Purification Environmental

B-270762 Apr 22, 1996 Jump To VIEW DECISION RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights That only one method of treatment for contaminated groundwater will remove the contaminant without creating a hazardous waste. There is nothing improper in the issuance of a solicitation that requires contractor to use the selected treatment process and to meet state guidelines for remediation. Efforts to deal with resulting contamination were not entirely successful which untimely led to the state of Alabama's issuance of a notice of violation that required the Army to take action for interim remediation and control of the contamination. The project is intended as a short-term. Which is the specification at issue here. The chief alternatives considered were air stripping (including air stripping with vapor and liquid phase carbon adsorption and air stripping with catalytic oxidation in the vapor phase). View Decision Matter of: Purification Environmental File: B-270762 Date: April 22, 1996 Where record establishes, and protester does not dispute, that only one method of treatment for contaminated groundwater will remove the contaminant without creating a hazardous waste, there is nothing improper in the issuance of a solicitation that requires contractor to use the selected treatment process and to meet state guidelines for remediation. Attorneys DECISION Purification Environmental protests the terms of invitation for bids (IFB) No. DACA21-96-B-0004, issued by the Corps of Engineers for a groundwater treatment system at Redstone Arsenal in Alabama. Purification Environmental essentially objects to the agency's requiring bidders to meet performance requirements of the statement of work while specifying a particular design. We deny the protest. In 1989, a valve malfunction in the still of the degreaser at Redstone Arsenal resulted in the discharge of trichloroethylene (TCE), a degreasing solvent, into the local sewer system. Efforts to deal with resulting contamination were not entirely successful which untimely led to the state of Alabama's issuance of a notice of violation that required the Army to take action for interim remediation and control of the contamination. The IFB, issued on November 13, 1995, contemplates award of a firm, fixed- price contract to the low, responsive, responsible bidder for installation and operation of an interim corrective measure (ICM) groundwater treatment system. The project is intended as a short-term, temporary remedy responsive to the notice of violation and requires operation of the system for 6 months after installation, with three 1-year option periods. The solicitation requires extraction of groundwater and management of water and soil containing TCE as a hazardous waste until such time as the contractor has treated it to remove the TCE to below detection limits. In this regard, paragraph 1.1.7 of the summary of work, which is the specification at issue here, requires the contractor to design, provide, install, and operate a water treatment system utilizing advanced ultraviolet (UV) oxidation using hydrogen peroxide. The specification prohibits use of any other treatment technology and requires the contractor to provide a treatment system meeting "the discharge criteria established by the Alabama Department of Environmental Management in the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System permit to be obtained by the contractor for this project." The solicitation contains certain minimum requirements for components and instrumentation but otherwise leaves detailed design responsibility with the contractor. The agency initially evaluated several alternative technologies that a contractor might use to remove TCE and other chemicals from the groundwater. The chief alternatives considered were air stripping (including air stripping with vapor and liquid phase carbon adsorption and air stripping with catalytic oxidation in the vapor phase), carbon adsorption, and UV oxidation. The agency determined each method to be feasible, although carbon adsorption did not appear cost competitive. However, air stripping, which transfers the contamination from groundwater to the air, would create an air pollution hazard. Similarly, carbon adsorption produced a concentrated waste stream which would be costly and difficult to dispose of. By contrast, UV oxidation destroyed TCE, leaving no hazardous waste requiring disposal. The Corps had a contractor prepare a Design Analysis Report (DAR) intended as a guide to the technical aspects of the design and describing the components of the ICM and the basis for selection of those components. The agency requested the contractor to consider the alternative technologies and produce a recommendation. The contractor reached the same conclusion as the agency's own engineer, that UV oxidation represented the best technology for removal of the contamination. The DAR notes the presence of certain other volatile organic compounds at the site.