Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout10/16/1990, C-11 - WASTEWATER MANAGEMENT PLAN IMPLEMENTATION-AMENDMENT NO. 1 TO THE AGREEMENT FOR ENGINEERING SERVICES y i I,I `III f. a MEETING DATE: �IN�I��IIIIII9�IIIIjIIIIIII city Of San WIS OBISPO October 16 1990 COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT REnn NUM FROM: William T. Hetland Prepared by: John E. Moss Utilities Director Wastewater Division Manager- !> ' SUBJECT: Wastewater Management Plan Implementation - Amendment No. 1 to the agreement for engineering services for design of Unit 4 Wastewater Treatment Plant Improvements. RECOMMENDATION: By motion, approve and authorize the Mayor to execute, Amendment No. i to the Agreement for Engineering Services between the City of San Luis Obispo and Brown and Caldwell Engineers for Design of Unit 4 Wastewater Treatment Plant Improvements, in an amount not to exceed $218,277. REPORT IN BRIEF: Brown and Caldwell is currently designing Unit 4 of the Wastewater Treatment Plant expansion. As part of the design process, staff and the consultant are recommending changes which will result in cost increases to the project. The primary changes include the relocation of the chlorination facilities to consolidate the plant site, switching from chlorine gas to sodium hypochlorite solution for disinfection as a major safety advantage, and the addition of a operations and laboratory building. The changes will result in a net construction cost increase of $8501000 (annualized cost of $49,000 per year) . The City will also experience savings from this change due to reuse of facilities and operational savings in the amount of $940,000 per year. These changes are within the current loan commitment from the State and will not impact the existing rate structure approved by the Council. Staff is recommending that the Brown and Caldwell contract be amended in the amount of $218,277 to cover the cost of the additional design and analysis. DISCUSSZON: BACKGROUND On March 6, 1990 Council approved an agreement with Brown and Caldwell Engineers for engineering services for the design of the Unit 4 wastewater treatment plant improvements and construction management services for units 3 and 4, and phase 1 collection system improvements. On April 11, 1990 a kickoff and brainstorming session was held for the unit 4 design involving City staff and design engineers from Brown and Caldwell. The -- purpose of the session was to identify, investigate and evaluate all possible options for the design of the unit 4 facilities. C"11 A��lll city of san lues OBISPO WNGs COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT Amendment No. 1, Unit 4 October 16, 1990 Page 2 Three major concerns of the City identified in the session were as follows: 1. Is the current method of disinfection and dechlorination, using liquified chlorine gas and liquified sulfur dioxide gas, still cost effective considering the major modifications to the existing facilities required to meet all of the 1988 Uniform Fire Code secondary containment regulations? The safety concerns involved with the use and handling of chlorine and sulfur dioxide gasses have long been an issue. With the high capital and operating costs of meeting the 1988 Uniform Fire Code requirements, it now is proving equally cost effective and certainly much safer to switch to sodium hypochlorite and sodium bisulfite solutions for disinfection and dechlorination. 2. Is the current location of the existing effluent structure and related facilities as well as the proposed location of the unit 4 facilities desireable and operable? These facilities are currently separated from the main treatment plant site by approximately 1 mile of pasture land. With the intensive operations requirements of the filtration processes (Unit 4) , this geographic separation of the facilities will make operations difficult and inefficient. Locating the Unit 4 facilities adjacent to the main plant will greatly enhance the operation and monitoring of the facility. 3. Are the current facilities for administration, operations and laboratory testing adequate for the requirements of the new plant? Is it more cost effective to modify the existing operations building to satisfy the future needs or construct new facilities? It was previously determined that the existing laboratory was insufficient to meet the needs of the expanded plant. The administrative/operations facilities are currently at maximum utilization and do not provide adequate space for training and administrative functions. Modification of the existing reinforced concrete structure is difficult and may not be cost effective. C" ap 01111ll,1001il city of san tins owpo NUMB COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT Amendment No. 1, Unit 4 October 16,1990 Page 3 Brown and Caldwell was asked to evaluate the above concerns and report back to staff at the 10% design review meeting. The preliminary results of the evaluation showed that the use of much safer sodium hypochlorite and sodium bi-sulfite solutions for disinfection and dechlorination, relocation of the unit 4 facilities to a site adjacent to the main plant, and construction of a new administration/laboratory building would result in a $850,000 construction cost escalation of the Unit 4 improvements project. The overall evaluation, however, showed that the total cost of all three project(s) would remain within the financial constraints identified in the financing plan and revenue program, i.e. would be within the amount of State Revolving Fund (SRF) loan funding currently approved by the State for the City's projects, and would not result in additional sewer rate increases above those currently approved by Council. Based on the above information, staff directed Brown and Caldwell to provide a more detailed cost estimate for the project and to detail any changes to their scope of work and associated costs. Along with certain additions to the project, there will also be items deleted from the scope of work such as construction of a new effluent line and construction of secondary containment facilities for the chlorine and sulfur dioxide. Brown and Caldwell has reviewed the current agreement and the proposed changes and has subsequently submitted the attached Amendment No. 1. Staff is now seeking Council approval of this Amendment. SIGNIFICANT IMPACTS The single most significant impact of the proposed design changes comes with the change in the disinfection process. The gaseous chemicals currently being used pose a serious threat to the safety of the surrounding community as well as plant staff. Given the proximity of the residential areas to the treatment facility, a leak of either chlorine or sulfur dioxide gas could create a life threatening situation. The recommended use of sodium hypochlorite and sodium bisulfite solutions instead of the gaseous chemicals would eliminate this situation. Relocation of the Unit 4 facilities to a location adjacent to the main plant would greatly enhance the operability of the entire plant. In addition, relocation of thesefacilities will eliminate the need for replacing the existing effluent line and �► �Illf�pni ;ll city of san lues osispo WWrom COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT Amendment No. 1, Unit 4 October 16, 1990 Page 4 would enhance the amount of riparian habitat benefiting from the effluent discharge by relocating the outfall approximately 3,000 feet upstream from its current location. The existing chlorination/dechlorination facilities (structure) would be utilized in the very near future for reclaimed water facilities. Water reclamation will require chlorination and storage facilities and the existing effluent structure would be ideal for this use. Loan funding for water reclamation projects is currently contingent upon the City being able to demonstrate that the development of reclaimed water is more cost effective than the development of additional potable supplies. Use of existing facilities would greatly help reduce the cost of. developing reclaimed water. In addition, the existing effluent ponds would be utilized to provide the required open water habitat in lieu of creating a new four (4) acre pond as identified as a mitigation measure in the EIR for this project. CONSEQUENCES OF NOT TAKING THE RECOMMENDED ACTION Not taking the recommended action would result in the City not taking full advantage of the improvements projects to enhance the overall wastewater operations. Costs for development of future reclaimed water storage and chlorination structures would far outweigh the increased cost of the proposed changes. The Staff believes that the overall goals of the City would be best served by taking the recommended action as the proposed changes not only address the immediate need of meeting the wastewater discharge , requirements but will aide in meeting the City's future goals of water reclamation. CITIZEN PARTICIPATION A supplement to the Environmental Impact Report (EIR) , which was prepared for the original project and approved by Council on March 6, 1990, will be prepared to identify the proposed changes. This supplement will appropriately require public review and comment. However, staff does not anticipate any negative comment on the supplement to the EIR as the environmental benefits to be derived from the relocation of the facilities and the increased safety of using liquid instead of gaseous chemicals are great. CONCLUSION The significant benefits to be derived from approving this amendment and proceeding with the proposed changes will provide Coe II '� s� �i�lllll[ ► i���ll aw or san lues owpo COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT Amendment No. 1, Unit 4 October 16, 1990 Page 5 the City with an improved facility from both an operations and safety standpoint. In addition, this project will enhance the City's ability to develop reclaimed water in the future. The cost of the proposed changes will remain within the financial constraints of the SRF loan funding approved by the State and would not require additional sewer rate increases above those currently approved by Council. FISCAL IMPACT: The fiscal impact of Amendment No. 1 would be an increase in the agreement for Unit 4 design services of $218,277. The cost breakdown for the Unit 4 design services and this amendment are as follows: Unit 4 Design Contract (original) $ 813,848 Amendment No. 1 190,081 Total Unit 4 Design $1,003,929 Fixed Professional Fee (original) 119,891 Amendment No. 1 28. 196 Total Unit 4 Fixed Prof. Fee $ 148,087 TOTAL AMENDMENT NO. 1 $ 218,277 A detailed breakdown of the additions and deletions for the contract is included as an attachment. The original agreement, referenced here, included additional services for office engineering, construction management services for Units 3, 4 and Phase 1 collection system improvements, and special engineering services. Total funds encumbered to Brown and Caldwell under this agreement are $3,290,571. Addition of Amendment No. 1 to the agreement will bring the total to $3,508,848. The construction cost impacts related to this amendment and the recommended changes are estimated to result in an increase of approximately $850,000 to the total cost of the Unit 4 improvements project. This represents and annualized cost of about $49,000 per year. A detailed cost breakdown of the construction cost additions and deletions related to the recommended change is shown in Table 1. 11111lf,Wlj� city of san Luis osispo COUNCIL AGENOA REPORT Amendment No. 1, Unit 4 October 16, 1990 Page 6 Table I Construction Cost Reconciliation Description Initial Cost New Cost Equalization Basin $ 920,000 Effluent Pipe 465,000 Flow Equalization 182200000 C12 & SO2 Scrubbers 360,000 Chlorination 800,000 Operations & Laboratory 575,000 Total $1,745,000 $2,595,000 Difference $8508000 Annualized (4% for 30 yrs) 49,000 The cost breakdown shows the construction costs of items eliminated from the project as Initial Cost and the costs of providing comparable unit processes under the recommended project as New Cost. The total difference in construction cost is provided as well as an annualized cost difference. Table 2 provides detailed annualized future cost savings anticipated as a result of the recommended change. These costs include use of the existing chlorine contact tanks as part of the City's reclamation facilities and retention of the effluent ponds in place of construction of new wildlife habitat as required in the EIR. Operational savings will be experienced by the consolidation of the plant site and not having staff spending time going between sites. Operational savings will also be experienced in not having to meet difficult safety requirements in the handling of gaseous, chemicals. This does not preclude the need for additional operational staff as identified in the initial project report. ow. city of san Luis oBispo Mras COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT Amendment No. 1, Unit 4 October 16, 1990 Page 7 Table II Future Cost Savings Description Cost Savinas Reclamation Facilities ($700,000) * $ 40,000 Open Water Habitat (EIR) ($1001000) * 6,000 Operational Savings Site Consolidation (1 person @ 30 yrs) 32,000 Gas Handling (1/2 person @ 30 yrs) 16,000 Total $ 94,000 * Annualized Cost at 4% for 30 yrs The annualized savings is $94,000 compared to the costs of $49,000. This represents almost a two to one savings for the increased plant facilities. In addition, the savings for staff will increase over the years due to inflation whereas the capital costs will remain constant. As stated earlier in this report, this cost increase falls within the budget constraints of the approved SRF loan funding and will not result in additional rate increases. During the planning phase conservative cost estimates and contingency figures were used for the projects. As design is completed, the contingency is reduced and a more accurate estimate is obtained. Completion of the design of the Unit 3 improvements and Phase 1 collection system improvements has yielded a reduction of the overall cost estimate on which the SRF loan funding and rate increases were based. This funding is available and can be utilized for the recommended Unit 4 improvements. Funding for this project is from the sewer fund. Funding for Units 3 and 4 was approved in the 1989-91 Financial Plan and Approved 1989-90 Budget (page E-17) . On May 17, 1990 the State Water Resources Control Board approved loan funding up to $35 million for the City's projects. On June 12, 1990 Council adopted Resolution No. 6824 adopting annual sewer rate increases of $2.00 per month for the next 4 years to provide sufficient C- II -7 ilii��pn ►���II city of san tuts osispo COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT Amendment No. 1, Unit 4 October 16, 1990 Page 8 funding for completion of the projects and repayment of the SRF loan. ALTERNATIVES: 1. Do not approve Amendment No. 1 and direct staff to continue development of the project as originally designed. This alternative is not recommended as it would only serve to reduce the short term cost of the project by an amount that falls within the available and approved funding, and would not provide the City with the most operable, cost effective and safe facility possible. 2. Take no action at this time. This alternative is not recommended as the design of Unit 4 must be completed by December 15, 1990 as agreed in the Consent Decree between the. City and the State Regional Water Quality Control Board. Delayed action on this issue may result in failure to meet this deadline and subsequent stipulated penalties from the Stare. RECOMMENDATION: By motion, approve and authorize the Mayor to execute, Amendment No. i to the Agreement for Engineering Services between the City of San Luis Obispo and Brown and Caldwell Engineers for Design of Unit 4 Wastewater Treatment Plant Improvements, in an amount not to exceed $218,277. Attachments: Amendment No. 1 and Cost Summary r l ATTACHMEENT. i C AMENDMENT NO. 1 TO AGREEMENT FOR ENGINEERING SERVICES BETWEEN CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO AND BROWN AND CALDWELL FOR DESIGN OF UNIT 4 WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT IMPROVEMENTS AND CONSTRUCTION MANAGEMENT SERVICES FOR THE IMPLEMENTATION OF WASTEWATER MANAGEMENT PLAN THIS AMENDMENT NO. 1 to the Engineering Services Agreement dated March 6,1990, between City of San Luis Obispo, hereinafter referred to as "Owner", and Brown and Caldwell, a California corporation, hereinafter referred to as "Engineer," is made and entered into this day of , 1990. WITNESSETH: WHEREAS, on March 6, 1990, Owner, and Engineer entered into an agreement for engineering services; and WHEREAS, in Article IIB -of said agreement, Owner and Engineer agreed that certain of the work contemplated to be performed. by.. Engineer y - Engineer could not be sufficiently defined at the time of execut3on7'"-t'-'�-=- of the Agreement; and WHEREAS, during the detailed. engineering design of the improvements, it became apparent that additional• studies were required; and that additional facilities were required for a functional facility; and WHEREAS, Owner has requested Engineer to provide engineering services for additional studies and facilities; and WHEREAS, Owner has requested Engineer not to design several facilities identified in the March 6, 1990 agreement and August 31, 1989 letter proposal for Special Engineering Services; and Owner has requested the design of such facilities be deleted from the original contract scope of work; and WHEREAS, Owner has requested changes in the scope of work; NOW THEREFORE, Owner and Engineer agree to amend the Agreement as follows: Amendment No. 1 Page 1 of 4 SII - � I. SCOPE OF PLANNED ENGINEERING SERVICES The scope of work as described in Exhibit B-1 of the original /! Agreement is amended to provide the following additional engineering services: 1. Perform civil, process, structural, mechanical, electrical and instrumentation final design for the construction of new chlorine contact tank; and prepare necessary drawings and specifications for inclusion in the Unit 4 Improvements contract documents. 2. Perform civil, process, structural, mechanical, electrical and instrumentation final design for the construction of sodium hypochlorite storage and feed facilities; and prepare necessary drawings and specifications for inclusion in the Unit 4 Improvements contract documents. 3. Perform civil, process, structural, mechanical, electrical and instrumentation final design for the construction of sodium bisulfite storage and feed facilities; and prepare necessary drawings and specifications for inclusion in the Unit 4 Improvements contract documents. 4. Perform architectursl, .structural, mechanical, heating and ventilating/plumbing, electrical and instrumentation final design for the construction of Administration and Laboratory Building and prepare necessary drawings and specifications for inclusion in the Unit 4 Improvements contract documents. S. Perform engineering study that compares chlorination / declorination alternatives. Review literature, evaluate NEPA.820 regulations, and for each alternative size equipment and prepare cost effectiveness evaluation that considers both capital improvements and operation and maintenance to upgrade existing chlorine/sulfur dioxide facilities to meet regulations versus installing new sodium hypochlorite/sodium bisulfite facilities for chlorination / dechlorination. 6. Perform engineering study that evaluates flow equalization tank alternatives. Complete flow data analysis, and for each alternative size equipment and prepare a cost estimate. 7. Perform site selection study for location of Unit 4 faciities and the administration and laboratory Amendment No. 1 Page 2 of 4 building. Review existing drawings, and for each alternative prepare preliminary architectural plans, renderings, and cost estimate. S. Modify civil, process, structural,- mechanical, electrical and instrumentation drawings necessary to delete 3W system and process chlorination system from Unit 3 Improvements contract documents. 9. Provide engineering assistance to City to obtain State Revolving Loan funding for Unit 3 and 4 Improvement Projects. 10. Perform electrical and instrumentation final design for installation of loop feed power feed system that provides a redundant primary power feed system to the wastewater treatment plant. Compare cost of installing a loop feed system versus installing a emergency power system. 11. Perform civil,. process, mechanical, electrical and instrumentation final design to remove existing primary effluent pumps and replace pumps with new pumps; and prepare necessary drawings and specifications for inclusion in Unit 3 Improvements contract documents. CThe scope of work as described in Exhibit 8-1 of the original Agreement is amended to delete the following engineering services : 1. Perform civil, process, structural, mechanical, heating and ventilating final design for installation of chlorine scrubbing system; prepare necesary drawings and specifications for inclusion in. Unit 4 Improvements contract documents. 2. Perform civil, process, structural, mechanical, heating and ventilating final design for installation of sulfur dioxide scrubbing system; prepare necessary drawings and specifications for inclusion in Unit 4 Improvements contract documents. The scope of work as described in our letter proposal of August 31, 1989, for Special Engineering services is amended to delete the following engineering services: Perform architectural, structural, electrical and instrumentation final design for the installation of chlorine scrubbing facilities at the main plant site; prepare necessary drawings and specifications for inclusion in Unit 4 Improvements contract documents. Amendment No. 1 Page 3 of 4 C II. SCHEDULE The modified scope of work shall be completed by January 31, 1991. III. COMPENSATION Compensation for the services provided under Article I of this amendment shall be calculated on the same basis as in the original Agreement. Attachment A-1 summarizes the cost for completing the work defined in this amendment. The labor hours and cost estimates for completing specific work tasks defined in this amendment are shown in Attachments A-2 and A-3. The cost ceiling for the work done under this Amendment is 5190.081 which increases the total cost ceiling under the Agreement to $1.003.929. The fixed professional fee for the work done under this Amendment is $28.196 which increases the total fixed professional fee to $148.087. All other terms and conditions of the Agreement dated March 6.1 1990 remain unchanged. BROWN ANDWELL OWNER Signature _ Signature vo Printed Name Pervaiz Anwar Printed Name RON DUNIN Title Reaional Vice President Title MAYOR OF SAN LUIS OBISPO Date U Date Amendment No. 1 Page 4 of 4 C -�� aL O ATTACHMENT A-1 SAN LUIS OBISPO UNIT 4 WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT AMENDMENT NO. 1 COST SUMMARY Cost Fixed Profes- ceilinq sional Fee (Dollars) (Dollars) I'. Additions to Scope of Work 260,557 38,829 (See Attachment A-2) II. Deletions from Scope of Work 70,476 10,633 (See Attachment A-3) III. Total Amendment No. 1 $1908081 $280196 ,O lJ ATTACHMENT A-2 SAN LUIS OBISPO UNIT 4 WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT DESIGN PROJECT ADDITIONS TO SCOPE OF WORK HOURS ITEM DESCRIPTION II PROF TECH ADMIN ----------------- 1 Chlorine Contact Tank P&ID 24 32 0 Structural Plan 32 24 0 Section and Details -1 32 24 0 Section and Details -2 32 24 0 Mechanical Plan and Sections 40 40 0 Details 40 40 0 Electrical Power and Lighting Plan 8 20 12 Input to P&ID 20 0 0 Control Diagram 20 10 10 -------------------------- Total, Manhours 1 248 214 2.2 ----------------------- ------------------------------------ ------- 2 Sodium Hypochlorite System General Drawings 20 .20 0 Civil Drawings 40 40 0 P&ID 24 32 0 Structural Plan, Sect, Det 32 24 0 Mechanical Plan & Sect 60 60 0 Details 24 32 0 Electrical Control Diagrams 20 16 10 Plan 10 24 16 Input to P&ID's 30 0 0 --------------------------- Total, Manhours 220 224 10 3 Sodium Bisulfite System General Drawings 20 20 0 Civil Drawings 40 40 0 P&ID 24 32 0 Structural Plan, Sect, Det 32 24 0 Mechanical Plan & Sect 60 60 0 Details 24 32 i Electrical Control Diagrams 20 16 10 Plan 10 24 16 Input to P&ID's 30 0 6 ------------------------ - Total, Manhours 260 248 26 4 Operations and Lab Building Architectural Floor Plan 36 0 0 Ext Elevations 28 0 0 Bldg Sections 24 0 0 Wall Sections 24 0 0 Det Floor Plans, Lab and 14 32 0 Reflected ceiling Plan 12 24 0 Int Elevations-1 10 20 0 Int Elevations-2 10 20 6 Ext Details 28 0 0 Int Details 28 0 0 Misc Details 0 Structural Foundation Plan 28 24 0. Roof Plan 36 24 6 Sections and Details -1 36 20 0 Sections and Details -2 32 20 0 HVAC/Plumbing Calculations 24 0 0 Equip Selection 16 0 0 Hvac Plan 16 30 6 Section/Details 12 24 0 Fume Hood 12 12 4 Specifications 16 6 16 Coordination/Review • 12 0 0 Plumbing Plan 6 30 0 Mechanical Plan 40 60 0 Section and Details 32 32 0 Electrical Lighting Plan 8 20 12 Power Plan 8 20 12 Control Diagrams 20 10 10 .Panel Schedule 16 12 6 Conduit/Cable Schedule 16 12 6 --------------------------- Total, Manhours 594 446 66 -�----------------- --- �- t1-15 n 5 Evaluate Chlorination/ Dechlorination Alternative 40 0 6 ----------- ------------- Total, Manhours 40 0 6 6 Flow Equalization Alternati 32 0 8 --------------------------- Total, Manhours 32 0 8 ------------------------------------------------------------------------- 7 Site Selection & Arch 179 79 8 Plans & Rendering --------------------------- Total, Manhours 179 79 8 8 Modifications to Unit 3 Documents (Del of 3W & 24 36 6 Process Chlorination ..........; Manhours 24 36 6 -------------------------------------------- .. ------ --. 9 Assist City to Get Revolvin Loan Funding 32 0 6 Total, Manhours 32 0 6 10 Loop Feed Power System 32 16 0 Total, Manhours 32 16 0- ------------------------------------ ---------- 11 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 11 New Primary Effluent Pumps 40 40 4 ----------------------- Total, Manhours 40 40 4 PROJECT SUMMARY ITEM 1 248 214 22 ITEM 2 220 224 10 ITEM 3 260 248 26 ITEM 4 594 , 446 G Il ITEM 5 II 40 0 6 II ITEM 6 II 32 0 8 II `J ITEM 7 II 17.9 79 8 II ITEM 8 II 24 36 6 11 ITEM 9 II 32 0 6 II ITEM 10 II 32 16 0 II .ITEM 11 I.I 40 40 4 II II II Total , Manhours II 1701 1303 162 II Direct Labor , Dollars II $53 ,411 $32 . 184 $2 ,495 II Dollars w/prof 11 $175, 189 $105 ,564 $8 , 183 II II II ' SUBTOTAL II $288, 936 II II II Additional Landscap- ing Cost (wi/markup) II 4 ,840 II II II Additional Geotech- nical Cost (wi/markup II 5,610 II II II TOTAL PROJECT COST 11 $299,386 II II II II_ 11 11 II II II ,' aaaaaaaaaa---aaaaaaaaaaaa=aa=aaaaaasaaanaaaaascaa=caaamaaaaa�aaa�acaca=aaao= G oo!l—1 ATTACHMENT A-3 SAN LUIS OBISPO UNIT 4 WATSTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT DESIGN PROJECT DELETIONS FROM SCOPE OF WORK ----- --------------------------HOURS ----- ITEM DESCRIPTION II PROF TECH ADMIN 1 Chlorine Scrubbing System P14 24 24 0 S8000 32 24 0 M8600 50 50 0 M8001 32 40 0 HV8001 32 24 0 - --------------------------- Total, Manhours 11 170 162 0 2 S02 Scrubbing P15 24 24 0 58002 32 24 0 M9601 50 50 0 M9002 32 40 0 HV9001 32 24 Total, Manhours 170 162 U -------------------------------------------- ----------------------------- 3 Chlorine Scrubbing System at Main Plant Arch 24 24 0 Struct 40 16 0 Elect 50 60 0 --------------------------- Total, Manhours 11 114 100 0 ---- --_�___-------- ------------- -- PROJECT SUMMARY ITEM 1 170 162 0 ITEM 2 170 162 0 ITEM 3 114 100 0 Total, Manhours 454 424 0 Direct Labor, Dollars $14,256 $10,473 $0 , .Dollars w/prof $46,7$80 $34,351 $0 Other Direct Costs TOTAL PROJECT COST $81, 109 ATTACHMENT 2 � kwl kkz&"42 & § § PonBkk § Ail 4040 2 § § ■ - Elot Ed ( f § i2 § � § § EI § § 0 % § S A:smc -cooa $ -4 -a -c § � ■ � § § � B �{ k �B2 $ § § � B § � ■ a - EKI � E � I § - § § § B ¥ c; c; . a � ~ a � � � � - © - 2 § $ § § o _ o 0 ■ ■ ■ kk \ K � ■ ■ fOl ■ A ■ ■ « ■ _ . � � § � � � c; _ � . _ 32 § ° ° � a © ■ ■ § § § � 5229 Mg - .4 ■ EE cc E § / Bk � Kk22f � K2 § KEget � § § @2 ■ � E ■ � � � . � ■ « - § 2I § on 10 q# § In � - - 4 In 01 � 2 § 2 � sm & a ■ ■ S � § ■ ■ aa § § 2 . - _ Mn le ■ - - - - � � � � ■ « ■ a . a I & | § 40 S. B � a -60 § ■: . �\ Ek % . k CL '0 In � _ � ! 0 $ CL - t ■ � � k � � _ kk ; ; I £ ƒ d2 � � k / � / � / � a ) �/