The environmental program manager at the installation generally oversees the technical work and acts as the Contracting Officer Representative (COR). However, the COR can also be a representative from the Corps of Engineers, or the USAEC Restoration Manager. The COR is required to be a Department of Defense (DA) civilian, a certified COR, and will preferably have some experience with oversight of PBCs.

The involvement of the current executor will vary according to the installation. For example, if there are ongoing projects that are not wrapped into the scope of the PBC, they will continue to execute these projects. In addition, the installation may opt to retain the current executor in an oversight role to provide technical assistance in review/coordination of the project, or in the role as COR. At some installations, however, the role of the current executor will be eliminated.

Regulatory coordination is vital to successful PBC implementation. Federal and state regulators are invited to participate in the initial candidate evaluation meetings, help prepare performance measures, and provide comments on the draft PBC Performance Work Statement. After contract award, contractors, in coordination with the installation Environmental Coordinator, are required to keep regulators involved in the entire PBC process, consistent with federal, state, or local regulations, legal agreements, or as requested by the Army or regulators. This involvement may include:

• Providing copies of progress reports to regulators;
• Providing draft copies of documents to regulators for comments;
• Providing final copies of documents to regulators;
• Obtaining regulatory concurrence of remedial goals (e.g., cleanup levels); and
• Obtaining appropriate regulatory concurrence of all remedial activities prior to implementation.
• Obtaining regulatory concurrence that remedies have reached RIP/RC.

While the terms of the PBC may allow the contractor to discuss remediation approaches with the regulators, the Army representative needs to remain aware of ongoing discussions and is responsible for representing the Army's official position to the regulator.

The (Army) Environmental Coordinator (or Program Manager) retains responsibility for coordination and final negotiations between the Army and the regulators. However, the PBC contractor will likely request to meet with regulators to discuss a proposed approach and to get early feedback on the acceptability of that approach. PBC contractors are proactive in obtaining regulatory input because it is in their best interest to make sure that all parties are on board with their planned course of remedial actions.

Pre-existing document and review cycles mandated by agreement or law will be maintained, per the agreements or regulations. Beyond that, every effort will be made to maintain current document and review cycles and schedules within the PBC Performance Work Statements in order to preserve continuity with past work. Regulators are welcome to provide comments on the draft PWS if they believe that proposed changes to document and review cycles may prove problematic. For document reviews that are not spelled out in a formal agreement, the PBC process allows the contractor flexibility in developing a review/approval process that works best for all parties involved to ensure project success. Regulators in some cases have suggested a collapsed number of reviews to expedite the process.

The Army retains final approval authority on all actions and activities at the installation. Therefore, should an issue arise between the regulators and the PBC contractor, the Army will work to resolve disputes. However, regulators need to recognize that the PBC contractors will have a great deal of incentive to make sure that such disputes do not occur because such problems will slow the overall progress at the sites.

PBC contractors are typically very proactive in obtaining early acceptance from regulators and the Army on the approach they are planning, including the overall project schedule. As such, early on in the process regulators may be asked to participate in planning meetings and agree to the general approaches envisioned. Once the projects are initiated, the level of regulator involvement is similar to what they have encountered previously. One difference may be that the PBC contractors will work several sites simultaneously, thereby increasing the number of documents for regulatory review at a single time. The contractors are required to submit a project plan and schedule that should highlight when these documents are likely to be submitted. If regulators do not believe that they can accommodate the increase, they will have to opportunity to provide comments on this plan and to work with the contractors to develop a more palatable schedule.

Pursuant to a concern about being overwhelmed with documentation, regulators at one installation initially agreed to accept only 12 documents per year for review. The contractor initially agreed to the schedule, and then developed a standard document template (including both format and contents) that was agreed upon by the regulators. This standard template expedited reviews because the regulators know ahead of time what will be contained in the document and where the specifics requiring review are located. Similar concerns at another installation were resolved by the contractor developing a master work plan that covers all the common elements of the health and safety plan (HASP) and the quality assurance project plan (QAPP). As a consequence, site-specific work plans are much smaller and easier to review. Both of these efforts were meant to reduce the overall impact of PBC on the regulators.

One requirement of a PBC is a Quality Assurance Surveillance Plan (QASP). The purpose of the QASP is to set forth the procedures and guidance that the Contract Officer Representative (COR) will use in evaluating the technical performance of the contractor in accordance with the terms and conditions of the performance work statement (PWS). The QASP objective is to define Government procedures to be used to verify that appropriate performance and quality assurance methods are used in the management of this performance-based contract. The purpose of the QASP is to assure that performance of specific activities and completion of milestones are accomplished in accordance with all requirements set forth in the PWS.

This QASP describes the mechanism for documenting noteworthy accomplishments or discrepancies for work performed by the contractor. Information generated from the COR's surveillance activities will directly feed into performance discussions with the contractor. The intent is to ensure that the Contractor performs in accordance with performance metrics set forth in the contract documents, the Army receives the quality of services called for in the contract, and the Army only pays for the acceptable level of services received.

The QASP details how and when the COR will monitor, evaluate, and document Contractor performance on the PWS. The QASP is intended to accomplish the following:

• Define the role and responsibilities of participating Army officials.
• Define the key milestones/deliverables that will be assessed.
• Define acceptable, superior, and unacceptable performance standards for key milestones/deliverables.
• Describe the surveillance methodology that will be employed by the Army in assessing the Contractor's performance.
• Describe the surveillance documentation process and provide copies of the form that the Army will use in evaluating the Contractor's performance.
• Outline payment and corrective action procedures.

This QASP will be revised and finalized by the COR and the contractor upon completion of the Project Management Plan (PMP).

We have heard that modifications make a contract ineligible to be considered a PBC.Although the Army limits change orders allowed under a PBC, there have been some cases where there are justified modifications. Each request will be reviewed carefully by the Contracting Officer and evaluated on whether a modification is justified. Modifications do not make the contract ineligible to be considered a PBC.

In short, yes. Data collected from a series of interviews in early 2006 in support of a lessons learned initiative provide the following insights:

• Seventy-eight percent (78%) of those interviewed indicated that progress to date on the PBCs is "good" or better.
• Seventy-five percent (75%) of those interviewed reported that the quality of the work being performed on the PBCs is "very good" to "excellent", and "going beyond expectations."
• Installations reported that 42% of the contractors are working at or ahead of schedule. Installations report that they believe the contractors will be able to make up the schedule delays and most will remain on schedule to meet their final objectives. In fact, when asked whether the contractors have a corrective action plan to get back on schedule, two installations reported a corrective action plan involving staff replacement, and three reported that they did not believe a corrective action plan existed. The remaining installations believe a corrective plan is not necessary because the contractor will still be on schedule to meet the performance objectives.

The interviewees also identified several overall benefits of having a PBC implemented at their installation, or an installation under their purview. These benefits include:

• A single contractor responsible for most activities at an installation simplifies the Army's oversight responsibilities, and provides a consistent relationship with the Army personnel and regulators.
• A more stable source of funding is provided when an installation implements a PBC. This includes fewer administrative requirements to request funding for activities, as well as fewer contract modifications.
• The responsibility of accomplishing the work done is transferred to the contractor.
• The cost of completing the work and the schedule are fixed. Although some work is currently behind schedule, contractors are working hard to get back on track.
• In some cases, contractors have successfully accelerated progress, particularly when adequate funding was available.