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

-------