Reducing excess capacity in environmental contracting

Abstract

In 1995 as much as 80 percent of environmental funding was allocated to contracts. Given the outsource emphasis and current funding restraints, the Army needs to ensure that environmental contracting policies and procedures are efficient and effective. Numerous agencies, including the U.S. General Accounting Office, U.S. Army Audit Agency, DOD Inspector General, Society of American Military Engineers, USMA Center for Environmental and Geographic Sciences (CEGS), and Department of Energy Contract Reform Team, have reported shortcomings in environmental contracting. Environmental contracting differs significantly from construction contracting because of the uncertainty in estimating remediation costs, determining specific environmental requirements, predicting health risks of different alternatives, and operating in an ever-changing regulatory climate. Although this article advocates that DOD organize specific reform regarding environmental contracting, there are actions the contracting community can take to reduce excess contracting capacity and improve efficiencies in environmental contracting.