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. ***