The Department of Energy picked a less realistic bid package when it chose Washington Closure Co. to manage Hanford river shore corridor cleanup, a newly released federal General Accounting Office document says.

The GAO's rationale appears to match issues Bechtel National raised last May when it appealed the contract award.

Although the GAO decided in August that DOE should review how it awarded the river shore cleanup contract, the actual decision document became public only recently because business-sensitive information had to be removed from the paperwork.

Seventeen months ago, three corporate teams submitted bids to manage a long-range project to finish removing contaminated soil from Hanford's Columbia River shore, to demolish and seal old reactor complexes and clean up the 300 Area.

DOE's estimated cost for the project was $1.5 billion.

The bidders consisted of Washington Closure Co., which is a coalition of Washington Group International, Fluor Federal Services and Earth Tech; a partnership of Bechtel and CH2M Hill; and a team led by Tetra Tech FW.

In April 2003, DOE selected Washington Closure, which submitted a bid of $974 million -- more than $500 million below DOE's estimate. Although the Bechtel bid's dollar figure is unavailable, it was close to DOE's original estimate, the GAO said. Information on Tetra Tech's bid is unavailable.

Bechtel appealed DOE's decision to the GAO, which is Congress' investigative arm. In August, the GAO ruled that DOE should review how it awarded the contract and re-evaluate the bids.

The actual GAO document, which became available last week, went into limited detail about the GAO decision. Almost all dollar figures and technical evaluation were removed before the document's release to preserve the confidentiality of Bechtel and Washington Closure's technical and budget information. Tetra Tech did not participate in the appeal.

"DOE failed to adequately take into consideration the comparative realism of the proposals, as indicated by the degree (Washington Closure's estimates) deviated from (the target cost)," the GAO document said.

The GAO report said Bechtel apparently tried to present a realistic bid submission, while Washington Closure used less realistic figures. And the report said Bechtel was not aware that Washington Closure was using less realistic criteria.

On the technical aspects of their bids, Bechtel and Washington Closure had some sections that were superior to the other's, the report said. All elaborations on the technical comparisons were removed from the report.

Washington Closure and DOE officials could not be reached for comment Monday.

Bechtel declined to comment.

In interviews last spring, Washington Closure said its approaches to scheduling and some technical innovations will allow it to juggle work efficiently enough to create its proposed $500 million savings.

On Aug. 25, Washington Closure filed its own appeal with the GAO, requesting that it overturn its previous ruling. The GAO has until Dec. 3 to rule on Washington Closure's appeal.

DOE supports Washington Closure's appeal because the federal agency believes the Boise-based team made the best bid.

Bechtel Hanford, a corporate relative of Bechtel National, continues to manage Hanford's river shore cleanup while the appeals process is under way. Bechtel Hanford has managed river shore cleanup since 1994, posting 13 straight annual and semi-annual "outstanding" ratings for its work.