Carter appoints Calif.-based int’l company as EEMC

U.S. District Court for the NMI designated judge David O. Carter has selected Gilbane Federal, a California-based full service construction company with 64 offices worldwide, as an Engineering and Environmental Management Company, which will have the power to expeditiously complete some stalled Commonwealth Utilities Corp. projects.

In an order on Tuesday, Carter said after consideration of the candidates’ proposals and interviews, in light of the scope and nature of stipulated order 2 (SO2), and upon full consideration of the history of this case, he appoints as EEMC Gilbane Federal, a full service construction, environmental, fuels, and energy company.

SO2 refers to court-mandated CUC projects that include the CUC pipeline; tank erection cleanout and testing; secondary containment; and used oil disposal, and others.

Carter said Gilbane Federal, acting by and through its vice president of fuels business line, Daryl Greenway, is appointed as the EEMC pursuant to the court’s Sept. 26, 2014 order, and is vested with all the power and authority outlined in that order.

According to Gilbane Federal’s website, Greenway has served as project or program manager for multiple U.S. Department of Defense projects in Iraq, Afghanistan, Diego Garcia, Johnston Atoll, Bahamas, Guam, Korea, Turkey, Germany, Italy, Spain, Japan, and U.S.A.

Carter said upon consultation with the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and CUC, consistent with the EEMC order and Gilbane’s proposal, as of Dec. 23, 2014, Gilbane Federal is authorized to proceed with work on the CUC pipeline and Tank 102 projects.

“Gilbane, EPA, and CUC will consult regarding final terms of the engagement, consistent with the EEMC order and Gilbane’s proposal, to submit for the court’s consideration and approval by Jan. 14, 2015,” the judge said.

It was reported last month that Gilbane Federal has been selected by the U.S. Department of Defense to design/build a $166-million construction project at King Khalid Air Base for the Royal Saudi Force in the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia.

The project reportedly represents a joint effort by the U.S. Air Force and the Royal Saudi Air Force to provide the facilities necessary to support the modernization of the F-15SA aircraft at King Khalid Airbase.

CUC and EPA are in disagreement over EPA’s role over the implementation of identified CUC projects with the selection of the EEMC.

CUC, through counsel James S. Sirok, has filed a motion, requesting the court to clarify the court’s order as they relate to the management responsibilities of the EEMC over the various projects directed and mandated by SO2.

Sirok raised the question before the court whether the EEMC order is to be construed to mean that the EEMC is responsible for the implementation and management of all EPA identified 13 SO2 projects during the term of its contract.

Sirok said under the provisions of the EEMC order, CUC believes that the EPA does not have the authority to micro-manage the SO2 projects and SO2 project management responsibilities of the EEMC.

In EPA’s response, U.S. Department of Justice Environmental Enforcement Section senior attorney Bradley R. O’Brien said CUC’s position that EPA does not have the authority to direct whether the EEMC, CUC, or EPA will implement SO2 projects is incorrect.

O’Brien said CUC’s self-described “13 SO2 projects” are not part of the EEMC order but are among the projects required under SO2, which the EEMC order expressly did not modify, preclude, or impact.

O’Brien said the EEMC order provides EPA general authority to prioritize projects, select the entity to implement the project, and oversee the work.

O’Brien said it appears that CUC is attempting to leverage the EEMC order to resolve CUC’s numerous contracting issues relating to its failures to implement SO2 projects.

Last September, Carter approved a settlement agreement entered by EPA, CUC, and the CNMI government that will require the CNMI government to, among other things, deposit over $22.8 million until 2018 to complete some stalled CUC projects.

The order gave parties 45 days to submit proposed potential EEMCs for court approval. The judge extended the deadline by an additional 23 days upon the parties’ request.

The appointment of EEMC shall be for five years, unless terminated earlier with the court’s approval.

From 15 interested candidates for EEMC position, EPA narrowed this down to three firms that were provided for the court’s consideration.