Moab Uranium Mill Tailings project contractor Portage earned about 76 percent of its available award fee in Fiscal Year 2014, according to a
fee determination scorecard recently posted by the Department of Energy. Portage earned $1,065,483 out of $1,401,951 in total available award fee. That’s a drop from FY 2013, when the contractor earned 96 percent of its available award fee—approximately $1.1 million out of $1.14 million. In FY 2014, the contractor earned an overall rating of “very good,” with a “very good” rating in the tailings quantity category and “good” ratings in project management and health and safety.
The project involves the removal of a total of approximately 16 million tons of uranium mill tailings from a former uranium-ore processing facility near Moab, Utah, on the west bank of the Colorado River to a disposal site approximately 30 miles away. Work at the Moab site is currently being performed by Portage under a five-year contract awarded in late 2011. In FY 2014 the contractor earned high marks for disposing of more tailings than its stated goals. “The rating plan goal was 905,063 tons for Very Good, and the contractor disposed of 906,351 tons at the Crescent Junction disposal cell,” the scorecard states. “The costs the contractor incurred were less than expected for the additional tailings disposed, due to increased efficiencies with the excavation operations.”
However, the scorecard also noted a number of weaknesses in the project management area, including that Portage was “unprepared for FY14 winter shipping operations.” That winter was the first work that was performed year-round and it experienced some cold-weather delays. Some other project management issues were that Portage had “several” corrective actions open two to eight months past original due dates and that the contractor’s new site manager “struggled to get up to speed with reporting, holding proper critiques, and determining ORPS reportability.” In the health and safety category the scorecard notes that Portage has been “inconsistent in reporting incidents to DOE.” It adds: “This issue has continued from the previous rating period. Portage either failed to notify DOE; failed to write a report on an incident; or in some cases they were late in reporting to DOE.”
