My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
REV14497
DRMS
>
Back File Migration
>
Revision
>
REV14497
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
8/25/2016 1:25:42 AM
Creation date
11/21/2007 10:53:13 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
DRMS Permit Index
Permit No
C1980001
IBM Index Class Name
Revision
Doc Date
2/27/1990
Doc Name
EDNA MIDTERM REVIEW FILE & MOFFAT AREA PR1 FN C-80-001
From
MLRD
To
JEFF CLAPTON
Type & Sequence
SL1
Media Type
D
Archive
No
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
3
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
<br />-2- <br />2. $40,000 total rough grade cost, <br />derived from S1 acre over 22 acres. <br />This amount of difference can be again <br />differences. There is also a significant <br />requested clarification from P&M on these <br />$695,000 total cost for topsoil <br />replacement derived from produ ton <br />coverin~70 acres. <br />2. $110,000 total rough grade cost, <br />derived from $739 acre over 49 <br />acres. <br />>e attributed to acreage <br />difference in cost per acre. I have <br />issues. <br />3. $375,000 total costs for topsoil <br />replacement derived from pro u~ct~i`on <br />rates o 4 cubic yards/hr for <br />West Ridge covering 328 acres <br />combined. <br />There is a large discrepancy between our production figures. The bonding <br />section of the permit does not indicate the basis for P&M's hourly production <br />figure. Therefore, I am unable to explain this difference but have requested <br />clarification. <br />4. Structural demolition, approximately 4. Structural demolition, <br />$ approxima e y <br />This difference occurs because of the inability to add in every item to be <br />demolished. Not enough information was supplied in the permit. Additional <br />information has been requested. In addition, P&M's unit cost for powerpole <br />removal is significantly less than ours. <br />Total sediment pond reclamation 5. Total sediment pond reclamation <br />cost, approximate y cost, approxima e y , <br />Certain ponds, although never constructed, were still allowed for in P+M's <br />calculations, I believe. I did not include any ponds in my calculations which <br />were not constructed. <br />All other parameters of Direct Costs appeared to be close enough to each other <br />to allow me to classify t e~di~ ei• rences as minor. <br />Indirect Costs <br />The biggest area of difference between my bond amount and Edna's bond amount <br />exists within the Indirect Cost section. P&M allows almost 20% for Profit and <br />Overhead, while ML a ows P+M allows 10% for Contingencies, w i e D <br />ads no such category. Mobilization and Demobilization i er y 421,700, as <br />P+M specifies E429,000 w is is o eir irec cost while MLRD specifies <br />$7,300 which is specifically task oriented. P+M specifies 10% for <br />Engineering, which is 5% more than MLRD adds. Then P&M adds in 5% for <br />ec amation Management and Administration which is a cost which we have <br />inc u e in e a ove categories. s you can see this adds up to an extra 40% <br />in Indirect Costs. <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.