United States         Office of Water        EPA 430/«9-89-005
            Environmental Protection     (WH-547)           May 1989
ERA       Construction Incentive

                  MAY  1989
               OFFICE OF WATER
            WASHINGTON, DC  20460

          TABLE OF



 AUTHORITY                                     3
 APPLICABILITY                                 3
 IMPLEMENTATION PROCEDURES                     3
 PARTICIPATION LIMITATIONS                     4
 CICP REVIEW PROCESS                           5
 ACCEPTANCE OF CICPS                           6

3.1            PURPOSE                                        7
3.2            THE CI CLAUSE DEFINED                          7
3.3            CONTRACTOR'S INCENTIVE                         8
3.4            CONTRACTOR'S ROLE                              8
3.5            CONTRACTOR'S RISK                              8
3.6            PROJECT OWNER'S INCENTIVE                      9
3.7            PROJECT OWNER'S ROLE                           9
3.8            PROJECT OWNER'S RISK                          10
3.9            MODEL CI CLAUSE                               10






 INTRODUCTION                                 17
 CORPS OF ENGINEERS EXAMPLES                  19


 INTRODUCTION                                 21
 CICP OPPORTUNITIES                           22
 CICP SUBMITTAL                               22
 CICP INFORMAL NOTIFICATION                   24
 CICP TRANSMITTAL LETTER                      24

REFERENCES                                    27


                            SECTION 1

i.l  purpose

     The purpose of this guidance  is to  encourage  the  use of the
construction incentive (CD  clause in the EPA Construction Grants
Program and the  State Revolving Fund (SRF) Program.  Applied during
construction, the use  of  the CI clause  is  effective  in ensuring
that the contractor and the  project owner can jointly benefit from
useful  changes  that  reduce construction costs.   This  guidance
applies to EPA-funded and SRF-funded wastewater treatment faciliti-
es that are to be constructed, renovated, expanded, or improved.

     This guidance is  intended for use by Federal, State, and local
officials,  to  explain the  use  of  the CI clause  in construction
contracts.   It discusses the role of  the  contractor  in the CI
program, and explains the policy and procedures for soliciting and
evaluating   construction  incentive   change  proposals   (CICPs),
including  essential elements that facilitate prompt  review and
approval of CICPs.

1.2  Background
     The Construction  Grants  Program was  initially authorized and
funded  under the Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1956.  In

1978, EPA authorized the use of the CI clause in the Construction

Grants Program, provided that incentive payment limitations imposed

by EPA were not  exceeded.    During the ensuing  ten years,  few

project  owners  used  the   clause,  and  even  fewer  contractors

submitted CICPs.   In 1987, in  order  to encourage project owners to

use the CI  clause,  and to encourage contractors to  submit CICPs

under  contracts   which  include  the  clause,  EPA  modified  its

limitations  on  incentive  payments  for approved  CICPs.    This

guidance  includes  an  explanation  of  these  modified  payment


1.3  Discussion

     The  CI clause offers  a  mechanism by  which  construction

contractors can be motivated to apply their construction expertise

to reduce  contract  costs.   This positive motivation is achieved

through substantial monetary incentives  for submitting a CICP that

reduces a facility's construction costs, without compromising its

reliability or performance characteristics.   The sharing arrange-

ment,  contained  in  the  CI  clause,  is  established  to  encourage

contractor ingenuity and initiative  in identifying and challenging

high cost design or specification requirements.

                            SECTION 2

2.1  Authority
     Section 212(2)(B) of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act
requires  the use  of  a  cost-effective  approach  to  wastewater
treatment projects.  This requirement is  met by:
     a.   cost-effectiveness analysis during facilities planning,
     b.   value engineering (VE) studies  during design, and
     c.   CI clause application during construction.

     The  basic  guidance pertaining  to the CI program,  which is
contained in this guidance document, reflects only EPA requirements
for the  CI program.    Many states and municipalities  have laws,
regulations, and policies  which supplement Federal requirements.
Before including the CI clause in construction contracts, project
owners should  ensure that  they are in compliance with existing
State and  local requirements.

2.3  Implementation Procedures
     Project owners may include the CI clause in any construction
bid package where a potential exists for contractor participation
in the CI program.  However, the clause may not be added after bids
have been  received, due to the potential for collusion between

the project owner and  one  of the bidders, giving the bidder  the
unfair advantage of knowing that the CI clause would be added after
the bid opening.

2.4  Subcontractor Participation
     Both the prime contractor and subcontractors may participate
in the CI program when the clause is included in the construction
contract, but subcontractor participation must be effected through
the  prime contractor,  because no  direct contractual  agreement
exists between the subcontractors and the project owner.  Moreover,
sharing arrangements between the prime contractor and subcontrac-
tors  are made  solely  between these parties,  and  therefore  may
differ  from  the cost  sharing  provisions  of the  prime  contract,
unless the prime contract specifically requires the contractor to
insert the same CI clause in all subcontracts.

2.5  Participation Limitations
     Individuals and firms who have had prior  involvement in the
project's  design or the project's  VE  study are  not  eligible to
participate in the development of a CICP, or to  share in  any of the
savings  resulting  from approved CICPs.   Furthermore, contractors
should continue the construction work as scheduled while a CICP is
being evaluated.  Delays in processing CICPs by  the project owner,
the  State, or  EPA  cannot  be  used  as  a basis  for  extending the
completion date of a construction project,  unless the project owner
agrees to  do so by executing a change order.  If the project owner

agrees to such an extension, any additional costs incurred by the
project owner (such as the cost of additional resident inspection
services) will usually be unallowable costs under  the EPA Construc-
tion Grants Program.

2.6  CICP Review Process
     Because technical and cost data for each CICP submitted by the
contractor  must be carefully  reviewed,  the  organization  that
reviews the CICP must possess  the needed expertise and resources
for performing  an effective  review.   When a CICP is submitted by
a contractor in  response to the Cl clause, the project owner should
proceed with the following steps:
     a.   Expeditiously review the CICP in accordance with the time
          limit  specified by  the contractor in the  CICP.   The
          primary review  may be  performed by the project owner's
          own employees (if qualified) , the construction management
          firm,  the  firm providing  inspection  services  during
          construction, or the design firm.  If the primary review
          is  not  performed by the design firm,  the  design firm
          should also review the  CICP,  because  the  design firm
          remains legally responsible for design  integrity.   In
          unusual cases,  the project  owner may request technical
          assistance from EPA or  from the  State.   These agencies,
          in turn, may request assistance from the U.S. Army Corps
          of Engineers (COE) under its interagency agreement with
          EPA.  When a project owner requests such assistance,

          the project  owner is responsible for distributing copies

          of the CICP  to the  appropriate  offices  for  review.

     b.    Carefully review the contractor's cost figures.  Compare

          the pertinent  bid items against the engineer's estimate,

          to ensure that cost savings are not based on a bid  item

          that was unbalanced (i.e.,  artificially high)  when  bids

          were submitted.

     c.    Review all comments, and when appropriate, call a special

          meeting  with  all  concerned  parties  to  resolve   any

          outstanding  comments.

     d.    Subject  to   State   and/or   EPA  approval,   notify   the

          contractor in  writing  of the decision made  on the CICP.

     e.    If the  CICP has been  approved, in  whole  or  in part,

          prepare  a  deductive  change order  and  follow  normal

          procedures for change  order review and  approval.

2.7  Acceptance of CiCPs

     Acceptance or  rejection of a  CICP requires  no justification

in the letter to the contractor.  When a proposal  involves partial

acceptance, or  adjustment of the  contractor's  estimated savings,

justification should be  provided for the project owner's estimated

savings.   If the project owner modifies  a proposed change before

granting approval,  such modifications must be  fully  described in

the letter of acceptance.


                            SECTION 3


3.1  Purpose

     The CI clause has three basic purposes:

     a.   to  take  advantage   of   a  contractor's  construction


     b.   to allow  contractors  to isolate high-cost  areas  where

          viable lower-cost alternatives exist;  and,

     c.   to provide a contractual means for sharing savings that

          will accrue from CICPs submitted by contractors.

3.2  The CI Clause Defined

     The  CI  clause  is an  option that  may be  included in  the

contract documents,  if not prohibited by  State or local laws.  The

CI clause allows a contractor or subcontractor to propose changes

in the project which will:

     a.   provide at least a $50,000 gross capital savings (a lower

          amount may be specified in the CI clause by the project

          owner,  if it  can be  demonstrated that  a smaller  CI

          proposal can be cost-effectively reviewed).

     b.   result in a net life  cycle cost (LCC)  savings  over  the

          life of the project; and,

     c.   not reduce  the quality  or  integrity  of the  project,

          including compliance  with  National  Pollutant  Discharge

          Elimination System (NPDES) or State Pollutant  Discharge

          Elimination System (SPDES) permit requirements.


3.3  Contractor's Incentive
     Contractors are in the construction business to make a profit.
The CICP rewards contractors who propose changes without sacrific-
ing the  essential functions and  characteristics  of a  treatment
facility.  The  contractor may not  share  in  any savings  resulting
from a decrease in operation and maintenance (O&M)  costs, because
no provision is made for such savings in the CI clause.   However,
the CI clause offers the contractor  an opportunity  to  receive 55
percent of the net capital savings that accrue from accepted CICPs.

3.4  Contractor's Role
          There are may valid reasons why contractors can improve
on the best of wastewater treatment designs.  First and foremost,
they  are in  a better  position to  keep current  on the  latest
advances in construction methods and  cost of materials.  They know
first hand the day-to-day problems  involved  in  the construction of
treatment facilities.  They also  are in a  better  position to get
new and  innovative  ideas from subcontractors and vendors.

3.5  Contractor's Risk
     The  CI  clause  encourages  entrepreneurship  by  rewarding
contractors  for  the  financial  risks  they  undertake  to develop
CICPs.    Entirely  voluntary  in  nature,  the  clause  permits  a
contractor to ignore this provision and still perform satisfactori-
ly under the contract.  If  the contractor chooses to submit one or
more proposals,  he  risks the  investment necessary to prepare and

submit CICPs,  since  he will not  be reimbursed for  this  effort.
Because the contractor  is not  allowed to delay the  construction
schedule for CICP development or for any other reason not approved
by the project owner, he  further  risks  paying liquidated damages
for any delay that may occur as a result of his participation.

3.6  Project Owner's Incentive
     There is a  powerful  incentive  for  project owners to include
the  CI  clause  in construction contracts  -  the  chance  to  save
substantial amounts of capital funds, without the need to undertake
an effort to identify sources of potential savings.  The construc-
tion contractor  will initiate  and  develop  potential cost-saving
ideas, which the project owner needs only to review -  a review very
much similar in  nature  to that  performed for other change orders
initiated by the construction contractor.
3.7  Project Owner»s Role
     Project owners are encouraged to insert the CI clause in their
construction contracts.  Although the CI program is voluntary, the
contractor may participated  in  the  program only if the clause is
included in the original contract  documents.  The CI clause may not
be added after the bids  are  received on the project.    Where  the
CI clause is included  in the contract, the contractor can propose
changes in construction  techniques or materials at any time after
contract award.

     Since insertion of  the CI clause  in  the contract does  not

guarantee  contractor  participation  in  the  CI  program,  it  is

important for the project owner to encourage development of ClCPs,

and to  assure contractors  that the  proposals will be  processed

fairly, impartially, and expeditiously.

3.8  Project Owner's Risk

     The project owner assumes a very minimal financial risk from

using the CI  clause, since most costs  that result from implementing

accepted CI proposals  (redesign costs, net increases in inspection

and testing  costs,  and the  present value of net  increases in O&M

costs during  the  useful life  of the  project)  are deductible from

gross CICP savings, and thus have only a small negative impact on

the LCC of the treatment facility.   The costs of including the CI

clause in the approved contract documents, promoting use of the CI

clause,  reviewing CI  proposals,  and processing  deductive change

orders are not deductible from gross  CICP savings, but these costs

will  be  a very  small  portion of a  construction  project's total

administrative costs.

3.9  Model CI Clause

     To  assist  project owners in implementing the  CI  program, a

model CI clause has been developed.  However, project owners should

review this  model clause carefully,  and should only use language

'which implements this model clause, consistent with State and local

 laws,  regulations,  and court  decisions.


      This clause defines a "construction incentive change proposal"

 (CICP)  and  establishes the policy and procedures for application

 of  CICPs.


      A CICP is a formal  written  proposal  for  a deductive change

 order  during the  construction of a wastewater treatment project.

 A CICP must be initiated, developed,  and identified  as such by the

 contractor or subcontractor.  A CICP must result in a gross capital

 savings  of  $50,000 or  more.   A  CICP  must also result  in  a net

 capital  cost  reduction,  while  meeting  all  of   the   following


 1.   The total life cycle  cost of the project will not increase.

 2.   The required functions, reliability, and safety  of the project

     will be maintained.

 3.   The proposed change will not result in any contract rebidding.

 4.   The proposed change will not cause undue interruption of the

     contract work.

 5.   The proposed change  will  be  in  compliance  with all Federal,

     State, and local permits and regulations.

     A CICP  must  contain  pertinent  information and  supporting
documentation for evaluation by the project owner.   As a minimum,
the following information must be included:
1.   Names of  individuals  associated with  the development  and
     preparation of the CICP.
2.   A detailed description of the  present  design and the proposed
     changes.  Clear  identification  of  any advantages and disad-
     vantages for each proposed change.
3.   A  detailed  procedure  and schedule   for   implementing  the
     proposed change.  This  should include all necessary contract
     amendments, as well as the latest date that the CICP could be
     approved for implementation, without disrupting the construc-
     tion  schedule.   Normally,  at  least  90 days  should be  allowed
     for the project  owner's review  of the CICP.
4.   A summary of  the estimated costs,  including the  following:
     a.    project  construction costs before  and after the CICP.
           This   should  be  a  detailed  estimate  identifying  the
           following items  for each trade involved  in  the CICP:
           l.  quantities  of materials  and equipment.
           2.  unit prices of materials and equipment.
           3.   labor hours and rates for installation.
      b.    life cycle  operation and  maintenance costs before  and
           after  the CICP;

    c.   costs for implementing the CICP not included in item 4a
         above, to the extent that they can be identified by the
         contractor   (e.g.,   additional   resident   inspection
    d.   contractor's share of the savings, based on paragraph III
    e.   other data as required in the contract specifications for
         change  orders;  and
     f.   time required  for executing  the proposed change.

     To the extent indicated below, contractors may  restrict the
use of any  CICP, or the supporting data submitted pursuant to this
clause, by  the project owner and by other  Federal, State, and local
government agencies.   Suggested wording is provided below:

     "The data, furnished  pursuant to the construction incentive
     clause of contract  *                   shall not be disclosed
     beyond that which is necessary to accomplish the  review of the
     CICP,  or duplicated,  used, or disclosed, in whole or in part,
     for any  purpose other than to evaluate ciCPs submitted under
     said clause.  This  restriction does not limit the right of the
     project  owner,  or  any  Federal,  State, or  local government
     agency,  to use  information contained  in the data if it  is or
     has  been  obtained,  or  is  otherwise  available,   from the
     contractor,  or  from any other source, without limitation.  If

     such a proposal is accepted by the project owner under  said
     contract, the project owner and all other Federal,  State, and
     local government agencies shall  have  the right to  duplicate,
     use, and disclose such data, in any manner and for any purpose
     whatsoever, and to have others do so  also."

     The project  owner  may modify,  accept,  or  reject the  CICP.
However, if  a  CICP is  modified,  or is not acted upon within the
time frame specified in the CICP,  the contractor may withdraw the
proposal, in whole or  in  part.   In any event, the  project  owner
will not  be  liable for the  contractor's  cost of  developing the

     When a CICP is accepted by the project owner,  the processing
procedure for change orders will be used,  except  that for a CICP,
a  deductive  change  order,   for  45  percent  of the net  capital
savings, will be processed.   (The remaining 55 percent of the net
capital savings will be retained by the contractor.)  When a CICP
is  rejected,  the  contractor may not appeal  the rejection to any
Federal, State, or  local government agency.

     Upon acceptance of a CICP, the contractor will share the net
capital savings pursuant to this contract, based on the formula

below.   computation for the  net savings is  to be based  on the

following formula:

     Net  capital  savings equals  initial construction  cost  less

     revised construction cost,  and less  CICP implementation cost.

     The CICP implementation cost shall include the project owner's

cost of redesign,  the net increases (but  not decreases) in inspec-

tion  and testing  costs,  and the  present value  (using the EPA

discount  rate in  effect on  the  date  of  grant  award or  loan

approval) of the net  increases (but not decreases) in operation and

maintenance costs during the useful life  of the project.  However,

change order processing costs incurred by the project owner and the

reviewing agency are not included in the  CICP implementation cost.

     The  contractor's cost for developing the CICP  is not  an

allowable cost, but  is  to be offset by a portion of  the contrac-

tor's share of the net capital savings.

     The  contractor  will receive  55  percent  of the  net capital

savings  (or a lower amount specified in the contract).

                            SECTION 4
                        POTENTIAL SAVINGS

4.1  Introduction
     Although the CI  program  has been in existence  in  EPA since
1978, few project owners have used the CI clause, primarily because
the clause and its potential benefits are not understood by project
owners, and because  its use is not mandatory.  Similarly, construc-
tion contractors have  been unfamiliar with the incentive provisions
where the clause was  included in their contracts.   Unfortunately,
if the clause was not part  of the contract  documents at the time
of bid opening, it could not  be added  later,  even though  the
contractors may have uncovered areas for potential CICP savings.

     Project  owners are encouraged  to  insert  the" clause  in  all
construction contracts.  Once  the CI clause has been developed, the
cost to make it a part of  the  contract is insignificant, while the
potential  savings  can  be  quite  significant.   For  example,  COE
savings from the use of incentive clause provisions during the last
four fiscal years were $31.6 million. During this period, the COE
received a total of 2,086 proposals  and approved 1,358 proposals,
which  is 65 percent of the proposals received.

4.2  Environmental Protection Agency Examples
     The following examples represent CICPs submitted by contrac-
tors and accepted  by project owners  for  EPA-funded  construction
     a.   A CICP in  Camden County,  New Jersey resulted  in  a 1.6
          percent capital savings through realignment of portions
          of  an interceptor  sewer  to avoid  construction  near
          overhead power  lines.   Because of the  extreme caution
          required when working near power lines, the new alignment
          enabled the contractor to work more rapidly.  Net savings
          to  the  Camden  County  Municipal  Utilities  Authority
          equaled $220,014.
     b.   A CICP in  Keokuk,  Iowa  produced capital savings of 1.3
          percent  through  structural design modifications.   The
          modifications included:
                (1)   Replacement of drilled piers with driven steel
                (2)   Substitution   of   lightweight   vermiculite
                    concrete with a structural cap  for standard
                    concrete fill; and
                (3)   Grit channel modification instead of demolition
                    of existing concrete.
         Net savings to the City of Keokuk equaled $104,961.
     c.  A CICP for an outfall for the Hampton Roads Sanitation

          District in Virginia Beach, Virginia  resulted in a 1.5

          percent capital savings through the use of a Hydro-Pull

          Method  instead of  a  draw  bolt  assembly for  joining

          prestressed concrete pipe.  Net  savings  to the Hampton

          Roads Sanitation District equaled $44,975.

4.3  Corps of Engineers Examples

     The following examples illustrate change proposals submitted

by contractors and approved by the COE:

     a.   A contractor proposed  increasing  the  maximum weight of

          stones used in dike construction from 550 pounds to 5,000

          pounds,  which  reduced  the  total  contract  cost  by

          $148,000.  The 5,000 pound stone constitutes a standard

          maximum weight for dike construction.

     b.   A contractor proposed using  2-inch wood chips instead of

          gravel to  construct a walkway  in a  public  recreation

          area, which reduced the contract cost  by $63,000.

     c.   In constructing  the roof of  a building,  a  contractor

          proposed using elastomeric  roofing material  in  lieu of

          polyvinyl  chloride  (PVC)  single-ply  roofing,  which

          reduced the cost of construction by $22,000.

                            SECTION 5


5.1   Introduction

      The success of the CI program depends on motivating contrac-

tors to develop innovative ideas and  to submit CICPs.  Their basic

incentive is the monetary share of the  savings  that they receive

when the CICP is accepted, but more use of the CI clause does not

of  itself  ensure  success.    Project  owners  should  encourage

contractors by highlighting the fact that their contract contains

a  CI  provision,  and  that  the project  owner  is  receptive  to

receiving and  approving proposals that reduce  the  contract cost

without reducing the quality or changing the design characteristics

of  the facility.   A successful  program  requires  a  cooperative

effort by the project owner and the contractor.

     This section  is  intended  to  give  project owners  a concise

source of information needed to gain contractor acceptance of the

CI program.   If project  owners  understand  the basic needs of their

contractors, they will be more  likely to gain their confidence and

encourage the development of CICPs.

5.2  Program Participation Benefits

     The most  obvious  tangible  benefit  derived from  contractor

participation in the CI  program is the share of savings that accrue


from CICP  approvals.   The savings  represent  an increase  in  the

contractor's return on investment in contract  performance.

     In addition to their  share of savings from implemented CICPs,

contractors who  develop  and  submit CICPs  gain an  advantageous

competitive edge over  other contractors by constructing facilities

at  lower  cost;  hence, they gain a reputation  as  cost-conscious


5.3  CICP Opportunities

     Although a CICP may  be submitted at  any  time  after contract

award, a  proposal  originated  soon after contract  award tends to

produce greater savings.  Early  CICP  submittal  allows sufficient

time  for  review   and  approval  by  the  project  owner,  permits

proposals  to  be  submitted  on  all phases  of  construction,  and

facilitates acceptance of  new and improved components or subsystems

that  require  testing  and/or  evaluation  prior  to  acceptance.

Consequently, during pre-award  and post-award contractor conferen-

ces, project  owners should  not only highlight  the  fact that the

proposed contract contains the CI clause, but also stress the value

of  early CICP submittal.

5.4 CICP  Submittal

     The  probability  of CICP  acceptance can be increased by the

effort the contractor expends in  its preparation.  First and


foremost, the  proposal should contain  sufficient  information to
answer all  reasonable  questions  that an evaluator may  have.   To
avoid delays in processing because of insufficient information or
the appearance of inadequate investigation, each CICP should:
     a.    Be complete.  The CICP should present the proposal to the
          evaluator in a  clear  and concise manner.   Although no
          forms are required to submit a proposal, the recommended
          format contained in paragraph II  of the model  CI clause
          should be followed, to enhance the  evaluator's  ability
          to make a positive decision regarding  the proposal.
     b.    Provide technical supporting data. Supporting data should
          include the  benefits  and risks  to  the project  owner,
          tolerances, operating manuals, test data, LCC impact,  and
          previous uses of the proposal.  This  type of data is most
          beneficial to the evaluator.  In particular, test  results
          and a description  of  the tests  performed  are of sig-
          nificant value  in gaining acceptance of new methods  or
     c.    Sell the proposal. An oral presentation should be offered
          by the contractor,  through  the  project  owner,  to the
          technical evaluator. This approach is particularly valid
          if the  CICP  is  a high  dollar value  proposal and/or
          presents a significant departure from current technology.
    d.    Provide a detailed cost analysis.   In addition to "before
          and after" costs for the proposed  change, the contractor

          should address any potential LCC benefits, as well as any
          intangible benefits  (such as increased reliability)  that
          may accrue if the CICP is  accepted.

5.5  Informal Notification
     Rather than risk significant funds  to develop,  prepare,  and
submit a formal CICP, contractors may informally notify the project
owner that they intend to submit a proposal having a  major impact
on the wastewater  treatment process  or  on  the total cost  of  the
construction contract.  The project owner may then informally tell
the contractor whether the proposal should be pursued or dropped.
At the same time, the contractor should be informed that a positive
response by the project owner does not  ensure that a formal  CICP
will be  accepted.   Also,  unlike  the formal  CICP, informal  dis-
closure does not establish the contractor's rights to the proposal
or to supporting data.

5.6  CICP Transmittal Letter
     Although the contractor is  not required to submit a transmit-
tal letter, it is a good marketing tool that  improves the rapport
between  the  project  owner  and  the  contractor,  speeds up  the
evaluation  and  acceptance  process,  and  increases the probability
that the proposal will be accepted by the project owner.  At a

minimum, the letter should contain the following items:
     a.   a statement that the CICP  is  being submitted  in accor-
          dance with the CI provisions of Contract #            - •
     b.   a summary of the proposed change, including the proposed
          change in the contract amount and the total net capital
          saving expected if the CICP is approved;
     c.   any additional advantages that may be derived as a result
          of the change,  including intangible benefits;  and
     d.   the contractor's point-of-contact for questions that may
          arise during proposal evaluation.

                           APPENDIX A


For additional information on  project  management methodology and

processing of change orders, EPA has several publications available

from its Instructional Resource Center,  1200  Chambers Road,  Room

310, Columbus, Ohio 43212.   Specific ordering information may be

obtained by calling 614-292-6717.

1.   Management  of Construction  Change  Orders  -  A Guide  for

     Grantees. U.S. EPA, March 1983.

2.   Prevention  and  Resolution of Contractor Claims, U.S.  EPA,

     March 1985.

3.   Management of a Construction Project - A Guide for Grantees,

     U.S. EPA, April 1986.

For  additional  information  on  the methodology of  life  cycle

costing, the  following book  can be obtained commercially through

most bookstores.

4.   Life  Cycle  Costing  for Design  Professionals,   Alphonse  J.

     Dell'Isola and Stephen J.  Kirk,  McGraw Hill, 1981.

                            APPENDIX B










William Bulter

Raymond Kvalheim

Bruce Smith

Don J. Cotter

Harold Heavlin

Gene P. Wossum

Gerald Gutekunst

Mohammad Razzazian

Enio Sebastiani
Commercial Phone
  Boston, MA

  New York, NY

  Philadelphia, PA

  Atlanta, GA

  Chicago, IL

  Dallas, TX

  Kansas City, KS

  Denver, CO

  San Francisco,  CA
Richard Hetherington  206-442-1941
                      Seattle, WA
Thomas J. Moran
  Washington, DC
FTS Phone