Monday, Dec. 29, 1997

Scientists oppose site protection work

Letter from Alan L. Schneider, scientists attorney, to federal lawyer Linda Kirts on Dec. 29, 1997:

This is to acknowledge receipt of Mr. Baker's letter of December 23, 1997. Enclosed with the letter was a copy of various documents relating to a contract to be awarded by the Army Corps of Engineers for construction of site "protection" features at the location where the Kennewick Man skeleton was discovered (hereinafter referred to as the "Construction Project"). The documents enclosed with the letter are entitled "Construction Solicitation and Specifications" and consist of a Solicitation, Offer, and Award and various attachments thereto (hereinafter referred to as the "Contract Documents").

On behalf of my clients, I would like to thank you and Mr. Baker for providing me with a copy of the Contract Documents even though done at such a late date. As you are aware from my prior correspondence, this is a matter of great interest to my clients. The Contract Documents provide the first concrete information we have received concerning the Army Corps' plans for this extremely important site.

Subject to the above qualifications, our comments concerning the Construction Project are as follows:

5. We also object to the Corps' failure to provide us with timely information concerning the Construction Project. The Contract Documents indicate that they were issued on December 10, 1997, and that bids for the Project were to be submitted by December 17, 1997. They also indicate that work on the Project is to begin within five days of contract award, and completed within 14 days (and in no event later January 31, 1998). Mr. Baker's letter acknowledges that on November 10, 1997, I requested information concerning any Corps plans for the discovery site. His letter failed to acknowledge, however that I made similar requests on November 6, 1996, December 16, 1996, and July 29, 1997. Despite these repeated requests, we were excluded from information about the Construction Project until last Friday, December 26, 1997. This is in marked contrast to the treatment awarded to tribal claimants who were given information concerning the Corps' plans as early as October 1996. Given these circumstances, we can only interpret the Corps' actions in this matter as reflecting a deliberate attempt to deprive plaintiffs of a meaningful opportunity to participate in or affect the Corps' plans for the site.

6. We would also like to note that the documents sent by Mr. Baker do not provide all relevant information needed to adequately assess and comment on the Corps' Construction Project. Among other things, we have questions concerning the following matters:

(a) Has an award been issued for the Project contract?

(b) If so, to whom was it awarded and when is work scheduled to commence?

(c) What measures, if any, have been taken by the Corps to comply with the requirements of the National Historic Preservation Act and any other statutes, regulations or directives that may apply to the Project.

I look forward to receiving your reply concerning these matters before the Corps proposed Project has become an accomplished fact.

Very truly yours,

Alan L. Schneider