TRS offers the following four broad categories of contracting options for In Situ Thermal Remediation:
Standard Fixed Price Remediation (SFPR) provides the lowest cost option. Guaranteed Fixed Price Remediation (GFPR) or Money-Back Guaranteed Remediation (MBGR) is usually applied after a firm cleanup goal has been negotiated with regulators. Time & Material is an alternative contracting option. Regardless of which method of contracting is used, TRS highly recommends checking references from previous projects. Details of each contracting option are provided below.
Using Standard Fixed Price Remediation contracting, TRS bills a fixed price for the completion of a set series of project tasks. Typically, these tasks are design, electrode materials mobilization, system installation and start-up, system operation, and demobilization and final reporting. SFPR is also the price basis for most of our preliminary budget estimates. For each remediation, TRS develops an estimate of the amount of electrical energy, in kilowatt-hours, that will be required to reach the remedial goal. This estimate is referred to as the "Design Remediation Energy."
The Design Remediation Energy is most strongly influenced by:
Perhaps surprisingly, the Design Remediation Energy is relatively unaffected by the type of soil (gravel, clay or bedrock), the state of water saturation, the soil electrical conductivity, or the presence of DNAPL.
Under an SFPR contract TRS will continue operations until reaching the remediation goal or inputting the remediation design energy, whichever occurs first. Based on our experience, TRS reaches the goal prior to inputting the design energy about 85% of the time. If desired, the client can request TRS continue operations for a fixed weekly fee.
Further, SFPR contracting aligns goals. That is, the faster TRS completes the project, the more the client saves in energy and project management costs. Also, TRS never charges for equipment downtime or changes in matrix electrical resistivity.
GFPR contracting is usually most applicable when a specific numerical cleanup goal has been negotiated with regulators. This goal is normally site-specific and has a risk-based component stipulating that no further remediation will be required upon achieving the goal for the site. Because GFPR transfers risk from the property owner to TRS, these contracts result in higher project pricing. The exact amount of price increase over an SFPR contract depends on a myriad of site-specific details. However, the average increase is about 15-20% of the TRS price. The guarantee is usually enforced by a large retainage (20-30%), which is payable only when the contracted cleanup goal is achieved.
In order to provide a GFPR, the parameters that impact the TRS Design Remediation Energy (bulleted items above) must be well-documented. Also, the performance measurement methods, the locations and the number of samples must be determined in advance. Either soil or groundwater samples can be used to measure guaranteed performance.
Regardless of how thorough the site assessment, there is always a possibility of undetected contamination just outside the treatment region along one of the remediation boundaries. To guard against possible flux of contamination into the treated region, TRS prefers that confirmatory soil samples be collected from locations that are at least 5 feet from a remedial boundary. Similarly, confirmatory groundwater samples should be collected from locations at least 15 feet from a remedial boundary.
The price increase to provide a GFPR also depends on whether a statistical analysis is applied to data interpretation, especially if soil sampling is used to determine remediation success. The three principal data interpretation possibilities are:
TRS will usually recommend several rounds of sampling. For example, the first round of sampling might indicate that 80% of the sample locations have VOC concentrations low enough to meet the remedial goal. TRS would then shut off 80% of the ERH system and concentrate efforts on the region that still requires remediation. The second round of soil sampling would include the 20% of locations that did not meet the goal in the first round and it is likely that all but one or two locations would pass in the second round. The third round of soil sampling might include just a boring or two. Groundwater sampling is easier than soil sampling and therefore all monitoring wells are usually sampled in each event.
MBGR contracting is applicable when specific numerical cleanup goals have been negotiated with regulators. Goals can be based on soil concentrations, groundwater concentrations, or both. MBGR contracting is available for most sites that are contaminated with VOCs and that consist of natural soil and rock - not debris.
Because MBGR transfers all risk from the property owner to TRS, these contracts result in higher project pricing. The exact amount of price increase over a SFPR contract depends on site-specific details. However, the average increase is about 30-35% of the TRS price. The guarantee is usually enforced by a large retainage (40%), which is payable only when the contracted cleanup goal is achieved.
The MBGR includes a repayment phase if the goals are not met. A predicted operating time is defined in the TRS proposal. Repayment begins if your goals have not been met before the end of the third month after the operating time has been consumed. Repayment is made at a rate of 5% of the contract amount per month until TRS meets your goals or until all money has been refunded. Repayment is made from the escrow account until that account is exhausted, and then TRS issues a check each month.
A time and material contract consist of either a TRS Group or client's master services agreement and subsequent task order that contains the following items:
The task order is authorization for work to commence, with the schedule as the guideline for completion of services, including any intermediate milestones and phase submittals. TRS Group bills the client monthly and provides relevant supporting documentation, until completing the agreed upon goals and objectives.
Hank Mittelhauser, Ph.D
St.John-Mittelhauser & Associates