United States
Environmental Protection
Agency
Region 6 (6AWM)
1201 Elm Street
Dallas, Texas 75270
EPA 906/9-78-003
July, 1978
v>EPA Engineering Costs and Fees for
Municipal Wastewater
Treatment Works
An Estimating Technique for
Design of Treatment Plants
-------
EPA REVIEW NOTICE
This report has been produced by the Environmental Protection Agency's
Region 6. The data base for the study is representative of research in
Region 6. However data has been dependent on information collected from
others and its use does not validate the information supplied beyond the
Region's own calculation.
NOTES
Document is available to the public through the:
National Technical Information Service
Springfield, Va. 22151
Questions or interpretations regarding this report may be addressed to
Ned K. Burleson, Chief, Municipal Facilities Branch (6AWM), Region 6 at
FTS 729-2845 (Commercial 214/767-2845).
-------
EPA-906/9-78-003
ENGINEERING COSTS AND FEES
FOR
MUNICIPAL WASTEWATER TREATMENT WORKS
An Estimating Technique for Design
Of Treatment Plants
JULY 1978
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
REGION 6
1201 ELM STREET
DALLAS, TEXAS 75270
-------
ABSTRACT
An analysis of costs and manpower efforts required to design wastewater
treatment works was conducted by the Construction Grants staff of the
Environmental Protection Agency, Region 6. The American Consulting
Engineers Council Chapter from the states of Arkansas, Louisiana, New
Mexico, Oklahoma, and Texas cooperated in the analysis.
The purpose of the study was to establish a basis for estimating/
evaluating manpower"requirements and reasonable engineering fees for EPA
projects.
Agency personnel collected actual manpower and financial resources
expended on designing specific wastewater treatment works projects.
This data, adjusted for inflation and other cost fluctuation, provided
an empirical basis for statistical comparison with other parameters.
The relationships developed provide a methodology for estimating and
analyzing engineering fees for wastewater treatment plant design. The
object is to produce a series of nomographs and related tables that can
determine the median number of drawings required and corresponding A&E
design costs/manhours based upon inputing the following variables: 1)
MGD, 2) type of construction (new, upgrade, etc.), 3) treatment process,
4) effluent quality required, and 5) difficulty of drawings.
-------
PERSPECTIVE
This report was prepared by EPA Region 6 personnel. The data base for
the study is representative of Region 6. The intent of the report is to
present an objective treatment of the subject and provide as much
factual evidence as possible.
The study has accumulated historical resources expended by specific
consulting engineering firms on EPA Wastewater Treatment Works (WWTW)
design.
Resources accumulated have been updated to establish an empirical basis
for evaluating future proposed engineering fees. It is assumed that
past costs (or resources) can be adjusted for inflation and other in-
fluences to provide an approximate average estimate of the cost of
similiar future design.
Considering related studies, construction cost estimates and technology
updates, each WWTW design is unique. To remain flexible to the diver-
sity of engineering design, the data reported should be accepted as an
average surrounded by a relevant range. In effect, the study product
has value as a guide but should be used as a tool directed by human
judgment. Based upon the curves generated, average Architectural and
Engineering (A&E) design costs can be extrapolated. Human judgment
should then be applied reflecting the fact that for specific situations
costs may be higher or lower than the mean.
Although the particular Region 6 study may not be directly useful to
other organizations, it is commended as a research methodology to
everyone interested in WWTW design compensation. As more history be-
comes available, it is expected that the current data base will be
expanded and updated regularly providing an accurate and continuing
series of cost estimating relationships.
From a practical standpoint, the curves will provide Region 6 with a
guideline to indicate significant differences between proposed engi-
neering fees proposed and average fees reasonably reconstructed from
historical data. On specific projects the rational resolution of such
differences will be solely dependent upon the judgment of the parties
involved.
The study data presented are based upon fourth quarter calendar 1977
dollars and EPA regulations/requirements as of that date. Future con-
sideration of the data should reflect adjustments based upon changing
economic conditions and mandated scope changes.
In summation, the proper use of the data presented herein is consistent
with: 1) insuring fairness to Consulting Engineer Firms, 2) obtaining
high quality professional services for EPA projects, and 3) protecting
the public interests by assuring that compensation is justified by
services rendered.
-------
CONTENTS
Page
Abstract iii
Perspective iv
Contents v
Lists of Exhibits vi
Acknowledgments vii
Conclusions viii
Sections
Introduction 1
Methodology for "Plant" Research 16
Discussion of "Plant" Data Analysis 6
Other Issues Addressed 6-8
Exhibits 8-31
Technical Report Data 32
-------
EXHIBITS
No. Page
I Adjusted MGD/Number of Drawings/Constructed Engineering Costs 9-10
for Treatment Plant Design
la Adjusted MGD/Number of Drawings/Constructed Engineering Costs 11-12
for Treatment Plant Design of Smaller Plants
II Adjusted MGD/Number of Drawings/Average- Engineering Manhours 13-14
for Treatment Plant Design
III Study Insight/Smaller Engineering Firms 15
IV Study Insight/Larger Engineering Firms 16
V Feet of Line/Number of Drawings/Engineering Costs for 17-18
Collection Systerrt Design
VI Analysis of A&E Firms' Federally Approved Indirect Cost Rates 19-20
VII A&E Costs and Profit/Number of Drawings for Treatment Plant 21
Design
VIII Engineering Costs/Construction Bids/Engineering Fees/Number 22
of Drawings
IX Plant Data Sheets 23-30
VI
-------
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
Numerous Professional Consulting Engineers practicing in Arkansas,
Louisiana, Oklahoma, New Mexico, and Texas made vital contributions to
the study. Their advice and assistance was invaluable in accumulating
the large quantity of data contained herein.
Sincere appreciation is extended to the Consulting Engineering Firms
that allowed EPA analysis access to their records and the various engi-
neering societies mentioned in the report as consultant to the study.
In acknowledgment of their cooperation, specific commendation is ex-
tended to the Engineering Advisory Committee, EPA Region 6/American
Consulting Engineers Council.
The Region 6 study team members are commended for their efforts. In
addition to their full-time operating responsibilities, numerous staff
assisted with this study. Because operating responsibilities were ex-
tensive and most critical, many professionals in the study team volun-
teered their time after hours. Wherever possible, ancillary tasks
related to the study were performed in conjunction with operating func-
tions. For example, while visiting A&E firms to perform financial
management systems' evaluation and consultation; Contract Price Analysts
accumulated specific job cost data for the study.
It is intended that the outcome of this study will equitably serve the
best interests of all parties. The beneficial free flow of communica-
tion between Region 6 and the Consulting Engineers demonstrates that
mutual protection for EPA, clients and Consulting Engineers is best
assured by an atmosphere of mutual respect and cooperation.
vn
-------
CONCLUSIONS
There was a common interest of all concerned with engineering fees
in the plan to create "fee curves".
There is a predictive relationship between Wastewater Treatment
Plant design parameters and averages design costs. Through utili-
zation of a family of curves the variables: 1) MGD, 2) type of
construction (new, upgrade, etc.), 3) treatment process, 4) efflu-
ent quality required, and 5) difficulty of design drawings can be
used to determine average cost and effort.
Historical data researched shows that there was no reliable predic-
tive relationship between construction costs and the design costs.
There is little relationship between the size of A&E firms and
their Federally approved indirect cost rates.
The Environmental Protection Agency, the engineering societies, and
other entities work well together while compiling data for such a
report.
vi n
-------
DEVELOPMENT OF FEE CURVES
INTRODUCTION
The percentage of construction cost and multiplier method of contracting/
compensating for engineering services on EPA projects is prohibited.
Since implementation of this prohibition, there has been considerable
speculation regarding the reasonableness of engineering fees. EPA and
the A&E firms had expended considerable manhours in efforts to determine
reasonable fees for WWTW design. It became apparent that a more effi-
cient method of estimating/evaluating was required.
To provide a sound alternative for determining reasonable wastewater
treatment Works Engineering design charges, Region VI performed an
analysis of the circumstances that determine A&E design costs.
Regional project files contain the largest possible amount of raw A&E data
related to the five state area (Arkansas, Louisiana, New Mexico, Oklahoma,
and Texas). An analysis of Region VI A&E fee experience was used as the
study's foundation. Data collection consisted primarily of a file
search of historical A&E information submitted to Region VI. This data
was supplemented by additional sampling data gathered from selected A&E
firms having considerable wastewater treatment works experience. Although
there are plans to study Steps I, II, III and the various ancillary
services; it was decided to isolate Step II "Design of Wastewater Treat-
ment Plants and Lines" as an initial research pilot. Most of the work
to date has involved these particular A&E services.
METHODOLOGY FOR "PLANT" RESEARCH
Final data was inputed for sixty-five completed jobs (grant award sub-
sequent to January, 1973) performed by firms confined within Region VI
and having between 7 and 170 employees. This total (65) included all
possible Region VI jobs with Step II design fees that exceeded $50,000
(42). The additional 23 less costly jobs were selected based on the
objective of including the widest representation of Consulting Engi-
neering firms operating in the Region while considering the number of
projects required to make valid inferences.
All jobs selected were examined individually and analyzed collectively.
To facilitate consistent and systematic "file searching" of jobs se-
lected; a "File Research Data Checklist" was prepared. The 116 items
included on the checklist represent the factors that may directly or
indirectly affect the A&E charges for wastewater treatment works. The
following "Construction Data" excerpts are taken from the File Research
Checklist:
-------
Construction Data
Type of Construction (General) (59)
Enter one of the following:
New Plant
Upgrade; primary to secondary
Upgrade: primary to tertiary
Upgrade; secondary to tertiary
Upgrade/expansion; primary to secondary
Upgrade/expansion; primary to tertiary
Upgrade/expansion; secondary to tertiary
Expansion at same treatment level
*
Description of proposed/constructed facilities
-- Inflow rate MGD (75)
Influent (BOD) mg/1 (76)
-- Influent (TSS) mg/1 (77)
Other influent quality considerations required such
as P, NH3, M03 removal (78)
Principal unit process train involved (79)
Enter one of the following:
Activated sludge (conventional)
Extended aeration
Lagoons
Contact stabilization
Trickling filters, Biofilters
Oxidation ditches
Pure oxygen
Roughing filters and conventional activated sludge
-------
Primary chemical and activated sludge
Biodisc
Physical-chemical
Primary chemical and pure oxygen
Step aeration
Trickling filter and step aeration
The following "Degree of Difficulty" excerpt is taken from another
section of the File Research Checklist:
Degree of Difficulty Involved in A&E V.'ork As Determined
By A Drawing Review
Total number of drawings (99)
Number of easy (E) drawings
Land planning sheets (100)
Pipeline sheets (101)
Other (E) (102)
Total (103) %(104)
Number of average drawings
Process component drawings (105)
Structural drawings (106)
Architectural and other (107)
Total (108) «(109)
Number of difficult drawings
Mechanical sheets (110)
Full electrical sheets (111)
Experimental component sheets (112)
Total (113) JS(114)
Project classification (115)
-------
In order to account for inflationary trends, dollar values recorded on
the checklist for items such as "low bid construction" and "A&E Fee"
have been updated to fourth quarter 1977 dollars. Other checklist items
include project identification information such as "project location",
"geographic classification", and "population served".
Besides file searching information, Region VI Contract Price Analysts
visited 21 firms representing all 5 states in the Region. For projects
selected, the analysts and firm officials constructed the actual histor-
ical costs expended by the firm on the particular job. These historical
costs were then updated to current dollars. In effect, for these pro-
jects, the A&E Costs for a firm to design a particular wastewater
treatment plant in the fourth quarter of 1977 were established. Of the
65 projects file researched, 31 also underwent updated design cost
analysis. The basis for costing these jobs was the actual manhours
expended. The accumulated manhours were used in generating the manhour
table (see Exhibit II). This manhour table makes the technical "number
of drawings" curves relevent for firms with varying overhead rates.
The site visits accomplished by our analysts were beneficial, in that,
they enabled a free flow of communication between EPA and the various
Consulting Engineers. Region VI gained an understanding of the various
types of estimating/cost accounting systems used in the profession. The
systems encountered at the various firms ranged from primitive informal
to sophisticated computerized. The insight of the Consulting Engineers
was incorporated into the Region VI study. Many topics of mutual inter-
est were discussed; narrative comments on the discussions are provided
as Exhibit III (for the smaller firms) and Exhibit IV (for the larger
firms).
Throughout the study to date, the various engineering societies have
been informed of study goals and methodology. National and state
representatives of the American Consulting Engineers Council, the
American Society of Civil Engineers and the National Society of Profes-
sional Engineers had the opportunity to participate and provide gui-
dance. Generally, the Societies agreed with the study's purpose, demon-
strated considerable positive interest in the research, and asked to be
kept informed.
In the actual statistical analysis of the plant design data, the nine
variables most likely to affect A&E charges were considered. These
variables included:
1. MGD
2. A&E costs in dollars and manhours
3. Construction bids
4. A&E fees
5. Type of construction (new, upgrade, etc.)
6. Treatment process
7. Effluent quality required
-------
8. Number of drawings required and
9. Difficulty of drawings.
To discern the relationships between the variables for which data was
accumulated, the statistical method of regression analysis was used. An
EPA programmable calculator capable of mechanically printing graphs
actually performed the numerous regression analysis.
Conclusions drawn from the calculations considered:
1. The statistical measure of reliability for regression
analysis (R2);
2. The relevance of any positive statistical relationships
toward meeting our final study goal, and
3. Logical inference.
Initially, 70 projects were researched. The plant curves are based on
65 of these projects because, for various reasons, 5 of the initial
projects were inappropriate for analysis. All 31 of the costed projects
were used.
For the most part, projects selected for costing were chosen by Region
VI. Selection was based upon a determination that the project was repre-
sentative and applicable for statistical sampling. In only a few cases
did EPA analysts cost a particular project at the suggestion of the
cooperating Consulting Engineer. These cases occurred when EPA analysts
were unable to reconstruct valid costs on projects originally selected
for costing by Region VI. In general, the cost/price and other plant
design data inputed is considered accurate and unbiased.
Conclusions Based upon "Plant" Data Analysis
The historical data showed a generally reliable positive relationship
between Construction Cost and A&E fee. This is understandable con-
sidering that prior to prohibition by EPA; the use of the fee curve
method of contracting was in accordance with accepted industry practice.
Notwithstanding the relationship described above, our data indicated a
considerably less reliable relationship between Construction Cost and
A&E cost. The relationship of A&E fees versus A&E costs showed that as
costs increased, fees increased at a slightly higher rate.
Statistically, for a specific "effluent level/type of treatment and
construction" there is a predicting relationship between MGD and the
number of drawings required. For a particular plant, the generated
family of curves determines the number of drawings required for a given
MGD.
Relating the number of drawings to A&E costs is another conclusive
positive relationship determined. Jobs were grouped by the difficulty
of their aggregate make-up of drawings. The job's set of drawings were
classified as difficult (C), average (B), and easy (A). Plotting A&E
-------
costs versus the number of drawings for each classification produced
three curves with extremely high statistical reliability. The three
curves themselves have a high level of confidence based upon logic. All
demonstrate economy of scale principles in costs. When the three are
considered as a family of curves; for a particular number of drawings,
the easy curve predicts the least cost, the average curve a greater
cost, and the difficult curve the greatest cost. The family of cost
curves can determine A&E costs from the established number of drawings.
Based upon the nature of the costs, the costs can then be converted to
fees accordingly.
In effect, the essence of the study is a nomograph and related table
(see Exhibits I and II) that can determine the median number of drawings
required and corresponding A&E design costs/manhours based upon inputing
the following variables: 1) MGD, 2) type of construction (new, upgrade,
etc.), 3) treatment process, 4) effluent quality required, and 5) diffi-
culty of drawings.
This methodology could be simplified to relate A&E fees to MGD through
a family of curves. However, the cost and technical relationships
involving the number of drawings would certainly be essential to a
credible estimating/negotiating process.
OTHER ISSUES ADDRESSED:
"Status of Research on Collection Lines and Lift Stations"
Research in this area is not yet finalized. Preliminary curves on
lines are shown as Exhibit V.
"Statistical Analysis of EPA Approved Indirect Cost Rates for Region VI
Consulting Engineering Firms"
See Exhibit VI.
"Bargraphs Produced"
Exhibit VII is a bargraph demonstrating the "hypothetical" profit-
loss trend for those projects updated to fourth quarter 1977 dollars.
"A&E Fees related to Construction Costs"
Exhibit VIII is a curve relating A&E Fees to Construction Costs.
"Possible National Relevance of our Plant Methodology/Research"
The MGD versus number of drawings scale on Nomograph Exhibit I and
the corresponding manhour table of Exhibit II may be relevent on a
national, level. As a minimum, the potential to input a multitude
of such technical/manhour data exists in all other EPA Regions.
Whereas cost data is not relevent from Region to Region, state to
state, or city to city, technical/manhour data and the corresponding
number of drawings should be relatively constant across geographic
boundaries.
-------
"Plant Data Sheets"
Plant data sheets included in Exhibit IX demonstrate the type of
data analyzed in the study. Each line of information presented has
been verified/corrected by the particular A&E firm involved.
Although the firms consider some of this information proprietary,
they approved release of their data in a statistical format. The
format of Exhibit IX gives no indication as to the identity of the
participating firms.
-------
EXHIBITS
USE OF EACH CURVE
The treatment plant curves in the following exhibits are to be read by
entering the curve with the treatment process, effluent quality to be
designed, and the MGD. For other than new plants the Adjusted MGD is
roughly calculated by the formulas below. The center of the initial
letter of the process is the beginning of the curve which one follows
down to an MGD vertical line. Then horizontal across through the number
of drawings to the the curve indicated in parentheses - (A) (B) or (C) -
with the treatment process. Then one drops vertically from the A, B, or
C curve to read engineering costs. In the case of the "Man-hour" curves
one picks the number of manhours for A, B, or C.
APPROXIMATE ADJUSTED MGD CALCULATIONS
(computer curves were used)
Existing usable primary enlarged to secondary:
Adj. MGD = 1/2 X MGD credit for primary plus enlargement increment.
Existing usable secondary to be enlarged:
Adj. MGD = 3/4 X MGD credit for existing secondary plus enlargement
increment.
Existing usable primary enlarged to tertiary;
Adj. MGD = 1/4 X MGD credit for primary plus enlargement increment.
Existing usable secondary to be enlarged to tertiary:
Adj. MGD = 1/2 X MGD credit for existing secondary plus enlargement
increment.
Of cource, MGD on new projects is not adjusted.
-------
AVERAGE (B)
EASY (A)
*-
El
El
I-
H
El
Lrt
n
I-
El
El
ET
El
PI
I-
H
El
FM
t-
EJ
H.
[A
-+
s
U1
El
Ef
El
El
El
ENGINEERING COST
10
-------
ADJUSTED MGD/NUMBER OF DRAWINGS/
CONSTRUCTED ENGINEERING COSTS FOR
TREATMENT PLANT DESIGN
i-gittdge+FilterCCV
.* ,,. ^^,Fift+Filti«(C)
rsfnsOTiro)
.
Aer i Lagoon (A)
I 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
1 1 1 1 1 h
ADJUSTED MGD
EXHIBIT I
11
-------
AVERAGE (B)
EASY (A)
HARD
ADJUSTED MGD/ NUMBER OF DRA
ENGINEERING COSTS FOR TREAT
OF SMALL PLANTS
HB
MB
HH
H2
HB
-t H
5
ET UT
Uf El" UT
UT E
El
l/T
El El El El
ET Wv ET El
ENGI NEERING COST
12
-------
WINGS/ CONSTRUCTED
WENT PLANT DESIGN
H 1 1-
H 1 1 1 1 1 1 1-
H S S -
ADJUSTED MGD
EXHIBIT I-A
13
-------
» i
3000
2750
2350
1950
1500
1250
950
700
500
300
20O
100
1 1
1
540C
480C
420C
350C
29(X
Z50C
2KX
1650
I30C
950'
750
500
i i
i i
8500
7500
62GC
44a
3400
2«X
2100
IGOO
(300
MOO
BOO
600
500
Environ.
*
Drafter
10000
3500
7800
6800
WOO
5200
470Q
390C
vnf
270C
220£
1700
1300
1000
surveyor
770
360
150
50
40
Clerical
1250
1020
720
580
450
360
280
230
I8O
130
60
i i
i
X
800
570
390
260
ISO
95
45
45
30
20
I 1
II
3000
2«x
2250
mo
IfcSO
1340
ttio
980
780
570
3SO
1*
?4K>
2100
1600
isso
1180
790
«0
520
430
350
270
zoo
Environ.
grafter
bdU
53tt
4700
423C
sea
3400
290C
230C
1850
I50(
1100
700
3SO
purveyor
2800
2600
2450
2350
2230
2000
1810
1700
1400
1150
750
40O
25O
plerical
340
32C
295
290
270
£45
2Z5
185
155
130
110
90
i
X
360
310
2.1O
22.O
I3O
1 1
1
1280
1200
1100
950
fcOO
zoo
1 1
1 1
t 1
1000
920
840
740
570
350
5O
Environ.
Drafter
2750
2300
1900
1400
800
500
ZOO
purveyor
750
630
480
330
ISO
60
"ro
r-
S-
-------
ADJUSTED MGD/NUMBER OF DRAWINGS/
AVERAGE ENGINEERING MANHOURS FOR
TREATMENT PLANT DESIGN
Act. Sluflge
Cont.Stab±F*TE(C)
r.Filt+FiltCC)
Lagoon+Fllt^; tj
Oxy.fii
. Lagoon (B
Con. .
.AerfB
Trick,BioF(B;
xy.Dltch(B)
Aer. Lagoon (A)
Con.St.A.S(B
Oxy.Ditch(A)
Aer. Lagoon (A)
1 1 1 1 1 1 1I 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
ADJUSTED MGD
EXHIBIT II
15
-------
STUDY INSIGHT/SMALLER ENGINEERING FIRMS
Generally, the smaller firms (less than 25 staff) have different oper-
ating characteristics than do their larger counterparts. Discussions
with smaller firm principals indicated that many such firms do not
maintain sophisticated accounting, estimating and procurement systems.
In such cases, the principals expressed the belief that sophisticated
systems would not prove cost effective to their operations. The oper-
ating systems of many of the smaller firms are less formal and compre-
hensive than the systems required by EPA and government regulations. It
is noteworthy, however, that many small firms are attempting to upgrade
their systems and bring them into compliance.
In general, smaller firms believe that EPA should be less stringent and
more flexible regarding small firm's systems requirements. They believe
that such an EPA policy would simply provide equity to the small firms
operating on EPA sponsored projects.
The following statements summarize certain opinions voiced by various
principals of small firms:
- small firms proportionally have more unallowable expenses than
large firms.
- the curves developed by the current EPA research explicitly
represent EPA eligible costs only; clients/grantees should be
made aware that they will undoubtedly incur additional
"ineligible" costs.
- the ASCE Manual 45 Curves are well defined and useful. The
clients/grantees are familiar with the "fee curve" system;
the Consulting Engineers experience considerable difficulty in
convincing "small" grantees that other methods of computing
compensation are required and more reasonable.
- new and changing EPA regulations cause considerable delays in
completion of projects; it appears EPA's zealousness to write
regulations that address all "exceptions" and "past unusual
circumstances" are actually counterproductive to the Consulting
Engineers and their clients.
- it is extremely difficult for a Consulting Engineer to approach
a client with a grant amendment/scope change.
- "interest" is an unallowable expense and yet delay in receipt
of payment for engineering services is beyond the control of the
Consulting Engineer.
- if EPA's proposal review considers a Consulting Engineer's profit
as a percentage of his cost; in effect EPA is providing the Con-
sulting Engineers with a potential incentive to increase allow-
able "overhead".
EXHIBIT III
16
-------
STUDY INSIGHT/LARGER ENGINEERING FIRMS
The study cannot make any generalizations regarding the operating char-
acteristics of the larger firms. The accounting, estimating and pro-
curement systems encountered at firms with greater than 25 staff ranged
from primitive informal to sophisticated computerized.
The following statements summarize certain opinions voiced by various
engineers/principals of larger firms:
- A&E costs are affected by the expertise of the particular client;
total costs and sheet costs should be evaluated based upon both
the technical aspects and the "client expertise" aspect.
- Federal governmental imposition is burdening the engineering
profession; such imposition is responsible for changing the face
(structure) of many A&E firms.
- Region 6 should conduct a "Public Hearing" on the results of its
current fee study.
- EPA should recognize a proportionate higher profit for Step II
services; Step II is more difficult and demanding than Steps I
and III.
- indirect cost rates accepted fluctuate depending on which Federal
agency is doing the reviewing/auditing.
- quality of engineering services vary; EPA regulations are inter-
preted differently by various Consulting Engineers thereby cre-
ating product/services disparities.
- proportionately, inspection costs are increasing in relation to
design costs.
- A&E firms "promote" EPA requirements.
- A&E costs vary based upon the client reviewer, the state re-
viewer, and the EPA reviewer.
- EPA regulations cause A&E costs to increase; construction costs
are also increased.
- historically, the fee curves provided the A&E firm with a profit
on Step II (design) and a loss on Step III (inspection).
- to make an adequate profit, an A&E firm must undercut its "esti-
mated" hours.
EXHIBIT IV
17
-------
COST
> I
H 1-
lit
^
or mv m*
ET
or
n
in v
t/t
DOLLARS
18
-------
FEET OF LINE/NUMBER OF DRAWINGS/
ENGINEERING COSTS FOR COLLECTION
SYSTEM DESIGN
A V G, 1880 FT, PER DRAWING
1
h-
IS
El
1
H
IS
EL
ET
1
IS
El
1
1
El
El
ET
T
1
El
El
l/l
1
El
El
ET
ID
I
El
El
i-
r**
El
El
Ef
CD
1
El
El
El
ET
01
i
El
El
El^
El
1
El
El
Ek
El
i
El
El
H^
5"
r
El
El
m^
R
El
El
El^
T
~~
El
El
H^
S"
~^
El
El
H'V.
ID
»
F' E E T OF LINE
EXHIBIT V
19
-------
ANALYSIS OF A&E FIRMS' FEDERALLY APPROVED INDIRECT COST RATES
Region 6 performed an analysis of A&E firms' Federally approved indirect
cost rates. The analysis, consisting of firms doing business within
Region 6, attempted to relate indirect cost rates to firm size. Based
upon total data accumulated, little relationship between the size of A&E
firms and their Federally approved indirect costs rates was found.
However, upon data categorization of firms with between 1 and 75 em-
ployees, it was noted that the "average" indirect cost rates per size
category increased as the corresponding average size of the firms in-
creased. For firms with approximately 75 to 150 employees, the average
rates per size category dipped slightly with the corresponding average
size increase. For firms with more than 150 employees, the average
indirect cost rates again began to increase in relation to the increas-
ing average size of the firm. The results described are graphically and
specifically illustrated by tables on page 2 of this exhibit.
Indirect cost rates fluctuate depending on the treatment and classifi-
cation (direct or indirect) of resources (eg. manhours/labor costs and
travel, equipment, materials, supplies, etc./other costs). Generally,
the more resources a firm charges directly the lower their indirect cost
rate becomes. A reduction in the resources charged directly will cause
an increase in the indirect cost rate.
In developing this exhibit, data was inputed from Region 6 contract
price analysis files on 46 A&E firms. Included in the analysis are the
most current available indirect cost rates as approved by Federal audit
agencies or as developed during the "Region 6 Analysis of Architectural -
Engineering Compensation for Wastewater Treatment Works Design." The
rates analyzed are based consistently on direct labor costs. Direct
labor costs are defined as base salaries exclusive of the employer's
portion of payroll overhead, bonuses, benefits, or burden.
In formulating rates used in this analysis, the general cost principles
of 40 CFR 1-15.4 and 1-15.2 were applied.
EXHIBIT VI
20
-------
150-
oc.
o
m
5
100
50-
r '
1
.
1
'
.'
1
1
1
1
ANALYSIS OF ENGINEERING FIRMS
FEDERALLY APPROVED INDIRECT
! : i
.....
COST RATES
1
:
1
i
I
] '
'
;
1
i
.
;
: : . , . !
; ;
" ' i
,,,.,,,,,
. , . .
:
'
.
!
1
i
.
,,l
,
*
'
i
1
~ ~ *
I
!
1
. .
1
1
4 5
-------
50 7o
ro
20
10
IN
Mill'!
I«J-M7Z
^ - :-Z10 i :
i ! i i.:.; 40
75
.1 i. ^ <^. i «->
i-l-tf
115
NO, OF DRAHI NGS
BLACK: LOSS !
GREY: PROFIT
A & E COSTS AND PROFIT/NUMBER
OF DRAWINGS FOR TREATMENT
PLANT DESIGN
200
'COSTS vs. NO, OF DRAW I NGS;
: BLACK: COST
GREY: FEE
15 IT It IB 16 i\
^& 39 43 45 55 IUO 115 131 136
-------
o
ca
300000 E000000300000'
3B5000 S7000002BSH00'
270000 5H00000270000'
255000 5I 00000255000'
2H0000HB000002H0000
225000 HS00000225000'
2 I 0000 H2000002I 0000
ISS000 3B00000 IB5000
I B0000 3E0C3000 I B0000
IBS000 3300000 IBS000
I S0000 30130000 I S0000
I 35000 2700000 I3S000
I 20000 2H00000 I 20000
t 05000 2 I 00000 I 05000
B0000 IB00000B0000
75000 I 50000075000
B0000 I 200000*B0000
H5000 B00000 M5000
30000 B00000 30000
I 5000 300000 I 5000
ENGINEERING COSTS/CONSTRUCTION
BIDS/ENGINEERING FEES/NUMBER
OF DRAWINGS
19
ni
IS E3 H
HSisscaisiaBJ N
rnxwifli^niDi
NO, OF DRAWINGS
EXHIBIT VIII
-------
§£
is
LUO
30/30
1
PROJECT
NO.
E.P.A.
Serial
Project
Location
AERATED LAGOON
1
2
3
4
5
6
i1
*1E
Sc E
o fc
OoiZ
OXIDATION DITCH
i
7
TRICKLING FILTERS
i
8
9
10
BIOFILTER - BIODISC
11
12
EXTENDED AERATION
13
14
15
16
17
CONT. STAB - ACT. SLDG.
18
19
20
21
O
(3
oS
Sc
en o>
§!
i!
<0
.051
.15
.25
.034
.330
.40
1.0
4.25
.72
1.3
2.0
1.87
3.75
4.0
6.0
2.25
7.3
6.0
12.0
.083
.150
.75
1.535
1.8
3.0
.24
.75
.20
1.0
2.0
Number of
Drawings
5
6
9
11
55
38
33
10
15
61
115
9
15
26
27
31
7
16
25
39
Hardness
of Drawings
A
fr__
A
A
A
A
C
A
B
C-
B+
A
A
B
B+
B-
B-
B-
C
C-
STEP 2 MANHO
Engineers
IX
VIII
55
163
241
223
182
273
306
159
VII
179
376
419
290
401
VI
179
1440
479
401
541
V
3
620
234
?503
I385
633
IV
425
8
948
74
802
III
I860
4155
II
I
182
1063
271
1
UJ
69
153
761
>,
Si
-C 3
cxo
8
241
17
416
538
132
c
m
^
tr
15
723
33
415
1614
214
9
180
sc
22
oo
82
367
130
-------
URS
DESIGN PROCESS
TRAIN DESCRIPTION
III
90
NEW: 6-CELL SERIES LAGOON, INTERMITTENT DISCHARGE
NS
3,172
6,570
106,367
2/77
NEW: 2-CELL LAGOONS. SLUDGE DISPOSAL IN LAGOONS
NS
16,920
NEW: AERATED LAGOONS, CLARIFIER, RETURN SLUDGE, BYPASS PREVEN-
TION POND
NS
9,461
158,050
9/76
1.2
31
EXISTING POND a FLOW EQUILIZATION RESERVOIR RETAINED AS PRIMARY
NEW 2-CELL AERATION BASIN. FINAL CLARIFIER. SLUDGE RETURN. SLUDGE
DRYING BEDS
NEW: AERATED LAGOONS, CLARIFIERS. RETURN SLUDGE. HOLDING POND.
SLUDGE LAGOON
EXISTING CLARIFIER, BAR SCREENS a LIFT STATION USED AS REFURBISHED
HEAD OF PLANT WITH FORCE MAIN TO NEW PLANT OF AERATED LAGOONS a
FINAL CLARIFIER
NEW: OXIDATION DITCH. FINAL CLARIFIERS. SLUDGE DRYING BEDS
REFURBISH PRIMARY a SECONDARY CLARIFIERS a DIGESTER ADD NEW
AERATION BASIN, SECONDARY CLARIFIER. PRESSURE FILTERS. SLUDGE
DRYING BEDS
REFURBISH PRIMARY a SECONDARY CLARIFIERS. TRICKLING FILTERS
DIGESTERS, SETTLING POND. ADD NEW HOLDING POND. CHEMICAL PRECIP-
ITATION. CHLORINATION
REFURBISH PRIMARY a SECONDARY CLARIFIERS. PRIMARY & SECONDARY
TRICKLING FILTERS. PRIMARY a SECONDARY DIGESTERS. ADD NEW SUPER
RATE TRICKLING FILTER. FINAL CLARIFIER. DIGESTER
REFURBISH PRIMARY a SECONDARY CLARIFIERS. HIGH RATE TRICKLING
FILTERS, PRIMARY a SECONDARY DIGESTERS. ADD NEW ROTATING BIODISC.
THICKENER. PRIMARY DIGESTER
REFURBISH PRIMARY CLARIFIERS ADD NEW PRIMARY CLARIFIER. BIODISC
TREATMENT. SECONDARY CLARIFIERS. SCUM TANK. THICKENER. AERATED
SLUDGE LAGOONS
SLUDGE RETURN
NEW: AERATION BASINS. CLARIFIERS. EMERGENCY HOLDING POND. SLUDGE
HOLDING PONDS
NEW: AERATION BASINS. CLARIFIERS. AEROBIC DIGESTERS, SLUDGE DRY-
ING BEDS
REFURBISH PRIMARY CLARIFIERS. ADD NEW MECHANICAL AERATORS.
SINGLE STEP EXTENDED AERATION. SUN DRIED SLUDGE, LANDFILL
UP
ES
6,648
8,607
128,500
5/77
1.4
46
57
NS
13,106
16,470
276,500
0/76
1149
130
UP
ES
84,640
81,300
NS
59,371
799,035
5/76
1.0
388
ES
75,066
,072,380
22
2.6
ES
22,396
20,720
538,500
0/77
3.5
66
114
ES
61,878
71,040
,810,400
3/78
937
181
US
168,000
169,869
EST
3,112,255
7.5
2566
289
UP
ES
189,028
261,300
5,953,000
0/7
(7)
11. C
159
UP
ES
8,234 10,632
211,297
8/7
NS
20,791
519,35010
5/7
734
126
NS
46,125
44,988
1,080.212
3/7
68,100
1,658,608
8/7
(7)
NEW: AERATION BASINS. AEROBIC DIGESTERS. PONDS. LANDFILL
NS
63,250
2,218,000
8/7
NEW: CLARIFIER, PREFAB CONTACT STABILIZATION AEROBIC DIGESTER.
SLUDGE DRYING BEDS
PREFAB
NS
9,341
RETAIN DIGESTER a SLUDGE DRYING BEDS. ADD NEW BIOFILTER, ACTIVATED
SLUDGE. FINAL CLARIFIER.
ES
28,629
595,764
8/7
912
83
REFURBISH IMHOFF TANKS AS DIGESTERS ADD NEW ACTIVATED SLUDGE
DIFFUSED AERATION TANKS, CLARIFIEHS, AEROBIC DIGESTERS, SLUDGE
DRYING BEDS
UP
ES
67,941
73,109
1,392,546
12/7 V2(
558
205
NEW: PRIMARY CLARIFIER, ACTIVATED SLUDGE. FINALCLARIFIER, AEROBIC
DIGESTER, SLUDGE DRYING BEDS
NS
73,952
125,199
2,306,477
6/77
3.
EXHIBIT IX
25
-------
if
U-iO
20/20
1
PROJECT
NO.
E.P.A.
Serial
Project
Location
OXIDATION DITCHES
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
TR
31
ICKLING FILTERS
I
OOiZ
EXTENDED AERATION
32
33
34
35
CONT. STAB-ACT. SLDG.
36
37
38
D
O
"55 O)
tl
<£o
.40
.401
0.8
1.0
1.19
1.20
1.436
1.75
2.0
5.0
.066
.10
2.5
2.75
.128
2.2
6.75
Actual
Design MGD
.4
.283
.613
0.8
1.0
.760
1.760
1.20
1.436
2.0
3.0
2.7
4.0
2.0
6.0
.066
.10
3.5
5.0
2.75
.128
.8
2.8
2.5
8.0
Number of
Drawings
45
18
21
17
23
17
26
27
56
11
7
30
25
18
19
100
W5.C
"Ed
xB
B
B-(A)
A+(B)
A+(B)
A+
A+(B)
-(A)
[_
A+
c_
A+
B-(A)
MA)
B-
B-(B)
A
A+
B-(A)
j
STEP 2 MANHOU
Engineers
IX
36
36
VIII
351
7
7
240
129
113
VII
VI
76
43
78
982
465
876
99
62
180
1
1182
V
82
310
151
4000
V
34
97
331
694
III
t
t
II
I
95
16
416
2
C
580
147
C
LLJ
ll
17
306
Rodman
35
42
75
61
80
67
495
11
oo
16
10
12
20
26
-------
R!
s=
718
8
irtf
655
11
900
f
?04
lOffi
5
=.. ..
O (
8
551
8
367
337
fM
i
3>>
sf
an
35
je
as
O
77
84
m
00
1?9
??/
1?
DESIGN PROCESS
TRAIN DESCRIPTION
ORBITAL CHANNEL STABILIZATION UNIT, PRIMARY CLARIFIERS. SLUDGE
DRYING BEDS
EXIST, OXIDATION DITCH, 2 CELL PONDS, RETAIN OXIDATION DITCH. NEW OX.
DITCH. FINAL CUAH.. SLUDGE BEDS
BEDS
NEW: OXIDATION DITCH. CLARIFIERS. HOLDING POND. SLUDGE DRYING
BEDS
REFURBISH OXIDATION DITCH FINAL CLARIFIER. ADD NEW OXIDATION
DITCH. FINAL CLARIFIER. CHLORINATION
BEDS
NEW: OXIDATION DITCH. FINAL CLARIFIERS, SLUDGE DRYING BEDS. CON-
CONTACT CHAMBERS
EXISTING: SECONDARY PONDS. ADD AERATION FOLLOWED BY POLISHING
POND. PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL ALGAE SLUDGE FLOTATION, SLUDGE DRYING
BEDS. LANDFILL *
EXISTING- SECONDARY PONDS. ADD AERATION FOLLOWED BY POLISHING
POND PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL ALGAE SLUDGE PLOTATION, SLUDGE DRYING
BEDS. LANDFILL
RENOVATE EXISTING PRIMARY CLARIFIERS. ADD TRICKLING FILTERS.
NEW AERATION CHAMBERS (PREFAB!, 2 FINAL SETTLING PREFAB TANKS.
RETURN, CHLORINATION, SLUDGE DRYING BEDS
EXISTING PRIMARY CLARIFIER. ROCK FILTERS. FINAL CLARIFIER. DIGESTER.
SLUDGE DRYING BEDS. NEW PRIMARY CLARIFIERS. EXTENDED AERATION
TANK FINAL CLARIFIER. P. REMOVAL. LAGOON. FILTER, THICKENER
NEW: GRIT SEPARATION CYCLONE. EXTENDED AERATION BASINS. FINAL
CHLORINATION. SLUDGE DRYING BEDS
ANAEROBIC DIGESTERS. NEW PREFAB CONTACT STABILIZATION UNIT,
AEROBIC DIGESTERS, DEWATERER
CONVERT 2 ANAEROBIC DIGESTERS TO AEROBIC DIGESTERS. REFURBISH
THICKERENER « PRIMARY CLARIFIER. NEW: AERATED GRIT CHAMBER.
C
O
9"?
-------
28
1.-S-
-^ to
LUO
15/15
P
10/10
P.
NH3
i
PRO
NO.
E.P.A.
Serial
JECT
Project
Location
AERATED LAGOONS
i
39
40
41
42
01
'55 = E
o> o *-
OOiZ
OXIDATION DITCH
43
44
TRICKLING FILTERS
i
45
BIOFILTER
46
cc
47
48
49
50
>NT. STAB. ACT. SLDG.
TRICKLING FILTER
51
52
53
BIODISC
54
EXTENDED AERATION
55
CONT. STAB. - ACT. SLOG.
i
56
57
58
50
60
Adjusted
Design MGD
.325
.75
.75
3.3
.213
1.5
« 6.0
1.7
.25
.6
1.2
3.5
2.0
3.0
10.85
9.0
4.1
.50
.50
.80
1.2
6.5
o
S
_~ c
II
.325
1.0
1.0
1.05
1.25
2.53
4.36
.213
1.0
2.25
8.0
12.0
1.14
2.20
.25
.6
.3
1.45
2.2
4.0
2.0
3.0
20.0
25.85
2.0
10.0
6.85
7.60
.50
.50
.80
1.2
2.0
7.5
O if)
V
= 2
szci
8
21
22
42
26
44
55
73
28
16
25
174
45
44
168
116
99
18
24
21
29
131
Hardness
of Drawings
B-
B
B-
B-
B-
B
C
B+
B+
8+
B-
C
C
B
C+
C
C
C
B
B-
B-
C-
STEP 2 MAN HO
Engineers
IX
VIII
86
435
625
806
VII
85
VI
396
1545
1869
1007
V
2532
170
1813
IV
24
3754
255
III
574
7253
II
I
73
1261
339
C
1372
if
86
20
Rodman
204
210
359
181
5&
4
80
I
-------
lURS
DESIGN PROCESS
TRAIN DESCRIPTION
.
fiJ!
ro co
^gs
3 O.O
o =
0 E
NEW: AERATED POND, AEROBIC SETTLING PONDS, MULTI MEDIA FILTRATION
NT
12,499
358,973
14
10/75
1.3
ADD TO PONDS AERATION, AIR FLOTATION (PHYSICAL C
DUCTION OF ALGAE SLUDGEt. SUN DRIED SLUDGE. LANDFILL
y"|"
41,200
570,200
3/77
(7)
2.8
ADD TO SINGLE CELL LAGOON-2 SETS OF 2 IN SERIES AERATED LAGOONS,
DUAL FILTERS & DUAL CLARIFIERS FOR TERTIARY TREATMENT OF ALGAE,
SLUDGE DRYING BEDS
CD
KU-
U I
36,690
ADD TO PONDS AERATED GRIT REMOVAL IO5ACRE AERATED PONDS, ALUM
EP
110,192
4.0
578
109
NEW: DUAL ORBITAL CHANNEL STABILIZATION UNITS. CLARIFIERS, DUAL
MEDIA FILTRATION, SLUDGE DRYING BEDS
|>JT
29,967
25,284
610,364
5/77
1.2
REFURBISH IMHOFF TANKS, TRICKLING FILTERS. ADD NEW OXIDATION DITCH.
CLARIFIERS. SLUDGE DRYING BEDS. HOLDING POND FOR IRRIGATION SYSTEM
80,813
1.683,600
20
8/74
(7)
3.8
ADD 5O% TO EXISTING PRIMARY & FINAL CLARIFIERS. TRICKLING FILTERS.
ANAEROBIC DIGESTERS, SLUDGE LAGOONS
ADD TO STABILIZATION PONDS - ACTIVATED BIOFILTERS, HIGH RATE
TRICKLING FILTER TOWERS. FINAL CLARIFIERS. POLISHING POND, SLUDGE
TO LANDFILL
NEW EMERGENCY HOLDING POND. ACTIVATED SLUDGE. OZONATION, FINAL
SETTLING POND CONVERTIBLE TO CHEMICAL TREATMENT FOR P&NH3
REMOVAL
NEW: CONTACT STABILIZATION. AEROBIC DIGESTER. SUN DRIED SLUDGE,
LANDFILL
REFURBISH: WALKER SPARJAR PACKAGE CONTACT STABILIZATION TREAT-
MENT UNITS. ADD NEW CONTACT STABILIZATION BASIN. SLUDGE DRYING
BEDS
ADD TO PONDS COMPLETE MIX ACTIVATED SLUDGE. REPRESSURE OIL
FIELD WITH EFFLUENT, CL2TREATED SLUDGE TO LANDFILL
NEW PRIMARY & FINAL CLARIFIER, ARTIFICIAL MEDIA TRICKLING FILTERS
(SINGLE STAGE* MICROSCRECNER, ANAEROBIC DIGESTERS. SLUDGE DRYING
BEDS
NEW 2 STAGE HIGH RATE TRICKLING FILTERS, FLOCCULATING FINAL
CLARIFIER, SMALL HOLDING PONDS. VACUUM FILTRATION OF SLUDGE
REFURBISH. AERATED GRIT REMOVAL, PRIMARY ft SECONDARY CLARIFIER,
TRICKLING FILTER, THICKENER, CENTRIFUGERS, I ST & 2ND STAGE ANAEROBIC
DIGESTERS. AEROBIC DIGESTERS
ADD NEW: OXYGENATION TANK, BIOLOGICAL CLARIFIER, CENTRIFUGE,
EMERGENCY SLUDGE HOLDING BEDS
ADD TO PRIMARY LAGOONS BIODISC EXTENDED AERATION, NITRIFICATION
BASIN St FILTRATION WITH THE EXISTING PONDS TO BE USED FOR SLUDGE
STORAGE
BASIN, ADD NEW COMPLETE DIFFUSED AERATION, TERTIARY CLARIFICATION,
THICKENER, LANDFILL
ES
[]"["
145,000
3,725,000
2/77
9.0
CD
181,010
3,476,000
9/76
4.5
16,318
696,211
12
1/76
NT
61,500
2.0
239
53,214
52,232
897,955
9/76
(8)
1.4
IJQ
246,100
4,004,770
3/76
9.0
3248
600
426
166,971
180,230
3,432,955
6/76
4.3
219,593
3,959,000
6/76
7.5
3304
302
ro
t-w
U I
229,437
292,075
10,123,000
9/77
28.0
CD
-.U-
853,600
220
F jy
Ul
271,491
4,388,468
12
5/75
5.5
NEW: CONTACT STABILIZATION. RAPID SAND FILTERS. HOLDING PONDS.
AEROBIC DIGESTER
NT
48,958
1,128,927
7 10/76
2.0
1193
60
NEW: CONTACT STABILIZATION W/OPTION TO GO TO WASTE ACTIVATED
SLUDGE
NT
36,985
42,533
550,000
9/77
1.4
NEW: CONTACT STABILIZATION. RAPID SAND FILTERS
NT
43,355
1,294,514
6/77
2.5
NEW: CONTACT STABILIZATION, RAPID SAND FILTERS. HOLDING POND
NT
64,000
1.810.00C
6/77
3.2
8261
806
EXISTING CONVERTED TO AERATED EQUILIZATION TANKS. ADD NEW PRIMARY
CLARIFIER, PURE OXYGEN ACTIVATED SLUDGE. FINAL CLARIFIERS, COM-
PLETE SAND FILTRATION AEROBIC DIGESTER.
EP
UT
312,760
393,186
11,900,OOC
9/77
V>(7
12.8
THICKENER. HOLDING TANKS, DEWATERER PHOSPHORUS REMOVAL,
ANAEROBIC DIGESTER (STRIPPER!, CLARI-FLOCCULATOR
29
-------
30
!.&
is
UJO
10/10
P
NH3
N03
PROJECT
NO.
E.P.A.
Serial
Project
Location
TRICKLING FILTERS
61
0
ii
Q) O ^~
OOiT
CONT. STAB. - ACT. SLDG.
i i
62
63
64
65
o
CD
2
c
01
1
o
o>
en
3
f
10.0
2.3
4.75
6.57
16.0
o
CD
c=
eo 01
2 '55
U CD
C
LLJ
^£
«£
,C 3
oco
c:
CT3
-o
O
cc
1
72
-------
R!
==
g-
0
%
i-
Q
2307
u
5 >*
0) ;;
-OlS
tr>
o
327
^
a!
DESIGN PROCESS
TRAIN DESCRIPTION
NEW: PRIMARY & FINAL CLARIFIERS. PRIMARY EFFLUENT HOLDING BASINS
FLOCCULATORS PHOSPHORUS REMOVAL
RESERVOIR, SLUDGE HOLDING TANKS. THICKENER, SLUDGE STORAGE
REFURBISH ACTIVATED SLUDGE, ANAEROBIC DIGESTION. ADD NEW ACTIVA-
TED SLUDGE 2 STAGE LIME FLOCCULATION, CLARIFIERS, FILTERS, SLUDGE
DRYING BEDS
GRAVITY THICKENER FLOC CARRYOVER BASIN. SAND GRAVITY FILTERS,
COIL VACUUM FILTER SLUDGE REMOVAL UNIT, SLUDGE HOLDING TANKS.
OXIDATION POND RETAINED FOR SLUDGE DISPOSAL. ADD NEW AERATED GRIT
CHAMBER PRIMARY ft FINAL CLARIFIERS, COMPLETE MIX ACTIVATED SLUDGE,
DUAL MEDIA FILTERS, CENTRIFUGE, DIGESTERS.
NEW: ACTIVATED SLUDGE. MULTI-MEDIA FILTRATION
C
O
P^ CL>
Q-^li
S.s&
f^S
NT
ES
UT
ES
UT
NT
NT
lit
Z3 C/5 O
257,719
o
3CNJ
-o Q-w
X tu QJ
§"K^
,017,750
135,000
277,911
281,218
,623,367
C
o
T»l
sM
ss,,
CLO^
Z) UJU
0,344,000
,038,758
0,964,310
5,066,900
11,028,060
-o
o
03
T3
Q.
^)
s?
18
0
9
0
19
OJ
"ra
-a
T=J
lo
1/77
8/76
1/77
8/74
£
-------
TECHNICAL REPORT DATA
(Please read Instructions on the reverse before completing)
1. REPORT NO.
EPA 906/9-78-003
2.
3. RECIPIENT'S ACCESSION NO.
4. TITLE AND SUBTITLE
Engineering Costs and Fees for Municipal Wastewater
Treatment Works - An Estimating Technique for Design
of Treatment Plants.
5. REPORT DATE
Date of Issue July. 1978
6. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION CODE
7. AUTHOR(S)
Municipal Facilities Branch, EPA Region 6
Dr. Ned K. Burleson, Chief; Le Young, Project Director
8. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION REPORT NO.
9. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION NAME AND ADDRESS
Environmental Protection Agency, Region 6
First International Building
1201 Elm Street
Dallas, Texas 76270
10. PROGRAM ELEMENT NO.
6AWM
11. CONTRACT/GRANT NO.
12. SPONSORING AGENCY NAME AND ADDRESS
Environmental Protection Agency, Region 6
Municipal Facilities Branch
1201 Elm Street
Dallas, Texas 75270
13. TYPE OF REPORT AND PERIOD COVERED
Final. from 1972-1977
14. SPONSORING AGENCY CODE
15. SUPPLEMENTARY NOTES
Presented at, EPA Grants Chiefs' Conference V Washington, D.C. May 1978
16. ABSTRACT
An analysis of costs and manpower efforts expended to design wastewater treatment
works was conducted by the Construction Grants staff of the Environmental Protection
Agency, Region 6. The American Consulting Engineers Council Chapter from the states
of Arkansas, Louisiana, New Mexico, Oklahoma, and Texas cooperated in the analysis.
The purpose of the study was to establish a mutual basis for estimating/evaluating
manpower requirements and reasonable engineering fees for EPA projects.
Agency personnel collected actual manpower and financial resources expended on de-
signing specific wastewater treatment works projects. This data, adjusted'for in-
flation and other cost fluctuation, provided an empirical basis for statistical
comparison with other parameters.
The relationships developed provide a methodology for estimating and analyzing en-
gineering fees for wastewater treatment plant design. The study's essence is a
nomograph and related table that can determine the median number of drawings required
and corresponding A&E design costs/manhours based upon inputing the following
variables: 1) MGD, 2) type of construction (new, upgrade, etc.), 3) treatment pro-
cess, 4) effluent quality required, and 5) difficulty of drawings.
7.
KEY WORDS AND DOCUMENT ANALYSIS
DESCRIPTORS
b.lDENTIFIERS/OPEN ENDED TERMS C. COS AT I Field/Group
Engineering Cost - Fee, Wastewater
Treatment Plant Design
Engineering Design Costs
Engineering Design Fees
13B
8. DISTRIBUTION STATEMENT
Release Unlimited. Available from the:
National Technical Information Service
Springfield. Va. 22151
19. SECURITY CLASS (ThisReport)
Unclassified
21. NO. OF PAGES
41
20. SECURITY CLASS (This page)
Unclassified
22. PRICE
EPA Form 2220-1 (Rev. 4-77) PREVIOUS EDITION is OBSOLETE
32
------- |