SUMMARY OF QUESTIONS AND RESPONSES

ERDC TN-DOER-T4

December 2001

Unfortunately, due to the limitations of time, the focus of Panel B was limited to lessons learned

about the environmental dredging component because this component involves resuspension that

is raised as an environmental issue by most everyone when they ask about the process of dredging.

A presumption was made for the sake of the Panel B discussions that there was already a decision

to dredge contaminated sediments using an appropriate risk-based framework. As the organizers

of the session asked a number of key questions, each question was directed to a panel member for

a response and then the audience was asked to provide comments.

SUMMARY OF QUESTIONS AND RESPONSES

Session Moderator: Should environmental dredging contracts be performance based or tightly

specified? Or, does this matter?

Panel Answer: One panel member concluded that contracts definitely need to be performance

based. The successful contracts have been the ones where the client has articulated the project goal

in a sufficient way that contractors can respond to the real requirement to accomplish the cleanup.

A number of cases were identified where the client has done his own research regarding what specific

technology he might want to use and all but specified in the contract the use of a particular piece of

equipment on the project rather than a goal to accomplish the cleanup. It was inferred that a

performance-based contract helps problem owners out of that paradigm. There are engineering firms

who have the resources to address critical projects. These are the companies that the owners should

use to help them develop the performance-based contracts. The dredging contractors have been

dealing with these engineering firms for a long time, and they know who they are and what they

can do. The engineering firms know the market, they know who is going to respond to the request

for proposal (RFP) or invitation for bid (IFB), and they know who is not going to be able to

accomplish the work. It was suggested that owners should pursue the use of performance-based

contracts.

Audience Response: A member from the audience asked about the need to avoid focusing on a

particular piece of equipment. It was observed that there is a constant battle with regulatory agencies

that view equipment choice as paramount. Then the owners and their consulting firms have to

implement a long, drawn-out process of explaining each time the problems we experience with the

lack of a competitive market, i.e., using sole source type contracting. If the contractor, who has

propriety on a piece of equipment, is unavailable to do the job, then who can do the work becomes

a pressing discussion item. With so much attention on the whistles and bells or niftiest new kinds

of equipment, the dilemma may become how to avoid falling into the sole-source trap and how to

get the desired level of competition.

Panel Response: To answer the audience questions, one panel member suggested that you needed

to take a look at the history of such projects. You take the demonstration of the projects, the

difference between a performance-based contract and those that have been tightly specified on a

single or sole-source piece of equipment. Dredging contractors understand the market. They also

know who the players are out there. The panel member suggested that on every tightly specified

contract RFP, the responsible dredging contractors will avoid bidding on that particular contract. If

the owner says, "I want you to use this particular type of dredge, to swing it so fast, to drop the