|
|
||||
|
This Week in Washington
For the Week Ending July 28, 2000
This weekly report is written by ASCE's Government Relations staff. If you have questions or comments about any items in this report, please contact Brian Pallasch, Michael Charles, Martin Hight, Austin Fulk, or Liz Hermsen at 202/789-2200. Due to the congressional recess, This Week in Washington will be taking a break for the next month. We will resume regular updates on Friday, September 8. Inside This Week:
In a letter to Rep. Doug Bereuter (R-NE), ASCE said the provision in the draft bill released on July 7 would not restrict the Corps' use of design-build programs to the two-phase source selection process that were negotiated by the architectural, engineering, design-build and construction industries in the Federal Acquisition Reform Act of 1996. The draft WRDA bill, if enacted as written, would appear to authorize a variety of design-build contracting procedures that do not have the procedural safeguards for design professionals that are contained in the two-phase process, the Society said. "Beginning in the 1980s, the federal government increasingly relied on the use of design-build service contracts in the construction of public works projects," ASCE said. "The process incorporates the design and construction projects into a single contract and allows the federal agency/owner to delegate all responsibility for designing and constructing a project to an outside party through one design-build contract. "ASCE supports the design-build contracting method when it is appropriate for use, providing that the method protects the interests of all parties to the transaction -- the government, the design professional, the contractor and the public." Under the two-phase procedures, the government selects a short list of three to five prequalified offerors based on, among other things, their professional qualifications. The government agency then evaluates the project proposals, which include A/E design services, submitted by the qualified offerors and awards a contract to one of them. The professional qualifications of the offeror are a key factor in the final selection, but the process may -- or may not -- result in the awarding of design-build contracts to the low bidder. In the one-step process, cost is a much more important factor. Congress adjourned this week until September without acting on the bill. The Senate Environment and Public Works Committee previously reported a WRDA bill without design-build provisions.
H.R. 4271 would create within the National Science Foundation a master teachers program to train math and science teachers for grades K-12. ASCE has been very active in supporting this legislation.
Committee Democrats and several Republicans expressed opposition to the Chairman's draft and numerous amendments were prepared for the mark-up. Sensenbrenner then pulled the bill from consideration. The authorization for the NSF runs out on September 30, 2000. Several members of the Science Committee are supporting efforts by Senators Kit Bond (R-MO) and Barbara Mikulski (D-MD) to double funding for NSF within the next five years. On a related note, Dr. Kenneth I. Shine, President of the Institute of Medicine, on June 23 wrote a letter to Senator Kit Bond (R-MO), chair of the Senate VA-HUD Appropriations Subcommittee, which is responsible for actually allocating the money previously authorized for NSF. Shine wrote to express his support for the concept of doubling the NSF budget over the next few years. In his letter, Shine stated that "The late Lewis Thomas, the former head of Yale Medical School and the Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center, once observed that one of the greatest advances in improving human health was the development of clean drinking water and sewage systems. So we owe our health as much to civil engineering as we do biology."
ASCE and other members of the engineering and scientific community have questioned efforts to increase H1-B and have urged Congress to address any worker shortage through education and training.
"The U.S. Department of Transportation is committed to supporting state and localities jurisdictions as they convert the roughly 300 existing numbers to '511,'" Secretary Slater said. "Through a new Intelligent Transportation Systems (ITS) grant program and technical assistance from our field staff nationwide, we stand ready to make a smooth transition to the single number." Once in place, the new number will help travelers avoid congestion and traffic incidents and save lives, time and money, the DOT said. Details of the new grant program are being developed and will be available soon. Information about 511 implementation and conversion, as well as the conversion grant program, is posted and will be updated regularly on the DOT's ITS website: http://www.its.dot.gov.
ASCE at NCSL
Brownfields in North Carolina
The issue of gasoline additives to reduce air pollution clashed with the issue of increasing gas prices at the pump to create a volatile (pardon me) legislative situation. The use of gasoline additives such as methyl tertiary butyl ether (MTBE) and ethanol as oxygenates is being questioned. MTBE has been found to cause groundwater contamination and ethanol has some limitations due to difficulties in transportation and storage of the resultant fuel product. Late in the month Senator Robert Smith, Chairman of the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee, introduced his own bill (S. 2962). His bill would give states the authority to ban MTBE and authorize EPA to make a study of the nation's transportation fuel supply. The use of ethanol would be left up to individual states. Markup (see below) of his bill is scheduled for September 7th just as the Senate is returning from its summer recess. An ASCE member commented on my June report and I offer the following explanation of the term "markup." Markup is the "marked up" copy of the legislation as it is reported out of Committee. It is the version of the bill that the Committee (of the Senate) votes on and includes any last minute changes or amendments which Committee Members and their staff wish to include in the bill before it goes to the Senate for a vote. The markup version is sometimes quite different in scope than the bill that was initially read in the Senate and referred to the Committee. Also, as you might expect, the markup version has been through the Committee hearing process where interest groups, lobbyists, etc. can submit comments or work with legislators and their staffs on putting in or taking out specific sections. Once the markup version is available any Senator can then plan to amend the bill on the Senate Floor. In many cases the bill is passed with no amendments.
Respectfully Submitted, David Westerling, P.E. |
||||
|
||||