PBC projects associated with the Installation Restoration Program (IRP) include any activities generally associated with remediation projects, including investigative studies, removal action, remedial design, remedial action, long term monitoring, establishment of institutional controls, or any combination thereof. The Army is also expanding use of PBA to a variety of activities outside of the IRP, including NEPA, compliance cleanup, building demolition, and resource management.

The decision to move forward with a PBC depends on the specific site and installation. The determination as to when a site (or installation) should be considered for this approach depends on the ability for the Army to bound the uncertainties associated with remaining decisions. Sites that have completed (or are close to completing) the investigation and assessment phase where the contaminants of concern, media, and extent of contamination are understood, and where the path forward toward a remedy is clear (i.e., a presumptive remedy) may pose ideal candidates. The balance that has to be struck by the Army during candidate evaluation is determining at what point the uncertainties can be managed such that costs associated with a fixed price bid are not prohibitive. In some cases, this is only achieved once a Record of Decision or other Decision Document is signed. However, if the decision document is too prescriptive, the offerors do not have the flexibility desired for the PBC approach. In some cases, when the level of uncertainty regarding the path forward is too high, the Army may select the performance objective to be "achievement of a Decision Document" rather than achievement of remedy in place or response complete. This allows the implementing contractor to propose on a fixed price basis while reducing the potentially significant cost impact of the unknowns.

PBCs may encompass all remaining work at an installation or portions of an installation, depending on the nature of the remedial work required at each site within the installation, and the status of execution of that work. An advantage of adding sites is having a greater work scope over which risk is spread. A disadvantage of adding all sites at an installation can be the inclusion of sites that are not far enough along to have risks sufficiently reduced. To make this determination, the status of each open site at the installation is evaluated to determine if the activities and schedule necessary for remediation of that site are amenable to a PBC contracting approach. Depending on the outcome of this evaluation, the recommendation will be made to either include the entire scope of the remaining effort or to focus on a group of selected sites. In some cases, the decision is made to phase work over a series of PBCs so that on-going work can be completed on existing contracts and/or data can be collected to ensure adequate characterization.

In general, sites are considered adequately characterized once the Remedial Investigation (RI) data have been collected and analyzed. Sites are considered adequately characterized if enough information is available to reasonably evaluate and select an alternative with some cost certainty considering both site characteristics and regulatory requirements and input. It is not necessary to have a final RI report, but a draft report with regulator comments is helpful. However, conditions at each site/installation are unique. As such, each site is evaluated based on its characteristics so the determination of adequate characterization will differ depending on site-specific geology, hydrogeology, chemicals of concern, the status of the overall execution strategy, etc.

The Army has successfully implemented four approaches to reduce uncertainty resulting from inadequate characterization as a way of managing its impact on bids:

• Remove the site from the PWS and allow it to be closed under another contracting strategy;
• Defer putting the site in a PWS until sufficient characterization has been performed to reduce the uncertainty;
• Modify the objectives in the PWS so the output is a decision document rather than site closure; or
• Conduct a targeted data gathering exercise to provide additional information to bidders prior to the procurement.

The determination of a site boundary is site-specific. In limited cases the boundary is defined by a discrete physical landmark (e.g., east/west of water body), or a physical boundary (e.g., all soils inside the boundary of the fenced area). In most cases the site boundary is defined by the footprint of the known contamination. However, if future investigation shows that the contamination is more wide-spread than originally thought, the defined site boundary will expand to equal the size of the contiguous plume.

There are two primary elements associated with performance objectives: the final outcome of the work, and the date by which the work needs to be accomplished. The final outcome, or end state for each site is established by working with the installation and regulators to determine the most likely future use of the site property and what is considered a realistic expectation within a 10-year period of performance. The performance date is developed through evaluation of the current status of the site, the Defense Program Goal (DPG) target date for the site, and the funding available for the installation.

In most cases, the Army has made the determination that technically acceptable/low cost will be the basis for contract evaluation and award. There are many benefits to this approach, including expedited evaluation and award. Under this award basis, proposals are first evaluated to determine that the proposed approach is considered technically acceptable to the installation and regulators, and that the approach meets all objectives identified in the PWS. Assuming that all proposals received are determined to be acceptable, the award is made to the lowest cost bidder.

In limited instances the Army has determined that a technical trade-off award (sometimes call Best Value) basis would be more appropriate. When the PWS includes a large percentage of sites where the performance objective is Remedy In Place, and as such will require long-term management beyond the scope of the contract, the Army will consider a technical trade-off approach. This is to avoid a situation where the low cost alternative, although technically acceptable, has the potential to leave the Amy with significant long-term costs versus a more expensive, more aggressive approach that gets the site to Response Complete sooner. In addition, when there is a unique technical challenge at an installation or site, the Army will consider a technical trade-off award basis because there may be very few approaches that have been demonstrated successful, and some of these approaches will be a higher initial cost to the government.

In order to expedite contract award and reduce costs associated with solicitations, the Army has in general opted to use one of the many pre-placed contract vehicles available for PBCs. In limited cases the Army will make a decision to go outside of the pre-placed contracts and conduct a full and open competition. These opportunities are posted on the USAEC website, updated regularly to provide as much lead time to potential bidders as possible. For other opportunities, firms are encouraged to contact the existing ID/IQ contract holders to investigate possible teaming arrangements.

In general, incumbent contractors can participate in the bid process if, to the extent practicable, their work products (e.g., sampling results, reports) are made available to the interested bidders, to the extent that this work affects the bidders' ability to prepare their proposals. This determination is made on a case-by-case basis with the contracting office. All efforts are made to mitigate conflicts so as to allow incumbents to participate in the bid process if they are available through the contract vehicle being applied.