WSPC03491

• File Number: 8220.106.O
• Description: Colorado River Water Projects - Animas La Plata - Project Funding
• State: CO
• Basin: Colorado Mainstem
• Water Division: 5
• Date: 11/1/2003
• Author: DOI-BOR
• Title: Animas La Plata Project - Construction Cost Estimates - Report to the Secretary - November 2003
• Water Supply Pro - Doc Type: Report/Study

12

I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
II

IV. Findings

1. The 1999 peE was incomplete.

a) The scope and features of the Project changed several times over an
extended'period in response to environmental, political, and legal issues.
As a result, some of the estimated rates, in part, used data originally
developed for a different project configuration.

b) Traditional processes used to develop proposed construction projects,
including preparation and indexing of cost estimates, were applied by
Reclamation through the early 1990's (Appendix 2). This appears to
have changed during the 1997-2000 timeframe (Appendix 7).

c) The RomerlSchoettler process essentially substituted for an appraisal-
level plan reformulation process and included some feasibility-level plan
reformulation analyses (see Appendix 1, 1996-1997 time period, for
informafion concerning the RomerlSchoettler process). Having this
process substitute for a traditional appraisal/feasibility reformulation
contributed to less attention being given to the construction cost
estimate. Once the Administration's proposal was adopted and
presented, the focus was on completing an environmental analysis that
would disclose the irnpacts ofthat proposal.

d) The RornerlSchoettler process caused some confusion over how the plan
formulation and documentation pieces should be integrated, especially
the cost estimate. It probably contributed to the failure to make the
baseline-performance link highli~ted in finding 3.a. below, although it
did not preclude it.

e) From January 1999 to July 2000, Reclamation, the Administration,
Congressional supporters and Project Sponsors focused on completing
the FSEIS and paid less attention to the accuracy of the PCE.

f) Although labeled as a feasibility estimate, the design and cost estimates
for the NNMP were effectively appraisal level in the 1999 PCE because
of a lack of detailed information and agreement on aspects of the
pipeline in the Farmington, New Mexico, area.

g) Some of the information Reclamation developed and provided to the Ute
Mountain Ute Tribe and its consultants was for project features larger in
size than the Project ultimately authorized for construction.
Reclamation is of the view that many of the unit costs for the larger
project would have a greater economy of scale than for the smaller
alternative. The unit prices used in the 1999 PCE were derived from
previous Reclamation or Colorado Highway Department cost estimates.