2018.

In accordance with the contract, AAC will manufacture and install a cofferdam-like structure around the sunken tug to provide a safe environment for divers to install rigging on the vessel and lift it out of the river using a crane. The contractor will drive steel pipe piling at 20-foot centers around the tug and place shoring panels to create the cofferdam type structure. On the upstream and downstream side of the tug, additional piles will be driven to deflect the water flow around the enclosure. Piles will be driven to approximately 40 feet of embedment and stick up above the water surface. Prior to driving the piles, guides will be welded to the piles. The shoring panels will be secured together and lowered into the guides to form the walls of the enclosure. Once the enclosure is complete, diving operations will begin with a 5-man dive crew. Divers will place rigging under the vessel and connect to the crane barge’s rigging. The crane will raise the sunken tug and place it on the deck of the crane barge for transport to Portland, Oregon for ultimate demolition and disposal. After the tug is placed on the barge, the crew will remove the cofferdam enclosure and place the material on the crane barge for transportation and taken to the contractor’s yard in Portland for subsequent demolition.

4. AUTHORITY CITED:

10 U.S.C. § 2304(c)(2), as implemented by FAR 6.302-2 and DFARS 206.302-2(b), Unusual and Compelling Urgency.

5. REASON FOR AUTHORITY CITED:

(1) Background:

It is suspected that the vessel Diane sunk on or about 03 November 2017. The vessel Diane was last seen at 1000 on 03 November 2017 at Columbia River mile 143. The U.S. Coast Guard (USCG) notified the Corps of Engineers of a recreational tug that had sunk in the Columbia River downstream of Bonneville Dam near River Mile 143. The tug was anchored in the Columbia River below Bonneville Dam due to engine failure, and sank while awaiting a tow to be repaired.

In a memorandum dated 07 November 2017, USCG reported the tug as a hazard to navigation and directed the tug be marked as a wreck with a virtual AIS Aid to Navigation. The vessel rested upside down on its wheelhouse with its bow oriented downstream. The Federal navigation channel is only 300 feet wide in this area, with a maintained depth of 17 feet. The USCG determined the sunken vessel was impeding the channel by approximately 45 feet into the Oregon half of the channel and presented a danger for commercial vessels, primarily tugs and barges, which regularly transit this reach. The memo also authorized USCG’s local sector to coordinate with USACE on additional remedial action determined necessary by both parties, per 33 C.F.R. § 245.25.

Following USCG’s declaration of the hazard, USACE positively identified the tug Diane’s owner, , and began coordination of the tug’s removal on 07 November 2017. Pursuant to 33 C.F.R. § 245.40, the owner, through his insurance company, (note that most communications with the owner occurred through the owner’s insurance company, as the owner was in a deployed situation for much of the time period discussed in this J&A), agreed to remove the vessel. However, both the Government and owner agreed that the vessel could not be safely removed until the Columbia River’s low flow period, which occurs from late September through October of each year. Upon hearing little from the insurance company on its plans for removal, and with the low flow season quickly approaching, NWP reached out to the insurance company, requesting its plan for removal. See 33 C.F.R. § 245.40(b). After various requests from NWP for the insurance company’s plans to remove the vessel, NWP received an email from the insurance company, dated 10 September 2018, informing NWP that it would not remove the vessel because the cost estimates for the removal of the vessel far exceeded the owner’s insurance policy limit. Based on the insurance company’s response, per 33 C.F.R. § 245.40(b), NWP declared the vessel abandoned.

USACE has conducted hydrographic surveys over the tug once per month since November 2017 to assess its location and whether or not it has moved. Figure 1 shows an image of the tug from the most recent survey on 25 September 2018. The uppermost elevation of the tug is at approximately 10 feet below Columbia River Datum.

Figure 1. 20180925 image

(2) Justification:

The Columbia River Channel between Vancouver, Washington and locations upstream to Lewiston, Idaho, provides access for vessels such as grain barges and fuel barges, among other commodities. Since the sinking of the tug Diane, vessels have been utilizing sticks up to within 10 feet of the Columbia River surface at low water. Although the USCG marked the sunken vessel with a virtual buoy to help prevent collisions, the physical danger remains.

The Columbia River navigation channel is 300’ wide at the location of the sunken tug.

Vessels typically follow center-line of the channel when transiting, regardless of upstream or downstream travel. This is true except when passing. When two vessels are passing, the vessels ‘split’ the channel into two travel ‘lanes’ (an upstream and downstream side), and each measure 150’ wide. This ‘sharing’ of the channel is done any time vessels pass and can occur at any point in the channel along the length of the entire river. As a result, the sunken tug location is particularly dangerous for two vessels passing in the vicinity.

Additionally, the depth of the sunken tug is a concern. At 0' gauge Columbia River Datum, the bow of the tug is within 10 feet of the surface. While there is usually water on the gauge, meaning higher flows in the area, it is possible that the river levels could get low enough to reach 0’. Typically, barges using this area draft roughly 14’, when vessel squat while loaded is factored in, they may pull down to 15’ or 16’ below the surface, depending on the speed they are traveling.

Due to the hazardous nature of the navigation channel, it is critical to coordinate the removal of the tug during the low flow period. Late September through October is when overall river flows are lowest after the dryer summer months. Additionally, this is the period in which the USACE can coordinate with Bonneville Power Administration (BPA) to manually lower flows with the existing control structures at Bonneville Lock and Dam.

BPA requires notice 7 days prior to lowering flows. Flows can be lowered at 12 hour intervals; meaning flows will be lowered, then must be returned to previous levels to meet mandated flow requirements. Flows can then be lowered, returned to previous condition, and then lowered again several times.

Prior to NWP receiving the insurance company’s email dated 10 September 2018, NWP was under the impression that the vessel owner, through his insurance company, would be removing the vessel during the critical low flow period. Upon learning of the owner’s intention to not remove the vessel, NWP was left with little time to coordinate the vessel’s removal during the critical low flow period. Based on discussions with potential offerors, it also appeared likely that critical lead time would be necessary to manufacture a cofferdam like structure to place around the vessel in order to make its removal safe for divers required to enter the massive Columbia River channel. At the time of award, AAC estimated at least two weeks would be needed to design and manufacture the cofferdam components.

(3) Impact:

The sunken tug Diane must be removed without delay to provide a safe navigation channel for the users carrying commercial cargoes. The hazard makes the channel dangerous to transit at low water during the August through October timeframe. This could potentially result in a vessel such as a fuel barge crashing into the tug Diane or the potential for vessels to collide during passing while attempting to navigate around the tug Diane. The associated environmental spill would be detrimental to spawning fish and other species in the area and could result in injury or death to the vessel’s crew.

Additionally, as flows increase over the winter months, there is a greater risk of the tug shifting and moving into a more hazardous location within the channel. If the vessel were to move further into the channel, further restricting passage, or worst case scenario, it could prohibit passage entirely in this area. While the virtual buoy could be moved if the tug’s position shifts, vessels require adequate depth and the channel is the only area with adequate depth to provide safe passage. Moving the buoy only identifies a hazard, it does not guarantee safe transit over the area.

Another important consideration is the potential of fuel/oil leaking as a result of not taking action this season to remove the vessel. Currently, the vessel is not leaking, but as river flows increase over the winter months the vessel could shift, creating an environmental spill that would be near impossible to contain given the current at the vessel’s location.

The longer a recovery is delayed, the greater the chance that a barge or other vessel could strike the sunken vessel, resulting in environmental conditions and potential injuries or deaths to passengers and crew on board those vessels.

(4) Other Alternatives:

If the vessel is not removed during the low-water period of 2018, it is extremely likely that the work will need to wait another full calendar year until the low-water period in fall 2019. With increasing rain, higher flows and power needs in the winter months, the increased river flows will prohibit a safe attempt at tug removal. The extremely close coordination needed with BPA to reduce flows will no longer be possible due to the flows required by federal mandates for fish, power generation, safe transit, and flood retention requiring a specific level of flow. As time goes by, weather becomes an increasing risk, as rainfall and runoff events cannot be predicted, and water flows will be manipulated to accommodate larger volumes of water entering the river and moving through the system.

One alternative method proposed by the owner’s insurance company was to use a barge mounted crane with a clamshell bucket to dismantle the tug where it currently rests. The condition of the fuel tanks is unknown and the greater risk of releasing fuel and oil makes this approach infeasible. In addition, the current in the vessels location impacts the ability to salvage the debris and the use of a clamshell bucket will create turbidity and disrupt the river bed.

Dragging the vessel to a location downstream and outside the channel for later recovery was another alternative considered. This alternative poses risks to divers to securely rig the sunken tug prior to moving it. Dragging the tug Diane also increases the risk of accidentally releasing the fuel and oil still presumed to be contained in the tug Diane. Additionally the possibility of dragging the tug to a more hazardous location exists. This final alternative is infeasible due to the risks to divers, the risk of a fuel/oil leak and the possibility the tug is moved to another hazardous location.

6. EFFORTS TO OBTAIN COMPETITION:

Per FAR 6.302-2(c)(2), NWP requested offers from as many potential sources as was practicable under the circumstances. After performing the market research discussed below in order to determine capable firms in the nearby area, on 13 September 2018, NWP contacted four companies via a pre-solicitation conference. Upon closure of the teleconference, the Government sent a Statement of Objectives (SOO) to all four firms.

On 18 September 2018, a formal RFP was also sent to all four firms. Based on the presolicitation conference and the engagement of interested parties in response to the SOO issued, the Government had a reasonable expectation for competition. Only one proposal was received in response to the RFP – from Advanced American Construction, Inc., who planned to subcontract with . Both of these firms participated in the presolicitation conference. The Government determined that AAC had a technically feasible proposal in response to the SOO.

7. ACTIONS TO INCREASE COMPETITION:

The removal of the Tug Diane is a unique requirement not typically performed by USACE. A sources sought will be posted to determine industry capability and availability in the event a similar future requirement arises that is not an unusual and compelling urgency.

8. MARKET RESEARCH

Four firms with the capabilities to successfully remove the sunken vessel were provided by the vessel owner’s insurance company. A technical review of the firms by the Operations Program Manager in charge if this project concluded that the companies that were identified are the only known businesses in close enough proximity to the sunken vessel to be able to complete the removal process within the allotted work window. Based on the presolicitation conference and the engagement of interested parties in response to the SOO issued, the level of market research was appropriate for the unusual and compelling requirement. The government is satisfied that the businesses contacted are the responsive and capable companies that would have submitted proposals if the requirement was synopsized for fifteen days then solicited for 30 days of advertisement.

9. INTERESTED SOURCES:

The USACE, Portland District identified four local firms to determine their interest and capability of this project. Advanced American Construction, Inc., expressed an interest in reviewing the requirements and submitting proposals for the project. However, only one offer was received from AAC, with as a subcontractor.

10. OTHER FACTS: Procurement History

This is the first time Portland District has encountered a requirement of this type and there is no previous procurement history to use for comparison.

11. TECHNICAL CERTIFICATION:

I certify that the supporting data under my cognizance which are included in the justification are accurate and complete to the best of my knowledge and belief.

NAME: DATE: ________________________

TITLE: Technical Manager SIGNATURE:

12. REQUIREMENTS CERTIFICATION:

I certify that the supporting data under my cognizance which are included in the justification are accurate and complete to the best of my knowledge and belief.

NAME: DATE: _________________________

TITLE: Chief, Waterways Maintenance SIGNATURE:

13. FAIR AND REASONABLE COST DETERMINATION:

I hereby determined that the anticipated cost to the Government for this time and material contract action was fair and reasonable given the level of effort proposed. The proposed ceiling price takes into account estimated material costs, equipment rentals, and labor rates that have been verified and deemed appropriate given the proposed work plan. Certified cost and pricing data were not required per FAR 15.403-1(c)(1)(ii) and 15.403-4(a)(1). The Independent Government Estimate (IGE) for this requirement was compared to AAC’S proposal and the level of effort and equipment/material costs proposed were determined fair and reasonable. A fair and reasonable cost determination memorandum is in the contract file.

NAME: PATRICK P. COLLINS DATE: _________________________

TITLE: Contracting Officer SIGNATURE:

14. CONTRACTING OFFICER CERTIFICATION:

I certify that this justification is accurate and complete to the best of my knowledge and belief.

NAME: PATRICK P. COLLINS DATE: _________________________

TITLE: Contracting Officer SIGNATURE:

15. LEGAL OFFICER CERTIFICATION:

I certify that this justification is legally sufficient to the best of my knowledge and belief.

NAME: DATE: _________________________

TITLE: Assistant District Counsel SIGNATURE: