tricityherald.com / Opinions

reprint or license Print E-Mail

Sunday, Jan. 04, 2009

Bodman should fix Hanford contract on his way out

Energy Secretary Samuel Bodman's legacy at Hanford is tainted by the jumbled mess surrounding major contracts at the site.

It's too bad, because his performance otherwise includes some laudable highlights, which ought to be the focus as his tenure draws to a close.

He's earned a reputation as a straight shooter among state regulators who work to renegotiate the Tri-Party Agreement and keep Hanford cleanup on track.

And Bodman brought some semblance of reality to cost and schedule estimates for the $12 billion waste vitrification construction project -- an achievement that had escaped his predecessors.

But such accomplishments were overshadowed by news last week that the Government Accountability Office had dismissed a protest against the award of the $3 billion mission support contract.

The announcement -- and the criticism included in GAO's findings -- served as a pointed reminder of the mess that the Department of Energy's procurement process has become.

Recent history of Hanford contracts is littered with delays, protests and controversy.

The Pacific Northwest National Laboratory's operating contract, the Fast Flux Test Facility demolition contract, the river corridor cleanup contract and now the mission support contract, all prove the point.

The result has been increased costs, additional uncertainty, lowered worker morale, missed cleanup deadlines, diminished credibility for DOE and damage to the every aspect of the local economy -- from charitable donations to housing sales.

In this latest development, GAO dismissed the protest filed by the losing team headed by Computer Sciences Corp.

But that didn't amount to an endorsement of DOE's handling of the contract. Instead, DOE was told to address issues raised in GAO's report and re-evaluate proposals for the contract.

In other words, the fate of this critical contract isn't much more certain than when plans were first announced to open it to competition.

Competition is good, but only if it brings some tangible benefit, like cheaper costs or improved performance.

That has to be weighed against the benefits to cleanup work that come from continuity, stability, rewarding excellence, building morale, retaining talent and maintaining focus.

We're convinced that DOE has done a poor job of evaluating the pros and cons of so much upheaval in Hanford operations.

There is still time to rectify some of the damage, if Bodman decides to make it a priority in his final days.

DOE released a statement last week saying that it was "confident that the issues raised by the GAO can be addressed both thoroughly and expeditiously."

It's crucial to do just that. Punting this problem into the next administration likely will result in further delays, compounding the damage already caused by drawing out the process for so long.

Efforts to fix the problem will no doubt be complicated by the recent resignation of James Rispoli, DOE's assistant secretary for environmental management.

Without Rispoli to run roughshod over efforts to fix the process and get the contract awarded as soon as possible, this issue may well end up in the hands of the Obama administration.

That sort of lengthy delay -- inevitable during such a major transition -- is unfair to everyone involved, especially to the Hanford workers whose fates remain in limbo.

Procurement officials at Hanford can fix this mess in relatively short order, but only if they're getting clear signals from the top.

Bodman ought to push hard to finish this. A success here would be a better fit for his legacy.

@Nyx.AuthorDisplayName@ wrote on @Nyx.PostedAtTime@:

@Nyx.CommentBody@

@Nyx.Recommender@ @Nyx.AbuseReporter@