[sample TPEC Report]{.underline}

**DRAFT -- PARTIAL -- INCOMPLETE**

**Summary of Technical Evaluations**

Eleven proposals were delivered to \_\_\_\_, Contracting Officer, for
Solicitation 05SP\_\_\_\_

Remediation of National \_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_ on January \_\_, 2006.

The evaluation team met to review and discuss the proposals January \_\_
and January \_\_, 2006.

Evaluation was based on the Technical Evaluation Plan prepared by Mr.
\_\_\_\_. Acceptable = A, unacceptable = U, and A (M) = acceptable with
modification or additional information. All but one of the evaluations
was unanimous. The LMNO Proposal was rated unacceptable by 2 evaluators,
and acceptable by 2 evaluators.

+------------+-------+--------+-------+-------+---+--------------------+
| R          |       |        |       |       |   |                    |
| emediation |       |        |       |       |   |                    |
| of         |       |        |       |       |   |                    |
| \_\_\_\_\_ |       |        |       |       |   |                    |
| \_\_\_\_\_ |       |        |       |       |   |                    |
| \_\_\_\_\_ |       |        |       |       |   |                    |
| Water      |       |        |       |       |   |                    |
| Treatment  |       |        |       |       |   |                    |
| Plant      |       |        |       |       |   |                    |
|            |       |        |       |       |   |                    |
| So         |       |        |       |       |   |                    |
| licitation |       |        |       |       |   |                    |
| 05SP\_     |       |        |       |       |   |                    |
| \_\_\_\_\_ |       |        |       |       |   |                    |
| \_\_\_\_\_ |       |        |       |       |   |                    |
+------------+-------+--------+-------+-------+---+--------------------+
| Proposer   | Evalu |        |       |       |   |                    |
|            | ators |        |       |       |   |                    |
+------------+-------+--------+-------+-------+---+--------------------+
|            | MMM X | TTT    | DDD   | EEE   |   | Summary Evaluation |
|            |       |        |       |       |   |                    |
|            |       | X      |       | X     |   |                    |
+------------+-------+--------+-------+-------+---+--------------------+
| ABC        | U     | U      | U     | U     |   | Unacceptable       |
| Env        |       |        |       |       |   |                    |
| ironmental |       |        |       |       |   |                    |
+------------+-------+--------+-------+-------+---+--------------------+
| TXX        | U     | U      | U     | U     |   | Unacceptable       |
| D          |       |        |       |       |   |                    |
| evelopment |       |        |       |       |   |                    |
+------------+-------+--------+-------+-------+---+--------------------+
| WWW        | U     | U      | U     | U     |   | Unacceptable       |
+------------+-------+--------+-------+-------+---+--------------------+
| XYZ        | A     | A      | A     | A     |   | Acceptable         |
+------------+-------+--------+-------+-------+---+--------------------+
| BBBBB      | A (M) | U      | A     | U     |   | Discussion         |
|            |       |        |       |       |   | required           |
+------------+-------+--------+-------+-------+---+--------------------+
| TUV        | U     | U      | U     | U     |   | Unacceptable       |
+------------+-------+--------+-------+-------+---+--------------------+
| LMNO       | U     | U      | U     | U     |   | Unacceptable       |
+------------+-------+--------+-------+-------+---+--------------------+
| DEFG       | U     | U      | U     | U     |   | Unacceptable       |
+------------+-------+--------+-------+-------+---+--------------------+
| HIJ        | A(M)  | A      | A     | A     |   | Acceptable with    |
|            |       |        |       |       |   | mod                |
+------------+-------+--------+-------+-------+---+--------------------+
| KL         | A     | A      | A     | A     |   | Acceptable         |
+------------+-------+--------+-------+-------+---+--------------------+
| STU        | A     | A      | A(M)  | A     |   | Acceptable with    |
|            |       |        |       |       |   | mod                |
+------------+-------+--------+-------+-------+---+--------------------+

**Summary of those Proposals with unacceptable ratings**:

**ABC** did not demonstrate past experience with handling of PCB
contaminated materials. They do not relate experience with a project of
the magnitude of this job ( ). They did not exhibit an understanding of
verification sampling, and the consequences of not meeting the clean-up
goals for the site. There was no listing or certification numbers for
Transporter of Hazardous Waste, or Disposal Facility.

ABC\'s proposal did not discuss Items 1.d and 1.e of the Technical
Evaluation Plan. In addition the discussion of Item 1.f was off the
point and directed to \"sample management\". The plan states material
unacceptable to the disposer will be stockpiled on site for an
undetermined time. The plan is unclear about treatment options for
materials being removed and disposed.

**TXX** proposal was inconsistent with the Specifications in several
ways. The proposed removal of the anaerobic digester roof involves \"one
or multiple\" pieces. No provision or discussion is made for preventing
debris from falling into the sludge and water below. There is no
acknowledgement of the potential for PCB waste involved with the removal
of the roof.

While zones communicated in the Specs are acknowledged there is not
discussion of sequencing the work among these zones.

They also propose water drained from the sludge would be discharged to
the lagoons. This is not consistent with the specs.

They assume there is asbestos on the roof, and would remove as asbestos
containing even though the specs indicate there is not likely asbestos
material in that roof. They do not intend to sample first, before the
expense of treating as asbestos.

The proposed equipment list does not give all information requested.

The section on Past Performance does not include any TEC projects. There
is no indication that TXX has performed a project of this magnitude or
this specific type (PCB). Key people are all FFF personnel, plus all key
field personnel are from sub contractor. Unclear that TXX would perform
50% of work.

Certifications were not found as indicated in the document.

**WWW** proposal is generally inconsistent with the specifications. It
proposes to stockpile PCB contaminated soil on site which is above 50
ppm. They also propose to use Flame Ionization Detection as a field
method for verification that the clean-up goals have been reached. While
it is useful for detection of volatile organic compound, this detector
is not applicable to PCB detection and quantification. In addition they
propose to use roll-off trailers with permeable linings. Seepage of
contaminated water would be a problem. The proposal does not distinguish
between PCB and non-PCB waste.

The project past performance does not indicate projects of comparable
size and complexity. The proposal and accompanying information do not
provide the requested information for evaluation.

**XYZ** did not discuss sections 1.d, 1.e, 1.f, and 1.g of the requested
evaluation factor information. The plan proposes to demolish the
anaerobic digester in place, but does not address prevention of debris
falling into sludge below. This method could also provide problems for
testing and decontamination of the debris. There is a generic discussion
of \"waste management\", but it does not supply the information
requested for the evaluation of the proposal. The equipment list does
not supply requested information. The past project work supplied focuses
on demolition and decommissioning of nuclear sites. There is no
indication of projects related to the \_\_\_\_ project in the XYZ
repertoire. The subcontractor DDDD of NY has some PCB and Metals
experience, but only in connection with demolition of buildings
associated with nuclear facilities. Most of the capabilities stated are
not applicable to the \_\_\_\_ site. In addition XYZ is only in the role
of planning, cost estimating, and management.

**BBBBB** proposes to leave the roof of the anaerobic digester in place
while removing sludge from below it. There is no discussion of
structural integrity of roof to be determined. There is no discussion of
actual roof removal after sludge is drawn down. This approach could
cause a problem for decontamination of roof in contact with PCB sludge.

Items 1.e and 1.f are not discussed. There was no discussion of
segregating and minimizing waste, particularly from East Pond which
exhibits only a small area of PCB ≥ 50ppm. They would mix PCB
contaminated soils. They propose to mix sources of PCBs by pumping
sludge form treatment plant into Secondary Lagoon. There is no
demonstrated understanding of minimizing waste volumes and cost. There
is no discussion of verification sampling and the consequence of not
meeting clean-up goals.

Project experience supplied doesn\'t indicate PCB experience; Page
experience is with a small dollar VOC site and it is an investigation
not a remediation. The equipment list supplied did not address the
requested information. Some licenses from \_\_\_\_ were supplied, but no
other certifications were supplied.

**TUV** proposal includes possible need to cut up digester roof in place
for removal. However they do not discuss potential problem of debris
falling into sludge and causing problems with pumping sludge. They
propose excavating sludge from anaerobic digester, but do not address
how to prevent leaking and losing wet materials during excavation. They
propose a grid sampling to characterize removal media, but that is
unnecessary and could prove expensive. The extent of the contamination
is already indicated in the specs.

TUV listed Environmental Site Assessments as project experience. The
proposed manager has no large remediation experience relevant to the
\_\_\_\_ Site. The sub contractors appear to be qualified to perform the
work; however subcontractor roles are not defined in the submittal. Most
of the roles assigned to TUV personnel do not correspond to any project
roles found in the specs. Ms. ZZZ is listed as project manager, but has
no construction experience on her resume. Transportation and Disposal
Coordinator, XDF has no transportation or disposal experience on her
resume. ZYJJ, shown as project engineer and responsible for surveying,
is registered as neither an engineer nor a surveyor, and does not have a
degree in engineering. SSS Company employee, JC, is shown as Site
Construction Manager, but his resume indicates that he \"typically
manages a workload of 5 projects\" and is currently managing a crew of
40 at a clean-up site. No indication was given as to how this
subcontract employee would be made available full time for this project.