DOCSLIB.ORG

Crescent City Connection Division House Resolution No

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Crescent City Connection Division House Resolution No CRESCENT CITY CONNECTION DIVISION HOUSE RESOLUTION NO. 13 PERFORMANCE AUDIT ISSUED MARCH 26, 2009 LEGISLATIVE AUDITOR 1600 NORTH THIRD STREET POST OFFICE BOX 94397 BATON ROUGE, LOUISIANA 70804-9397 LEGISLATIVE AUDIT ADVISORY COUNCIL REPRESENTATIVE NOBLE E. ELLINGTON, CHAIRMAN SENATOR NICHOLAS “NICK” GAUTREAUX SENATOR WILLIE L. MOUNT SENATOR EDWIN R. MURRAY SENATOR BEN W. NEVERS, SR. SENATOR JOHN R. SMITH REPRESENTATIVE NEIL C. ABRAMSON REPRESENTATIVE CHARLES E. “CHUCK” KLECKLEY REPRESENTATIVE ANTHONY V. LIGI, JR. REPRESENTATIVE CEDRIC RICHMOND LEGISLATIVE AUDITOR STEVE J. THERIOT, CPA DIRECTOR OF PERFORMANCE AUDIT DAVID K. GREER, CPA FOR QUESTIONS RELATED TO THIS PERFORMANCE AUDIT, CONTACT KERRY FITZGERALD, CPA, PERFORMANCE AUDIT MANAGER, AT 225-339-3800. Under the provisions of state law, this report is a public document. A copy of this report has been submitted to the Governor, to the Attorney General, and to other public officials as required by state law. A copy of this report has been made available for public inspection at the Baton Rouge office of the Legislative Auditor. This document is produced by the Legislative Auditor, State of Louisiana, Post Office Box 94397, Baton Rouge, Louisiana 70804-9397 in accordance with Louisiana Revised Statute 24:513. Thirteen copies of this public document were produced at an approximate cost of $138.58. This material was produced in accordance with the standards for state agencies established pursuant to R.S. 43:31. This report is available on the Legislative Auditor’s Web site at www.lla.la.gov. When contacting the office, you may refer to Agency ID No. 9726 or Report ID No. 40080007 for additional information. In compliance with the Americans With Disabilities Act, if you need special assistance relative to this document, or any documents of the Legislative Auditor, please contact Wayne “Skip” Irwin, Director of Administration, at 225-339-3800. LOUISIANA LEGISLATIVE AUDITOR STEVE J. THERIOT, CPA March 26, 2009 The Honorable Joel T. Chaisson, II, President of the Senate The Honorable Jim Tucker, Speaker of the House of Representatives Dear Senator Chaisson and Representative Tucker: This report provides the results of the Crescent City Connection Division audit that resulted from House Resolution No. 13 of the First Extraordinary Legislative Session of 2008. The report contains our findings, conclusions, and recommendations. Appendix A contains the Department of Transportation and Development’s response to this report. Appendix I contains copies of three other audit reports recently conducted on the Crescent City Connection Division, which the Department of Transportation and Development submitted to us with its response to this audit. I hope this report will benefit you in your legislative decision- making process. We would like to express our appreciation to the management and staff of the Louisiana Department of Transportation and Development and the Crescent City Connection Division for their assistance during this audit. Sincerely, Steve J. Theriot, CPA Legislative Auditor SJT/dl CCCD09 1600 NORTH THIRD STREET • POST OFFICE BOX 94397 • BATON ROUGE, LOUISIANA 70804-9397 WWW.LLA.LA.GOV • PHONE: 225-339-3800 • FAX: 225-339-3870 _________________________________________________ TABLE OF CONTENTS Executive Summary.......................................................................................................................3 Introduction....................................................................................................................................4 Audit Initiation and Objectives ...............................................................................................4 Overview of the Crescent City Connection Division..............................................................5 Scope and Methodology.................................................................................................................7 What Were CCCD’s Revenues, Sources of Revenues, Expenses, and Types of Expenses for the Past Five Fiscal Years? ...........................................................8 Has the Crescent City Connection Oversight Authority Met Its Statutory Duties?..........................................................................................................10 Has DOTD Exercised Sufficient Oversight Over CCCD’s Contracting Activities?..............13 We Could Not Be Certain That We Received All CCCD Contracts ..........................................13 DOTD Has Not Ensured That CCCD Contracts Clearly Include All Basic Provisions Recommended by Authoritative Sources................................................15 DOTD Has Not Required CCCD to Formally Document Its Monitoring of Contracts or Report Monitoring Results............................................................17 Contract Plan Changes Totaled Over $3.7 Million .....................................................................19 CCCD Did Not Prepare Plan Changes for Additional Charges Incurred on Some Contracts........................................................................................21 Did CCCD Engineers Complete All Required Ferry Maintenance Tasks for the Period Examined?..............................................................................................22 Did CCCD Meet Its Targeted Performance for Completing Scheduled Ferry Trips in Fiscal Year 2008?...........................................................................24 Exhibits Exhibit 1: CCCD Toll Rates, January 1989 Through Present ..................................................6 Exhibit 2: CCCD Revenues, Fiscal Years 2004 Through 2008 ...............................................8 Exhibit 3: CCCD Revenues, Expenditures, and Fund Balance Fiscal Years 2004 Through 2008...........................................................................9 Exhibit 4: Status of CCCD Projects Prioritized by CCCOA As of October 2008..............................................................................................10 - 1 - CRESCENT CITY CONNECTION DIVISION __________________________________ Exhibits (Cont.) Exhibit 5: Number of CCCOA Meetings Required and Held July 1, 1998 Through December 31, 2008...........................................................11 Exhibit 6: Basic Provisions Included and Not Included in CCCD Contracts Fiscal Years 2004 Through 2008.........................................................................16 Exhibit 7: Excerpt From Appendix G, Fiscal Years 2004 Through 2008 ..............................20 Exhibit 8: Contract Payments Exceeding Total Contract Amounts Without Approved Plan Changes July 1, 2003 Through November 19, 2008 ..........................................................21 Exhibit 9: Reasons Scheduled Ferry Trips Not Completed Fiscal Year 2008 ..................................................................................................24 Exhibit 10: Scheduled Ferry Trips Not Completed Fiscal Year 2008 ..................................................................................................25 Appendices Appendix A: Management’s Response ..................................................................................A.1 Appendix B: House Resolution No. 13 of the First Extraordinary Legislative Session of 2008 ............................................................................B.1 Appendix C: List of CCCD Projects According to R.S. 47:820.5 .........................................C.1 Appendix D: CCCD Expenditures, Fiscal Years 2004 Through 2008...................................D.1 Appendix E: CCCD Capital Outlay Expenditures by Project Fiscal Years 2004 Through 2008.................................................................... E.1 Appendix F: Summary of CCCOA Meetings July 1, 1998 Through December 31, 2008...................................................... F.1 Appendix G: CCCD Contracts, Fiscal Years 2004 Through 2008.........................................G.1 Appendix H: Scheduled Ferry Trips Not Completed by Location and Reason, Fiscal Year 2008 ....................................................H.1 Appendix I: Additional CCCD Audit Reports....................................................................... I.1 - 2 - Office of Legislative Auditor Steve J. Theriot, CPA, Legislative Auditor Crescent City Connection Division of Louisiana Department of Transportation and Development, Response to House Resolution No. 13 of the First Extraordinary Legislative Session of 2008 March 2009 Audit Control # 40080007 Executive Summary This report provides the results of our performance audit of the Crescent City Connection Division (CCCD) of the Louisiana Department of Transportation and Development (DOTD). We conducted this examination in response to House Resolution No. 13 of the First Extraordinary Legislative Session of 2008. The resolution requests the legislative auditor to conduct a performance audit on the operations of CCCD. Appendix B provides a copy of the resolution. We used the resolution and information DOTD and CCCD provided to develop the audit objectives. The audit objectives and results of our work are as follows: Objective 1: What were CCCD’s revenues, sources of revenues, expenses, and types of expenses for the past five fiscal years? Results: CCCD’s total revenues for the past five fiscal years were almost $145 million. Of this amount, approximately $103 million (71%) was derived from bridge and ferry operations. Expenditures for this time period totaled almost $170 million. Expenditures for
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Ferry Privatization Study
    August 2012 Public Private Partnership Opportunities Study Prepared for: Regional Planning Commission RPC Project Number: LA-FB-OPS2 FTA Grant Number: LA 90X377 Jefferson-Orleans-St. Bernard Parishes, LA Crescent City Connection Ferry Public Private Partnership Opportunities Study RPC Project Number: LA-FB-OPS2 FTA Grant Number LA 90X337 Table of Contents Executive Summary ....................................................................................................................................... 3 Introduction .................................................................................................................................................. 5 I. Purpose of Study ............................................................................................................................... 5 II. Project Area ...................................................................................................................................... 5 III. Planning Assumptions ....................................................................................................................... 6 Existing Conditions ........................................................................................................................................ 8 I. Equipment ......................................................................................................................................... 8 II. Facilities............................................................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Arch Thesis Inventory.Xlsx
    Page 1 ARCHITECTURE SCHOOL THESES YEAR AUTHOR TITLE 2012 Aditi, Padhi Urban Centre for Justice Re-Investment: Rehabilitation in Treme-Seventh Ward, New Orleans 2012 Asher, Mira Post-Postal: Making Physical Public Space in a Digital World 2012 Bardwell, Kristy Evidence-Bases Design: A New Recovery and Rehabilitation Facility Typology 2012 Berman, Leland Bailey Stitching Houston: Degradation and Creation of Place in the Contemporary Muli-Nodal City 2012 Brooks, Nicholas The Motor City: Networking Density Amongst Decay: Detroit, MI 2012 Cho, Hee Kyung Rebuilding Traditions: A new cemetary for Seoul, South Korea 2012 Coles, Samuel Valu(able)Access(able) Architecture 2012 Dardant. Marie Sophie independence through Integration: Encouraging Variation within a Regulated Environment Manufactured Innovation: A study of community revitalization through systemic manufacturing and creative 2012 Davis, Elizabeth incubation 2012 David. Alexandra Building as threshold: Houston Transitional Center: An architectural nexus 2012 DeCotiis, Matt Planning for Death: A celebration of life through the redesign of the cities of the dead 2012 Diiorio, Laura Take me to the river!: facilitating access to the Mississippi in New Orleans 2012 Faircloth, Gillian Performance of the Collective Memory: Rejuvinating a Culture Through Adaptive Reuse 2012 Finkelstein, Rachel Amplifying Awareness: Atlantic City Re-treat 2012 Fisher, Sean Individual Experience & Collective Memory: The Sports Stadium in Place Making Page 2 2012 Franke, Patrick Flux Capacity: asymmetrical activity
    [Show full text]
  • New Links Concept Sketches
    New Links Comprehensive Operations Analysis System Report September 2020 Contents Introduction and Project Overview . 1 .5 What is New Links? . 1 .6 What is the purpose of this report? . 1 .6 Why are we doing a bus redesign? . 1 .7 Key Trends, 2012-2019 . 1 .10 What key questions need answering? . 1 .13 Recent crises have introduced new challenges for service planning . 1 .15 System Updates . 1 .15 Key Concepts and Choices . 1 .17 Key transit planning concepts . 1 .18 Access . 1 .20 Frequency . 1 .24 Span . 1 .28 Speed . 1 .28 Better service for the same budget: . 1 .29 System Analysis . 1 .33 Overview . 1 .34 Transit and the built environment . 1 .34 The Network . 1 .37 Downtown Service . 1 .39 Downtown Service - March 2020 Updates . 1 .41 Service Frequency and Span . 1 .42 Peak vs . base service levels . 1 .44 Productivity by Time of Day . 1 .46 Frequency and Productivity . 1 .47 Ridership by Stop . 1 .49 Structure of the network . 1 .50 Direct and indirect routes . 1 .54 Duplicating Service . 1 .56 Exceptions and Outliers . 1 .58 Stop Spacing . 1 .60 Analysis and Service Strategies . 1 .63 System performance . 1 .64 Design and scheduling . 1 .65 Fares and Transfers . 1 .66 Infrastructure . 1 .66 Planning and operations issues . 1 .67 1.3 Figures Figure 1 - Annual ridership for RTA, JET and SBURT services . 1 .6 Figure 2 - Changes to RTA Service and Weekday Hours, 2012-2019 . 1 .9 Figure 3 - % Change in Service Levels for RTA and JET lines, 2012-2018 . 1 .10 Figure 4 - % Change in Annual Ridership, 2012-2018 .
    [Show full text]
  • Crescent City Connection Operations Devolution Or Evolution
    1 Crescent City Connection Operations Devolution or Evolution Presentation February 18, 2013 Contents 1. Recent Legislation 2. CCCD Restructuring 3. Toll Funded Services 4. Toll Operations 5. Estimated Annual Revenue and Costs 6. Future Plans 2 ACT No. 866 • Effective January 1, 2013 • Abolishes Mississippi River Bridge Authority MRBA • Terminates Crescent City Connection Division CCCD DOTD 3 ACT No. 866 • Transfers From CCCD To DOTD – Books, records, paper – Funds (previously appropriated) – Property (movable and immovable) – Buildings and Improvements • Abolishes Crescent Connection City Oversight Authority CCCOA 4 ACT No. 866 • Creates Crescent City Transition Fund – Toll Fund Balance as of December 31, 2012 – First $4M for CCCD Ferry Capitalization – Balance to NORPC for lighting, landscaping, grass cutting, trash pickup, improvements to ingress/egress 5 ACT No. 866 • DOTD may take over, control, operate, and regulate the Crescent Connection City Ferries • DOTD may privatize, franchise, or enter into a contract for ferry services – Alone or jointly with parishes or municipalities – Appoints NORPC as an advisor to ferry service contractor 6 ACT No. 865 • Effective January 1, 2013 • Creates a Special Fund, Crescent City Connection (CCC) Toll Fund – Source is Tolls, Administrative Fees, and Late Charges Collected – Not less than $10 M Annually into CCC Capital Projects (CP) Fund – Not to Exceed $2 M Annually to DPS for Police Functions 7 ACT No. 865 • Creates a Special Fund, Crescent City Connection (CCC) Toll Fund (Continued) – Operations and Maintenance Costs – Unexpended Monies transfer to CP Fund – All Monies in the Fund are Subject to Annual Appropriations by the Legislature 8 ACT No. 865 • CP Fund for Projects – “Pay-As-You-Go”, Match for Federal Funds, or Bond Payments – All Monies in the Fund are Subject to Annual Appropriations by the Legislature 9 ACT No.
    [Show full text]
  • New Orleans RTA System
    Our Commitment In and Around New Orleans Passenger Information Fares and Passes/Tarifas y pases Reduced Fare Card ID Program Points of Interest Points of Interest Planning your trip is simple with the Regional Transit RTA is committed to getting you from uptown to downtown and Fares Standard Reduced RTA Buses and Streetcars offer reserved seating and reduced No. Location Served by Line Grid Ref No. Location Served by Line Grid Ref Delivering safe, efficient, courteous, Tarifas Normal Reducida dependable and reliable public transportation Authority(RTA) trip planner found at www.norta.com. all around town. That’s why timetables are available on all of our fares for Seniors 65 and older, People with Disabilities, and vehicles, at pass outlets, public libraries and at www.norta.com. Local Bus and Streetcar Lines Medicare Card Holders. Regional Transit Authority Hospitals When you are ready to go, arrive at your stop 5 minutes before $1.25 $0.40 Servicio local RTA RTA Adminstrative Office 94, 47, 48 F-3 H1 Ochsner Baptist Hospital 15, 16, 24 G-2 RTA New Orleans Social Media your bus or streetcar is scheduled to arrive. Have your fare ready People with Disabilities and Medicare Card Holders require an Express Bus to and from New Orleans Connect with us on all social media platforms to find out the latest when you board and consider purchasing one of our convenient Holidays - Reduced Service Schedule RTA Reduced Fare Card to receive the reduced fare. Call RTA at H2 University Medical Center 39, 84, 47, 48 F-3 East (Lines 62, 63, 64 and 65) $1.50 $0.40 RTA RTA ID Center 94, 47, 48 F-3 504-827-8345 to apply or apply at RTA’s Offices (2817 Canal (Reduced Fare ID cards) news, Rider Alerts and system status updates.
    [Show full text]
  • The Algiers/ Canal Street Ferry a Critical Transportation & Economic Link
    THE ALGIERS/ CANAL STREET FERRY A CRITICAL TRANSPORtatION & ECONOMIC LINK Ride New Orleans is an independent non-profit organization. We advocate for safe, convenient and affordable transportation for all New Orleanians. Learn more - 504.345.8360 / www.rideneworleans.org THE SITUATION AND WHAT WE’RE DOING ABOUT IT New Orleans Ferries are in Crisis What We’re Doing About it In 2012, the Louisiana State Legislature voted to strip When Ride New Orleans first discovered that ferry ser- the ferries of their dedicated funding source by prohib- vice was in danger, because we work so closely with iting any future Crescent City Connection bridge tolls transit dependent populations, we knew that service from funding them, but failed to provide other funding cuts would mean a devastating loss of mobility for New sources in order to maintain ferry service long-term. Orleans and Algiers residents lacking a personal vehi- cle. After discovering that there has not been a com- The State will end funding for the Algiers - Canal Street prehensive effort to understand the human story of our ferry in June 2013, putting ferry service in danger of ferries, and that decisions about cutting service would being drastically reduced or cut altogether. likely be made without considering the true impact, we decided to collect as much information as we could about who rides the New Orleans - Algiers ferry and Why the Ferry Matters why. The Mississippi River poses a significant barrier be- So, with the help of over 40 volunteers, we conducted tween East and West Bank neighborhoods. While the a survey of 1,575 ferry riders on the Algiers - Canal Crescent City Connection bridge (built in 1958) pro- Street ferry in April 2013.
    [Show full text]
  • Canal Street Study
    Canal Street Study City of New Orleans City Planning Commission Robert D. Rivers, Executive Director Prepared by: Leslie T. Alley, Deputy Director Larry W. Massey, Jr. Joseph A. Colón Prepared on: 10/16/2018 Paul Cramer Stephen Kroll Revised on: 10/31/2018 Travis Martin Table of Contents Introduction ............................................................................................................................................ 4 Study Goals ............................................................................................................................................. 4 Key Findings ........................................................................................................................................... 5 Recommendations ............................................................................................................................. 10 Next Steps ............................................................................................................................................. 11 Early Canal Street history ................................................................................................................. 13 1950 – 1979 Plans and Studies ...................................................................................................... 16 1980s Plans and Studies ................................................................................................................... 31 1990s Plans and Studies ..................................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Canal Street Study
    Canal Street Study City of New Orleans City Planning Commission Robert D. Rivers, Executive Director Prepared by: Leslie T. Alley, Deputy Director Larry W. Massey, Jr. Joseph A. Colón Prepared on: 10/16/2018 Paul Cramer Stephen Kroll Travis Martin Table of Contents Introduction ............................................................................................................................................ 4 Study Goals ............................................................................................................................................. 4 Key Findings ........................................................................................................................................... 5 Recommendations ............................................................................................................................. 10 Next Steps ............................................................................................................................................. 11 Early Canal history .............................................................................................................................. 13 1950 – 1979 Plans and Studies ...................................................................................................... 16 1980s Plans and Studies ................................................................................................................... 31 1990s Plans and Studies ..................................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • AMEND-DOCUMENT-2017.Pdf (5.478Mb)
    Applying Ecological Gap Analysis as a Tool for Restoration Planning The Harvard community has made this article openly available. Please share how this access benefits you. Your story matters Citation Amend, Meredith. 2017. Applying Ecological Gap Analysis as a Tool for Restoration Planning. Master's thesis, Harvard Extension School. Citable link http://nrs.harvard.edu/urn-3:HUL.InstRepos:33826360 Terms of Use This article was downloaded from Harvard University’s DASH repository, and is made available under the terms and conditions applicable to Other Posted Material, as set forth at http:// nrs.harvard.edu/urn-3:HUL.InstRepos:dash.current.terms-of- use#LAA Applying Ecological Gap Analysis as a Tool for Restoration Planning Meredith E. Amend A Thesis in the Field of Sustainability and Environmental Management for the Degree of Master of Liberal Arts in Extension Studies Harvard University May 2017 Copyright 2017 Meredith E. Amend Abstract Following oil spills, such as the Deepwater Horizon oil spill, or the release of other hazardous materials, natural resources and their services can be lost or diminished. Under several federal statutes, natural resource trustees (e.g., federal and state governments) responsible for managing these resources may assess natural resource damages and devise restoration projects to compensate for those losses (U.S.C. §2701 et seq.). During the traditional restoration planning process, natural resource trustees rely on submissions from resource managers as well as the public to identify potential restoration projects. While human resources such as these can be valuable sources of local information, a number of shortcomings have been identified with this process.
    [Show full text]
  • NEW ORLEANS REGIONAL TRANSIT AUTHORITY Addendum II to Request for Proposals # 2019-030
    NEW ORLEANS REGIONAL TRANSIT AUTHORITY Addendum II to Request for Proposals # 2019-030 Ferry Transit Services Operations and Maintenance October 11, 2019 REGIONAL TRANSIT AUTHORITY PUBLIC NOTICE RFP 2019-030 Ferry Transit Services Addendum II Acknowledge receipt of this addendum in the proposal submission. This addendum is a part of the Contract Documents and shall be included in the Contract Documents. Changes made by the addenda take precedence over information published at an earlier date. 1. The relevant sentence in Section “2.1.1. Ferry Service Operations and Maintenance Agreement” is amended to read as follows: “The selected proposer shall enter into an Agreement for Ferry Service Operations and Maintenance with the RTA which will substantially conform to Attachment 9 Draft Ferry Service Operations and Maintenance Agreement (hereinafter referred to as the “Agreement”) and which will allow the RTA to perform as obligated under the CEA, or as obligated under a new or amended cooperative endeavor agreement.” 2. The list of Attachments underneath the Table of Contents is amended to include “Attachment 9: Draft Ferry Service Operations and Maintenance Agreement” which is found on the following pages in this Addendum II. 3. The relevant sentence in Section “3.3 Pre-proposal Conference, Facility Tour, Procurement Website, Questions, Clarifications,” having been amended in Addendum I, is now amended to read as follows: “All questions or requests for clarifications must be submitted via the ProcureWare system at https://norta.procureware.com
    [Show full text]
  • Comparison of Ferry Boat and Highway Bridge Energy Use
    Energies 2011, 4, 239-253; doi:10.3390/en4010239 OPEN ACCESS energies ISSN 1996-1073 www.mdpi.com/journal/energies Article Comparison of Ferry Boat and Highway Bridge Energy Use Wayne D. Cottrell Department of Civil Engineering and Construction Engineering Management, California State University, Long Beach, 1250 Bellflower Boulevard, Long Beach, CA 90840, USA; E-Mail: [email protected]; Tel.: +1-562-985-5118 Received: 18 November 2010; in revised form: 15 January 2011 / Accepted: 20 January 2011 / Published: 27 January 2011 Abstract: Passenger ferries serve a variety of transport needs in the U.S., such as providing vital links across bodies of water, and supplementing highway bridges. In some cases in which there is a ferry connection but no bridge, a bridge would be impractical; in other cases, a bridge might be feasible. The paper compares the energy consumption of ferries and motor vehicles on bridges, to determine which link is more fuel efficient. One finding is that limited data are available on ferry boat fuel consumption: despite there being 208 ferry boat operators in the U.S. as of 2008, only eight were providing energy use data to the National Transit Database. Examinations of three of the systems found that the passenger-MPG of the ferries ranged from 2.61 to 14.00 (1.11 to 5.95 km/L), while that of the motor vehicles on adjacent highway bridge connections ranged from 25.34 to 32.45 (10.77 to 13.79 km/L). Data from the eight systems are used to develop a ferry MPG model.
    [Show full text]
  • Ferry Questions
    QUESTION QUESTIONS RESPONSE NUMBER See Section 9(n) of the Draft Ferry Services Operations and Maintenance Agreement included in Addendum II (hereinafter referred to as the "Draft In section 2.1.1 it states "Selected proposer must retain the crew staff currently performing operations and maintenance Agreement"). None of the incumbent contractor's staff performing ferry services." Request clarification exactly what that statement means. For example: How long is proposer required to retain 1 services are union members. During negotiations, RTA will approve a staffing the current crew? Is proposer required to provide the same pay and benefits to the current crew? Is the proposer required to plan, which may be reevaluated during the Transition Period. A current be union employer? organizational chart provided by the incumbent contractor will be posted to www.norta.com/ferryrfp. 2.2.1 and 2.2.2 Request to know if the term of the contract can be made to five (5) years, with two consecutive, three (3)‐ 2 Contract term will not be changed. year extensions. 3 2.3.1 Is the monthly payment in advance of the coming month? No, see Section 8 of the Draft Agreement describing the invoice procedure. See Section 8(f) of the Draft Contract. Costs may be determined to be dis‐ 2.3.2 What are the guidelines and/or process for determining which costs are dis‐allowable, dis‐allowable, and/or allowable, dis‐allocable according to Generally Accepted Accounting Principles 4 unreasonable...? or as provided for in the Code of Federal Regulations, Federal Transit Agency regulations, and other applicable federal regulations.
    [Show full text]