    Capitol Hill Anthrax Incident: EPA's Cleanup Was Successful;
    Opportunities Exist to Enhance Contract Oversight (04-JUN-03,
    GAO-03-686).

    In September and October 2001, the first cases of anthrax
    bioterrorism occurred in the United States when letters
    containing anthrax were mailed to congressional leaders and
    members of the news media. As the cleanup of the Capitol Hill
    anthrax site progressed, EPA's estimates of the cleanup costs
    steadily rose. GAO was asked to describe (1) the costs EPA
    incurred to conduct the cleanup and how it was funded, (2) the
    extent to which EPA awarded the cleanup contracts competitively,
    (3) EPA's oversight of the contractors' work and any suggested
    changes to EPA's contracting practices, and (4) the extent to
    which EPA agreed to indemnify contractors against liability for
    potential damages related to the cleanup.
    -------------------------Indexing Terms-------------------------
    REPORTNUM:   GAO-03-686
        ACCNO:   A07068
      TITLE:     Capitol Hill Anthrax Incident: EPA's Cleanup Was
    Successful; Opportunities Exist to Enhance Contract Oversight
         DATE:   06/04/2003
      SUBJECT:   Chemical and biological agents
    	     Terrorism
    	     Cost analysis
    	     Competitive procurement
    	     Facility maintenance
    	     Facility management
    	     Maintenance costs
    	     Maintenance services contracts
    	     Superfund Program

    ******************************************************************
    ** This file contains an ASCII representation of the text of a  **
    ** GAO Product.                                                 **
    **                                                              **
    ** No attempt has been made to display graphic images, although **
    ** figure captions are reproduced.  Tables are included, but    **
    ** may not resemble those in the printed version.               **
    **                                                              **
    ** Please see the PDF (Portable Document Format) file, when     **
    ** available, for a complete electronic file of the printed     **
    ** document's contents.                                         **
    **                                                              **
    ******************************************************************
    GAO-03-686

    Report to the Chairman, Committee on Finance, U. S. Senate

    United States General Accounting Office

    GAO

    June 2003 CAPITOL HILL ANTHRAX INCIDENT

    EPA's Cleanup Was Successful; Opportunities Exist to Enhance Contract
    Oversight

    GAO- 03- 686

    EPA spent about $27 million on the Capitol Hill anthrax cleanup, using
    funds from its Superfund program. From the outset, many uncertainties were
    associated with the cleanup effort, including how to remove anthrax from
    buildings. EPA revised its November 2001 estimate of $5 million several
    times during the cleanup as the nature and extent of the contamination

    became fully known and the solutions to remove and properly dispose of the
    anthrax were agreed upon and carried out. To conduct the cleanup, EPA
    relied extensively on the existing competitively awarded Superfund
    contracts it routinely uses to address threats posed by the release of
    hazardous substances. Specifically, about 80 percent of the contract costs
    were incurred under 10 of EPA*s existing Superfund contracts.

    EPA dedicated significant resources to overseeing the many contractors
    working on the Capitol Hill anthrax cleanup* including about 50 staff from
    nine regional offices experienced in leading and overseeing emergency
    environmental cleanups. Most often, these staff ensured that the
    contractors

    were on site and performing assigned tasks efficiently. EPA also assigned
    an administrative specialist to ensure that contract charges were accurate
    and reasonable. EPA*s assessment of its emergency responses to the anthrax
    incidents, which focused on or included the Capitol Hill site, concluded
    that, overall, the agency had used its contracts effectively but that it
    could improve some areas of its contracting support. In addition, GAO*s
    review of the Capitol Hill cleanup revealed inconsistencies in EPA*s cost
    oversight practices among regions. For example, EPA uses a computerized
    system for tracking contractor costs for hazardous substance removal
    contracts, but regions use the system inconsistently for the technical
    assessment contracts also used during emergency responses. Consistent use
    of the system would

    likely improve the quality of EPA*s nationwide contract data and enhance
    EPA*s oversight capabilities.

    EPA agreed to indemnify two contractors with key roles in the fumigation
    of the Hart Senate Office Building with chlorine dioxide gas against
    liability that could have resulted if a third party had been injured by
    the contractors* release of a harmful substance, including anthrax.
    Cleanup Personnel Prepare Duct Work for Air Sampling

    In September and October 2001, the first cases of anthrax bioterrorism
    occurred in the United States when letters containing anthrax were mailed
    to congressional leaders and members of the news media. As the

    cleanup of the Capitol Hill anthrax site progressed, EPA*s estimates of
    the cleanup costs steadily rose. GAO was asked to describe (1) the costs
    EPA incurred to conduct the

    cleanup and how it was funded, (2) the extent to which EPA awarded the
    cleanup contracts competitively, (3) EPA*s oversight of the contractors*
    work and any suggested changes to EPA*s contracting practices, and (4) the
    extent to which EPA agreed to indemnify contractors against liability for
    potential damages related to the cleanup.

    To enhance EPA*s contract oversight, GAO recommends that the EPA
    Administrator require all EPA regions to more consistently use two
    contract oversight practices and to examine expanding the use of another.

    EPA officials agreed to implement or consider implementing GAO*s
    recommendations. Their

    comments and our response are discussed at the end of this report.

    www. gao. gov/ cgi- bin/ getrpt? GAO- 03- 686. To view the full report,
    including the scope and methodology, click on the link above. For more
    information, contact John Stephenson (202) 512- 3841 or

    stephensonj@ gao. gov. Highlights of GAO- 03- 686, a report to the

    Chairman, Committee on Finance, U. S. Senate

    June 2003

    CAPITOL HILL ANTHRAX INCIDENT

    EPA's Cleanup Was Successful; Opportunities Exist to Enhance Contract
    Oversight

    Page i GAO- 03- 686 Capitol Hill Anthrax Incident Letter 1 Results in
    Brief 2 Background 4 EPA Spent About $27 Million of its Superfund Money to
    Clean Up

    the Capitol Hill Anthrax Site 10 EPA Competitively Awarded Most Major
    Contracts Used in the Anthrax Cleanup 13 EPA Devoted Extensive Resources
    to Overseeing Contractors* Work, yet Some Contracting Changes Would Better
    Support EPA Cleanups 19 EPA Negotiated Indemnification Agreements with Two

    Contractors to Address Their Liability Concerns 29 Conclusions 31
    Recommendations for Executive Action 31 Agency Comments and Our Response
    32 Scope and Methodology 33 Appendix I Contract Tasks and Roles 36

    Appendix II GAO Contacts and Staff Acknowledgments 41

    Tables

    Table 1: EPA Estimated Contract and Government Agreement Cost Increases
    for the Capitol Hill Anthrax Cleanup 11 Table 2: Competitively Awarded
    Superfund Contracts Used for the

    Capitol Hill Anthrax Cleanup 15 Table 3: Noncompetitively Awarded EPA
    Contracts Used for the Capitol Hill Anthrax Cleanup 17 Table 4: Agreements
    with Federal and State Agencies Used for the Capitol Hill Anthrax Cleanup
    19 Figures

    Figure 1: A Sample Is Inserted into a Vial in the Hart Senate Office
    Building 6 Figure 2: Cleanup Personnel Use a HEPA Vacuum in a

    Congressional Office 7 Contents

    Page ii GAO- 03- 686 Capitol Hill Anthrax Incident

    Figure 3: Breakout of EPA Contract and Government Agreement Costs 13
    Abbreviations

    CDM CDM Federal Programs Corporation CERCLA Comprehensive Environmental
    Response, Compensation,

    and Liability Act EPA Environmental Protection Agency HEPA high efficiency
    particulate arresting NCP National Oil and Hazardous Substance Pollution
    Contingency Plan

    This is a work of the U. S. Government and is not subject to copyright
    protection in the United States. It may be reproduced and distributed in
    its entirety without further permission from GAO. It may contain
    copyrighted graphics, images or other materials. Permission from the
    copyright holder may be necessary should you wish to reproduce copyrighted
    materials separately from GAO*s product.

    Page 1 GAO- 03- 686 Capitol Hill Anthrax Incident June 4, 2003 The
    Honorable Charles E. Grassley

    Chairman, Committee on Finance United States Senate

    Dear Chairman Grassley: Anthrax is a naturally occurring bacterium that
    causes acute infectious disease and is potentially fatal. 1 As you know,
    in September and October 2001, the first cases of anthrax bioterrorism
    occurred in the United States when letters containing a powdered form of
    anthrax were mailed to members of the news media and congressional
    leaders. On October 15, 2001, one of these letters, addressed to the
    former Majority Leader of the U. S. Senate, was opened in the Hart Senate
    Office Building in Washington, D. C. The letter had contaminated several
    congressional and other buildings along the mail delivery route and
    elsewhere, and approximately 30 congressional employees tested positive
    for anthrax exposure soon after. The Hart Senate Office Building is a 10-
    million- cubic- foot building that houses the offices and staffs of 50
    senators. As a result of the anthrax contamination, the Hart Building and
    several others on Capitol Hill were closed.

    In consultation with the leadership of the Congress, the U. S. Capitol
    Police Board* which oversees the security of the Capitol complex*
    established a team led by an independent *incident commander* to
    coordinate the response to the anthrax incident among several federal and
    local agencies. The team determined that the congressional offices should
    be decontaminated and reopened as expeditiously as possible so that the

    operations of the legislative branch would not be impeded. The
    Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), which removes hazardous substances
    under its Superfund program, had a significant role in the cleanup.

    1 Technically, the term *anthrax* refers to the disease caused by the
    spore- forming bacterium, Bacillus anthracis, and not the bacterium or its
    spores. In this report, we use the term to refer to the bacterium and its
    spores to reflect terminology commonly used in the media and by the
    general public.

    United States General Accounting Office Washington, DC 20548

    Page 2 GAO- 03- 686 Capitol Hill Anthrax Incident As the cleanup of the
    Capitol Hill anthrax site progressed, EPA*s estimates of its cost steadily
    increased. Consequently, you asked us to examine

    several aspects of EPA*s cleanup. This report describes (1) the costs EPA
    incurred to conduct the Capitol Hill anthrax cleanup and how the costs
    were funded, (2) the extent to which EPA awarded the anthrax cleanup
    contracts competitively, (3) EPA*s oversight of the work performed by

    contractors and any suggested changes to EPA*s contracting processes, and
    (4) the extent to which EPA agreed to indemnify contractors against
    liability for potential damages related to the cleanup.

    To conduct our work, we sought contracting documentation relevant to the
    anthrax cleanup from EPA. However, delays in receiving much of this
    documentation considerably extended the time necessary to complete our
    work. Factors contributing to the delay included the need to negotiate and
    then to implement a process established by the Capitol Police Board and
    EPA to address their respective concerns. The Capitol Police Board was
    concerned that the EPA documents might contain sensitive security
    information, and EPA thought that the documents might contain confidential
    business information that it was not authorized to release to the Capitol
    Police Board. As the first step in the process, EPA established a reading
    room for GAO staff to preliminarily review the documents. After this
    review, EPA screened the documents for confidential business information
    and gave them, with certain information redacted, to the Capitol Police
    Board so it could screen for security issues and redact sensitive
    information. After the EPA and Capitol Police Board reviews, which took
    more than 3 months, the documents were given to us. In part because of
    delays in obtaining this contracting information, we surveyed 63 EPA
    personnel the agency had identified as having provided contractor
    oversight for the cleanup to obtain information on their oversight roles.

    We received survey responses from 56 people, a response rate of 89
    percent. Our scope and methodology for this review are presented at the
    end of this report.

    EPA spent approximately $27 million to clean up anthrax contamination on
    Capitol Hill, using funding from its Superfund program. To conduct the
    anthrax contamination assessments and the actual decontamination, EPA
    retained the services of many more contractors than it would typically use
    for a single Superfund cleanup site. Specifically, EPA paid 27 contractors
    and three federal and state agencies about $25 million for the Capitol
    Hill anthrax cleanup; the remaining $2 million covered EPA*s personnel
    costs, including travel, primarily for the staff who supervised the
    contractors. In fiscal year 2002, the Congress appropriated about $23
    million to replenish Results in Brief

    Page 3 GAO- 03- 686 Capitol Hill Anthrax Incident a substantial portion of
    the Superfund monies EPA had spent. From the outset in October 2001, many
    uncertainties were associated with the

    cleanup effort, including how to remove anthrax from buildings and how
    much the cleanup would cost. As the nature and extent of the contamination
    became fully known and the solutions to remove and properly dispose of the
    anthrax were agreed upon and carried out, EPA*s

    November 2001 estimate of $5 million proved to be a fraction of what was
    actually needed to conduct the cleanup. With the dedication of substantial
    resources and funding to the cleanup, the objective of reopening the
    decontaminated Capitol Hill office buildings as soon as was safely
    possible was achieved in about 3 months. In contrast, some other buildings
    that were also contaminated with anthrax in the fall of 2001, such as the
    Brentwood postal facility, remain closed as of May 2003.

    Because EPA relied extensively on the existing competitively awarded
    Superfund contracts it routinely uses to address threats posed by the
    release or threatened release of hazardous substances, about 80 percent of
    the contract costs for the Capitol Hill anthrax cleanup were incurred
    under competitively awarded technical assessment or hazardous substance
    removal contracts. Specifically, EPA used 10 of its existing competitively
    awarded contracts and 2 new competitively awarded supply and security
    contracts for additional support. Most of the 15 contracts that were not
    competitively awarded were sole- source contracts for under

    $200,000 to obtain supplies and technical, laboratory, and security
    services or to support existing removal contracts. EPA*s Office of
    Acquisition Management authorized the use of sole- source contracts for
    the cleanup on the basis that the emergency situation created an urgent
    and compelling need to obtain services and supplies without going through
    the generally more time- consuming competitive bidding process. For
    additional assistance, EPA also entered into agreements with the U. S.
    Coast Guard, the Department of the Army, and the State of Maryland
    Department of the Environment.

    EPA dedicated significant staff resources to overseeing the many
    contractors working on the Capitol Hill anthrax cleanup to ensure that
    their assessment and cleanup work was appropriate and the charges were
    accurate and reasonable. About 150 EPA staff participated in the cleanup,
    including about 50 staff from nine regional offices* called on- scene
    coordinators* who have experience in leading and overseeing emergency
    environmental cleanup operations. The on- scene coordinators oversaw, and
    sometimes assisted with the work of, the contractors during shifts that
    ran 24 hours a day, 7 days a week, for about 3 months. The tasks of the
    onscene coordinators varied but most often included ensuring that the

    Page 4 GAO- 03- 686 Capitol Hill Anthrax Incident contractors were on-
    site and performing assigned tasks efficiently. In addition, EPA assigned
    an administrative specialist to ensure that contract charges were accurate
    and reasonable. This individual reviewed the daily

    charges for four removal contracts, which represented about 41 percent of
    the total contract costs. EPA has conducted four assessments of its
    emergency responses to the anthrax incidents, focusing on or including the
    Capitol Hill site. Overall, these assessments indicated that EPA used its
    contracting capabilities effectively, but they also identified areas in
    which EPA could improve contract support, and EPA has begun taking steps
    to do so. Moreover, our work on the Capitol Hill cleanup revealed areas in
    which oversight of contract costs was not consistent among the regions and
    might be improved. For example, while EPA uses a computerized system for
    tracking contractor costs for removal contracts, this system is used on a
    limited basis for technical contracts that are also used for cleanups. If
    the system* which provides up- to- date cost information organized in
    consistent categories, such as equipment and travel* were used
    consistently, the quality of EPA*s nationwide contract data would be
    improved and its oversight capabilities would likely be enhanced. Toward

    this end, we are recommending that EPA require all the regions to more
    consistently use certain of the practices now used in only some regions.

    EPA agreed to indemnify two contractors that had key roles in the
    fumigation of the Hart Senate Office Building with chlorine dioxide gas
    against liability that could have resulted if a third party had been
    injured by the contractors* release of a harmful substance, including
    anthrax and chlorine dioxide. Although one of the contractors worked at
    the site while negotiating with EPA for indemnification against such
    liability, the other contractor would not start removal procedures without
    first receiving indemnification. Following 4 weeks of negotiations, EPA
    reached

    agreement on indemnification with this contractor in November 2001.
    Because the negotiation process occurred at the same time that testing was
    being performed offsite to determine the proper decontamination methods to
    use at the Hart Senate Office Building, the month- long negotiation
    process did not delay the cleanup. However, it potentially could have done
    so. As a result, two of EPA*s assessments of its responses to the 2001
    terrorist attacks recommended expanding contractor indemnification to
    address counter- terrorism response activities.

    The Capitol Hill anthrax incident occurred a month after the terrorist
    attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon, while EPA and other
    federal agencies were continuing to respond to these attacks. The Capitol
    Police Board, which governs the U. S. Capitol Police Force, led the
    anthrax Background

    Page 5 GAO- 03- 686 Capitol Hill Anthrax Incident cleanup at the Capitol
    Hill site. 2 Consisting at the time of our review of the House and Senate
    Sergeants- at- Arms and the Architect of the Capitol, the

    Board oversees the security of members of the Congress and the Capitol
    buildings, such as the congressional office buildings. The federal
    entities involved in the cleanup* including EPA, the Federal Emergency
    Management Agency, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, the U.
    S. Coast Guard, and the Department of the Army* reported to an incident
    commander who was appointed by the Capitol Police Board to make decisions
    on the day- to- day activities of the cleanup. The period from October 20,
    2001, to November 13, 2001, is characterized as the emergency phase, which
    focused on identifying the extent of anthrax contamination; this was
    followed by the remedial, or cleanup, phase.

    Reporting to the Capitol Police Board*s incident commander, EPA managed
    the decontamination aspects of the cleanup. EPA*s activities at the
    Capitol Hill site included

     working with other agencies and entities to evaluate the effectiveness
    of potential disinfectants and cleanup technologies,

     isolating areas to prevent the spread of contamination,  sampling to
    determine and confirm the extent of contamination (see

    fig. 1),  evaluating sampling results,  removing critical items for
    special decontamination procedures, and  cleaning up the contaminated
    areas and disposing of decontaminated

    items. 2 The cleanup decisions were authorized by EPA in *action
    memoranda* the agency uses for Superfund response decisions.

    Page 6 GAO- 03- 686 Capitol Hill Anthrax Incident Figure 1: A Sample Is
    Inserted into a Vial in the Hart Senate Office Building

    At the Capitol Hill site, EPA sampled both surfaces and air in the
    buildings for the presence of anthrax, using three types of surface
    samples (wet swabs and wipes for nonporous surfaces and high efficiency
    particulate arresting (HEPA) vacuuming for porous materials) and four
    types of air samples. Four methods were used to remove anthrax found in
    congressional buildings: fumigating with chlorine dioxide gas, an
    antimicrobial pesticide; disinfecting with a liquid form of chlorine
    dioxide; disinfecting with Sandia foam; 3 and using HEPA vacuuming (see
    fig. 2). During the cleanup, chlorine dioxide gas was identified as the
    best available fumigant for decontaminating parts of the Hart Senate
    Office Building, as well as for fumigating mail and packages. EPA oversaw
    the use of chlorine dioxide gas during three fumigation events in the Hart
    building.

    3 Sandia foam is a decontaminant that neutralizes chemical and biological
    agents.

    Page 7 GAO- 03- 686 Capitol Hill Anthrax Incident Figure 2: Cleanup
    Personnel Use a HEPA Vacuum in a Congressional Office

    In addition, contractors removed items from congressional offices that
    were critical to congressional operations or personal effects of
    significance. These items were bagged, tagged, and moved for off- site
    decontamination. Approximately 3,250 bags of critical items were
    transported to a company in Richmond, Virginia, for decontamination
    treatment using ethylene oxide. Approximately 4,000 packages and other
    mail were collected from the mail rooms in congressional office buildings
    and also transported off site for decontamination using chlorine dioxide
    gas. In addition, drums of mail were sent to a facility in Lima, Ohio, for
    irradiation treatment.

    The Capitol Hill anthrax cleanup site included 26 buildings, most of them
    located in or near the Capitol Hill area of Washington, D. C. The
    buildings

    Page 8 GAO- 03- 686 Capitol Hill Anthrax Incident that required testing
    for anthrax contamination included congressional and judicial buildings;
    mail facilities; and other nearby buildings, such as

    the Library of Congress. Initial sampling was conducted along the route
    traveled by the letter opened in the Hart Building by tracing the route
    back to the Dirksen Senate Office Building (where the mail for the Senate
    is

    processed), to the P Street Warehouse (a restricted mail inspection
    facility overseen by the Capitol Police where congressional mail is
    inspected), and finally to the Brentwood postal facility (the U. S. Postal
    Service mail processing and distribution center for Washington, D. C.). 4
    Samples from 7 of the 26 buildings were found to contain anthrax, which

    required that these 7 undergo more thorough sampling, followed by
    decontamination, and followed then by resampling to confirm that the
    anthrax had been eradicated. In total, approximately 10,000 samples were
    taken at the Capitol Hill site, about half of them from locations in the
    Hart Senate Office Building. EPA advised the Capitol Police Board*s
    incident commander about the extent to which buildings needed to be
    cleaned to make them safe. EPA, along with the Centers for Disease Control
    and Prevention, the Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry, the
    National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health, and other relevant
    authorities, determined that the cleanup standard that would be fully
    protective of public health and the environment was *no detectable, viable
    anthrax spores.* The seven buildings that required decontamination were
    the Dirksen, Hart, and Russell Senate Office Buildings; the Ford and
    Longworth House Office Buildings; the U. S. Supreme Court Building; and
    the P Street Warehouse. Six of the seven buildings were cleared for
    reentry by the end of January 2002. The P Street Warehouse was cleared for
    reentry in March 2002. According to the lead EPA on- scene coordinator, no
    one became sick as a result of exposure to anthrax or chemical agents used
    during decontamination.

    EPA performed its work on the Capitol Hill anthrax cleanup under its
    Superfund program pursuant to the Comprehensive Environmental Response,
    Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA) and the National Oil and
    Hazardous Substance Pollution Contingency Plan (NCP). Provisions of
    CERCLA, as amended, promote a coordinated federal, state, and local
    response to mitigate situations at sites that may pose an imminent and

    4 The Brentwood Processing and Distribution Center was renamed the Joseph
    Curseen, Jr., and Thomas Morris, Jr., Processing and Distribution Center
    in September 2002 in honor of two postal employees who died as a result of
    anthrax exposure at the facility. The facility is still commonly referred
    to as Brentwood.

    Page 9 GAO- 03- 686 Capitol Hill Anthrax Incident substantial threat to
    public health or the environment. The NCP is the federal government*s
    blueprint for responding to both oil spills and

    hazardous substance releases. It requires that an on- scene coordinator
    manage the federal response at the scene of a discharge of oil or a
    release of a hazardous substance that poses a threat to public health or
    the environment. The on- scene coordinator coordinates all federal efforts
    with, and provides support and information to, local, state, and regional
    response communities. Depending on where an incident occurs, the onscene
    coordinator may be either an EPA or U. S. Coast Guard employee. EPA*s
    Superfund work typically involves using agency personnel and contractors
    from 1 of 10 EPA regions located throughout the country that have
    experience with the hazardous substances involved in the incident and the
    methods required to remove them.

    Removal actions are generally short- term, relatively inexpensive
    responses to releases or threats of releases of hazardous substances,
    pollutants, or contaminants that pose a danger to human health, welfare,
    or the environment. CERCLA generally limits the cost of a removal action
    to $2 million and the duration to 1 year. However, CERCLA exempts certain
    removal actions from these limitations, such as when continued response is
    required immediately to prevent, limit, or mitigate an emergency. EPA
    approved an emergency exemption to the $2- million statutory limit for the
    Capitol Hill anthrax cleanup on November 5, 2001.

    Typically, EPA provides one on- scene coordinator for a removal site to
    perform an initial assessment of the cleanup work needed, monitor the more
    detailed technical assessment and cleanup work being performed by EPA
    personnel and one or two contractors, and evaluate the results. However,
    the Capitol Hill site response was different from most hazardous materials
    emergency responses in its size and complexity, the nature of the
    contamination, and the requirement that the closed congressional buildings
    be reopened as soon as possible. As a result, EPA had to use a large
    number of on- scene coordinators, major contracts, and other federal
    agencies for assistance. In this case, EPA*s Mid- Atlantic Regional Office
    (Region III) provided the lead on- scene coordinator, who led the agency*s
    cleanup efforts. Region III, along with eight other regions, also provided
    about 50 other on- scene coordinators. Further, unlike most EPA cleanups,
    the lead on- scene coordinator was not in charge of the overall operations
    but instead reported to the incident commander, who in turn reported to
    the Capitol Police Board and House and Senate leaders.

    A substantial portion of the cleanup work at the Capitol Hill site was
    performed from October 2001 through January 2002, with most of the

    Page 10 GAO- 03- 686 Capitol Hill Anthrax Incident remaining work finished
    by April 2002. However, some additional costs have been incurred, and EPA
    personnel continued to work on activities

    related to the cleanup after April 2002. For example, the final disposal
    of items used at the cleanup continued after the buildings had been
    reopened. In addition, EPA conducted several internal reviews to identify
    lessons learned from this experience to help the agency prepare for
    responses to other potential biological or chemical weapons attacks.

    According to EPA, the agency expended about $27 million on the Capitol
    Hill anthrax cleanup, using Superfund program funding. 5 Through fiscal
    year 2002 supplemental appropriations acts, the Congress provided EPA with
    additional funding for activities related to terrorism, and EPA allocated
    about $23 million of these funds to reimburse the Superfund program for
    expenditures associated with the Capitol Hill anthrax cleanup. Overall,
    EPA dedicated what it describes as unprecedented resources* contract staff
    and EPA personnel* to accomplish the cleanup of the anthrax site safely
    and effectively. Ninety- three percent of the $27 million in costs were
    incurred primarily by EPA contractors who, among other things, conducted
    technical assessments and performed the decontamination tasks at the
    various Capitol Hill sites; the remaining 7 percent of costs were incurred
    by EPA personnel, largely for planning and overseeing the work of the
    contractors in accordance with the direction provided by the Capitol
    Police Board.

    Over the course of the cleanup, EPA revised its cost estimates several
    times as the nature and extent of the contamination became fully known and
    the solutions for removing and properly disposing of the anthrax were
    agreed upon and carried out. EPA*s various cost estimates covered the
    contracts and government agreements and generally do not include the
    payroll and travel costs associated with EPA personnel assigned to the

    Capitol Hill site. In November 2001, EPA increased its initial estimate
    for the cleanup to $5 million* more than doubling the initial statutory
    limit of $2 million. EPA revised its estimate for the cleanup five more
    times to continue work necessary to control and mitigate the threat of
    release of anthrax to the environment and to properly dispose of
    pollutants and

    5 The expenditures reported are as of March 14, 2003, and were paid under
    total obligations of about $30 million. Obligations are contracts awarded,
    services received, and similar transactions during a given period that
    will require payment during the same or future period. EPA Spent About $27

    Million of its Superfund Money to Clean Up the Capitol Hill Anthrax Site

    Page 11 GAO- 03- 686 Capitol Hill Anthrax Incident contaminants from the
    site. The last revision* an increase from $25 million to $28 million*
    occurred in June 2002. (See table 1.)

    Table 1: EPA Estimated Contract and Government Agreement Cost Increases
    for the Capitol Hill Anthrax Cleanup

    Dollars in millions Date approved Amount of increase New estimated
    contract cost

    November 5, 2001 a $5 December 5, 2001 $4 9 December 18, 2001 3 12 January
    16, 2002 8 20 February 14, 2002 5 25 June 6, 2002 3 28 Source: EPA. a EPA
    first authorized spending in excess of the $2 million statutory limit in a
    November 5, 2001, action memorandum.

    EPA adjusted its projections during the course of the cleanup as a result
    of a number of factors generally related to the uniqueness of the
    situation* the first use of anthrax as a terrorist weapon in this country.
    EPA had not addressed anthrax contamination in buildings previously and
    protocols for responding to contamination by anthrax or other biological
    agents did not exist. In addition, some scientific and technical
    information needed to properly plan and conduct the anthrax cleanup was
    not readily available;

    and EPA did not, at that time, have registered antimicrobial agents
    approved for use against anthrax. Also, EPA had not compared the costs of
    candidate decontamination methods. Further, much was* and still is*
    unknown about the properties of lab- produced anthrax such as that used in
    this incident, which led to uncertainties about the health risks posed by
    the contamination and how it could spread. As a result, EPA and
    contractors had to develop plans for decontaminating large areas within
    buildings with limited practical knowledge; search for decontamination
    methods; assess their likely efficacy; implement them; and, at times,
    repeat the process if the methods did not work. Finally, EPA was one of a
    number of participants in the decisions made about the work to be done,
    the timing of the work, and the resources needed; it was not the primary

    decision maker as it would be in a typical Superfund cleanup. As EPA and
    contractor staff were beginning their work at the Capitol Hill anthrax
    site, the limitations of existing knowledge about the health risks
    associated with anthrax* such as what amount of exposure could cause

    Page 12 GAO- 03- 686 Capitol Hill Anthrax Incident illness or death* were
    becoming more clear. That the Capitol Hill site was potentially riskier
    than initially believed became evident when workers in

    the postal facilities where anthrax- laced letters were processed became
    ill; two of them subsequently died of inhalation anthrax. The scientific
    and medical information initially available to EPA and other agencies
    indicated that workers in postal facilities were not at risk of infection.
    Further, an

    elderly Connecticut woman* who may have been exposed to mail that had been
    contaminated with anthrax* died from anthrax inhalation, and a New York
    woman whose exposure to anthrax could not be linked to any mail or mail
    facilities also died. 6 To accomplish the cleanup safely in the midst of
    significant scientific and technical uncertainty and changing information
    about how anthrax

    spreads, EPA called on about 150 of its staff in headquarters and the
    regions, incurring agency payroll and travel costs of $1.9 million 7
    *payroll costs amounted to $1.3 million and travel costs to about
    $600,000. 8 According to our analysis of EPA*s Office of the Chief
    Financial Officer

    records, the majority of payroll and travel costs were incurred by on-
    scene coordinators from EPA*s regions who were overseeing and assisting on
    the cleanup. Further, EPA employed 27 contractors and obtained further
    support from three government agencies at a total cost of about $25
    million to provide assessment and cleanup services. These costs are
    discussed in the next section.

    Because of the magnitude and urgency of the health threat and the high
    priority placed on reopening the congressional buildings as soon as
    possible to mitigate disruptions to the functioning of the federal
    government, the Capitol Hill anthrax cleanup conducted by EPA and other
    federal agencies was accomplished fairly quickly, with the majority of
    contaminated buildings opened for business in about 3 months. Without

    6 Including the four fatalities discussed, the letters contaminated with
    anthrax caused 23 illnesses and resulted in five deaths. 7 We did not
    validate the personnel costs reported by the Office of the Chief Financial

    Officer. These costs may be somewhat understated because documents we
    reviewed showed that at least five of the on- scene coordinators who
    worked at the Capitol Hill anthrax cleanup for 3 weeks or less were not
    identified by EPA as having their hours worked and/ or transportation
    expenses assigned to the cleanup job.

    8 According to EPA officials, the agency decided to allocate direct
    personnel costs (salaries and travel expenses) to the anthrax cleanup but
    not indirect costs, such as contract management support, which it normally
    allocates to Superfund cleanups. Under the Superfund program, EPA seeks to
    recover costs from the responsible party or parties.

    Page 13 GAO- 03- 686 Capitol Hill Anthrax Incident the emphasis on
    reopening the buildings, for example, the cleanup site likely would not
    have been operated around the clock, 24/ 7, for months. In

    contrast, testing and decontamination of some buildings at other sites
    have taken much longer. For example, fumigation of the Brentwood postal
    facility was completed in March 2003, and this facility had not reopened
    as of May 2003. In addition, a news media building in Boca Raton, Florida,
    where the first letter containing anthrax was received in September 2001,
    remained closed as of May 2003.

    Almost all of the cleanup expenses* 81 percent* paid to EPA*s 27
    contractors and 3 government agencies were incurred under competitively
    awarded contracts. For example, $20. 3 million of the approximately $25
    million total expenditures under contracts and government agreements were
    incurred under 10 existing, competitively awarded contracts that EPA
    routinely uses under the Superfund program to respond to releases or the
    threat of releases of hazardous substances, pollutants, or contaminants
    that may present imminent and substantial danger to the public health or

    welfare. Most of the contracts that were not competitively awarded cost
    less than $200,000 and provided supplies and technical services. For
    additional assistance, EPA also entered into agreements with two federal
    agencies and one state agency. (See fig. 3.)

    Figure 3: Breakout of EPA Contract and Government Agreement Costs

    a The competitively awarded contracts include $20.3 million expended under
    10 existing contracts and about $0.1 million under 2 contracts awarded
    during the cleanup.

    EPA Competitively Awarded Most Major Contracts Used in the Anthrax Cleanup

    Page 14 GAO- 03- 686 Capitol Hill Anthrax Incident When responding to a
    release of hazardous substances, EPA first relies on its existing
    Superfund contracts. The Competition in Contracting Act of

    1984 generally requires contracting agencies to obtain full and open
    competition through the use of competitive procedures, the dual purposes
    of which are to ensure that procurements are open to all responsible
    sources and to provide the government with the opportunity to receive fair
    and reasonable prices. In order to respond to emergencies involving
    releases of hazardous substances quickly, EPA issues competitively awarded
    multiyear Superfund contracts so that contractors with the necessary
    expertise are available on short notice when needed. The 10 EPA regions
    each negotiate and manage these Superfund contracts for

    work in their geographic area. EPA generally uses two types of contracts
    in an emergency response:  technical contracts provide technical
    assistance for EPA*s site

    assessment and removal activities, and  removal contracts provide
    emergency, time- critical removal services.

    EPA used 10 existing, competitively awarded Superfund contracts for most
    of the technical assessment and anthrax removal at the Capitol Hill site:
    4 technical contracts, 4 removal contracts, 2 other contracts that
    provided specific technical services and support; and issued 2 additional
    contracts for security services and supplies that were competitively
    awarded. (See table 2.) The 10 existing contracts had been in place for up
    to 4 years when the anthrax incident occurred. 9 While EPA*s Region III
    issued the Superfund contracts that incurred the most costs for the
    Capitol Hill anthrax cleanup, contracts from other regions were also used
    to augment Region III contracting resources. The 10 existing Superfund
    contracts accounted for $20.3 million* or about 80 percent* of the total
    contract and government agreement costs for the Capitol Hill cleanup.

    9 Most of these contracts are awarded for 5- year terms. Competitively
    Awarded

    Superfund Contracts

    Page 15 GAO- 03- 686 Capitol Hill Anthrax Incident Table 2: Competitively
    Awarded Superfund Contracts Used for the Capitol Hill Anthrax Cleanup EPA
    Superfund contract Contract purpose Obligated amount Expended

    amount a

    IT Corporation Removal $4,800,000 $3,924,566 Tetra Tech EM, Inc. Technical
    4,497,205 4,397,083 Earth Tech, Inc. Removal 3,751,700 3,380,143
    Environmental Quality Management, Inc. Removal 3,100,000 2,848,095 CDM
    Federal Programs Corporation Support 2,500,000 2,075,436 Roy F. Weston,
    Inc. Technical 1,495,320 1,424,415 Ecology & Environment, Inc. Technical
    1,055,261 1,039,601 Lockheed Martin Support 1,000,000 1,000,000 Guardian
    Environmental Services, Inc. Removal 200,000 116,184 URS Operating
    Services, Inc. Technical 91,423 91,423 MVM Security & Staffing Services
    Security services 87,562 87,562 TSI, Inc. Supplies 7,520 7,520

    Total $22,585,991 $20,392,028

    Source: EPA*s Office of the Chief Financial Officer. a Expenditures as of
    March 14, 2003.

    The four EPA technical contracts for the Capitol Hill anthrax cleanup,
    among other things, provided decontamination plans and sampled for anthrax
    in buildings. According to an EPA contracting official in Region III,
    technical contracts typically account for about 10 percent of total

    contract costs at a cleanup site. However, technical contracts costs for
    the Capitol Hill site totaled about $7 million* or about 28 percent of the
    total contract costs.

    The four EPA removal contracts for the Capitol Hill anthrax cleanup
    provided personnel, equipment, and materials to remove items from the site
    for safekeeping, decontaminate areas where anthrax was found, and dispose
    of contaminated items. These removal contracts also provided equipment and
    personnel to conduct sampling because of the large amount of samples that
    were required and the short time frames involved. The four EPA removal
    contract costs totaled about $10 million.

    Page 16 GAO- 03- 686 Capitol Hill Anthrax Incident The other existing EPA
    contracts provided either specific technical services or support. One
    contract, which provides engineering and

    analytical services to EPA, monitored the air to ensure that potentially
    harmful decontamination chemicals were not released outside the area in
    which they were being used. Another contract, typically used for long-
    term

    Superfund cleanups known as remedial cleanups, provided additional
    technical support, including sampling analysis and data evaluation at the
    site. These two contracts totaled $3 million.

    Federal contracting laws that generally require EPA to use a competitive
    bidding process permit some exceptions to this requirement, including
    emergency situations where there is an unusual or compelling urgency for
    obtaining the necessary supplies or services. On this basis, in November
    2001, EPA*s Office of Acquisition Management gave the EPA contracting
    officers the authority to enter into contracts for the Capitol Hill
    anthrax site without using the normal competitive bidding process.
    Overall, EPA used 15 noncompetitively awarded contracts* that is, sole-
    source contracts* for supplies and for technical, removal, and laboratory
    services to support the cleanup of the Capitol Hill anthrax site. As shown
    in table 3,

    costs for three of the sole- source contracts exceeded $200, 000, and many
    of them were for considerably less. Noncompetitively Awarded Contracts

    Page 17 GAO- 03- 686 Capitol Hill Anthrax Incident Table 3:
    Noncompetitively Awarded EPA Contracts Used for the Capitol Hill Anthrax
    Cleanup Contract Contract purpose Obligated

    amount Expended amount a Kemron Environmental Services, Inc. b Removal
    $2,421,800 $2,119,650

    HMHTTC Response Team, Inc. Removal 900,000 900,000 Southwest Research
    Institute Laboratory 383,085 383,085 University of California* Berkeley
    Sponsored Projects Office Technical 182,075 182,075

    Silva Consulting Services, LLC Technical 165,000 158,100 Science
    Applications International Corporation b Technical 132,359 28,630
    Biomarine, Inc. Supplies 81,147 65,647 Envirofoam Technologies, Inc.
    Supplies 52,405 52,405 Safeware, Inc. Supplies 49,450 49,450 Airgas Safety
    Supplies 31,756 30,992 Sabre Oxidation Technologies, Inc. Technical 21,950
    19,850 U. S. Art Company, Inc. Technical 12,842 12,842 Mine Safety
    Appliances b Supplies 12,446 12,446 Coastal Safety & Health Services, Inc.
    Supplies 11,025 11,025 New Horizons Diagnostics Corporation Supplies 5,717
    5,717

    Total $4,463,057 $4,031,914

    Source: EPA*s Office of the Chief Financial Officer. a Expenditures as of
    March 14, 2003. b GSA federal supply schedule contract.

    The largest noncompetitive contract used for the cleanup was with Kemron
    Environmental Services, Inc. Kemron provided EPA with HEPA vacuuming
    services, one of the four methods used to remove anthrax at the Capitol
    Hill site. EPA obtained the services of Kemron under the GSA federal
    supply schedule, relying on GSA*s determination that the prices

    Page 18 GAO- 03- 686 Capitol Hill Anthrax Incident offered under the GSA
    contract were fair and reasonable. 10 The second largest noncompetitive
    contract was with the removal contractor

    HMHTTC Response Team, which provided additional workers in December 2001
    to relieve the removal contractors who had worked at the site since
    October. The other sole- source contract over $200,000 was with Southwest
    Research Institute, a laboratory that analyzed spore strips used to test
    for anthrax after the decontamination efforts. This particular laboratory
    was selected because it was familiar with the protocol developed by the
    technical consultant who developed the spore strips. In addition,
    according to EPA officials, the lab could handle the quantity of spore
    strips the cleanup generated, it promised a quick turnaround time, and the
    fee was reasonable.

    The other noncompetitively awarded contracts used at the Capitol Hill site
    were for supplies needed for the contractors working at the site, such as
    respirators, air quality meters, and sampling kits, and for technical and
    removal and laboratory services. For example, one technical contractor,

    U. S. Art Company, Inc., provided advice regarding the removal and
    decontamination of art objects in the Capitol Hill buildings. Appendix I
    provides details on the tasks performed under the competitively and
    noncompetitively awarded contracts.

    EPA obtained further support through two federal interagency agreements
    and one state agreement. EPA amended an existing interagency agreement
    with the U. S. Coast Guard to respond quickly to the Capitol Hill anthrax
    contamination. The U. S. Coast Guard National Strike Force provided
    tactical entry teams, specialized equipment, management support, and a
    deputy to the incident commander during the emergency phase of the
    cleanup. EPA also entered into a new interagency agreement with the U. S.
    Department of the Army for waste incineration services at Fort Detrick,
    Maryland. In addition, EPA used the State of Maryland Department of the

    10 Under the Federal Supply Schedule, GSA awards contracts to multiple
    companies supplying comparable products and services after determining
    that the prices negotiated were fair and reasonable. Federal agencies may
    use the supply schedule to purchase commercial services requiring a
    statement of work but are responsible for determining that the total
    contract prices are fair and reasonable, considering the level of effort
    and mix of

    labor skills needed to perform specific tasks. Agencies ordering services
    that require a statement of work are to transmit their requests for
    services to at least three contractors. However, EPA awarded this contract
    without soliciting bids from three contractors on the basis that there was
    an unusual and compelling need to obtain the services without delay.
    Agreements with Government Agencies

    Page 19 GAO- 03- 686 Capitol Hill Anthrax Incident Environment to review
    work plans and help coordinate EPA*s removal and disposal of anthrax. (See
    table 4.)

    Table 4: Agreements with Federal and State Agencies Used for the Capitol
    Hill Anthrax Cleanup

    Entity Obligated amount Expended

    amount a U. S. Coast Guard $900,000 $635,254 Department of the Army- U. S.
    Medical Command 274,141 241,141

    State of Maryland Department of the Environment 1,500 1,500

    Total $1,175,641 $877,895

    Source: EPA*s Office of the Chief Financial Officer. a Expenditures as of
    March 14, 2003.

    EPA dedicated significant staff resources to overseeing the many
    contractors working on the Capitol Hill anthrax cleanup. Specifically,
    about 50 EPA staff ensured the contractors were on site and performing
    assigned tasks appropriately. In addition, EPA assigned an administrative
    specialist to ensure contract charges were accurate and reasonable. After
    the cleanup, EPA assessed its response to the Capitol Hill anthrax
    incident and concluded that, overall, it had effectively used its
    contracting resources. However, EPA also identified ways it could improve
    contract support for potential future emergency responses. Moreover, our
    review of the Capitol Hill anthrax incident revealed inconsistencies in
    oversight practices that could affect the quality of EPA*s contract cost
    oversight, such as the extent to which regions use the computerized cost-
    tracking system, the extent to which they assign dedicated administrative
    specialists to cleanup sites to oversee costs, and regions* varying
    approaches to reviewing cost reports for technical contracts.

    EPA used emergency technical assessment and hazardous substance removal
    contractors to conduct the cleanup and dedicated significant staff
    resources to overseeing their work. Reporting to the Capitol Police Board,
    EPA staff provided extensive technical expertise in anthrax detection and
    removal to ensure that the Capitol Hill cleanup protected public health
    and the environment. In all, according to EPA*s Office of the Chief
    Financial Officer*s payroll list, about 150 EPA staff participated in the
    anthrax EPA Devoted

    Extensive Resources to Overseeing Contractors* Work, yet Some Contracting
    Changes Would Better Support EPA Cleanups

    Staff Oversaw Contractors* Work to Ensure It Was Appropriate and Charges
    Were Accurate and Reasonable

    Page 20 GAO- 03- 686 Capitol Hill Anthrax Incident cleanup, including
    about 50 staff from nine regional offices who are experienced in leading
    and overseeing emergency environmental cleanup operations* the on- scene
    coordinators* and several staff from EPA*s

    Environmental Response Team who also have experience in emergency cleanup
    operations. 11 The on- scene coordinators oversaw, and sometimes assisted
    with, the

    work of the contractors during shifts that ran 24 hours a day, 7 days a
    week, for about 3 months. Fifty- six EPA staff whose responsibilities at
    the Capitol Hill site included overseeing contractors responded to our
    survey about the oversight activities they performed. They reported that
    their tasks varied but that the task they most frequently carried out was
    overseeing contractors. 12 Specifically, the EPA respondents to our survey
    spent, on average,

     53 percent of their time overseeing contractors;  18 percent
    researching and developing technical plans;  13 percent coordinating with
    other federal agencies on the

    administration of the cleanup; and  14 percent on *other activities,*
    such as conducting pilot studies for the

    decontamination effort, sampling for anthrax, and organizing and
    administering cleanup activities.

    The EPA staff who reported overseeing contractors spent, on average, 54
    percent of their time observing contractors to ensure they were on site
    and working on assigned tasks efficiently. These staff also spent, on
    average, 17 percent of their time reviewing the results of contractors*
    work, and 8 percent of their time preparing daily or weekly work plans.
    Less frequently, staff who reported oversight activities also monitored
    delivery and quality of supplies, reviewed cost documents, and approved
    hours

    worked by contract personnel. 11 The Environmental Response Team assists
    EPA regions and other federal agencies responding to environmental
    emergencies by providing a wide range of technical expertise and
    equipment. 12 Forty- six of the survey respondents were on- scene
    coordinators.

    Page 21 GAO- 03- 686 Capitol Hill Anthrax Incident While EPA staff who
    reviewed cost documents spent, on average, 3 percent of their time
    reviewing cost documents, one person* a site

    administrative officer* spent 100 percent of his time reviewing cost
    documents. As discussed in the following section, Region III generally
    uses site administrative officers to review both technical and removal
    contract

    costs in detail and to document these reviews before the on- scene
    coordinator reviews and approves them, thereby easing the cost- review
    workload of on- scene coordinators and allowing them to focus more on
    other cleanup management tasks and issues.

    At the Capitol Hill anthrax site, the site administrative officer reviewed
    the daily charges for four of the six removal contracts, which represented
    about 41 percent of the total contract costs. 13 These reviews involved
    verifying the hours the contractor staff worked by comparing the hours
    billed with the hours recorded in sign- in sheets; reviewing travel costs
    to ensure they were within federal guidelines and reviewing other
    expenditures of contractor staff, such as telephone charges to ensure they
    were allowable. The review work papers provide documentation of the cost
    reviews performed.

    According to EPA officials, the technical contractors did not have
    sufficient staff on site to provide daily cost reports, and the site
    administrative officer, therefore, did not review the daily costs of the

    technical contracts at the Capitol Hill site. EPA requires reviews of the
    monthly cost reports from technical contractors before they are approved
    for payment by project officers in the regions; the reviews are generally
    performed by the on- scene coordinator at the site. However, we could not

    determine the extent to which the costs of the largest technical contract,
    which was managed by Region III, were reviewed by on- scene coordinators
    at the Capitol Hill site because the project officer responsible had
    retired, and EPA staff could not locate any documentation of reviews that
    had been requested or performed. As discussed further below, Region III
    implemented a new review process in 2002 that requires such documentation.

    13 The site administrative officer did not review the costs associated
    with the other two removal contracts* a GSA federal supply contract and a
    noncompetitive contract awarded for a limited period of time* on a daily
    basis because the contractors had not input these

    into the computerized cost tracking system used for the review.

    Page 22 GAO- 03- 686 Capitol Hill Anthrax Incident EPA conducted four
    assessments that either focused on or included the Capitol Hill anthrax
    cleanup; the reports resulting from each follow:

     Regional Lessons Learned from the Capitol Hill Anthrax Response,

    March 2002;  60- Day Counter- Terrorism Contracting Assessment Final
    Report,

    May 2002;  Federal On- Scene Coordinator*s After Action Report for the
    Capitol

    Hill Site, August 2002; and  Challenges Faced During the Environmental
    Protection Agency*s

    Response to Anthrax and Recommendations for Enhancing Response
    Capabilities: A Lessons Learned Report, September 2002. 14 One of these
    reviews, the 60- day counter- terrorism contracting assessment

    report, focused exclusively on the capability of EPA*s existing emergency
    response contracting network to respond to terrorist incidents, while the
    other three addressed a range of issues, such as operations and
    management, communications and coordination, health and safety, and the
    resources available to EPA. The overarching purpose of the four reviews
    was to derive lessons learned from EPA*s responses to the anthrax
    incidents in order to improve the agency*s ability to handle the kind of
    threats associated with large terrorist incidents. In this regard, while
    EPA concluded the cleanup was a success because the anthrax on Capitol
    Hill was removed efficiently and safely in the face of numerous and
    unprecedented challenges, the reports include a wide range of
    recommendations aimed at improving EPA*s response capabilities. Regarding
    contracting, the four reviews found that the agency*s emergency response
    contracting network met the response and procurement needs at the Capitol
    Hill site, but they also identified suggestions or recommendations for EPA
    to improve contract support for potential future responses. The lessons
    learned and recommendations included in the counter- terrorism contracting
    assessment report generally address the contracting issues that were
    identified in the broader reviews as well.

    14 This report focused largely on the Capitol Hill anthrax cleanup but
    also included EPA*s roles in other anthrax incidents, such as at other
    federal facilities. EPA*s Assessments of Its Response to the Capitol

    Hill Anthrax Incident Identified Contracting Issues, Which EPA Is
    Addressing

    Page 23 GAO- 03- 686 Capitol Hill Anthrax Incident The counter- terrorism
    contracting assessment report developed 13 recommendations, 9 of which it
    identified as the most urgent. These highpriority

    recommendations include the following:  Facilitate counter- terrorism
    equipment acquisition and maintenance by

    compiling a national vendor database of sources of counter- terrorism
    equipment, supplies, and services.

     Create a strike team of headquarters and regional contracting officers
    and project officers that will be available for deployment 24/ 7 in the
    event of an emergency to assist with emergency procurement needs.

     Increase the administrative support provided to on- scene coordinators
    during a major terrorism- related response by, for example, providing
    staff to review daily cost reports, review invoices, and process on- site
    paperwork.

    According to its April 21, 2003, status report of emergency response
    contracting activities, EPA has completed or is currently taking steps to
    address the contracting recommendations in the counter- terrorism
    contracting report. Regarding the three recommendations discussed above,
    EPA has done the following:

     EPA has developed counter- terrorism equipment warehouse contracts for
    most of its regions.

     EPA developed a final draft document on establishing a national contract
    support team and released it within EPA for review on April 18, 2003.

     The workgroup addressing the need for administrative support for onscene
    coordinators is working on a list of specific administrative support tasks
    that are required.

    The next section of this report discusses some other areas in which EPA*s
    contracting oversight might be improved that we identified during our
    review of the Capitol Hill anthrax cleanup.

    Page 24 GAO- 03- 686 Capitol Hill Anthrax Incident As a result of the
    convergence of EPA staff from nine of its regions at the Capitol Hill
    site, regional differences in contractor oversight were

    highlighted. Three oversight differences concern contract cost data and
    the review of these costs. First, regions vary in the way they use a
    computerized contract cost- tracking system called the Removal Cost
    Management System. All regions use the system for removal contracts;
    however, some regions also use it for some technical contracts also used
    at cleanup sites. Second, some regions require that invoice reviews be
    documented before payments are made; other regions have no such
    requirement. Third, regarding cost reviews, some regions hire
    administrative specialists to conduct detailed daily on- site reviews of
    contract costs in support of the on- scene coordinator, while others only
    rely on the on- scene coordinator to both manage cleanups and review and
    approve the contract costs. 15 In 1988, to better support Superfund
    program management, EPA

    developed a computerized cost- tracking system for cleanups so the agency
    could obtain consistent documentation from contractors at all sites in a
    timely and efficient manner. Specific anticipated benefits included timely
    tracking of total costs to ensure that cleanup projects would not exceed
    authorized amounts, more efficient invoice verification, and the ability
    to develop more accurate cost estimates for cleanups. The tracking system
    provides up- to- date cost information organized under the main categories

    of *personnel,* *equipment,* and *other field costs;* the system further
    breaks *other field costs* into such subcategories as materials and
    supplies, travel, lodging, per diem, and subcontracts. Thus, to the extent
    that regions require contractors to input daily contract costs into the
    system, EPA can readily monitor total costs as well as individual cost
    categories on a daily basis. Daily cost information supports oversight
    better than monthly information because it allows timely, on- site reviews
    of costs that can uncover inefficient or excessive use of labor and
    equipment.

    While a 1989 memorandum requiring the use of the tracking system indicated
    that all site costs were to be input into the system, generally only the
    costs associated with removal contracts are entered daily into the system.
    For example, on the Capitol Hill anthrax cleanup, the

    15 Generally on- scene coordinators review and approve costs for removal
    contracts and review costs for technical contracts; project officers
    generally approve costs for technical contracts. Certain Oversight

    Practices That Could Enhance EPA*s Oversight Are Used in Some, but Not
    All, Regions

    Computerized Cost- Tracking System

    Page 25 GAO- 03- 686 Capitol Hill Anthrax Incident expenditures ($ 10.2
    million) for the four multi- year removal contracts were input into the
    system, but the expenditures ($ 7 million) for the four

    multi- year technical contracts were not. According to EPA officials, part
    of the rationale for inputting removal contract costs into the system is
    that the type of contract used** time and materials* contracts* requires
    more oversight than some other contract types, such as fixed- price
    contracts. That is, the removal contracts provide for specific labor rates
    but do not specify the number of hours that may be applied under the
    contracts. Most of the technical contracts currently used by the regions
    are cost reimbursement contracts and a few are fixed- priced contracts.
    Further, the fixed- priced contracts used by the regions will include a
    cost reimbursement portion that may cover activities such as contractor
    travel and subcontracts, according to a Region III contract official. For
    example,

    the cost reimbursement portion of one of the fixed- price technical
    contracts used for the Capitol Hill anthrax cleanup was substantial* about
    half of the contract cost of $4.4 million was invoiced under the cost
    reimbursement portion, according to a Region III contract official. 16 As
    with work performed on a time- and- materials basis, cost- reimbursement
    work requires appropriate surveillance during performance to provide
    reasonable assurance that efficient methods and effective cost controls
    are used. In addition, the technical contracts support work at numerous
    cleanup sites, and EPA also needs to track site- specific costs as well as
    total contract costs. However, because EPA does not consistently use the
    contractor cost- tracking system to track the costs incurred under its

    technical contracts, complete and consistent cost data on specific cleanup
    sites are not readily available. Although EPA generally does not use the
    tracking system for technical contract costs, individual on- scene
    coordinators in some regions have required that these costs, as well as
    others, such as those incurred by state and federal agencies, be entered
    into the system. According to two such

    on- scene coordinators with whom we spoke, a key benefit of using the
    tracking system is that it gives them timely information on costs which
    helps them oversee and manage the work. According to an environmental
    engineer with EPA*s Environmental Response Team, the benefits of using

    16 This and the other Region III technical contract were negotiated as
    fixed- price contracts with cost reimbursement provisions. Under these
    contracts, contractors provide EPA with *dedicated teams* that provide
    technical assistance at set monthly rates for up to a

    predetermined amount of time; additional time may be provided at fixed
    hourly rates; and other specialized personnel and contractor travel and
    subcontracting are included among the items that are paid under the cost
    reimbursement provisions.

    Page 26 GAO- 03- 686 Capitol Hill Anthrax Incident the tracking system for
    all of the contracts would include having consistent cost data about each
    cleanup site in one place, thereby enabling the agency to quickly respond
    to the numerous site- specific questions

    frequently asked by EPA management, the Congress, the Office of Management
    and Budget, the Federal Emergency Management Agency, and others. For
    example, using the tracking system one can quickly break out the
    expenditures into individual cost categories. The four Capitol Hill

    contracts entered into the tracking system include, in the aggregate,
    personnel costs of $2.8 million, lodging costs of $1.6 million, and per
    diem costs of $0.6 million. Using the tracking system, analyses of
    contract cost categories can be performed on individual contracts and
    individual sites. However, because technical contracts generally are not
    included in the tracking system, information on individual cost categories
    for the entire cleanup is incomplete.

    EPA*s Contracts Management Manual describes responsibilities and
    procedures for processing contractors* invoices. Contract invoices are to
    be reviewed thoroughly for cost reasonableness and to be processed in a
    timely manner. While the guidance may be tailored to specific contracts
    and the use of checklists is optional, EPA*s policy requires documentation
    to show that the appropriate reviews have been performed. The manual

    defines the roles of the various staff involved in reviewing and approving
    invoices. Among the key personnel in this process are the EPA staff who
    oversee the actual contract work 17 *primarily on- scene coordinators in
    the case of the Capitol Hill anthrax site* and the project officer. In
    general, the staff who oversee the work are responsible for reviewing
    individual contract costs for reasonableness and informing the project
    officers of any problems with the costs, such as excess hours charged. The
    project officers are responsible for reviewing contract invoices for
    payment and completing and submitting invoice approval forms to EPA*s
    financial management center for payment. The contract invoices for the
    removal and technical contracts are typically highly detailed and
    presented in varying formats.

    Invoice reviews for removal contracts are generally more standardized
    across EPA than the invoice reviews for the technical contracts. Regions
    use varying invoice review approaches for the technical contracts. For
    example, beginning in November 2002, EPA Region III established a new

    17 EPA staff overseeing the work are referred to as *work assignment
    managers* in the EPA manual. Documentation of Invoice

    Reviews

    Page 27 GAO- 03- 686 Capitol Hill Anthrax Incident process for reviewing
    invoices of technical contracts: the relevant EPA staff who oversaw or are
    overseeing the work at the sites receive monthly

    site- specific invoices from contractors, and the EPA staff are required
    to provide a written statement to the EPA project officer either
    indicating agreement with the costs or identifying questions about them.
    Region III revised its invoice review process after a new project officer
    with prior auditing experience was hired. This individual proposed the
    change to better ensure that invoices were reviewed by the on- site person
    familiar

    with the work that was performed* such as the on- scene coordinator* and
    that the review was documented before invoices were paid. Similarly,
    Regions V and IX send forms requiring responses to questions about the
    invoices, along with the monthly invoices, and require the work assignment
    managers overseeing the contract work to return the completed forms to the
    project officers.

    However, before this change, and during the Capitol Hill anthrax cleanup,
    Region III did not require written certification of invoice reviews.
    Region III*s earlier approach is similar to the one currently used in
    Region IV, where the project officer sends monthly invoices to the EPA
    work assignment managers for review and asks them to respond if they have
    concerns. Lacking a response from an EPA work assignment manager, the
    project officer approves the invoice for payment after a specified date.
    In these cases, the agency does not have documentation of the appropriate
    invoice reviews by the EPA staff who oversaw the contract work. Another
    variation is used in Region X: the project officer approves the monthly
    invoices without providing the EPA work assignment manager the opportunity
    to review them for reasonableness. As a result, the review is performed by
    an individual who did not oversee the work rather than by on- site staff
    who know the specifics of the work performed.

    EPA*s on- scene coordinators generally are responsible for managing all
    aspects of emergency environmental cleanups: organizing, directing, and
    documenting cleanup actions. 18 Specific tasks include conducting field
    investigations, monitoring on- scene activities, and overseeing the
    cleanup actions. The on- scene coordinator is also the individual with
    primary

    responsibility for ensuring that cleanup costs are managed and tracked as
    the cleanup progresses. The cost reviews that are required to ensure that

    18 As discussed, at the Capitol Hill anthrax cleanup, EPA*s lead on- scene
    coordinator reported to the Capitol Police Board, and about 50 on- scene
    coordinators worked at the site during the cleanup. Dedicated
    Administrative

    Specialists to Review Costs

    Page 28 GAO- 03- 686 Capitol Hill Anthrax Incident EPA approves only
    reasonable and allowable costs are detailed and timeconsuming. An EPA cost
    management principle for the Superfund

    program is that costs can be managed and documented most effectively from
    the cleanup site as they occur. However, EPA*s Removal Cost Management
    Manual recognizes that the demands on the on- scene coordinator*s time and
    attention are great and that, therefore, some cost management
    responsibilities have to be delegated to other on- site or offsite
    personnel.

    To address this workload issue, Region III established an administrative
    position to provide on- site cost management support to its on- scene
    coordinators. As discussed earlier, one of Region III*s site
    administrative officers 19 worked on site at the Capitol Hill anthrax
    cleanup, supporting the lead on- scene coordinator essentially full- time
    from October 2001 through April 2002 and part- time for several more
    months. As a result, the daily costs for four removal contracts were
    examined, contractor hours were traced back to sign- in sheets, and
    equipment deliveries and uses confirmed. The lead on- scene coordinator
    could not have conducted these detailed cost reviews because of other
    demands, and the other on- scene coordinators on site (many of whom were
    assigned to the site for only several weeks) also were involved overseeing
    the work being performed and would not have been able to conduct timely,
    detailed cost reviews.

    Also, as discussed above, one of the lessons EPA learned from its
    assessments of its responses to the recent terrorist attacks, including
    the anthrax incidents, is that the agency needs to provide more
    administrative support to its on- scene coordinators who are responding to
    threats

    associated with terrorist incidents. The 60- Day Counter- Terrorism
    Contracting Assessment Final Report specifically said that on- scene
    coordinators need increased support to review daily cost reports and
    invoices and to process paperwork on- site. Although EPA*s Region III
    provides cost management support to its on- scene coordinators on a
    routine basis, most of the regions do not have positions dedicated to
    assist on- scene coordinators with their cost management responsibilities
    and, therefore, do not have trained support staff readily available to
    augment large or complex emergency cleanup efforts. Region III, which was
    responsible for the contracting for the Capitol Hill anthrax cleanup, has
    three such positions and was able to provide a site administrative officer

    19 Region III refers to this position as site administrative officer or
    field administrative specialist.

    Page 29 GAO- 03- 686 Capitol Hill Anthrax Incident to perform detailed
    cost reviews of removal contracts at the Capitol Hill site. Region II also
    has three similar positions. Five other regions we

    contacted do not have a similar position. 20 People in or near the
    contaminated Capitol Hill buildings could have been harmed by anthrax that
    was not successfully removed or by a release of the chemicals used to
    decontaminate the buildings. For example, the decontaminant used in the
    fumigation cleanup method* chlorine dioxide gas* may irritate the
    respiratory tract at low concentrations and is fatal at high
    concentrations. In many cases, contractors can obtain pollution

    liability insurance to cover harm to third parties that may arise from
    cleanup activities; in other cases, the cost of such insurance may be
    prohibitive. In the case of the Capitol Hill anthrax cleanup, two
    contractors with key roles in the fumigation of the Hart Senate Office
    Building informed EPA that they were not able to obtain such insurance at
    a reasonable cost, and they requested indemnification. As discussed below,
    EPA agreed to provide the indemnification authorized by CERCLA to the two
    contractors, protecting them from the financial liability that

    could result if a third party were injured by the contractors* release of
    a harmful substance, including anthrax. For example, numerous
    uncertainties about the use of chlorine dioxide

    gas for this task existed, and IT Corporation* which was tasked to
    fumigate the Hart office building using chlorine dioxide gas* would not
    start removal procedures without receiving indemnification from EPA
    against liability for damages. According to EPA officials, chlorine
    dioxide had not been used previously for removing anthrax or for
    fumigating such a large area. After EPA determined that IT Corporation and
    three of its subcontractors supplying the fumigation chemicals and
    technologies had diligently sought insurance and none was available at a
    reasonable price,

    in November 2001, the agency agreed to provide them with indemnification.
    Specifically, EPA agreed to compensate IT Corporation and its three
    subcontractors up to $90 million if they were deemed liable for damages
    caused by a negligent release of a hazardous substance, pollutant, or
    contaminant, including but not limited to anthrax and chlorine dioxide.
    According to EPA officials, the negotiations for the indemnification
    agreement were completed in about 4 weeks. The indemnification does not
    cover liability for intentional misconduct or

    20 We contacted regions II, III, IV, V, VIII, IX, and X. EPA Negotiated

    Indemnification Agreements with Two Contractors to Address Their Liability
    Concerns

    Page 30 GAO- 03- 686 Capitol Hill Anthrax Incident gross negligence. It
    appears that the cleanup was handled without harmful incidents occurring.
    According to EPA officials, neither IT Corporation nor

    the subcontractors have sought compensation under the indemnification
    agreement. In December 2001, after the agreement with IT Corporation was
    in place, another contractor supporting the fumigation requested and
    obtained indemnification. CDM Federal Programs Corporation (CDM), whose
    responsibilities included placing the materials to test for the presence
    of anthrax during fumigation, received indemnification terms similar to
    those granted IT Corporation but with significantly lower compensation
    amounts. Specifically, EPA agreed to compensate CDM up to $1 million if it
    were deemed liable for damages caused by a negligent release of a
    hazardous substance, pollutant, or contaminant, including but not limited
    to anthrax. This indemnification also does not extend to liability arising
    from intentional misconduct or gross negligence. Negotiations for this
    agreement built on the previously negotiated agreement with IT
    Corporation, and, according to EPA officials, were accomplished in about a
    week. CDM was already working at the site when it requested
    indemnification and continued to work while the negotiations were in
    process.

    Although IT Corporation required that an indemnification agreement be in
    place before it would begin the decontamination of the Hart building, the
    cleanup itself was not delayed because other issues needed to be resolved

    before IT Corporation started the fumigation process. For example, tests
    had to be conducted and then reviewed by EPA, the Capitol Police Board,
    and others to confirm that chlorine dioxide had the antimicrobial
    properties to effectively destroy anthrax. By the time open issues were
    resolved and the decontamination could begin, EPA had reached its
    agreement with IT Corporation and its subcontractors. However, in other
    emergency cleanups, such negotiations could delay the start of
    decontamination work. In this regard, EPA has concluded that in the
    future, a more expedient way to indemnify contractors for emergency
    situations such as anthrax incidents needs to be in place to prevent
    delays. In fact, two of the EPA reviews of its responses to the anthrax
    incidents recommended that EPA take steps to expand contractor liability
    indemnification to address counter- terrorism response activities. Once
    Subtitle G of the recently enacted Homeland Security Act of 2002 is fully
    implemented, agency officials believe that their emergency response
    contractors will face little or no legal liability to injured third
    parties if the contractors use qualified antiterrorism technologies
    previously approved by the Secretary of Homeland Security. According to an
    EPA official, if

    Page 31 GAO- 03- 686 Capitol Hill Anthrax Incident this act had been in
    effect at the time of the anthrax cleanup, and the Department of Homeland
    Security had approved the chlorine dioxide

    technology, the contractor would not have needed any indemnification
    protection.

    In about 3 months and without harm to emergency response workers or
    congressional staff, EPA, the Capitol Police Board, and others planned and
    successfully conducted the first cleanup of office buildings contaminated
    by a lethal form of anthrax that had caused several deaths elsewhere.
    Moreover, EPA has taken the initiative to study its response actions to
    better prepare itself for other emergency cleanups, including other
    potential terrorism attacks, and has identified areas in which it could
    improve. Despite the success of the cleanup, our review identified certain
    inconsistencies in EPA*s contractor cost oversight that may affect its

    quality. First, regarding tracking contract costs, because few regions use
    the cost- tracking system for technical as well as removal contracts, EPA
    does not have readily accessible, consistent contracting data on its
    cleanup sites. One result of this lack is that the agency was unable to
    readily respond to your questions about the costs of this cleanup,
    including the categories of expenditures* how much was spent on personnel,
    travel, equipment, and so on. In addition, EPA has less assurance that it
    is providing effective, consistent oversight of its contracts. Second,
    because EPA has not ensured that all of its regions document the reviews
    of contractor invoices conducted by cognizant onsite officials, the
    agency*s ability to ensure that contractors* charges are accurate and
    reasonable is lessened. Finally, on- scene coordinators face many
    competing demands; therefore, their reviews of costs may be less timely
    than those that can be provided by a specialist working on site to support
    the on- scene coordinators* cost reviews. Such administrative support
    could provide EPA with better assurance that its payments to contractors
    are appropriately reviewed and adjusted on a routine basis. It could also
    be readily called upon to conduct these cost reviews during large and
    complex emergency cleanups, such as those that may stem from terrorism.

    To enhance its ability to ensure that the agency is providing effective
    and efficient contractor oversight, we recommend that the Administrator of
    EPA direct the Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response to require

     the regions to track and monitor both technical and removal contract
    cost data in the agency*s computerized cost- tracking system and
    Conclusions

    Recommendations for Executive Action

    Page 32 GAO- 03- 686 Capitol Hill Anthrax Incident  the on- site staff
    who are responsible for reviewing contractor cleanup costs to certify that
    they have done so before the costs are approved for payment.

    In addition, we recommend that the Administrator direct the Office of
    Solid Waste and Emergency Response to examine whether more or all of the
    regions should hire specialists* either EPA or contractor staff* to
    support the on- scene coordinators by providing timely, detailed reviews
    of contract costs. If EPA uses contractor staff for this purpose, the
    agency

    will need to provide appropriate contract oversight and ensure that
    potential conflicts of interest are identified and mitigated.

    We provided copies of our draft report to EPA for review and comment. In
    commenting on the draft, the Director of the Contract Management Center in
    the Office of Emergency and Remedial Response, Office of Solid Waste and
    Emergency Response, agreed to (1) consider adding the technical contracts
    to the computerized cost- tracking system as the agency awards the next
    round of these multiyear contracts and (2) ensure all regions coordinate
    with on- site staff for invoice reviews prior to approval. The Director
    also said that EPA is currently examining providing additional
    administrative support at cleanup sites and is considering using
    contractor support when in- house positions are not available.

    One of the considerations the Director of the Contract Management Center
    cited regarding the inclusion of the technical contracts in the cost-
    tracking system is that reengineering the system to fit the different
    types of technical contracts that EPA uses might involve a considerable
    expense for the agency. Further, while she acknowledged that the cost
    tracking

    system may be particularly applicable when the technical contractors are
    involved in removal (cleanup) activities, she said the additional cost of
    using the system may not be justified in some cases, such as for finite
    work performed under a negotiated work plan or a fixed level of effort.
    However, we believe reengineering costs may not be a barrier to using the
    system for both technical and removal contracts. Specifically, the system
    is already being used to track the costs of some of EPA*s technical
    contracts. Further, an EPA environmental engineer with extensive
    experience working with the tracking system told us that changes to the
    system would not be required to add technical contracts. In addition,

    effective oversight of both time- and- materials work and
    costreimbursement work is essential to ensure costs are reasonable and
    accurate. However, currently the tracking system is used to support the
    on- site review of the time- and- materials work done under the removal
    Agency Comments

    and Our Response

    Page 33 GAO- 03- 686 Capitol Hill Anthrax Incident contracts but not for
    the contract- reimbursement work done under the technical contracts. We
    believe that the existing tracking system offers

    EPA an economical vehicle for enhancing both its contracting data and its
    contractor oversight by including the technical contracts in the cost
    tracking system as was envisioned when the system was developed.

    Regarding our recommendation that the on- site staff responsible for
    reviewing contractor invoices certify that they have done so before the
    costs are approved for payment, the Director agreed to require all EPA
    regions to coordinate their invoice reviews with the on- site staff before
    approving invoices for payment. If EPA requires the reviewers in all the
    regions to certify their invoice reviews* as we recommend and as some EPA
    regions currently do* the agency will be fully responsive to our

    recommendation. Such a requirement will provide greater assurance that the
    invoices EPA approves are accurate and reasonable.

    EPA told us that it is currently examining the issue of additional
    administrative support at cleanup sites by either EPA staff or
    contractors, and we have revised our recommendation to take into account
    concerns that would arise if EPA delegated its contract cost review
    function to contractors.

    EPA agreed that the information the report provides on the indemnification
    agreements that the agency negotiated with two contractors is accurate but
    suggested that the report also discuss the limitations of the
    indemnification that EPA can provide under CERCLA. As our report
    accurately addresses the extent to which EPA agreed to indemnify
    contractors against liability for potential damages related to the
    cleanup, we believe that a broader discussion of indemnification issues is
    not necessary.

    To determine the costs to EPA of removing anthrax from the Capitol Hill
    site, we obtained and reviewed cost information from the agency*s Office
    of the Chief Financial Officer. We discussed cleanup estimates and
    contract costs for the Capitol Hill anthrax site with EPA financial and
    contract staff. We also obtained detailed cost information on four of
    EPA*s removal contracts that was available from EPA*s Removal Cost
    Management System, the database that tracks costs by site and cost
    categories. We were not able to obtain this level of detailed cost
    information for all contractors because EPA does not use this database for
    all the contractors who work at cleanup sites. To determine how EPA*s
    costs for the cleanup were funded, we reviewed relevant EPA financial
    documentation and appropriations legislation that reimbursed the Scope and

    Methodology

    Page 34 GAO- 03- 686 Capitol Hill Anthrax Incident agency*s Superfund
    program for expenditures associated with the resources used on the
    cleanup. We did not validate or verify these data.

    To determine the extent to which the contracts used at the Capitol Hill
    anthrax site were competitively awarded, we reviewed EPA regional contract
    documents and discussed the competitive contract process EPA used with
    agency contract officials. We obtained and reviewed EPA noncompetitively
    awarded contract documents and the regulations that the agency is required
    to follow to justify awarding such contracts. We reviewed contracts and
    agency reports to identify the roles and tasks of the contractors that
    participated in the Capitol Hill anthrax cleanup and discussed specific
    contract roles and tasks with EPA officials who were responsible for the
    cleanup.

    To describe the extent to which EPA oversaw contractors* work on the
    Capitol Hill anthrax cleanup to ensure it was done appropriately and the
    charges were reasonable, we interviewed Region III contract officials and
    the site administrative officer who oversaw four contracts during the
    cleanup. We also examined documentation of the oversight provided by
    reviewing Capitol Hill site contracting files. We reviewed documentation

    of, and talked with agency officials about, the current contract oversight
    practices EPA uses, including staff responsibilities for cost oversight
    and the use of the contractor cost tracking system. In addition, in part
    because of delays in obtaining contract information, we surveyed the 63
    EPA

    personnel whom the agency identified as having provided contractor
    oversight to obtain information on their roles in overseeing the
    contractors* cleanup work for the Capitol Hill anthrax site. Using a
    Webbased survey, we received responses from 56 individuals, a response
    rate of 89 percent. We also interviewed nine EPA personnel who the survey
    identified as having spent considerable time at the cleanup site
    performing contract oversight. In addition, we reviewed four EPA
    assessments that either focused on or included the Capitol Hill anthrax
    cleanup and that identified contract oversight issues and recommendations.
    We obtained information on actions EPA has taken or is taking to respond
    to the

    recommendations addressing contracting issues. To describe EPA*s
    indemnification of contractors against liability for potential damages, we
    reviewed CERCLA provisions and EPA guidance governing indemnity authority,
    as well as contract modifications regarding indemnification that EPA made
    to two contracts used for the Capitol Hill anthrax cleanup. We also
    discussed with EPA officials how the indemnification process affected the
    Capitol Hill anthrax cleanup.

    Page 35 GAO- 03- 686 Capitol Hill Anthrax Incident We conducted our review
    from June 2002 through May 2003 in accordance with generally accepted
    government auditing standards.

    As agreed with your office, unless you publicly announce the contents of
    this report earlier, we plan no further distribution until 14 days after
    the report date. At that time, we will send copies of this report to the
    Administrator of EPA and other interested parties. We will make copies
    available to others upon request. In addition, the report will be
    available at

    no charge on GAO*s Web site at http:// www. gao. gov. If you or your staff
    have any questions, please call me at (202) 512- 3841. Key contributors to
    this report are listed in appendix II.

    Sincerely yours, John B. Stephenson Director, Natural Resources

    and Environment

    Appendix I: Contract Tasks and Roles Page 36 GAO- 03- 686 Capitol Hill
    Anthrax Incident Contract Purpose Task/ role performed Competitively
    awarded contracts IT Corporation Removal Prepare buildings for
    decontamination. Conduct and support decontamination

    operations, including fumigation with chlorine dioxide gas. Decontaminate
    interior surfaces of buildings, other structures, cars, and other vessels.
    Provide for collection, containment, and transportation and disposal of
    contaminated materials from the site operations.

    Provide support to EPA sampling teams and other federal responders,
    including response technicians, to assist with decontamination activities.

    Tetra Tech EM, Inc. Technical Provide the on- scene coordinator and
    incident commander fumigation design procedures, including details on
    fumigant delivery; concentration; operating conditions, such as
    temperature and humidity; fumigant containment and recovery; and
    monitoring of parameters. Provide detailed design for delivery of
    fumigant, equipment requirements and specifications, flow schematics, and
    detailed schedules and operating procedures to use during fumigation.
    Provide a chlorine dioxide specialist to assist EPA in overseeing the
    fumigation setup.

    Provide technical support to the on- scene coordinator in developing
    chronology of events at the site, including researching various files,
    documents, and logbooks in order to develop a comprehensive report.

    Monitor and assist with the oversight of the chlorine dioxide fumigation
    process. Assist with health and safety matters at the site, conduct
    sampling, assist and oversee off- gassing, inventory, and return items
    being treated.

    Support the on- scene coordinator in conducting presentations and
    briefings related to post- treatment and design of chlorine dioxide use in
    the heating, ventilation, and air- conditioning system. Sample a small
    number of critical items (plastic, leather, and polyester) for ethylene
    oxide and its derivations to determine how the ethylene oxide and its
    derivatives are maintained in the materials and off- gas over time.

    Earth Tech, Inc. Removal Provide decontamination services and other direct
    support to sampling teams. Decontaminate interior surfaces of buildings,
    other structures, and interior and exterior surfaces of cars and other
    vessels identified by the on- scene coordinator. Collect all expended
    cleaning agents and materials for treatment

    and/ or disposal. Provide decontamination facilities and services for
    response personnel and their equipment. Inventory items* segregating clean
    and contaminated materials and salvageable and expendable items* and
    provide documentation of inventoried items.

    Propose a decontamination strategy for critical items (including personal
    items such as photographs, framed diplomas, and equipment). Decontaminate
    critical and salvageable items from the Capitol Complex, including setting
    up work zones for items to be decontaminated and for personnel
    decontamination.

    Appendix I: Contract Tasks and Roles

    Appendix I: Contract Tasks and Roles Page 37 GAO- 03- 686 Capitol Hill
    Anthrax Incident Contract Purpose Task/ role performed

    Return property after decontamination. Provide contamination reduction and
    isolation facilities and operations that improve and ensure safe access to
    contaminated areas and items and prevent further spread of contamination.

    Environmental Quality Management, Inc. Removal Provide personnel and
    equipment, including portable decontamination

    facility. Collect expended cleaning agents and materials for treatment
    and/ or disposal. Dispose of materials or items that could not be
    decontaminated.

    CDM Federal Programs Corporation Support Oversee preparation, handling,
    placement, and collection of spore strips used

    during fumigation with chlorine dioxide gas and ethylene oxide gas.
    Develop a procedure for spore strip emplacement; removal; and critical
    item tagging, tracking, and shipping.

    Provide sampling such as swipe and high efficiency particulate air (HEPA)
    vacuum (including efforts to collect, prepare, and ship samples), item
    decontamination, and minor remediation work.

    Support critical item degassing activities in Beltsville, Maryland.
    Maintain critical item inventories and coordinate the release and return
    of critical items to congressional staffers.

    Support chlorine dioxide decontamination of congressional mail packages.
    Roy F. Weston, Inc. Technical Develop various documents/ plans to be used
    during the response activities (e. g., standard operating procedures for
    sampling, decontamination, source reduction). Provide reconnaissance,
    photo documentation, and sampling of congressional office buildings.

    Provide technical support for the selection and implementation of
    decontamination procedures; building- specific plan development for
    anthrax remediation, including sampling plans, isolation plans,
    decontamination plans,

    and item recovery plans; and sampling support for anthrax analysis using
    HEPA and wipe sampling techniques; perform oversight of removal crews.
    Provide swab and HEPA sampling and decontamination support. Provide bag-
    and- tag operations of critical and salvageable items in congressional
    office buildings. Provide air monitoring operations during chlorine
    dioxide fumigation operations.

    Ecology & Environment, Inc. Technical Develop sampling and decontamination
    plans, sample labels and chain- ofcustodies, and maps to support sampling
    activities and to track sampling

    results. Perform sampling, monitoring, and decontamination of areas in the
    Capitol Hill complex. Conduct sampling tracking and handling activities,
    including preparing samples for shipping.

    Compile and review background data and organize site documentation files.

    Appendix I: Contract Tasks and Roles Page 38 GAO- 03- 686 Capitol Hill
    Anthrax Incident Contract Purpose Task/ role performed

    Provide technical support to the operations section and support to the EPA
    Mobile Lab.

    Lockheed Martin Support Assist in monitoring temperature and relative
    humidity inside office buildings and in monitoring chlorine dioxide,
    chlorine, wind speed and direction, temperature and relative humidity in
    surrounding area.

    Assist with development and evaluation of anthrax fumigation procedures
    using spore strips in a test facility and train other contractors in the
    handling and placement of spore strips in the office building.

    Provide ambient air monitoring for chlorine dioxide using tape meters and
    a portable meteorological tower to document that no chlorine dioxide is
    being emitted from the treatment area. Provide on- site assistance to
    ensure that spore strip sampling is being conducted properly and that data
    management is being performed accurately and completely.

    Guardian Environmental Services, Inc. Removal Assist in the removal of
    items from the contaminated office suites in the

    congressional office buildings, including removal of contaminated office
    furniture, office equipment, and carpet. Construct isolation chambers,
    decontamination chambers, and other related structures.

    URS Operating Services, Inc. Technical Provide sampling for anthrax in the
    Capitol Hill complex.

    MVM Security & Staffing Services Security Provide security personnel to
    staff the single entrance/ exit and to patrol

    perimeter of the storage location used for property removed from U. S.
    Senate offices during the cleanup to ensure that no unauthorized personnel
    enter the work area and assure that property items are not removed from
    the work area without approval of EPA.

    TSI, Inc. Supplies Provide Porta Count plus respirator fit tester.

    Noncompetitively awarded contracts Kemron Environmental Services, Inc.
    Technical Perform air sampling and perform HEPA vacuuming services. Remove
    critical items and documents, spray affected areas with chlorine dioxide,
    and perform cleaning and breakdown of work zones.

    Assist EPA in the evaluation of possible remediation of the heating,
    ventilation, and air- conditioning system, including evaluation of
    affected areas, and construction of critical barriers inside the ductwork
    to isolate affected areas from uncontaminated areas. After fumigation of
    the affected heating, ventilation, and air conditioning system, provide
    confirmatory sampling support,

    interior duct sampling, additional cleaning of the system (including
    postfumigation scrub down inside the ducts), and removal of duct
    insulation.

    HMHTTC Response Team, Inc. Removal Perform cleanup activities, including
    construction and removal of isolation

    barriers, HEPA vacuuming operations, and application of liquid chlorine
    dioxide. Provide 24- hour support for decontamination and rescue
    operations at the Capitol Hill anthrax site.

    Appendix I: Contract Tasks and Roles Page 39 GAO- 03- 686 Capitol Hill
    Anthrax Incident Contract Purpose Task/ role performed

    Southwest Research Institute Laboratory work Provide analysis of spore
    strips placed in various locations during cleanup

    operations. Receive and perform daily observations of thousands of spore
    strips.

    University of California* Berkeley Sponsored Projects Office

    Technical Participate in and support program plan development relating to
    spore sterilization technologies for remediation of federal facilities.
    Develop experimental and field test plans and methodologies for

    characterization/ modeling spore killing processes and kinetics and
    factors that affect the efficacy of spore killing in field- scale
    applications. Establish laboratory systems for the measurement of gas
    phase sporicidal effects at federal office and mail facilities. Provide
    laboratory analytical support

    for measurement of gas phase sporicidal effects. Develop experimental and
    test plans and methodologies for assessing and validating spore killing
    processes.

    Determine the concentrations of chlorine dioxide needed to decontaminate
    anthrax on Capitol Hill. Prepare 31,500 test strips containing a bacillus
    similar to anthrax and send to Capitol Hill. The exposed strips will be
    sent to labs and results then will be sent to the University of
    California, Berkeley, to be included in a consolidated final report. Silva
    Consulting Services,

    LLC Technical Maintain sample management system software in a private,
    secure

    environment on the Internet. Provide EPA personnel and designated
    contractor personnel secure, controlled access to the database. This
    system could generate a large variety of reports to address particular
    questions about sampling results.

    Science Applications International Corporation Technical Provide
    consulting services to EPA on- scene coordinator in environmental

    remediation of anthrax- contaminated buildings in the Capitol Hill
    complex. Support includes data interpretation of the spore strips used to
    test the efficacy of the kill of anthrax, data validation, review of
    documents, assistance in document preparation, and report writing.
    Coordinate efforts with the University

    of California, Berkeley. Biomarine, Inc. Supplies Provide equipment that
    includes biopaks, facemasks, oxygen cylinders, gel

    tubes, foam scrubbers, coolant canister foam, flow restrictors, and biopak
    service and retrofit kits.

    Envirofoam Technologies, Inc. Supplies Provide Sandia foam and backpack
    dispensing units.

    Safeware, Inc. Supplies Provide respirators with battery and cartridge.
    Airgas Safety Supplies Provide air purifying respirators. Sabre Oxidation
    Technologies, Inc. Technical Provide engineering support during the
    assessment of the feasibility and

    design of the systems for fumigating air handling return system. U. S. Art
    Company, Inc. Technical Provide training on proper procedures for
    handling, packaging, and

    decontaminating artifacts (paintings, sculptures, and other art forms)
    from the Hart Senate Office Building.

    Appendix I: Contract Tasks and Roles Page 40 GAO- 03- 686 Capitol Hill
    Anthrax Incident Contract Purpose Task/ role performed

    Mine Safety Appliances Supplies Provide self- contained breathing
    apparatus system. Coastal Safety & Health Services, Inc. Supplies Provide
    indoor air quality meter.

    New Horizons Diagnostics Corporation Supplies Provide anthrax detection
    kits.

    Source: EPA.

    Appendix II: GAO Contacts and Staff Acknowledgments

    Page 41 GAO- 03- 686 Capitol Hill Anthrax Incident John B. Stephenson
    (202) 512- 3841 Christine Fishkin (202) 512- 6895

    In addition to those named above, Heather Balent, Greg Carroll, Nancy
    Crothers, Richard Johnson, and Susan Lawes made key contributions to this
    report. Appendix II: GAO Contacts and Staff

    Acknowledgments GAO Contacts Acknowledgments

    (360214)

    The General Accounting Office, the audit, evaluation and investigative arm
    of Congress, exists to support Congress in meeting its constitutional
    responsibilities and to help improve the performance and accountability of
    the federal government for the American people. GAO examines the use of
    public funds; evaluates federal programs and policies; and provides
    analyses, recommendations, and other assistance to help Congress make
    informed oversight, policy, and funding decisions. GAO*s commitment to
    good government is reflected in its core values of accountability,
    integrity, and reliability.

    The fastest and easiest way to obtain copies of GAO documents at no cost
    is through the Internet. GAO*s Web site (www. gao. gov) contains abstracts
    and fulltext files of current reports and testimony and an expanding
    archive of older products. The Web site features a search engine to help
    you locate documents using key words and phrases. You can print these
    documents in their entirety, including charts and other graphics.

    Each day, GAO issues a list of newly released reports, testimony, and
    correspondence. GAO posts this list, known as *Today*s Reports,* on its
    Web site daily. The list contains links to the full- text document files.
    To have GAO e- mail

    this list to you every afternoon, go to www. gao. gov and select
    *Subscribe to daily E- mail alert for newly released products* under the
    GAO Reports heading.

    The first copy of each printed report is free. Additional copies are $2
    each. A check or money order should be made out to the Superintendent of
    Documents. GAO also accepts VISA and Mastercard. Orders for 100 or more
    copies mailed to a single address are discounted 25 percent. Orders should
    be sent to: U. S. General Accounting Office 441 G Street NW, Room LM
    Washington, D. C. 20548 To order by Phone: Voice: (202) 512- 6000

    TDD: (202) 512- 2537 Fax: (202) 512- 6061

    Contact: Web site: www. gao. gov/ fraudnet/ fraudnet. htm E- mail:
    fraudnet@ gao. gov Automated answering system: (800) 424- 5454 or (202)
    512- 7470 Jeff Nelligan, Managing Director, NelliganJ@ gao. gov (202) 512-
    4800

    U. S. General Accounting Office, 441 G Street NW, Room 7149 Washington, D.
    C. 20548 GAO*s Mission Obtaining Copies of

    GAO Reports and Testimony

    Order by Mail or Phone To Report Fraud, Waste, and Abuse in Federal
    Programs Public Affairs
    *** End of document. ***