1986-11-28_GENERAL DOCUMENTS - C1981017

• Permit No: C1981017
• IBM Index Class Name: GENERAL DOCUMENTS
• Doc Date: 11/28/1986
• Doc Name: Bid Documents ‎(IMP)‎
• Permit Index Doc Type: General Correspondence
• Media Type: D
• Archive: No

Memo/Re:MC Mid-term Bond Resp. - 4 - July 14, 1986
considered in bonding calculations. Based on this analysis, the assumptions
used for loadout reclamation in the Division' s mid-term review appear to be
valid.
As discussed in our meeting, in order for the operator to gain approval on
their proposed bonding for the loadout, a change in PMLU must be approved, and
the land use must be proved. The latter could be accomplished by obtaining a
letter from the county which states the county's intention to retain the area
as a industrial park.
VI. Indirect Costs.
The operator requires justification for the inclusion of indirect costs in the
bond estimate, and further contends that these costs are not necessary because
they are included in the equipment rental costs.
Indirect costs are included in bond estimates for precisely the fact that they
are not included in direct costs. Rates from the Rental Rate Blue Book do not
incline such items as superintendent's salaries and contractor's profits as
alleged by the operator. This is expressly stated in the Blue Book.
Estimates from "Means" are calculated utilizing the "total " (without 0&P)
column. Indirect costs are then added later, based on the total job costs.
As previously stated, Rule 3.02.2(1 ) requires bonding based on the cost of
contracting the reclamation work to a third party. The Division at one time
added a flat 10% to cover these contracting costs. However, the indirect cost
estimates have recently been refined, using the actual costing of the Inactive
Mines Division, cost reference guides, and incorporating State requirements
for job superintendents, insurance, etc. When finalized, it is expected that
the Board will formally approve this costing procedure. A copy of page 5 of
the bond summary worksheet is included to show how indirect costs are now
calculated by the Division. The justification and/or reference for each cost
item has been included.
VII. Summary
The Division finds, based on the June 30, 1986 submittal by the operator, that:
1 ) The disturbed acreage may be decreased pending further information.
2) Application of AOC is not currently included in the bond estimate;
however, partial backfilling of all cut slopes is necessary.
3) Salvage value for demolition may not be included in the bond
estimate. However, Mid-Continent' s demolition costs are acceptable.
4) More information is required on the operator's revegetation costs.
However, these costs are not directly applicable to the bond
estimate.