Findings and Recommendations

Transcription

1 Contrating Methods and Administration Findings and Reommendations Finding 9-1 ESD did not utilize a formal written pre-qualifiations proess for seleting experiened design onsultants. ESD hose onsultants based on ESD's personal knowledge of either the onsulting frrm or of an individual employed by the onsulting firm. ESD then assigned the onsultants' based on the onsultants' familiarity with the existing failities and systems. Reommendation 9-1 We reommend that ESD establish a formal qualifiation based seletion proess based on Best Praties as defined by ClI (Constrution Industry Institute). ESD should selet onsultants based on proven past experiene and apability on projets of similar size and omplexity. Based on our investigation and review of the onsultant ontrats awarded, we believe the County should use the Qualifiation Based Seletion proess to selet a onsultant and then negotiate rates with the hosen qualified onsultant. Finding 9-2 There is no evidene that the Program onsidered utilizing an engineering peer review proess to obtain alternative design options. Therefore, the County reeived no benefits that may have been available from onsultants who had worked on "Consent Deree" programs in other areas. Loal onsultants ated as an extension of the ESD, providing the proess design as direted. Design onsultants turned the ESD's onepts and preferenes into reality on the "drawing board." Reommendation 9-2 We reommend that ESD implement an engineering peer review proess for future ESD projets. Finding 9-3 ESD uses a rigorous proess to prequalify ontrators to bid on projets. ESD onsiders ontrators for prequalifiation in three (3) sewer and five (5) faility ategories, depending on. the ontrator's request and the PRC's assessment of qualifiations. Our experiene is that ontrator prequalifiation, in the publi works setor, is generally limited to seletion of speialty ontrators or tehnologies. This prequalifiation proess may have restrited or limited the number of bidders. Partiularly at the start of the Program, the County may have paid higher rates by restriting the number of bidders. In reviewing the unit rate bids for onstrution, we noted that pries ame down over time as more bidders were added in We have not been able to determine why additional bidders were added in almost every ategory. It appears that the fourth bidder was added in the summer of 2000 and the fifth bidder was added in the summer of2001. Final Report 9-6

2 Contrating Methods and Administration Reommendation 9-3 We do not reommend hanges to the proess at this stage of the program. The urrent prequalified ontrator pool is suffiient to produe ompetitive bids. If, however, the County observes a deline in the number of qualified bidders or bids, then the County should revisit this onern. Finding 9-4 ESD negotiated ontrats for emergeny repair and other servies for the $50K Program. Reommendation 9-4 ESD and its onsultants should develop a ompetitive bid pakage for its emergeny repair servies or other servies requiring quik response. The pakage ould be based on standard work units or standard servies that small loal ontrators ould provide. Canellation Clause for Owner's Conveniene Introdution ESD uses several standard ontrats to define the terms and onditions for its professional servies suppliers and onstrution ontrators. The standard ontrat utilized for professional servies suppliers ontains a "anellation lause for Owner's onveniene". This lause allows the County to anel or stop the work at any time. This lause desribes the method the parties to the ontrat would then determine payment to over ost assoiated with the anellation. The onstrution ontrats entered into by ESD do not ontain a "anellation lause for Owner's onveniene". Ifthe County deides to anel the ontrat for its onveniene, then the County an and probably will be sued for "breah of ontrat" and would be plaed in a weak position to defend against the ontrator's laim. Observation The ESD reently anelled three onstrution ontrats due to an overall lak of funding to omplete the plauned Program. The three ontrats did not have a "anellation lause for owner's onveniene." All ontrators involved with the anellations filed laims against the County laiming breah of ontrat for not allowing ompletion of the work. Progress was minimal on all three projets and all ontrators made laims for payment that were disproportionate to the physial progress on the projet. This situation also existed on the Cahaba Trunk Sewer projet. The County an protet against these onerns by inluding a "anellation lause for owner's onveniene" in eah onstrution ontrat. As stated above, this ontrat language merely presribes a system by whih the County might terminate and desribes the means the parties would use to determine the payment for ost assoiated with the termination. Final Report 9-7

3 Contrating Methods and Administration Findings and Reommendations Finding 9-5 The ESD is in a weak position to defend against laims of breah of ontrat when it must anel a onstrution ontrat for owner's onveniene beause the language in its onstrution ontrats does not permit this form of termination. Reommendation 9-5 We reommend that the County inlude a termination for onveniene provision in eah onstrution ontrat. This type of lause would allow Jefferson County to anel or stop the work at any time and desribes the method the parties would use to determine the payment to over ost assoiated with the anellation to the ontrat. BE&K submitted a reommendation to the County Commissioner on Marh 27, 2003 reommending the inlusion of a lause for anellation for Owner's onveniene. We also inluded several examples of lauses the County ould use. We understand that the County is adding a "Canellation for Conveniene Clause" to its future onstrution ontrats. Final Report

4 Comparison of Unit Priing with Other Loations 10 Comparison of Unit Priing with Other Loations Introdution The fous of this setion is to summarize and disuss the results of our researh of a representative material whih was installed, then reord and ompare the Jefferson County Sewer Program's awarded unit pries for 8-inh ured-in-plae pipe (CIPP) with those experiened at other loations during the same time period. CIPP was seleted beause it represented a large perentage of the total apital investment that was required in this program. In addition, yearly ost omparisons were made for several other olletion system items. This review ofthe unit pries was performed to determine ifthere were signifiant differenes with unit pries awarded in seleted ities in the southeastern U.S. A detailed omparison of the Jefferson County CIPP speifiations, with the speifiations of the other ities was made in order to determine if unit prie differenes ould be attributed to different speifiation requirements. We also ompared geographial and/or geologial similarities. Bakground Publi works projets are ompetitively bid to provide the publi ageny with the lowest ost. Bidders are provided with the same tehnial requirements, bonding requirements, and shedule. When onstrution projets are ompetitively bid, a number of proesses are generally followed. These inlude, but may not be limited to, projet identifiation, planning, development of the sope of work, design (inluding drawings and speifiations), bidding, and ontrat award. Pries provided by the ontrators may be either lump sum or unit prie based on an estimated sope of work or units of measure. Fators that impat onstrution osts inlude, but are not limited to, the following: The number of qualified bidders Requirements of the ontrat douments Market onditions Size (length) of the projet Availability of the loal labor fore Final Report 10-1

5 Comparison of Unit Priing with Other Loations Contrator familiarity with tehnology utilized MBEIWBE requirements History of the seleted tehnology Use of other tehnologies as alternates Geology of the area In 1996, Jefferson County started its sewer onstrution program to meet the requirements of the CD. About 60 perent of the planned work inluded sewer line rehabilitation/replaement and manhole rehabilitation/replaement ativities. A Contrator Prequalifiation Proess was used by Jefferson County to determine the apability of the ontrators desiring to partiipate in the bidding proess. The proess was used by Jefferson County to redue the possibility of an unqualified ontrator or produt being utilized in the Program. ESD indiated that its prequalifiation objetive was to help assure quality in its projets. It is our opinion that this proess did adversely affet the unit pries (aused inflated pries) during the bidding proess by limiting ompetition due to the limited tehnology providers that were approved in the first few years of the Program by the Produt Review Committee (PRC). As disussed in Setion 8, the PRC required interested ontrators and tehnology providers to give model produt demonstrations for evaluation and approval by ESD. A more aggressive approah by the PRC should have been employed to inrease the number tehnologies onsidered and evaluated. For instane, traveling to other loations where other utilities were utilizing the produts being onsidered for onstrution. This approah and others would have allowed the PRC to maintain the same objetive for establishing a quality standard and qualify additional bidders without the bidder having to prepare a speial rew and equipment shipment to Jefferson County to demonstrate the quality and appliability oftheir produt. This step would have potentially allowed additional ontrators and tehnology providers to be qualified muh earlier in the program. This proess is also desribed in other setions of this report. Methods Utilized The team utilized historial information and prourement doumentation from other loations to perform reviews of the design douments for seleted sopes of work. The request for bid and design douments (drawings and speifiations) an have a signifiant impat on the unit pries. These are summarized in this report. Unit Cost Data Colletion and Summary Jefferson County bid tabulations from 1996 to 2002 were used for this review. Trends for seleted bid ategories were summarized along with omparison of the 8-inh CIPP with awarded bids for seleted loations in the southeast U.S. As part of the 8-inh CIPP review, the CIPP speifiations from Jefferson County and the seleted ities were reviewed and ompared. Final Report 10--2

6 ( Comparison of Unit Priing with Other Loations Jefferson County Unit Pries Prior to omparing the Jefferson County unit pries with those from similar programs, the Jefferson County bid tabulation data was queried for seleted trends. In Table 1, major rehabilitation bid items were summarized for the years 1996 to 2002 to determine the trend of the annual highest average unit prie ompared to the average unit prie for awarded bids in In all ases exept one, the average unit prie in 2002 dereased substantially from the annual highest average unit ost. The 8-inh CIPP trend was then ompared with the trend from the seleted ities. Table 1 Unit Prie Trends from 1996 to 2002 Jefferson County Sewer Rehabilitation Program Annnal Year of Bid Item Highest Highest Average Average Unit Cost Unit Cost 8-in. CIPP - 0 to 10 ft deep $ in. CIPP - 10 to 20 ft deep $ lo-in. CIPP - 0 to 10 ft deep $ in. CIPP - 0 to 10 ft deep $ in. MH Rehab - 0 to 10 ft deep $ in. MH Rehab - 0 to 20 ft deep $ in. MH Rehab - 0 to 30 ft deep $ New 48-in. MH - Preast Conrete $ Replaement 48-in. MH - Preast Conrete $ Mainline Replaement, 8-in. DI Pipe, Class 52, 0 to 6 ft $ Mainline Replaement, 8-in. DI Pipe, Class 52, 6 to 8 ft $ Mainline Replaement, 8-in. DI Pipe, Class 52, 8 to loft $ Pavement Replaement $ Pavement Milling $ Speial Stone Aggregate Bakfill $ Television Inspetion $ Servie Lateral Reinstatement $ Servie Lateral Reonnetion and llegair $3, Servie Lateral Stubout Installation $ Standard MH Frame and Cover Installation $ Perent Average Inrease Unit Cost (Derease) $ % $ % $ % $ % $ % $ % $ % $ % $ % $ % $ % $ % $ % $ % $ % $ % $ % $1, % $ % $ % In the trend omparison, BE&K reviewed 46 unit pries in the rehabilitation ontrats that made up 80 perent of the total rehabilitation ost. Twenty of the 46 unit pries ompared are shown in Table I. Of the 46 unit pries between 1997 and 2002, only 4 inreased over time. The remaining 44 unit pries dropped over time. This inludes many items installed on a regular basis by a large number of loal ontrators, inluding asphalt paving, dutile iron pipe installation, manhole replaement, servie lateral reonnetion and repair. These are neither highly tehnial tasks nor ones that involve new tehnology that might require speialized Final Report 10-3

7 Comparison of Unit Priing with Other Loations ontrators or onstrution methods. All these trends seem to be the same, i.e., the prie went down over time as the number of bidders inreased (as shown in Figure 1). Jefferson County 8-inh CIPP Unit Pries The omparison of Jefferson County unit pries with those from other seleted ities was performed using the 8-inh CIPP, 0 to 10 feet deep, as the benhmark. The projet speifiations for the Jefferson County CIPP were ompared with the speifiations ofthe seleted ities. The results of that omparison are desribed later in this setion. The awarded bid unit pries for 8-inh CIPP in Jefferson County from 1996 to 2002 are shown in Figure 1. LF - Cured In plae liner 8", omplete, 0' to 10' depth m u. $90.00 I---;::=;:::::::::::;::=;--' T 10 _Award lklh Prie $80.00 $70.00 $ $50.00 :J 'E $40.00 $30.00 $20,00 " " " -lwnberofbl:lders L 9, " B ' ".' ;., t','.' " ',' I, ',' ',': -, "',." "... 5 :. I'.. I.' ' _ -; -r; -._.1... _ ",-"-, " :... r-... I.. '.!... 4 _'...,,.'.!.....,.. "'....!,.... _.. _.....,'-... _..,L.,... ",... _... _... _... :' >,.. _", " I, 2, -- ;-... "... _--." _' ;,', ;..., \ '0 3,.'' $10.00 $0.00 m m m 0 0 ;:; ;:; ;:; N N N m m m m m!1! m m m m [j N N (2 ::; '" lil '" "!l i! '" " ;;; iii ('; " lo " " " " '" " '" " '" '" '" '" "., :: Figure 1 From 1996 to near the fall of 1999, the unit prie of the 8-inh CIPP was onsistently above $50 per foot ESD management may not have reognized that Jefferson County was paying signifiantly higher pries than surrounding ommunities and did not initiate orretive ations, suh as expediting approval of additional CIPP ontrators. Also, it appears that during this period, the same three bidders bid on eah ontrat Input from an experiened Pro gram Manager would likely have led to a more aggressive approah by the PRC to qualify additional produtslbidders. A more aggressive approah ould " 0 Final Report 10--4

8 ( Comparison of Unit Priing with Other Loations have impated this issue positively by inreasing the number of approved bidders. Having only the same three bidders on the Program did not provide the level of ompetition to maintain reasonable pries. From the fall ofl999 to the middle of2001, Jefferson County experiened a unit prie redution from approximately $50 per foot to $30 per foot. From the middle of2001 to the end of2002, the unit prie stabilized between $25 and $30 per foot. Table 2 summarizes the CIPP average unit pries and linear footage awarded per year. Table 2 Average Awarded Bid for 8-inh CIPP (0' to 10') by Year Jefferson County Sewer Rehabilitation Program Year Totals Number of Feet ofcipp Prie Average Unit Projets Prie 2 12,110 $673,850 $ ,065 $4,883,625 $ ,998. $16,218,129 $ ,418 $10,722,046 $ ,150 $17,366,494 $ ,817 $12,203,721 $ ,302 $18,041,932 $ ,082,860 $80,109,797 $38.46 A number of mtors ould have ontributed to the unit ost redution. General market onditions at the time, lak ofloal experiene with large sewer programs, number of bidders who partiipated in the bidding proess and other fators would have had a olletive impat on the unit pries quoted. Most of the projets awarded from the beginning of the sewer program to around the middle of2000 had generally the same three (3) bidders during the ompetitive bidding proess, and the unit prie flutuated very little. However, beginning around the middle of2000, the number of bidders inreased to four (4) and the average unit prie dropped to $ Through the year 2002, the number of bidders per projet generally ranged from four (4) to six (6), and the average unit prie dropped even more to $ In a few instanes in 2002, there were fewer than four (4) bidders, and on one projet, there were nine (9) bidders. During the interview proess with US Infrastruture, In. (USI), the following four (4) mtors were identified by USI as having potentially ontributed to higher unit pries in the early years of this program: When the program began in 1995, the ontrators in this region were not equipped or staffed to perform the large volume of sewer rehabilitation work. Contrators began preparation for this program by making initial apital investments in equipment, liensing and royalty fees, personnel, and training. Aording to USI, the investments made by these ontrator's have now been reovered. USI's opinion is that the redution in unit pries is partially due to this Final Report 10-5

9 Comparison of Unit Priing with Other Loations investment being satisfied. As shown in Figure 5, this does not appear to have been the situation in Nashville. Nashville's priing innnediately dropped to and remained muh lower that the Jefferson County rates. Our review of the Nashville priing revealed that several bidders for the Nashville CIPP work were also bidding CIPP work in Jefferson County. The dereases in the unit pries over the years of the program are based, in part, on the County engineers' and the ontrators' inreased understanding of the requirements of the program. Through this understanding, the program team members beame more effiient and ost-effetive as they gained experiene. Many ontrators and suppliers have established offie failities and onstruted CIPP wet out failities in Jefferson County. These investments have resulted in more easily obtainable materials and in redued shipping and handling osts. As the program evolved, the County began performing TV inspetion in areas where no information on the ondition of the sewer system was available. Work from the TV inspetions was added to the SSES work sope, whih resulted in inreases in work sopes (quantities) making the projets more attrative and, therefore, inreasing ompetition. In summary, as bid quantities inreased, unit pries dereased. Table 2 shows that this is true in the later years but not between 1998 and The unit prie derease also oinides with the inrease in the number of bidders. Figure 2 is atual Jefferson County unit prie data that has been sorted by date bid to indiate the period of installation for the linear footage of individual CIPP projets. Final Report 10-6

10 Comparison of Unit Priing with Other Loations Jefferson County 8-inh C.I.P.P. Bids (Quantity vs. Date) '" iii os u. :. I... Quantityl f a " V V r\. A II" N'- r'l.. it ttl... (\ I M ) r V rf Date Figure 2 Although there was a steady inrease in the linear feet of CIPP lining, this does not appear to have been a signifiant fator impating the unit prie exept for the large projets awarded in However, as previously reported, the unit pries in 2002 were between $25 and $30 per foot. As desribed earlier in this report, a number of fators an impat the unit prie for a partiular bid item. Smaller projets an often result in higher unit pries due to mobilization! demobilization and overhead osts. For the 8-inh CIPP, the Jefferson County bid tabulation data was used to see ifthere was a relationship between length of CIPP lining on the projet and unit prie for that projet without regard to the year. This data is plotted and is provided in Figure 3. Final Report 10-7

11 Comparison of Unit Priing with Other Loations Jefferson County a-inh C.I.P.P. Bids ($lifvs. Quantity) ' ;... to.t..'..'. I..+. * o Quantity (If total for Bid) Figure 3 In Jefferson County, the shorter projets have more unit ost variability. It appears that the lowest unit prie is in the range of $25 to $30 per foot. The highest unit prie experiened by Jefferson County was $77per foot, whih was on a short projet (5,625 feet bid on June 26, 1997). The lowest unit prie experiened by Jefferson County for the period of reord reviewed was $26.00 per foot on three (3) long projets (32,000 feet, 87,500 feet and 135,391 feet bid on April 16, 2002, June 4,2002 and May 14, 2002, respetively). Seleted Programs for Comparison The Commission requested that this report make a omparison ofthe Jefferson County ost data with those of other wastewater utilities. The riteria used to selet the omparison programs were as follows: Size ofthe Program - Compare with a program of similar size to the Jefferson County Program Loation of the Utility - Compare with a program loated in the southeast U.S. and, if possible, in a similar geologial setting to Jefferson County Similar Rehabilitation Approah - Compare with a program that used CIPP as part of its rehabilitation strategy Final Report 10-8

12 Comparison of Unit Priing with Other Loations It was not possible for omparison programs to meet all the riteria set forth. For omparison purposes with Jefferson County, the following programs were seleted for olletion and summary of unit prie data: Nashville, Tennessee New Orleans, Louisiana Atlanta, Georgia All the omparison programs are loated in the southeastern U.S. There are geologial similarities between Jefferson County and Nashville and Atlanta. All of the omparison programs have large rehabilitation ativities ongoing. All rehabilitation projets involving use of CIPP were similar in that they all utilize the existing pipe into whih the CIPP was inserted to form the rehabilitated sewer. Nashville CIPP Unit Cost Data Of the ity programs that provided requested CIPP ost information, Nashville was able to provide more data points than either New Orleans or Atlanta. Over the past few years, Nashville has awarded more individual projets with CIPP bid items (38 total) than New Orleans or Atlanta. During the same period oftime, Jefferson County has awarded more CIPP projets than any ofthe three (3) omparison programs. The number of bidders on Nashville projets ranged from two (2) to nine (9). As shown in Figure 4, Nashville experiened a similar unit ost redution trend for 8-inh CIPP ompared to that experiened by Jefferson County from 1997 to Final Report 10-9

13 Comparison of Unit Priing with Other Loations $70.00 $65.00 $ " CIPP Cost Analysis for Nashville ('97-'03) II -Award Unit Prie I $55.00 $50.00 ; 5 $45.00 $40.00 ::> $35.00 $30.00 $ S I\, 1\ /'>. 1\ " L-<I II \ V '\ 1--0, <> p...,/ V $20.00 Figure 4 The highest unit prie experiened by Nashville was $62.00 per foot ompared with Jefferson County's $77.00 per foot. As with the highest Jefferson County unit prie, the highest Nashville unit prie was on a short projet (1,660 feet ofliner that was bid on April 17, 1997). The lowest unit prie experiened by Nashville for the period of reord reviewed was $29.25 per foot ompared with Jefferson County's $26.00 per foot. As with the lowest Jefferson County unit pries, the lowest Nashville unit prie was on a relatively long projet (28,500 feet ofliner that was bid on April 08, 2003). The omparison between Nashville and Jefferson County unit pries for CIPP is provided in Fignre 5. Final Report 10-10

14 Comparison of Unit Priing with Other Loations Jefferson County and Nashville a-inh C.I.P.P. Bids $80.00 iii $70.00 $60.00 $50.00 $40.00 $30.00 $ *, JI "\ i"j w 1t.,0J \ }\, II \... " IJ t ;\!... V V..., - W w.'/j... gr:fo 1fL'IJ,\fo1 <&:tp\99 1 1fI'\\ 'O(PJ,r;fo'O 'If'IJJ\g 7J\g?ft?ftr il?ftr; fj 'Ifi-'lfir:P' w,'f}ftrp\?fl'/jr.fj 'D\1J.(ISP r J I Jefferson County 8-1nh CJ.P.P. Bids BId Date Figure 5 --Nashville 8-lnh C,I.P.P. Bids I /' I I From the latter part of 1997 to around the end of2000, Nashville's awarded unit pries were onsistently $10 to $20 per foot below the Jefferson County unit pries. Figure 5 demonstrates that although Nashville's' starting unit prie was in the same range as Jefferson County's', the Nashville unit pries dropped innnediately. This redution took four years in Jefferson County. From 2001 through 2002, the unit pries generally onverged. In fat, the observed unit pries for Jefferson County are lower than those for Nashville from around mid-2002 to the period of reord. New Orleans CIPP Unit Cost Data New Orleans had fewer unit ost data points than either Nashville or Jefferson County. The number of New Orleans projets bid with CIPP omponents was eleven (11). The number of bidders on New Orleans projets ranged from two (2) to five (5). As shown in Figure 6, New Orleans experiened a similar unit ost redution trend for 8-inh CIPP as Jefferson County experiened from 1998 to Final Report 11J-11

15 Comparison of Unit Priing with Other Loations Jefferson County and New Orleans 8-lnh C.I.P.P. Bids $80.00 $70.00 $60.00 $50.00 $40.00 $30.00 $20.00, r I.' V JL. IV 1'1 \. V1J iio. j III \ \,.0 /'011\.J&.,. NewOrieans 8-1"00 C.I.P.P. BIds Bid Date --Jefferson CounlyS-lnh CJ.P.P. Bids Figure 6 From the first part of 1998 to around the beginning of2001, New Orleans' awarded unit pries were onsistently $15 to $20 per foot below the Jefferson County unit pries. Beginning in 2001 through 2002, the unit pries generally onverged. Atlanta CIPP Unit Cost Data During the 1990s, the City of Atlanta had not onentrated on the use of CIPP for its sewer rehabilitation program. In 1999, the City of Atlanta awarded an annual ontrat for 8-inh CIPP at the unit prie of $ per foot. This same unit prie was used in 2000, 2001, 2002 and the fitst part of2003. Around February 2003, the prie was adjusted to $29.00 per foot. This ompares to Jefferson County's average awarded unit pries of$49.77 per foot during 1999 and $26.00 during The 2003 CIP for the City of Atlanta indiates that it has budgeted $5 million for CIPP work, whih would represent approximately 170,000 feet ofcipp for the year. CIPP Data for Other Southeastern U.S. Cities In addition to the data olleted for the three (3) omparison ities, bid tabulation data was olleted for other southeastern ities using information provided by the Trenhless Tehnology Institute and other soures. The southern region ities/utilities inluded in this omparison were: Final Report 10-12

16 Comparison of Unit Priing with Other Loations City of Baton Rouge Pine Bluff Wastewater Utility City of Knoxville Nashville - Davidson City City of Shreveport City of Mobile The summary omparison of these ities/utilities is provided in Figure 7. $80.00 a-inh C.I.P.P. Bid Comparision $70.00 C $60.00 $50.00 $40.00 $30.00 $20.00 * * 'i)s,,\si"i. \?Jr:/\\"i r;jo,\g\\ 0\\06\\ 01\'2.1\1'1 o?j,j\\ :;(l:o\\ o?).\s\ \OIO\I?J. f:j.\\9\ \\\Os'a o'l.r,.l''& \'2.\\d'V r:jji'l,<o'(f. Bid Date Jefferson County 8-lnh C.I.P.? Bids New Orleans 8-Inh C.I.P,P. Bids... Balon Rouge 8-lnh C.l?? Bids -_Pine Bluff 8-lnh C.I.P.P. Bids _-AtlanteS-Inh C.I.P,P. Bids Naslwille 8-lnh C.l.?,P. Bids Knoxville Utility Boai'd a lnh C.I.P.P Bids Metro Governments of Nashvllill and Davklson City B.lnll C.l.P.P Bids --.-Shreveport 8-lnh C,I.P.P. Bids Mobila Waler end Sewer 8-lnh C.I.P.? Bids Figure 7 The CIPP unit pries for Jefferson County are above these omparison ities/utilities exept from the end of 200 I through Regarding Figure 7 above, it an be seen that many of the loalities did not start at the high unit rates that Jefferson County experiened, and were onsistently muh lower than Jefferson County until This is onsistent with the findings of the previous omparisons with Nashville and New Orleans. Final Report 10-13