xvEPA
United States
Environmental Protection
Agency
Office of
Solid Waste and
Emergency Response
Publication 9200.5-4011
July 1991
CORAS Bulletin
Office of Emergency and Remedial Response
Office of Program Management OS-240
Intermittent Bulletin
Volume 1 Number 11
FINANCIAL MANAGEMENT RESPONSIBILITIES OF EPA
PROGRAM STAFF: DEVELOPMENT OF
WORK ASSIGNMENT/TASK ORDER BUDGETS
(Fifth in a Series)
This article continues a series addressing
financial oversight responsibilities related to Superfund
cost-reimbursement contracts that was initiated in the
December 1988 edition (Number 2) of the CORAS
Bulletin. The initial article introduced the series and
presented a general overview of each of the areas of
responsibility and the types of contracts involved. The
subsequent articles presented additional details on
each of the major areas of responsibility: Review and
Certification of Invoices (May 1989, Number4), Review
of Contractor Work Plans (September 1989, Number
5), Review of Contractor Financial Reports and Ongoing
Monitoring (December 1990, Number 10). This article,
the last in the series, addresses responsibility for
developing budgets for work assignments or task orders.
This sequence of articles focuses on
responsibilities involved in most Superfund cost-
reimbursement contracts including Field Investigation
Team (FIT), Technical Assistance Team (TAT), Alternative
Remedial Contract Strategy (ARCS), Environmental
Services Assistance Team (ESAT) contracts, and other
Superfund cost reimbursement contracts. EPA program
staff responsible for financial management of these
contracts include the Project Officer (PO), the Deputy
Project Officer/Regional Project Officer (DPO/RPO),
the Remedial Project Manager (RPM), the On-Scene
Coordinator (OSC) and the Work Assignment Manager.
These individuals are referred to as "contract monitors"
for the purpose of describing their financial
responsibilities in these articles.
Since this article focuses on development of
budgets for work assignments, the discussion applies
primarily to REM, ARCS and Headquarters support
contracts. Although FIT, TAT and ESAT contracts do
not involve issuance of work assignments, some of the
concepts presented may be helpful in developing the
estimates of technical hours and costs required to issue
a Technical Directive type of document.I
Responsibility for Independent
Government Cost Estimates
In accordance with the Federal Acquisition
Regulation (36.203 and 36.605), an independent
government estimate of costs of construction and
architect-engineer services is required for each contract
or contract modification expected to exceed $25,000.
It is the responsibility of contract monitors to develop
the independent cost estimate during preparation of the
work assignment or task order. This estimate should
include a projection of the labor hours by labor category
orskill level necessarytoaccomplish the work. Specific
labor categories or task orders are defined in the
contract and should be used in developing your work
assignment estimate. In addition to estimating labor
hours, the contract monitor should also estimate travel
and other direct costs which include communications,
equipment, sampling and laboratory requirements,
consultants and subcontractors, printing, and computer
time.
Continued on page 2
-------
A Recent Draft Regional GAO Report Stated
That:
"EPA needs to require that IGEs be developed
and documented for initial budgets and subsequent
cost increases. Documentation of these estimates and
price negotiations is important because of staff turnover,
which frequently results in regional personnel taking
over management of ongoing remedial studies. A
well-prepared ICE is a fundamental starting point for
negotiating a reasonable price with government
contractors. Having such an estimate in hand places
government negotiators in a strong position to assert
and sustain a defensible position and help them focus
the negotiations on thorough discussionsof the necessity
and reasonableness of specific costs. It also reduces the
risk that the contractor's proposal will be seen as the
starting point for negotiations."
IGEs are important when cost reimbursement
contracts are the method of contracting, because very
little risk falls to the contractor and the government
must be in a position to determine if the proposed
resources and costs are reasonable.
The contract monitor must define the work and
develop the budget without assistance from the
contractor. These estimates should then be used to
eval uate the reasonableness of the contractor's proposed
budget in the work plan. This will help control
contracting costs, eliminate unnecessary work, and
ensure efficient use of resources. The remainder of this
article presents the basic steps in defining the work and
developing the budget and identifies several tools
available to assist the contract monitor in performing
these activities.l
Scoping the Work
The first and most important step in preparing a
work assignment or task order budget is to define the
scope of work to be performed. How well the contract
monitor is able to define the work will have a direct
impact on the accuracy of the cost estimate. To
develop a conceptual understanding of the work to be
accomplished, the contract monitor should collect and
review any existing information related to the
assignment, drawing upon previous experience with
similar assignments to help determine the magnitude
and complexity of the effort. Less experienced contract
monitors should seek the expertise and advice of more
experienced contract monitors when developing a
work assignment or task order budget.
In defining the scope of work, the contract
monitor should first break the work into individual
tasks, such as the fourteen standard tasks for remedial
investigation/feasibility study (RI/FS) projects. Each
task should be outlined in as much detail as possible.
The contract monitor should evaluate the complexity
of each task and identify specific requirements for
each, such as functional activities to be performed,
products to be delivered, and resources required for
each. Identification of required resources should
consider staffing requirements as well as other direct
costs such as equipment and supplies. "Scoper's Notes,"
which is highlighted later in this article, is of particular
assistance in helping to define the scope of work for Rl/
FS projects, according to the standard tasks.
In scoping a remedial design (RD) project, the
contract monitor should divide the work into discrete
tasks, such as preparing the RD work plans and
documents; evaluating data; resolving design issues;
and developing preliminary, intermediate, and pre-
final/final design plans. Each of these tasks can be
defined further according to the functional activities to
be performed. An example of defining the functional
activities necessary to acquire field data and analyze
samples might include subsurface explorations;
mobilization/demobilization and borings; property
surveys; establishment of a field laboratory;
procurement of subcontracts; non-CLP analysis; data
validation;andsoilsandmaterialstesting. In identifying
products to be del ivered u nder the task of preparing the
RD work plans and documents, the contract monitor
should define several documents including a work
plan, a health and safety plan, a field sampling and
analysis plan, and a quality assurance plan.
While each of the tasks, functional activities,
and products may be similarforall sites, each site may
have unique characteristics that require an individual
evaluation of the resources necessary to complete the
RD. In order to determine the needed resources, each
of the tasks should be evaluated for a specific site to
determine the expected complexity of accomplishing
the task and identify any unique obstacles that might
impact the completion of the task. The contract
monitor should also consider factors such as the amount
of detail required in each of the design documents and
the level of expertise needed to evaluate the data and
develop the documents. By dividing the work into
discrete tasks and defining each functional activity and
product in as much detail as possible, the contract
monitor can more accurately estimate the labor hours
required to accomplish the work at an individual site.l
-------
Estimating Labor Hours
The second step in developing the budget is to
determine the level of effort required for each task
defined in the scope of work. This determination,
which is generally the most difficult one, should be
based on the nature and difficulty of the task. The
contract monitor should use his/her best professional
judgement, historical data, and similar scope work
assignments to identify the full range of labor resources
needed to complete the task. The contract monitor may
want to develop high and low estimates initially. The
monitor should consider the learning curve of the
contractor staff, subcontractor involvement, the level of
task complexity, and any other factors which may
influence upward or downward adjustments.
Each task should be evaluated in order to
estimate the number of hours or level of effort (LOE)
required by each professional ortechnical labor category
as well as develop an estimate of clerical hours. In
estimating the hours, the contract monitor should assess
the need for involvement of senior contractor staff or
specialized technical expertise. If the complexity of the
task does not warrant more experienced technical
resources, the majority of hours should be estimated at
the lower skill levels. This underscores the importance
of a thorough assessment of the technical skills and
hours required in relationship to the complexity of the
scope of work. Reviewing previous work assignments
with a similar scope may provide valuable insight into
the development of these level-of-effort estimates.l
Developing Cost Estimates
Once the contract monitor has scoped the work
and developed estimates of labor hours for the work
assignment, the final step of developing the cost estimate
is relatively straightforward. To develop a detailed cost
estimate, the contract monitor uses the specific labor
hour estimates by labor category developed previously.
The total hours per labor category can be multiplied by
the loaded hourly rate for that category under the
specific contract. The loaded hourly rate has been
adjusted to include costs forfringe benefits and overhead.
Otherdirect cost estimates can be developed by detailing
task requirements such as the number and location of
trips, the number and volume of reports, the involvement
of subcontractors and special consultants, and the need
for special equipment or computer time. Costs can be
computed for each of these requirements based on
averages from past experience or from established cost
parameters such as per diem travel costs. The Project
Officer or the Contracting Officer should be consulted
for assistance in estimating costs for other direct costs
as well as providing information on any specific cost
parameters defined by the contract. When information
is not available, the contract monitor should define and
apply conservative assumptions in order to estimate the
costs.
From the detailed breakdown of estimated costs,
the contract monitor can compare the independent
government cost estimates with the contractor's
proposed budget in the work plan, highlighting and
evaluating the reasonableness of any discrepancies. In
order to make this comparison, the contract monitor
should require the contractor to submit the work plan
cost estimates broken down by the same tasks and cost
categories as the independent government cost
estimates. Comparison of the two cost estimates provides
an informed basis for evaluating specific costs and
negotiating with the contractor concerning any cost
discrepancies.
While an understanding of the method of
calculating the costs is useful, various tools are available
which may assist the contract monitor in developing
these estimates. Several of the tools currently available
to contract monitors are describe below.l
Budget Development Tools
To assist the contract monitor in estimating
work assignment costs, several tools have been
developed. These tools provide varying degrees of
complexity and can provide valuable assistance in
performing the different steps required to develop work
assignment budgets. While "Scoper's Notes" provides
useful assistance in scoping RI/FS tasks and developing
an average range of costs based on site complexity and
historical experience, the Scheduling and Cost
Estimating Expert System (SCEES) provides a more
sophisticated computer model for estimating costs for
RI/FS tasks at non-complex sites. The Cost of Remedial
Action (CORA) Model provides a computer model
which evaluates alternative remedial action
technologies at a site and computes cost estimates
based on past experience with the application of these
technologies. The Remedial Action Bid Tabulation
Database provides historical data on remedial action
costs at similar sites for comparison purposes. The
Work Assignment Resources Planning (WARP) program
provides assistance in computing total work assignment
cost estimates based on resource projections and in
contract-specific rates. Each of these tools is discussed
3 '
-------
more detail below and presented in the following
exhibit.!
BUDGET DEVELOPMENT TOOLS
Directive/
Tool Phase Publication
EPA/540/G-90/002
Scopn's Notes Rl/FS February 1990
OSWER Direclive
SCEFS Rl/FS 9355.0-29
si-fcbi Rl/FS 8/|3/90
OSWER Publication
CORA Rl 9375.5-06/FS
CORA ** April 1990
Bid Tabulation N/A
Database KA
WARP N/A N/A
Contact
Paul Willdns
202-382-2462
HSCD
Kirby Biggs
703-308-8506
Florence Blair
703-308-8327
Region II
ShaheerAIvi
212-264-2221
Keith Moncino
212-264-9300
Scoper's Notes
"Scoper's Notes"\sasma\\ handbook, available
through CERI, that serves as a guide to estimating Rl/FS
costs. The handbook provides suggestions for scoping
the work, including potential questions to ask and
information resources to review. Rl/FS projects are
divided into the fourteen standard tasks with estimated
cost ranges for each task based on relative complexity.
These cost estimates were developed through analysis
of technical requirements, past experience, and
professional judgement. The handbook provides
checklists that the contract monitor can use to help
assess the complexity of the work and to evaluate and
estimate the costs of each task.
"Scoper's Notes" also highlights primary cost
driving factors and provides hints for minimizing these,
including maximizing the use of existing data, careful
consideration of the size and number of water sampling
wells to be installed, and increased use of on-site
sampleanalysis. The handbook concludes with a list of
several additional references, which provide moredetail
on conducting Rl/FS projects.
The handbook is designed to give the
inexperienced RPM a starting point for determining site
complexitA and other factors that can have a material
impact on the costs for completing the project. The
checklists help the contract monitor develop initial
cost estimates that can be used to evaluate the
contractor's work plan estimate. The level of effort and
costs presented in the handbook are intended to be a
starting point that can be adjusted to accommodate the
unique characteristics of the specific project. The
handbook is not intended to provide hard and fast
guidelines on costs for Rl/FS projects, but to be a tool
for evaluating the relative complexity and cost of a
project compared to past experience.
"Scoper's Notes" provides a handy tool that
can be carried on site and used to guide the RPM
through consideration of the site characteristics and
related costs. The weakness of the handbook is the fact
thatthe data were compiled from Rl/FS costs at 80 sites
which are now a couple of years old. These costs,
therefore, do not take into consideration any changes
that have occurred in overall costs due to factors such
as increased emphasis on risk assessment activities. In
addition, the costs at the sites used were not readily
available by task and had to be recreated based on
estimated break outs by task.l
Scheduling and Cost Estimating Expert
System (SCEES)
SCEES is a computer-based model designed to
predict cost estimates for Rl/FS tasks at non-complex
landfill, pond, and lagoon sites. The user enters data
into the system based on responses to questions on a
work sheet concern! ng site-specific factors. The system
uses general site information and MRS scores combined
with historical data based on costs at 80 sites, expert
knowledge, project planning data, and policy/risk
assessment information to estimate the site complexity,
costs, and scheduling. Costs are provided as aggregate
estimates as well as estimates for each of the 14
standard Rl/FS tasks. The model also selects remedial
technologies and evaluates Rl/FS task alternatives or
reductions and the associated cost savings and risk.
The system generates four summary reports for
a site. The first report details the best estimate of LOE
and costs for each of the 14 tasks. A second report is
a site data report that rates site complexity and provides
estimates of the number of media samples, surveys,
and tests to be conducted during the field investigation
task. This report also lists the remedial technologies
that are indicated for evaluation. The third report
details drilling requirements, including a summary of
the number, casing, depth, and sampling requirements
-------
for wells that are to be installed and an estimate of the
LOE and cost of drilling. The fourth report provides a
summary of the RI/FS costs likely to be required to
complete the project, including labor, equipment, travel,
and subcontractor costs. This report also indicates an
estimate of the Contractor Laboratory Program costs
that are implied by the number of samples and types of
analyses planned. The model requires approximately
an hour to run and produces the summary reports for
each site.
SCEES has been distributed to each region,
providing a useful tool for estimating the LOE and costs
of an RI/FS based on a large body of historical data. The
model allows the user to customize the data
geographically by incorporating local drilling and
contractor costs. The information that is required to run
the model successfully is data that are readily available
to the contract monitor as a result of the MRS scoring
process. The model requires some knowledge of the
site in order to input the necessary site information and
requires periodic updating of the resource files. SCEES
is particularly well suited for developing costs estimates
for landfill, pond, or lagoon sites but has limited
usefulness for other types of sites.
Cost of Remedial Action (CORA) Model
CORA is a model that is designed to assist in
planning and budgeting for remedial actions at
Superfund sites. The system is intended for use prior to
orduringtheremedial investigation stageofthecleanup.
The model helps select remedial action technologies
and provides preliminary cost estimates of the remedial
action based on the selected scenario. CORA is a
computerized model consisting of two independent
subsystems: an expert system and a cost system.
The expert system uses site information to
recommend a range of remedial actions from among 42
different technologies. To obtain the required
information concerning the site and types of waste
present, the system poses questions to the user. Based
on the user's responses, the system analyzes the site
and offers recommendations for the remedy. The
analysis is based on technology-specific engineering
expertise, statute interpretations, and policy issues.
The system al lows the user to vary responses to questions
and thereby perform sensitivity analyses by evaluating
alternative outcomes.
The cost system uses the response action
scenarios developed by the expert system or other
sources todetermineorder-of-magnitude cost estimates,
ranging from -30% to +50%. Costs estimates are
detailed by site, operable unit, scenario, and technology,
with the system calculating cost estimates for capital
and first-year operation and maintenance for each
technology selected. The system generates a summary
report for a site or operable unit that details costs by
construction and operation of individual unit processes
and operations, costs for specific activities, and bid and
scope contingencies.
The model is particularly useful in developing
order-of-magnitude estimates when other data are
limited. The model provides a means of developing
cost estimates which is consistent, widely used and
accepted, and has been validated. It is useful in
evaluating established technologies, providing a
comprehensive list of costs. Several factors limit the
usefulness of the model for developing independent
government cost estimates. The model may notprovide
accurate enough estimates, particularly for more
complex actions such as groundwater cleanup and
excavation due to a greater variability of costs under
different scenarios. In addition, the model has limited
ability to tailor the estimates to consider regional cost
differentials and considers a limited set of technologies.
The model also requires a significant amount of site-
specific data in order to develop reliable estimates.
Remedial Action Bid Tabulation Database
Superfund remedial action bid information has
been compiled into a database to assist RPMs in
developing cost estimates. Information on
approximately 52 sites is currently included in the
database. Site information consists of a description of
the site, clean-up levels, and technologies used. The
database currently identifies 36 different technologies.
Cost data for each site include the Record of Decision
(ROD) estimate, the engineer's estimate prior to
requesting bids, and the contractor bids received. If the
site iscomplete, the database also includes costs resulting
from change orders. The contractor's bid data are
broken down by costs for each task line item presented
in the bid.
The database can be queried by site name, by
technologies used, or by region. The contract monitor
can use thedatabase to identify sites with similar
characteristics by technology and region and can print
thecostdata for a specific site. These cost data detail
each bidder's estimated cost per line item and identify
thebiddersbyrankorderofthetotalbid. Thiscost
Continued on page 8
-------
KEY REGIONAL PERSONNEL IN SUPERFUND CONTRACT MANAGEMENT
Contract
REM
ARCS
ERCS
TAT
FIT
TES
ESAT
eadquarters
PO, DPO if possible)
EM 1 - Tracy Loy, EMAIL5201
REM II - Tracy Loy, EMAIL5201
REM III - Tracy Loy, EMAIL5201
08-8349
REM IV - Florence Blair, EMAIL5201
Bill Zobel, EMAIL
08-8346
Barbara McDonough, EMAIL
308-8348
Zone 1 - Patricia Tidwell, EMAIL5511
382-2688
Zone 1 - Pat Hawkins, EMAIL 5191
382-2458
Zone 2 - Karen Tomimatsu, EMAIL30026
475-9861
Zone 1 - Tim Fontaine
475-9748
Zone 2 - Rick Webster, EMAIL
475-9703
Zone 1 - Jack Jojokian, EMAIL
308-8650
Zone 2 - Jean Wright, EMAIL
308-8659
Zone 3 - Marlene Lemro, EMAIL
308-8639
Zone 4 - Nancy Deck, EMAIL
308-8647
Lynn Beasley, EMAIL5449
475-8607
Zone 1 -Reg. 1,2,3, & 5
Zone 2 - Reg. 4.6,10, & HQs
legion 1
Nancy Barmakian, 833-1797
EMAIL9170
U.S. EPA, HCP-CAN7
JFK Federal Building
Boston, MA 02203
Nancy Barmakian, 833-1797
EMAIL9170
Diane Kelley, 833-1672
EMAIL9171
U.S. EPA, HCP-CAN7
JFK Federal Building
Boston, MA 02203
John Carlson, 828-6624
EMAIL9119
U.S. EPA
841 Chestnut Street
Philadelphia, PA 19107
John Carlson, 828-6624
EMAIL9119
U.S. EPA
60 Westview Street
Lexington, MA 02173
Don Smith, 833-1648
EMAIL
U.S. EPA
JFK Federal Building
Boston, MA 02203
Rick Leighton, 833-1654
EMAIL9156
U.S. EPA
JFK Federal Building
Boston, MA 02203
Scott Clifford, 828-6631
EMAIL9161
U.S. EPA
60 Westview Street
Lexington, MA 02173
Region 2
Shaheer Alvi, 264-2221
EMAIL9204
U.S. EPA
26 Federal Plaza
New York, NY 10278
Jill Hacker, 264-4197
EMAIL
Fernando Rosado, 264-6130
EMAIL
Keith Kollar, 264-1576
EMAIL
Keith Moncino, 264-9300
EMAIL
U.S. EPA
26 Federal Plaza
New York, NY 10278
Norm Vogelsang, 340-4346
EMAIL9283
Charles Fitzsimmons, 340-6608
EMAIL9490
U.S. EPA
345 Courtland St., N.E.
Edison, NJ 08837
Lisa Guarneiri, 340-6180
EMAIL
U.S. EPA
Woodbridge Avenue
Edison, NJ 08837
Amy Brochu, 340-6802
EMAIL
U.S. EPA
Woodbridge Avenue
Edison, NJ 08837
Cathy Moyik, 264-8123
EMAIL9206
Erwin Sieszek, 264-431 1
EMAIL
U.S. EPA
26 Federal Plaza
New York, NY 10278
Joseph Hudek, 340-6713
EMAIL9252
U.S. EPA
26 Federal Plaza
New York, NY 10278
Region 3
James McKenzie, 597-3229
EMAIL93035
U.S. EPA
841 Chestnut Street
Philadelphia, PA 19107
Elaine Spiewak, 597-3229
EMAIL
James McKenzie, 597-3229
EMAIL93035
U.S. EPA
841 Chestnut Street
Philadelphia, PA 19107
Rich Fetzer, 597-1389
EMAIL 9324
U.S. EPA
841 Chestnut Street
Philadelphia, PA 19107
Charlie Kleeman, 597-4018
EMAIL9340
U.S. EPA
841 Chestnut Street
Philadelphia, PA 19107
Greg Hamm, 597-8229
EMAIL
U.S. EPA
841 Chestnut Street
Philadelphia, PA 19107
Donna McGowan, 597-8230
EMAIL
U.S. EPA
841 Chestnut Street
Philadelphia, PA 19107
Terry Simpson, 652-2188
EMAIL93018
Dan Slizys, 652-2192
EMAIL
U.S. EPA
839 Bestgate Road
Annapolis, MD 21401
Region 4
Ken Myer, 257-2930
EMAIL
U.S. EPA
345 Courtland St., N.E.
Atlanta, GA 30365
Matt Robbins, 257-2930
EMAIL9428
Doug Thompson, 257-2234
EMAIL
Charles Swan, 257-2234
EMAIL
U.S. EPA
345 Courtland St., N.E.
Atlanta, GA 30365
Sharon Camp, 257-2930
EMAIL
345 Courtland St., N.E.
Atlanta, GA 30365
Carol Monell, 257-2930
EMAIL9490
U.S. EPA
345 Courtland St., N.E.
Atlanta, GA 30365
Charles Swan, 257-2234
EMAIL
U.S. EPA
45 Courtland St., N.E.
Atlanta, GA 30365
Ken Meyer, 257-2930
EMAIL
U.S. EPA
45 Courtland St., N.E.
Atlanta, GA 30365
Bobby Carroll, 250-3309
EMAIL9434
U.S. EPA
Station Road, ASB
Athens, GA 3061 3
-------
KEY REGIONAL PERSONNEL IN SUPERFUND CONTRACT MANAGEMENT
Contract
REM
ARCS
ERCS
TAT
FIT
TES
ESAT
Region 5
Gail Nabasny, 353-1056
EMAIL95019
U.S. EPA
230 South Dearborn St.
Chicaqo, IL 60604
Steven Nathan, 886-5496
EMAIL95019
Pat Vogtman, 886-5496
EMAIL95021
Carl Norman, 886-5496
EMAIL95020
U.S. EPA
230 South Dearborn St.
Chicago, IL 60604
Charles Brasher, 353-1788
EMAIL
U.S. EPA
230 South Dearborn St.
Chicaqo, IL 60604
Duane Heaton, 353-1788
EMAIL
U.S. EPA
230 South Dearborn St.
ChicagOj IL 60604
Gail Nabasny, 353-1056
EMAIL95019
U.S. EPA
230 South Dearborn St.
Chicaao, IL 60604
Gail Nabasny, 353-1056
EMAIL95019
U.S. EPA
230 South Dearborn St.
Chicago, IL 60604
Jay Thakkar, 886-1 972
EMAIL
U.S. EPA, (5SCRL)
536 South Clark St.
Chicago, IL 60605
Region 6
Tom Oliver, 255-2240
EMAIL
U.S. EPA
1445 Ross Avenue
Dallas, TX 75270
Carlene Chambers/
Eve Boss
255-6720
EMAIL9698
U.S. EPA
1445 Ross Avenue
Dallas, TX 75270
Chris Peterson, 255-2277
EMAIL9625
U.S. EPA
1445 Ross Avenue
Dallas, TX 75270
Chris Peterson, 255-2277
EMAIL9625
U.S. EPA
1445 Ross Avenue
Dallas, TX 75270
Ed Sierra, 255-6720
EMAIL
U.S. EPA
1 445 Ross Avenue
Dallas. TX 75270
Karen Witten, 255-6720
EMAIL
U.S. EPA
1445 Ross Avenue
Dallas, TX 75270
Michael Daggett, 730-2107
EMAIL
U.S. EPA
10625 Fallstone
Houston, TX 77099
Region 7
Karen Flournoy, 276-7782
EMAIL9722
U.S. EPA
726 Minnesota Avenue
Kansas City, KS66101
Debi Morey, 276-7593
EMAIL9733
U.S. EPA
726 Minnesota Avenue
Kansas City, KS 661 01
Ron McCutcheon, 276-5007
EMAIL9783
U.S. EPA
726 Minnesota Avenue
Kansas City, KS66101
Paul Doherty, 276-5008
EMAIL9783
U.S. EPA
726 Minnesota Avenue
Kansas City, KS 66101
Peter Culver, 276-7707
EMAIL9775
U.S. EPA
726 Minnesota Avenue
Kansas City, KS 661 01
Maureen Hunt, 276-7722
EMAIL
Nancy Healy, 276-7713
EMAIL
Aaron Zimmerman, 276-7333
EMAIL
U.S. EPA
726 Minnesota Avenue
Kansas City, KS 661 01
Harold Brown, 276-5127
EMAIL9784
U.S. EPA
726 Minnesota Avenue
Kansas City, KS 661 01
Region 8
Gregg Hargreaves, 330-1061
EMAIL9832
U.S. EPA
999 18th Street
Denver, CO 80202
Jeff Mashburn, 330-71 56
EMAIL98002
Gregg Hargreaves, 330-1061
EMAIL9832
U.S. EPA
999 18th Street
Denver, CO 80202
Mike Zimmerman, 330-7134
EMAIL9873
U.S. EPA
999 18th Street
Denver, CO 80202
Karen Mooar, 330-7063
EMAIL
U.S. EPA
999 18th Street
Denver, CO 80202
Gerry Snyder, 330-7504
EMAIL
U.S. EPA
999 18th Street
Denver, CO 80202
Sam Marquez, 330-7151
EMAIL9826
U.S. EPA
999 18th Street
Denver, CO 80202
Steve Callio, 294-1 056
EMAIL98014
U.S. EPA
999 18th Street
Denver, CO 80202
Region 9
Rob Stern, 484-2339
EMAIL99039
U.S. EPA
75 Hawthorne Street
San Francisco, CA 94103
Rob Stern, 484-2339
EMAIL99039
Matt Mitguard, 484-2335
EMAIL2333
Sherry Nikzat, 484-9984
EMAIL99103
Doug Frazier, 484-2338
EMAIL99173
U.S. EPA
75 Hawthorne Street
San Francisco, CA 94103
Chris Weden, 484-2291
EMAIL99026
U.S. EPA
75 Hawthorne Street
San Francisco, CA 941 03
William Lewis, 484-2292
EMAIL99086
U.S. EPA - (T-4-8)
75 Hawthorne Street
San Francisco, CA 94103
Doug Frazier, 484-2338
EMAIL99173
U.S. EPA - (T-4-8)
75 Hawthorne Street
San Francisco, CA 94103
Judy Walker, 484-2334
EMAIL
U.S. EPA - (T-4-8)
75 Hawthorne Street
San Francisco, CA 94103
Terry Stumph, 484-1522
EMAIL9957
U.S. EPA-(P-3)
75 Hawthorne Street
San Francisco, CA 94103
Reaion 10
Joanne LaBaw, 399-2594
EMAIL9069
U.S. EPA
1200 6th Street
Seattle, WA 98101
Joanne LaBaw, 399-2594
EMAIL9069
U.S. EPA
1200 6th Street
Seattle, WA 98101
William Longston, 399-1196
EMAIL
U.S. EPA
1200 6th Street
Seattle, WA 98101
Chris Field, 399-
EMAIL
U.S. EPA
1200 6th Street
Seattle, WA 98101
John Osborn, 399-21 1 1
EMAIL
U.S. EPA
1200 6th Street
Seattle, WA 98101
Mike Slater, 399-0455
EMAIL
U.S. EPA
1200 6th Street
Seattle, WA 98101
Gerald Muth, 399-0370
EMAIL
U.S. EPA
1200 6th Street
Seattle, WA 98101
-------
information can be used to develop cost estimates
based on historical experience at similar sites in the
same geographical region.
The database, which is currently available in
each regional office, is particularly useful in providing
actual costs of remedial actions for comparison since
the data are based on actual historical experience at
sites ratherthan cost estimates. The database, however,
is currently limited to costs at 52 sites. This finite
number of sites may provide only a limited sample of
costs for any specific technology and any specific
region. This limitation will decrease in significance as
more sites are added to the database.
Work Assignment Resources Planning (WARP)
WARP is a menu-driven application program
that calculates the total estimated cost of a work
assignment based on estimated resource data entered
by the user and generates detailed costs reports. The
program is also capable of estimating the cost of
individual amendments to a work assignment. The
WARP program calculates contract costs using
algorithms based on contractual terms and conditions
of a cost plus award fee contract. The program can be
used to calculate costs for work assignments under
contracts which use level-of-effort hours categorized
by standard professional and technical levels.
The user supplies input data through a series of
data entry screens. Data are required for each team
member on the contract which includes pricing data
consisting of hourly rates for each labor category, fees,
overhead, and general and administrative (G & A)
costs. For each work assignment and defined task, the
user enters estimated resources required, broken out by
labor hours for each labor category and other direct
costs detailed by travel, postage, telephone, supplies,
reproduction, reports, computer, mobile lab, materials
and supplies, and subcontract pool. Based on these
data, the program computes costs including calculation
of the base and award fees for each team member and
the prime contractor's fee for managing the work
performed by the subcontractors. The user can conduct
evaluations of alternative cost scenarios by changing
data inputs related to labor hour distributions or other
direct cost estimates.
The program generates several different cost
reports by work assignment, by amendment, and by
contractor or subcontractor. The reports provide labor
breakdown tables by task and labor category, and cost
estimate breakdown tables by task and cost category.
In addition, the WARP program generates the Optional
Form 60 reports which are required with the submission
of contract pricing proposals for work assignments.
The cost information can also be downloaded and
imported into a LOTUS spreadsheet.
The WARP program provides a reliable cost
database, incorporating actual contractor and
subcontractor labor, overhead, and G & A rates as well
as fees. From th is cost data, the program al lows the user
to qu ickly develop labor breakdown tables and detailed
cost estimates and to generate the Optional Form-60.
The program is user friendly and does not require the
user to know the intricacies of cost estimating. The
WARP program, however, is only applicable to those
contracts that have the same indirect cost rate structure.
Use of the program for contracts with a different rate
structure requires modification of the program using
algebra and fee adjustments.
The most important thing to remember in
developing work assignment or task order budgets is
that the government is responsible for evaluating the
reasonableness of contractor's cost estimates and actual
cost expenditures. This requires the contract monitor to
develop an independent government cost estimate in
enough detail to identify areas of unnecessary costs and
inefficiencies. The budgetdevelopmenttools described
inthisarticle can provide valuable assistance infulfilling
this responsibility.
-------
CORAS BULLETIN BOARD
Hazardous Site Control Division
The Hazardous Site Control Division has an iniative underway to prepare guidance on the
development of cost estimates for remedial design. The guideline will provide information on
estimating labor hours for designs that range from simple to complex for several different categories
of remedies. The document will also include guidelines for estimating other direct costs typically
associated with remedial design. The guidance, while covering design cost estimating, is to be a
comprehensive document that will encompass all other facets of scoping remedial design,
including: the collection of pre-design technical information; the development of a remedial
management strategy and schedule; and, the preparation of a design statement of work. The first
draft of the guidance should be available in the Fall.
If you are interested in receiving back issues of the CORAS Bulletin, please call Jalania Ellis,
FTS 475-8533.
For any changes to the "Key Regional Personnel in Superfund Contract Management" chart please notify
Jalania Ellis, FTS 475-8533.
We want your feedback!
If you have future articles for the CORAS Bulletin, please submit them to:
Jalania Ellis
OS-240
US EPA
401 M Street, S.W.
Washington, DC 20460
9 .
-------
X-/EPA
United States
Environmental Protection
Agency OS-230
Vyashington DC 20460
Official Business
Penalty for Private Use
$300
First-Class Mail
Postage and Fees Paid
EPA
Permit No. G-35
------- |