New Search
HAMLIN Peggy D <br />From: DESANTIS Bud L <br />Sent: Wednesday, May 02, 2001 9:25 AM <br />To: DUCKETT Scott; REA Matt (SMTP) <br />Cc: JOHNSTON Pat (SMTP); CAHILL Michelle R; HAMLIN Peggy D <br />Subject: RE: Interpretative Plan bid from Bob Loudon <br />Scott - Is this cost part of the city/Corps joint funding (1135)? If it is we could do like I was showing you and take it out of <br />the bottom part of the estimate recap and then we show it as part of the city match to the Corps funding in that break <br />down. Do not know if you understood all that but the bottom line is we could pay out of the Multi-use Path account and <br />then we can work with Peggy H. on the city/Core funding recap. If there is a substantial savings (18.9%) I would <br />recommend we talk with Peggy and make sure this will work. Let me know if you want me in on the talk with Peggy. <br />Thanks Bud <br />-----Original Message----- <br />From: DUCKETT Scott <br />Sent: Wednesday, May 02, 2001 7:41 AM <br />To: REA Matt (SMTP); DESANTIS Bud L <br />Cc: JOHNSTON Pat (SMTP); CAHILL Michelle R <br />Subject: RE: Interpretative Plan bid from Bob Loudon <br />Matt & Bud, <br />Pat has a proposal from the interpretive planner to do the signs for the 1135 and to finalize the interpretive plan for the <br />project. The total bid is apprx.$36,000 for four signs, designed & installed along with the final version of the interpretive <br />piece (which lays the foundation for future signs and messages). <br />Have the City pick it up through the City /BLM billing process (Bud -this is something we do regularly and I can explain <br />Should we set a conference call date to discuss or is there a preferred route that we can decide on and go with? As Pat <br />points out below, there MAY be a cost savings if it is option 2. <br />Scott <br />-----Original Message----- <br />From: Pat_Johnston@or.blm.gov [mailto:Pat_Johnston@or.blm.gov] <br />Sent: Tuesday, May 01, 2001 3:53 PM <br />To: DUCKETT Scott <br />Scott, <br />One thing to keep in mind, if the BLM-Army Corp do this project, as we did <br />on the first phase of the Interpretative Plan, BLM automatically tacks on <br />18.9% or so, so that will need be added on to the bottom line for <br />Matt....if on the other hand we figure out a way to do it though the <br />BLM-City relationship with the way we do billing back and forth, we may not <br />have to be concerned about these overhead charges. But, I have not <br />explored that with Bill Gilmore, but would be happy to, if you think we <br />would go this route, rather than through the Army Corp Task Order...what's <br />your pleasure? <br />(Embedded image moved to file: pic01150.gif) <br />