GENERAL46160 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

C-81-019 2005 Midterm Review May 5, 2005 SK Water Tk $75.91 $57.90 $18.01 31.1% One note on the above chart, although the hourly cost for a CAT 777D haul truck is more than that of a CAT 773D haul truck, its capacity is almost two times a much (100 tons vs. 54 tons). This means that on a per-ton comparison, the CAT 777 haul truck's hourly cost is only azound $93.75/hour. Attached is a chart titled "Equipment Hour and Cost Comparison". This chart expands on the above chart and includes total equipment task hours and total equipment cost. The increase in liability, based on the changes in equipment costs, is almost $6,400,000.00 (see the attached chart titled `-`Cost Comparison Between Division and-PAP-Estimates"): (1~Fotethat this also takes the hours and costs to remove the West Pit overburden stockpile so these two increases can not be added 100% to give an overall cost increase). A third deficiency with the PAP estimate deals with pond and ditch removal (Division tasks 045- 068). The pond embankment volumes of the PAP estimate aze lower, inmost cases, than those used by the Division. The Division calculated all of the pond embankments from each pond's respective as-built drawing provided in Exhibit 7. The overall difference in volume for all of the ponds was approximately 45,000 loose cubic yazds. A second difference deals with equipment selection. Overall, the pond and ditch removal is a small job (azound 250,000 cy) that will be completed no earlier than during yeaz five of the period of extended liability. The same D l OR dozers were used for pond and ditch removal as were used for major reclamation. It is the opinion of the Division that a contract to perform this reclamation work would be bid on and awazded to a smaller, local contractor. Such a contractor would either own or rent smaller dozers such as a D9R or even a D8R. The Division used a D9R for there tasks because it is an appropriately sized dozer. By using the smaller dozer, costs do increase somewhat because of lower hourly production (these aze offset to a certain degree because the hourly operating cost is lower). Additionally, the Division believes that some of the ditches aze on terrain that is too steep for a dozer to perform the reclamation. Therefore, a medium sized excavator (a CAT 330) is used for those ditches. The overall increase for this set of tasks was $46,524.00. A fourth discrepancy between the Division and PAP estimates relates to topsoil replacement (Division tasks 075-102). The PAP estimate does not include replacement of topsoil from stockpiles 4A, 10A, 15K, 16E and 16G. This translates to approximately 420,000 loose cubic yazds of topsoil replacement not bonded for. The overall cost increase for topsoil replacement is $1,493,868.00. While some of this increase is accounted for by the missing piles in the PAP estimate ($277,369.00), the majority of the increase probably comes from the increase in hourly equipment costs. This is one of the tasks where a complete determination of cost increases is difficult due to a lack of detail in the PAP estimate work descriptions. A fifth discrepancy between with the Division and PAP estimates deals with revegetation (Division tasks 120-140). The acreages used for the revegetation were the same in both estimates and the per acre reclamation costs were virtually identical ($634.86/acre in the Division's estimate and $625.90/acre in PAP estimate). The main problem is that the PAP estimate does not include any costs for vegetation failures and the subsequent reseeding, as the chart below shows. Cost~DMG Cost'' PAP Cost PAP 15