ACEC is challenging the National Guard Bureau (NGB) relating to the agency’s contracting practices and its use of solesource authority.
The Council’s outreach to the NGB is in response to the agency’s cancellation of project solicitations in most regions of the country. The industry had anticipated opportunities to compete for these projects, but late in the process the NGB chose to withdraw the solicitations and carry out the work on a sole-source basis.
ACEC has raised concerns that the NGB had several opportunities to replace its expiring contracts, as well as engage with other agencies, such as the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers or Naval Facilities Engineering Systems Command.
Going forward, ACEC is urging the NGB to work within allowable rules to overcome its short-term needs and take action to establish multiregional A/E indefinite delivery, indefinite quantity contracts for future needs, which will provide full and open competition in a fair and transparent manner.
ACEC was successful in a pair of challenges to state and federal agencies that violated federal procurement laws and did not apply Qualifications-Based Selection (QBS) in selecting A/E services.
The Council recently challenged an RFP requesting offerors to provide a cost proposal representing 20 percent of the evaluation for a Park and Ride Design and Construction Engineering & Inspection in Charleston, S.C. ACEC notified the city that both the federal government and the state of South Carolina require the use of QBS for the procurement of engineering services. The project included federal transit funds, and the Council was successful in arguing that the agency must evaluate an offeror’s qualifications to determine the award of the contract, and that price must be excluded as an evaluation factor.
In another challenge, the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) recently issued an RFP for architecture services to study, design, and replace generators using a reverse auction, where bidders compete online to identify the lowest bidder. ACEC notified FEMA’s contracting officers that they were in violation of the Brooks Act and requested changes to the RFP. The RFP was modified to comply with federal rules.
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has proposed a strict limit on per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) in drinking water of 4 parts per trillion, prompting concerns raised by ACEC and many water utilities.
The proposed limit is among the lowest levels that can be reliably detected and is tighter than any proposed by states. The water utilities have serious concerns about the cost of the rulemaking, particularly as those costs will potentially fall to ratepayers. The EPA’s estimated costs for water utilities to comply with its proposal range from $772 million to $1.2 billion, while its estimated benefits range from $908 million to $1.2 billion.
However, a study requested by the American Water Works Association (AWWA) estimated that the national cost for water systems to install treatment to remove PFAS to levels required by the EPA’s proposal exceeds $3.8 billion annually. According to AWWA, more than 5,000 water systems will have to develop new water sources or install and operate advanced treatment; another 2,500 water systems in states with existing standards will need to adjust existing PFAS treatment systems.
Recently, ACEC joined with associations of cities and counties to advocate that Congress direct an additional U.S. Government Accountability Office study of the EPA’s cost estimates in the FY 2024 appropriations. ACEC will continue to engage Congress and the EPA to ensure water utilities and industries are subject to PFAS regulation based on the best science and rigorous cost-benefit analysis.
For legislative news, visit ACEC’s Last Word blog online at www.acec.org.