EXH0599023891

PCHBPollution Control Hearings Board of the State of Washington

Sent: Wednesday, September 12, 2001 11:23 AM To: 'MichaelCheyne' Subject: FW: Contract Amendment needed Michaet, Per our conversation,here is the information regarding the contractamendment with King County. David Masters informedme recentlythat we are currently $23,695 over the limit of the second contract ($95,000). ..... OriginalMessage..... From: Masters, David [mailto:David.Masters@METROKC.GOV] Sent: Wednesday,July 18, 2001 4:00 PM To: Kenny, Ann Cc: Whiting, Kelly Subject: Contract:Amendment needed Ann" As we discussed, we have just about hit the limit of our expenditure authority on the contract under which Kelly is providing review services to Ecology. You requested that I send you an estimate of what it might take to continue supporting Ecology through the upcoming permit decision and the anticipated appeal process, rm assuming that DOE will be called to testify on technical issues and that DOE will, in turn, be looking to Kelly to make clear the technical aspects of his review and comments. After talking it over briefly with you, I suggest that we amend the contract to cover a wide range of possible effort. While this would lead towards an amendment with a large "not-to-exceed" number, the County will still be billing just for the work performed. We will not be submitting bills unless we are called on to perform services. Among other benefits, this strategy would minimize the possibility of the County hitting the expenditure limit at an inconvenient time such as during an appeal process. To accomplish this, I estimate the following as a worst-case scenario: - to complete…
V V