Digest of Assistance
Disputes Decisions
US, ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
WASHINGTON, D.C 20460
-------
Digest of Assistance
Disputes Decisions
Office of General Counsel
US. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
WASHINGTON. D.C. 20460
May 1987
-------
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
This Index-Digest was prepared by Anthony F. Guadagno who
is an attorney in the Grants Branch of the Office of General
Counsel (OGC) at EPA Headquarters in Washington, D.C.
The persistent efforts of Rachel Holloman made publication
of the Index-Digest a reality. Rachel is a member of the OGC
Grants Branch and the Coordinator for ADTRACS, the computer
system which is the information source for this Index-Digest.
111
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
INTRODUCTION ' i-l
EPA GRANTS LAW SUBJECT INDEX 1-a
INDEX-DIGEST OF EPA ASSISTANCE DISPUTES DECISIONS 2-1
APPENDICES
Appendix A - Reference List of EPA Assistance Guidance A-l
Appendix B - Decisions of the EPA Audit Resolution Board B-l
Appendix C - EPA. Assistance Guidance Memoranda C-l
Appendix D - Guide to the Use of ADTRACS D-l
-------
INTRODUCTION
This Index-Digest is a compilation of digest notes from
EPA assistance disputes decisions issued under 40 C.F.R. Part 30,
Subpart L. The digest notes summarize issues resolved in final
written decisions of Regional Administrators and Assistant
Administrators. They are arranged by the subject areas in the
EPA Grants Law Subject Index. The foreword to the subject index
explains its organization.
The purpose of the Index-Digest is to assist officials
responsible for resolving disputes arising under EPA financial
assistance programs. A few words about use of the Index-Digest
are appropriate. The digest notes in the Index-Digest are from
the data in ADTRACS--the assistance disputes tracking, research,
and computerized sort system at EPA. Users of the Index-Digest
should search all related subject areas to account for slight
variances in the issue codes assigned to digest notes input in
ADTRACS. More importantly, the digest notes are only summaries
of issues decided in Subpart L cases. If you believe that a
digest note indicates that a particular decision is relevant to
your situation, you should read the full text of that decision;
the Index-Digest is not authoritative. EPA libraries have a
complete set of Subpart L decisions for research.
The Index-Digest is a locator to Subpart L decisions
which may be helpful for resolving issues in pending assistance
disputes. Other sources of information are available. EPA
statutes, regulations, and Agency policy reflected in guidance
are primary sources. Appendix A contains a list of references
to EPA guidance on assistance administration and specific EPA
assistance programs. The decisions of the EPA Audit Resolution
Board included as Appendix B are also a primary source of
authority on federally allowable cost items. Recent important
program and legal memoranda regarding EPA assistance are in
Appendix C.
The Index-Digest is in looseleaf form for easy periodic
updates. Digest notes not currently in the Index-Digest are
available in the form of reports from ADTRACS. You may also
research digest notes in ADTRACS by direct on-line access.
Appendix D contains information about the use and capabilities -
of the ADTRACS system. Contact the Data Analyst in your EPA
regional office or at EPA Headquarters to obtain additional
information about ADTRACS or a user manual, the "Bid Protest/
Assistance Dispute Online Users Report."
1-1
-------
EPA GRANTS LAW SUBJECT INDEX
•(Current as of May 27, 1987)
-------
FOREWORD
The Grants Law Subject Index is a comprehensive index of
grants law subjects prepared by the Grants Law Branch of the
EPA Office of General Counsel. The index is designed as a
guide to issues in bid protest appeals and assistance disputes
arising under EPA assistance programs. It is an integral
component of the computer tracking systems established to
assist Regional and Headquarters officials monitor bid protest
appeals and assistance disputes. The index provides a uniform
list of subjects and code numbers for use in the completion of
the issue section of the Form for Bid Protest Appeals and
Assistance Disputes Computer Tracking Systems (see page D-ll).
The subjects are arrange'd in three alphabetized levels:
main subject headings, topics and subtopics. The main subject
headings generally consist of assistance related statutes,
regulations and programs. They serve as locators to the more
specific topics and subtopics. Users of the index should
refer to the topics or subtopics which most accurately describe
the issues in the case. Main subject headings should not be
referenced unless no topic or subtopic appears. In those
instances, a detailed description of the issue should be written
on the case form as an issue not included in the index. New
issues which are significant or recurring will be added to the
index.
Most of the main subject headings and all of the topics
and subtopics have been assigned a code number which appears in
the left margin of the index. No code numbers appear for the
more general main subject headings with topics and subtopics.
This is to ensure that these more general headings are not used
for issue descriptions. Both the code number and text should
be referenced when completing the issue section of the case
form. This will help eliminate errors which may occur during
transcription. Although the code numbers appear complex, the
coding scheme is straightforward. The three digit sequences
identify, from left to right, the main subject heading, the topic
and the subtopic. The prefix GRL identifies the EPA Grants Law
Subject Index as the source of the code number. The use of this
system allows maximum flexibility for changes without disrupting
the organizational scheme of the index.
All users of the index should study its organization and
content. An understanding of the system will contribute
significantly to the effective use of the index and the computer
tracking systems.
1-a
-------
Table of Main Subject Headings for
EPA Grants Law Subject Index
(Current as of May 27, 1987)
ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEDURE ACT
ALLOWABILITY OF COSTS
ANTI-ASSIGNMENT ACT
ANTI-DEFICIENCY ACT
ANTI-KICKBACK ACT
APPROPRIATIONS ACTS
APPROPRIATIONS LAW
ASBESTOS SCHOOL HAZARD ABATEMENT ACT
ASBESTOS SCHOOL HAZARD ABATEMENT
ASSISTANCE PROGRAM
ASSISTANCE ADMINISTRATION
ASSISTANCE APPEALS
ASSISTANCE DISPUTES
AUDITS
BALANCED BUDGET AND EMERGENCY
CONTROL ACT
BID PROTEST APPEALS
BUDGET AND IMPOUNDMENT CONTROL ACT
BUY AMERICAN ACT
CHESAPEAKE BAY GRANT PROGRAM
CIVIL RIGHTS
CLEAN AIR ACT
CLEAN LAKES GRANT PROGRAM
CLEAN WATER ACT
COASTAL BARRIERS RESOURCES ACT
COASTAL ZONE MANAGEMENT ACT
COMPREHENSIVE ENVIRONMENTAL RESPONSE,
COMPENSATION AND LIABILITY ACT
CONFLICT OF INTEREST
CONTRACT DISPUTES ACT
CONTRACT WORK HOURS AND SAFETY
STANDARDS ACT
CONTRACTS
COPYRIGHTS
CROSS-CUTTING REQUIREMENTS
DAVIS-BACON ACT
DEBARMENT AND SUSPENSION
DEBT COLLECTION ACT
DEMONSTRATION CITIES AND METROPOLITAN
DEVELOPMENT ACT
DEMONSTRATION GRANTS
ECONOMY ACT
ENDANGERED SPECIES ACT
EQUAL ACCESS TO JUSTICE ACT
EXECUTIVE ORDERS
FARMLAND PROTECTION POLICY ACT
FEDERAL CLAIMS COLLECTION ACT
FEDERAL COURTS IMPROVEMENT ACT
FEDERAL GRANT AND COOPERATIVE AGREEMENT ACT
FEDERAL TORT CLAIMS ACT
FEDERAL WATER POLLUTION CONTROL ACT
FELLOWSHIPS
FLOOD DISASTER PROTECTION ACT
FREEDOM OF INFORMATION ACT
GENERAL ACCOUNTING OFFICE
GRAMM-RUDMAN-HOLLINGS ACT
GREAT LAKES GRANT PROGRAM
INDIAN TRIBES
INSPECTOR GENERAL
INSPECTOR GENERAL ACT
INSULAR TERRITORIES -
INTERAGENCY AGREEMENTS
INTERGOVERNMENTAL COOPERATION ACT
INTERGOVERNMENTAL REVIEW
INTERNATIONAL ACTIVITIES
LEAKING UNDERGROUND STORA3E TANK PROGRAM
LEGAL ARGUMENTS
LEGISLATION
LOANS
MINORITY AND WOMEN'S BUSINESS ENTERPRISES
NATIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL POLICY ACT
NATIONAL HISTORIC PRESERVATION ACT
OFFICE OF MANAGEMENT AND BUDGET
PATENTS AND COPYRIGHTS
PROCUREMENT
PROGRAM GRANTS
PUBLIC PARTICIPATION
REGULATIONS
RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT GRANTS
RESOURCE CONSERVATION AND RECOVERY ACT
SAFE DRINKING WATER ACT
SENIOR ENVIRONMENTAL EMPLOYEE PROGRAM
SINGLE AUDIT ACT
SOLE SOURCE AQUIFER DEMONSTRATION PROGRAM
SOLID WASTE DISPOSAL ACT
SUBA3REEMENTS
SUBGRANTS
SUPERFUND LOCAL PARTICIPATION TECHNICAL
ASSISTANCE GRANTS
SUPERFUND RESPONSE ACTION PROGRAM
TRAINING GRANTS
UNIFORM RELOCATION ASSISTANCE AND REAL
PROPERTY ACQUISITION POLICIES ACT
VIOLATING FACILITIES LIST
WASTEWATER TREATMENT WORKS CONSTRUCTION
GRANTS
WASTEWATER TREATMENT WORKS STATE
REVOLVING FUNDS
1-b
-------
GRL-020-000-000
GKL-040-025-000
GRL-040-035-000
GRL-040-050-000
GRL-040-100-000
GRL-040-150-000
GRL-040-200-000
GRL-040-250-000
GRL-040-300-000
GRL-040-315-000
GRL-0 40-325-000
GRL-040-350-000
GRL-040-400-000
GRL-040-450-000
GRL-O 40-500-000
GRL-040-550-000
GRL-040-600-000
GRL-040-600-200
GRL-040-600-210
*GRL-040-610-000
GRL-040-650-000
EPA GRANTS LAW SUBJECT INDEX
(Current as of May 27, 1987)*
ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEDURE ACT
ALLOWABILITY OF COSTS
Accounting Method
Administrative Costs
Allocation
Appeal Costs
Bond Costs
Conpensatory Time Costs
Compromise (See FEDERAL CLAIMS COLLECTION ACT)
Delay Costs (See this heading - Schedule Completion Date)
Direct Costs
Documentation
Equipment
Federal Cost Principles
Force Account
Fringe Benefits
Governmental Expenses
Indirect Costs
Interest
Legal Fees
Claim Defense
Claim Prosecution
Lobbying Costs (See also CMB - Circular - A-122)
Necessary Costs
V Changes to the July 24, 1985, version of the index are indicated by asterisks.
1-1
-------
ALLOWABILITY OF COSTS (continued)
Overhead (See this heading - Indirect Costs)
GRL-040-700-000 Pre-Award Costs
*GRL-040-715-000 Printing Costs
GRL-040-725-000 Prior Approval of Costs (See also LEGAL ARGUMENTS - Estoppel)
GRL-040-750-000 Profit
GRL-040-800-000 Reasonableness
GRL-040-825-OOO Refunds, Rebates and Credits
GRL-040-850-000 Scheduled Cotpletion Date
GRL-040-900-000 Scope of Project
GRL-040-925-000 Travel
GRL-060-000-000 ANTI-ASSIGNMENT ACT
ANTI-DEFICIENCY ACT (See APPROPRIATIONS LAW)
GRL-070-000-000 ANT.I-KICKBACK ACT
GRL-090-000-000 APPROPRIATIONS ACTS (See also APPROPRIATIONS LAW)
GRL-100-OOO-OQO APPROPRIATIONS LAW
*GRL-100-075-000 Bona Fide Need
GRL-100-100-000 Budget Process
GRL-100-200-000 Deferral
GRL-100-400-000 Impoundrrient
*GRL-100-4 50-000 Judgnent Fund
*GRL-100-600-000 Obligation of Funds
GRL-100-700-000 Rescission
GRL-110-000-000 ASBESTOS SCHOOL HAZARD ABATEMENT ACT
GRL-111-000-000 ASBESTOS SCHOOL HAZARD ABATEMENT ASSISTANCE PROGRAM
*GRL-111-800-000 Trust Fund
1-2
-------
GRL-120-050-000
GRL-120-050-100
GRL-120-150-000
GRL-120-100-000
GRL-120-150-000
*GRL-120-150-200
GRL-120-160-000
*GRL-120-160-100
*GRL-120-180-000
GRL-120-200-000
GRL-120-250-000
*GRL-120-270-000
GRL-120-275-000
GRL-120-300-000
GRL-120-325-000
GRL-120-350-000
GRL-120-400-000
GRL-120-425-000
GRL-120^450-000
GRL-120-450-100
GRL-120-500-000
GRL-120-550-000
GRL-120-600-000
GRL-120-600-100
GRL-120-600-200
GRL-120-600-300
ASSISTANCE ADMINISTRATION
Amendments
Assistance Amount
Applicants and Applications
Annulment
Applicants and Applications
Eligibility
Avard of Assistance
Competitive Awards
Closeout
Conditions
Cost Share
Cross-cutting Requirements
Deobligation of Funds
Deviations fron Regulations
Enforcement of Agreements
EPA Responsibilities
Grantee Responsibilities (See this heading - Recipient
Responsibilities)
Income
In-kind Contributions
Interest on Federal Funds (See also this heading - Income)
Loan Programs
Matching Funds
Obligation of Federal Funds
Payments of Federal Funds
Advance
Delays
Errors
1-3
-------
GRL-120-60 0-600
GRL-120-600-800
GRL-120-650-000
GRL-120-650-100
GRL-120-700-000
*GRL-120-725-000
GRL-120-750-000
GRL-120-800-000
GRL-120-800-700
GRL-120-850-000
GRL-140-000-000
GRL-140-0 50-0 00
GRL-140-100-000
GRL-140-200-000
GRL-140-300-000
GRL-140-400-000
GRL-140^100-100
GRL-140-400-200
GRL-140^00-250
GRL-140-400-300
GRL-140-400-350
GRL-140-400-400
GRL-140-400-700
GRL-140-500-000
GRL-140-600-000
ASSISTANCE ADMINISTRATION (continued)
Payments on Federal Funds (continued)
Reimbursement
Withholding
Program Income (See this heading - Income)
Project Changes (See also this heading - Amendments)
Approval
Property Disposition
Quality Assurance
Recipient Responsibilities
Recoupment of Federal Funds
Set-off
Termination
ASSISTANCE APPEALS
Board of Assistance Appeals
Burden of Proof
Dismissal
Issues on Appeal
Jurisdiction
Bid Protest Appeals
Debarment and Suspension Appeals
Deviations frcm Regulations
Environmental Review
Equitable Powers
Final Disputes Decision
Regulation Challenge
Notice of Appeal
Parties to Appeal
1-4
-------
GRL-140-650-OOO
GRL-140-650-600
GRL-140-700-000
GRL-140-800-000
GRL-140-850-000
GRL-140-875-000
GRL-140-900-000
GRL-160-100-000
*
GRL-160-200-000
GRL-160-300-000
GRL-160-^00-000
GRL-160-600-000
GRL-160-700-000
GRL-160-800-000
GRL-160-850-000
GRL-160-900-000
GRL-180-100-000
GRL-180-150-000
GRL-180-150-100
GRL-180-600-000
GRL-180-700-000
ASSISTANCE APPEALS (continued)
Procedures
Panel Appointment
Recons iderat ion
Regulations
Standard of Review
States
Time Limitations
ASSISTANCE DISPUTES
Assistant Administrator Review
Delegation Appeals (See this heading - States)
Disputes Decision
Final Agency Action
Guidance
Procedures
Recons ideration
Regulations
States
Time Limitations
AUDITS
Access to Records
Audit Resolution
Audit Resolution Board
Pre-Audit Certification
Record Retention
BALANCED BUDGET AND EMERGENCY CONTROL ACT (See APPROPRIATIONS IAW)
1-5
-------
GRL-200-100-000
*
GRL-200-200-000
*GRL-200-250-000
*GRL-200-300-000
*GRL-200-350-000
GRL-200-400-000
GRL-200-500-000
GRL-200-550-000
GRL-200-600-000
GRL-200-625-000
GRL-200-650-000
GRL-200-700-000
*GRL-200-725-000
GRL-200-750-000
GRL-200-775-000
GRL-200-800-000
GRL-2 00-850-000
GRL-200-900-000
*GRL-208-000-000
*GRL-210-OOO-000
BID PROTEST APPEALS
Burden of Proof
Choice of Law (See PROCUREMENT - State and Local Law)
Dismissal
Exhaustion of Administrative Remedies (See also this heading -
Recipient Determination)
GAO Review
Harmless Error
Jurisdiction
Parties to Appeal
Procedures
Rational Basis Test
Recipient Determination
Reconsideration
Regulations
Remedy
Standard of Review (See this heading - Rational Basis Test)
Standing
States
Sua Sponte Review
Summary Disposition
Time Limitations
BUDGET AND IMPOUNDMENT CONTROL ACT (See APPROPRIATIONS LAW)
BUY AMERICAN ACT (See PROCUREMENT - Buy American)
CHESAPEAKE BAY GRANT PROGRAM
CIVIL RIGHTS
1-6
-------
GRL-220-000-000
GRL-220-200-000
GRL-220-300-000
GRL-220-500-000
GRL-2 30-0 00-0 00
GRL-240-000-000
*GRL-2 40-0 50-0 00
GRL-240-100-000
GRL-240-200-000
GRL-240-300-000
GRL-240-350-000
GRL-240-400-000
GRL-240-500-OOO
GRL-240-600-000
GRL-240-625-000
GRL-240-650-000
GRL-240-700-000
GRL-240-800-000
GRL-2 40-82 5-0 00
GRL-240-850-000
GRL-240-900-000
GRL-260-000-000
GRL-270-000-000
GRL-280-000-000
*GRL-280-100-000
CLEAN AIR ACT
Environmental Review (See also NEPA)
Funding Limitations
Grants (See specific grant program headings)
Legislative History
CLEAN LAKES GRANT PROGRAM
CLEAN WATER ACT
Areawide Waste Treatment Management
Best Practicable Waste Treatment
Citizen Suits
Enforcement (See also this heading - Municipal Enforcement)
Groundwater (See also Program Grants)
Legislative History
Municipal Enforcement
National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System Permits
Nonpoint Source Pollution (See also PROGRAM GRANTS)
Ocean Discharge Waivers
Pretreatment (See also WASTEWATER TREATMENT WORKS CONSTRUCTION
GRANTS)
Secondary Treatment
Sludge (See also PROGRAM GRANTS)
Water Quality Standards
Waters of the United States
COASTAL BARRIERS RESOURCES ACT
COASTAL ZONE MANAGEMENT ACT
COMPREHENSIVE ENVIRONMENTAL RESPONSE, COMPENSATION AND LIABILITY ACT
(CERCLA)
Borrowing Authority
1-7
-------
GRL-280-200-OOO
GRL-280-200-600
GRL-280-200-700
GRL-280-250-000
GRL-280-300-000
GRL-280-400-000
*GRL-280-450-000
GRL-280-500-000
GRL-280-600-000
GRL-280-700-000
GRL-280-800-000
*GRL-280-850-000
GRL-300-000-000
GRL-320-000-000
GRL-330-000-000
GRL-340-000-000
GRL-360-000-000
GRL-360-100-000
GRL-360-200-000
GRL-360-300-000
GRL-360-400-000
CERCLA (continued)
Claims Against the Trust Fund
Natural Resource Damages
Response Actions
Contractor Indemnification (See also SUPERFUND - Indemnification)
Cost Recovery
Enforcement
Fund Balancing
Hazardous Substances Trust Fund
Legislative History
Local Participation Technical Assistance (See SUPERFUND - Local
Participation Technical Assistance Grants)
National Contingency Plan
Post-Closure Liability Fund
Publicly Owned Treatment Works
Response Actions (See SUPERFUND RESPONSE ACTIONS)
CONFLICT OF INTEREST
CONTRACT DISPUTES ACT
CONTRACT WORK HOURS AND SAFETY STANDARDS ACT
CONTRACTS (See SUBAGREEMENTS)
COPYRIGHTS (See PATENTS AND COPYRIGHTS)
CROSS-CUTTING REQUIREMENTS (See ASSISTANCE ADMINISTRATION -
Cross-Cutting Requirements)
DAVIS-BACON ACT
DEBARMENT AND SUSPENSION
Determination
Due Process Requirements
Guidance
Investigations
1-8
-------
GRL-360-500-000
GRL-360-600-000
GRL-360-700-000
GRL-360-800-000
DEBARMENT AND SUSPENSION (continued)
Procedures
Regulations
Restitution
Settlements
DEBT COLLECTION ACT (See FEDERAL CLAIMS COLLECTION ACT)
DEMONSTRATION CITIES AND METROPOLITAN DEVELOPMENT ACT ,
(See INTERGOVERNMENTAL REVIEW)
GRL-380-000-000 DEMONSTRATION GRANTS
GRL-400-000-000
GRL-420-000-000
GRL-440-000-000
GRL^145-000-000
GRL-460-000-000
GRL-480-000-000
GRL-500-000-000
GRL-520-000-000
GRL-530-OOO-OOO
GRL-540-000-000
GRL-560-000-000
GRL-560-700-000
Sole Source Aquifers (See SOLE SOURCE AQUIFER DEMONSTRATION
PROGRAM)
ECONOMY ACT (See INTERAGENCY AGREEMENTS)
ENDANGERED SPECIES ACT
EQUAL ACCESS TO JUSTICE ACT
EXECUTIVE ORDERS
FARMLAND PROTECTION POLICY ACT
FEDERAL CLAIMS COLLECTION ACT
FEDERAL COURTS IMPROVEMENT ACT
FEDERAL GIANT AND COOPERATIVE AGREEMENT ACT
FEDERAL TORT CLAIMS ACT (See LEGAL ARGUMENTS - Federal Tort Claims)
FEDERAL WATER POLLUTION CONTROL ACT (See CLEAN WATER ACT)
FELLOWSHIPS
FLOOD DISASTER PROTECTION ACT
FREEDOM OF INFORMATION ACT
GENERAL ACCOUNTING OFFICE
Reports
GRAMM-RUDMAN-HOLLINGS ACT (See BALANCED BUDGET AND EMERGENCY
CONTROL ACT)
*GRL-570-000-OOO GREAT LAKES GRANT PROGRAM
1-9
-------
GRL-580-000-000
GRL-599-000-000
GRL-599-700-000
GRL-600-OOO-OOO
GRL-620-000-000
GRL-640-000-000
GRLr-660-000-000
*GRL-670-000-000
*GRL-675-000-000
GRL-680-000-000
*GRL-680-025-000
*GRL-680-040-000
*GRL-680-045-000
GRL-680-050-000
GRL-680-050-500
*GRL-680-075-000
*
GRL-680-100-000
*GRL-680-110-000
GRL-680-125-000
GRL-680-150-000
GRL-680-175-000
GRL-680-200-000
GRL-680-250-000
GRL-680-300-000
GRL-680-350-000
INDIAN TRIBES
INSPECTOR GENERAL
Reports
INSPECTOR GENERAL ACT
INSUIAJR TERRITORIES
INTERAGENCY AGREEMENTS
INTERGOVERNMENTAL COOPERATION ACT (See INTERAGENCY AGREEMENTS and
INTERGOVERNMENTAL REVIEW)
INTERGOVERNMENTAL REVIEW
INTERNATIONAL ACTIVITIES
LEAKING UNEERGROUND STORAGE TANK PROGRAM
LEGAL ARGUMENTS
Attorney Fees
Class Actions
Consent Decrees
Court Jurisdiction
Money Claims
Deference to Agency Interpretation
Derivative Jurisdiction (See this heading Removal)
Discovery
Due Process
Enforcement Discretion
Estoppel
Exhaustion of Administrative Remedies
Federal Tort Claims
Final Agency Action
Indispensable Parties
Injunctions
1-10
-------
*GRL-680-375-000
GRL-680-400-000
GRL-680^150-000
*GRL-680-475-000
GRL-680-500-000
GRL-680-550-000
GRL-680-575-000
GRL-680-600-000
GPL-680-625-000
GRL-680-650-000
GRL-680-650-100
*GRL-680-675-000
*GR]>680-677-000
GRL-680-700-000
GRL-680-750-000
GRL-680-750-200
GRL-680-750-700
GRL-680-750-750
GRL-680-800-000
GRL-680-810-000
*GRL-680-820-000
*GRL-680-830-000
GRL-680-850-000
GRL-680-850-600
GRL-680-850-800
GRL-680-900-000
GRL-680-950-000
LEGAL ARGUMENTS (continued)
Jury Trials
Laches
Mootness
Official Immunity
Primary Jurisdiction
Quantum Meruit
Removal
Retroactivity of Rules
Ripeness
Scope of Judicial Review
Administrative Record
Separation of Functions
Separation of Powers
Sovereign Immunity
Standard of Judicial Review
Clearly Erroneous Standard
Rational Basis Test
Substantial Evidence Test
Standing
Statute of Limitations
Subpoenas
Taking
Third-Party Claims
Privity of Contract
Third-Party Beneficiary
Venue
Waiver
1-11
-------
GRL-690-000-000
GRL-692-000-000
GRL-695-OOO-OOO
GRL-700-000-000
GRL-700-200-000
GRL-700-200-300
GRL-700-200-700
GRL-700-300-000
GRL-700-300-100
GRL-700-300-200
GRL-700-300-300
GRL-700-300-350
GRL-700-300-400
GRL-700-300-500
GRL-700-300-550
GRL-700-300-600
GRL-700-300-650
GRL-700-300-700
GRL-700-300-800
GRL-700-300-900
GRL-700-400-000
GRL-700-500-000
GRL-700-600-000
GRL-700-700-000
GRL-700-800-000
GRL-700-900-000
GRL-700-900-200
GRL-700-900-300
LEGISLATION (See also specific statutory headings)
LOANS (See also specific grant program headings)
MINORITY AND WOMEN'S BUSINESS ENTERPRISES
NATIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL POLICY ACT (NEPA)
Council on Environmental Quality
Guidance
Regulations
Environmental Impact Statement (EIS)
Alternatives
Delegation of EIS Preparation
EPA Ccmments
Functional Equivalent Exception
Lead Agency
Program EISs
Public Comment
Regional EISs
Scope of EIS
Statutory Conflict Exception
Timing
Worst Case Analysis
Guidance
International NEPA
Major Federal Action
Mitigation
Regulations
Significant Environmental Impact
Delegation of Environmental Review Responsibilities
Finding of No Significant Impact
1-12
-------
GRL-700-900-400
GRL-700-90 0-600
GRL-700-900-700
GRL-720-000-000
GRL-740-000-000
GRL-740-200-000
GRL-740-200-021
GRL-740-200-050
GRL-740-200-073
GRL-740-200-087
GRL-740-200-102
*GRL-740-200-104
GRL-740-200-110
GRL-740-200-122
GRL-740-2 00-124
GRL-740-200-128
GRL-740^ 700-000
GRLr-760-000-000
GRL-780-000-000
GRL-780-025-000
GRL-780-050-000
NATIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL POLICY ACT (continued)
Significant Environmental Impact (continued)
Human Environment
Negative Declaration (See this topic - Finding of
No Significant Impact)
Public Controversy
Segmentation
NATIONAL HISTORIC PRESERVATION ACT
OFFICE OF MANAGEMENT AND BUDGET (OMB)
Circulars
A-21 Cost Principles - Educational Institutions
A-50 Audit Follow-ups
A-73 Audits
A-87 Cost Principles - State and Local Governments
A-102 Uniform Administrative Requirements - State and
Local Governments
A-104 Evaluating Leases of Capital Assets
A-110 Uniform Administrative Requirements - Nonprofit
Organizations
A-122 Cost Principles - Nonprofit Organization
A-124 Patents
A-128 Audits - State and Local Governments
Regulation Review
PATENTS AND COPYRIGHTS
PROCUREMENT
Antitrust
Architect/Engineer Services (See also this heading - Services)
Bid Rigging (See this heading - Antitrust)
Bid Shopping (See this heading - Listing Requirement)
1-13
-------
GRL-780-100-000
GRL-780-100-600
GRL-780-100-700
GRL-780-100-800
GRLr-780-125-000
GRL-780-125-050
GRL-780-125-100
*GRL-780-125-110
GRL-780-125-150
GRL-780-125-200
GRL-780-125-300
*GRL-780-125-310
GRL-780-125-400
GRL-780-125-450
GRL-780-125-500
GRL-780-125-600
GRL-780-125-700
GRL-780-125-750
GRL-780-125-800
GRL-780-125-850
GRL-780-125-900
GRL-780-150-000
GRL-780-175-OOO
GRL-780-200-000
PROCUREMENT (continued)
Bidders and Offerers
Nonexistent
Prejudice
Prequali fication
Responsibility (See this heading - Responsibility)
Bids
Acceptance Period
Alternate Bids
Ambiguity
Base Bids
Cancellation of Solicitation
Evaluation
Extension
Late
Mistake
Modification
Preparation Cost
Qualified
Rejection of All Bids
Responsiveness (See this heading - Responsiveness)
Time to Prepare
Unbalanced
Unit Pricing
Bonds
Buy American
Certified Recipient Procurement Systan
1-14
-------
GRL-780-250-000
GRL-780-25G-200
GRL-760-250-300
GRL-780-300-000
GRL-780-350-000
GRL-780-400-000
GRL-780^100-400
GRL-780-400-800
GRL-780-475-000
*GRL-780-500-000
GRL-780-550-000
GRL-780-600-000
GRL-780-600-100
GRL-780-600-200
GRL-780-600-500
GRL-780-600-600
GRL-780-600-700
GRL-780-600-800
GRL-780-600-900
*GRL-780-620-OOO
GRL-780-625-000
GRL-780-650-000
GRL-780-700-000
GRL-780-750-000
GRL-780-800-000
PROCUREMENT (continued)
Competition
De Facto
Free and Open
Cost and Pricing Data
Federal Procurement Principles
Formally Advertised
Invitation For Bid
Two-step
Legal Services (See also this heading - Services)
Listing Subcontractors
Minority and Women's Business Enterprise Requirements
Negotiated
After Advertisement
Competitive Range
Minimum Requirements
Original Bid Price
Request for Proposal
Sole Source
Source Selection
Prequalification
Prior Approval of Contract Award
Protest Appeal (See BID PROTEST APPEALS)
Responsibility
Responsiveness
Services (See also this heading - Architect/Engineer Services;
Legal Services)
Small Business Enterprises
1-15
-------
GRL-780-850-000
GRL-780-900-000
GRL-78O-900-100
GRL-780-900-200
GRL-780-900-300
*GRL-780-900-400
GRL-780-900-450
GRL-780-900500
GRL-780-900-600
GRL-7SO-900-650
GRL-780-900-700
*GRL-780-900-750
GRL-780-900-790
GRL-780-900-800
*
GRL-780-925-000
GRL-780-950-000
GRL-790-000-000
GRL-790-100-000
GRL-790-150-000
GRL-790-200-000
*GRL-790-225-000
GRL-790-250-000
PROCUREMENT (continued)
Small Purchase
Speci fications
Ambiguous
Brand Name
Design
Engineering Judgment (See also BID PROTESTS APPEALS -
Rational Basis)
Experience Requirements
Local or In-State Preference
Minimum Need
Nonrestrictive
Oral Statements
Performance Based
Responsiveness (See this heading - Responsiveness)
Restrictive (See this topic - Nonrestrictive)
Salient Requirements (See also this topic - Brand Name)
Single Material
Sole Source (See this topic - Nonrestrictive)
State .and Local Law
Subcontract Award
PROGRAM GRANTS
Air Pollution Control
Budget Period
Clear Air Act Funding Limitations (See CLEAN AIR ACT)
Direct Implementation
Estuary Conservation
Groundwater (See also CLEAN WATER ACT)
'1-16
-------
GRL-790-300-000
GRL-790-400-000
GRL-790^425-000
GRL-790-450-000
GRL-790-500-000
GRL-790-595-000
GRL-790-600-000
GRL-790-650-000
*GRL-790-675-000
GRL-790-700-000
GRL-790-740-000
GRL-790-755-000
GRL-790-&00-000
GRL-790-825-000
GRL-790-850-000
GRL-790-900-000
GRL-790-950-000
*GRL-790-975-000
GRL-800-000-000
*GRL-810-000-000
*GRL-810-400-000
*GRL-810-700-000
GRL-820-000-000
GRL-820-600-000
PROGRAM GRANTS (continued)
Guidance
Hazardous Waste Management
Maintenance of Effort (See also this heading - other
specific program grants headings)
Nbnpoint Source Pollution (See also CLEAN WATER ACT)
Performance Based Grants
Pesticide Applicator Certification and Training
Pesticide Enforcement
Public Water System Supervision
Reduction of Assistance Amount
Regulations
Sludge (See also CLEAN WATER ACT)
Solid Waste Management
State Management Assistance
Underground Storage Tank Regulation
Underground Water Source Protection
Water Pollution Control
Water Quality Management Planning
Wellhead Protection
PUBLIC PARTICIPATION
REGULATIONS
Federal Register
Rulemaking
RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMEOT GRANTS
Peer Review
RESOURCE CONSERVATION AND RECOVERY ACT (See SOLID WASTE
DISPOSAL ACT)
1-17
-------
GRL-840-000-000
GRL-840-700-OOO
*GRL-845-000-000
GRL-850-000-000
*GRL-855-000-000
GRL-860-000-000
GRL-860-700-000
GRL-880-000-000
GRL-880-100-000
GRLr-880-100-100
GRL-880-200-000
GRL-880-300-000
GRL-880-350-000
GRL-880-350-300
GRL-880-350-700
GRL-880-370-000
GRL-880-390-000
GRL-880-395-000
GRL-880-^00-000
GRL-880-500-000
GRL-880-550-000
GRL-880-600-000
GRL-880-700-000
*GRL-880-780-000
GRL-880-800-000
SAFE DRINKING WATER ACT
Sole Source Acquifer
SENIOR ENVIRONMENTAL EMPLOYEE PROGRAM (SEE)
SINGLE AUDIT ACT (See also OMB - Circulars - A-128)
SOLE SOURCE AQUIFER DEMONSTRATION PROGRAM
SOLID WASTE DISPOSAL ACT
Recovered Materials Preference
SUBAGREEMENTS
Architect/Engineering Services
American Society of Civil Engineers Manual
Breach (See this heading - Performance)
Change Orders
Consultant Fee Limitations
Contract Clauses
Escalation Clause
Required and Model
Contractor Claims (See also this heading - Change Orders)
Cost Plus Fixed Fee
Cost Plus Multiplier
Cost Plus Percentage of Cost
Differing Site Conditions (See this heading - Change Orders,
Contract Clauses and Contractor Claims)
Fixed Price
Per Diem
Percentage of Construction Cost
Performance
Service Charges
Subcontract s
1-18
-------
SUBAGREEMENTS (continued)
GKL-880-900-000
GRL-880-900-200
GRL-880-900-300
GRL-900-OOO-OOO
*GRL-906-000-000
GRL-910-000-000
GRL-910-100-000
GRL-910-150-000
GRL-910-200-000
GRL-910-200-600
GRL-910-200-700
GRL-910-300-000
GRL-910-325-000
*GRL-910-355-000
GRL-910-400-000
GRL-910-500-000
GRL-910-550-000
GRL-910-600-000
GRL-910-600-200
GRL-910-600-300
GRL-910-600-700
GRL-910-650-000
GRL-910-700-000
GRL-910-750-000
GRL-910-800-000
GRL-910-850-000
Termination
Convenience
Default
SUBGRANTS
SUPERFUND LOCAL PARTICIPATION TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE GRANTS
SUPERFUND RESPONSE ACTION PROGRAM
Canrnunity Relations
Cooperative Agreements
Cost Share (See also ASSISTANCE ADMINISTRATION)
Publicly Owned Sites
Statutory Credit
Guidance
Indemnification (See CERCLA - Indemnification)
Insurance (See also CERdA - Post-Closure Liability Fund)
Local Participation Technical. Assistance
National Priority List
Off-Site Disposal
Operation and Maintenance
Planning
Design
Feasibility Studies
Remedial Investigations
Pre-Award Costs (See also ALLOWABILITY.OF COSTS)
Regulations
Relocation
Remedial Actions
Removal Actions
1-19
-------
GRL-910-900-000
GRL-910-950-0 00
GRL-920-000-000
GRL-940-000-000
GRL-950-000-000
GRL-960-020-000
GRL-960-040-000
GRL-960-060-000
GRL-960-O70-OOO
GRL-960-080-000
GRL-960-100-OOO
GRL-960-120-000
GRL-960-140-000
GRL-960-140-100
GRL-960-160-000
GRL-960-180-000
GRL-960-200-000
GRL-960-220-000
GRL-960-240-000
GRL-960-250-000
GRL-960-260-000
SUPERFUND RESPONSE ACTION PROGRAM (cotxtinaed)
State Superfund Contracts
Taking of Property
TRAINING GRANTS
UNIFOFM RELOCATION ASSISTANCE AND REAL PROPERTY ACQUISITION
POLICIES ACT
VIOLATING FACILITIES LIST
WASTEWATER TREATMENT WORKS CONSTRUCTION GRANTS
Abandonment of Treatment Works
Acquisition of Treatment Works
Additions to Treatment Works
Advanced Construction
Advanced Wastewater Treatment
Aesthetic Features
Allotment
Allowance for Planning and Design
Advances of Allowance
Alternative Technology (See this heading - Innovative and
Alternative Technology)
Architect/Engineering Services (See SUBAGREEMENTS)
Brand Name or Equal Specifications (See also PROCUREMENT -
Specifications)
Building (Step 3)
Certification of Project Performance
Clean Air Act Funding Limitations (See CLEAN AIR ACT -
Funding Limitations)
Collectors and Interceptors
Combined Sewer Overflow
Construction Definition
Contractor Claims (See also
1-20
-------
GRL-960-280-000
GRL-960-30O-000
GRL-960-305-000
GRL-960-310-000
GRL-960-310-800
GRL-960-320-000
GRL-960-340-000
GRL-960-345-000
GRL-960-350-0 00
GRL-960-360-000
GRL-960-360-400
*GRL-960-362-000
*GRL-960-365-000
GRL-960-380-000
GRL-960-400-000
GKL-960-420-000
GRL-960-^140-000
GRL-960-^155-OOO
GRL-960-460-000
GRL-960-470-000
GRL-960-480-000
*GRL-960-490-OOO
GRL-960-500-000
GRL-960-520-000
WASTEWATER TREATMENT WORKS CONSTRUCTION GRANTS (continued)
Corps of Engineers
Cost Effectiveness
Cost Overruns
Cost Share (See also ASSISTANCE ADMINISTRATION)
Uniform Lover Federal Share
Crossover Sewers
Design (Step 2)
Design and Construct Projects (Step 2+3)
Design/Construct Contracts
Easements (See this heading - Site Acquisition)
Eligible Categories
Governor's Discretionary Fund
Eligibility Agreements
Environmental Mitigation (See also NEPA - Mitigation)
Facilities Planning
Federal Facilities
Financial Capability of Recipients
Flow Reduction Devices
Growth (See also this heading - Reserve Capacity)
Guidance
Industrial Cost Recovery
Industrial Wastewater (See also this heading - Pretreatment)
Infiltration and Inflow Correction
Initiation of Construction
Innovative and Alternative Technology
Interceptors (See this heading - Collectors and Interceptors)
1-21
-------
GRL-960-540-000
GRL-960-55O-000
*GRL-960-560-000
GRL-960-58O-000
GRL-960-600-000
GRL-960-605-000
GRL-96O-620-000
GRL-960-640-000
GRL-960-650-000
GRL-960-660-000
GRL-960-670-000
GRL-960-680-000
GRL-960-700-000
GRL-960-720-000
GRL-960-740-000
GRL-960-760-000
GRL-960-780-000
GRL-960-800-000
*GRL-960-810-000
GRL-960-820-000
GRL-960-840-0 00
GRL-960-880-000
GRL-960-900-000
WASTEWATER TREATMENT CONSTRUCTION GRANTS (continued)
Intemunicipal Agreements
Legal and Technical Assistance
Litigation Costs (See also ALLCWABILITY Of COSTS)
Municipality Definition
Need for Wastewater Treatment Works (Grants Project)
Needs Survey
Operation and Maintenance
Phases (See this heading - Segments and Phases)
Plans and Specifications
Planning (See this heading Facilities Planning)
Pre-Award Costs (See also ALLOWABILITy OF COSTS)
Pretreatment (See also this heading - Industrial Wastewater)
Privatization
Project Inspection Costs (See ALLOWABILITY OF COSTS -
Scheduled Completion Date)
Reallotment
Redesign Costs
Regionalizatibn
Regulations
Reimbursement
Replacement of Treatment Works (See also this heading - Rotating
Biological Contactors)
Reserve Capacity (See also this heading - Growth)
Rotating Biological Contactors
Sale and Leaseback (See also this heading - Privitization)
Segments and Phases
Sewer Use Ordinance
Site Acquisition
1-22
-------
GRL-960-920-000
GRL-960-940-000
GRL-960-940-100
GRL-960-940-200
GRL-960-940-300
GRL-960-940-600
GRL-960-960-000
GRL-960-962-000
GRL-960-965-000
GRL-960-970-000
GRL-960-980-000
GRL-960-990-000
*GRL-980-000-000
WASTEWATER TREATMENT CONSTRUCTION GRANTS (continued)
Shell Systems (See also this heading - Innovative
and Alternative Technology)
State Revolving Funds (See WASTEWATER TREATMENT WORKS STATE
REVOLVING FUNDS)
States
Approval
Certification
Delegation to State Agencies
Priority System and List
Street Repair
Studies
Transition Policies
Treatment Works Definition
User Charge System
Value Engineering
WASTEWATER TREATMENT WORKS STATE REVOLVING FUNDS
1-23
-------
INDEX-DIGEST OF EPA ASSISTANCE DISPUTES DECISIONS
-------
05/27/87
1
ALLOUABILITY OF COSTS
GRL-OMO-025-000 ACCOUNTING METHOD
A GRANTEE IS REQUIRED TO MAINTAIN A FINANCIAL MANAGEMENT
SYSTEM WHICH ADEQUATELY DETERMINES THE ALLOUABILITY C AL-
LOCABILITY OF COSTS.
COSTS ASSOCIATED W/DELAYS WHICH WERE OUTSIDE THE CONTROL OF
THE GRANTEE £ ITS CONTRACTORS ARE ELIGIBLE.
FINDLAY TOWNSHIP PA,
EPA DOCKET NO. 03-84-AD18
(03/10/86)
GRL-040-025-000 ACCOUNTING METHOD
DIRECT COSTS MAY BE CHARGED TO A CONTROL ACCOUNT USED FOR
THE ACCUMULATION OF COSTS PENDING DISTRIBUTION IN DUE COURSE
TO THE GRANT. (FEDERAL MANAGEMENT CIRCULAR 71-1*).
N.J.D.E.P. NJ,
EPA DOCKET NO. 02-84-AD27
(03/11/86)
GRL-0<40-025-000 ACCOUNTING METHOD
COSTS WHICH CANNOT BE SUBSTANTIATED BY ADEQUATE ACCOUNTING
RECORDS ARE UNALLOWABLE.
SWMA, GOV'T OF PR PR,
EPA DOCKET NO. 02-84-AD31
(03/25/86)
2-1
-------
05/27/87
2
ALLOWABILITY OF COSTS
GRL-010-025-000 ACCOUNTING METHOD
ALLOWABLE PROJECT COST INADVERTENTLY ALLOCATED TO ANOTHER
PROJECT WITHIN A CONTRACTOR'S ACCOUNTING SYSTEM MAY BE RE-
INSTATED UPON EXAMINATION OF ADE2UATE CORRECTED ACCOUNTING
RECORDS AND SUPPORTING DOCUMENTATION.
DAYTON, IN,
EPA DOCKET NO. 05-84-ADOt
(07/21/86)
GRL-010-025-000 ACCOUNTING METHOD
THE GRANTEE MUST MAINTAIN PROPER ACCOUNTING RECORDS FOR THE
CLAIMED PROJECT COSTS TO BE ALLOWABLE FOR FEDERAL PARTICI-
PATION.
HOLGATE, VILLAGE OF, OH,
EPA DOCKET NO. 05-86-AD09
( 12/31/86)
GRL-040-035-000 ADMINISTRATIVE COSTS
DOCUMENTED ADMINISTRATIVE EXPENSES ALLOCABLE TO THE ELIGIBLE
PORTION OF THE GRANT PROJECT ARE REIMBURSABLE.
MARTINSVILLE IN,
EPA DOCKET NO. OS-84-AD05
(02/07/85)
2-2
-------
05/27/8'
3
ALLOWABILITY OF COSTS
GRL-010-035-000 ADMINISTRATIVE COSTS
SALARY COSTS (ADMINISTRATOR, WATER UTILITIES DEPARTMENT)
PROPERLY ALLOCABLE AS AN INDIRECT COST IN ACCORDANCE WITH
10 CFR 35.910-4 BUT CLAIMED AS A DIRECT COST IS AN ORDINARY
OPERATING EXPENSE OF LOCAL GOVERNMENT WITHIN THE MEANING OF
10 CFR 35.940-2CG) AND UNALLOWABLE.
PALM BEACH COUNTY FL,
EPA DOCKET NO. 01-81-AD06
(02/01/86)
GRL-040-035-000 ADMINISTRATIVE COSTS
DIRECT AND/OR INDIRECT ADMINISTRATIVE COSTS OF THE GRANTEE
UNALLOWABLE WITHOUT AUDITABLE DOCUMENTATION.
WOONSOCKET RI,
EPA DOCKET NO. 01-85-AD01
(01/08/86)
GRL-010-035-000 ADMINISTRATIVE COSTS
COSTS ASSOCIATED W/GRANTEE PROJECT MANAGEMENT ARE ELIGBLE
WHEN PROPER RECORDS ARE MAINTAINED.
WASHINGTON TOWNSHIP MUNICIPAL AUTHORITY PA,
EPA DOCKET NO. 03-81-AD05
(08/21/86)
2-3
-------
05/27/87
4
ALLOWABILITY OF COSTS
GRL-010-035-000 ADMINISTRATIVE COSTS
THE GRANTEE'S SUBMISSION OF RECORDS WHICH STATED THE PAYEE'S
NAME, THE GRANT NUMBER AND THE PAYMENT AMOUNT FAILED TO DEM-
ONSTRATE THROUGH PROPER DOCUMENTATION THAT THE ADMINISTRA-
TIVE EXPENSES, EXCLUDING TRAVEL EXPENSES, WERE ALLOCABLE TO
THE GRANT OR NECESSARY AND REASONABLE TO THE ACHIEVEMENT OF
THE GRANT'S PURPOSE.
CANTON, CITY OF, > OH,
EPA DOCKET NO. OS-85-AD27
(12/05/86)
GRL-010-035-000 ADMINISTRATIVE COSTS
ADMINISTRATIVE EXPENSE COSTS WHICH THE GRANTEE COULD NOT
PROPERLY DOCUMENT TO SATISFY RECORD KEEPING REQUIREMENTS OF
THE FEDERAL REGULATIONS WERE NOT ALLOWABLE FOR REIMBURSEMENT
WITH EPA GRANT FUNDS.
BARAGA CNTY DEPT OF PUBLIC WKS, L'ANSE, MI,
EPA DOCKET NO. 05-86-AD07
(12/31/86)
GRL-010-035-000 ADMINISTRATIVE COSTS
ADMINISTRATIVE COSTS WHICH CANNOT BE ALLOCATED BETWEEN GRANT
RELATED AND NON-GRANT RELATED ACTIVITIES BECAUSE OF LACK OF
DOCUMENTATION ARE NOT ALLOWABLE.
SUFFOLK COUNTY SEWER DISTRICT NO. 3 NY,
EPA DOCKET NO. 02-84-AD21
(02/12/87)
2-4
-------
05/27/87
5
ALLOWABILITY OF COSTS
GRL-040-035-000 ADMINISTRATIVE COSTS
DECISION ON ELIGIBILITY OF ADMINISTRATIVE COSTS THAT ARE
INSUFFICIENTLY DOCUMENTED TO SUPPORT THE COSTS WILL BE
DEFERRED UNTIL THE REGIONAL OFFICE CAN REVIEW THE
DOCUMENTATION SUBMITTED TO SUPPORT THE CLAIMS.
SUFFOLK COUNTY SEWER DISTRICT NO. 3 NY,
EPA DOCKET NO. 02-81-AD21
(02/12/87)
GRL-040-050-000 ALLOCATION
ABSENT RECORDS SHOWING THE ELIGIBLE VERSUS INELIGIBLE
ELEMENTS OF A LUMP SUM ENGINEERING CONTRACT, THE ALLOWABLE
COSTS WILL BE DETERMINED BY A DETAILED ESTIMATE BASED ON
HISTORICAL DATA FOR COMPARABLE PROJECTS OR PRORATED BASED
ON THE ELIGIBLE CONSTRUCTION COST.
HERMITAGE, TOWN OF AR,
EPA DOCKET NO. 06-84-AD01
(05/0«4/8i*)
GRL-040-050-000 ALLOCATION
DOCUMENTED ADMINISTRATIVE EXPENSES ALLOCABLE TO THE ELIGIBLE
PORTION OF THE GRANT PROJECT ARE REIMBURSABLE.
MARTINSVILLE IN,
EPA DOCKET NO. 05-8H-AD05
(02/07/85)
2-5
-------
05/27/8'
6
ALLOWABILITY OF COSTS
GRL-OHO-050-000 ALLOCATION
AN INCREASE IN ALLOWABLE ADMINISTRATIVE AND PROJECT INSPEC-
TION FEES RESULTING FROM RECALCULATION OF THE PROJECT ELIGI-
BILITY RATIO IS REIMBURSABLE.
ALEXANDRIA BAY, VILLAGE OF NY,
EPA DOCKET NO. 02-84-AD10
(02/20/85)
GRL-010-050-000 ALLOCATION
A/E FEES SUBSTANTIATED BY DOCUMENTATION SHOWING THE AMOUNT
ALLOCABLE TO THE ELIGIBLE PORTION OF THE PROJECT ARE
ALLOWABLE.
MEXICO, VILLGE OF NY,
EPA DOCKET NO. 02-84-AD08
(02/20/85)
GRL-040-050-000 ALLOCATION
THE ALLOCATION OF PROJECT COSTS ASSOCIATED WITH ELIGIBLE
AND INELIGIBLE CONSTRUCTION IS DETERMINED BY THE PROJECT
ELIGIBILITY RATIO.
BALTIMORE COUNTY MD,
EPA DOCKET NO. 03-84-AD44
(05/29/85)
2-6
-------
05x27/87
7
ALLOWABILITY OF COSTS
GRL-040-050-000 ALLOCATION
ALLOWABLE PROJECT COSTS INADVERTENTLY ALLOCATED TO ANOTHER
PROJECT WITHIN CONTRACTOR'S ACCOUNTING SYSTEM MAY BE
REINSTATED UPON EXAMINATION OF ADEQUATE CORRECTED ACCOUNTING
RECORDS AND SUPPORTING DOCUMENTATION. .
SPRING HOPE NC,
EPA DOCKET NO. 04-83-AD07
( 10/02/85)
GRL-010-050-000 ALLOCATION
EQUIPMENT COSTS INCURRED AFTER THE END OF A BUDGET PERIOD
SHORTENED TO CONFORM WITH THE FEDERAL FISCAL YEAR AT EPA'S
REQUEST ARE OUTSIDE THE SCOPE OF THE PREVIOUS BUDGET PERIOD,
BUT THE GRANT MAY BE AMENDED RETROACTIVELY TO INCLUDE THE
EQUIPMENT IN THE FOLLOWING BUDGET PERIOD.
N.J.D.E.P. NJ,
EPA DOCKET NO. 02-84-AD27
(03/11/86)
GRL-OtO-050-000 ALLOCATION
IN THE ABSENCE OF DOCUMENTATION ADEQUATE TO ALLOCATE ENGI-
NEERING AND ADMINISTRATIVE COSTS TO ELIGIBLE AND INELIGIBLE
PORTIONS OF CONSTRUCTION, THOSE COSTS MAY BE PRORATED BY
MULTIPLYING THE RATIO OF ELIGIBLE CONSTRUCTION COSTS TO
TOTAL CONSTRUCTION COSTS TIMES THE UNALLOCATED, ACCEPTED
ENGINEERING AND ADMINISTRATIVE COSTS.
ONEIDA, CITY OF NY,
EPA DOCKET NO. 02-84-AD32
(06/09/86)
2-7
-------
05/27/87
8
ALLOWABILITY OF COSTS
GRL-0<40-050-000 ALLOCATION
ALLOWABLE PROJECT COST INADVERTENTLY ALLOCATED TO ANOTHER
PROJECT WITHIN A CONTRACTOR'S ACCOUNTING SYSTEM MAY BE RE-
INSTATED UPON EXAMINATION OF ADEfiUATE CORRECTED ACCOUNTING
RECORDS AND SUPPORTING DOCUMENTATION.
DAYTON, IN,
EPA DOCKET NO. 05-84-ADOH
(07/21/86)
GRL-OtO-050-000 ALLOCATION
ABSENT PROOF THAT ADMINISTRATIVE COSTS MERE NOT INCREASED BY
INELIGIBLE CONSTRUCTION ITEMS OR DOCUMENTATION THAT SUPPORTS
THE ACTUAL EXTENT OF ADMINISTRATIVE COSTS FOR THESE ITEMS,
ADMINISTRATIVE COSTS ARE ONLY ELIGIBLE TO THE EXTENT THAT
CONSTRUCTION COSTS ARE ELIGIBLE.
GARDNERVILLE RANCHOS GEN. IMPOVEMENT DISTRICT NV,
EPA DOCKET NO. 09-85-AD12
(08/15/86)
GRL-040-050-000 ALLOCATION
IN THE ABSENCE OF TIME RECORDS OR OTHER DOCUMENTATION WHICH
SPECIFICALLY ALLOCATES ENGINEERING DESIGN COSTS BETWEEN. ELI-
GIBLE AND INELIGIBLE PORTIONS OF CONSTRUCTION, SUCH AN ALLO-
CATION MAY BE MADE BY MULTIPLYING THE RATIO OF ELIGIBLE CON-
STRUCTION COSTS TIMES THE UNALLOCATED, ACCEPTED ENGINEERING
DESIGN COST.
ERIE COUNTY NY,
EPA DOCKET NO. 02-85-AD16
(11/2H/86)
2-8
-------
05/27/87
9
ALLOWABILITY OF COSTS
GRL-040-050-000 ALLOCATION
GRANTEE MAY REBUT PRESUMED ACCURACY OF DESIGN COST "ELIGIBI-
LITY RATIO" BASED ON CONSTRUCTION COST WITH EVIDENCE OF ACT-
UAL DESIGN COST.
HOLDENVILLE OK,
EPA DOCKET NO. 06-86-AD02
( 12/18/86)
GRL-OtO-050-000 ALLOCATION
WHEN THE GRANTEE HAS NOT SEPARATELY DOCUMENTED THE
ENGINEERING COSTS ASSOCIATED WITH THE INELIGIBLE PORTION
OF A PROJECT, EPA MAY DETERMINE THE INELIGIBLE COSTS
THROUGH A RATIONALLY BASED PRORATION.
PIMA COUNTY WASTEWATER MANAGEMENT DEPARTMENT AZ,
EPA DOCKET NO. 09-86-AD12
(12/18/86)
GRL-040-150-000 BOND COSTS
BOND COSTS IN EXCESS OF THOSE ALLOWED BY THE BOND FORMULA
ESTABLISHED IN CONSTRUCTION GRANT MEMORANDUM NO. 70-5 ARE
NOT NECESSARY TO FUND THE LOCAL SHARE OF PROJECT COSTS,
AND HENCE ARE UNALLOWABLE FOR GRANT PARTICIPATION.
TUOLUMNE REGIONAL WATER DISTRICT CA,
EPA DOCKET NO. 09-8<4-AD1Q
(03/21/86)
2-9
-------
05/27/87
10
ALLOWABILITY OF COSTS
GRL-OHO-200-000 COMPENSATORY TIME COSTS
EPA MAY LEAVE COSTS IN A SUSPENDED STATUS, PENDING THE OUT-
COME OF LITIGATION OVER ALLEGED CONSTRUCTION COSTS DUE TO
DELAY, BUT STILL PARTICIPATE IN THESE COSTS TO EXPEDITE PRO-
JECT CLOSE OUT. LEAVING THE COSTS IN A SUSPENDED STATUS ENA-
BLES EPA TO LATER DISALLOW AND RECOVER THEM IF THE DETERMI-
NATION IS HADE THAT THE COST OF DELAYS WAS DUE TO SOME FAULT
OF THE GRANTEE. '
SUFFOLK COUNTY SEWER DISTRICT NO. 3 NY,
EPA DOCKET NO. 02-84-AD21
(02/12/87)
GRL-0«»0-250-000 DIRECT COSTS
CONSTRUCTION COST OF MANHOLE INSTALLATION DOCUMENTED BY
MATERIAL INVOICES AND VERIFIED BY AS-BUILT PLANS ARE
REIMBURSABLE.
MARTINSVILLE IN,
EPA DOCKET NO. 05-84-AD05
(02/07/85)
GRL-040-250-000 DIRECT COSTS
DIRECT COSTS MAY BE CHARGED TO A CONTROL ACCOUNT USED FOR
THE ACCUMULATION OF COSTS PENDING DISTRIBUTION IN DUE COURSE
TO THE GRANT. (FEDERAL MANAGEMENT CIRCULAR 74-H).
N.J.D.E.P. MJ,
EPA DOCKET NO. 02-84-AD27
(03/11/86)
2-10
-------
05/27/87
11
ALLOWABILITY OF COSTS
GRL-010-250-000 DIRECT COSTS
COSTS BILLED UNDER AN ENGINEERING SUBAGREEMENT AND LABELED
AS A "MANAGEMENT INFORMATION SYSTEM" ARE NOT FOR E2UIPMENT
COSTS NORMALLY CAPITIALIZED AND ALLOCATED TO INDIRECT COSTS.
THEY WERE FOUND TO CONSIST OF ROUTINE E2UIPMENT LEASING,
MATERIALS £ SUPPLIES NORMALLY EXPENSED AS DIRECT COSTS AND
ARE ALLOWABLE DIRECT COSTS UNDER THE GRANT.
BROWARD COUNTY FL,
EPA DOCKET NO. 04-84-AD12
(01/03/86)
GRL-010-300-000 DOCUMENTATION
LEGAL COSTS NOT DOCUMENTED BY THE AMOUNT OF TIME DEVOTED TO
EACH TYPE OF SERVICE OR THE AMOUNT CHARGED THEREFOR ARE UN-
ALLOWABLE.
GROTON, VILLAGE OF NY,
EPA DOCKET NO. 02-8H-AD12
(09/18/81)
GRL-040-300-000 DOCUMENTATION
FAILURE TO PRODUCE DOCUMENTATION SHOWING THE USE FOR PROJECT
PURPOSES OF INCOME IN THE FORM OF UNREFUNDED BID DEPOSITS
REDUCES BY THAT AMOUNT THE TOTAL PROJECT COST ON WHICH THE
EPA SHARE IS BASED.
MARTINSVILLE IN,
EPA DOCKET NO. 05-84-AD05
(02/07/85)
2-11
-------
05/27/87
12
ALLOWABILITY OF COSTS
GRL-040-300-000 DOCUMENTATION
CONSTRUCTION COST OF MANHOLE INSTALLATION DOCUMENTED BY
MATERIAL INVOICES AND VERIFIED BY AS-BUILT PLANS ARE
REIMBURSABLE.
MARTINSVILLE IN,
EPA DOCKET NO. 05-84-AD05
(02X07X85)
GRL-010-300-000 DOCUMENTATION
DOCUMENTED ADMINISTRATIVE EXPENSES ALLOCABLE TO THE ELIGIBLE
PORTION OF THE GRANT PROJECT ARE REIMBURSABLE.
MARTINSVILLE IN,
EPA DOCKET NO. 05-81-AD05
(02/07/85)
GRL-OtO-300-000 DOCUMENTATION
INSUFFICIENTLY DOCUMENTED LEGAL FEES ARE UNALLOWABLE.
ALEXANDRIA BAY, VILLAGE OF NY,
EPA DOCKET NO. 02-84-AD10
(02/20/85)
2-12
-------
05/27/8'
13
ALLOWABILITY OF COSTS
GRL-OHO-300-000 DOCUMENTATION
A/E FEES SUBSTANTIATED BY DOCUMENTATION SHOWING THE AMOUNT
ALLOCABLE TO THE ELIGIBLE PORTION OF THE PROJECT ARE
ALLOWABLE.
MEXICO, VILLGE OF NY,
EPA DOCKET NO. 02-S4-AD08
(02/20/85)
GRL-010-300-000 DOCUMENTATION
COSTS WHICH CANNOT BE SUBSTANTIATED BY ADEQUATE ACCOUNTING
RECORDS ARE UNALLOWABLE.
FAIRBANKS, CY OF AK,
EPA DOCKET NO. 10-8M-AD11
(03/26/85)
GRL-040-300-000 DOCUMENTATION
COSTS WHICH CANNOT BE SUBSTANTIATED BY ADE2UATE ACCOUNTING
RECORDS ARE UNALLOWABLE.
MONTGOMERY COUNTY SEWER DISTRICT NO. 1 NY,
EPA DOCKET NO. 02-84-AD05
(05/29/85)
2-13
-------
05/27/87
ALIENABILITY OF COSTS
GRL-040-300-000 DOCUMENTATION
COSTS WHICH CANNOT BE SUBSTANTIATED BY ADE&UATE ACCOUNTING
RECORDS ARE UNALLOWABLE.
LACEY MUNICIPAL UTILITIES AUTHORITY NJ,
EPA DOCKET NO. 02-84-AD25
(06/18/85)
GRL-040-300-000 DOCUMENTATION
A/E'S FAILURE TO KEEP ADE2UATE ACCOUNTING RECORDS UNDER LUMP
SUM ENGINEERING SERVICES CONTRACT JUSTIFIES DISALLOWANCE
(AND DOWNWARD RENEGOTIATION OF CONTRACT) BY AMOUNT OF COSTS
THUS SAVED.
CHANNELVIEW TX,
EPA DOCKET NO. 06-85-AD02
(06/24/85)
GRL-040-300-000 DOCUMENTATION
COSTS WHICH A GRANTEE CANNOT PROPERLY SUPPORT ARE NOT
ALLOWABLE COSTS FOR REIMBURSEMENT WITH EPA FUNDS.
DRY RIDGE KY,
EPA DOCKET NO. 04-84-AD17
(07/30/85)
2-14
-------
05/27/8'
15
ALLOWABILITY OF COSTS
GRL-040-300-000 DOCUMENTATION
ALLOWABLE PROJECT COSTS INADVERTENTLY ALLOCATED TO ANOTHER
PROJECT WITHIN CONTRACTOR'S ACCOUNTING SYSTEM MAY BE
REINSTATED UPON EXAMINATION OF ADEQUATE CORRECTED ACCOUNTING
RECORDS AND SUPPORTING DOCUMENTATION.
SPRING HOPE NC,
EPA DOCKET NO. 01-83-AD07
( 10/02/85)
GRL-040-300-000 DOCUMENTATION
ADDITIONAL DOCUMENTATION NOT AVAILABLE TO THE DISPUTES
DECISION OFFICIAL JUSTIFIES A REINSTATEMENT OF $583,152 AS
ALLOWABLE COSTS PREVIOUSLY DEEMED UNALLOWABLE.
GLOUCESTER COUNTY UTILITIES AUTHORITY NJ,
EPA DOCKET NO. 02-84-AD03
(11/04/85)
GRL-040-300-000 DOCUMENTATION
A GRANTEE IS REQUIRED TO MAINTAIN A FINANCIAL MANAGEMENT
SYSTEM WHICH ADEQUATELY DETERMINES THE ALLOWABILITY £ AL-
LOCABILITY OF COSTS.
COSTS ASSOCIATED W/DELAYS WHICH WERE OUTSIDE THE CONTROL OF
THE GRANTEE G ITS CONTRACTORS ARE ELIGIBLE.
FINDLAY TOWNSHIP PA,
EPA DOCKET NO. 03-84-AD18
(03/10/86)
2-15
-------
05/27/8'
16
ALLOWABILITY OF COSTS
GRL-0<40-300-000 DOCUMENTATION
COSTS WHICH CANNOT BE ALLOCATED BETWEEN GRANT RELATED AND
NON-GRANT RELATED ACTIVITIES BECAUSE OF LACK OF DOCUMENTA-
TION ARE NOT ALLOWABLE.
CANANDAIGUA LAKE COUNTY SEWER DISTRICT NY,
EPA DOCKET NO. 02-85-AD10
(03/11/86)
GRL-040-300-000 DOCUMENTATION
WHERE THE GRANTEE FAILS TO ESTABLISH THAT ITS ACCOUNTING
SYSTEM PROPERLY SEGREGATES ELIGIBLE AND INELIGIBLE COSTS,
ALL FORCE ACCOUNT LABOR COSTS ARE UNALLOWABLE.
SAN DIEGO, CITY OF CA,
EPA DOCKET NO. 09-85-AD09
(03/21/86)
GRL-OMO-300-000 DOCUMENTATION
COSTS WHICH CANNOT BE SUBSTANTIATED BY ADEQUATE ACCOUNTING
RECORDS ARE UNALLOWABLE.
SWMA, GOV'T OF PR PR,
EPA DOCKET NO. 02-84-AD31
(03/25/86)
2-16
-------
05/27x87
17
ALLOWABILITY OF COSTS
GRL-040-300-000 DOCUMENTATION
A GRANTEE HAS AN OBLIGATION TO PRESENT EPA WITH SUFFICIENT
RECORDS TO SUBSTANTIATE ALL OF ITS CLAIMED COSTS. WHERE A
GRANTEE INCURS COSTS FOR WORK PERFORMED AFTER THE AUTHORIZED
PROJECT COMPLETION DATE, THE BURDEN IS ON THE GRANTEE TO
DEMONSTRATE THAT SUCH COSTS WERE NECESSARY, REASONABLE,
ELIGIBLE, AND OTHERWISE ALLOWABLE FOR FEDERAL FUNDING.
RIVERSIDE, CITY OF CA,
EPA DOCKET NO. 09-85-AD01
(03/27/86)
GRL-OHO-300-000 DOCUMENTATION
DIRECT AND/OR INDIRECT ADMINISTRATIVE COSTS OF THE GRANTEE
UNALLOWABLE WITHOUT AUDITABLE DOCUMENTATION.
WOONSOCKET RI,
EPA DOCKET NO. 01-85-AD01
(04/08/86)
GRL-040-300-000 DOCUMENTATION
EPA MAY ACCEPT AFFIDAVITS VERIFYING AS TRUE AND ACCURATE
TIME RECORDS FOR SALARY COSTS AND RELATED BENEFITS CLAIMED
FOR THE AMENDED PROJECT PERIOD OF A RESEARCH GRANT TO MAKE
THE COSTS ALLOWABLE FOR FEDERAL FUNDING.
ENVIRONMENTAL DEFENSE FUND DC,
EPA DOCKET NO. H2-85-AD01
(01/10/86)
2-17
-------
05/27/8
18
ALLOWABILITY OF COSTS
GRL-040-300-000 DOCUMENTATION
COSTS FOR SERVICES FOR THE RECONCILIATION OF GRANT PROJECT
COSTS ARE ALLOWABLE PER FEDERAL MANAGEMENT CIRCULAR 74-4,
ATTACHMENT B, B.1, IF THE COSTS ARE REASONABLE AND PROPERLY
DOCUMENTED.
ALISO MATER MANAGEMENT DISTRICT CA,
EPA DOCKET NO. 09-85-AD02
(04/23/86)
GRL-040-300-000 DOCUMENTATION
THE GRANTEE'S SUBMISSION OF ITS CONTRACTOR'S SUMMARY
STATEMENT OF CHARGES FOR PROFESSIONAL SERVICES, WITHOUT
ACCOMPANYING ORIGINAL SOURCE DOCUMENTATION, WAS INADEQUATE
TO SUPPORT THE REINSTATEMENT OF $5,009.65 IN EXPENSES AND
$40,000.00 IN COSTS ASSOCIATED WITH THE SETTLEMENT OF A
LAW SUIT.
ANTIGO, CITY OF WI,
EPA DOCKET NO. 05-85-AD03
(04/25/86)
GRL-040-300-000 DOCUMENTATION
THE GRANTEE'S SUBMISSION OF PAYROLL RECORDS WHICH INDICATED
NUMBER OF HOURS WORKED, RATES OF PAY, AND THE FEDERALLY
ASSISTED PROJECT WORKED ON WAS SUFFICIENT TO DOCUMENT
$41,883.08 OF THE ORIGINALLY DISALLOWED $96,238.00 IN
ARCHITECTURAL/ENGINEERING COSTS.
ANTIGO, CITY OF HI,
EPA DOCKET NO. 05-85-AD03
(04/25/86)
2-18
-------
05/27/8
19
ALLOWABILITY OF COSTS
GRL-OHO-300-000 DOCUMENTATION
IN THE ABSENCE OF DOCUMENTATION ADE2UATE TO ALLOCATE ENGI-
NEERING AND ADMINISTRATIVE COSTS TO ELIGIBLE AND INELIGIBLE
PORTIONS OF CONSTRUCTION, THOSE COSTS MAY BE PRORATED BY
MULTIPLYING THE RATIO OF ELIGIBLE CONSTRUCTION COSTS TO
TOTAL CONSTRUCTION COSTS TIMES THE UNALLOCATED, ACCEPTED
ENGINEERING AND ADMINISTRATIVE COSTS.
ONEIDA, CITY OF NY,
EPA DOCKET NO. 02-84-AD32
(06/09/86)
GRL-040-300-000 DOCUMENTATION
COSTS WHICH CANNOT BE SUBSTANTIATED BY ADESUATE ACCOUNTING
RECORDS ARE UNALLOWABLE.
MIAMI-DADE WATER £ SEWER AUTHORITY FL,
EPA DOCKET NO. OH-84-AD18
(06/13/86)
GRL-OUO-300-000 DOCUMENTATION
COSTS WHICH CANNOT BE SUBSTANTIATED BY ADE2UATE ACCOUNTING
RECORDS ARE UNALLOWABLE.
WEST PALM BEACH FL,
EPA DOCKET NO. 04-84-AD09
(07/18/86)
2-19
-------
05/27/87
20
ALLOWABILITY OF COSTS
GRL-OUO-300-000 DOCUMENTATION
ADDITIONAL DOCUMENTATION NOT AVAILABLE TO THE DISPUTES
DECISION OFFICIAL JUSTIFIES THE REINSTATEMENT OF *17,516
AS ALLOWABLE PROJECT COSTS PREVIOUSLY RULED UNALLOWABLE.
WEST PALM BEACH FL,
EPA DOCKET NO. 04-84-AD09
(07/18/86)
GRL-040-300-000 DOCUMENTATION
ADDITIONAL DOCUMENTATION NOT AVAILABLE TO THE DISPUTES
DECISION OFFICIAL WHICH ALLOWS SEGREGATION OF ELIGIBLE FROM
INELIGIBLE COSTS JUSTIFIES ALLOWANCE OF COSTS WHERE THE
EARLIER ABSENCE OF SUCH DOCUMENTATION LED TO THE AUDITORS
AND THE DISPUTES DECISION OFFICIAL'S APPLICATION OF A
CONSTRUCTION RATIO TO DETERMINE ALLOWABLE COSTS.
DAYTON, IN,
EPA DOCKET NO. 05-84-ADOH
(07/21/86)
GRL-040-300-000 DOCUMENTATION
ALLOWABLE PROJECT COST INADVERTENTLY ALLOCATED TO ANOTHER
PROJECT WITHIN A CONTRACTOR'S ACCOUNTING SYSTEM MAY BE RE-
INSTATED UPON EXAMINATION OF ADEQUATE CORRECTED ACCOUNTING
RECORDS AND SUPPORTING DOCUMENTATION.
DAYTON, IN,
EPA DOCKET NO. 05-84-AD04
(07/21/86)
2-20
-------
05/27/87
21
ALLOWABILITY OF COSTS
GRL-040-300-000 DOCUMENTATION
WHERE THE GRANTEE FAILED TO DOCUMENT THAT ARCHITECTURAL/
ENGINEERING FEES INCURRED FOR INSPECTION OF CONSTRUCTION
CONTRACT COMPLETION DATE DID NOT RESULT FROM CONTRACTOR
NONPERFORMANCE OR GRANTEE MISMANAGEMENT, SUCH COSTS WILL
BE DISALLOWED FOR FEDERAL PARTICIPATION.
WEXFORD COUNTY MI,
EPA DOCKET NO. 05-8H-AD20
(08/07/86)
GRL-OUO-300-000 DOCUMENTATION
ADDITIONAL DOCUMENTATION NOT AVAILABLE TO THE DISPUTES
DECISION OFFICIAL JUSTIFIES THE REINSTATEMENT OF A *651
CHANGE ORDER PREVIOUSLY RULED UNALLOWABLE.
MT. PLEASANT TN,
EPA DOCKET NO. 04-8I4-AD25
(09/22/86)
GRL-0«40-300-000 DOCUMENTATION
A GRANTEE HAS AN OBLIGATION TO PRESENT EPA WITH SUFFICIENT
RECORDS TO SUBSTANTIATE ALL OF ITS CLAIMED COSTS. PERSONAL
SERVICES COSTS WHICH CANNOT BE SUBSTANTIATED BY ADE2UATE
TIME AND ATTENDANCE RECORDS OR THEIR E2UIVALENT ARE NOT
ALLOWABLE.
MORRO BAY, CITY OF CA,
EPA DOCKET NO. 09-84-AD17
(09/30/86)
2-21
-------
05/27/8'
22
ALLOUABILITY OF COSTS
GRL-040-300-000 DOCUMENTATION
SURVEYING COSTS BILLED UNDER A COST-PLUS-FIXED-FEE CONTRACT
ARE ALLOWABLE TO THE EXTENT THAT THEY ARE PROPERLY SUPPORTED
BY THE CONSULTING ENGINEER'S RECORDS. THE FIXED FEE,
HOWEVER, IS ALLOWABLE IN WHOLE IF THE OVERALL LEVEL OF
COMPENSATION FOR THE SERVICES IS REASONABLE AND IF THE
SERVICES WERE PERFORMED.
MONTEREY COUNTY CA,
EPA DOCKET NO. 09-84-AD25
(11/17/86)
GRL-010-300-000 DOCUMENTATION
ADDITIONAL DOCUMENTATION NOT AVAILABLE TO THE DISPUTES
DECISION OFFICIAL JUSTIFIES REINSTATEMENT OF SET-ASIDE
CONSTRUCTION COSTS.
BERRIEN I CNTY DEPT OF PUBLIC WORKS IN,
EPA DOCKET NO. 05-85-AD28
(11/21/86)
GRL-040-300-000 DOCUMENTATION
IN THE ABSENCE OF TIME RECORDS OR OTHER DOCUMENTATION WHICH
SPECIFICALLY ALLOCATES ENGINEERING DESIGN COSTS BETWEEN ELI-
GIBLE AND INELIGIBLE PORTIONS OF CONSTRUCTION, SUCH AN ALLO-
CATION MAY BE MADE BY MULTIPLYING THE RATIO OF ELIGIBLE CON-
STRUCTION COSTS TIMES THE UNALLOCATED, ACCEPTED ENGINEERING
DESIGN COST.
ERIE COUNTY * NY,
EPA DOCKET NO. 02-85-AD16
( 1 1/24/86)
2-22
-------
05/27/87
23
ALLOWABILITY OF COSTS
GRL-040-300-000 DOCUMENTATION
GRANTEE'S RE2UEST FOR REVIEW OF A DISPUTE DECISION OFFI-
CIAL'S DETERMINATION DISALLOWING CERTAIN CLAIMED COSTS IS
DENIED WHEN UNTIMELY FILLED, MORE THAN 100 DAYS AFTER DETER-
MINATION, AND WHERE GRANTEE FAILED TO COMPLY WITH AGENCY
REQUESTS FOR DOCUMENTATION AND PROCEDURES DESIGNED TO RE-
SOLVE THE DISPUTE AT THE LOWEST POSSIBLE LEVEL.
SYRACUSE-RACINE RSD, OH,
EPA DOCKET NO. 05-86-AD08
(11/27/86)
GRL-040-300-000 DOCUMENTATION
THE GRANTEE'S SUBMISSION OF INVOICES, "CUT SHEETS", AND
BLUEPRINTS FOR $6,315.00 FIELD CREW STAKING AND $385.00 FOR
LANA LANE REVISIONS WAS NOT SUFFICIENT TO DOCUMENT THE ACTU-
AL NUMBER OF HOURS OF STAKING AND REDESIGN WORK AND THE TOT-
AL NUMBER OF HOURS THE ARCHITECTURAL ENGINEERING FIRM WAS
REIMBURSED FOR THESE SERVICES. THEREFORE, THESE COSTS MAY
NOT BE ALLOCATED TO THE GRANT PROGRAM.
MEDINA COUNTY, I OH,
EPA DOCKET NO. 05-85-AD01
(12/01/86)
GRL-010-300-000 DOCUMENTATION
IT IS NOT REGION II'S POLICY TO GRANT A RE2UEST FOR REVIEW
OF A STATE AGENCY'S FINAL DECISION ON A GRANT RELATED MATTER
WHEN THE RECORD PRESENTED TO EPA INCLUDES DOCUMENTATION
THAT, WHILE AVAILABLE, WAS NOT SUBMITTED TO NYSDEC AND,
THEREFORE, WAS NOT REVIEWED AT THE STATE LEVEL. THAT POLICY
IS PARTICULARLY APPROPRIATE IN A CASE SUCH AS THIS WHERE THE
ADDITIONAL DOCUMENTATION IS EXTENSIVE AND OF A DETAILED
TECHNICAL NATURE. INITIAL REVIEW OF SUCH DOCUMENTATION BY
THE STATE AGENCY TO WHICH HAS BEEN DELEGATED THE RESPONSIBI-
LITY TO MAKE THE INITIAL DECISION IS INDISPENSABLE TO A REA-
SONED REVIEW OF THAT DECISION BY EPA.
WOODRIDGE, VILLAGE OF NY,
EPA DOCKET NO. 02-86-AD16
(12/04/86)
2-23
-------
OS/27/87
24
ALLOWABILITY OF COSTS
GRL-040-300-000 DOCUMENTATION
GRANTEE FINANCIAL STATEMENTS SUBMITTED ON FRINGE BENEFITS
WERE SUFFICIENT DOCUMENTATION TO SUPPORT ALLOWANCE OF
ADDITIONAL ARCHITECTURAL ENGINEERING BASIC FEES AND ALSO
ALLOWANCE OF ADDITIONAL COSTS FOR PROJECT INSPECTION FEES
INCURRED PRIOR TO CONTRACT COMPLETEION THROUGH APPLICATION
OF A RECOMPUTED FRINGE BENEFIT OR BILLING RATE.
LUCAS COUNTY, OH,
EPA DOCKET NO. 05-8S-AD17
(12/08/86)
GRL-010-300-000 DOCUMENTATION
WHEN A PROJECT INCLUDES CONSTRUCTION OF ELEMENTS NOT
ELIGIBLE UNDER THE EPA GRANT, THE BURDEN IS ON THE GRANTEE
TO DOCUMENT SEPARATELY THE ELIGIBLE AND INELIGIBLE COSTS
THROUGHOUT THE PROJECT.
PIMA COUNTY WASTEWATER MANAGEMENT DEPARTMENT AZ,
EPA DOCKET NO. 09-86-AD12
( 12/18/86)
GRL-040-300-000 DOCUMENTATION
ADDITIONAL DOCUMENTATION NOT AVAILABLE TO THE DISPUTES
DECISION OFFICIAL JUSTIFIES THE REINSTATEMENT OF $13,506
AS ALLOWABLE PROJECT COSTS PREVIOUSLY RULED UNALLOWABLE.
MCEWEN . TN,
EPA DOCKET NO. 04-83-AD06
( 12/19/86)
2-24
-------
05/27/8'
25
ALLOWABILITY OF COSTS
GRL-040-300-000 DOCUMENTATION
40 C.F.R. SECTION 30.605(1974) RE2UIRES COST TO BE SUPPORTED
BY RECORDS IN SUFFICIENT DETAIL TO DETERMINE THAT GRANT
FUNDS MERE EXPENDED FOR ALLOWABLE PURPOSES.
BERRIEN II CNTY DEPT OF PUBLIC WORKS MI,
EPA DOCKET NO. 05-85-AD16
( 12/22/86)
GRL-040-300-000 DOCUMENTATION
ADDITIONAL DOCUMENTATION NOT AVAILABLE TO THE DISPUTES
DECISION OFFICIAL JUSTIFIES REINSTATEMENT OF SET-ASIDE
CONSTRUCTION COSTS.
BERRIEN II CNTY DEPT OF PUBLIC WORKS MI,
EPA DOCKET NO. 05-85-AD16
( 12/22/86)
GRL-OtO-300-000 DOCUMENTATION
A GRANTEE HAS AN OBLIGATION TO PRESENT EPA WITH SUFFICIENT
RECORDS TO SUBSTANTIATE ALL OF ITS CLAIMED COSTS. PERSONAL
SERVICE COSTS WHICH CANNOT BE SUBSTANTIATED BY ADE2UATE TIME
AND ATTENDANCE RECORDS OR THEIR EQUIVALENT ARE NOT
ALLOWABLE.
SOUTH EAST REGIONAL RECLAMATION AUTHORITY CA,
EPA DOCKET NO. 09-86-AD06
( 12/24/86)
2-25
-------
OS/27/8'
ALLOUABILITY OF COSTS
GRL-040-300-000 DOCUMENTATION
COSTS CLAIMED BY A GRANT RECIPIENT ARE NOT ALLOWABLE WITHOUT
ADE2UATE DOCUMENTATION.
GRAND RAPIDS TOWNSHIP, MI,
EPA DOCKET NO. 05-86-AD26
(12/30/86)
GRL-040-300-000 DOCUMENTATION
THE GRANTEE MUST PROVIDE DOCUMENTATION SHOWING THE REASON-
ABLENESS OF CHANGE ORDERS FOR THE INCREASED PROJECT COSTS
CLAIMED TO BE ALLOWABLE FOR FEDERAL PARTICIPATION.
HOLGATE, VILLAGE OF, OH,
EPA DOCKET NO. 05-86-AD09
(12/31/86)
GRL-040-300-000 DOCUMENTATION
ADMINISTRATIVE EXPENSE COSTS WHICH THE GRANTEE COULD NOT
PROPERLY DOCUMENT TO SATISFY RECORD KEEPING REBUIREMENTS OF
THE FEDERAL REGULATIONS WERE NOT ALLOWABLE FOR REIMBURSEMENT
WITH EPA GRANT FUNDS.
BARAGA CNTY DEPT OF PUBLIC WKS, L'ANSE, MI,
EPA DOCKET NO. 05-86-AD07
( 12/31/86)
2-26
-------
05/27/87
27
ALLOWABILITY OF COSTS
GRL-010-300-000 DOCUMENTATION
A GRANTEE HAS AN OBLIGATION TO PRESENT EPA WITH SUFFICIENT
RECORDS TO SUBSTANTIATE ALL OF ITS CLAIMED COSTS. PERSONAL
SERVICE COSTS WHICH CANNOT BE SUBSTANTIATED BY ADEQUATE
TIME AND ATTENDANCE RECORDS OR THEIR EQUIVALENT ARE NOT
ALLOWABLE.
LOS ANGELES COUNTY CA,
EPA DOCKET NO. 09-84-AD37
(01/28/87)
GRL-040-300-000 DOCUMENTATION
COSTS WHICH CANNOT BE SUBSTANTIATED BY ADEQUATE ACCOUNTING
RECORDS ARE UNALLOWABLE.
GRAND ISLAND, TOWN OF NY,
EPA DOCKET NO. 02-86-AD10
(02/06/87)
GRL-040-300-000 DOCUMENTATION
DECISION ON ELIGIBILITY OF ADMINISTRATIVE COSTS THAT ARE
INSUFFICIENTLY DOCUMENTED TO SUPPORT THE COSTS WILL BE
DEFERRED UNTIL THE REGIONAL OFFICE CAN REVIEW THE
DOCUMENTATION SUBMITTED TO SUPPORT THE CLAIMS.
SUFFOLK COUNTY SEWER DISTRICT NO. 3 NY,
EPA DOCKET NO. 02-84-AD21
(02/12/87)
2-27
-------
05/27/8'
28
ALLOWABILITY OF COSTS
GRL-OHO-300-000 DOCUMENTATION
ADMINISTRATIVE COSTS WHICH CANNOT BE ALLOCATED BETWEEN GRANT
RELATED AND NON-GRANT RELATED ACTIVITIES BECAUSE OF LACK OF
DOCUMENTATION ARE NOT ALLOWABLE.
SUFFOLK COUNTY SEWER DISTRICT NO. 3 NY,
EPA DOCKET NO. 02-84-AD21
(02/12/87)
GRL-010-300-000 DOCUMENTATION
THE GRANTEES MUST MAINTAIN ADEQUATE DOCUMENTATION EXPENDI-
TURES FOR GRANT ASSISTANCE.
LEGAL SERVICES ASSOCIATED WITH THE NEGOTIATION OF SERVICE
AGREEMENT ARE A NORMAL OPERATING REQUIREMENT OF A MUNICIPAL
ADMINISTRATION, AND THE COSTS ASSOCIATED WITH THIS TYPE OF
LEGAL SERVICE ARE INELIGIBLE FOR FEDERAL GRANT PARTICIPA-
TION.
WARWICK TOWNSHIP PA,
EPA DOCKET NO. 03-81-AD23
(02/27/87)
GRL-040-300-000 DOCUMENTATION
WHERE THE GRANTEE'S SUBMISSION OF RECORDS FAILED TO DEMON-
STRATE THROUGH PROPER DOCUMENTATION THAT DISPUTED FORCE AC-
COUNT COSTS, WERE NECESSARY AND REASONABLE UNDER THE GRANT,
THESE COSTS WERE PROPERLY DISALLOWED.
GAS CITY UTILITIES, GAS CITY, IN,
EPA DOCKET NO. 05-86-AD21
(03/20/87)
2-28
-------
05/27/87
29
ALLOWABILITY OF COSTS
GRL-040-300-000 DOCUMENTATION
WHERE THE GRANTEE'S SUBMISSION OF RECORDS FAILED TO PRODUCE
SUFFICIENT DOCUMENTATION TO IDENTIFY WHETHER THE DISPUTED
COSTS INCURRED AFTER THE AUTHORIZED CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT
COMPLETION DATES WERE EXCESS COSTS OR COST OVER-RUNS RESULT-
ING FROM THE ACTION OF THE RECIPIENT OR THE CONTRACTOR,
THOSE COSTS WERE PROPERLY DISALLOWED FOR LACK OF DOCUMENTA-
TION.
GAS CITY UTILITIES, GAS CITY, IN,
EPA DOCKET NO. 05-86-AD21
(03/20/87)
GRL-040-300-000 DOCUMENTATION
GOOD FAITH FAILURE TO PROVIDE ADEBUATE DOCUMENTATION IS NO
DEFENSE TO REQUEST FOR REIMBURSEMENT.
DETOUR VILLAGE, MI,
EPA DOCKET NO. 05-86-AD05
(03/31/87)
GRL-040-300-000 DOCUMENTATION
GOOD FAITH RELIANCE ON CONSULTING ENGINEER TO PROVIDE AND
MAINTAIN ADEfiUATE DOCUMENTATION IS NO DEFENSE TO REfiUEST
FOR REIMBURSEMENT.
DETOUR VILLAGE, MI,
EPA DOCKET NO. 05-86-AD05
(03/31/87)
2-29
-------
05/27/87
30
ALLOUABILITY OF COSTS
GRL-OHO-315-000 E2UIPMENT
APPLICATIOM OF THE PROJECT ELIGIBILITY RATIO TO THE NET
E2UIPMENT COSTS IS THE PROPER METHOD FOR COMPUTIHG THE
ALLOWABLE AMOUNT.
AMSTERDAM, CITY OF NY,
EPA DOCKET NO. 02-84-AD11
(02/20/85)
GRL-040-315-000 E2UIPMENT
WHERE PROPERTY, PURCHASED AS STANDBY EQUIPMENT, LATER BECAME
UNNECESSARY, IT WAS DETERMINED THAT THE GRANTEE COULD NOT
LAWFULLY DISPOSE OF THE PROPERTY PRIOR TO THE DATE THAT THE
GRANTEE NO LONGER NEEDED THE PROPERTY. 40 C.F.R. 30-810-7(A
(1975).
WHEATON, S.D., WHEATON, IL,
EPA DOCKET NO. 05-84-AD13
(01/08/86)
GRL-040-315-000 E2UIPMENT
EQUIPMENT COSTS INCURRED AFTER THE END OF A BUDGET PERIOD
SHORTENED TO CONFORM WITH THE FEDERAL FISCAL YEAR AT EPA'S
RE2UEST ARE OUTSIDE THE SCOPE OF THE PREVIOUS BUDGET PERIOD,
BUT THE GRANT MAY BE AMENDED RETROACTIVELY TO INCLUDE THE
EQUIPMENT IN THE FOLLOWING BUDGET PERIOD.
N.J.D.E.P. NJ,
EPA DOCKET NO. 02-84-AD27
(03/11/86)
2-30
-------
05/27/8'
31
ALLOWABILITY OF COSTS
GRL-010-315-000 E2UIPMENT
THE COST OF MOBILE EBUIPMENT (LAWN MOWER) WHICH IS NOT FOUND
TO BE DIRECTLY NECESSARY FOR THE OPERATION OF THE OVERALL
WASTEWATER TREATMENT FACILITY AND WAS NOT APPROVED IN
ADVANCE OF PURCHASE IS NOT ALLOWABLE FOR EPA PARTICIPATION.
MT. PLEASANT TN,
EPA DOCKET NO. OH-81-AD25
(09/22/86)
GRL-040-315-000 EBUIPMENT
ADJUSTMENT OF A GRANT TO INCLUDE ADDITIONAL FUNDING FOR THE
ALLOWABLE COSTS OF ECUIPMENT WILL BE MADE AFTER BIDS HAVE
BEEN RECEIVED.
ASBURY PARK, CITY OF NJ,
EPA DOCKET NO. 02-86-AD01
(09/24/86)
GRL-040-315-000 E2UIPMENT
THE COST OF TREATMENT E2UIPMENT TO MAKE SLUDGE ACCEPTABLE
FOR ULTIMATE DISPOSAL IS ALLOWABLE.
ASBURY PARK, CITY OF NJ,
EPA DOCKET NO. 02-86-AD01
(09/21/86)
2-31
-------
05/27/87
32
ALLOWABILITY OF COSTS
GRL-040-315-000 EQUIPMENT
WHERE A GRANTEE IS NOT REIMBURSED THE GRANT ELIGIBLE FEDERAL
SHARE OF THE COST OF INOPERATIVE EQUIPMENT AND THE GRANTEE
SUBSTITUTES LESS EXPENSIVE, FUNCTIONALLY EQUIVALENT EQUIP-
MENT, THE COST OF THE REPLACEMENT EBUIPMENT IS ALLOWABLE FOR
FEDERAL PARTICIPATION.
FOND DU LAC, WI,
EPA DOCKET NO. 05-84-AD15
( 12/24/86)
GRL-040-315-000 EQUIPMENT
THE COST OF VEHICLES FOR THE TRANSPORTATION OF A GRANTEE'S
EMPLOYEES IS UNALLOWABLE.
GREENUP COUNTY KY,
EPA DOCKET NO. 0<4-85-AD11
( 12/29/86)
GRL-040-315-000 E2UIPMENT
THE COST OF GENERAL PURPOSE TOOLS £ SHOP EQUIPMENT IS
UNALLOWABLE.
GREENUP COUNTY KY,
EPA DOCKET NO. 01-85-AD11
( 12/29/86)
2-32
-------
05/27/8'
33
ALLOWABILITY OF COSTS
GRL-040-315-000 EQUIPMENT
THE COST OF A STEER LOADER USED IN SLUDGE MANAGEMENT AT A
MULTI-COMMUNITY REGIONAL FACILITY LOCATED IN A REMOTE AREA
IS REINSTATED WHERE SUCH EQUIPMENT IS SHOWN TO BE COST
EFFECTIVE, NECESSARY FOR THE OPERATION-OF THE TREATMENT
FACILITY £ PROPERLY APPROVED IN ADVANCE OF PURCHASE.
GREENUP COUNTY KY,
EPA DOCKET NO. 0«*-8S-AD11
( 12/29/86)
GRL-040-315-000 EBUIPMENT
THE PURCHASE G INSTALLATION OF ELIGIBLE E2UIPMENT WHOSE
COST DOES NOT EXCEED $10,000 MAY BE PROCURED IN ACCORDANCE
W/ 10 CFR SEC 35.936.19, "SMALL PURCHASES."
CARROL COUNTY MD,
EPA DOCKET NO. 03-84-AD46
( 12/31/86)
GRL-OtO-315-000 E2UIPMENT
PRORATION OF COST OF SEWER MAINTENANCE EfiUIPMENT IS PROPER
WHEN ONLY A PORTION OF THE SEWER LINES TO BE MAINTAINED WERE
ELIGIBLE FOR GRANT FUNDING.
SUFFOLK COUNTY SEWER DISTRICT NO. 3 NY,
EPA DOCKET NO. 02-84-AD21
(02/12/87)
2-33
-------
05/27/8'
34
ALLOUABILITY OF COSTS
GRL-040-315-000 E2UIPMENT
COMPETITIVE PROCUREMENT, WHERE EQUIPMENT IS SPECIFIED UNDER
THE "TWO BRAND NAMES OR E2UAL" PROVISION OF *»0 CFR 35.936-
13(A), EPA PARTICIPATION IS LIMITED TO THE LOWEST PRICE
EQUIVALENT BRAND UPON RECEIPT OF BIDS. THE COST DIFFERENCE
BETWEEN THE LOWEST PRICE EQUIVALENT BRAND C THE HIGHER COST
OF THE BRAND PURCHASED BY THE GRANTEE IS UNALLOWABLE.
BARDSTOWN KY,
EPA DOCKET NO. 01-85-AD16
(02/26/87)
GRL-040-325-000 FEDERAL COST PRINCIPLES
THE CORRECT INDIRECT COST RATE(S), APPLICABLE TO DIRECT
COSTS INCURRED UNDER A GRANT, IS THE RATE(S) IN EFFECT FOR
THE FISCAL YEAR IN WHICH THE DIRECT COSTS ARE INCURRED.
LANCASTER SC,
EPA DOCKET NO. 04-83-AD03
(06/03/85)
GRL-040-325-000 FEDERAL COST PRINCIPLES
FEDERAL COST PRINCIPLES REQUIRE GRANTEE RECORD KEEPING PER-
MITTING THE SEGREGATION OF ELIGIBLE AND INELIGIBLE COSTS.
IN THE ABSENCE OF RECORDS WHICH PERMIT SUCH SEGREGATION, THE
AUDITORS WILL APPLY A CONSTRUCTION RATIO FORMULA TO DETER-
MINE ELIGIBLE COSTS.
LUCAS COUNTY, OH,
EPA DOCKET NO. 05-85-AD17
( 12/08/86)
2-34
-------
05/27/87
35
ALLOWABILITY OF COSTS
GRL-040-350-000 FORCE ACCOUNT
$20 PER HOUR SALARY PAID FORCE ACCOUNT RESIDENT INSPECTOR
MAS FAR ABOVE NORMAL AND THUS UNREASONABLE.
CHANNELVIEU TX,
EPA DOCKET NO. 06-85-AD02
(06/24/85)
GRL-040-350-000 FORCE ACCOUNT
CITY-OWNED E2UIPMENT HOURLY RATES TO BE BASED ON ACTUAL
COSTS TO THE CITY RATHER THAN ON AN HOURLY SCHEDULE AT
PREVAILING RATES.
INDEPENDENCE, CY OF OR,
EPA DOCKET NO. 10-84-AD07
(09/24/85)
GRL-040-350-000 FORCE ACCOUNT
CITY-OWNED EBUIPMENT HOURLY RATES TO BE BASED ON ACTUAL
COSTS TO THE CITY RATHER THAN ON AN HOURLY SCHEDULE AT
PREVAILING RATES.
INDEPENDENCE, CY OF OR,
EPA DOCKET NO. 10-81-AD06
(09/21/85)
2-35
-------
05/27x87
36
ALLOWABILITY OF COSTS
GRL-040-350-000 FORCE ACCOUNT
THE FIXED FEE UNDER A COST REIMBURSEMENT CONTRACT MAY NOT BE
INCREASED UNLESS A CONTRACT AMENDMENT CHANGES THE SCOPE OF
WORK.
PRASA / BASORA C RODRIGUEZ PR,
EPA DOCKET NO. 02-84-AD22
(02/10/86)
GRL-040-350-000 FORCE ACCOUNT
WHERE THE GRANTEE FAILS TO ESTABLISH THAT ITS ACCOUNTING
SYSTEM PROPERLY SEGREGATES ELIGIBLE AND INELIGIBLE COSTS,
ALL FORCE ACCOUNT LABOR COSTS ARE UNALLOWABLE.
SAN DIEGO, CITY OF CA,
EPA DOCKET NO. 09-85-AD09
(03/21/86)
GRL-040-350-000 FORCE ACCOUNT
FORCE ACCOUNT COSTS MUST BE SUPPORTED BY RECORDS WHICH
ADEQUATELY SHOW THE DISTRIBUTION OF HOURS WORKED AND
IDENTIFY THE WORK PERFORMED.
WINLOCK, CY OF WA,
EPA DOCKET NO. 10-84-AD10
(03/24/86)
2-36
-------
05/27/8'
37
ALLOWABILITY OF COSTS
GRL-040-350-000 FORCE ACCOUNT
ALLOWABLE FORCE ACCOUNT ADMINISTRATIVE COSTS ARE LIMITED TO
THOSE COSTS WHICH ARE SUPPORTED BY TIKE AND ATTENDANCE
RECORDS.
ALISO WATER MANAGEMENT DISTRICT CA,
EPA DOCKET NO. 09-8S-AD02
(0«*/23/86)
GRL-040-350-000 FORCE ACCOUNT
COSTS OF SERVICES PERFORMED BY THE GRANTEE'S CITY ENGINEER
ARE ORDINARY OPERATING EXPENSES OF LOCAL GOVERNMENT WHICH
ARE INELIGIBLE AS FORCE ACCOUNT COSTS.
ONEIDA, CITY OF NY,
EPA DOCKET NO. 02-84-AD32
(06/09/86)
GRL-010-350-000 FORCE ACCOUNT
TO BE ALLOWABLE FOR GRANT PARTICIPATION, FORCE ACCOUNT
INDIRECT COSTS MUST BE APPROVED IN ADVANCE, PROVIDED FOR IN
THE GRANT AGREEMENT, AND BASED ON THE ACTUAL INDIRECT COST
RATES FOR THE PERIOD IN CUESTION.
MONTEREY COUNTY CA,
EPA DOCKET NO. 09-81-AD25
( 1 1/17/86)
2-37
-------
05/27/8'
38
ALLOWABILITY OF COSTS
GRL-010-350-000 FORCE ACCOUNT
WHERE THE GRANTEE'S SUBMISSION OF RECORDS FAILED TO DEMON-
STRATE THROUGH PROPER DOCUMENTATION THAT DISPUTED FORCE AC-
COUNT COSTS, MERE NECESSARY AND REASONABLE UNDER THE GRANT,
THESE COSTS WERE PROPERLY DISALLOWED.
GAS CITY UTILITIES, GAS CITY, IN,
EPA DOCKET NO. 05-86-AD21
(03/20/87)
GRL-040-350-000 FORCE ACCOUNT
APPROVED FORCE ACCOUNT COSTS FOR ELIGIBLE BASIC AND SPECIAL
ENGINEERING SERVICES DURING CONSTRUCTION ARE ALLOWABLE TO
THE EXTENT THAT THE GRANTEE CAN SHOW THAT THE COSTS INCURRED
FOR EACH ENGINEERING ACTIVITY ARE NECESSARY AND REASONABLE.
LOS ANGELES, CITY OF CA,
EPA DOCKET NO. 09-S4-AD20
(03/25/87)
GRL-OHO-HOO-000 FRINGE BENEFITS
GRANTEE FINANCIAL STATEMENTS SUBMITTED ON FRINGE BENEFITS
WERE SUFFICIENT DOCUMENTATION TO SUPPORT ALLOWANCE OF
ADDITIONAL ARCHITECTURAL ENGINEERING BASIC FEES AND ALSO
ALLOWANCE OF ADDITIONAL COSTS FOR PROJECT INSPECTION FEES
INCURRED PRIOR TO CONTRACT COMPLETEION THROUGH APPLICATION
OF A RECOMPUTED FRINGE BENEFIT OR BILLING RATE.
LUCAS COUNTY, OH,
EPA DOCKET NO. 05-85-AD17
(12/08/86)
2-38
-------
05/27/87
39
ALLOWABILITY OF COSTS
GRL-040-400-000 FRINGE BENEFITS
DUPLICATE FRINGE BENEFITS ARE UNALLOWABLE FOR FEDERAL
PARTICIPATION.
TWIN BOROUGHS SANITARY AUTHORITY PA,
EPA DOCKET NO. 03-85-AD19
(02/09/87)
GRL-OtO-fSO-000 GOVERNMENTAL EXPENSES
THE COST OF NPDES ADVERTISEMENT IS AN UNALLOWABLE GOVERN-
MENTAL EXPENSE.
CHARLES COUNTY COMMUNITY COLLEGE MD,
EPA DOCKET NO. 03-84-AD64
GRL-040-450-000 GOVERNMENTAL EXPENSES
THE COST OF FULLY REPAVING STREETS WHICH SUFFERED 50 PERCENT
OR MORE SURFACE LOSS WHEN SEWER PIPES WERE LAID IS UNALLOW-
ABLE AS PART OF PROJECT COSTS. STREET REPAIR IS AN ORDINARY
OPERATING EXPENSE OF GOVERNMENT WHICH A MUNICIPALITY CANNOT
MEET WITH CONSTRUCTION GRANT FUNDS.
HOMER, VILLAGE OF, COUNTY OF CORTLAND NY,
EPA DOCKET NO. 02-84-AD26
(06/11/85)
2-39
-------
05/27/87
40
ALLOWABILITY OF COSTS
GRL-040-450-000 GOVERNMENTAL EXPENSES
LEGAL EXPENSES INCURRED FOR THE GENERAL ADMINISTRATION OF A
GRANT ARE ORDINARY EXPENSES OF LOCAL GOVERNMENT WITHIN THE
MEANING OF 40 CFR 35.940-2(6.)
DRY RIDGE KY,
EPA DOCKET NO. 04-84-AD17
(07/30/85)
6RL-040-450-000 GOVERNMENTAL EXPENSES
THE GENERAL COST OF MAINTAINING A SYSTEM OF STREETS IS AN
ORDINARY OPERATING EXPENSE OF GOVERNMENT AND THEREFORE UNAL-
LOWABLE UNDER 40 C.F.R. SECTION 35.940-2(6).
ECORSE CREEK POLLUT. ABATE., WAYNE CNTY, MI,
EPA DOCKET NO. 05-84-AD03
(12/10/85)
GRL-040-450-000 60VERNMENTAL EXPENSES
ADMINISTRATIVE EXPENSES INCURRED AFTER THE SCHEDULED
CONSTRUCTION COMPLETION DATE BUT W/IN THE 6RANT BUD6ET
PERIOD FOR ALLOWABLE ADMINISTRATIVE PURPOSES ARE ALLOWABLE
DIRECT COSTS UNDER THE GRANT.
BROWARD COUNTY FL,
EPA DOCKET NO. 04-84-AD12
(04/03/86)
2-40
-------
05/27/8'
ALIENABILITY OF COSTS
GRL-040-U50-000 GOVERNMENTAL EXPENSES
COSTS FOR SERVICES FOR THE RECONCILIATION OF GRANT PROJECT
COSTS ARE ALLOWABLE PER FEDERAL MANAGEMENT CIRCULAR 71-H,
ATTACHMENT B, B.1, IF THE COSTS ARE REASONABLE AND PROPERLY
DOCUMENTED.
ALISO WATER MANAGEMENT DISTRICT CA,
EPA DOCKET NO. 09-85-AD02
(Of/23/86)
GRL-040-450-000 GOVERNMENTAL EXPENSES
NORMAL OPERATING EXPENSE ARE NOT ELIGIBLE PROJECT COSTS.
WASHINGTON TOWNSHIP MUNICIPAL AUTHORITY PA,
EPA DOCKET NO. 03-84-AD05
(08/21/86)
GRL-040-450-000 GOVERNMENTAL EXPENSES
COSTS ASSOCIATED WITH THE PREPARATION OF A SEWER USE
ORDINANCE ARE CONSIDERED A NORMAL FUNCTION OF GOVERNMENT AND
NOT ALLOWABLE FOR EPA PARTICIPATION.
MT. PLEASANT TN,
EPA DOCKET NO. OH-84-AD25
(09/22/86)
2-41
-------
05/27/8:
42
ALLOWABILITY OF COSTS
GRL-0(tO-<*50-000 GOVERNMENTAL EXPENSES
GENERAL COST OF ROAD REPAYING IS ORDINARY OPERATING EXPENSE
OF GOVT. AND THEREFORE UNALLOWABLE COST OF STREET REPAIR
IS ALLOWABLE WHERE A DIRECT RESULT OF CONSTRUCTION, BUT
GENERALLY LIMITED TO WIDTH OF THE TRENCH.
GEAUGA COUNTY, OH,
EPA DOCKET NO. 05-84-AD08
(12/31/86)
GRL-040-450-000 GOVERNMENTAL EXPENSES
THE COST FOR SIGNS REQUIRED BY THE STATE HIGHWAY ADMIN-
ISTRATION ARE UNALLOWABLE IN ACCORDANCE W/ MO CFR SEC
35.9tO-2, "UNALLOWABLE COSTS."
CARROL COUNTY MD,
EPA DOCKET NO. 03-8M-AD46
( 12/31/86)
GRL-010-150-000 GOVERNMENTAL EXPENSES
ORDINARY OPERATING EXPENSES OF LOCAL GOVERNMENT, SUCH AS
OBTAINING CONSTRUCTION PERMITS, ARE UNALLOWABLE FOR GRANT
PARTICIPATION.
KINGSTON-CATALDO SEWER DISTRICT WA,
EPA DOCKET NO. 10-S4-AD19
( 12/31/86)
2-42
-------
05/27x8'
43
ALLOWABILITY OF COSTS
GRL-040-450-000 GOVERNMENTAL EXPENSES
COSTS OF ACTIVITIES ASSOCIATED WITH THE NORMAL FUNCTIONS OF
GOVERNMENT ARE UNALLOWABLE.
GRAND ISLAND, TOWN OF NY,
EPA DOCKET NO. 02-86-AD10
(02/06/87)
GRL-040-450-000 GOVERNMENTAL EXPENSES
THE GRANTEES MUST MAINTAIN ADEQUATE DOCUMENTATION EXPENDI-
TURES FOR GRANT ASSISTANCE.
LEGAL SERVICES ASSOCIATED WITH THE NEGOTIATION OF SERVICE
AGREEMENT ARE A NORMAL OPERATING REQUIREMENT OF A MUNICIPAL
ADMINISTRATION, AND THE COSTS ASSOCIATED WITH THIS TYPE OF
LEGAL SERVICE ARE INELIGIBLE FOR FEDERAL GRANT PARTICIPA-
TION.
WARWICK TOWNSHIP PA,
EPA DOCKET NO. 03-8U-AD23
(02/27/87)
GRL-040-500-000 INDIRECTS COSTS
THE CORRECT INDIRECT COST RATE(S), APPLICABLE TO DIRECT
COSTS INCURRED UNDER A GRANT, IS THE RATE(S) IN EFFECT FOR
THE FISCAL YEAR IN WHICH THE DIRECT COSTS ARE INCURRED.
LANCASTER SC,
EPA DOCKET NO. 04-83-AD03
(06/03/85)
2-43
-------
05/27/81:
ALLOWABILITY OF COSTS
GRL-040-500-000 INDIRECTS COSTS
THE COST OF ADDITIONAL PROFESSIONAL LIABILITY INSURANCE BE-
YOND THAT NORMALLY CARRIED BY CONSULTING ENGINEERS IN THE
GENERAL CONDUCT OF THEIR BUSINESS IS UNALLOWABLE.
ROCHESTER PURE HATERS DISTRICT NY,
EPA DOCKET NO. 02-85-AD02
(03/03/86)
GRL-040-500-000 INDIRECTS COSTS
COSTS BILLED UNDER AN ENGINEERING SUBAGREEMENT AND LABELED
AS A "MANAGEMENT INFORMATION SYSTEM" ARE NOT FOR ECUIPMENT
COSTS NORMALLY CAPITIALIZED AND ALLOCATED TO INDIRECT COSTS.
THEY WERE FOUND TO CONSIST OF ROUTINE ECUIPMENT LEASING,
MATERIALS £ SUPPLIES NORMALLY EXPENSED AS DIRECT COSTS AND
ARE ALLOWABLE DIRECT COSTS UNDER THE GRANT.
BROWARD COUNTY FL,
EPA DOCKET NO. 04-84-AD12
(04/03/86)
GRL-040-500-000 INDIRECTS COSTS
WHERE AN A/E FIRM'S RECORDS ARE INSUFFICIENT TO DETERMINE
THE ACTUAL PERCENTAGE OF DIRECT LABOR COSTS WHICH ARE
ALLOCABLE TO THE INDIRECT COST POOL, NO DIRECT LABOR COSTS
CAN BE INCLUDED IN THE FIRM'S INDIRECT COST POOL TO
DETERMINE THE ALLOWABLE INDIRECT COST RATE.
RUSSIAN RIVER COUNTY SANITATION DISTRICT CA,
EPA DOCKET NO. 09-84-AD06
(07/03/86)
2-44
-------
05/27/87
45
ALLOWABILITY OF COSTS
GRL-040-500-000 INDIRECTS COSTS
THE ALLOWABILITY OF INDIRECT COSTS BILLED BY AN A/E
(ARCHITECTURAL/ENGINEERING) FIRM UNDER A COST-PLUS-
FIXED-FEE CONTRACT IS LIMITED TO THE AMOUNT WHICH
CAN BE SUPPORTED BY THE FIRM'S ACCOUNTING SYSTEM.
GARDNERVILLE RANCHOS GEN. IMPOVEMENT DISTRICT NV,
EPA DOCKET NO. 09-85-AD12
(08/15/86)
GRL-040-500-000 INDIRECTS COSTS
TO BE ALLOWABLE FOR GRANT PARTICIPATION, FORCE ACCOUNT
INDIRECT COSTS MUST BE APPROVED IN ADVANCE, PROVIDED FOR IN
THE GRANT AGREEMENT, AND BASED ON THE ACTUAL INDIRECT COST
RATES FOR THE PERIOD IN QUESTION.
MONTEREY COUNTY CA,
EPA DOCKET NO. 09-84-AD25
( 11/17/86)
GRL-040-500-000 INDIRECTS COSTS
EPA CORRECTLY DISALLOWED EXCESS COSTS BILLED BECAUSE GRANTEE
CHARGED INDIRECT COSTS AT PROVISIONAL RATES RATHER THAN THE
LOWER FINAL RATES. ADJUSTMENT OF PROVISIONAL RATES TO FINAL
RATES AND ADJUSTMENT OF PAYMENTS TO REFLECT THOSE FINAL
RATES ARE WHAT WAS CONTEMPLATED BY GRANTEE AGREEMENT WITH
EPA AND FEDERAL MANAGEMENT CIRCULAR 74-4.
SUFFOLK COUNTY SEWER DISTRICT NO. 3 NY,
EPA DOCKET NO. 02-84-AD21
(02/12/87)
2-45
-------
05/27/8'
46
ALLOWABILITY OF COSTS
GRL-040-550-000 INTEREST
INTEREST COSTS INCURRED BY A GRANTEE IN CONNECTION WITH THE
CONDEMNATION OF LAND FOR A UASTEUATER TREATMENT WORKS
PROJECT ARE NOT ELIGIBLE FOR FEDERAL PARTICIPATION.
HOLLISTER, CITY OF CA,
EPA DOCKET NO. 09-84-AD02
(09/24/86)
GRL-040-550-000 INTEREST
INTEREST COSTS INCURRED BY A GRANTEE ARE NOT ALLOWABLE AS
NECESSARY AND REASONABLE PROJECT COSTS WHERE THE GRANTEE
HAD AN OPPORTUNITY TO RECOVER ITS COSTS FROM ANOTHER SOURCE
AND FAILED TO DO SO.
HOLLISTER, CITY OF CA,
EPA DOCKET NO. 09-84-AD02
(09/24/86)
GRL-040-550-000 INTEREST
INTEREST ON CONTRACTOR CLAIMS IS AN UNALLOWABLE COST.
BISMARK ND,
EPA DOCKET NO. 08-86-AD01
(11/05/86)
2-46
-------
05/27/8'
ALLOWABILITY OF COSTS
GRL-OtO-550-000 INTEREST
THERE IS NO NEED TO CREDIT IMPUTED INTEREST AGAINST GRANT
FUNDS WHEN THERE IS GOOD REASON TO BELIEVE THAT GRANT FUNDS
WERE PAID OUT TO CONTRACTORS PROMPTLY UPON RECEIPT.
SUFFOLK COUNTY SEWER DISTRICT NO. 3 NY,
EPA DOCKET NO. 02-8»*-AD21
(02/12/87)
GRL-OtO-600-000 LEGAL FEES
LEGAL FEES INCURRED FOR SERVICES RELATED TO THE ISSUANCE OF
REVENUE BONDS AND EASEMENT ACQUISITION ARE NOT ALLOWABLE.
CITY OF TALBOTTON GA,
EPA DOCKET NO. OH-85-AD04
(10/17/86)
GRL-040-600-000 LEGAL FEES
DEFENSE AND PROSECUTION COSTS - WHERE REVIEW SHOWS PROJECT
MISMANAGEMENT, EPA WILL NOT PARTICIPATE IN DEFENSE AND
PROSECUTION COSTS FOR CLAIMS ARISING FROM THAT MISMANAGE-
MENT.
BISMARK ND,
EPA DOCKET NO. 08-86-AD01
( 1 1/05/86)
2-47
-------
05/27/8'
48
ALLOWABILITY OF COSTS
GRL-040-600-200 CLAIM DEFENSE
LEGAL FEES INCURRED IN NEGOTIATING AN ELIGIBLE CHANGE ORDER
OR A SETTLEMENT TO A CONTRACTOR'S CLAIM PRIOR TO 2/17/84
ARE ALLOWABLE IF THEY ARE REASONABLE, NECESSARY AND SATISFY
THE REQUIREMENTS OF 40 C.F.R. SECTION 30.900 - 1(A) AND
SECTION 35.935-1KAM1).
TUOLUMNE REGIONAL WATER DISTRICT CA,
EPA DOCKET NO. 09-84-AD40
(03/21/86)
GRL-040-600-200 CLAIM DEFENSE
WHERE AN ASSISTANCE RECIPIENT ATTEMPTS ERRONEOUSLY TO
RECOVER COSTS OF FLOOD DAMAGE FROM THE GENERAL CONTRACTOR,
BUT ULTIMATELY DETERMINES THAT THE FLOOD DAMAGE WAS THE
RESULT OF AN ENGINEERING ERROR, THE ASSISTANCE RECIPIENT'S
COSTS OF DEFENDING AGAINST A COUNTERCLAIM BY THE CONTRACTOR
ARE NOT NECESSARY FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF THE PROJECT, AND
ARE UNALLOWABLE.
ALISO WATER MANAGEMENT DISTRICT CA,
EPA DOCKET NO. 09-8S-AD02
(04/23/86)
GRL-040-600-200 CLAIM DEFENSE
LEGAL FEES INCURRED IN NEGOTIATING AN CHANGE ORDER OR A
SETTLEMENT TO A CONTRACTOR'S CLAIM PRIOR TO 2/17/84 ARE
ALLOWABLE IF THEY ARE REASONABLE, NECESSARY AND SATISFY THE
REfiUIREMENTS OF 40 C.F.R. 30.900-KA) AND 35 . 935-1 1 ( A ) ( 1 ) .
RUSSIAN RIVER COUNTY SANITATION DISTRICT CA,
EPA DOCKET NO. 09-S4-AD06
(07/03/86)
2-48
-------
05/27/87
49
ALLOWABILITY OF COSTS
GRL-040-600-200 CLAIM DEFENSE
I HAVE UPHELD THE DISPUTE DECISION OFFICIAL'S DETERMINATION
THAT THE $163,608.87 IN CLAIMS DEFENSE COSTS INCURRED BY THE
CITY ARE UNALLOWABLE BASED UPON THE CITY'S FAILURE TO OBTAIN
PRIOR APPROVAL IN THE FORM OF A GRANT AMENDMENT BEFORE IN-
CURRING SUCH COSTS. HOWEVER, BASED UPON THE FACTS OF THIS
CASE, I HAVE RECOMMENDED THAT THE REGION SUPPORT A DEVIATION
REQUEST TO THE EPA DIRECTOR, GRANTS ADMINISTRATION DIVISION,
FROM THE PRIOR APPROVAL REQUIREMENTS.
DOVER, TOWN OF NH,
EPA DOCKET NO. 01-84-AD02
( 12/22/86)
GRL-040-650-000 NECESSARY COSTS
$20 PER HOUR SALARY PAID FORCE ACCOUNT RESIDENT INSPECTOR
WAS FAR ABOVE NORMAL AND THUS UNREASONABLE.
CHANNELVIEW TX,
EPA DOCKET NO. 06-85-AD02
(06/24/85)
GRL-040-650-000 NECESSARY COSTS
THE EXCESSIVE AND UNNECESSARY COSTS OF CONSTRUCTING A
PORTION OF A TREATMENT WORKS AT A LOCATION OTHER THAN
THE COST-EFFECTIVE LOCATION IS NOT ALLOWABLE FOR EPA
PARTICIPATION.
CROSSVILLE TN,
EPA DOCKET NO. 04-83-AD02
(02/20/86)
2-49
-------
05/27/8
ALLOWABILITY OF COSTS
GRL-040-650-000 NECESSARY COSTS
IN ABSENCE OF FAULT ON PART OF GRANTEE OR PARTY LIABLE TO
IT, COSTS OF UNFORSEEN PROJECT CHANGES ARE ALLOWABLE.
MOLLY CREEK AR,
EPA DOCKET NO. 06-85-AD06
(02/25/86)
GRL-OfO-650-000 NECESSARY COSTS
IN ABSENCE OF FAULT ON PART OF GRANTEE OR PARTY LIABLE TO
IT, COSTS OF UNFORSEEN PROJECT CHANGES ARE ALLOWABLE.
ISLANDS AR,
EPA DOCKET NO. 06-85-AD07
(02/25/86)
GRL-010-650-000 NECESSARY COSTS
EPA DOES NOT PARTICIPATE IN COSTS UNNECESSARY FOR COMPLETION
OF THE WORK FOR WHICH THE GRANT IS GIVEN.
WOONSOCKET RI,
EPA DOCKET NO. 01-85-AD01
(OU/08/86)
2-50
-------
05x27/87
51
ALLOUABILITY OF COSTS
GRL-040-650-000 NECESSARY COSTS
THE COSTS OF REPAVING TRENCH AREAS ORIGINALLY PAVED USING
GRANT FUNDS (REWORK) ARE UNALLOWABLE WHERE THE ASSISTANCE
RECIPIENT SHOULD HAVE REASONABLY EXPECTED THE ORIGINAL
PAVING WOULD FAIL AND DID NOT PURSUE AN ALTERNATIVE WHICH
WOULD HAVE AVOIDED THE COSTS IN QUESTION FROM BEING
INCURRED.
RUSSIAN RIVER COUNTY SANITATION DISTRICT CA,
EPA DOCKET NO. 09-81-AD06
(07/03/86)
GRL-040-650-000 NECESSARY COSTS
COSTS FOR LABORATORY SUPPLIES AND EQUIPMENT ARE LIMITED TO
THOSE ITEMS WHICH ARE REASONABLE AND NECESSARY FOR TESTS,
NECESSARY FOR PROCESS CONTROL AND NPDES MONITORING REQUIRE-
MENTS.
RUSSIAN RIVER COUNTY SANITATION DISTRICT CA,
EPA DOCKET NO. 09-8t-AD06
(07/03/86)
GRL-040-650-000 NECESSARY COSTS
THE ALLOWABLE COSTS FOR THE REPLACEMENT OF IMPACT SPRINKLER
HEADS WITH POP-UP SPRINKLER HEADS IS LIMITED TO THE COSTS
WHICH WOULD HAVE BEEN INCURRED IF THE POP-UP SPRINKLER
HEADS HAD BEEN SPECIFIED IN THE ORIGINAL CONTRACT.
RUSSIAN RIVER COUNTY SANITATION DISTRICT CA,
EPA DOCKET NO. 09-84-AD06
(07/03/86)
2-51
-------
05/27/87
52
ALIENABILITY OF COSTS
GRL-010-650-000 NECESSARY COSTS
INTEREST COSTS INCURRED BY A GRANTEE ARE NOT ALLOWABLE AS
NECESSARY AND REASONABLE PROJECT COSTS WHERE THE GRANTEE
HAD AN OPPORTUNITY TO RECOVER ITS COSTS FROM ANOTHER SOURCE
AND FAILED TO DO SO.
HOLLISTER, CITY OF CA,
EPA DOCKET NO. 09-84-AD02
(09/24/86)
GRL-010-650-000 NECESSARY COSTS
COSTS INCURRED IN COMPLETING A PROJECT AS A RESULT OF A CON-
TRACTOR'S FAILURE TO FULFILL ITS OBLIGATIONS, AND PAID FOR
BY GRANTEE WITH AMOUNTS WITHHELD FROM PAYMENT ON THE CON-
TRACT PRICE, ARE UNALLOWABLE UNLESS ADEQUATELY DOCUMENTED AS
BEING REASONABLE AND NECESSARY FOR THE PROJECT.
DORR-LEIGHTON TWNSHIP WATTWORTH AUTH., MI,
EPA DOCKET NO. 05-84-AD17
( 11/27/86)
GRL-OUO-650-000 NECESSARY COSTS
THE GRANTEE'S SUBMISSION OF RECORDS WHICH STATED THE PAYEE'S
NAME, THE GRANT NUMBER AND THE PAYMENT AMOUNT FAILED TO DEM-
ONSTRATE THROUGH PROPER DOCUMENTATION THAT THE ADMINISTRA-
TIVE EXPENSES, EXCLUDING TRAVEL EXPENSES, WERE ALLOCABLE TO
THE GRANT OR NECESSARY AND REASONABLE TO THE ACHIEVEMENT OF
THE GRANT'S PURPOSE.
CANTON, CITY OF, OH,
EPA DOCKET NO. 05-85-AD27
( 12/05/86)
2-52
-------
05/27/87
S3
ALLOWABILITY OF COSTS
GRL-OtO-650-000 NECESSARY COSTS
PROJECT COSTS ARE UNALLOWABLE WHERE THE GRANTEE FAILS TO
DEMONSTRATE THROUGH RECORDS OR OTHERWISE THAT THE COSTS ARE
NECESSARY AND ALLOWABLE IN ACCORDANCE WITH FEDERAL GRANT RE-
2UIREMENTS AND THE GRANT AGREEMENT.
FOND DU LAC, WI,
EPA DOCKET NO. 05-81-AD15
(12/21/86)
GRL-040-650-000 NECESSARY COSTS
EASEMENT COSTS - NORMALLY, EASEMENT COSTS ARE NOT ALLOWABLE
BECAUSE THEY ARE NOT NECESSARY FOR THE COSTRUCTION OF A
TREATMENT WORKS PROJECT.
GRAND RAPIDS TOWNSHIP, MI,
EPA DOCKET NO. 05-86-AD26
(12/30/86)
GRL-040-650-000 NECESSARY COSTS
COST OF INVESTIGATION AND TESTING OF SEWER PIPE REgUIRED
BECAUSE OF INCORRECT CONSTRUCTON AND/OR INSTALLATION IS
INELIGIBLE AS PROJECT COST BECAUSE IT WAS NOT NECESSARY OR -
REASONABLE FOR THE PROPER INITIAL CONSTRUCTION OF THE PRO-
JECT.
SUFFOLK COUNTY SEWER DISTRICT NO. 3 NY,
EPA DOCKET NO. 02-8U-AD21
(02/12/87)
2-53
-------
05/27/87
54
ALIENABILITY OF COSTS
GRL-OtO-650-000 NECESSARY COSTS
WHERE THE GRANTEE'S SUBMISSION OF RECORDS FAILED TO DEMON-
STRATE THROUGH PROPER DOCUMENTATION THAT DISPUTED FORCE AC-
COUNT COSTS, MERE NECESSARY AND REASONABLE UNDER THE GRANT,
THESE COSTS WERE PROPERLY DISALLOWED.
GAS CITY UTILITIES, GAS CITY, IN,
EPA DOCKET NO. 05-86-AD21
(03/20/87)
GRL-010-650-000 NECESSARY COSTS
THE ADDITIONAL CONSTRUCTION COSTS INCURRED DUE TO THE
GRANTEE'S FAILURE TO OBTAIN ALL THE NECESSARY EASMENTS
PRIOR TO THE INITIATION OF CONSTRUCTION ARE UNALLOWABLE
FOR FEDERAL PARTICIPATION.
GUNTERSVILLE, AL,
EPA DOCKET NO. 01-85-AD27
(03/31/87)
GRL-010-700-000 PRE-AWARD COSTS
ALL ALLOWABLE COSTS INCURRED BEFORE INITIATION OF CONSTRUC-
TION OF THE PROJECT MUST BE CLAIMED IN THE APPLICATION FOR
GRANT ASSISTANCE FOR THAT PROJECT. SUBSEQUENT APPLICATION
OF INCURRED COSTS WILL NOT BE ALLOWED PURSUANT TO 10 C.F.R.
35.915.
METROPOLITAN SANITARY DISTRICT OF CHICAGO IL,
EPA DOCKET NO. 05-86-AD31
( 12/08/86)
2-54
-------
05/27/8:
55
ALLOWABILITY OF COSTS
GRL-OtO-700-000 PRE-AWARD COSTS
COSTS INCURRED PRIOR TO THE APPROVED DATE OF INITIATION OF
CONSTRUCTION ARE INELIGIBLE.
KINGSTON-CATALDO SEWER DISTRICT MA,
EPA DOCKET NO. 10-84-AD19
(12/31/86)
GRL-040-700-000 PRE-AWARD- COSTS
PRE-AWARD COSTS FOR AREAWIDE PLANNING - PURSUANT TO 40' CFR
35.940-2(A) (1975)EPA MUST DISALLOW COSTS CLAIMED UNDER THE
CONSTRUCTION GRANTS PROGRAM FOR AREAWIDE AND BASIN PLANNING.
PIMA COUNTY AZ,
EPA DOCKET NO. 09-86-AD16
(03/19/87)
GRL-040-725-000 PRIOR APPROVAL OF COSTS
A SUBSTANTIAL CHANGE IN THE LOCATION OF A 1300 FOOT SEWER
LINE FROM THAT SHOWN IN THE FACILITIES PLAN REfiUIRES APPROV-
AL PRIOR TO CONSTRUCTION IN ORDER TO BE ELIGIBLE FOR FEDERAL
FUNDING.
TUSTEN, TOWN OF NY,
EPA DOCKET NO. 02-84-AD17
(08/02/85)
2-55
-------
05/27/87
56
ALLOWABILITY OF COSTS
GRL-040-725-000 PRIOR APPROVAL OF COSTS
U.S. EPA LACKS AUTHORITY TO GRANT AN EXEMPTION FROM THE
PRIOR APPROVAL REQUIREMENTS OF 40 CFR SECTION 35.935-11(IV)
AND 40 CFR SECTION 30.700(C) IN THE CONTEXT OF A PROCEEDING
UNDER SUBPART L (40 CFR SECTION 30..1200 ET SEC.). RE2UESTS
FOR SUCH AN EXEMPTION MAY BE CONSIDERED ONLY BY THE DIREC-
TOR, GRANTS ADMINISTRATION DIVISION, PURSUANT TO SUBPART J
(40 CFR PART 1001 ET SE2.).
NORTH KOOCHICHING SANITARY SEWER BOARD MN,
EPA DOCKET NO. 05-85-AD22
(03/03/86)
GRL-040-725-000 PRIOR APPROVAL OF COSTS
IT IS PROPER TO DENY A GRANTEE'S AMENDMENT FOR AN INCREASE
IN THE AMOUNT OF FEDERAL ASSISTANCE REQUESTED FOR A PROJECT
ON THE BASIS THAT THE GRANTEE DID NOT RECEIVE PRIOR APPROVAL
FROM THE AWARD OFFICIAL. 40 CFR SECTION 356.935.11(XV); SEE
ALSO 40 CFR SECTION 30.700(C).
NORTH KOOCHICHING SANITARY SEWER BOARD MN,
EPA DOCKET NO. 05-S5-AD22
(03/03/86)
GRL-040-725-000 PRIOR APPROVAL OF COSTS
FAILURE BY A GRANTEE TO OBTAIN PRIOR APPROVAL, PURSUANT TO
40 CFR 35.935-11, OF A CONTRACT WHICH SUBSTANTIALLY ALTERS
THE LOCATION SIZE, CAPACITY, OR BUALITY OF ANY MAJOR ITEM OF
EQUIPMENT MAKES THE COSTS INCURRED UNDER THAT CONTRACT UN-
ALLOWABLE FOR GRANT FUNDING.
ATLANTIC COUNTY UTILITIES AUTHORITY NJ,
EPA DOCKET NO. 02-85-AD23
(07/31/86)
2-56
-------
05/27/8
57
ALLOWABILITY OF COSTS
GRL-040-725-000 PRIOR APPROVAL OF COSTS
EPA'S APPROVAL OF PLANS AND SPECS WITH KNOWLEDGE OF EXTENT
OF LANDSCAPING IS CONSIDERED COMMITMENT OF FUNDING.
JEROME, CY OF ID,
EPA DOCKET NO. 10-85-AD05
(07/31/86)
GRL-040-725-000 PRIOR APPROVAL OF COSTS
I HAVE UPHELD THE DISPUTE DECISION OFFICIAL'S DETERMINATION
THAT THE $163,608.87 IN CLAIMS DEFENSE COSTS INCURRED BY THE
CITY ARE UNALLOWABLE BASED UPON THE CITY'S FAILURE TO OBTAIN
PRIOR APPROVAL IN THE FORM OF A GRANT AMENDMENT BEFORE IN-
CURRING SUCH COSTS. HOWEVER, BASED UPON THE FACTS OF THIS
CASE, I HAVE RECOMMENDED THAT THE REGION SUPPORT A DEVIATION
REQUEST TO THE EPA DIRECTOR, GRANTS ADMINISTRATION DIVISION,
FROM THE PRIOR APPROVAL REQUIREMENTS.
DOVER, TOWN OF NH,
EPA DOCKET NO. 01-84-AD02
( 12/22/86)
GRL-040-725-000 PRIOR APPROVAL OF COSTS
PROJECT INSPECTION FEES EXCEEDING THE CONTRACT CEILING WITH-
OUT EXECUTING A FORMAL AMENDMENT ARE UNALLOWABLE.
LONGMONT, CITY OF CO,
EPA DOCKET NO. 08-86-AD02
( 12/30/86)
2-57
-------
OS/27/8
ALIENABILITY OF COSTS
GRL-040-725-000 PRIOR APPROVAL OF COSTS
A CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT WHICH PROCEEDS W/OUT HAVING PRIOR
EPA APPROVAL HAY BE ELIGIBLE IF IT CAN DEMONSTRATE ITS COM-
PLIANCE U/APPLICABLE FEDERAL REGULATIONS £ IS CONSISTENT W/
THE APPROVED PROJECT SCOPE AS DEFINED IN 10 CFR SEC
35.930-4, "PROJECT SCOPE."
CARROL COUNTY MD,
EPA DOCKET NO. 03-S4-AD46
(12/31/86)
GRL-040-750-000 PROFIT
ARBITRARY USE OF PERCENTAGE OF CONSTRUCTION COST FEE
CURVE TO ESTIMATE CONTRACT PRICE IN LIEU OF COST AND PRICING
DATA SUPPORTED BY ACCOUNTING RECORDS COMBINED WITH GRANTEE'S
FAILURE TO CONDUCT COST REVIEW, RESULTS IN THE DISALLOWANCE
OF EXCESSIVE PROFIT ON A/E SUBAGREEMENT.
BENSON, NC,
EPA DOCKET NO. 04-84-AD19
(01/09/85)
GRL-040-800-000 REASONABLENESS
THE COST OF CORRECTING DESIGN ERRORS IS NOT A REASONABLE
COST WITHIN THE MEANING OF 40 CFR 30.705 AND FEDERAL
MANAGEMENT CIRCULAR 74-4, WHERE THE ERROR WAS ONE THAT A
DESIGN ENGINEER, USING THE SKILL AND COMPETENCE EXPECTED
FROM THOSE WHO ACCEPT RESPONSIBILITY FOR THE DESIGN OF
MAJOR WASTEWATER TREATMENT PROJECTS, SHOULD NOT HAVE MADE.
SAN FRANCISCO, CITY AND COUNTY CA,
EPA DOCKET NO. 09-83-AD06
(02/19/85)
2-58
-------
05/27/87
59
ALLOUABILITY OF COSTS
GRL-040-800-000 REASONABLENESS
ABSENT PROOF THAT THE USE OF MATERIALS FROM A SUPPLIER WAS
THE COST-EFFECTIVE ALTERNATIVE, THE ALLOWABLE COST OF THE
MATERIALS IS LIMITED TO THE REASONABLE COST DETERMINED IN A
COMPETITIVE PRICE REVIEW.
NEWELL COUNTY WATER DISTRICT CA,
EPA DOCKET NO. 09-85-AD03
(03/21/86)
GRL-040-800-000 REASONABLENESS
WHEN A REASONABLE COST FOR FORCE ACCOUNT BASIC AND SPECIAL
ENGINEERING AND ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES IS DETERMINED
THROUGH THE USE OF ASCE CURVES AND APPROPRIATE COST GUIDE-
LINES FOR CONSULTANT SERVICES, AN ADJUSTMENT FOR PROFIT
SHOULD BE MADE, SINCE PROFIT SHOULD NOT BE CONSIDERED AS
PART OF A GRANTEE'S REASONABLE FORCE ACCOUNT COSTS.
LOS ANGELES COUNTY CA,
EPA DOCKET NO. 09-84-AD28
(03/27/86)
GRL-040-800-000 REASONABLENESS
RETROACTIVE ADJUSTMENT AND OVERHEAD RATE RESULTING FROM
DCAA AUDIT.
JEROME, CY OF ID,
EPA DOCKET NO. 10-85-AD05
(07/31/86)
2-59
-------
05/27/87
60
ALIENABILITY OF COSTS
GRL-OtO-800-000 REASONABLENESS
EPA'S APPROVAL OF PLANS AND SPECS WITH KNOWLEDGE OF EXTENT
OF LANDSCAPING IS CONSIDERED COMMITMENT OF FUNDING.
JEROME, CY OF ID,
EPA DOCKET NO. 10-85-AD05
(07/31/86)
GRL-040-800-000 REASONABLENESS
HOURLY ENGINEER RATES GREATER THAN WARRANTED BY TASK
PERFORMED.
JEROME, CY OF ID,
EPA DOCKET NO. 10-85-AD05
(07/31/86)
GRL-040-800-000 REASONABLENESS
LANDSCAPING PROVIDED, IN PART, MITIGATED MEASURE IN
ACCORDANCE WITH EIS.
JEROME, CY OF ID,
EPA DOCKET NO. 10-85-AD05
(07/31/86)
2-60
-------
05/27/87
61
ALLOWABILITY OF COSTS
GRL-OtO-800-000 REASONABLENESS
INTEREST COSTS INCURRED BY A GRANTEE ARE NOT ALLOWABLE AS
NECESSARY AND REASONABLE PROJECT COSTS WHERE THE GRANTEE
HAD AN OPPORTUNITY TO RECOVER ITS COSTS FROM ANOTHER SOURCE
AND FAILED TO DO SO.
HOLLISTER, CITY OF CA,
EPA DOCKET NO. 09-84-AD02
(09/24/86)
GRL-040-800-000 REASONABLENESS
COSTS FOR ELIGIBLE ARCHITECT/ENGINEERING SERVICES ARE
GENERALLY ALLOWABLE TO THE SAME EXTENT THAT CONSTRUCTION
COSTS ARE ALLOWABLE, SUBJECT TO THE RESTRICTION THAT THE
TOTAL ALLOWABLE COSTS DO NOT EXCEED THE REASONABLE COST
LIMIT FOR SUCH SERVICES, AS DETERMINED BY EPA OR A DELEGATED
STATE AGENCY.
MONTEREY COUNTY CA,
EPA DOCKET NO. 09-8t-AD25
( 1 1/17/86)
GRL-040-800-000 REASONABLENESS
COSTS INCURRED IN COMPLETING A PROJECT AS A RESULT OF A CON-
TRACTOR'S FAILURE TO FULFILL ITS OBLIGATIONS, AND PAID FOR
BY GRANTEE WITH AMOUNTS WITHHELD FROM PAYMENT ON THE CON-
TRACT PRICE, ARE UNALLOWABLE UNLESS ADEQUATELY DOCUMENTED AS
BEING REASONABLE AND NECESSARY FOR THE PROJECT.
DORR-LEIGHTON TWNSHIP WATTWORTK AUTH., MI,
EPA DOCKET NO. 05-84-AD17
(11/27/86)
2-61
-------
05/27/87
62
ALLOUABILITY OF COSTS
GRL-040-800-000 REASONABLENESS
THE GRANTEE'S SUBMISSION OF RECORDS WHICH STATED THE PAYEE'S
HAME, THE GRANT NUMBER AND THE PAYMENT AMOUNT FAILED TO DEM-
ONSTRATE THROUGH PROPER DOCUMENTATION THAT THE ADMINISTRA-
TIVE EXPENSES, EXCLUDING TRAVEL EXPENSES, WERE ALLOCABLE TO
THE GRANT OR NECESSARY AND REASONABLE TO THE ACHIEVEMENT OF
THE GRANT'S PURPOSE.
CANTON, CITY OF, OH,
EPA DOCKET NO. 05-85-AD27
( 12/05/86)
GRL-OHO-800-000 REASONABLENESS
UNDER THE FACTS PRESENTED, THE ENGINEERING DESIGN FEE
NEGOTIATED BY THE CITY AND THEIR ENGINEERS FOR THE ABANDONED
PROJECT DESIGN IS MORE REASONABLE THAN AN ESTIMATED FEE
BASED ON A HYPOTHETICAL BID PRICE FOR THE PROJECT.
HANNIBAL, CITY OF MO,
EPA DOCKET NO. 07-85-AD01
( 12/24/86)
GRL-OtO-800-000 REASONABLENESS
WHEN THE COST OF A SECURITY FENCE IS PROVIDED FOR IN THE
GENERAL CONTRACT, GRANTEE* EXPENSE FOR A TEMPORARY SECURITY
FENCE PRIOR TO COMMENCEMENT OF SITE WORK BY THE GENERAL CON-
TRACTOR IS UNALLOWABLE.
SUFFOLK COUNTY SEWER DISTRICT NO. 3 NY,
EPA DOCKET NO. 02-84-AD21
(02/12/87)
2-62
-------
05/27/87
63
ALLOUABILITY OF COSTS
GRL-040-800-000 REASONABLENESS
WHEN THE COST OF SECURITY SERVICES IS PROVIDED FOR IN THE
GENERAL CONTRACT, GRANTEE'S EXPENSE FOR ADDITIONAL GUARDS IS
UNALLOWABLE.
SUFFOLK COUNTY SEWER DISTRICT NO. 3 NY,
EPA DOCKET NO. 02-84-AD21
(02/12/87)
GRL-040-800-000 REASONABLENESS
INCREASED COSTS RESULTING FROM A REBID ARE UNALLOWABLE WHEN
THE REBID WAS NECESSITATED BY GRANTEE'S UNREASONABLE DELAY
IN DELIVERY OF A FULLY EXECUTED CONTRACT TO THE ORIGINAL
LOW BIDDER, WHICH RESULTED IN WITHDRAWAL OF THE ORIGINAL LOW
BID.
SUFFOLK COUNTY SEWER DISTRICT NO. 3 NY,
EPA DOCKET NO. 02-8H-AD21
(02/12/87)
GRL-040-SOO-OOO REASONABLENESS
WHERE THE GRANTEE'S SUBMISSION OF RECORDS FAILED TO DEMON-
STRATE THROUGH PROPER DOCUMENTATION THAT DISPUTED FORCE AC-
COUNT COSTS, WERE NECESSARY AND REASONABLE UNDER THE GRANT,
THESE COSTS WERE PROPERLY DISALLOWED.
GAS CITY UTILITIES, GAS CITY, IN,
EPA DOCKET NO. 05-86-AD21
(03/20/87)
2-63
-------
05/27/8'
64
ALLOWABILITY OF COSTS
GRL-040-800-000 REASONABLENESS
THE REASONABLENESS OF COSTS FOR ARCHITECT/ENGINEERING
SERVICES MAY BE DETERMINED BY COMPARISON TO AVERAGE COSTS
FOR THE SAME TYPES OF SERVICES ON SIMILAR PROJECTS.
CARMEL SANITARY DISTRICT CA,
EPA DOCKET NO. 09-86-AD07
(04/02/87)
GRL-OtO-800-000 REASONABLENESS
THE REASONABLE COST OF ARCHITECT/ENGINEERING SERVICES FOR
SHOP DRAWING REVIEW MAY BE DETERMINED BY CALCULATING THE
NUMBER OF SHOP DRAWING SUBMITTALS TO BE EXPECTED, BASED ON
EXPERIENCE WITH SIMILAR PROJECTS, AND THE AVERAGE NUMBER OF
HOURS OF REVIEW TIME TO BE EXPECTED FOR EACH SUBMITTAL.
CARMEL SANITARY DISTRICT CA,
EPA DOCKET NO. 09-86-AD07
(04/02/87)
GRL-040-825-000 REFUNDS, REBATES AND CREDIT
FAILURE TO PRODUCE DOCUMENTATION SHOWING THE USE FOR PROJECT
PURPOSES OF INCOME IN THE FORM OF UNREFUNDED BID DEPOSITS
REDUCES BY THAT AMOUNT THE TOTAL PROJECT COST ON WHICH THE
EPA SHARE IS BASED.
MARTINSVILLE IN,
EPA DOCKET NO. 05-84-AD05
(02/07/85)
2-64
-------
OS/27/8'
65
ALLOWABILITY OF COSTS
GRL-OtO-825-000 REFUNDS, REBATES AND CREDIT
UNRECOVERED DEPOSITS PAID A/E FOR COPIES OF BIDDING
DOCUMENTS ARE GRANT RELATED INCOME.
CHANNELVIEW TX,
EPA DOCKET NO. 06-85-AD02
(06/24/85)
GRL-OtO-825-000 REFUNDS, REBATES AND CREDIT
UNREFUNDED BID DEPOSITS - REFUNDS ACCRUING TO A GRANTEE
DIRECTLY OR INDIRECTLY THROUGH ONE OF ITS CONTRACTORS
MUST BE CREDITED TO THE TOTAL ALLOWABLE PROJECT COST ON
WHICH THE FEDERAL SHARE IS COMPUTED.
DELANO, FL,
EPA DOCKET NO. 04-8H-ADOS
(08/11/85)
GRL-040-825-000 REFUNDS, REBATES AND CREDIT
UNREFUNDED BID DEPOSITS - REFUNDS ACCRUING TO A GRANTEE
DIRECTLY OR INDIRECTLY THROUGH ONE OF ITS CONTRACTORS MUST
BE CREDITED TO THE TOTAL ALLOWABLE PROJECT COST ON WHICH THE
FEDERAL SHARE IS COMPUTED.
SPRING HOPE NC,
EPA DOCKET NO. 04-83-AD07
( 10/02/85)
2-65
-------
05/27/87
66
ALLOWABILITY OF COSTS
GRL-040-825-000 REFUNDS, REBATES AND CREDIT
SALES TAX REFUNDS - REFUNDS RECEIVED OR ACCRUED DIRECTLY BY
THE GRANTEE OR INDIRECTLY THROUGH ITS CONTRACTOR(S) MUST BE
CREDITED TO THE TOTAL ALLOWABLE PROJECT COSTS ON WHICH
THE FEDERAL SHARE IS COMPUTED.
HIGH POINT, NC,
EPA DOCKET NO. 0«*-84-AD07
(11/21/85)
GRL-040-825-000 REFUNDS, REBATES AND CREDIT
REFUNDS ACCRUING TO A GRANTEE DIRECTLY OR INDIRECTLY THROUGH
ONE OF ITS CONTRACTORS MUST BE CREDITED TO THE TOTAL ALLOW-
ABLE PROJECT COSTS ON WHICH THE FEDERAL SHARE IS COMPUTED.
MT. PLEASANT TN,
EPA DOCKET NO. 04-84-AD25
(09/22/86)
GRL-010-825-000 REFUNDS, REBATES AND CREDIT
UNREFUNDED BID DEPOSITS REFUNDS ACCURING TO A GRANTEE
DIRECTLY OR INDIRECTLY THROUGH ONE OF ITS CONTRACTORS MUST
BE CREDITED TO THE TOTAL ALLOWABLE PROJECT COSTS ON WHICH
THE FEDERAL SHARE IS COMPUTED. SUCH CREDIT, IN THIS CASE,
WAS NOT REQUIRED BASED ON A SHOWING THAT THE CONTRACTOR
(CONSULTING ENGINEER) ALLOCATES PRINTING EXPENSES AS AN
INDIRECT COST TO ALL CUSTOMERS £ ALL INCOME GENERATED FROM
UNREFUNDED BID DEPOSITS IS APPLIED TO REDUCE THE INDIRECT
PRINTING EXPENSE ACCOUNT.
GREENUP COUNTY KY,
EPA DOCKET NO. 04-85-AD11
( 12/29/86)
2-66
-------
05x27/87
67
ALLOWABILITY OF COSTS
GRL-040-825-000 REFUNDS, REBATES AND CREDIT
EPA MAY SUSPEND COSTS OF MATERIAL FAILING TO COMPLY WITH
SPECIFICATIONS PENDING EITHER PROOF THAT THE FAILURE WAS
HARMLESS TO PROJECT OR AGREEMENT ON A CREDIT TO REFLECT THE
REDUCED VALUE.
SUFFOLK COUNTY SEWER DISTRICT NO. 3 NY,
EPA DOCKET NO. 02-84-AD21
(02/12/87)
GRL-040-825-000 REFUNDS, REBATES AND CREDIT
REFUNDS ACCURING TO A GRANTEE DIRECTLY, OR INDIRECTLY
THROUGH ONE OF ITS CONTRACTORS, MUST BE CREDITED TO THE
TOTAL ALLOWABLE PROJECT COST ON WHICH THE FEDERAL SHARE IS
COMPUTED.
BARDSTOWN KY,
EPA DOCKET NO. 04-85-AD16
(02/26/87)
GRL-040-850-000 SCHEDULED COMPLETION DATE
"UNUSUALLY SEVERE WEATHER" JUSTIFYING TIME EXTENSION ON
CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT IS WEATHER BEYOND NORMAL RANGE IN
PROJECT LOCALE.
BAKER, LA,
EPA DOCKET NO. 06-84-AD06
(07/24/81)
2-67
-------
05/27/8
68
ALLOUABILITY OF COSTS
GRL-040-850-000 SCHEDULED COMPLETION DATE
INCREASED PROJECT COSTS RESULTING FROM DELAY ATTRIBUTABLE
TO GRANTEE OR ITS CONTRACTORS ARE UNALLOWABLE FOR EPA
PARTICIPATION.
HOUMA, LA,
EPA DOCKET NO. 06-84-AD08
(12/31/84)
GRL-040-850-000 SCHEDULED COMPLETION DATE
ADDITIONAL PROJECT INSPECTION COSTS RESULTING FROM CONTRACT
TIME EXTENSIONS DUE TO THE GRANTEE'S FAILURE TO OBTAIN
RIGHTS-OF-WAY PRIOR TO INITIATION OF CONSTRUCTION ARE
UNALLOWABLE.
KENT COUNTY LEVY COURT DE,
EPA DOCKET NO. 03-84-AD11
(05/28/85)
GRL-040-850-000 SCHEDULED COMPLETION DATE
"UNUSUALLY SEVERE WEATHER" AS AN EXCUSABLE CAUSE FOR DELAY,
JUSTIFYING A TIME EXTENSION ON A CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT, DOES
NOT INCLUDE ANY C ALL WEATHER WHICH PREVENTS WORK UNDER THE
CONTRACT, BUT INCLUDES ONLY WEATHER BEYOND THE NORMAL RANGE
IN THE PROJECT LOCALE, DURING THE PROJECT PERFORMANCE
PERIOD.
HARRODSBURG, KY,
EPA DOCKET NO. 04-83-AD05
(07/11/85)
2-68
-------
05/27/87
69
ALLOWABILITY OF COSTS
GRL-040-850-000 SCHEDULED COMPLETION DATE
ENGINEERING SERVICE COSTS INCURRED, BILLED AND CLAIMED AFTER
THE SCHEDULED CONSTRUCTION COMPLETION DATE AND FOUND TO BE
FOR WORK ON (A) NORMAL OPERATION, MAINTENCE AND REPAIR
ACTIVITIES, (B) SERVICES OUTSIDE THE SCOPE OF THE GRANT AND/
OR (C) SERVICES INCLUDED WITHIN THE SCOPE OF THE PCC
ENGINEERING AGREEMENT, AS FULLY COMPENSATED, ARE NOT
ALLOWABLE.
PALM BEACH COUNTY FL,
EPA DOCKET NO. 04-84-AD06
(02/04/86)
GRL-040-850-000 SCHEDULED COMPLETION DATE
A GRANTEE IS RE2UIRED TO MAINTAIN A FINANCIAL MANAGEMENT
SYSTEM WHICH ADEQUATELY DETERMINES THE ALLOWABILITY £ AL-
LOCABILITY OF COSTS.
COSTS ASSOCIATED W/DELAYS WHICH WERE OUTSIDE THE CONTROL OF
THE GRANTEE C ITS CONTRACTORS ARE ELIGIBLE.
FINDLAY TOWNSHIP PA,
EPA DOCKET NO. 03-84-AD18
(03/10/86)
GRL-040-850-000 SCHEDULED COMPLETION DATE
INSPECTION COSTS INCURRED AFTER THE AUTHORIZED CONSTRUCTION
CONTRACT COMPLETION DATE ARE NOT NECESSARY COSTS ABSENT
PROOF THAT THE COSTS WERE NOT INCURRED BECAUSE OF DELAYS
CAUSED BY THE GRANTEE, THE ENGINEER, THE CONTRACTOR, SUB-
CONTRACTORS OR SUPPLIERS.
TUOLUMNE REGIONAL WATER DISTRICT CA,
EPA DOCKET NO. 09-84-AD40
(03/21/86)
2-69
-------
05/27/8'
70
ALIENABILITY OF COSTS
GRL-040-850-000 SCHEDULED COMPLETION DATE
WHERE THE GRANTEE HAS FAILED TO ADE2UATELY DOCUMENT THE
EXTENT OF COSTS FOR ENGINEERING ACTIVITIES THAT ARE AL-
LOWABLE AFTER CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT COMPLETION DATE, ALL
ENGINEERING COSTS INCURRED AFTER THE CONSTRUCTION COMPLETION
DATE ARE UNALLOWABLE.
SAN DIEGO, CITY OF CA,
EPA DOCKET NO. 09-85-AD09
(03/21/86)
GRL-040-850-000 SCHEDULED COMPLETION DATE
GIVEN SUFFICIENT DOCUMENTATION TO SEGREGATE COSTS OF
INDIVIDUAL TASKS, COSTS INCURRED FOR THE PREPARATION OF
OF RECORD DRAWINGS, THE FINAL INSPECTION, AND CONTRACT CLOSE
OUT ACTIVITES AFTER THE CONSTRUCTION COMPLETION DATE ARE
GENERALLY ALLOWABLE, WHILE COSTS FOR ROUTINE INSPECTION
AFTER THE CONSTRUCTION COMPLETION DATE ARE GENERALLY NOT
ALLOWABLE.
NEWELL COUNTY WATER DISTRICT CA,
EPA DOCKET NO. 09-85-AD03
(03/21/86)
GRL-040-850-000 SCHEDULED COMPLETION DATE
INCREASED PROJECT COSTS RESULTING FROM DELAY ATTRIBUTABLE
TO CONTRACTOR NON-PERFORMANCE ARE UNALLOWABLE FOR GRANT
PARTICIPATION.
WINLOCK, CY OF WA,
EPA DOCKET NO. 10-84-AD10
(03/24/86)
2-70
-------
05/27/8'
71
ALLOWABILITY OF COSTS
GRL-010-850-000 SCHEDULED COMPLETION DATE
A GRANTEE HAS AN OBLIGATION TO PRESENT EPA WITH SUFFICIENT
RECORDS TO SUBSTANTIATE ALL OF ITS CLAIMED COSTS. WHERE A
GRANTEE INCURS COSTS FOR WORK PERFORMED AFTER THE AUTHORIZED
PROJECT COMPLETION DATE, THE BURDEN IS ON THE GRANTEE TO
DEMONSTRATE THAT SUCH COSTS WERE NECESSARY, REASONABLE,
ELIGIBLE, AND OTHERWISE ALLOWABLE FOR FEDERAL FUNDING.
RIVERSIDE, CITY OF CA,
EPA DOCKET NO. 09-85-AD01
(03/27/86)
GRL-O'tO-SSO-OOO SCHEDULED COMPLETION DATE
GIVEN SUFFICIENT DOCUMENTATION TO SEGREGATE COSTS OF
INDIVIDUAL TASKS, COSTS INCURRED AFTER THE SCHEDULED
COMPLETION DATE FOR THE PREPARATION OF RECORD DRAWINGS,
THE FINAL INSPECTION REPORT, AND PROJECT CLOSE-OUT
ACTIVITIES ARE ALLOWABLE WHERE THE COSTS WERE NOT CAUSED
BY DELAYS IN CONSTRUCTION, WHILE COSTS FOR OTHER ENGINEERING
SERVICES THAT INCREASE AS A RESULT OF DELAYS IN CONSTRUCTION
GENERALLY NOT ALLOWABLE.
ALISO WATER MANAGEMENT DISTRICT CA,
EPA DOCKET NO. 09-8S-AD02
(04/23/86)
2-71
-------
05/27/8'
ALLOWABILITY OF COSTS
GRL-010-850-000 SCHEDULED COMPLETION DATE
WHERE THE GRANTEE FAILED TO DOCUMENT THAT ARCHITECTURAL/
ENGINEERING FEES INCURRED FOR INSPECTION OF CONSTRUCTION
CONTRACT COMPLETION DATE DID NOT RESULT FROM CONTRACTOR
NONPERFORMANCE OR GRANTEE MISMANAGEMENT, SUCH COSTS WILL
BE DISALLOWED FOR FEDERAL PARTICIPATION.
WEXFORD COUNTY MI,
EPA DOCKET NO. 05-84-AD20
(08/07/86)
GRL-0«*0-850-000 SCHEDULED COMPLETION DATE
COSTS ASSOCIATED W/DELAYS WHICH WERE OUTSIDE THE CONTROL
OF THE GRANTEE & ITS CONTRACTORS ARE ELIGIBLE.
WASHINGTON TOWNSHIP MUNICIPAL AUTHORITY PA,
EPA DOCKET NO. 03-84-AD05
(08/21/86)
GRL-040-850-000 SCHEDULED COMPLETION DATE
IN ORDER FOR WEATHER TO BE AN EXCUSABLE CAUSE FOR DELAY IN
COMPLETION OF CONSTRUCTION, IT MUST BE ESTABLISHED THAT THE
DELAYS IN PERFORMANCE WERE CAUSED BY "UNUSUALLY SEVERE
WEATHER" CONDITIONS.
LUCAS COUNTY, OH,
EPA DOCKET NO. 05-85-AD17
(12/08/86)
2-72
-------
05/27/87
73
ALLOUABILITY OF COSTS
GRL-040-850-000 SCHEDULED COMPLETION DATE
PROJECT INSPECTION COSTS INCURRED AFTER THE SCHEDULED CON-
TRACT COMPLETION DATES WERE PROPERLY DISALLOWED WHERE GRAN-
TEE FAILED TO CARRY ITS BURDEN TO SHOW HOW THE DISPUTES DE-
CISION OFFICIAL ERRRED IN HIS DETERMINATION.
LUCAS COUNTY, OH,
EPA DOCKET NO. 05-85-AD17
(12/08/86)
GRL-040-850-000 SCHEDULED COMPLETION DATE
THE TERM "UNUSUALLY SEVERE WEATHER" FOR PURPOSE OF COST AL-
LOWABILITY INCLUDES ONLY WEATHER SURPASSING IN SEVERITY THE
WEATHER USUALLY ENCOUNTERED OR REASONABLY TO BE EXPECTED IN
THE PROJECT LOCALE. A BARE SHOWING THAT THERE WAS RAIN,
SNOW OR SUB-FREEZING TEMPERATURES ON CERTAIN DAYS DURING A
PERIOD WHEN SUCH WEATHER IS TO BE EXPECTED IS INSUFFICIENT
TO BRING ALL WEATHER WITHIN THE TERMS OF ART.
LUCAS COUNTY, OH,
EPA DOCKET NO. 05-85-AD17
( 12/08/86)
GRL-040-850-000 SCHEDULED COMPLETION DATE
"UNUSUALLY SEVERE WEATHER" AS AN EXCUSABLE CAUSE FOR DELAY,
THEREBY JUSTIFYING A TIME EXTENSION ON A CONSTRUCTION
CONTRACT, DOES NOT INCLUDE ANY G ALL WEATHER WHICH PREVENTS
WORK UNDER THE CONTRACT, BUT INCLUDES ONLY WEATHER BEYOND
THE NORMAL RANGE IN THE PROJECT LOCALE, DURING THE PROJECT
PERFORMANCE PERIOD.
MCEWEN TN,
EPA DOCKET NO. 04-83-AD06
(12/19/86)
2-73
-------
05/27/8'
74
ALLOWABILITY OF COSTS
GRL-010-850-000 SCHEDULED COMPLETION DATE
ENGINEERING SERVICE COSTS INCURRED, BILLED £ CLAIMED AFTER
THE SCHEDULED CONSTRUCTION COMPLETION DATE £ FOUND TO BE
FOR SERVICES INCLUDED W/IN THE SCOPE OF THE PCC PORTION OF
THE AGREEMENT, AS FULLY COMPENSATED, ARE NOT ALLOWABLE.
MCEWEN TN,
EPA DOCKET NO. 04-83-AD06
(12/19/86)
GRL-040-850-000 SCHEDULED COMPLETION DATE
ARCHITECTURAL ENGINEERING FEES CHARGED FOR SERVICES AFTER,
THE COMPLETION DATE SET IN ENGINEERING AGREEMENT ARE
UNALLOWABLE.
LONGMONT, CITY OF CO,
EPA DOCKET NO. 08-86-AD02
( 12/30/86)
GRL-040-850-000 SCHEDULED COMPLETION DATE
INCREASED PROJECT COSTS RESULTING FROM DELAY ATTRIBUTABLE
TO CONTRACTOR NONPERFORMANCE ARE UNALLOWABLE.
KINGSTON-CATALDO SEWER DISTRICT UA,
EPA DOCKET NO. 10-84-AD19
(12/31/86)
2-74
-------
05/27/87
75
ALLOWABILITY OF COSTS
GRL-040-850-000 SCHEDULED COMPLETION DATE
TIME EXTENSIONS BEYOND THE SCHEDULED CONTRACT COMPLETION
DATE BECAUSE OF WEATHER CONDITIONS ARE NOT JUSTIFIED UNLESS
THE CONDITIONS ARE UNUSUALLY SEVERE.
MAHUAH, TOWNSHIP OF NJ,
EPA DOCKET NO. 02-86-AD08
(01/26/87)
GRL-OtO-850-000 SCHEDULED COMPLETION DATE
WHEN WORK PERFORMED BEYOND THE CONTRACT COMPLETION DATE IS
NOT WITHIN THE SCOPE OF THE GRANT AND IS THUS INELIGIBLE,
ANY ASSOCIATED INSPECTION SERVICES WOULD ALSO BE INELIGIBLE.
MAHWAH, TOWNSHIP OF NJ,
EPA DOCKET NO. 02-86-AD08
(01/26/87)
GRL-040-850-000 SCHEDULED COMPLETION DATE
THAT BENEFICIAL OCCUPANCY WAS NOT POSSIBLE UNTIL AFTER THE
CONTRACT COMPLETION DATE DOES NOT JUSTIFY A TIME EXTENSION
BECAUSE A CONTRACT COMPLETION DATE AND THE DATE OF BENEFI-
CIAL OCCUPANCY ARE NOT INTERRELATED.
MAHWAH, TOWNSHIP OF NJ,
EPA DOCKET NO. 02-86-AD08
(01/26/87)
2-75
-------
05/27/8'
ALLOUABILITY OF COSTS
GRL-040-850-000 SCHEDULED COMPLETION DATE
TINE EXTENSIONS BECAUSE OF ADDITIONAL TIME REQUIRED TO COM-
PLETE THE WORK ARE NOT JUSTIFIED IN THE ABSENCE OF ANY SUB-
STANTIATING DATA.
MAHWAH, TOWNSHIP OF NJ ,
EPA DOCKET NO. 02-86-AD08
(01/26/87)
GRL-040-850-000 SCHEDULED COMPLETION DATE
WHEN A CONTRACTOR AGREES TO COMPLETE WORK WITHIN A SPECIFIED
NUMBER OF CALENDAR DAYS, IT IS ASSUMED THAT HE HAS TAKEN IN-
TO ACCOUNT NON-WORKING HOLIDAYS WITHIN THAT PERIOD AND A
TIME EXTENSION BECAUSE OF SUCH HOLIDAYS IS NOT JUSTIFIED.
MAHWAH, TOWNSHIP OF NJ,
EPA DOCKET NO. 02-86-AD08
(01/26/87)
GRL-OHO-850-000 SCHEDULED COMPLETION DATE
WHERE A GRANTEE, ITS CONTRACTORS OR ITS CONSULTING ENGINEER
ARE NOT RESPONSIBLE FOR CONSTRUCTION DELAYS, THE ENGINEER
IS ENTITLED TO AN EXTENSION OF TIME UNDER ITS CONTRACT
WITH THE GRANTEE WITHIN WHICH TO PERFORM THE ADDITIONAL CON-
STRUCTION-RELATED SERVICES AND THE REASONABLE COST OF THOSE
SERVICES IS ALLOWABLE.
HOWEVER, WHERE THERE IS NO INCREASE IN THE SCOPE OF THE
ENGINEERING SERVICES, AN INCREASE IN THE ENGINEERING FEE IS
NOT ALLOWABLE.
ONEIDA, CITY OF, NY,
EPA DOCKET NO. 02-85-AD09
(03/10/87)
2-76
-------
05/27/87
77
ALLOUABILITY OF COSTS
GRL-040-850-000 SCHEDULED COMPLETION DATE
RESIDENT INSPECTION ENGINEERING FEES FOR SERVICE PERFORMED
AFTER THE COMPLETION DATE FOR CONSTRUCTION, ARE NOT AL-
LOWABLE, WHERE NOT SHOWN TO BE REASONABLE AND NECESSARY, AND
NOT SHOWN TO BE CAUSED BY JUSTIFIED DELAYS IN CONSTRUTION.
OSCEOLA, CITY OF IA,
EPA DOCKET NO. 07-84-AD03
(03/17/87)
GRL-040-850-000 SCHEDULED COMPLETION DATE
WHERE CHANGE ORDER SUBMITTED FOR EXTENSION OF SCHEDULED
COMPLETION DATE DOES NOT ESTABLISH DELAYS IN CONSTRUCTION
WERE JUSTIFIED, EXTENSION OF CONSTRUCTION COMPLETION DATE
WILL NOT BE GRANTED.
OSCEOLA, CITY OF IA,
EPA DOCKET NO. 07-84-AD03
(03/17/87)
GRL-040-850-000 SCHEDULED COMPLETION DATE
SCHEDULED COMPLETION DATE FOR CONSTRUCTION IS NOT SAME AS
CUT-OFF DATE FOR GRANT PAYMENT.
OSCEOLA, CITY OF IA,
EPA DOCKET NO. 07-84-AD03
(03/17/87)
2-77
-------
05/27/87
78
ALIENABILITY OF COSTS
GRL-OUO-850-000 SCHEDULED COMPLETION DATE
WHERE THE GRANTEE'S SUBMISSION OF RECORDS FAILED TO PRODUCE
SUFFICIENT DOCUMENTATION TO IDENTIFY WHETHER THE DISPUTED
COSTS INCURRED AFTER THE AUTHORIZED CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT
COMPLETION DATES WERE EXCESS COSTS OR COST OVER-RUNS RESULT-
ING FROM THE ACTION OF THE RECIPIENT OR THE CONTRACTOR,
THOSE COSTS WERE PROPERLY DISALLOWED FOR LACK OF DOCUMENTA-
TION. '
GAS CITY UTILITIES, GAS CITY, IN,
EPA DOCKET NO. OS-86-AD21
(03/20/87)
GRL-010-900-000 SCOPE OF PROJECT
A PROPOSED SEWER LINE NOT WITHIN THE SCOPE OF AN EXISTING
GRANT IS NOT ELIGIBLE FOR FEDERAL FUNDING UNTIL A NEW GRANT
OR GRANT AMENDMENT FOR THE LINE HAS BEEN AWARDED. NO SUCH
AWARD CAN BE MADE UNTIL THE STATE PLACES THE LINE ON ITS
PRIORITY LIST.
NEW HARTFORD, TOWN OF NY,
EPA DOCKET NO. 02-84-AD13
(09/05/84)
GRL-OHO-900-000 SCOPE OF PROJECT
A SUBSTANTIAL CHANGE IN THE LOCATION OF A 1300 FOOT SEWER
LINE FROM THAT SHOWN IN THE FACILITIES PLAN REBUIRES APPROV-
AL PRIOR TO CONSTRUCTION IN ORDER TO BE ELIGIBLE FOR FEDERAL
FUNDING.
TUSTEN, TOWN OF NY,
EPA DOCKET NO. 02-S4-AD17
(08/02/85)
2-78
-------
05/27/8'
79
ALLOWABILITY OF COSTS
GRL-040-900-000 SCOPE OF PROJECT
THE FIXED FEE UNDER A COST REIMBURSEMENT CONTRACT MAY NOT BE
INCREASED UNLESS A CONTRACT AMENDMENT CHANGES THE SCOPE OF
WORK.
PRASA / BASORA & RODRIGUEZ PR,
EPA DOCKET NO. 02-84-AD22
(02/10/86)
GRL-040-900-000 SCOPE OF PROJECT
ITEMS NOT RELATED TO THE ORIGINAL PURPOSE AND INTENT OF THE
GRANT, AS SET FORTH IN THE FACILITY PLAN AND GRANT AWARD,
ARE BEYOND THE SCOPE OF THE GRANT AND DO NOT JUSTIFY RETEN-
TION OF GRANT FUNDS. IF NEW CIRCUMSTANCES MIGHT JUSTIFY AS-
SISTANCE, APPLICATION SHOULD BE MADE TO THE STATE FOR PLACE-
MENT IN ITS PRIORITY SYSTEM.
WASHINGTONVILLE, VILLAGE OF NY,
EPA DOCKET NO. 02-8S-AD05
(05/30/86)
GRL-OHO-900-000 SCOPE OF PROJECT
ANY COSTS INCURRED BY THE GRANTEE OUTSIDE THE SCOPE OF THE
APPROVED PROJECT ARE UNALLOWABLE FOR FEDERAL PARTICIPATION.
HOLGATE, VILLAGE OF, OH,
EPA DOCKET NO. 05-86-AD09
(12/31/86)
2-79
-------
05/27/8'
80
ALLOUABILITY OF COSTS
GRL-040-900-000 SCOPE OF PROJECT
A GRANTEE MAY NOT CLAIM AS ELIGIBLE THE COST OF FACILITIES
WHICH IT ACQUIRED WITHOUT PAYMENT OR COST IN ACCORDANCE WITH
THE FWPCA CONSTRUCTION AND ENGINEERING GRANTS AND ENGINEER-
ING HANDBOOK .
THE COSTS ASSOCIATED WITH THE PERFORMANCE OF CONSTRUCTION
INSPECTION SERVICES WITHOUT AN ENGINEERING AGREEMENT ARE
INELIGIBLE IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE FWPCA CONSTRUCTION GRANTS,
AND ENGINEERING PROGRAM HANDBOOK.
MYERSVILLE, TOWN OF, FREDERICK COUNTY MD,
EPA DOCKET NO. 03-85-AD27
(03/02/87)
GRL-OHO-925-000 TRAVEL
APPROVED TRAVEL EXPENSES IN ADDITION TO HOURLY RATES PAID
TO CONTRACTORS ARE ALLOWABLE.
TOLEDO METRO AREA COUNCIL OF GOVERNMENTS OH,
EPA DOCKET NO. OS-83-AD03
(01/2«4/85)
GRL-040-925-000 TRAVEL
THE GRANTEE'S SUBMISSION OF TRAVEL VOUCHERS AND TRAVEL
AUTHORIZATIONS FOR TRIPS TO SEMINARS FAILED TO DEMONSTRATE
THAT THESE SEMINARS WERE DIRECTLY RELATED TO START-UP OF THE
GRANT FACILITY, AND THEREFORE, THESE COSTS MAY NOT BE
ALLOCATED TO THE GRANT PROGRAM.
CANTON, CITY OF, OH,
EPA DOCKET NO. 05-85-AD27
( 12/05/86)
2-80
-------
05/27/87
81
ASSISTANCE ADMINISTRATION
GRL-120-050-000 AMENDMENTS
PROJECT INSPECTION FEES EXCEEDING THE CONTRACT CEILING WITH-
OUT EXECUTING A FORMAL AMENDMENT ARE UNALLOWABLE.
LONGMONT, CITY OF CO,
EPA DOCKET NO. 08-86-AD02
(12/30/86)
GRL-120-100-000 ANNULMENT
REGULATIONS IN EFFECT WHEN EARLY 1970'S GRANTS WERE MADE
CONTAINED NO SPECIFIC PROVISION FOR ANNULMENT. ANNULMENT,
HOWEVER, IS NOT INCONSISTENT WITH ANY OF THE AGENCY'S
EARLY REGULATIONS, AND IT IS A REMEDY CONSISTENT WITH
PRINCIPLES OF GENERAL CONTRACT LAW.
SANITARY 6 IMPROVEMENT DIST NO. 2 OF KNOX CO NE,
EPA DOCKET NO. 07-8H-AD04
(12/18/85)
GRL-120-100-000 ANNULMENT
A GRANT MAY BE UNILATERALLY ANNULLED BY THE EPA WHEN THE
GRANTEE FAILS TO MEET THE PROJECT PURPOSE TO THE EXTENT THAT
THE FUNDAMENTAL PURPOSE STATED IN THE ASSISTANCE AGREEMENT
HAS BEEN FRUSTRATED. HO CFR SEC 30 . 90<»( A) (5) 98 FR 45062,
SEPT. 30, 1983.
SANITARY S IMPROVEMENT DIST NO. 2 OF KNOX CO NE,
EPA DOCKET NO. 07-8H-AD04
(12/18/85)
2-81
-------
05/27/8'
82
ASSISTANCE ADMINISTRATION
GRL-120-100-000 ANNULMENT
IN THIS CASE, WHERE THE GRANTEE HAS FAILED TO CONSTRUCT ANY
PORTION OF ITS GRANT PROJECT AND DISCONTINUED WORK ON THE
PROJECT WITHOUT GOOD CAUSE, U.S. EPA MAY ANNUL THE GRANT,
PURSUANT TO tO C.F.R. SECTION 30.920-5CA) ( 1 ) (1983),
BECAUSE THERE HAS BEEN NO SUBSTANTIAL PERFORMANCE ON THE
PROJECT WITHOUT GOOD CAUSE.
COLUMBUS, CITY OF, JACKSON PIKE WWTP OH,
EPA DOCKET NO. 05-84-AD12
(01/15/86)
GRL-120-100-000 ANNULMENT
WHERE U.S. EPA FINDS NO "GOOD CAUSE" TO TERMINATE WORK ON A
PROJECT, THE U.S. EPA AWARD OFFICIAL HAS THE DISCRETION TO
TERMINATE OR ANNUL THE GRANT.
COLUMBUS, CITY OF, JACKSON PIKE WWTP OH,
EPA DOCKET NO. 05-84-AD12
(01/15/86)
GRL-120-100-000 ANNULMENT
IN THIS CASE, WHERE THE GRANTEE HAS FAILED TO CONSTRUCT ANY
PORTION OF ITS GRANT PROJECT AND DISCONTINUED WORK ON THE
PROJECT, U.S. EPA MAY ANNUL THE GRANT, PURSUANT TO 40 C.F.R.
SECTION 30.920-5(A)(5) (1983), FOR FAILURE TO ACHIEVE THE
PROJECT PURPOSE.
COLUMBUS, CITY OF, JACKSON PIKE WWTP OH,
EPA DOCKET NO. 05-8H-AD12
(01/15/86)
2-82
-------
05/27/8'
83
ASSISTANCE ADMINISTRATION
GRL-120-160-000 AWARD OF ASSISTANCE
EPA CANNOT AWARD A CONDITIONAL GRANT FOR ADDITIONS TO A
TREATMENT WORKS TO REMEDY A POTENTIAL DESIGN DEFECT WHICH
MIGHT PREVENT THE FACILITY FROM MEETING ITS DESIGN CAPACITY.
LAFAYETTE, CO,
EPA DOCKET NO. 08-83-AD01
(01/09/8H)
GRL-120-200-000 CONDITIONS
THE COST OF RELOCATING A PUMP STATION BECAUSE OF THE IM-
POSSIBILITY OF OBTAINING AN EASEMENT FOR ITS ORIGINAL
LOCATION WITHOUT AN EXPENSIVE CONDEMNATION PROCEEDING IS
NOT ALLOWABLE.
A MAY 29, 197«* A/E CONTRACT PROVIDING FOR FEES ON A PCC
BASIS IS SUPERSEDED BY A SEPTEMBER 30, 1977 GRANT CONDITION
IMPOSING APPENDIX D REQUIREMENTS.
LENOX, TOWN OF NY,
EPA DOCKET NO. 02-84-AD09
(08/01/8U)
GRL-120-200-000 CONDITIONS
THE DISTRICT HAS FAILED TO FULFILL THE REPRESENTATIONS,.
ASSURANCES, AND STATEMENTS CONTAINED IN THE APPLICATION FOR
ASSISTANCE. BY ACCEPTANCE OF THE GRANT, FULFILLMENT OF SUCH
BECAME A CONDITION OF THE GRANT.
SANITARY £ IMPROVEMENT DIST NO. 2 OF KNOX CO NE,
EPA DOCKET NO. 07-84-AD04
( 12/18/85)
2-83
-------
05/27/8:
84
ASSISTANCE ADMINISTRATION
GRL-120-200-000 CONDITIONS
REGARDLESS OF LATER CONDITIONS PLACES ON A GRANTEE DUE TO
THE SPECIFIC CIRCUMSTANCES OF A GRANT, THE GRANTEE IS
OBLIGATED TO MEET THE CONDITIONS OF THE GRANT AGREEMENT.
SANITARY C IMPROVEMENT DIST NO. 2 OF KNOX CO NE,
EPA DOCKET NO. 07-84-ADOU
(12/18X85)
GRL-120-250-000 COST SHARE
WHERE THE TERMS OF A GRANT AGREEMENT STATE THAT THE GRANT IS
NOT TO EXCEED A SPECIFIC PERCENTAGE OF THE ALLOWABLE COST OF
THE PROJECT, THE GRANTEE IS ENTITLED TO REIMBURSEMENT ONLY
FOR THE STATED PERCENTAGE OF THE ALLOWABLE COST OR THE
AMOUNT SPECIFIED IN THE GRANT, WHICHEVER IS LESS.
DELANO, CITY OF CA,
EPA DOCKET NO. 09-81-AD27
(08/22/85)
GRL-120-250-000 COST SHARE
COSTS INCURRED BY A GRANTEE PRIOR TO THE GRANT START-DATE DO
NOT 6UALIFY FOR THE NON-FEDERAL COST SHARE OF THE PROJECT.
ENVIRONMENTAL DEFENSE FUND DC,
EPA DOCKET NO. H2-85-AD01
(04/10/86)
2-84
-------
05/27/87
85
ASSISTANCE ADMINISTRATION
GRL-120-2SO-000 COST SHARE
NO REFUND IS DUE FOR EPA'S PROPORTIONATE SHARE OF
OUTSTANDING CONFERENCE FEES WHICH A COOPERATIVE AGREEMENT
RECIPIENT IS UNABLE TO COLLECT DESPITE GOOD FAITH EFFORTS,
SO LONG AS THE FEES REMAIN UNPAID.
BUREAU OF EXPLOSIVES DC,
EPA DOCKET NO. Hfi-S4-AD01
(05/09/86)
GRL-120-275-000 DEOBLIGATION OF FUNDS
WHEN THERE ARE CONTRACTOR CLAIMS CURRENTLY IN LITIGATION
WHICH MAY BE ELIGIBLE COSTS OF THE GRANT, THE REGION MAY
CHOOSE TO LEAVE FUNDS DEEMED SURPLUS IN THE GRANT, RATHER
THAN DEOBLIGATE, AFTER FINAL AUDIT.
SUFFOLK COUNTY NY,
EPA DOCKET NO. 02-84-AD29
(01/28/86)
GRL-120-300-000 DEVIATIONS FROM REGULATIONS
GRANTEE FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH REGULATORY PROCEDURAL
RE2UIREMENTS CANNOT BE RELIEVED THROUGH THE DISPUTES REVIEW
PROCESS. GRANTEE IS ADVISED TO FILE A REQUEST FOR DEVIATION
UNDER 40 CFR 30,1000.
COBB COUNTY BD, OF COMMISSIONERS, GA,
EPA DOCKET NO. 04-83-AD01
(03/26/85)
2-85
-------
05/27/8"
86
ASSISTANCE ADMINISTRATION
GRL-120-300-000 DEVIATIONS FROM REGULATIONS
U.S. EPA LACKS AUTHORITY TO GRANT AN EXEMPTION FROM THE
PRIOR APPROVAL RE2UIREMENTS OF 10 CFR SECTION 35.935-11(IV)
AND HO CFR SECTION 30.700(0 IN THE CONTEXT OF A PROCEEDING
UNDER SUBPART L (HO CFR SECTION 30.1200 ET SE2.). RE2UESTS
FOR SUCH AN EXEMPTION MAY BE CONSIDERED ONLY BY THE DIREC-
TOR, GRANTS ADMINISTRATION DIVISION, PURSUANT TO SUBPART J
(10 CFR PART 1001 ET SES.).
NORTH KOOCHICHING SANITARY SEWER BOARD UN,
EPA DOCKET NO. 05-85-AD22
(03/03/86)
GRL-120-300-000 DEVIATIONS FROM REGULATIONS
EPA MAY NOT FUND ADDITIONAL PROFESSIONAL FEES COVERED BY THE
GRANTEE'S REBUDGETING OF FUNDS UNDER A RESEARCH GRANT
WITHOUT PRIOR EPA APPROVAL UNDER 10 C.F.R. 30.610(B)( 1 980),
UNLESS THE EPA DIRECTOR, GRANTS ADMINISTRATION DIVISION
APPROVES A DEVIATION FROM THE REGULATION.
ENVIRONMENTAL DEFENSE FUND DC,
EPA DOCKET NO. H2-85-ADO1
(04/10/86)
GRL-120-350-000 EPA RESPONSIBILITIES
AS A GENERAL PRINCIPLE EPA IS NOT IN THE BUSINESS OF
CONSTRUCTING STREETS.
ECORSE CREEK POLLUT. ABATE., WAYNE CNTY, MI,
EPA DOCKET NO. 05-84-AD03
( 12/10/85)
2-86
-------
05/27/87
87
ASSISTANCE ADMINISTRATION
GRL-120-HOO-OOO INCOME
FAILURE TO PRODUCE DOCUMENTATION SHOWING THE USE FOR PROJECT
PURPOSES OF INCOME IN THE FORM OF UNREFUNDED BID DEPOSITS
REDUCES BY THAT AMOUNT THE TOTAL PROJECT COST ON WHICH THE
EPA SHARE IS BASED.
MARTINSVILLE IN,
EPA DOCKET NO. 05-81-AD05
(02/07/85)
GRL-120-400-000 INCOME
WHERE THE PROJECT OFFICER HAS PREVIOUSLY INFORMED THE
GRANTEE OF DOLLAR LIMITATIONS FOR START-UP SERVICES, EPA
WILL NOT PAY COSTS IN EXCESS OF THESE LIMITATIONS.
WOONSOCKET RI,
EPA DOCKET NO. 01-S5-AD01
(04/08/86)
GRL-120-400-000 INCOME
UNDER THE UNIfiUE FACTS OF A COOPERATIVE AGREEMENT PROVIDING
FEDERAL FUNDING IN SUPPORT OF A BIANNUAL CONFERENCE ON
HAZARDOUS MATERIAL SPILLS CONTROL, THE RECIPIENT MAY APPLY
INCOME GENERATED FROM THE CONFERENCE TOWARD ADfiUATELY
DOCUMENTED START-UP COSTS OF THE NEXT SUCCESSIVE CONFERENCE.
BUREAU OF EXPLOSIVES DC,
EPA DOCKET NO. H2-84-AD01
(05/09/86)
2-87
-------
05x27/87
88
ASSISTANCE ADMINISTRATION
GRL-120-425-000 IN-KIND CONTRIBUTIONS
EPA AGREEMENT FOR GRANTEE TO PAY LOCAL SHARE WITH IN-KIND
CONTRIBUTION MUST BE REFLECTED IN GRANT AGREEMENT.
WOODWORTH, LA,
EPA DOCKET NO. 06-84-AD12
(05/28/85)
GRL-120-150-000 INTEREST ON FEDERAL FUNDS
A LOCAL GOVERNMENT GRANT RECIPIENT MUST REPAY TO EPA ALL
INTEREST EARNED ON GRANT FUNDS PENDING THEIR DISBURSEMENT
FOR PROJECT PURPOSES.
TOLEDO METRO AREA COUNCIL OF GOVERNMENTS OH,
EPA DOCKET NO. 05-83-AD03
(01/24/85)
GRL-120-500-000 MATCHING FUNDS
FHA LOAN APPLICATION PROVIDES NO RATIONAL BASIS FOR GRANTEE
CERTIFICATION IT HAS THE ABILITY TO PAY LOCAL SHARE OF
EPA ASSISTED PROJECTS.
WOODWORTH, LA,
EPA DOCKET NO. 06-84-AD12
(05/28/85)
2-88
-------
05/27/87
89
ASSISTANCE ADMINISTRATION
GRL-120-600-200 DELAYS
GRANT RECIPIENTS CANNOT RECOVER INTEREST FROM EPA FOR
DELAY IN THE PAYMENT OF GRANT FUNDS.
TOLEDO METRO AREA COUNCIL OF GOVERNMENTS OH,
EPA DOCKET NO. OS-83-AD03
(01/24/85)
GRL-120-600-200 DELAYS
INCREASED PROJECT COSTS RESULTING FROM DELAY ATTRIBUTABLE TO
THE CONTRACTOR ARE UNALLOWABLE FOR EPA PARTICIPATION.
WOONSOCKET RI,
EPA DOCKET NO. 01-85-AD01
(OH/08/86)
GRL-120-600-300 ERRORS
INELIGIBLE COSTS ARE NOT RENDERED ELIGIBLE MERELY BECAUSE
THEY WERE ERRONEOUSLY CLASSIFIED AS ELIGIBLE DURING FINAL
PAYMENT REVIEW.
BERWICK MAINE SEWER DISTRICT ME,
EPA DOCKET NO. 01-84-ADOH
( 12/07/84)
2-89
-------
05/27/87
90
ASSISTANCE ADMINISTRATION
GRL-120-600-300 ERRORS
ERRORS MADE IN CLAIM FOR ALLOWABLE A/E FEES ARE SUBJECT TO
CORRECTION.
ALEXANDRIA BAY, VILLAGE OF NY,
EPA DOCKET NO. 02-84-AD10
(02/20/85)
GRL-120-600-300 ERRORS
THE ERRONEOUS DISALLOWANCE OF UNALLOWABLE COSTS NOT CLAIMED
BY THE GRANTEE DOES NOT REDUCE THE TOTAL ALLOWABLE PROJECT
COSTS.
ALEXANDRIA BAY, VILLAGE OF NY,
EPA DOCKET NO. 02-81-AD10
(02/20/85)
GRL-120-600-300 ERRORS
UNALLOWABLE LITIGATION EXPENSES ERRONEOUSLY INCLUDED
IN THE GRANTEE'S TABULATION OF ALLOWABLE COSTS ARE NOT
REIMBURSABLE.
AMSTERDAM, CITY OF NY,
EPA DOCKET NO. 02-84-AD11
(02/20/85)
2-90
-------
05/27/8'
91
ASSISTANCE ADMINISTRATION
GRL-120-600-600 REIMBURSEMENT
DUPLICATE CLAIM - THE FEDERAL SHARE OF PROJECT COST CLAIMED
TWICE MUST BE RETURNED TO EPA.
HIGH POINT, NC,
EPA DOCKET NO. 0«*-8«»-AD07
(11/21/85)
GRL-120-600-600 REIMBURSEMENT
EPA REGULATIONS DO NOT PERMIT REIMBURSEMENT OF INDEBTEDNESS
REQUIRED TO FINANCE PROJECT COSTS.
WOONSOCKET RI,
EPA DOCKET NO. 01-85-AD01
(014/08/86)
GRL-120-600-600 REIMBURSEMENT
AUDIT - ALL GRANT FUNDING DECISIONS ARE SUBJECT TO EPA'S
RIGHT TO AUDIT FEDERALLY REIMBURSED COSTS AND TO RECOUP
ANY REIMBURSEMENT PROVIDED FOR UNALLOWABLE COSTS, EVEN WHERE
SUCH COSTS PRIOR TO AUDIT HAS BEEN INITIALLY INCORRECTLY
APPROVED BY PROGRAM REPRESENTATIVES.
DAYTON, IN,
EPA DOCKET NO. 05-81-AD04
(07/21/86)
2-91
-------
05x27/8:
92
ASSISTANCE ADMINISTRATION
GRL-120-600-600 REIMBURSEMENT
GOOD FAITH RELIANCE ON CONSULTING ENGINEER TO PROVIDE AND
MAINTAIN ADEQUATE DOCUMENTATION IS NO DEFENSE TO REQUEST
FOR REIMBURSEMENT.
DETOUR VILLAGE, MI,
EPA DOCKET NO. 05-86-AD05
(03/31/87)
GRL-120-600-600 REIMBURSEMENT
GOOD FAITH FAILURE TO PROVIDE ADEQUATE DOCUMENTATION IS NO
DEFENSE TO RE2UEST FOR REIMBURSEMENT.
DETOUR VILLAGE, MI,
EPA DOCKET NO. 05-86-AD05
(03/31/87)
GRL-120-600-800 WITHHOLDING
THE FEDERAL SHARE OF COST CLAIMED FOR CONSTRUCTION AS
SUPPORTED BY VALID CONTRACTOR PAY ESTIMATES MUST BE
REFUNDED WHERE PAYMENT TO THE CONTRACTOR IS FOUND TO
BE WITHHELD AND RETAINED BY THE GRANTEE.
CROSSVILLE TN,
EPA DOCKET NO. 04-83-AD02
(02/20/86)
2-92
-------
05/27/8'
93
ASSISTANCE ADMINISTRATION
GRL-120-650-100 APPROVAL
A SUBSTANTIAL CHANGE IN THE LOCATION OF A 1300 FOOT SEWER
LINE FROM THAT SHOWN IN THE FACILITIES PLAN REQUIRES APPROV-
AL PRIOR TO CONSTRUCTION IN ORDER TO BE ELIGIBLE FOR FEDERAL
FUNDING.
TUSTEN, TOWN OF NY,
EPA DOCKET NO. 02-84-AD17
(08/02/85)
GRL-120-7SO-000 RECIPIENT RESPONSIBILITIES
THE GRANTEE IS RESPONSIBLE FOR THE SUCCESSFUL ADMINISTRATION
OF THE GRANT INCLUDING THE RESPONSIBILITY TO HAVE AND
MAINTAIN A FINANCIAL MANAGEMENT SYSTEM IN COMPLIANCE WITH
GENERALLY ACCEPTED ACCOUNTING PRINCIPALS AND THE OBLIGATION
TO CLAIM ONLY ALLOWABLE COSTS FOR EPA REIMBURSEMENT.
DRY RIDGE KY,
EPA DOCKET NO. Ot-84-AD17
(07/30/85)
GRL-120-750-000 RECIPIENT RESPONSIBILITIES
THE DISTRICT HAS FAILED TO FULFILL THE REPRESENTATIONS,
ASSURANCES, AND STATEMENTS CONTAINED IN THE APPLICATION. FOR
ASSISTANCE. BY ACCEPTANCE OF THE GRANT, FULFILLMENT OF SUCH
BECAME A CONDITION OF THE GRANT.
SANITARY £ IMPROVEMENT DIST NO. 2 OF KNOX CO NE,
EPA DOCKET NO. 07-81-ADOH
(12/18/85)
2-93
-------
05/27/87
ASSISTANCE ADMINISTRATION
GRL-120-750-000 RECIPIENT RESPONSIBILITIES
INCREASED ENGINEERING FEES UNDER A FIXED PRICE ENGINEERING
CONTRACT RESULTING FROM SUBCONTRACTOR AND SUPPLIER DELAYS,
FOR WHICH LIQUIDATED DAMAGES ARE PROVIDED BY THE GENERAL
CONTRACT, ARE UNALLOWABLE FOR EPA PARTICIPATION.
PARISH, VILLAGE OF NY,
EPA DOCKET NO. 02-84-AD20
(01/10/86)
GRL-120-7SO-000 RECIPIENT RESPONSIBILITIES
FAILURE TO PROVIDE ADEQUATE SUPERVISION C INSPECTION DURING
CONSTRUCTION, IN VIOLATION OF «*0 CFR 35.935-8(1980), IS A
BASIS FOR DISALLOWANCE OF SUPERVISION, INSPECTION AND RELA-
TED CONSTRUCTION COSTS.
NORTH WILDWOOD, CITY OF NY,
EPA DOCKET NO. 02-85-AD07
(03/25/86)
GRL-120-750-000 RECIPIENT RESPONSIBILITIES
FAILURE OF CONSTRUCTION, UNDERTAKEN WITHOUT ADEQUATE ENGI-
NEERING SUPERVISION, TO ACHIEVE THE PURPOSE FOR WHICH THE
GRANT WAS AWARDED, IN VIOLATION OF A GRANTEE'S RESPONSIBILI-
TY TO SUCCESSFULLY ADMINISTRATE AND COMPLETE THE PROJECT, IS
A BASIS FOR DISALLOWANCE OF PROJECT COSTS.
NORTH WILDWOOD, CITY OF NY,
EPA DOCKET NO. 02-85-AD07
(03/25/86)
2-94
-------
OS/27/87
95
ASSISTANCE ADMINISTRATION
GRL-120-750-000 RECIPIENT RESPONSIBILITIES
THE AWARD OF AN EPA GRANT TO AN ELIGIBLE RECIPIENT OBLIGATES
THAT GRANTEE TO BE ACCOUNTABLE UNDER HO CFR SEC 30.800
SUBPART G FOR EFFECTIVELY MANAGING THE PROJECT WITHIN THE
POLICY GUIDANCE & REGULATIONS WHICH GOVERN THAT GRANT AGREE-
MENT.
ALLEGANY COUNTY SANITARY COMMISSION MD,
EPA DOCKET NO. 03-85-AD21
(07/21/86)
GRL-120-750-000 RECIPIENT RESPONSIBILITIES
THE RECIPIENT IS RESPONSIBLE FOR THE SUCCESSFUL ADMINI-
STRATION OF THE GRANT INCLUDING THE RESPONSIBILITY TO HAVE
A FINANCIAL MANAGEMENT CAPABILITY TO SEGREGATE ELIGIBLE
FROM INELIGIBLE COSTS AND THE OBLIGATION TO CLAIM ONLY
ELIGIBLE AND ALLOWABLE COSTS FOR EPA REIMBURSEMENT.
CITY OF TALBOTTON GA,
EPA DOCKET NO. 04-85-ADO«t
( 10/17/86)
GRL-120-750-000 RECIPIENT RESPONSIBILITIES
STANDARD OF REVIEW — WHERE A GRANTEE REASONABLY SHOULD HAVE
SOUGHT DAMAGES FROM A NON-PERFORMING CONTRACTOR AND FAILED
TO DO SO, THE DAMAGES IN QUESTION ARE NOT A REASONABLE AND
ALLOWABLE GRANT EXPENSE.
YORKTOWN, TOWN OF, IN,
EPA DOCKET NO. 05-86-AD02
(12/31/86)
2-95
-------
05/27/87
96
ASSISTANCE ADMINISTRATION
GRL-120-750-000 RECIPIENT RESPONSIBILITIES
PRIOR TO THE 4/29/83, ISSUANCE OF REVISED DEPT. OF LABOR
REGULATIONS UNDER 29 CFR SEC 1.6(F), RECIPIENTS OF EPA CON-
STRUCTION GRANTS MERE LIABLE FOR COSTS TO CORRECT INAPPROP-
RIATE MAGE RATES USED IN A SUBAGREEMENT.
ANNE ARUNDEL COUNTY MD,
EPA DOCKET NO. 03-85-AD36
( 12/31/86)
GRL-120-800-000 RECOUPMENT OF FEDERAL FUNDS
GRANTEE FAILURE TO PAY LOCAL SHARE OF PROJECT COSTS JUSTI-
FIES AUDIT REDUCTION OF TOTAL PROJECT COSTS.
WOODWORTH, LA,
EPA DOCKET NO. 06-81-AD12
(05/28/85)
GRL-120-850-000 TERMINATION
FAILURE TO COMPLETE EVEN PROJECT DESIGN MORE THAN FIVE YEARS
AFTER GRANT AWARD PROVIDES GOOD CAUSE FOR GRANT TERMINATION.
WASHINGTONVILLE, VILLAGE OF NY,
EPA DOCKET NO. 02-85-AD05
(05/30/86)
2-96
-------
05x27/8"
97
ASSISTANCE APPEALS
GRL-140-300-000 ISSUES ON APPEAL
AN ISSUE RAISED IN A REQUEST FOR REVIEW UNDER 40 CFR PART
30, SUBPART L, TO THE REGIONAL ADMINISTRATOR WILL NOT BE
CONSIDERED APPROPRIATE FOR REVIEW IF IT HAS NOT FIRST BEEN
RAISED BEFORE THE STATE OR THE DISPUTES DECISION OFFICIAL
FOR A FINAL DETERMINATION.
COLE COUNTY SEWER DISTRICT MO,
EPA DOCKET NO. 07-84-AD05
(01/02/87)
GRL-mO-850-000 STANDARD OF REVIEW
THE GRANTEE BEARS THE BURDEN OF PERSUASION THAT FEDERAL
PARTICIPATION IN EACH CLAIMED PROJECT COST SHOULD OCCUR.
FOND DU LAC, WI,
EPA DOCKET NO. 05-84-AD15
( 12/24/86)
GRL-140-850-000 STANDARD OF REVIEW
THE OBJECTIVE IS TO ACHIEVE THE CORRECT CONCLUSION ON THE
ALLOWABILITY OF DISPUTED COST ITEMS BASED ON ALL AVAILABLE
INFORMATION.
FOND DU LAC, WI,
EPA DOCKET NO. 05-84-AD15
( 12/24/86)
2-97
-------
05/27/87
98
ASSISTANCE DISPUTES
GRL-160-300-000 FINAL AGENCY ACTION
THE DISPUTES DECISION OFFICIAL'S DETERMINATION IS A FINAL
AGENCY ACTION, SUBJECT ONLY TO A SUBPART L REQUEST FOR RE-
VIEW. IN THE SUBPART L REVIEW THE BURDEN OF PROOF RESTS
WITH THE RECIPIENT TO SHOW HOW AND WHY THE DISPUTES DECISION
OFFICIAL'S DETERMINATION IS ERRONEOUS.
LUCAS COUNTY, OH,
EPA DOCKET NO. OS-85-AD17
( 12/08/86)
GRL-160-600-000 PROCEDURES
UNDER 40 C.F.R. SECTION 35.3030(8), A REQUEST FOR REVIEW MAY
BE DENIED BY U.S. EPA IF U.S. EPA DOES NOT RECEIVE THE RE-
QUEST WITHIN 30 DAYS AFTER THE PETITIONER HAS RECEIVED THE
FINAL STATE DETERMINATION.
NORTH KOOCHICHING SANITARY SEWER BOARD MN,
EPA DOCKET NO. 05-85-AD22
(03/03/86)
GRL-160-600-000 PROCEDURES
THE DISPUTES DECISION OFFICIAL'S DETERMINATION IS A FINAL
AGENCY ACTION, SUBJECT ONLY TO A SUBPART L REQUEST FOR RE-
VIEW. IN THE SUBPART L REVIEW THE BURDEN OF PROOF RESTS
WITH THE RECIPIENT TO SHOW HOW AND WHY THE DISPUTES DECISION
OFFICIAL'S DETERMINATION IS ERRONEOUS.
LUCAS COUNTY, OH,
EPA DOCKET NO. 05-8S-AD17
( 12/08/86)
2-98
-------
05/27/87
99
ASSISTANCE DISPUTES
GRL-160-700-000 RECONSIDERATION
EPA HILL RECONSIDER ASSISTANCE DISPUTE ON (1) SHOWING OF
MANIFEST ERROR OF CONTROLLING FACT OR LAW OF (2) SUBMISSION
OF NEW MATERIAL EVIDENCE WHICH RECIPIENT, DESPITE REASONABLE
DILIGENCE, FAILED TO PRESENT IN EARLIER PROCEEDING.
HOUMA, LA,
EPA DOCKET NO. 06-84-AD08
(12/31/81)
GRL-160-850-000 STATES
THE STATE, AS DELEGATED AGENT FOR EPA, MAY DETERMINE THE
METHOD OF VALUATION FOR THE USE OF EQUIPMENT WITHIN PUBLISH-
ED REGULATORY GUIDANCE AND REQUIREMENTS.
OLD ORCHARD BEACH, TOWN OF ME,
EPA DOCKET NO. 01-8H-AD01
(03/31/87)
GRL-160-900-000 TIME LIMITATIONS
REQUEST BY GRANTEE FOR REVIEW BY REGIONAL ADMINISTRATOR OF
ADVERSE DECISION BY DDO IS DISMISSED AS UNTIMELY WHEN THE
REQUEST IS FILED MORE THAN 30 DAYS AFTER DATE OF DECISION.
PRASA PR,
EPA DOCKET NO. 02-8H-AD23
(11/08/8H)
2-99
-------
05/27/8:
100
ASSISTANCE DISPUTES
GRL-160-900-000 TIME LIMITATIONS
NOTICE OF APPEAL FROM ADVERSE STATE DETERMINATION RECEIVED
BY EPA MORE THAN 30 DAYS AFTER ITS RECEIPT BY GRANTEE IS
DISMISSED AS UNTIMELY.
NEW HARTFORD, VILLAGE OF NY,
EPA DOCKET NO. 02-84-AD14
(11/16/84)
GRL-160-900-000 TIME LIMITATIONS
UNDER tO C.F.R. SECTION 35.3030(8), A REQUEST FOR REVIEW MAY
BE DENIED BY U.S. EPA IF U.S. EPA DOES NOT RECEIVE THE RE-
fiUEST WITHIN 30 DAYS AFTER THE PETITIONER HAS RECEIVED THE
FINAL STATE DETERMINATION.
NORTH KOOCHICHING SANITARY SEWER BOARD UN,
EPA DOCKET NO. 05-85-AD22
(03/03/86)
GRL-160-900-000 TIME LIMITATIONS
GRANTEE'S REQUEST FOR REVIEW OF A DISPUTE DECISION OFFI-
CIAL'S DETERMINATION DISALLOWING CERTAIN CLAIMED COSTS IS
DENIED WHEN UNTIMELY FILLED, MORE THAN 100 DAYS AFTER DETER-
MINATION, AND WHERE GRANTEE FAILED TO COMPLY WITH AGENCY
REQUESTS FOR DOCUMENTATION AND PROCEDURES DESIGNED TO RE-
SOLVE THE DISPUTE AT THE LOWEST POSSIBLE LEVEL.
SYRACUSE-RACINE RSD, OH,
EPA DOCKET NO. 05-86-AD08
( 11/27/86)
2-100
-------
05/27/8'
101
AUDITS
GRL-180-150-000 AUDIT RESOLUTION
IF IT AFFIRMATIVELY CONSIDERS AND APPROVES SPECIFIC ITEMS OF
COST DURING ADMINISTRATION OF GRANT, EPA WILL NOT DISALLOW
THEM IN SUBSE&UENT PROJECT AUDIT UNLESS IT FIRST DETERMINES
PREVIOUS APPROVAL EXCEEDED OR ABUSED AGENCY DISCRETION.
HOLDENVILLE OK,
EPA DOCKET NO. 06-86-AD02
(12/18/86)
GRL-180-150-000 AUDIT RESOLUTION
THE CLEAN HATER ACT AND U.S. EPA'S IMPLEMENTING REGULATIONS
DO NOT PRECLUDE U.S. EPA, AT THE TIME OF PROJECT AUDIT, FROM
DENYING THE ELIGIBILITY OR ALLOUABILITY OF COSTS ASSOCIATED
WITH A GRANT AGREEMENT OR ANY GRANT AMENDMENT.
HOLGATE, VILLAGE OF, OH,
EPA DOCKET NO. 05-86-AD09
(12/31/86)
2-101
-------
05/27/8'
102
BID PROTEST APPEALS
GRL-200-600-000 RATIONAL BASIS TEST
WHERE A GRANTEE DEMONSTRATES THAT IT ACTED REASONABLY IN
UTILIZING SOUND BUSINESS JUDGEMENT TO EVALUATE AND PURSUE
POTENTIAL CONTRACTOR LIABILITY AND THE ADDITIONAL COST OF
THE PROCURED WORK IS OTHERWISE PROJECT ELIGIBLE AND ALLOW-
ABLE, EPA WILL PARTICIPATE IN THE INCURRED COST.
YORKTOWN, TOWN OF, IN,
EPA DOCKET NO. 05-86-AD02
(12/31/86)
2-102
-------
05/27/87
103
CLEAN MATER ACT
GRL-240-825-000 SLUDGE
FOR RELATED SLUDGE PROCESSING FACILITIES PRIOR TO LAND AP-
PLICATION TO BE ELIGIBLE FOR ALTERNATIVE TECHNOLOGY FUNDING
THE GRANTEE MUST HAVE A LONG TERM COMMITMENT FOR THE USE OF
A SITE.
ASBURY PARK, CITY OF NJ,
EPA DOCKET NO. 02-86-AD01
(09/21/86)
GRL-240-900-000 WATER OF THE UNITED STATES
NATURALLY OCCURRING WETLANDS ARE WATERS OF THE UNITED STATES
AND MUST RECEIVE THE SAME DEGREE OF PROTECTION AFFORDED TO
FREEFLOWING STREAMS.
ANDREWS, SC,
EPA DOCKET NO. 01-84-AD27
(03/22/85)
GRL-210-900-000 WATER OF THE UNITED STATES
THE COST OF NATURALLY OCCURRING WETLANDS, PURCHASED TO
SERVE AS A COMPONENT OF THE OPERABLE TREATMENT WORKS, IS
NOT AN ELIGIBLE COST UNDER AN EPA CONSTRUCTION GRANT.
ANDREWS, SC,
EPA DOCKET NO. 04-84-AD27
(03/22/85)
2-103
-------
05/27/8";
CLEAN HATER ACT
GRL-210-900-000 WATER OF THE UNITED STATES
THE ACQUISITION OF REPLACEMENT WETLANDS IS OUTSIDE THE SCOPE
OF THE COSTS OF COMPLYING WITH THE NATIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL
POLICY ACT (NEPA) SINCE »»0 CFR 35.910-1CH) DOES NOT REFER TO
THE COSTS OF SUBSTANTIVE MEASURES NECESSARY TO MITIGATE
ADVERSE ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS BUT ONLY RELATES TO THE COSTS
OF COMPLYING WITH NEPA PROCEDURES.
SACRAMENTO COUNTY r CA,
EPA DOCKET NO. 09-84-AD2f
(06/06/65)
2-104
-------
05/27/81;
105
LEGAL ARGUMENTS
GRL-680-150-000 ESTOPPEL
THE CLEAN WATER ACT AND EPA'S IMPLEMENTING REGULATIONS DO
NOT AUTHORIZE FEDERAL FUNDING FOR THE ACfiUISITION OF MITI-
GATION LAND; THEREFORE, A STATE DELEGATED AGENCY'S AND EPA'S
APPROVAL OF SUCH COSTS AND A GRANTEE'S SUBSEQUENT RELIANCE
THEREON DO NOT PRECLUDE THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT FROM LATER
RECOVERING SUCH COSTS.
SACRAMENTO COUNTY ' CA,
EPA DOCKET NO. 09-81-AD24
(06/06/85)
GRL-680-150-000 ESTOPPEL
THE ACSUISITION OF REPLACEMENT WETLANDS IS OUTSIDE THE SCOPE
OF THE COSTS OF COMPLYING WITH THE NATIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL
POLICY ACT (NEPA) SINCE 40 CFR 35.9HO-KH) DOES NOT REFER TO
THE COSTS OF SUBSTANTIVE MEASURES NECESSARY TO MITIGATE
ADVERSE ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS BUT ONLY RELATES TO THE COSTS
OF COMPLYING WITH NEPA PROCEDURES.
SACRAMENTO COUNTY CA,
EPA DOCKET NO. 09-84-AD2H
(06/06/85)
GRL-680-150-000 ESTOPPEL
AUDIT - ALL GRANT FUNDING DECISIONS ARE SUBJECT TO EPA'S
RIGHT TO AUDIT FEDERALLY REIMBURSED COSTS AND TO RECOUP
ANY REIMBURSEMENT PROVIDED FOR UNALLOWABLE COSTS, EVEN WHERE
SUCH COSTS PRIOR TO AUDIT HAS BEEN INITIALLY INCORRECTLY
APPROVED BY PROGRAM REPRESENTATIVES.
DAYTON, IN,
EPA DOCKET NO. 05-8«t-AD04
(07/21/86)
2-105
-------
05/27/8'
LEGAL ARGUMENTS
GRL-680-150-000 ESTOPPEL
GRANTEE MAY NOT RELY ON PRIOR APPROVAL BY EPA EMPLOYEES OF
SPECIFIC ITEMS OF COST DURING ADMINISTRATION OF GRANT WHEN
SUCH APPROVAL IS NOT SHOWN TO BE THE RESULT OF AN AFFIRM-
ATIVE MANAGEMENT DECISION WITHIN AGENCY DISCRETION.
PIMA COUNTY AZ,
EPA DOCKET NO. 09-86-AD16
(03/19/87)
GRL-680-550-000 2UANTUM MERUIT
PURSUANT TO DOCTRINE OF 2UANTUM MERUIT, EPA MAY REIMBURSE
GRANTEE FOR REASONABLE VALUE OF A/E SERVICES PERFORMED
WITHOUT WRITTEN CONTRACT.
HUNTSVILLE, TX,
EPA DOCKET NO. 06-84-AD05
(06/27/84)
GRL-680-850-600 PRIVITY OF CONTRACT
A CONTRACT BETWEEN A GRANTEE AND A BIDDER IS GOVERNED BY
LOCAL CONTRACT LAW AND TERMS OF THE CONTRACT SINCE, PURSUANT
TO HO C.F.R. SECTION 35.936-8 (1977), THE FEDERAL GOVERN-
MENT LACKS PRIVITY OF CONTRACT WITH THE BIDDER.
YORKTOWN, TOWN OF, IN,
EPA DOCKET NO. 05-86-AD02
(12/31/86)
2-106
-------
05/27/8'
107
NATIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL POLICY ACT (NEPA)
GRL-700-700-000 MITIGATION
THE ACQUISITION OF REPLACEMENT WETLANDS IS OUTSIDE THE SCOPE
OF THE COSTS OF COMPLYING WITH THE NATIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL
POLICY ACT (NEPA) SINCE ««0 CFR 35.9HO-KH) DOES NOT REFER TO
THE COSTS OF SUBSTANTIVE MEASURES NECESSARY TO MITIGATE
ADVERSE ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS BUT ONLY RELATES TO THE COSTS
OF COMPLYING WITH NEPA PROCEDURES.
SACRAMENTO COUNTY " CA,
EPA DOCKET NO. 09-84-AD24
(06/06/85)
2-107
-------
05/27/8?
108
PROCUREMENT
GRL-780-050-000 ARCHITECT/ENGINEER SERVICES
ELIGIBILITY DECISION BASED ON EPA REGION 10 POLICY OF
LIMITING ENGINEERS PROFIT.
ELLENSBURG, CY OF WA,
EPA DOCKET NO. 10-83-AD01
(06/24/86)
GRL-780-050-000 ARCHITECT/ENGINEER SERVICES
NO JUSTIFICATION TO INCREASE MAS PROVIDED.
ELLENSBURG, CY OF WA,
EPA DOCKET NO. 10-83-AD01
(06/24/86)
GRL-780-050-000 ARCHITECT/ENGINEER SERVICES
NON-COMPETITIVE NEGOTIATION FOR THE PROCUREMENT OF A/E
SERVICES MILL NOT BE APPROVED UNDER 40 CFR 33.605(8) WHERE
THERE IS NO PUBLIC EXIGENCY OR EMERGENCY OR UNDER 40 CFR
33.605(0) UNLESS THERE ARE UNUSUAL AND COMPELLING CIRCUM-
STANCES MAKING NON-COMPETITIVE PROCUREMENT IMPERATIVE.
ASBURY PARK, CITY OF NJ,
EPA DOCKET NO. 02-86-AD01
(09/24/86)
2-108
-------
05/27/87
109
PROCUREMENT
GRL-780-125-100 ALTERNATE BIDS
WHERE THE LEAST COSTLY ALTERNATE BID IS THE MOST COST-EFFEC-
TIVE, THE REGION CORRECTLY LIMITED FEDERAL PARTICIPATION TO
THE COST OF THIS ALTERNATE.
DRACUT MA,
EPA DOCKET NO. 01-84-AD07
(01/21/85)
GRL-780-125-300 EVALUATION
IN THIS CASE, WHERE STATE AGENCY ON UNIT PRICE IFB HAD
CONDUCTED EXTENSIVE PRE-BID CONFERENCES AND SITE VISITS, AND
HAD PROVIDED ALL AVAILABLE DATA ON SITE CONDITIONS AND
REQUIREMENTS TO THE INTERESTED BIDDERS, FAILURE TO SPECIFY
ESTIMATED 2UANTITIES IN ITS BID DOCUMENTS (AMBIGUOUS SOLICI-
TATION) IS NONPREJUDICIAL ERROR, ABSENT ANY SUGGESTION OF
PREJUDICE TO A BIDDER.
OKLAHOMA WATER RESOURCES BD. OK,
EPA DOCKET NO. 06-84-AD09
(10/16/84)
GRL-780-125-300 EVALUATION
IN THIS CASE, STATE AGENCY'S BID ANALYSIS, INCLUDING A
COMPUTERIZED VARIATION OF THE ESTIMATED fiUANTITIES WHICH
SHOWED THAT VARIATION UP TO 300% WOULD NOT CHANGE THE ORDER
OF BIDDERS, HAS PROVIDED PERSUASIVE EVIDENCE THAT NO BIDDER
WAS FAVORED BY ITS EVALUATION OF UNIT PRICE BIDS THROUGH
APPLICATION OF POST HOC ESTIMATED 2UANTITIES.
OKLAHOMA WATER RESOURCES BD. OK,
EPA DOCKET NO. 06-84-AD09
(10/16/84)
2-109
-------
05/27/87
110
PROCUREMENT
GRL-780-125-750 REJECTION OF ALL BIDS
ADDITIONAL COSTS INCURRED BECAUSE OF REBIDDING AFTER GRANTEE
UNJUSTIFIABLY REJECTED FIRST SET OF BIDS ARE UNALLOWABLE.
SUFFOLK COUNTY SEWER DISTRICT NO. 3 NY,
EPA DOCKET NO. 02-84-AD21
(02/12/87)
GRL-780-125-900 UNIT PRICING
IN THIS CASE, STATE AGENCY'S BID ANALYSIS, INCLUDING A.
COMPUTERIZED VARIATION OF THE ESTIMATED QUANTITIES WHICH
SHOWED THAT VARIATION UP TO 300% WOULD NOT CHANGE THE ORDER
OF BIDDERS, HAS PROVIDED PERSUASIVE EVIDENCE THAT NO BIDDER
WAS FAVORED BY ITS EVALUATION OF UNIT PRICE BIDS THROUGH
APPLICATION OF POST HOC ESTIMATED 2UANTITIES.
OKLAHOMA WATER RESOURCES BD. OK,
EPA DOCKET NO. 06-84-AD09
(10/16/81)
GRL-780-125-900 UNIT PRICING
IN THIS CASE, WHERE STATE AGENCY ON UNIT PRICE IFB HAD
CONDUCTED EXTENSIVE PRE-BID CONFERENCES AND SITE VISITS, AND
HAD PROVIDED ALL AVAILABLE DATA ON SITE CONDITIONS AND
REQUIREMENTS TO THE INTERESTED BIDDERS, FAILURE TO SPECIFY
ESTIMATED fiUANTITIES IN ITS BID DOCUMENTS (AMBIGUOUS SOLICI-
TATION) IS NONPREJUDICIAL ERROR, ABSENT ANY SUGGESTION OF
PREJUDICE TO A BIDDER.
OKLAHOMA WATER RESOURCES BD. OK,
EPA DOCKET NO. 06-8t-AD09
( 10/16/84)
2-110
-------
05/27/8'
1 1 1
PROCUREMENT
GRL-780-12S-900 UNIT PRICING
PROCUREMENT UNDER A UNIT PRICE IFB MUST NORMALLY BE
ACCOMPANIED BY THE REQUESTOR'S BEST ESTIMATE OF THE
QUANTITIES REQUIRED, IN ORDE^ TO PROVIDE ADEQUATE BID
DOCUMENTS. 40 CFR 33.420.
OKLAHOMA MATER RESOURCES BD. OK,
EPA DOCKET NO. 06-84-AD09
( 10/16/84)
GRL-780-1SO-000 BONDS
THERE WAS (AND IS) NO FEDERAL LAW OR REGULATION WHICH RE-
QUIRES AN EPA CONSTRUCTION GRANT PROGRAM GRANTEE TO SECURE
FROM A BIDDER ANY BID GUARANTEES BEYOND A 535 BID BOND.
YORKTOWN, TOWN OF, IN,
EPA DOCKET NO. 05-86-AD02
(12/31/86)
GRL-780-150-000 BONDS
GRANTEE PROPERLY RETURNED THE AMOUNT OF THE LOWEST BIDDER'S
BID BOND WHEN GRANTEE DECIDED TO REJECT ALL BIDS.
SUFFOLK COUNTY SEWER DISTRICT NO. 3 NY,
EPA DOCKET NO. 02-84-AD21
(02/12/87)
2-111
-------
05/27/87
1 12
PROCUREMENT
6RL-780-300-000 COST AND PRICING DATA
ARBITRARY USE OF PERCENTAGE OF CONSTRUCTION COST FEE
CURVE TO ESTIMATE CONTRACT PRICE IN LIEU OF COST AND PRICING
DATA SUPPORTED BY ACCOUNTING RECORDS COMBINED WITH GRANTEE'S
FAILURE TO CONDUCT COST REVIEW, RESULTS IN THE DISALLOWANCE
OF EXCESSIVE PROFIT ON A/E SUBAGREEMENT.
BENSON, NC,
EPA DOCKET NO. 04-84-AD19
(01/09/85)
GRL-780-350-000 FEDERAL PROCUREMENT PRINCIPLES
PROCURING AGENCY MUST PROVIDE PROSPECTIVE BIDDERS WITH
SUFFICIENT DETAIL IN THE IFB TO ENABLE THEM TO COMPETE
INTELLIGENTLY AND ON A RELATIVELY E2UAL BASIS, BUT WHERE, AS
IN THIS CASE, DETAILED ESTIMATES CANNOT BE PROVIDED AND THE
PROCURING AGENCY PROVIDES ALL AVAILABLE INFORMATION TO
BIDDERS ON NOTICE OF REQUIREMENTS AND PERMITS THEM TO APPLY
BUSINESS JUDGEMENT IN SETTING PRICES.
OKLAHOMA WATER RESOURCES BD. OK,
EPA DOCKET NO. 06-84-AD09
(10/16/84)
GRL-780-750-000 SERVICES
NON-COMPETITIVE NEGOTIATION FOR THE PROCUREMENT OF A/E
SERVICES WILL NOT BE APPROVED UNDER HO CFR 33.605(8) WHERE
THERE IS NO PUBLIC EXIGENCY OR EMERGENCY OR UNDER 40 CFR
33.605(D) UNLESS THERE ARE UNUSUAL AND COMPELLING CIRCUM-
STANCES MAKING NON-COMPETITIVE PROCUREMENT IMPERATIVE.
ASBURY PARK, CITY OF NJ,
EPA DOCKET NO. 02-86-AD01
(09/24/86)
2-112
-------
05/27/87
113
SUBAGREEMENTS
GRL-880-100-000 ARCHITECT/ENGINEERING SERVICES
A/E FEES SUBSTANTIATED BY DOCUMENTATION SHOWING THE AMOUNT
ALLOCABLE TO THE ELIGIBLE PORTION OF THE PROJECT ARE
ALLOWABLE.
MEXICO, VILLGE OF NY,
EPA DOCKET NO. 02-84-AD08
(02/20/85)
GRL-880-100-000 ARCHITECT/ENGINEERING SERVICES
EPA DOES NOT REQUIRE A SPECIFIC METHOD FOR AS-BUILT DRAWING
PREPARATION; GRANTEES MAY CONTRACT FOR METHODS RATIONALLY
BASED ON NEEDS OF SPECIFIC PROJECT.
ISLANDS AR,
EPA DOCKET NO. 06-85-AD07
(02/25/86)
GRL-880-100-000 ARCHITECT/ENGINEERING SERVICES
EPA DOES NOT RE8UIRE A SPECIFIC METHOD FOR AS-BUILT DRAWING
PREPARATION; GRANTEES MAY CONTRACT FOR METHODS RATIONALLY
BASED ON NEEDS OF SPECIFIC PROJECT.
MOLLY CREEK AR,
EPA DOCKET NO. 06-85-AD06
(02/25/86)
2-113
-------
OS/27/8
SUBAGREEMENTS
GRL-880-100-000 ARCHITECT/ENGINEERING SERVICES
A/E DESIGN FEES FOR CONTRACTS AWARDED PRIOR TO 12/17/75
WHICH ARE BASED ON A PERCENTAGE OF THE CONSTRUCTION COST OF
THE PROJECT ARE LIMITED TO A PERCENTAGE OF THE LOWEST,
RESPONSIVE, RESPONSIBLE BIDDER IN ACCORDANCE WITH APPENDIX D
OF 40 CFR PART 35. CHANGE ORDERS FOR WORK PERFORMED AFTER
12/17/75 CAN ONLY BE REIMBURSED ON A DOCUMENTED COST BASIS..
WOONSOCKET RI,
EPA DOCKET NO. 01-85-AD01
(04/08/86)
GRL-880-100-000 ARCHITECT/ENGINEERING SERVICES
THE GRANTEE'S SUBMISSION OF PAYROLL RECORDS WHICH INDICATED
NUMBER OF HOURS WORKED, RATES OF PAY, AND THE FEDERALLY
ASSISTED PROJECT WORKED ON WAS SUFFICIENT TO DOCUMENT
$41,883.08 OF THE ORIGINALLY DISALLOWED $96,238.00 IN
ARCHITECTURAL/ENGINEERING COSTS.
ANTIGO, CITY OF WI,
EPA DOCKET NO. 05-85-AD03
(OH/25/86)
GRL-880-100-000 ARCHITECT/ENGINEERING SERVICES
ELIGIBILITY DECISION BASED ON EPA REGION 10 POLICY OF
LIMITING ENGINEERS PROFIT.
ELLENSBURG, CY OF WA,
EPA DOCKET NO. 10-83-AD01
(06/24/86)
2-114
-------
05x27x8:
115
SUBAGREEMENTS
GRL-880-100-000 ARCHITECT/ENGINEERING SERVICES
NO JUSTIFICATION TO INCREASE WAS PROVIDED.
ELLENSBURG, CY OF WA,
EPA DOCKET NO. 10-83-AD01
(06X24X86)
GRL-880-100-000 ARCHITECTXENGINEERING SERVICES
COSTS FOR ELIGIBLE ARCHITECTXENGINEERING SERVICES ARE .
GENERALLY ALLOWABLE TO THE SAME EXTENT THAT CONSTRUCTION
COSTS ARE ALLOWABLE, SUBJECT TO THE RESTRICTION THAT THE
TOTAL ALLOWABLE COSTS DO NOT EXCEED THE REASONABLE COST
LIMIT FOR SUCH SERVICES, AS DETERMINED BY EPA OR A DELEGATED
STATE AGENCY.
MONTEREY COUNTY CA,
EPA DOCKET NO. 09-84-AD25
(11X17X86)
GRL-880-100-000 ARCHITECTXENGINEERING SERVICES
IN DETERMINING FINAL ALLOWABLE ENGINEERING FEES IN THIS CASE
WHERE THE GRANTEE FILED SUIT AGAINST THE ENGINEERING FIRM
FOR BREACH OF CONTRACT £ NEGLIGENCE C AGREED IN ADVANCE THAT
THE FEDERAL SHARE OF THE DAMAGE AWARD WOULD BE RETURNED TO
EPA. THE FEDERAL SHARE OF THE DAMAGE AWARD MAY NOT BE OFF
SET BY A COUNTERCLAIM OF THE ENGINEERING FIRM FOR COSTS & EX
PENSES THAT ARE NOT ALLOWABLE OR ALLOCABLE TO THE GRANT PRO-
JECT NOR PROCURED IN ACCORDANCE WXTHE MINIMUM STANDARDS FOR
PROCUREMENT.
LAURENS CO. WATER RESOURCES COMMISSION SC,
EPA DOCKET NO. 04-84-AD21
(03X20X87)
2-115
-------
05/27/87
SUBAGREEMENTS
GRL-880-100-000 ARCHITECT/ENGINEERING SERVICES
ARCHITECT/ENGINEERING SERVICES FOR THE PREPARATION OF AM AD-
DENDUM TO AN GSM MANUAL ARE ALLOWABLE COSTS.
OLD ORCHARD BEACH, TOWN OF ME,
EPA DOCKET NO. 01-84-AD01
(03/31/87)
GRL-880-100-000 ARCHITECT/ENGINEERING SERVICES
ARCHITECT/ENGINEERING SERVICES NECESSARY TO CORRECT, OR RE-
VISE ANY ERRORS, OMISSIONS, OR OTHER DEFICIENCIES IN DE-
SIGNS, DRAWINGS, SPECIFICATIONS, REPORTS, AND OTHER SERVICES
ARE NOT ALLOWABLE FOR EPA PARTICIPATION.
OLD ORCHARD BEACH, TOWN OF ME,
EPA DOCKET NO. 01-8U-AD01
(03/31/87)
GRL-880-100-000 ARCHITECT/ENGINEERING SERVICES
THE REASONABLE COST OF ARCHITECT/ENGINEERING SERVICES FOR
SHOP DRAWING REVIEW MAY BE DETERMINED BY CALCULATING THE
NUMBER OF SHOP DRAWING SUBMITTALS TO BE EXPECTED, BASED ON
EXPERIENCE WITH SIMILAR PROJECTS, AND THE AVERAGE NUMBER OF
HOURS OF REVIEW TIME TO BE EXPECTED FOR EACH SUBMITTAL.
CARMEL SANITARY DISTRICT CA,
EPA DOCKET NO. 09-86-AD07
(04/02/87)
2-116
-------
05/27/8'
117
SUBAGREEMENTS
GRL-880-100-000 ARCHITECT/ENGINEERING SERVICES
THE REASONABLE COST OF ARCHITECT/ENGINEERING SERVICES FOR
SHOP DRAWING REVIEW MAY BE DETERMINED BY COMPARING ACTUAL
OR ESTIMATED COSTS TO AVERAGE COSTS FOR THE SAME TYPES OF
SERVICES ON SIMILAR PROJECTS.
CARMEL SANITARY DISTRICT CA,
EPA DOCKET NO. 09-86-AD07
(04X02/87)
GRL-880-100-100 AMERICAN SOCIETY OF CIVIL ENGINEERS MANUAL
WHERE t SEPARATE CONTRACTS FOR (1) GENERAL CONSTRUCTION,
(2) PLUMBING, (3) HEATING AND (<+) ELECTRICAL WORK WERE
REQUIRED BY STATE LAW, IT WAS PROPER FOR THE A/E TO COMPUTE
DESIGN FEES, AS PROVIDED IN ITS CONTRACT, BY APPLYING THE
ASCE MANUAL 15 FEE CURVES TO THE AMOUNT OF EACH OF THE 4
CONTRACTS SEPARATELY RATHER THAN TO THEIR TOTAL AMOUNT.
TICONDEROGA, VILLAGE OF NY,
EPA DOCKET NO. 02-83-AD02
(OH/30/85)
GRL-880-100-100 AMERICAN SOCIETY OF CIVIL ENGINEERS MANUAL
WHEN A REASONABLE COST FOR FORCE ACCOUNT BASIC AND SPECIAL
ENGINEERING AND ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES IS DETERMINED
THROUGH THE USE OF ASCE CURVES AND APPROPRIATE COST GUIDE-
LINES FOR CONSULTANT SERVICES, AN ADJUSTMENT FOR PROFIT
SHOULD BE MADE, SINCE PROFIT SHOULD NOT BE CONSIDERED AS
PART OF A GRANTEE'S REASONABLE FORCE ACCOUNT COSTS.
LOS ANGELES COUNTY CA,
EPA DOCKET NO. 09-8H-AD28
(03/27/86)
2-117
-------
05/27/8'
1 18
SUBAGREEMENTS
GRL-880-100-100 AMERICAN SOCIETY OF CIVIL ENGINEERS MANUAL
THE ALLOWABLE COST FOR BASIC ENGINEERING SERVICES PERFORMED
BY FORCE ACCOUNT, AS DETERMINED USING ASCE MANUAL 45 FEE
CURVES, MAY BE BASED ON THE TOTAL ALLOWABLE CONSTRUCTION
COSTS, INCLUDING CHANGE ORDERS, RATHER THAN THE LOW
CONSTRUCTION BID.
LOS ANGELES COUNTY CA,
EPA DOCKET NO. 09-84-AD37 ,
(01/28/87)
GRL-880-100-100 AMERICAN SOCIETY- OF CIVIL ENGINEERS MANUAL
DETERMINATION OF WHETHER VARIOUS TECHNICAL SERVICES ARE
CHARGEABLE AS BASIC SERVICES OR SPECIAL SERVICES DEPENDS
UPON INTENT OF THE PARTIES AS EXPRESSED IN THE CONTRACT.
SUFFOLK COUNTY SEWER DISTRICT NO. 3 NY,
EPA DOCKET NO. 02-84-AD21
(02/12/87)
GRL-880-100-100 AMERICAN SOCIETY OF CIVIL ENGINEERS MANUAL
DECISION ON DISALLOWANCE OF TECHNICAL SERVICE FEES TO BOWE,
WALSH £ ASSOCIATES DEFERRED UNTIL THE REGIONAL OFFICE CAN
REVIEW ALL COMMENTS AND BRIEFS.
SUFFOLK COUNTY SEWER DISTRICT NO. 3 NY,
EPA DOCKET NO. 02-84-AD21
(02/12/87)
2-118
-------
05/27/8'
119
SUBAGREEMENTS
GRL-880-200-000 CHANGE ORDERS
CONSTRUCTION COSTS AND ENGINEERING SERVICES ASSOCIATED
WITH ELIGIBLE CHANGE ORDER WORK IS REIMBURSABLE.
COOS BAY, CY OF OR,
EPA DOCKET NO. 10-84-AD01
(11/26/84)
GRL-880-200-000 CHANGE ORDERS
CONSTRUCTION DEVIATIONS FROM APPROVED PLANS AND
SPECIFICATIONS EVEN THOUGH RESULTING A ZERO COST DIFFERENCE,
CONSTITUTE A CHANGE TO THE CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT AND MUST BE
DOCUMENTATED BY FORMAL CHANGE ORDER INCLUDING GRANTEE REVIEW
AND APPROVAL.
SPRING HOPE NC,
EPA DOCKET NO. 04-83-AD07
( 10/02/85)
GRL-880-200-000 CHANGE ORDERS
CHANGED CONDITIONS BETWEEN TIME OF BIDDING AND OF CONSTRUC-
TION, WHICH NECESSITATED A ROAD CROSSING FOR A SEWER LINE BY
MEANS OF JACKING AND BORING INSTEAD OF BY AN OPEN CUT, AT A
REASONABLE INCREASE IN THE CONTRACT PRICE, IS ALLOWABLE EVEN
THOUGH A REQUIRED PRIOR CHANGE ORDER WAS NOT PROCESSED,
PROVIDED THAT A GRANT AMENDMENT IS EXECUTED.
VIENNA, TOWN OF NY,
EPA DOCKET NO. 02-84-AD15
(11/04/85)
2-119
-------
05/27/87
120
SUBAGREEMENTS
6RL-880-200-000 CHANGE ORDERS
CONSTRUCTION METHODS THAT ARE COST-EFFECTIVE S WITHIN THE
SCOPE OF THE PROJECT CONSTITUTE AN ALLOWABLE COST.
THE REMOVAL C RELOCATION OR REPLACEMENT OF UTILITIES ARE
ALLOWABLE PROJECT COSTS.
ALL ADMINISTRATIVE ISSUES £ DISPUTES ARISING OVER THE SUC-
CESSFUL COMPLETION OF THE PROJECT ARE THE RESPONSIBILITY OF
THE GRANTEE.
A CONTRACTOR CANNOT BE CONSIDERED NEGLIGENT BECAUSE OF
DAMAGES RESULTING FROM UNFORSEEN SITE CONDITIONS.
PENNDOT REQUIREMENTS HAVE NO BEARINGS ON EPA ELIGIBILITY
DETERMINATION.
PORTER-TOWER JT MUNICIPAL AUTHORITY PA,
EPA DOCKET NO. 03-84-AD25
(06/10/86)
GRL-880-200-000 CHANGE ORDERS
CONSTRUCTION DEVIATIONS FROM APPROVED PLANS AND
SPECIFICATIONS MUST BE APPROVED BY U.S. EPA IN
ORDER TO BE ALLOWABLE.
BERRIEN I CNTY DEPT OF PUBLIC WORKS <• IN,
EPA DOCKET NO. OS-85-AD28
( 11/21/86)
2-120
-------
05/27/87
121
SUBAGREEMENTS
GRL-880-200-000 CHANGE ORDERS
COMPETITIVE BID UNIT PRICES WAY BE SUBJECT TO E2UITABLE
ADJUSTMENT WHERE ACTUAL CONSTRUCTION QUANTITY VARIES
(UNDERRUN) FROM ESTIMATED BID fiUANTITY BY MORE THAN 15%,
THE TOTAL DOLLAR CHANGE IS SIGNIFICANT £ THE ADJUSTMENT IS
FOUND TO BE REASONABLE.
ALEXANDER CITY, AL,
EPA DOCKET NO. 0«*-85-AD06
( 12/01/86)
GRL-880-200-000 CHANGE ORDERS
THE GRANTEE MUST PROVIDE DOCUMENTATION SHOWING THE REASON-
ABLENESS OF CHANGE ORDERS FOR THE INCREASED PROJECT COSTS
CLAIMED TO BE ALLOWABLE FOR FEDERAL PARTICIPATION.
HOLGATE, VILLAGE OF, OH,
EPA DOCKET NO. 05-86-AD09
( 12/31/86)
GRL-880-300-000 CONSULTANT FEE LIMITATIONS
LEGAL COSTS ASSOCIATED WITH FINANCING OPERATIONS ARE UN-
ALLOWABLE.
GROTON, VILLAGE OF NY,
EPA DOCKET NO. 02-84-AD12
(09/18/8**)
2-121
-------
OS/27/8'
122
SUBAGREEMENTS
6RL-880-300-000 CONSULTANT FEE LIMITATIONS
USE OF PER DIEH CONTRACTS IS LIMITED TO SERVICES WHICH CAN
NOT BE APPROPRIATELY OBTAINED UNDER LUMP SUM OR CPFF
CONTRACT.
HOUMA, LA,
EPA DOCKET NO. 06-84-AD08
( 12/31/8**)
GRL-880-300-000 CONSULTANT FEE LIMITATIONS
INCREASED ENGINEERING FEES UNDER A FIXED PRICE CONTRACT ARE
UNALLOWABLE WITHOUT AN EPA-APPROVED CONTRACT AMENDMENT OR
SUBMISSION OF A 5700-m FORM.
PARISH, VILLAGE OF NY,
EPA DOCKET NO. 02-84-AD20
(01/10/86)
GRL-880-300-000 CONSULTANT FEE LIMITATIONS
ELIGIBILITY DECISION BASED ON EPA REGION 10 POLICY OF
LIMITING ENGINEERS PROFIT.
ELLENSBURG, CY OF WA,
EPA DOCKET NO. 10-83-AD01
(06/24/86)
2-122
-------
05/27/87
123
SUBAGREEMENTS
GRL-880-300-000 CONSULTANT FEE LIMITATIONS
NO JUSTIFICATION TO INCREASE WAS PROVIDED.
ELLENSBURG, CY OF WA,
EPA DOCKET NO. 10-83-AD01
(06/24/86)
GRL-880-300-000 CONSULTANT FEE LIMITATIONS
WHERE A GRANTEE, ITS CONTRACTORS OR ITS CONSULTING ENGINEER
ARE NOT RESPONSIBLE FOR CONSTRUCTION DELAYS, THE ENGINEER
IS ENTITLED TO AN EXTENSION OF TIME UNDER ITS CONTRACT
WITH THE GRANTEE WITHIN WHICH TO PERFORM THE ADDITIONAL CON-
STRUCTION-RELATED SERVICES AND THE REASONABLE COST OF THOSE
SERVICES IS ALLOWABLE.
HOWEVER, WHERE THERE IS NO INCREASE IN THE SCOPE OF THE
ENGINEERING SERVICES, AN INCREASE IN THE ENGINEERING FEE IS
NOT ALLOWABLE.
ONEIDA, CITY OF, NY,
EPA DOCKET NO. 02-85-AD09
(03/10/87)
GRL-880-350-700 RE2UIRED AND MODEL
"UNUSUALLY SEVERE WEATHER" JUSTIFYING TIME EXTENSION ON
CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT IS WEATHER BEYOND NORMAL RANGE IN
PROJECT LOCALE.
BAKER, LA,
EPA DOCKET NO. 06-84-AD06
(07/24/84)
2-123
-------
05/27/87
124
SUBAGREEMENTS
GRL-880-350-700 REQUIRED AND MODEL
UNUSUAL PRESENCE OF GRAVEL BACKFILL FROM PREVIOUS
CONSTRUCTION IS DIFFERING SITE CONDITION.
MOLLY CREEK AR,
EPA DOCKET NO. 06-85-AD06
(02/25/86)
GRL-880-350-700 REQUIRED AND MODEL
UNUSUAL PRESENCE OF GRAVEL BACKFILL FROM PREVIOUS
CONSTRUCTION IS DIFFERING SITE CONDITION.
ISLANDS AR,
EPA DOCKET NO. 06-85-AD07
(02/25/86)
GRL-880-350-700 REQUIRED AND MODEL
DIFFERING SITE CONDITION - WHERE EPA REVIEW SHOWS THAT
PROJECT WAS NOT PROPERLY MANAGED, CLAIM FOR DIFFERING SITE
CONDITION DENIED.
BISMARK ND,
EPA DOCKET NO. 08-86-AD01
( 11/05/86)
2-124
-------
05/27/87
125
SUBAGREEMENTS
GRL-880-350-700 REQUIRED AND MODEL
CONTRACTOR CLAIM UNDER RE2UIRED SUBAGREEMENT CLAUSE
REGARDING DIFFERING SITE CONDITIONS IS UNALLOWABLE
FOR GRANT FUNDING WHERE GRANTEE FAILED TO PERFORM AN
ADEQUATE PRECONSTRUCTION SITE INVESTIGATION.
SAN DIEGO, CITY OF CA,
EPA DOCKET NO. 09-86-AD13
(02/25/87)
GRL-880-370-000 CONTRACTOR CLAIMS
DEFENSE AND PROSECUTION COSTS - WHERE REVIEW SHOWS PROJECT
MISMANAGEMENT, EPA WILL NOT PARTICIPATE IN DEFENSE AND
PROSECUTION COSTS FOR CLAIMS ARISING FROM THAT MISMANAGE-
MENT.
BISMARK ND,
EPA DOCKET NO. 08-S6-AD01
( 11/05/86)
GRL-880-370-000 CONTRACTOR CLAIMS
THE GRANTEE HAS THE BURDEN OF SUBSTANTIATING, WITH ADEQUATE
DOCUMENTATION, THAT COSTS OF A LUMP SUM ARBITRATION AWARD IN
FAVOR OF A CONTRACTOR AGAINST THE GRANTEE ARE REASONABLE,
NECESSARY AND NOT THE RESULT OF MISMANAGEMENT BY THE GRANTEE
OR THE IMPROPER ACTION OF OTHERS, AND THUS ALLOWABLE.
ONEIDA COUNTY, NY,
EPA DOCKET NO. 02-85-AD19
(12/16/86)
2-125
-------
05/27/8'
126
SUBAGREEMENTS
GRL-880-370-000 CONTRACTOR CLAIMS
CONTRACTOR CLAIM FOR DIFFERING SITE CONDITION IS UNALLOWABLE
FOR GRANT FUNDING WHERE GRANTEE FAILED TO PERFORM AN
ADE2UATE PRECONSTRUCTION SITE INVESTIGATION.
SAN DIEGO, CITY OF CA,
EPA DOCKET NO. 09-86-AD13
(02/25/87)
GRL-880-390-000 COST PLUS FIXED FEE
THE ALLOWABILITY OF INDIRECT COSTS BILLED BY AN A/E
(ARCHITECTURAL/ENGINEERING) FIRM UNDER A COST-PLUS-
FIXED-FEE CONTRACT IS LIMITED TO THE AMOUNT WHICH
CAN BE SUPPORTED BY THE FIRM'S ACCOUNTING SYSTEM.
GARDNERVILLE RANCHOS GEN. IMPOVEMENT DISTRICT NV,
EPA DOCKET NO. 09-85-AD12
(08/15/86)
GRL-880-390-000 COST PLUS FIXED FEE
SURVEYING COSTS BILLED UNDER A COST-PLUS-FIXED-FEE CONTRACT
ARE ALLOWABLE TO THE EXTENT THAT THEY ARE PROPERLY SUPPORTED
BY THE CONSULTING ENGINEER'S RECORDS. THE FIXED FEE,
HOWEVER, IS ALLOWABLE IN WHOLE IF THE OVERALL LEVEL OF
COMPENSATION FOR THE SERVICES IS REASONABLE AND IF THE
SERVICES WERE PERFORMED.
MONTEREY COUNTY CA,
EPA DOCKET NO. 09-84-AD25
( 11/17/86)
2-126
-------
05/27/8'
127
SUBAGREEMEMTS
GRL-8SO-395-000 COST PLUS MULTIPLIER
TIME LIMITATION IS NOT ADE2UATE JUSTIFICATION FOR USING A
COST-PLUS-PERCENTAGE-OF-COST FORM OF MULTIPLIER COMPENSATION
UNDER AN ENGINEERING SUBAGREEMENT FOR DESIGN SERVICES.
MIAMI-DADE HATER £ SEWER AUTHORITY FL,
EPA DOCKET NO. OH-8«»-AD18
(06/13x86)
GRL-880-500-000 FIXED PRICE
ABSENT RECORDS SHOWING THE ELIGIBLE VERSUS INELIGIBLE
ELEMENTS OF A LUMP SUM ENGINEERING CONTRACT, THE ALLOWABLE
COSTS WILL BE DETERMINED BY A DETAILED ESTIMATE BASED ON
HISTORICAL DATA FOR COMPARABLE PROJECTS OR PRORATED BASED
ON THE ELIGIBLE CONSTRUCTION COST.
HERMITAGE, TOWN OF AR,
EPA DOCKET NO. 06-84-AD01
(05XOHX8H)
GRL-880-500-000 FIXED PRICE
UNDER LUMP SUM SUBCONTRACT, DESIGNATION OF FEE AS "SERVICE
CHARGE" ON PERIODIC BILLING IS IRRELEVANT TO ITS
ALLOUABILITY.
HUNTSVILLE, TX,
EPA DOCKET NO. 06-84-AD05
(06X27X84)
2-127
-------
05/27/87
128
SUBAGREEMENTS
GRL-880-500-000 FIXED PRICE
LUMP SUM CONTRACT LACKING SPECIFIED PERFORMANCE PERIOD
MAY BE RENEGOTIATED WHEN PERFORMANCE PERIOD EXCEEDS THAT
WHICH PARTIES COULD REASONABLY HAVE ANTICIPATED WHEN
CONTRACT WAS EXECUTED
HOUMA, LA
EPA DOCKET NO. 06-84-AD08
( 12/31/84)
GRL-880-SOO-OOO FIXED PRICE
A/E'S FAILURE TO KEEP ADEQUATE ACCOUNTING RECORDS UNDER LUMP
SUM ENGINEERING SERVICES CONTRACT JUSTIFIES DISALLOWANCE
(AND DOWNWARD RENEGOTIATION OF CONTRACT) BY AMOUNT OF COSTS
THUS SAVED.
CHANNELVIEW TX,
EPA DOCKET NO. 06-85-AD02
(06/24/85)
GRL-880-500-000 FIXED PRICE
INCREASED ENGINEERING FEES UNDER A FIXED PRICE ENGINEERING
CONTRACT RESULTING FROM SUBCONTRACTOR AND SUPPLIER DELAYS,
FOR WHICH LIQUIDATED DAMAGES ARE PROVIDED BY THE GENERAL
CONTRACT, ARE UNALLOWABLE FOR EPA PARTICIPATION.
PARISH, VILLAGE OF NY,
EPA DOCKET NO. 02-84-AD20
(01/10/86)
2-128
-------
05/27/8'
129
SUBAGREEMENTS
GRL-880-500-000 FIXED PRICE
INCREASED ENGINEERING FEES UNDER A FIXED PRICE CONTRACT ARE
UNALLOWABLE WITHOUT AN EPA-APPROVED CONTRACT AMENDMENT OR
SUBMISSION OF A 5700-41 FORM.
PARISH, VILLAGE OF NY,
EPA DOCKET NO. 02-84-AD20
(01/10/86)
GRL-880-500-000 FIXED PRICE
COSTS QUESTIONED AND DISALLOWED AS A RESULT OF POST AWARD
AUDITS OF FIXED PRICE ENGINEERING SUBAGREEMENTS WHERE SUCH
COSTS ARE NOT OTHERWISE INELIGIBLE SERVICES, MAYBE
REINSTATED AS ALLOWABLE PROJECT COSTS.
MIAMI-DADE WATER C SEWER AUTHORITY FL,
EPA DOCKET NO. 04-84-AD18
(06/13/86)
GRL-880-600-000 PERCENTAGE OF CONSTRUCTION COST
THE COST OF RELOCATING A PUMP STATION BECAUSE OF THE IM-
POSSIBILITY OF OBTAINING AN EASEMENT FOR ITS ORIGINAL
LOCATION WITHOUT AN EXPENSIVE CONDEMNATION PROCEEDING IS
NOT ALLOWABLE.
A MAY 29, 1974 A/E CONTRACT PROVIDING FOR FEES ON A PCC
BASIS IS SUPERSEDED BY A SEPTEMBER 30, 1977 GRANT CONDITION
IMPOSING APPENDIX D REQUIREMENTS.
LENOX, TOWN OF NY,
EPA DOCKET NO. 02-84-AD09
(08/01/84)
2-129
-------
05/27/8'
130
SUBAGREEMENTS
GRL-880-600-000 PERCENTAGE OF CONSTRUCTION COST
THE CONSTRUCTION COST BASE FOR DETERMINING ALLOWABLE
PERCENTAGE OF CONSTRUCTION COST ENGINEERING COMPENSATION IS
LIMITED TO THE LOU SOIL PLUS CHANGE ORDERS APPROVED PRIOR
TO DECEMBER 17, 1975, IN ACCORDANCE WITH APPENDIX D TO
HO CFR PART 35, SUBPART E.
COOS BAY, CY OF OR,
EPA DOCKET NO. 10-84-AD01
(11/26/84)
GRL-880-600-000 PERCENTAGE OF CONSTRUCTION COST
WHERE 4 SEPARATE CONTRACTS FOR (1) GENERAL CONSTRUCTION,
(2) PLUMBING, (3) HEATING AND (4) ELECTRICAL WORK WERE
REQUIRED BY STATE LAW, IT WAS PROPER FOR THE A/E TO COMPUTE
DESIGN FEES, AS PROVIDED IN ITS CONTRACT, BY APPLYING THE
ASCE MANUAL 45 FEE CURVES TO THE AMOUNT OF EACH OF THE 4
CONTRACTS SEPARATELY RATHER THAN TO THEIR TOTAL AMOUNT.
TICONDEROGA, VILLAGE OF NY,
EPA DOCKET NO. 02-83-AD02
(04/30/85)
GRL-880-600-000 PERCENTAGE OF CONSTRUCTION COST
A/E DESIGN FEES FOR CONTRACTS AWARDED PRIOR TO 12/17/75
WHICH ARE BASED ON A PERCENTAGE OF THE CONSTRUCTION COST OF
THE PROJECT ARE LIMITED TO A PERCENTAGE OF THE LOWEST,
RESPONSIVE, RESPONSIBLE BIDDER IN ACCORDANCE WITH APPENDIX D
OF 40 CFR PART 35. CHANGE ORDERS FOR WORK PERFORMED AFTER
12/17/75 CAN ONLY BE REIMBURSED ON A DOCUMENTED COST BASIS.
WOONSOCKET RI,
EPA DOCKET NO. 01-85-AD01
(04/08/86)
2-130
-------
OS/27/87
131
SUBAGREEMENTS
GRL-880-600-000 PERCENTAGE OF CONSTRUCTION COST
REGARDLESS OF CONTRACT TERMS, THE BASE FOR COMPUTING
ALLOWABLE GRANT REIMBURSEMENT FOR A/E SERVICES PERFORMED
UNDER A 1957 PCC CONTRACT DOES NOT INCLUDE CHANGE ORDERS
APPROVED AFTER DECEMBER 17, 1975.
WEST PALM BEACH FL,
EPA DOCKET NO. 04-84-AD09
(07/18/86)
GRL-880-600-000 PERCENTAGE OF CONSTRUCTION COST
ENGINEERING SERVICE COSTS INCURRED, BILLED £ CLAIMED AFTER
THE SCHEDULED CONSTRUCTION COMPLETION DATE £ FOUND TO BE
FOR SERVICES INCLUDED W/IN THE SCOPE OF THE PCC PORTION OF
THE AGREEMENT, AS FULLY COMPENSATED, ARE NOT ALLOWABLE.
MCEUEN TN,
EPA DOCKET NO. 01-83-AD06
( 12/19/86)
GRL-880-700-000 PERFORMANCE
THE FEDERAL SHARE OF COSTS CLAIMED FOR CONSTRUCTION WORK
MUST BE REFUNDED WHERE IT IS DETERMINED THAT WORK PAID FOR
WAS NOT PERFORMED DUE TO FRAUDULENT MISREPRESENTATION BY
THE CONTRACTOR.
DYERSBURG, TN,
EPA DOCKET NO. 01-84-ADm
(08/11/86)
2-131
-------
05/27/87
132
SUBAGREEMENTS
GRL-880-700-000 PERFORMANCE
STANDARD OF REVIEW — WHERE A GRANTEE REASONABLY SHOULD HAVE
SOUGHT DAMAGES FROM A NON-PERFORMING CONTRACTOR AND FAILED
TO DO SO, THE DAMAGES IN QUESTION ARE NOT A REASONABLE AND
ALLOWABLE GRANT EXPENSE.
YORKTOWN, TOWN OF, ' IN,
EPA DOCKET NO. 05-86-AD02
(12/31/86)
GRL-880-780-000 SERVICE CHARGES
*-f •
UNDER LUMP SUM SUBCONTRACT, DESIGNATION OF FEE AS "SERVICE
CHARGE" ON PERIODIC BILLING IS IRRELEVANT TO ITS
ALLOWABILITY.
HUNTSVILLE, TX,
EPA DOCKET NO. 06-84-AD05
(06/27/81)
GRL-880-780-000 SERVICE CHARGES
UNDER AN ENGINEERING SUBAGREEMENT, SERVICE CHARGES BILLED
AS A PERCENTAGE OF SUBCONTRACT COSTS THAT ARE NOT SEPARATELY
SUPPORTED BY ACCOUNTING RECORDS ARE UNALLOWABLE.
MIAMI-DADE WATER £ SEWER AUTHORITY FL,
EPA DOCKET NO. 04-84-AD18
(06/13/86)
2-132
-------
05/27/87
133
SUBAGREEMENTS
6RL-880-780-000 SERVICE CHARGES
SERVICE CHARGES FOR MULTIPLIER CONTRACTS ENTERED INTO PRIOR
TO JULY 1, 1975 ARE ALLOWABLE TO THE EXTENT THAT THEY ARE
REASONABLE AND NECESSARY.
RUSSIAN RIVER COUNTY SANITATION DISTRICT CA,
EPA DOCKET NO. 09-8H-AD06
(07/03/86)
GRL-880-780-000 SERVICE CHARGES
UNDER AN ENGINEERING SUBAGREEMENT, SERVICE CHARGES BILLED AS
A PERCENTAGE OF SUBCONTRACT COSTS THAT ARE NOT SEPARATELY
SUPPORTED BY ACCOUNTING RECORDS ARE UNALLOWABLE.
WEST PALM BEACH FL,
EPA DOCKET NO. 04-84-AD09
(07/18/86)
GRL-880-900-000 TERMINATION
IN THIS CASE, ALTHOUGH THE GRANTEE DISCONTINUED WORK ON THE
PROJECT BASED UPON RESULTS OF A FEASIBILITY STUDY, "GOOD
CAUSE" DID NOT EXIST TO TERMINATE THE PROJECT WORK WHERE THE
GRANTEE FAILED TO PROVIDE THE STUDY, FAILED TO PROVIDE OTHER
DOCUMENTARY SUPPORT FOR ITS ALLEGATION, AND FAILED TO DEMON-
STRATE THE STUDY'S VALUE.
COLUMBUS, CITY OF, JACKSON PIKE WWTP OH,
EPA DOCKET NO. 05-84-AD12
(01/15/86)
2-133
-------
05/27/87
13M
SUBAGREEMENTS
GRL-880-900-000 TERMINATION
WHERE U.S. EPA FINDS NO "GOOD CAUSE" TO TERMINATE WORK ON A
PROJECT, THE U.S. EPA AWARD OFFICIAL HAS THE DISCRETION TO
TERMINATE OR ANNUL THE GRANT.
COLUMBUS, CITY OF, JACKSON PIKE WWTP OH,
EPA DOCKET NO. 05-84-AD12
(01/15/86)
GRL-880-900-000 TERMINATION
"GOOD CAUSE," MERITING TERMINATION OF WORK ON A PROJECT, IS
A DETERMINATION MADE BY THE U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AGENCY (U.S. EPA) PROJECT OFFICER, WITH THE CONCURRENCE OF
THE U.S. EPA GRANT APPROVING OFFICIAL.
COLUMBUS, CITY OF, JACKSON PIKE WWTP OH,
EPA DOCKET NO. 05-84-AD12
(01/15/86)
2-134
-------
05/27/87
135
WASTEWATER TREATMENT WORKS CONSTRUCTION GRANTS
GRL-960-020-000 ABANDONMENT OF TREATMENT WORKS
THE COST OF ECUIPMENT PURCHASED UNDER A CONSTRUCTION GRANT
AND FOUND TO BE INOPERABLE OR NOT IN USE AT THE FINAL IN-
SPECTION AND/OR FINAL AUDIT, MAY BE REINSTATED AS ALLOWABLE
COSTS ONLY UPON GRANTEE DEMONSTRATION THAT THE ECUIPMENT
ITEMS ARE IN PROPER WORKING ORDER AND IN ACTIVE USE IN THE
OPERABLE TREATMENT WORKS.
MARION, SC,
EPA DOCKET NO. 04-84-AD02
(04/09/85)
GRL-960-040-000 ACSUISITION OF TREATMENT WORKS
THE AGENCY'S LONG STANDING POLICY HAS FAVORED FUNDING OF
CONSTRUCTION OF NEW FACILITIES OVER FUNDING PURCHASE OF
EXISTING FACILITIES. THEREFORE, PURCHASE OF EXISTING
FACILITIES MAY ONLY BE CONSIDERED GRANT ELIGIBLE IF THE
PURCHASE PROVIDES NEW POLLUTION CONTROL BENEFITS.
COLE COUNTY SEWER DISTRICT MO,
EPA DOCKET NO. 07-84-AD05
(01/02/87)
GRL-960-060-000 ADDITIONS TO TREATMENT WORKS
EPA CANNOT AWARD A CONDITIONAL GRANT FOR ADDITIONS TO A
TREATMENT WORKS TO REMEDY A POTENTIAL DESIGN DEFECT WHICH
MIGHT PREVENT THE FACILITY FROM MEETING ITS DESIGN CAPACITY.
LAFAYETTE, CO,
EPA DOCKET NO. 08-83-AD01
(01/09/84)
2-135
-------
05/27/87
136
WASTEWATER TREATMENT WORKS CONSTRUCTION GRANTS
GRL-960-100-000 AESTHETIC FEATURES
LANDSCAPING PROVIDED, IN PART, MITIGATED MEASURE IN
ACCORDANCE WITH EIS.
JEROME, CY OF ID,
EPA DOCKET NO. 10-8S-AD05
(07/31/86)
GRL-960-mO-OOO ALLOWANCE FOR PLANNING AND DESIGN
A GRANTEE MAY NOT CLAIM AS ELIGIBLE THE COST OF FACILITIES
WHICH IT ACBUIRED WITHOUT PAYMENT ORI:rCOST IN ACCORDANCE WITH
THE FWPCA CONSTRUCTION AND ENGINEERING GRANTS AND ENGINEER-
ING HANDBOOK .
THE COSTS ASSOCIATED WITH THE PERFORMANCE OF CONSTRUCTION
INSPECTION SERVICES WITHOUT AN ENGINEERING AGREEMENT ARE
INELIGIBLE IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE FWPCA CONSTRUCTION GRANTS
AND ENGINEERING PROGRAM HANDBOOK.
MYERSVILLE, TOWN OF, FREDERICK COUNTY MD,
EPA DOCKET NO. 03-85-AD27
(03/02/87)
GRL-960-160-000 BRAND NAME OR E2UAL SPECIFICATIONS
COMPETITIVE PROCUREMENT, WHERE ECUIPMENT IS SPECIFIED UNDER
THE "TWO BRAND NAMES OR EfiUAL" PROVISION OF HO CFR 35.936-
13(A), EPA PARTICIPATION IS LIMITED TO THE LOWEST PRICE
EfiUIVALENT BRAND UPON RECEIPT OF BIDS. THE COST DIFFERENCE
BETWEEN THE LOWEST PRICE EQUIVALENT BRAND C THE HIGHER COST
OF THE BRAND PURCHASED BY THE GRANTEE IS UNALLOWABLE.
BARDSTOWN KY,
EPA DOCKET NO. 04-85-AD16
(02/26/87)
2-136
-------
05/27/87
137
WASTEWATER TREATMENT WORKS CONSTRUCTION GRANTS
GRL-960-220-000 COLLECTORS AND INTERCEPTORS
DETERMINING WHETHER A TOWN IS A "SMALL COMMUNITY" W/IN THE
MEANING OF HO C.F.R. 35.2005(B)(HO) IS W/IN A STATE'S DIS-
CRETION.
COHASSET, TOWN OF MA,
EPA DOCKET NO. 01-8H-AD06
(06/18/85)
GRL-960-220-000 COLLECTORS AND INTERCEPTORS
INTERCEPTOR, COLLECTION SEWERS OR PUMP STATIONS SERVING
PRIMARILY FUTURE DEVELOPMENT ARE NOT ELIGIBLE FOR EPA GRANT
ASSISTANCE.
VALDEZ, CY OF AK,
EPA DOCKET NO. 10-85-AD06
(10/15/86)
GRL-960-260-000 CONTRACTOR CLAIMS
RETAINAGE AMOUNT MUST REFLECT ACTUAL AS-BUILT COSTS.
CREDIT FOR WORK NOT PERFORMED MUST BE DEDUCTED.
BISMARK ND,
EPA DOCKET NO. 08-86-AD01
( 11/05/86)
2-137
-------
05/27/87
138
WASTEWATER TREATMENT WORKS CONSTRUCTION GRANTS
GRL-960-260-000 CONTRACTOR CLAIMS
THE GRANTEE HAS THE BURDEN OF SUBSTANTIATING, WITH ADEQUATE
DOCUMENTATION, THAT COSTS OF A LUMP SUM ARBITRATION AWARD IN
FAVOR OF A CONTRACTOR AGAINST THE GRANTEE ARE REASONABLE,
NECESSARY AND NOT THE RESULT OF MISMANAGEMENT BY THE GRANTEE
OR THE IMPROPER ACTION OF OTHERS, AND THUS ALLOWABLE.
ONEIDA COUNTY, NY,
EPA DOCKET NO. 02-85-AD19
(12/16/86)
GRL-960-260-000 CONTRACTOR CLAIMS
CONTRACTOR CLAIM FOR DIFFERING SITE CONDITION IS
UNALLOWABLE FOR GRANT FUNDING WHERE GRANTEE FAILED
TO PERFORM AN ADEQUATE PRECONSTRUCTION SITE
INVESTIGATION.
SAN DIEGO, CITY OF CA,
EPA DOCKET NO. 09-86-AD13
(02/25/87)
GRL-960-300-000 COST EFFECTIVENESS
ALTHOUGH AN OVERALL PROJECT MUST BE, £ IS, THE MOST COST-EF-
FECTIVE ALTERNATIVE, CERTAIN COMPONENTS OF THAT PROJECT MAY
STILL BE INELIGIBLE FOR EPA GRANT FUNDING.
COHASSET, TOWN OF MA,
EPA DOCKET NO. 01-8f-AD06
(06/18/85)
2-138
-------
05/27/87
139
WASTEMATER TREATMENT WORKS CONSTRUCTION GRANTS
GRL-960-300-000 COST EFFECTIVENESS
THE EXCESSIVE AND UNNECESSARY COSTS OF CONSTRUCTING A
PORTION OF A TREATMENT WORKS AT A LOCATION OTHER THAN
THE COST-EFFECTIVE LOCATION IS NOT ALLOWABLE FOR EPA
PARTICIPATION.
CROSSVILLE TN,
EPA DOCKET NO. 0»*-83-AD02
(02/20/86)
GRL-960-300-000 COST EFFECTIVENESS
THE COST OF CEMENT TILE ROOFING IS LIMITED TO THE COST OF
THE MOST COST EFFECTIVE ALTERNATIVE (COMPOSITION TILE) WHERE
THE CEMENT TILE OFFERS NO SIGNIFICANT BENEFIT OVER THE
COMPOSITION TILE.
RUSSIAN RIVER COUNTY SANITATION DISTRICT CA,
EPA DOCKET NO. 09-84-AD06
(07/03/86)
GRL-960-300-000 COST EFFECTIVENESS
EPA FUNDING IS LIMITED TO GRANT ELIGIBLE COMPONENTS OF THE
COST EFFECTIVE, ENVIRONMENTALLY SOUND ALTERNATIVE.
VALDEZ, CY OF AK,
EPA DOCKET NO. 10-85-AD06
(10/15/86)
2-139
-------
05/27/87
140
WASTEWATER TREATMENT WORKS CONSTRUCTION GRANTS
GRL-960-305-000 COST OVERRUNS
ENGINEERING COSTS INCURRED BY A GRANTEE IN EXCESS OF AN
ESTABLISHED COST CEILING ARE NOT ELIGIBLE FOR EPA FUNDING
WHERE THE AWARD OF SUCH COSTS TO THE GRANTEE WOULD VIOLATE
A STATE RESOLUTION LIMITING RECIPIENTS TO ONE ALLOWABLE
PER STEP FOR EACH GRANT.
MORRO BAY, CITY OF CA,
EPA DOCKET NO. 09-84-AD17
(09/30/86)
GRL-960-305-000 COST OVERRUNS
WHERE THE GRANTEE'S SUBMISSION OF RECORDS FAILED TO PRODUCE
SUFFICIENT DOCUMENTATION TO IDENTIFY WHETHER THE DISPUTED
COSTS INCURRED AFTER THE AUTHORIZED CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT
COMPLETION DATES WERE EXCESS COSTS OR COST OVER-RUNS RESULT-
ING FROM THE ACTION OF THE RECIPIENT OR THE CONTRACTOR,
THOSE COSTS WERE PROPERLY DISALLOWED FOR LACK OF DOCUMENTA-
TION.
GAS CITY UTILITIES, GAS CITY, IN,
EPA DOCKET NO. 05-86-AD21
(03/20/87)
GRL-960-310-000 COST SHARE
FEDERAL SHARE - UPON THE AWARD OF A GRANT, EPA HAS A
CONSTRUCTUAL OBLIGATION TO FUND THE FEDERAL SHARE OF
PROJECT COSTS DETERMINED TO BE ELIGIBLE AND ALLOWABLE COSTS
W/IN THE SCOPE OF THE GRANT AS AWARDED, INCLUDING GRANT
AMENDMENTS.
BEREA, KY,
EPA DOCKET NO. 01-85-AD25
(08/23/85)
2-140
-------
05/27/87
WASTEWATER TREATMENT WORKS CONSTRUCTION GRANTS
GRL-960-340-000 DESIGN
ENGINEERING DESIGN COSTS INCURRED W/IN THE SCOPE OF THE
APPROVED PROJECT AS AWARDED ARE NOT UNALLOWABLE FOR THE
SOLE REASON THAT A PORTION OF THE DESIGNED FACILITY DOES
NOT PROCEED TO CONSTRUCTION.
MIAMI-DADE WATER 6 SEWER AUTHORITY FL,
EPA DOCKET NO. 04-84-AD18
(06/13/86)
GRL-960-345-000 DESIGN AND CONSTRUCT PROJECTS(STEP 2 G 3)
IT IS W/IN A STATE'S DISCRETION NOT TO USE EPA GRANT FUNDS
FOR STEP 2 £ 3 PROJECTS, G IT IS ALSO W/IN ITS DISCRETION TO
EXCLUDE STEP 2 G 3 GRANTS FROM THE FUNDABLE PORTIONS OF ITS
FY PRIORITY SYSTEMS - PROVIDED THAT THE STATE EXCERCISES
THIS DISCRETIONARY APPROACH CONSISTENTLY IN REGARD TO ALL
COMMUNITIES W/PROPOSED STEP 2 C 3 PROJECTS.
COHASSET, TOWN OF MA,
EPA DOCKET NO. 01-84-AD06
(06/18/85)
GRL-960-350-000 DESIGN/CONSTRUCT CONTRACTS
SUBCONTRACTS FOR LESS THAN $10,000 DO NOT REQUIRE A BILATER-
ALLY EXECUTED WRITTEN AGREEMENT, AND SUCH COSTS MAY BE
ALLOWED ON THE BASIS OF ADEQUATE DOCUMENTATION.
PRASA / BASORA G RODRIGUEZ PR,
EPA DOCKET NO. 02-84-AD22
(02/10/86)
2-141
-------
05/27/87
142
WASTEWATER TREATMENT WORKS CONSTRUCTION GRANTS
GRL-960-400-000 FEDERAL FACILITIES
ALTHOUGH A U.S. NAVY PAYMENT OF $400,000 IS REFERRED TO AS A
"FACILITIES CHARGE" IN AN AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE TOWN AND THE
NAVY, IT IS FOR THE "CAPITAL COST" OF THE WASTEWATER TREAT-
MENT SYSTEM.
GROTON, TOWN OF CT,
EPA DOCKET NO. 01-86-AD01
(03/31/87)
GRL-960-520-000 INNOVATIVE AND ALTERNATIVE TECHNOLOGY
A PROVEN CONVENTIONAL TECHNOLOGY CANNOT BE FUNDED AS
INNOVATIVE TECHNOLOGY.
LITTLE FALLS, MN,
EPA DOCKET NO. 05-83-AD02
(04/04/84)
GRL-960-520-000 INNOVATIVE AND ALTERNATIVE TECHNOLOGY
TRANSMISSION LINE FOR RAW SEWAGE CANNOT BE FUNDED AS (I/A)
ALTERNATIVE TECHNOLOGY.
MORRILTON, CITY OF AR,
EPA DOCKET NO. 06-84-AD04
(08/06/84)
2-142
-------
05/27/87
143
WASTEWATER TREATMENT WORKS CONSTRUCTION GRANTS
GRL-960-520-000 INNOVATIVE AND ALTERNATIVE TECHNOLOGY
GRANTEE DOES NOT &UALIFY FOR REPLACEMENT FUNDING UNDER
HO CFR 35.908(C) WHERE GRANTEE HAS FAILED TO REFUTE EVIDENCE
THAT FAILURE OF THE TREATMENT WORKS WAS CAUSED BY NEGLI-
GENCE.
GILROY, CITY OF CA,
EPA DOCKET NO. 09-8H-AD23
(02/19/85)
GRL-960-520-000 INNOVATIVE AND ALTERNATIVE TECHNOLOGY
STATES MAY, AT THEIR DISCRETION, REFUSE TO GIVE ADDITIONAL
PRIORITY POINTS FOR THE USE OF SPECIFIED ALTERNATIVE TECH-
NOLOGIES; HOWEVER, STATES MAY NOT USE THEIR PRIORITY SYSTEM
TO MAKE ELIGIBILITY DETERMINATIONS.
COHASSET, TOWN OF MA,
EPA DOCKET NO. 01-8M-AD06
(06/18/85)
GRL-960-520-000 INNOVATIVE AND ALTERNATIVE TECHNOLOGY
A TWENTY-YEAR SUPPLY OF SPECIALIZED BACTERIA TO BE USED FOR
NITRIFICATION IN AN INNOVATIVE PROCESS IS AN OPERATING EX-
PENSE WHICH IS NOT ALLOWABLE FOR FEDERAL FUNDING.
HORNELL, CITY OF NY,
EPA DOCKET NO. 02-85-AD03
(08/13/85)
2-143
-------
05/27/87
WASTEWATER TREATMENT WORKS CONSTRUCTION GRANTS
GRL-960-520-000 INNOVATIVE AND ALTERNATIVE TECHNOLOGY
.THE CONVENTIONAL COMPONENTS OF WASTEWATER TREATMENT
FACILITIES UTILIZING ALTERNATIVE TECHNOLOGY ARE NOT
ELIGIBLE FOR INCREASED FEDERAL FUNDING.
VENTURA COUNTY CA,
EPA DOCKET NO. 09-83-AD04
(09/08/86)
GRL-960-520-000 INNOVATIVE AND ALTERNATIVE TECHNOLOGY
THE USE OF A PROCESS WHICH ENTAILS MINIMAL RISK AND PROVIDES
LITTLE ADVANCEMENT OVER THE STATE OF THE ART DOES NOT fiUALI-
FY FOR AN INNOVATIVE TECHNOLOGICAL BONUS.
ASBURY PARK, CITY OF NJ,
EPA DOCKET NO. 02-86-AD01
(09/24/86)
GRL-960-520-000 INNOVATIVE AND ALTERNATIVE TECHNOLOGY
FOR RELATED SLUDGE PROCESSING FACILITIES PRIOR TO LAND AP-
PLICATION TO BE ELIGIBLE FOR ALTERNATIVE TECHNOLOGY FUNDING
THE GRANTEE MUST HAVE A LONG TERM COMMITMENT FOR THE USE OF
A SITE.
ASBURY PARK, CITY OF NJ,
EPA DOCKET NO. 02-86-AD01
(09/24/86)
2-144
-------
05/27/87
145
WASTEWATER TREATMENT WORKS CONSTRUCTION GRANTS
GRL-960-550-000 LEGAL AND TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE
ANY COSTS INCURRED IN AN APPEAL OF A DISPUTE DECISION
OFFICIAL'S FINAL DECISION ARE CONSIDERED WITHIN THE
DEFINITION OF "LEGAL EXPENSES FOR THE PROSECUTION OF
CLAIMS AGAINST THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT" IN FEDERAL
MANAGEMENT CIRCULAR 74-4, AND HENCE ARE UNALLOWABLE FOR
GRANT PARTICIPATION.
TUOLUMNE REGIONAL WATER DISTRICT CA,
EPA DOCKET NO. 09-84-AD40
(03/21/86)
GRL-960-550-000 LEGAL AND TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE
LEGAL FEES INCURRED IN NEGOTIATING AN ELIGIBLE CHANGE ORDER
OR A SETTLEMENT TO A CONTRACTOR'S CLAIM PRIOR TO 2/17/84
ARE ALLOWABLE IF THEY ARE REASONABLE, NECESSARY AND SATISFY
THE REBUIREMENTS OF 40 C.F.R. SECTION 30.900 - 1(A) AND
SECTION 35.935-11(A)(1).
TUOLUMNE REGIONAL WATER DISTRICT CA,
EPA DOCKET NO. 09-84-AD40
(03/21/86)
GRL-960-620-000 OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE
A/E FEES SUBSTANTIATED BY DOCUMENTATION SHOWING THE AMOUNT
ALLOCABLE TO THE ELIGIBLE PORTION OF THE PROJECT ARE
ALLOWABLE.
MEXICO, VILLGE OF NY,
EPA DOCKET NO. 02-84-AD08
(02/20/85)
2-145
-------
WASTEWATER TREATMENT WORKS CONSTRUCTION GRANTS
GRL-960-640-000
PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS
REASONABLE AND SUBSTANTIATED CONSTRUCTION AND ENGINEERING/
INSPECTION COSTS FOR PUBLICLY OWNED TREATMENT WORKS ARE AL-
LOWABLE EVEN THOUGH THE PROJECT DEVIATES FR011 SPECIFICATIONS
IF THE DEVIATION DOES NOT AFFECT AESTHETIC, FUNCTIONAL OR
DURABILITY FEATURES.
STAFFORD MUNICIPAL UTILITIES AUTHORITY
EPA DOCKET NO. 02-84-AD18
(10/01/84)
05/27/87
146
NY,
GRL-960-640-000
PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS
FAILURE TO PROVIDE ADEQUATE SUPERVISION G INSPECTION DURING
CONSTRUCTION, IN VIOLATION OF 40 CFR 35.935-8(1980), IS A
BASIS FOR DISALLOWANCE OF SUPERVISION, INSPECTION AND RELA-
TED CONSTRUCTION COSTS.
NORTH WILDWOOD, CITY OF
EPA DOCKET NO. 02-85-AD07
(03/25/86)
NY,
GRL-960-640-000
PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS
EPA'S APPROVAL OF PLANS AND SPECS WITH KNOWLEDGE OF EXTENT
OF LANDSCAPING IS CONSIDERED COMMITMENT OF FUNDING.
JEROME, CY OF
EPA DOCKET NO. 10-85-AD05
(07/31/86)
ID,
2-146
-------
05/27/8'
147
WASTEWATER TREATMENT WORKS CONSTRUCTION GRANTS
GRL-960-700-000 REDESIGN COSTS
REDESIGN COSTS RESULTING FROM REVISION OF THE STATE PRIORITY
SYSTEM AND PRIORITY LIST, AND NOT A CHANGE IN FEDERAL RE-
2UIREMENTS, ARE UNALLOWABLE PROJECT COSTS.
CAMDEN COUNTY N J,
EPA DOCKET NO. 02-84-AD07
(08/01/84)
GRL-960-700-000 REDESIGN COSTS
THE COST OF CORRECTING DESIGN OMISSIONS IS ALLOWABLE ONLY TO
THE EXTENT THAT THE COST WOULD HAVE BEEN NECESSARY HAD THE
FACILITY BEEN PROPERLY DESIGNED INITIALLY.
SAN FRANCISCO, CITY AND COUNTY CA,
EPA DOCKET NO. 09-83-AD06
(02/19/85)
GRL-960-700-000 REDESIGN COSTS
THE COST OF CORRECTING DESIGN ERRORS IS NOT A REASONABLE
COST WITHIN THE MEANING OF 40 CFR 30.705 AND FEDERAL
MANAGEMENT CIRCULAR 74-4, WHERE THE ERROR WAS ONE THAT A
DESIGN ENGINEER, USING THE SKILL AND COMPETENCE EXPECTED
FROM THOSE WHO ACCEPT RESPONSIBILITY FOR THE DESIGN OF
MAJOR WASTEWATER TREATMENT PROJECTS, SHOULD NOT HAVE MADE.
SAN FRANCISCO, CITY AND COUNTY CA,
EPA DOCKET NO. 09-83-AD06
(02/19/85)
2-147
-------
05/27/87
148
WASTEWATER TREATMENT WORKS CONSTRUCTION GRANTS
GRL-960-700-000 REDESIGN COSTS
REDESIGN COSTS NOT NECESSITATED BY A CHANGE IN FEDERAL
REQUIREMENTS ARE UNALLOWABLE.
CHARLES COUNTY COMMUNITY COLLEGE MD,
EPA DOCKET NO. 03-84-AD64
(04/24/85)
GRL-960-700-000 REDESIGN COSTS
ALTHOUGH PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS FOR A 75 MOD CAPACITY
TREATMENT FACILITY WERE 982 COMPLETE, THE STATE OF NEW
JERSEY URGED CAMDEN COUNTY TO SEGMENT THE PROJECT AND BUILD
A 38 MGD PLANT. CAMDEN COUNTY REVISED ITS PLANS AND
SPECIFICATIONS ACCORDINGLY. HOWEVER, THE REDESIGN COSTS
INCURRED BY CAMDEN ARE NOT ALLOWABLE FOR FEDERAL GRANT
FUNDING BECAUSE NEW JERSEY ACTED ON ITS OWN INITIATIVE IN
RE2UIRING CAMDEN TO REDESIGN THE PROJECT.
CAMDEN COUNTY MUNICIPAL AUTHORITY NJ,
EPA DOCKET NO. AA-84-AD06
(10/25/85)
GRL-960-700-000 REDESIGN COSTS
(1) COSTS INCURRED FOR THE REDESIGN OF PUMP STATIONS C
INTERCEPTOR LINES DUE TO THE DIFFICULTY IN OBTAINING
EASEMENTS FOR THE ORIGINAL LOCATIONS/ROUTES W/OUT EXPENSIVE
CONDEMNATION PROCEEDINGS ARE UNALLOWABLE. (2) REDESIGN
COSTS INCURRED TO COMPLY W/CHANGES IN STATE CRITERIA
GOVERNING CERTAIN EQUIPMENT SPECIFICATIONS ARE NOT
ALLOWABLE.
MIAMI-DADE WATER C SEWER AUTHORITY FL,
EPA DOCKET NO. 04-84-AD18
(06/13/86)
2-148
-------
05/27/87
WASTEWATER TREATMENT WORKS CONSTRUCTION GRANTS
GRL-960-740-000 REGULATIONS
FAILURE BY A GRANTEE TO SUBMIT TO A DELEGATED STATE AGENCY A
CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT AS RE2UIRED BY 10 CFR 35.935-10 MAKES
THE COSTS INCURRED UNDER THAT CONTRACT UNALLOWABLE FOR GRANT
FUNDING.
ATLANTIC COUNTY UTILITIES AUTHORITY NJ,
EPA DOCKET NO. 02-85-AD23
(07/31/86)
GRL-960-740-000 REGULATIONS
THE REGULATIONS APPLICABLE TO A 1970 GRANT RE2UIRE THAT A
CONTRIBUTION FROM ANOTHER FEDERAL AGENCY TOWARD THE CAPITAL
COST OF A WASTEWATER TREATMENT PROJECT MUST BE USED TO RE-
DUCE THE GRANT ENTITLEMENT.
GROTON, TOWN OF CT,
EPA DOCKET NO. 01-86-AD01
(03/31/87)
GRL-960-760-000 REIMBURSEMENT
INCREASED ARCHITECTUAL/ENGINEERING COSTS INCURRED FOR ADMIN-
STRATION RESULTING FROM CONTRACTOR'S FAILURE TO PERFORM ARE
UNALLOWABLE FOR EPA PARTICIPATION.
OLD ORCHARD BEACH, TOWN OF ME,
EPA DOCKET NO. 01-84-AD01
(03/31/87)
2-149
-------
OS/27/87
150
WASTEWATER TREATMENT WORKS CONSTRUCTION GRANTS
GRL-960-780-000 REPLACEMENT OF TREATMENT WORKS
REPLACEMENT COST OF FAILED EQUIPMENT OF PREVIOUSLY FUNDED
TREATMENT IS INELIGIBLE FOR FEDERAL GRANT PARTICIPATION.
CHESANING, VILLAGE OF, MI,
EPA DOCKET NO. 05-83-AD01
(04/OH/8H)
GRL-960-780-000 REPLACEMENT OF TREATMENT WORKS
GRANTEE DOES NOT QUALIFY FOR REPLACEMENT FUNDING UNDER
40 CFR 35.908CC) WHERE GRANTEE HAS FAILED TO REFUTE EVIDENCE
THAT FAILURE OF THE TREATMENT WORKS WAS CAUSED BY NEGLI-
GENCE.
GILROY, CITY OF CA,
EPA DOCKET NO. 09-84-AD23
(02/19/85)
GRL-960-880-000 SEWER USE ORDINANCE
COSTS ASSOCIATED WITH THE PREPARATION OF A SEWER USE
ORDINANCE ARE CONSIDERED A NORMAL FUNCTION OF GOVERNMENT AND
NOT ALLOWABLE FOR EPA PARTICIPATION.
MT. PLEASANT TN,
EPA DOCKET NO. 04-8H-AD25
(09/22/86)
2-150
-------
05/27/87
151
UASTEWATER TREATMENT WORKS CONSTRUCTION GRANTS
GRL-960-900-000 SITE ACfiUISITION
THE COST OF REROUTING A SEWER LINE DUE TO THE GRANTEE'S
FAILURE TO OBTAIN AN EASEMENT IS UNALLOWABLE.
HERMITAGE, TOWN OF AR,
EPA DOCKET NO. 06-84-AD01
(05/04/81)
GRL-960-900-000 SITE ACfiUISITION
THE COST OF RELOCATING A PUMP STATION BECAUSE OF THE IM-
POSSIBILITY OF OBTAINING AN EASEMENT FOR ITS ORIGINAL
LOCATION WITHOUT AN EXPENSIVE CONDEMNATION PROCEEDING IS
NOT ALLOWABLE.
A MAY 29, 1974 A/E CONTRACT PROVIDING FOR FEES ON A PCC
BASIS IS SUPERSEDED BY A SEPTEMBER 30, 1977 GRANT CONDITION
IMPOSING APPENDIX D REQUIREMENTS.
LENOX, TOWN OF NY,
EPA DOCKET NO. 02-84-AD09
(08/01/84)
GRL-960-900-000 SITE ACfiUISITION
THE COST OF NATURALLY OCCURRING WETLANDS, PURCHASED TO
SERVE AS A COMPONENT OF THE OPERABLE TREATMENT WORKS, IS
NOT AN ELIGIBLE COST UNDER AN EPA CONSTRUCTION GRANT.
ANDREWS, SC,
EPA DOCKET NO. 04-84-AD27
(03/22/85)
2-151
-------
05/27/87
152
WASTEWATER TREATMENT WORKS CONSTRUCTION GRANTS
GRL-960-900-000 SITE ACCUISITION
ITHE ACCUISITION OF REPLACEMENT WETLANDS IS OUTSIDE THE SCOPE
OF THE COSTS OF COMPLYING WITH THE NATIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL
POLICY ACT (NEPA) SINCE 40 CFR 35.910-KH) DOES NOT REFER TO
THE COSTS OF SUBSTANTIVE MEASURES NECESSARY TO MITIGATE
ADVERSE ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS BUT ONLY RELATES TO THE COSTS
OF COMPLYING WITH NEPA PROCEDURES.
SACRAMENTO COUNTY CA,
EPA DOCKET NO. 09-8U-AD24
(06/06/85)
GRL-960-900-000 SITE AC2UISITION
LAND ELIGIBILITY - THE CLEAN WATER ACT PROHIBITS THE GRANT
FUNDING OF REPLACEMENT LAND PURCHASE AS A WETLANDS MITIGA-
TION MEASURE SINCE TITLE II OF THE CLEAN WATER ACT (CWA)
LIMITS CONSTRUCTION GRANT FUNDING TO LAND USED AS AN
INTEGRAL PART OF THE TREATMENT PROCESS OR FOR THE ULTIMATE
DISPOSAL OF RESIDUES RESULTING FROM THE TREATMENT PROCESS.
SACRAMENTO COUNTY CA,
EPA DOCKET NO. 09-84-AD24
(06/06/85)
GRL-960-900-000 SITE ACQUISITION
EASEMENT COSTS - NORMALLY, EASEMENT COSTS ARE NOT ALLOWABLE
BECAUSE THEY ARE NOT NECESSARY FOR THE COSTRUCTION OF A
TREATMENT WORKS PROJECT.
GRAND RAPIDS TOWNSHIP, MI,
EPA DOCKET NO. 05-86-AD26
( 12/30/86)
2-152
-------
05/27/87
153
WASTEWATER TREATMENT WORKS CONSTRUCTION GRANTS
GRL-960-900-000 SITE AC2UISITION
COST OF PROVIDING A NEW DRIVEWAY FOR AN INDIVIDUAL WHOSE
PROPERTY, INCLUDING EXISTING DRIVEWAY, WAS TAKEN IN CONNEC-
TION WITH THE GRANT PROJECT IS UNALLOWABLE AS AN EXPENSE OF
ACQUIRING THE REAL PROPERTY FOR THE PROJECT SITE.
SUFFOLK COUNTY SEWER DISTRICT NO. 3 NY,
EPA DOCKET NO. 02-84-AD21
(02/12/87)
GRL-960-940-000 STATES
FAILURE BY A GRANTEE TO SUBMIT TO A DELEGATED STATE AGENCY A
CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT AS RECUIRED BY tO CFR 35.935-10 MAKES
THE COSTS INCURRED UNDER THAT CONTRACT UNALLOWABLE FOR GRANT
FUNDING.
ATLANTIC COUNTY UTILITIES AUTHORITY NJ,
EPA DOCKET NO. 02-85-AD23
(07/31/86)
GRL-960-9tO-200 CERTIFICATION
A GRANTEE IS NOT ENTITLED TO GRANT FUNDING FOR INELIGIBLE
FACILITIES EVEN THOUGH A GRANT INCREASE INCLUDING SUCH
INELIGIBLE WORKS WAS INADVERTENTLY CERTIFIED BY THE STATE
AGENCY.
VALDEZ, CY OF AK,
EPA DOCKET NO. 10-85-AD06
( 10/15/86)
2-153
-------
05/27/87
154
WASTEWATER TREATMENT WORKS CONSTRUCTION GRANTS
GRL-960-940-300 DELEGATION TO STATE AGENCIES
-DELEGATED STATES HAVE SUBSTANTIAL DISCRETION IN ADMINISTER-
ING THE CONSTRUCTION GRANTS PROGRAM, PROVIDED THAT THEY DO
NOT CONTRAVENE FEDERAL LAW, REGULATIONS, OR POLICIES.
COHASSET, TOWN OF MA,
EPA DOCKET NO. 01-84-AD06
(06/18/85)
GRL-960-940-300 DELEGATION TO STATE AGENCIES
ON THE MERITS THE STATE AGENCY DETERMINATION OF UNALLOWA-
BILITY IS AFFIRMED BECAUSE THE COSTS CLAIMED WERE FOR:
(1) A/E FEES NOT COVERED BY A STEP 2 GRANT, (2) CONSTRUCTION
EXPENSES UNDER AN UNAPPROVED CONTRACT PROCURED BY NON-COM-
PETETIVE NEGOTIATION, (3) NORMAL EXPENSES OF DOING BUSINESS,
(4) UNDOCUMENTED LEGAL FEES AND (5) INTEREST CHARGES.
N.Y. CITY DEPT. OF ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION NY,
EPA DOCKET NO. 02-85-AD14
(01/07/86)
GRL-960-940-300 DELEGATION TO STATE AGENCIES
A REQUEST FOR REVIEW BY THE REGIONAL ADMINISTRATOR OF A FI-
NAL DECISION OF A DELEGATED STATE AGENCY FILED 58 DAYS AFTER
THE RECEIPT OF THAT DECISION BY THE GRANTEE AND WHICH DOES
NOT INCLUDE THE INFORMATION RE2UIRED BY 40 CFR 35.3030(8) IS
SUBJECT TO SUMMARY DISMISSAL.
N.Y. CITY DEPT. OF ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION NY,
EPA DOCKET NO. 02-85-AD14
(01/07/86)
2-154
-------
05x27/87
15S
WASTEWATER TREATMENT WORKS CONSTRUCTION GRANTS
GRL-960-940-300 DELEGATION TO STATE AGENCIES
IT IS NOT REGION II'S POLICY TO GRANT A REQUEST FOR REVIEW
OF A STATE AGENCY'S FINAL DECISION ON A GRANT RELATED NATTER
WHEN THE RECORD PRESENTED TO EPA INCLUDES DOCUMENTATION
THAT, WHILE AVAILABLE, WAS NOT SUBMITTED TO NYSDEC AND,
THEREFORE, WAS NOT REVIEWED AT THE STATE LEVEL. THAT POLICY
IS PARTICULARLY APPROPRIATE IN A CASE SUCH AS THIS WHERE THE
ADDITIONAL DOCUMENTATION IS EXTENSIVE AND OF A DETAILED
TECHNICAL NATURE. INITIAL REVIEW OF SUCH DOCUMENTATION BY
THE STATE AGENCY TO WHICH HAS BEEN DELEGATED THE RESPONSIBI-
LITY TO MAKE THE INITIAL DECISION IS INDISPENSABLE TO A REA-
SONED REVIEW OF THAT DECISION BY EPA.
WOODRIDGE, VILLAGE OF NY,
EPA DOCKET NO. 02-86-AD16
( 12/04/86)
GRL-960-940-600 PRIORITY SYSTEM AND LIST
REDESIGN COSTS RESULTING FROM REVISION OF THE STATE PRIORITY
SYSTEM AND PRIORITY LIST, AND NOT A CHANGE IN FEDERAL RE-
QUIREMENTS, ARE UNALLOWABLE PROJECT COSTS.
CAMDEN COUNTY NJ,
EPA DOCKET NO. 02-84-AD07
(08/01/84)
2-155
-------
05/27/87
156
WASTEWATER TREATMENT WORKS CONSTRUCTION GRANTS
GRL-960-910-600 PRIORITY SYSTEM AND LIST
A PROPOSED SEWER LINE NOT WITHIN THE SCOPE OF AN EXISTING
GRANT IS NOT ELIGIBLE FOR FEDERAL FUNDING UNTIL A NEW GRANT
OR GRANT AMENDMENT FOR THE LINE HAS BEEN AWARDED. NO SUCH
AWARD CAN BE MADE UNTIL THE STATE PLACES THE LINE ON ITS
PRIORITY LIST.
NEW HARTFORD, TOWN OF NY,
EPA DOCKET NO. 02-84-AD13
(09/05/84)
GRL-960-940-600 PRIORITY SYSTEM *ND LIST
STATES MAY, AT THEIR DISCRETION, REFUSE TO GIVE ADDITIONAL
PRIORITY POINTS FOR THE USE OF SPECIFIED ALTERNATIVE TECH-
NOLOGIES; HOWEVER, STATES MAY NOT USE THEIR PRIORITY SYSTEM
TO MAKE ELIGIBILITY DETERMINATIONS.
COHASSET, TOWN OF MA,
EPA DOCKET NO. 01-81-AD06
(06/18/85)
GRL-960-9«40-600 PRIORITY SYSTEM AND LIST
IT IS W/IN A STATE'S DISCRETION NOT TO USE EPA GRANT FUNDS
FOR STEP 2 £ 3 PROJECTS, £ IT IS ALSO W/IN ITS DISCRETION TO
EXCLUDE STEP 2 £ 3 GRANTS FROM THE FUNDABLE PORTIONS OF ITS
FY PRIORITY SYSTEMS - PROVIDED THAT THE STATE EXCERCISES
THIS DISCRETIONARY APPROACH CONSISTENTLY IN REGARD TO ALL
COMMUNITIES W/PROPOSED STEP 2 £ 3 PROJECTS.
COHASSET, TOWN OF MA,
EPA DOCKET NO. 01-84-AD06
(06/18/85)
2-156
-------
05/27/87
157
WASTEWATER TREATMENT WORKS CONSTRUCTION GRANTS
GRL-960-9«*0-600 PRIORITY SYSTEM AND LIST
STATES MAY, U/IN THEIR DISCRETION, RANK SEPARATELY SEVERAL
PROJECTS WHICH ARE CONTAINED IN A RE2UEST BEING EVALUATED
FOR FUNDING PURPOSES.
COHASSET, TOWN OF MA,
EPA DOCKET NO. 01-8«*-AD06
(06/18/85)
GRL-960-940-600 PRIORITY SYSTEM AND LIST
A STATE, UNDER THE CWA, HAS SUBSTANTIAL DISCRETION IN DETER-
MINING PROJECT FUNDING PRIORITIES UNDER THE EPA CONSTRUCTION
GRANTS PROGRAM.
COHASSET, TOWN OF MA,
EPA DOCKET NO. 01-8«*-AD06
(06/18/85)
GRL-960-960-000 STREET REPAIR
THE COST OF FULLY REPAVING STREETS WHICH SUFFERED 50 PERCENT
OR MORE SURFACE LOSS WHEN SEWER PIPES WERE LAID IS UNALLOW-
ABLE AS PART OF PROJECT COSTS. STREET REPAIR IS AN ORDINARY
OPERATING EXPENSE OF GOVERNMENT WHICH A MUNICIPALITY CANNOT
MEET WITH CONSTRUCTION GRANT FUNDS.
HOMER, VILLAGE OF, COUNTY OF CORTLAND NY,
EPA DOCKET NO. 02-8H-AD26
(06/11/85)
2-157
-------
05/27/87
158
WASTEWATER TREATMENT WORKS CONSTRUCTION GRANTS
GRL-960-960-000 STREET REPAIR
THE COST OF RESTORING STREETS AND/OR RIGHTS-OF-WAY TO THEIR
ORIGINAL CONDITIONS FOLLOWING CONSTRUCTION IS AN ALLOWABLE
COSTS WHERE THE NEED FOR SUCH RESTORATION RESULTS DIRECTLY
FROM THE CONSTRUCTION OF THE ELIGIBLE PROJECT. ALLOWABLE
RESTORATION MAY INCLUDE, FOR EXAMPLE, REFILLING AND PATCHING
OF STREETS AND ROADWAY SURFACES (GENERALLY LIMITED TO WIDTH
OF THE TRENCH), FINE GRANDING AND PLANTING, RESTORATION OF
SIDEWALKS, ETC.
ECORSE CREEK POLLUT. ABATE., WAYNE CNTY, MI,
EPA DOCKET NO. 05-84-AD03
( 12/10/85)
GRL-960-960-000 STREET REPAIR
GENERAL COST OF ROAD REPAYING IS ORDINARY OPERATING EXPENSE
OF GOVT. AND THEREFORE UNALLOWABLE COST OF STREET REPAIR
IS ALLOWABLE WHERE A DIRECT RESULT OF CONSTRUCTION, BUT
GENERALLY LIMITED TO WIDTH OF THE TRENCH.
GEAUGA COUNTY, OH,
EPA DOCKET NO. 05-84-ADOS
( 12/31/86)
2-158
-------
APPENDIX A
-------
REFERENCES TO EPA ASSISTANCE GUIDANCE
I. ASSISTANCE ADMINISTRATION
- Assistance Administration Manual (1984)
(Source: Office of Administration and Resources Management -
Grants Administration Division)
II. PROGRAM SPECIFIC GUIDANCE
A. Wastewater Treatment Construction Grants Program
- Handbook of Procedures (October 1984)
- Construction Grants 1985 (CG-85)(July 1984)
- Regulation and Policy Matrices (April 1985)
- Construction Grants Delegation and Overview Guidance
(December 1983)
- Prevention and Resolution of Contractor Claims
(March 1985)
(Source: Office of Water - office of Municipal Pollution
Control)
B. Superfund Remedial Program
- State Participation in the Superfund Remedial Program
(February 1984)
- State Participation in the Superfund Remedial Program
Volume II - State Procurement Under Superfund Remedial
Cooperative Agreements (March 1986)
(Source: Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response)
C. Asbestos School Hazard Abatement Program
- Guidance for Controlling Asbestos-Containing Materials
in Buildings (June 1985)
(Source: Office of Pesticides and Toxic Substances)
III. MISCELLANEOUS
- Audit Guide For Construction Grant Program (Revised May
1980)
(Source: Office of the Inspector General)
- EPA Directive 2750 - Management of EPA Audit Reports and
(Source: Office of Administration and Resources Management -
Office of the Comptroller)
A-l
-------
APPENDIX B
-------
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
AUDITS RESOLUTION BOARD DECISIONS
Allowable Base for Determining Design Fees
as a Percentage of Construction Cost
No : AP.3-1
DATC: 2/21/EO
Issue: Paragraph B5 of Appendix D to 40 CFR Part 35 limits the amount EPA will pay
for engineering design services under a contract based upon a percentage
.of construction cost. This policy limits the base for computing percentage-
of-construct ion-cos t payments to the lew bid for construction plus the cost
of change orders approved before December 17, 1975'. Must all EPA Regions
and action officials follow this policy?
Decision: All EPA Regions and designated action officials must ccrr.ply with paragraph 15
of Appendix D to 40 CFR Part 35 in cor.put ir.g percer.tsge-of-cons t rue t ion-cos t
payments for design fees. This policy limits the base for computing design
fees on grants awarded unc'er s^ipart I tc the lew, responsive, responsible
bid for construction plus the cost of change orders approved before Decerr.ber 17
1975, where construction work was initiated prior to that date. If the Regions
had made final payment on a project before December 17, 1975, the limitation
does not apply. Where the limitation does apply, the Regions and designated
action officials must follow this pclicy_, even if this is inconsistent WILT.
the terms of the engineering contract.
Barbara Blum
Deputy Administrator
This decision is effective immediately on all cases for which the action
official has not yet rendered a final determination.
B-l
-------
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
AUDITS RESOLUTION BOASB DICISIOMS
TITLE: Applicability of Paragraph B5 of Appendix D to
both PL84-660 and PL92-500 Projects
(Clarification of Decision on ARB-1)
NO.: ARB-1A
DATE:
JAN 19 :S81
Issue: Paragraph B5 of Appendix D to 40 CFR Part 35 Limits the amount EPA will pay
for engineering design services under a contract based upon a percentage of
construction costs. Is it the intent of the Agency to apply the policies
and procedures contained in paragraph B5 to grant projects awarded under
PL84-660 as well as PL92-500?
Decision: On August 19, 1980 the Audits Resolution Board (ARE) directed the Office
•of General Counsel to study this issue and present a legal opinion to the
ARE.
The December 8, 1980 legal opinion from the Office of General Counsel is
a sufficient resolution to this issue. That opinion is attached to this
statement. It is unnecessary for the Audits Resolution Board to render
a formal decision in addition to that opinion.
The legal opinion is effective irrxiediately on all cases for which the
action official has not rendered a final determination.
B-2
-------
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
AUDITS .RESOLUTION BOARD DECISIONS
TITL«« Allowabillty of Bond Costs Claimed under
PL 92-500 Construction Grant Projects
NO t
OAT*; 2/21/80
Issue: Are bond costs on PL 92-500 construction grants awarded prior to
February 6, 1976, allowable for reimbursement?
SOM Region* have allowed bond costs aa an eligible item for
reimbursement on grants awarded prior to February 6, 1976. Other
Regions have not. Although EPA general grant regulations prohibit
Federal participation in bond issue costs, EPA permitted grantees
to claim bond costs aa an eligible cost under PL 84-660 grants.
When PL 92-500 cane- into existence in 1972, the Agency did not make
it clear to grantees that bond costs would not be allowable. This
confusion continued until February 6, 1976, when EPA issued Program
Guidance Memorandum (PG) 64, which disallowed bond costs.
Decision: The Director, Grants Administration Division, is directed to issue a
class deviation from EPA regulations making bond costs under PL 92-500
Step 3 grants awarded on or before February 5, 1976, eligible for
Federal participation in accordance with the practice followed by EPA
for PL 84-660 grants. Bond costs under PL 92-500 grants awarded after
February 5, 1976, are not eligible for Federal participation.
Barbara Blum
Deputy Administrator
.
This decision is effective in all case* where the action
official has not y«c rendered a final determination.
B-3
-------
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
AUDITS RESOLUTION BOARD DECISIONS
Unaudited Cost* Allowed to Match Costs NO. ARB_3
Questioned in Final Audit Report
2/21/80
--..rf «~ fe
Issue: May grantees be permitted to increase costs claimed after a final audit
has been performed and use such unaudited costs to offset costs questioned
in a final audit report?
Decision:. Additional costs may be claimed after a final audit has been performed.
However, the action official may not consider such costs in determining
allowable grant expenditures until the additional costs have been.
subjected to an audit.
/
//
Barbara Blum
Deputy Administrator
This decision is effective immediately on all cases for which
the action official has not yet rendered a final determination.
B-4
-------
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
AUDITS RESOLUTION BOARD DEC1SJOKS
TITLE.- Unsupported Service Charges
NO.: ARB-4
DATE:
JAN 1 9 1981
ISSUE: Grantees are claiming for reimbursement a nor&inal service charge billed by
their engineers to cover bookkeeping and handling time of direct nonsalary
expenses such as consultants, printing, and travel when provided for in the
engineering subagreements. However, the engineers do not segregate the
actual cost of the service charges in their accounting records. Must the
Regions adjust payments to the grantees to the extent that claimed service
charges are not supported by accounting records?
DECISION: The EPA Regions must adjust payments to the grantees to the extent that
claimed service charges are not supported by accounting records. The EPA
Handbook of Procedures for Construction Grants Program for Municipal
Wastevater Treatment Works requires that service charges must be separately
supported by accounting records. This requirement was explicitly issued
in February, 1976 for construction grant contracts awarded under PL 84-660
and PL 92-500 regardless of contract conditions.
It is not necessary for EPA to codify into Agency regulations, practices
which it considers applicable to all contractual agreements from the
standpoint of good accounting.
BARBARA BLUM
DEPUTY ADMINISTRATOR
This decision is effective immediately on all cases for which the action official
has not yet rendered a final determination.
B-5
-------
TITUE:
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
AUDITS RESOLUTION BOARD DECIS3CNS
Clarification of Construction Grants Regulation
40 CFR 35.925-18
NO.:
ARB-6
DATE:
JAN I 9 1361
ISSUE:
BACKGROUND:
DECISION:
Can PL 84-6$0 design costs reimbursable under Subsections (a)(2) and
(a)(3) (the transition provisions) of 40 CFR 35.925-18 be paid for under
a next awarded PL 92-500 Step 1 grant?
The purpose of Section 35.925-18 was to provide for an orderly phase-out
of the reimbursement method used under PL 84-660 to fund planning and
design costs.
Under PL 84-660, only one grant was awarded for each project. Grant
payments were provided in four installments. Generally, the first
payment was not made until physical construction was twenty-five
percent complete. As a result, the planning and design work was paid
for by the grantee without EPA grant assistance, and the grantee was
reimbursed for those costs when the first grant payment was made.
Pursuant to PL 92-500, EPA established requirements that grants be
awarded in three steps: step 1 for planning, step 2 for design,
and step 3 for grant construction. In limited circumstances, a
combination step 2/3 grant may be awarded. Under. PL 92-500, funding
is provided for costs as they are incurred oy the grantee.
During the transition period from PL 84-660 to PL 92-500, subsections
(a)(2) and (a)(3) of 40 CFR 35.925-18 allow planning and design costs
that would have been reimbursed under a PL 84-660 grant to be reimbursed
in conjunction with the first-awarded PL 92-500 grant. It is not
necessary tc award individual PL 92-500 step 1 and step 2 grants. If
the planning and design costs fall within the transition provisions
of the regulation, they may be reimbursed under the next-awarded grant,
regardless of step. Outside the transition provisions, the general
rule is that the only costs that may be reimbursed under a step 1 grant
are those that are Incurred pursuant to an EPA-approved plan of study,
and within the scope of the grant.
Where a grantee has received an extension of the transition period by
deviation from the requirements of 40 CFR §35.925-18, planning and
design costs incurred by the grantee during the extension period shall
be considered to fall within the transition oj-riptsions of thaegulation
BARBARA BLUM
DEPUTY ADMINISTRATOR
ds decision is effective immediately on all cases for which the action official
.as not yet rendered a final determination.
B-6
-------
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
AUDITS RESOLUTION BOARD DECISIONS
^ «
TITLE: Alienability of Unsupported Grar.tee Claims NO.: ARB-8
DATE: 11/3/81
ISSUE: In the absence cf the ?ccounting records required by 40
CFR 30.800 and 40 CFR 3C.305, some Action Officials have
allowed costs based en good faitn grantee efforts or
products received. Is it appropriate and legal to pay a
grantee for costs claimed which the grantee is unable to
properly support?
I-ICISION: Costs which a grantee cannot prrperly support pursuant
to 40 CFR 30. £00 i.-.d iZ.:_:= sr. nil not be allowable for
reimbursement with EPA funds.
These regulatory requirements apply to all EPA grants
awarded after May 3, 19~5 and the principles are applic-
able to grants awarded between November 27, 1971 and May
7, 1975 (40 CFR 30.505) and between January 24, 1968 and
November 26, 19"! (13 CFR 60i.27(h)). Further,
Section 501(c) of the Clean Water Act requires that each
grantee must keep records which fully disclose the amount
and disposition of grant funds, the total cost of the
project for which grant funds are given or used, and the
amount of the project costs supplied by other sources.
This section also requires that the records kept must
facilitate an effective audit. Compliance with this
statutory provision cannot be waived.
This decision is effective immediately for all cases
where the Action Official has not yet rendered a final
determ ination.
Dr. Johns^?'. Hortcn
Assistant Administrator for
Administration
B-7
-------
'J -S. fNVIHONMIHTAC W*OT«CT1PN A«1NCY
AUDITS RESOLUTION BOARD DECISIONS
aanegotiated Sa5ir.
Costs - Inturia Audit P.eccrt No. ?2hw9-Oi-OG13
-91234
ISSUS : Grantee w«a required to renegotiate a fixed price
aubagreement in accordance vita 40 C?3 Part 35, Sutapart
S, Appendix D, Paragraph 3.3. The interim audit" report.
found that ccsta were converted froia a' ?re— existing-
p*rcentace-of-ccr.3tructicr.-ccat contract: -prchiai red by.
40 CFR 35. 937-1 'a) into a fixed price contract without
adequate negotiation or ccat review of defective pricing
data. Are the renegotiated subagreemen-.t-coata ali
DECISION: Contracta renegotiated pursuant to 40 C?R Part 35,
Sucpart S, Appendix 2, Paragraph 3.3 roust, alao 'rse«t the
requirements of 40 cr?. Part 35, Sucpart 2, Appendix 3,
Paragraph 3.5. The ARB concluded that the grancee
and engineer did not conplv with these requirements, • •
in particular the refarencad contract, costs' and trice
negotiation and profit provisions :f Sections 35.92"-!,
35.92T.5 and 2 3. 93 "-7. Therefore, -.he AiO has- decided- •
that the subject aubagreenent coati allowable- for parti-
cipation oy z?A shall be li.nited tc incurred ccata plus.
the dollar profit specif iad in tne contract, net to
exceed in total the guaranteed maxirr.um price. The
decision of the A53 in this •Asa LJ the Agency's final
decision and is not suo:ect td
-------
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
AUDITS RESOLUTION BOARD DECISIONS
TITU«: Effect of a Region's Prior Apnroval of Construction no.AR?-in
Grant Plans and Specifications Upon the Aaency's
Ability to Disallow Unreasonable Costs DATE3/11/82
ISSUE: In Audit Report No. S2cW7-09-0155-90612 the Inspector
General has questioned the costs of aesthetic features
approved by the Region in making the subject grant
award. Does the Region's approval of plans and specifi-
cations commit EPA to accepting possible unreasonable
costs?
DECISION: As 40 CFR 30.210, 30.700, 30.705, and 35.936-5 explain,
the grantee is responsible for the proper management and
successful accomplishment of a grant project, and unrea-
sonable costs are not allowed for grant funding. 40 CF3
35.935-l(a) makes clear that EPA's review and approval of
the plans and specifications for a wastewater treatment
works is for administrative purposes only and neither
absolves the grantee of its responsibility properly to
design and construct the project, nor makes unallowable
costs allowable. Accordingly, the Region's review and
approval of plans and specifications describing aesthetic
features does not commit EPA to provide grant funding for
any unreasonable aesthetic costs.
Regarding the portions of the subject audit report raised
in ARB-10, the ARE has determined that the desian features
questioned were reviewed and approved as reasonable miti-
gation measures, and that the costs incurred were con-
sistent with the approved design. Therefore, the ARP has
decided that the Agency will accept the Region's proposed
determination concerning the costs questioned in ARB-10.
This .decision is effective i.-runediately for all. cases where
the Action Official has not yet rendered a final decision.
Dr. Tfoirr""?. Horton
Assistant Administrator
for Administration
B-9
-------
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
AUDITS RESOLUTION BOARD DECISIONS
TITLE: Alienability of Undocumented Overtime Charges
NO: ARB-11
DATE: 3/11/82
ISSUE: Grantees have claimed EPA grant reimbursement for charaes
billed by engineers under cost-multiplier contracts for
overtime worked by ejnployees who are awarded compensatory
time in lieu of overtime pay. The engineers have no records
showing if or when the employees used the compensatory tine
earned. Is overtime- that is paid for by the award of com-
pensatory time allowable for EPA grant reimbursement if the
grant was awarded prior to the issuance of the Construction
Grant Handbook in February 1976, and if the engineer does
not produce records which track the accrual and use of the
compensatory time earned?
DECISION: 40 CFR 30.805 and, previously, 40 CFR 30.605 and 18 CFR
601.27(h) make clear that grantees must assure that all
costs for which grant reimbursement is claimed are ade-
quately documented. For claimed costs to be allowable for
grant funding, the supporting records must meet the stand-
ards of good accounting practice. As explained in ARB-4,
grantees have the responsibility to assure that their con-
tractors keep records meeting those standards even though
they are not explicitly codified into regulations.
It is a fundamental accounting principle that all costs
charged under a cost reimbursement contract, such as a
cost-multiplier contract, must be supported by records
demonstrating that costs were actually incurred. Overtime
that is paid for by the award of compensatory time is not
allowable as a cost incurred under a cost-multiplier
contract unless th'e engineer can produce records, acceptable
to the Action Official, tracking the accrual of the engineer's
obligation to allow compensatory time, and tracking the
employees' use of .their compensatory time rights. Absent
such a tracking system, the engineer's obligation is not
sufficiently established to be considered an actual cost.
Therefore, the costs are not allowable for grant funding.
This decision is effective immediately for all cases where
grants were awarded prior to the issuance of the Construction
Grant Handbook of Procedures and the Action Official has not
yet rendered a final decision. Grants awarded after the
Handbook of Procedures was iss^ed^apre subject to the procedures
in the Handbook.
B-10
DTTSJonh P. Horton
Assistant Administrator
for Administration
-------
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
AUDITS RESOLUTION BOARD DECISIONS
TITLE: criteria for assessing the alienability of aesthetic
features and landscaping on EPA construction grant
projects.
NO.: ARB-13/14
General Issue
DATBI
FB 24 1984
ISSUE: The Audit Resolution Board first addressed the issue of aesthetic features
as reasonable mitigation measures in ARB-10, signed March 11, 1982.
However, ARB-10 did not provide general criteria for determining whether
aesthetic features and landscaping found in construction grant projects
were reasonable and allowable.
DECISION: The EPA principles and criteria for assessing the alienability of aesthetic
features and landscaping are:
1. The Agency's review and approval of a project does not ocnmit EPA to
share in unreasonable or otherwise unallowable costs.
2. Evidence of affirmative management decisions by EPA or a delegated
State on the specific item questioned by audit should carry great
weight in the decision whether to allow the relevant questioned
costs.
3. Evidence of affirmative action is an insufficient basis on which to
allow costs questioned by audit if the action was demonstrably:
a. Outside the limits of managerial discretion, including actions
that are arbitrary and unreasonable; and/or
b. in violation of nondiscretionary standards in existence
at the tine of the administrative approval.
4. An item will be considered reasonable if the item is a generically
allowable item in accordance with the applicable regulations and
there is a connection between the project-related expenditure and
any of the following criteria:
a. Conformity of facility to and in harmony with the surrounding
areas, e.g., building style, landscaping;
b. Conformity to standard design and construction practices for
constructing similar facilities, similarly situated;
c. Necessity to assure public acceptability, avoid environmental
degradation, or protect worker health and safety; and/or
d. Cost-effectiveness.
5. The increment of cost above fair market value of any item found
reasonable will not be allowable.
Howard M. Messner
Assistant Administrator
B-II for Administration and
Resources Management
-------
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
4 ' •
AUDITS RESOLUTION BOARD DECISIONS
TITLE: Criteria for assessing the alienability of aesthetic NO.: ARB-13
features and landscaping on EPA construction grant projects. Addendum II
DATE:
Audit Report No. P2CW8-05-0066-00203f St. Cloud, MN p£g £ 4 1984
ISSUE: Should the Agency allow the costs for a lawn sprinkler system, an
electronically controlled entrance gate, and a second set of steps and
sidewalk that serve as an approach to the far end of a terrace at the
St. Cloud, Minnesota, facility?
DECISION: The Audit Resolution Board has decided that the costs for the specific
items listed above should be allowed. The Board found that the lawn
sprinkling system and the electronically controlled gate were not
aesthetic features per se, but rather functional items with probable
justification as labor-saving and cost-effective devices for operating
and maintaining the facility.
The Board also found that the costs for the second set of steps and
sidewalk should also be allowed. While access to the terrace could have
been minimally provided with a single set of steps, having two avenues
of access is not necessarily unreasonable, i.e., it is not demonstrably
inconsistent with standard design practices for such structures.
Howard M. Messner
Assistant Administrator
for Administration and
Resources Management
B-12
-------
U.S. INVlNOMMCXTAk PWOT1CT1ON A«INCY
AUDITS RESOLUTION BOARD DECJSJONS
ling the alienability of aesthetic *°- ARB-13
and landscaping on EPA construction grant projects. .Addendum *2
Audit Report NO. P2BW*-03-0436-11490
ISSUE: Should sane costs for expenditures on aesthetic features at the Blue
Plains Administrative Building be disallowed as "excessive?"
DECISION: The Office of the Inspector General questioned as unreasonable and unnecessary
a portion of the construction costs for the Central Operations Building of
the- Blue Plains (Washington, D.C.) Hastewater Treatment Facility, one of the
largest of its kind in the country. The Audit Resolution Board (ABB) has
decided that the- questioned costs will be allowed.
The- ABB found that the design of the Central Operations Building represented
an aff innative action by EPA management on the design parameters of the struc-
ture and Jthe action was within the. limits of managerial discretion. Because
of the highly visible location of the facility and its public nature — as a
showplaoe for domestic and foreign visitors — its costs were allowable under
the public acceptability criteria of ARB-13/14's generic decision.
Howard M. Messner
Assistant .Administrator
for Administration and
Resources Management
B-13
-------
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
AUDITS
TITLC: Eligibility of Costs Incurred for Alleged Economic
Development Purposes
NO.: ARB-16
DATE:
JUL 2 4 1984
ISSUE:
BACKGROUND:
DECISION:
Should costs incurred in constructing sewer lines through an undeveloped
area adjacent to Hagerstown, Maryland, be eligible for Public Law 84-660
funding?
The audited project involved construction of interceptor and force
lines and pumping stations through three contiguous areas (designated
Contracts 7, 8, and 9) on the outskirts of Hagerstown, Maryland. EFA
Region III and the Office of the Inspector General agreed on the need
for construction in the Contract 8 area to solve a serious sewage
disposal problem, but disagreed on whether the Contracts 7 and 9 were
allowable under law in effect at the time of grant award.
The route for the interceptor and force lines led from the Contract 8
area, through the Contract 7 and 9 areas, and connected with an
existing line leading to the Hagerstown Wastewater Treatment Plant.
However, the most direct routing to an existing sewer line allegedly
did not require construction in the Contract 7 and 9 areas. While
apparently no imnediate need for interceptor lines in the Contract 7
and 9 areas existed at the time, planning documents showed that
development at some future date was anticipated in the open areas
traversed by the lines.
Because the Office of the Inspector General believed that no public
health requirement existed for the interceptor and force mains in
the Contract 7 and 9 areas, they questioned the costs of construction
for those areas. That construction was alleged to be for economic
development in the Contract 7 and 9 areas and not for purposes
necessary to justify Public Law 84-660 funding, which cculd include
reasonable allowance for future growth.
The Board concludes that there is not sufficient basis to pursue
recovery of the appropriate portion of the grant in this case. We
reach this determination primarily because of the absence of clear
statutory, regulatory, or policy guidance in effect at the time of
the grant identifying the limits of allowable costs for future growth
in the construction of wastewater treatment projects. Significantly,
those limits have become increasingly clear since the time of this
project and controls have been designed to prevent this type of
apparent waste and abuse from recurring.
B-15
-------
- 2 • -
DECISION: Certain aspects of the history of this case complicate the decision.
(Cont'd) Particularly disturbing is the apparent appearance of conflict of
interest in the ownership of a significant part of the undeveloped
land by members of the local advisory comiittee involved in the
original decisionmaking process. This situation undermines the
credibility of the decision at that time to fund the routing of
the interceptor and force lines through the undeveloped Contract
7 and 9 areas.
EPA's involvement in this project, from its initiation to audit
and final resolution, has spanned a long period of time. The new
requirements in revised EPA Order 2750 should ensure a reduction
in the amount of time necessary to resolve audit issues. However,
to further speed the overall process, the Board recomnends that
the Inspector General, the Assistant Administrator for Water,
and other interested parties attempt to identify mechanisms and
resources for isolating and resolving significant audit issues
earlier.
Howard M. Messner
Assistant Administrator
for Administration and
Resources Management
B-16
-------
APPENDIX C
-------
MAY 17 ::::
fPPRAMXM
SUBJECT; Effect of Audit Resolution Board Decision Flos. 13 and 14
on Project Review and Approval Process
PJU4: James A. Hanlon, Director/*/ James A. Hanlon
Municipal (instruction Division (HB-547)
TO: Construction Grants Program Managers, Regions I-X
The Audit Resolution Board (ARB) has considered the issue of the
allowability of aesthetic features and landscaping costs in the cases
designated ARB-13 and ARB-14. The purpose of this memorandum is to
discuss the ramifications of these decisions as they affect our ongoing
Regional and State review and approval process.
In ARB-13 and ARB-14, the Office of Inspector General (OIG)
requested that the ARB determine what criteria should be applied in
determining whether aesthetic features and landscaping costs are
reasonable and allowable. The attached general criteria were developed
by the ARB and sent to all Regional Administrators in February of 1984.
A key point set forth in the criteria involves whether or not there
is evidence of an 'affirmative management decision" by EPA or a
delegated State on the «y»f<*1^ item in question. This question has
taken on ouch significance in **ome recent deliberations of the ARB. Our
experience has been that the ARB is generally unlikely to overturn an
affirmative management decision, which can be so documented.
Although the attached criteria applies specifically to landscaping
and aesthetic features costs, the concept of an affirmative management
decision has similar importance whenever the allowability of any cost
which has previously been included in a grant is being evaluated. The
ARB in general will be reluctant to overturn a previously rendered
affirmative Management approval of a specific item, unless that approval
was clearly aitaiiVt the limits of managerial discretion or in violation
of nondiscretionary standards in existence at the tine.
In view of this, all pxogiam managers should specifically document
in the project files their approvals of aesthetic features or other
items which may be controversial. Such documentation need not be
voluminous, but should be sufficient to show that a reasoned judgement
C-l
-------
-2-
tming cost alienability was made. This is not to suggest that
every distinct project item raust have a specific naro in the project
file docOTBting its approval. Regional and State reviewers most use
their judgonnt in determining which items are out of the ordinary and
should therefore be documented. y
We believe such documentation will help to minimize future •second
guessing* of previous project decisions. If you desire to further
discuss any of the above, please feel free to contact Ken Adore on (FTS)
382—5858.
Attachment
cc: R. Savage, ASIWPCA
E. Bradley, OIG
C-2
-------
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
WASHINGTON O C 20460
PP '«-
MEMORANDUM
SUBJECT:
FROM:
Grant Overpayments
Chamberlin, Director
of Administration (PM-217)
Ernest E. Bradley, III
Assistant Insoectr General for Audits
William A. WhittifTgton, Acting Director
Office of Municipal Pollution Control (WH-546)
TO: Regional Administrators
Regions I-X
Divisional Inspectors General for Audit
Several pending assistance disputes involve the issue of
whether we should assess interest on overpayments under EPA's
wastewater treatment construction grants program. This memo-
randum provides guidance for resolving those disputes, dealing
with pending audit findings, and conducting future audits
under EPA's assistance programs.
BACKGROUND
EPA's regulations related to overpayments and interest on
overpayments are--
o 40 CFR 30.400(a) which states that recipients that
receive overpayments are to reimburse EPA, and
o 40 CFR 30.526 which states that recipients other than
State agencies and tribal organizations must return
earned interest to EPA.
In a recent audit, EPA auditors claimed that interest was
due under several Los Angeles County Sanitary District (LACSD)
projects. After initially sustaining the audit findings,
C-3
-------
Region IX reevaluated the case and found that the LACSD did not
earn any interest on the EPA overpayments to the extent the
funds were promptly used to pay the Federal share of allowable
project costs. In an August 10, 1984, memorandum to Ernest E.
Bradley, III, Allan E. Brown, Acting Associate General Counsel
for Grants, reviewed Region IX's analysis and determined that
it did not violate EPA's regulations.
Since the Office of General Counsel (OGC) opinion on the
LACSD cases was issued, auditors have found other overpayments
and have recommended collection of interest from recipients.
In some of those cases recipients earned interest but the EPA
funds were mixed with other funds and the auditors could not
determine exactly how much interest was earned. In those cases,
the auditors estimated the actual amount of interest earned
and recommended that recipients be required to repay the esti-
mated amounts. Where interest was not earned, the auditors
may have computed an amount of interest that the funds would
have earned .
OGC's LACSD opinion was written in response to the circum-
stances in the LACSD cases, but several regions have asked if
they can apply the same approach to other cases. We have
developed the following guidance which will help resolve most
cases involving interest on overpayments.
GUIDANCE
Based on EPA's regulation requiring repayment of interest
earned on Federal grant funds, the following guidance applies to
the resolution of interest assessed on overpayments to local
government recipients.
1 . If a recipient received overpayments and deposited them
in interest-bearing accounts, actual interest or estimated actual
interest earned on the funds must be repaid to EPA.
2. If a recipient received overpayments, kept its funds
in an interest-bearing account, but can demonstrate that it so
promptly used the overpayment to pay the Federal share of allow-
able project costs incurred since the date of its most recent
payment request that no interest was earned on the Federal
overpayment, no payment of interest is due EPA. The recipient
should submit the calculation in a form similar to the one
presented in the attachment to this memorandum.
C-4
-------
- 3 -
3. If a recipient received overpayments but did not earn
interest on the overpayments, no interest is due EPA.
Recipients of EPA assistance must not knowingly request
payment for costs in excess of actual costs incurred at the
time of the payment request. If there is evidence that a recip-
ient deliberately violated EPA's requirement that payments are
to reimburse costs incurred when the costs are due and payable,
the matter may warrant action under the False Claims Act.
Contact the Office of General Counsel, Inspector General Division
in such a case for assistance.
As stated, the current regulations require repayment of
earned interest only. Vie intend to develop a regulation that
willrequire the computation and repayment of interest lost
on all overpayments.
Attachment
C-5
-------
CASH-FLOW ANALYSIS
When it is determined that a recipient kept overpayments
in an interest-bearing account, the recipient must reimburse
to EPA the interest the funds earned. If the recipient promptly
used the overpayment to pay the Federal share of allowable
costs incurred since the date of its last payment request, the
amount due EPA can be adjusted using the following procedures.
1. Determine the recipient's cash position at the time of
the award. Identify any reimbursable preaward costs.
2. List all allowable recipient outlays which were eligible
for reimbursement under the grant in date order and
describe each briefly. (Columns A, B, and C)
3. Cumulate the recipient outlays which were eligible
for reimbursement. (Column D)
4. Compute the EPA share of each cumulative outlay.
(Column E)
5. List EPA payments in the proper time sequence (Column F),
cumulate the payments (Column G) and credit them against
the EPA share of allowable outlays computed in Column E.
(Column H) The payment amounts used must reflect the
actual amount received from EPA.
6. If, at any time, the recipient received more than it
outlayed for the Federal share of allowable costs
under the grant, compute the interest earned on the
overpayment. The computation must be based on the
cash excess in a given period (Column H) , times the
number of days the recipient maintained a cash excess
(Column I), times the annual rate of interest actually
earned on the cash excess (Column J), divided by 365
(to compute the daily rate). This computation produces
the actual interest earned (Column K) which the recipient
must return to EPA.
C-6
-------
TABLE. 1
A
DATE
2/25/74
3/14/74
3/18/74
4/15/74
4/17/74
4/22/74
4/23/74
5/15/74
5/19/74
B
RBCIP
OUTLAY
49,246
14,416
89,261
8,189
108.932
147,126
124,678
C
DESCRIPTION
A/E pay
it it
Const Con
EPA Payment
A/E pay
Const Con
•I n
EPA Payment
Const Con
D
CUM
RE 1MB
AMT
49,246
63,662
152,923
152,923
161,112
270,044
417,170
417,170
541 ,848
E
EPA CUM
SHARE
36,935
47,747
114,692
114,692
120,834
202,533
312,878
312,878
406,386
F G
PAYMENT CUM EPA
PAYMENT
121,838 121,838
121,838
121,838
121,838
218,753 340,591
340,591
H
CASH-FLOW
-36 935
-47,747
-114,692
+7,146
+1,004
-80,695
-191,040
+27,713
-65,795
I J
DAYS OF ANNUAL
EXCESS INTEREST
RATE
9.10%
2
5
9.18%
4
K
INT
EARNED
3.56
1.25
27.88
I
u
-------
/ UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20460
O^iCE O-
ADV'VS"-.7iO\
ANT =i50URCES
MANAGEMENT
MEMORANDUM
SUBJECT: Assistance Disputes Resolution Under 40 CFR Part 30,
Sub/art L t S) \
FROM: ^Ha^^
Grants Adinistration Division (PM-216)
TO: Assistance Disputes Coordinators for Regional
Administrators I-X
Several requests for Regional Administrator (RA) review of
assistance disputes under Subpart L of the general assistance
regulation, 40 CFR Part 30, have been dismissed as untimely.
This memorandum is to clarify that RAs have discretionary
authority to consider requests for RA review or reconsideration
made after the 30-day filing deadline in Subpart L.
Section 30.1200(c) of Part 30 requires that requests for
RA review of a final decision issued by a Regional disputes
decision official (DDO) must be filed within 30 calendar days
of the date of the DDO decision. The 30-day filing deadline
also applies to requests for reconsideration by the RA of final
decisions the RA issued as a DDO.
If an assistance applicant or recipient requests RA review
or reconsideration after the 30-day filing deadline, that appli-
cant or recipient no longer has a legal right under Subpart L
to review by the RA. However, the RA may consider requests for
review or reconsideration which are filed late. It is not
necessary that I issue a deviation from the 30-day filing dead-
line in section 30.1200(c). Accordingly, RAs may issue a disputes
decision on the merits of a case despite a tardy filing. (We
will apply the same interpretation of the regulation to requests
for Assistant Administrator review.)
C-9
-------
-2-
In cases where the RA dismisses a request for review or
reconsideration on the basis of timeliness, any substantive
reasons for denying the dispute should be included as an
alternative basis for the decision. This will help assure that
a full administrative record is developed which will better
enable the Agency to defend the decision if it is subject to
later challenge.
Please contact Scott McMoran of my staff at 382-5293 if
you have any questions.
cc: Regional Counsels Regions I-X
Water Managment Division Directors, Regions I-X
Construction Grant Program Managers Regions I-X
C-10
-------
\ UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
? WASHINGTON, D.C. 20460
MW 51966
MEMORANDUM
SUBJECT: Grant Funding of Project Cost Increases
FROM: Lee A. DeHihns II I,1— ^soci'afie' 'General Counsel
Grants, Contracts and General Law Division (LE-132G)
Office of General Counsel
filTiam A. Whittirigton, Director
Office of Municipal Pollution Control (WH-546)
Office of Water
— / I-
Harvey "G.£" p'ippe.A, 'jr.', Director
Grants Administration Division (PM-216)
Office of Administration
TO: Regional Counsels
Water Management Division Directors
Grants Management Contacts
Regions I - X
Regional inquiries and assistance disputes, in particular
the Region IV decision in Berea, Kentucky, Docket No. 04-85-AD25
(August 23, 1985), have raised the fundamental issue of whether
a recipient of a Clean Water Act Title II construction grant
is entitled as a matter of law to grant funding for a cost
increase. This memorandum explains the Agency's position on
this issue.
A Title II grantee is not entitled by law to an increase
in the amount of its grant. The legal analysis in Berea, which
indicated that EPA has a statutory obligation to fund cost
increases, is incorrect. \/
Under section 202(a)(l) of the Clean Water Act (CWA),
"[t]he amount of any grant for treatment works . . . shall be
*_/ The Region's award of a grant increase to Berea is not
affected by this memorandum. The Region has indicated
that there was a substantial issue in the Berea case of State
management of its priority list. As noted below, the priority
given grant increases must be in accordance with the State's
priority system. In Berea's case, we understand that Region IV
and Kentucky have resolved their disagreement over the
management of grant increases under the priority system.
C-ll
-------
-2-
75 [or 55£ per centum of the cost of construction thereof (as
•approved by th~e Administrator)." The approved construction
cost and the grant amount are specified in the grant agreement.
The Administrator's contractual obligation under CWA section
203(a) is to pay the federal share of costs that are allowable
and within the scope of the agreement up to the approved grant
amount. That amount, like other terms of the grant, can be
changed, but EPA is not required to make a change requested by
a grantee. This is consistent with CWA section 101(f), which
encourages the best use of available funds in carrying out the
Act, and section 216, which assigns to the States sole responsi-
bility for determining the funding priority to be given catego-
ries of projects.
Our regulations reflect these CWA provisions. The grantee
must complete the project in accordance with the grant agree-
ment, 40 C.F.R. §35.2214(a), and must obtain a grant amendment
before incurring costs in excess of the grant amount, 40 C.F.R.
§30.700. EPA is not obligated to provide federal funds for any
cost incurred in excess of the federal share of the grantee's
approved budget, 40 C.F.R. §30.309(a). Thus, the "Offer and
Acceptance" provision in the grant agreement, EPA Form 5700,
states that EPA offers to fund the federal share "of all approved
costs incurred up to and not exceeding" the grant amount. More-
over, the recently promulgated five percent cap rule limits
allowable cost increases. 50 Fed. Reg. 46648 (November 12, 1985)
(to be codified at 40 C.F.R. §35.2205).
The Agency's clearly stated position for years has been that
we are not obligated to fund cost increases. For example, in
SPA Instruction Memorandum No. 80-3, "Grantee Cost Overruns,"
May 21, 1980, we explained:
Our legal liability is to fund 75
percent of the estimated total cost of
construction that the Regional Adminis-
trator approves in the grant agreement.
40 C.F.R. §35.930-5(a). The Agency is
not obligated to pay for otherwise
eligible costs incurred in excess of
the approved grant amount or any amend-
ment to it unless the State has approved
[priority for] an increase in the grant
amount from available allotments and the
Regional Administrator has issued a
written grant amendment. 40 C.F.R.
§35.930-6.
In addition, 40 C.F.R. §35.945 (1980) stated that "[tine grantee
shall be paid the Federal share of allowable project costs . . .
up to the grant amount set forth in the grant agreement and any
amendments thereto;" and 40 C.F.R. §30.345-2 (1980) provided that
"[t]he United States shall not be obligated to participate in
C-12
-------
-3-
costs incurred in excess of the budget approved in the grant
agreement or any amendments thereto." In 1981, EPA eliminated
the requirement that a State reserve funds from its allotment
for grant increases, further indicating that funding for increases
is discretionary. Compare 40 C.F.R. §35.915-1(c) and 40 C.F.R.
§35.2020.
States may limit funding for cost increases in the exercise
of their priority setting authority under the CWA and Agency
regulations. See_ CWA SSlOl(b) and 216 and 40 C.F.R. §§35.2015,
35.2042, and 35.2103. The State has discretion in its priority
system to determine that grant amendments for cost increases
have lower priority than new grant awards. Of course, the State
must manage the funding of all projects within its jurisdiction
in accordance with its priority system.
This memorandum does not affect the allowability of costs
associated with a requested .rant increase. If the State
certifies the costs for funding priority and a grant increase
is awarded, those costs are allowable so long as they are
reasonable and necessary for work within the scope of the
project under our regulations, 40 C.F.R. Part 35, Subpart I,
Appendix A.
If you have any questions about this memorandum, please
contact Allan Brown, OGC (382-5313), Jim Hanlon, OMPC (382-5859),
or Scott McMoran, GAD (382-5293).
C-13
-------
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
WASHINGTON. D.C. 20460
MAY - 2 1986
MFVtnPAMTKJM . OFFICE OF
WATER
SUBJECT: Abandonment of Wastewater Treatment Works Funded by
the Municipal Treatment Worka Con*truetion .Grants
P r o g r am
FROM: William A. Whittington, Director
Office of Municipal Pollution Control (UH-546)
TO: Water Management Division Directors. Regions I-X
ATTN: Construction Grant Program Managers
Ba c kg r ound
Recently, several Regions have raised questions regarding the
abandonment of facilities which have been constructed with the
assistance of Federal grant funds. There has been a great deal of
discussion regarding the differing situations and constraints -which
affect our position on abandonment. This discussion is generic in
the sense that it is generally not possible to recognize all of the
issues which may be relevant to a particular case. However, the
principles are transferable and may be relied on in your management
of project decisions.
Based on our review of a number of situations involving the
abandonment of facilities constructed with the assistance of Federal
grant funds, several basic principles are apparent. These
principles are illustrated in the discussion of three hypothetical
cases. The resolution of actual project issues should not be molded
to fit a particular example, but rather should be in line with the
principles.
Pr i nc i p 1 g a
o Municipalities are expected to effectively operate and maintain
grant funded wastewater treatment works over the useful life of
the facilities consistent with section 204 of the Clean Water
Act. If a grantee abandons a grant-funded facility or process,
EPA will determine whether to seek recovery of grant funds.
o Functional replacement at other than Federal expense of
abandoned treatment works is acceptable without recovery. The
replacement must meet NPDES permit limitations and there must
be no indication of mismanagement in the selection of the grant
funded alternative (e.g., if grant funded sludge incinerators
are replaced by locally funded sludge digesters and the sludge
digesters should have been selected in the first place, then
the cost of the sludge incinerators should be recovered).
C-rl5
-------
o Abandonment of treatment worki which are no longer needed at a
POTW because of reviled NPDES permit limits is acceptable
without grant recovery.
o Abandonment of treatment works or significant portions of
t r e a tme n t wo rks because of a failure to serve areas wh i c h the
treatment works was designed and constructed to serve requires
grant recovery. This situation is usually associated with
mismanagement and/or the failure to follow through on
assurances that were made as part of the grant application.
Note: A significant portion is one which, if it had not been
included in the design, would have changed the capacity of the
funded treatment works.
o Abandonment of any treatment works requires a disposition
decision which must be documented in the project file. The
analysis supporting such a decision must consider scrap value
as an alternative to leaving the facility idle where no future
use is projected.
o The principal objective of the construction grants program is
the construction of treatment works to achieve compliance with
the water quality and public health goals of the Clean Water
Act. The management of all grant funded property must take
place in accordance with that objective and in the best
financial interest of the Government.
Caae 1
Issue: A treatment works project included the construction of
a solids dewatering facility using vacuum filters. Because of
difficulties encountered in the operation of the vacuum filters, the
municipality/grantee determined it necessary to abandon the filters
and replace them with belt filter presses. The replacement was
performed at other than Federal expense. However, based on the
increased efficiency of the belt presses, the grantee was able to
provide the same dewatering capacity at a lower cost than was paid
for the vacuum filters. The facility is now in compliance with its
NPDES permit.
Pi me unit ion; This situation can be described as functional
replacement with a like item. The grantee has replaced the
abandoned facility on a functional basis with other than Federal
funds. Considerations which should be dealt with in this situation
include: (1) Based on available information, confirm the grantee
•elected the cost-effective, environmentally acceptable alternative
in the original cost-effectiveness analysis; (2) Identify any
unexpected event which was not within the control of the grantee and
resulted in operational problems with the grant funded facilities,
e.g., change in plant influent or in the cost of power or chemicals;
and (3) Ensure any disposition of the abandoned facilities takes
place at the direction of the project officer in accordance with 40
CFR Part 30.
C-16
-------
Based on a determination that the grantee proceeded responsibly
in the management of the construction/abandonment/replacement
action, and that the replacement facility is meeting current permit
limitations, no recovery of grant funds would be required.
A decision regarding property disposition must be made and
documented in the project file. This decision should be supported
by an analysis to demonstrate the financial implications of the
alternatives considered. Inasmuch as the abandoned facilities could
potentially be used at other treatment works, the project officer
would generally be expected to require the grantee to attempt to
dispose of the property. This could be done via notices of
availability in trade journals, etc., with any proceeds managed
pursuant to 40 CFR Part 30.
Case 2
Issue: A treatment works project included the construction of
chemical storage and feed facilities to provide phosphorous removal.
After the completion of project construction, the State reviewed the
nutrient analysis of the receiving water and has determined
phosphorous removal is not necessary at the facility. The operation
of the plant is taking place without phosphorous removal. The
chemical storage and feed facilities have been abandoned. The NPDES
permit has been revised and the facility is in compliance.
Pi scu8 a i on: With the advent of more thorough water quality
analysis, there is a potential of determining that previous effluent
limitations were established at more restrictive levels than are now
required to protect water quality due to changes in water body use
designations, water quality standards or wasteload allocations.
Considerations which should be dealt with include: (l) Confirm the
change in the permit was performed in accordance with the provisions
of the Clean Water Act and implementing regulations; and (2) Ensure
any disposition of the abandoned facilities take place at the
direction of the project officer in accordance with 40 CFR Part 30.
Based on a determination that the grantee proceeded responsibly
in the management of the planning and construction of the facilities
and that the changes in the permit have been accomplished in a
manner consistent with the Clean Water Act and Federal regulation,
no recovery of funds would be required.
A decision regarding property disposition must be made. If
there is no projected future use for the facilities at the current
location, the project officer would require that the grantee attempt
to dispose of the facilities. In this case, the potential of future
need for the abandoned facilities at the treatment works should be
considered in any property disposition decision.
C-17
-------
Luuij: A treatment works project included the construction of
an intercepting sewer to an adjacent town for the purpose of
conveying the flow from an existing facility (to have been
abandoned) to the treatment works of the grantee. An Intel-municipal
service agreement is in place covering the use and funding of the
sewer. However, based on a change in the administration in the
adjacent town, connection to the sewer has not taken place and, for
all practical purposes, the sewer has been abandoned. Both the
treatment works in the town and the treatment works of the grantee
are in compliance with current permit limitations.
Di acugai on; The purpose of the intercepting sewer has not been
fulfilled. The pipe is dry. The grantee in this case appears to
have acted responsibly whereas its neighbor has not.
Based on a Federally funded facility having been abandoned
because of a decision not to use the facility which is contrary to
the assurances that •were made in support of the grant application,
all design and construction related costs of the sewer should be
re cove red.
Summa ry
The abandonment of any treatment works constructed with the
assistance of Federal grant funds should generally be avoided. This
guidance recognizes, however, there are situations where this might
occur and presents alternatives for the responsible management of
these cases .
The abandonment of any grant funded treatment works should be
thoroughly analyzed and documented in the project file to clearly
articulate the reasons for the abandonment and the basis for the
action taken by the Agency.
If you have any questions regarding this matter, please contact
JimHanlon at 382-5859.
cc: R. Savage, ASFWPCA.
E. Bradley. OIG
C-18
-------
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
WASHINGTON. D.C. 20460
OFFICE OF
WATER
f-*EMORANDUM
SUBJECT: Water Quality Act of 1987 - A.
FROM:
TO:
James A. Hanlon, Director
Municipal Construction Divi
Water Management Division
Regions I - X
liqible Items
The Water Quality Act of 1987 (PL 100-4) amended Clean Water Act
section 203 entitled "Plans, Specification, Estimates and Payments."
Specifically, the amendment added a new section 203(a)(2) which requires
the Agency and construction grant applicants to establish an agreement
on eligible items.
Stated below is an overview of the legislation, plus the statutory
requirements of the new provision, the Agency's interpretation of each
requirement, and a reconmended special grant condition to be included
in new grant awards and amendments as explained below.
Overview
From the legislative history, it is clear that the major thrust of
the new paragraph on eligibility agreements is to avoid future
controversy or dispute regarding those items of a project that are
eligible for Federal participation unless the costs are
unreasonable, unsupported, or otherwise unallowable or unless the
project fails to meet its project performance standards (design
specifications or effluent limitations).
I. Statutory Requirement
Before taking final action on any plans, specifications and
estimates submitted after April 6, 1987, the Agency must enter
into a written (eligibility) agreement with the applicant that
establishes which items of the proposed project are eligible
for Federal participation.
C-19
-------
All Step 2+3 or Step 3 grant awards or amendments for which final
plans, specifications and estimates are submitted to the State on
or after April 6, 1987 are required to have an eligibility
agreement that establishes the items eligible for Federal
participation.
Since the effective date in the statute is keyed to the submission
of plans, specifications and estimates, not the grant award date,
delegated States should determine the applicability of this
requirement to both grant awards and amendments. For the record,
Regions should maintain a list of awards from April 6, 1987 to
September 30, 1987 which do not require the eligibility agreement.
II. Statutory Requirement
Once established, the Agency cannot unilaterally modify the
agreement unless the items specified in the eligibility
agreement are found to be in violation of Federal statutes or
regulations.
Implementation
Once the eligibility agreement is established, it can be changed
only through a bilateral grant amendment unless the eligibility
determinations in the agreement violate applicable Federal statutes
or regulations. During the life of the project, it is the
grantee's responsibility to advise the Region/State of any
adjustments needed to the agreement for any proposed additional
eligible items. These adjustments must be reflected in a grant
amendment. Any grant increase resulting from subsequent changes to
the existing eligibility agreement would be subject to the
limitations of the five percent cap in 40 CFP 35.2205. It should
be clearly understood that the agreement addresses eligibility
only. Except for the funds that are obligated in the grant, there
is no actual or implied commitment on the part of EPA to fund any
cost increases, bid overruns or claims associated with the project.
III. Statutory Requirement
Neither the agreement nor the eligibility determinations made
under the agreement preclude a project audit. Additionally,
Federal funds can be withheld or recovered where:
C-20
-------
A. Costs are found to be unreasonable;
B. Costs are unsupported by adequate documentation, or
are unallowable under applicable Federal cost
principles; or
C. Costs are incurred on a project which fails to meet:
(1) Design specifications contained in the grant
agreement; or
(2) Effluent limitations contained in the grant
agreement and discharge permit.
Implementation
While the above is self explanatory, it is important to restate
that the major theme of the amendment is to avoid controversy or
discussion on the eligibility of those items of a project that are
contained in the agreement. The amendment does not preclude audit,
or withholding or recovery of Federal funds for unallowable costs.
The Agency may withhold or recover funds where a project fails to
meet its performance standards (design specifications or effluent
limitations). This means that a discharging project e.g.,
treatment plant, must meet both its design specifications and
effluent limitations. For a non-discharging project e.g.,
interceptors or non-operable segments of a treatment plant, the
design specifications must be met.
Special Grant Condition
The Water Quality Act refers to the Agency having a written
eligibility agreement with the applicant. We propose to satisfy
this requirement through a special grant condition. Regions should
include the following special grant condition in the grant
agreement to meet the legislative requirement of a written
agreement:
The grantee and the Environmental Protection Agency
agree, pursuant to section 203(a)(2) of the Clean Water
Act, that only those items specified in the project
description (scope) portion of the grant agreement are
eligible for Federal participation in accordance with 40
CFR Part 35.2250 (determination of allowable costs).
C-21
-------
A clear and specific project description (scope) must be stated in
the grant agreement. While Regional practice may vary, the project
description must contain, at a minimum, one of the following items:
(1) A specific reference to the approved plans and specifications,
including the date of their approval. The plans and
specifications referred to should clearly indicate what is
eligible for Federal participation and what is not; or
(2) A specific reference to a State construction permit issued for
the approved plans and specifications provided the permit
clearly identifies eligible and ineligible items.
Either of the above may also be supplemented by a specific
statement in the grant agreement as to what items or pages of the
plans and specifications (referenced through items one or two
above) are not eligible for Federal participation.
We believe this strategy for implementing the provisions of section
203(a)(2) will contribute to improved clarity in the communications
between EPA and the grantee/municipality and will avert any project
eligibility disputes. If you have any questions regarding this subject,
please call me or Walt Brodtman at FTS 382-5843.
cc: Construction Grants Program Managers
C-22
-------
APPENDIX D
-------
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
WASHINGTON. D.C. 20460
NOV 19665
MEMORANDUM
SUBJECT: Assistance Di
OFFICE OF
ADMINISTRATION
AND RESOURCES
MANAGEMENT
FROM:
TO:
s Computer Tracking System
arvey G.
Grants Adm
., Director
itration Division (PM-216)
Director, Administrative Services Division
Region I
*
Assistant Regional Administrator
for Policy and Management
Regions II, ill, IV, VI, VII, VIII, IX
Director, Planning and Management Division
Region V
Director, Management Division
Region X
Water Management Division Directors
Regions I-X
Regional Counsels I-X
The Agency's assistance disputes tracking, research, and
computerized sort system (ADTRACS) is fully operational. I
appreciate the recent efforts by your staff to provide the
case information necessary to begin its operation. As you
know, ADTRACS contains relevant information regarding active
assistance disputes under Regional Administrator (RA) review
and allows you and your staffs to research issues resolved
in final RA and Assistant Administrator (AA) disputes decisions,
It is designed to better enable the Regions, and Headquarters
to monitor assistance disputes, coordinate their work on
similar disputes and those of national significance, and
promote consistency in final disputes decisions. A complete
description of ADTRACS and the data input procedures are set
out in our memorandum of May 24, 1984 (Attachment A). I
encourage you to make full use of this computer system.
ADTRACS is presently being used by the Headquarters
assistance disputes team which meets on the third Thursday of
each month to discuss the status of disputes under RA and AA
D-l
-------
-2-
review, current disputes topics, and newly issued final RA and
AA decisions. The team is made up of staff from the Grants
Administration Division, the Office of Water, the Office of
General Counsel, the Office of the Comptroller, and the Office
of Inspector General. I urge the Regions to form similar
interdisciplinary disputes teams and conduct regular meetings
to discuss disputes in your Region and coordinate with the
Headquarters team to resolve important and difficult disputes
issues. ADTRACS will enable you to identify problems in the
disputes area and facilitate coordination between Headquarters
and the Regions. The use and capabilities of ADTRACS and minor
changes made in the data input procedures are discussed below.
Revision of the Case Entry Form
A few minor changes have been made to the form used to
enter a case into ADTRACS. The new case entry form (Attachment
B) is identifiable by the month and year of the revision (7/85)
which appears in the lower right corner of the form. The most
notable changes in the form are the deletion of the section for
the Administrator's recusal status and the addition of a section
for comments about the case. The new form also makes clear that
the dollar amount at issue in a dispute refers to the federal
share.
Revision of the EPA Grants Law Subject Index
The EPA Grants Law Subject Index which contains the issue
descriptions and code numbers for use in completing the case
entry form has been revised. The newly revised version of the
index (Attachment C) is current as of July 24, 1985. The code
numbers in the left margin of the index previously assigned to
some of the more general main subject headings which appear in
bold face type have been deleted. This is to ensure that
reference is made to only the most specific topic or sub topic
under these headings. In addition to a new foreword, the newly
revised index includes a table of main subject headings which
serves as a general locator. New topics and subtopics were
also added to the index for issues raised in active disputes
or addressed in final RA decisions which were not included in
the previous version of the index. Headquarters offices will
continue to work with staff in your office to categorize
disputes issues or add new index subjects as appropriate.
Entry of Digest Notes at Case Closeout
In order to make the research functions of ADTRACS more
useful, the digest notes summarizing issues decided in final RA
decisions and the subject index code numbers which correspond to
D-2
-------
- 3 -
each digest note need to be entered into ADTRACS at case
closeout. Space is provided for this information at the end
of the Case Update Report for each dispute in ADTRACS. A
sample report complete with this information is attached as
Attachment D. A quick way to provide this information is
simply to submit to the Data Analyst in your Region (see
Attachment E) a copy of the digest notes from the final RA
decision with the appropriate subject index code numbers
written next to each digest note. Headquarters supplied this
information to the Data Analyst here for past cases in which
the final RA decision did not contain digest notes. Digest
notes are an important component for researching decided cases
and need to be included by the Regions in all future final RA
decisions and entered into the Computer system. It is also
important to delete from each Case Update Report any issues
listed but not addressed in the final RA decision.
Use and Capabilities of ADTRACS
ADTRACS can generate reports to monitor and research
assistance disputes as a tool for effective assistance manage-
ment. The standard principal report is the Case Update Report.
It contains relevant information about each active case under
RA review and those decided or otherwise concluded by the RA.
For active disputes under RA review, the Case Update Report
displays in a simple format the general information on the case
entry form, including the case name, docket number, issues
involved and the Regional officials assigned principal
responsibility for the case. The reports are printed as a
compilation which will help program managers monitor effectively
unresolved disputes in the Region. As a source of relevant
information about active disputes, this printout will also
facilitate the coordination of disputes work within the Regional
offices, among Regions with similar cases and with Headquarters.
A similar printout is available for decided cases, including
digest notes for cases in which final RA decisions were issued.
The primary means to reference the information in the Case
Update Reports is through "Quick Look" Reports. These reports
sort cases by the data elements in ADTRACS. The Quick Look
Reports available range from simple listings of case names
alphabetically or active cases by age to more complex groupings
of cases by issue or a combination of data elements. These
reports enhance the ability of Regional and Headquarters
officials to monitor active cases and research disputes issues
quickly and efficiently. For example, a particular disputes
issue can be researched from a Quick Look Report of all decided
RA and AA cases sorted by issue. The Quick Look Report will
identify the relevant cases by name and docket number. This
information allows the researcher to access the Case Update
D-3
-------
- 4 -
Report for each of the decided cases and review the digest
notes or proceed directly to the decisions.
For research purposes, the four sample Quick Look Reports
in Attachment F, which includes a list of decided cases sorted
by issuer are now available in the Headquarters Law Library
and each Regional library along with a complete set of final
RA and AA decisions and updated monthly. The three other Quick
Look Reports sort these cases by name, docket number and date
decided for easy reference of decisions.
To further assist the Regions research assistance disputes
issues, we are preparing a looseleaf index-digest of final RA
and AA disputes decisions from tthe information in ADTRACS.
Quality data in ADTRACS will help ensure the usefulness of the
index-digest. The index-digest will list the digest notes in
ADTRACS which are keyed to the various subjects in the EPA
Grants Law Subject Index. We plan to distribute the first
publication of the index-digest soon. The index-digest will be
updated periodically with supplemental looseleaf sheets as the ''
body of final RA and AA decisions grows.
Attachment G contains sample Case Update Reports and Quick
Look Reports which will be printed and available in the Regions
on a monthly basis. The reports include: a Case Update Report of
all disputes (active, decided, and concluded) sorted by docket
number; Quick Look Reports for all disputes sorted by case name
and docket number; and Quick Look Reports for active disputes
sorted by issue, age (date filed), and dollar amount in dispute.
Hard copies of these reports will be updated and printed by the
Data Analysts during the last week of each month to give the
Regions an opportunity to review the information, check the
accuracy of the data and make changes if necessary, and identify
problems for consideration by the Headquarters disputes team
at their next meeting. Minor modifications are being made to
the format of these reports to make them more user friendly.
The same type of reports can be provided exclusively for cases
within your Region. You may also ask your Data Analyst for
reports of other specific sorts and arrange for tracking case
status information.
If you have any questions about ADTRACS contact the Data
Analyst in your Region or call Rachel Holloman, ADTRACS
Coordinator, at FTS 382-5313.
Attachments (c-D, F-G omitted)
D-4
-------
ATTACHMENT A
D-5
-------
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
WASHINGTON. D.C.»04«0
COUNSEL
MAY 24 1984
MEMORANDUM
SUBJECT* Implementation of the Assistance Disputes
solution Process
FROM: ifarvey
-------
-2-
Dissemination of Final RA and AA Disputes Decisions
During a visit to the Regional offices, members of the GAD
staff discussed a centralized process for the accumulation and
distribution of assistance disputes decisions. GAD requested
that the Regions send copies of all final RA disputes decisions
to John Gwynn, Chief, Grants Policy and Procedures Branch, GAD
(PM-216). The Regions should not forward final decisions of
disputes decision officials. GAD is concerned that it is not
receiving all final RA decisions. We realize that decisions of
Regional disputes decision officials may not have been subjected
to RA review or may presently be under RA review.
Beginning next month, GAD will disseminate available final
RA and AA disputes decisions to the Regions on a monthly basis.
We plan to issue a list of final RA and AA decisions periodically
to ensure that the Regions and Headquarters have a complete set
of the decisions.
Assistance Disputes Computer Tracking System
GAD and the Office of General Counsel (OGC) developed a
computer tracking system for assistance disputes under RA
review. The system is designed to provide relevant information
regarding active assistance disputes to enable the Regions and
Headquarters to monitor disputes under RA review and coordinate
their work on similar disputes and those of national signifi-
cance. In addition, the system will be a valuable tool for
researching final RA decisions and for assuring that final
RA decisions are consistent with each other and Agency policy.
In order to institute the assistance disputes computer
tracking system, we need each Region to submit the information
requested on the new standard form (Attachment A) which will
be used for tracking both bid protest appeals and assistance
disputes. The form is short and self-explanatory. It limits
the use of code numbers and does not require information on
case status.
The first item of information to be completed on the
standard form is the docket number assigned to the request for
RA review. A docket number should be assigned when the request
for review is filed with the RA. In order to establish a uni-
form docket number system, we developed a format which includes:
the Region and year in which the request for RA review was filed,
an abbreviation identifying the case as an assistance dispute,
and the case number. For example, 02-84-AD01 represents the
docket number for the first assistant dispute in Region II in
which a request for RA review was filed in 1984. The docket
number should be included on all final RA decisions. To assure
the data in our computer tracking system is uniform and complete,
D-7
-------
-3-
the Regions should assign docket numbers to existing final RA
decisions and pending requests for RA review before assigning
numbers to newly filed cases. Headquarters will assign similar
docket numbers to requests for AA review.
We request that all known issues in the assistance dispute
be included in the space provided on the standard form. Whenever
possible* the issues should correspond to the subjects listed
in the EPA Grants Law Subject Index (Attachment B), includ-
ing the appropriate subject code numbers. This information is
vital to making the system useful* The foreword to the index
explains the design of the index and the code number system.
We welcome your comments and suggestions on revisions to the
index.
Completed forms should be submitted to the Region's Data
Analyst who will use the Region's computer terminal to input
the information into the central data base at Headquarters.
Those Regions which do not yet have computer terminals should
forward completed forms to the Headquarter1s Data Analyst.
The names and telephone numbers of the Data Analysts are
attached as Attachment C. We anticipate that soon each Region
will have a computer terminal with access to the central data
base and a Data Analyst to operate the terminal. A copy of all
completed forms should also be sent to Rachel Holloman of the
OGC Grants Branch (LE-132G).
The procedures for the initial input and maintenance of the
information in the computer data base are designed to be quick
and simple. The standard form needs to be completed each time a
request for RA review of a disputes decision is filed with the
Region. It provides the information necessary for the initial
input into the computer data base. Changes in information,
corrections, withdrawal of requests for review and issuance of
final RA decisions should be indicated on a copy of the computer
printout and submitted to the Region's Data Analyst for update.
Regions without computer facilities will be provided a monthly
copy of the computer printout which would be updated and returned
to the Headquarter's Data Analyst.
After final RA decisions are issued, special care should
be taken to assure that all issues addressed by the decision
are included in the tracking system. The issues addressed in
final RA decisions may be different from those identified in
the standard form submitted when the request for RA review was
filed. For the system to be useful as a research tool, the
issue list for each final RA decision must be accurate.
D-8
-------
-4-
Assistance Disputes Index-Digest
The OGC Grants Branch plans to prepare an index-digest
which includes under each subject in the EPA Grants Law Subject
Index digest notes summarizing issues decided in final RA and
AA decisions. In order to assist us in this effort* we request
that digest notes corresponding to the index subjects be included
in all final RA decisions as is currently the practice for bid
protest appeal determinations. This will enable the OGC Grants
Branch to compile and maintain an index-digest which will allow
the Regions to research assistance disputes issues efficiently.
Designation of Regional Contacts
We request that each Region designate a docket clerk or
other individuals who will be responsible for coordinating RA
review of assistance disputes and forwarding final RA decisions
to GAD. Please send a list of the names of these individuals
to John Gwynn (PH-216) and Allan Brown, Assistant General
Counsel (LE-132G).
If you have any questions or suggestions regarding these
assistance disputes activities contact John Gwynn at FTS 382-
5268 or Allan Brown at FTS 382-5313. Your cooperation in
making the systems operational will be appreciated.
Attachments (omitted)
cc: Henry L. Longest
William N. Hedeman
Regional Grants Management Contacts
Regional Counsel Grants Attorneys
D-9
-------
ATTACHMENT B
D-10
-------
FORM FOR BID PROTEST APPEALS AND ASSISTANCE DISPUTES COMPUTER TRACKING SYSTEMS *
(Please Print or Type)
CKET NUMBER: (Fill in region, year and case number, e.g., 02-84-AD01)
Bid Rrotest Appeal: - BP
Assistance Dispute: - - AD
Assistant Administratcr Review Request: AA- - AD
ASSISTANCE APPLICANT'S/RECIPIENT'S NAME AND STATE:
BID PROTESTOR'S NAME:
'ASSISTANCE AGREEMENT NUMBER:
(e.g., C-340492-01-0)
DATE RA/AA DISPUTES REVIEW REQUESTED OR BID PROTEST APPEAL FILED:
CONSOLIDATED:
Yes
mo./day /yr.
No (If yes, list the docket numbers or protestors)
*EPA ATTORNEY:
*EPA PROGRAM CONTACT:
RECIPIENT
REPRESENTATIVE:
PROTESTOR
REPRESENTATIVE:
INTERESTED PARTY
REPRESENTATIVE:
Name
Name
Firm or Title
Phone Number
( FTS )
( FTS )
Phcne Number
* All information for a bid protest appeal or an assistance dispute must be entered
or the computer will not accept the case information. If an asterisked item is not
irelevant to case history N/A (not applicable) must be entered.
(see reverse side)
D-ll
Rev. 7/85
-------
PRINCIPAL STATUTES: (e.g., Clean Water Act S 204(b)(4))
*PRIttIPAL REGULATIONS: (e.g., 40 CFR $ 30.526)
*IS9JES: (Refer to subjects and code numbers in the EPA Grants Law Subject Index)
Code Number Subject
GIL-
GRL-
GRL-
GRL-
GRL-
GRL-
GRL-
GRL-
GRL-
*ISSUES NOT INCLUDED IN THE SUBJECT INDEX:
COMMENTS:
\
ASSISTANCE DISPUTES INFORMATION;
Total Amount in Dispute:
(Federal Share) $
*Refind Due EPA:
*Audit Report Number (s):
BID PROTEST APPEALS INFORMATION:
*Date Protest Decided
By Recipient:
/
mo.dayyr
ASSISTANT ADMINISTRATOR REVIEW
INFORMATION:
Price Docket
Number:
AD
D-12
-------
ATTACHMENT E
D-13
-------
July 24, 1985
REGIONAL AND HEADQUARTERS DATA ANALYSTS
LOCATION
Region 1
Region 2
Region 3
Region 4
Region 5
Region 6
Region 7 ,
Region 8
Region 9
Region 10
Headquarters
NAME
Joan Coyle
Susan Sheridan
Doug Freehafer
Aron Williams
•
Cindy Glave
Cheryl Grefenstettee
Colleen Thomas
Irene Erhart
Bob Zucker
Suzanne Lee
Linda Flippo
Kris Schlenker
Karen Wlosinski
PHONE
FTS-223-0400 or 4921
FTS-264-2645
FTS-597-4912
FTS-257-2641
FTS-886-6846
FTS-729-2986
FTS-757-2841
FTS-564-1453
FTS-454-7450
FTS-399-1142
FTS-382-2578
FTS-382-2567
FTS-382-2568
D-14
------- |