Free Notice (Other) - District Court of Federal Claims - federal

Case 1:98-cv-00488-SGB

Document 372-3

Filed 08/18/2006

Page 1 of 2

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF FEDERAL CLAIMS ) SACRAMENTO MUNICIPAL UTILITY DISTRICT ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) v. ) ) THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, ) ) Defendant. ) )

No. 98-488 C (Judge Braden)

Supplemental Written Direct Testimony of Brian P. Brinig Related to Proposed Modification to Labor Costs in Table A
1) I have reviewed the Supplemental Written Direct Testimony of Stephen J. Kiraly Related to SMUD's Proposed Modification to Labor Costs in Table A filed July 28, 2006. In his testimony, Mr. Kiraly states that he "was able to replicate the calculation of labor hours recorded to the claimed work orders"1 presented in my analysis for the period from June 1, 1997 through December 31, 2003. However, Mr. Kiraly also states that he "was unable to replicate the calculation of labor hours recorded to non-claimed work orders"2 for that period. (By way of background, the "driver" of which employees are included in the incremental labor analysis is the relationship of hours charged to claimed work orders to total hours worked on both claimed and unclaimed work orders.) Mr. Kiraly sets forth his calculation of hours charged to non-claimed work orders for the period from June 1, 1997 through December 31, 2003 in Attachment 1 to his Testimony. 2) After reviewing the hours charged to non-claimed work orders set forth in Attachment 1 to Mr. Kiraly's testimony, I determined that the data provided to me related to unclaimed labor hours was incomplete. Therefore, I have revised my analysis. 3) Using the unclaimed labor hours determined from a query of accounting data provided by SMUD and contained in the Access database entitled "Navigant Consulting, Inc. Database.mdb", the number of employees who charged the majority of their time to the dry storage project from June 1, 1997 through December 31, 2003 decreases from 37 to 16 employees (the "New 16" Employees). (It should be noted that these 16 employees are different from the original "16 Employees" identified in the Court's March 31, 2006 Memorandum
Supplemental Written Direct Testimony of Stephen J. Kiraly Related to SMUD's Proposed Modification to Labor Costs in Table A; paragraph 11; page 4. 2 Id.
1

Case 1:98-cv-00488-SGB

Document 372-3

Filed 08/18/2006

Page 2 of 2

and Order (the "Old 16" Employees)). The total direct and indirect labor costs related to the "New 16" SMUD employees is $4,976,861.71 and $568,561.64, respectively. Therefore, total labor costs related to the "New 16" SMUD employees who charged more than fifty percent of their time to the dry storage project from June 1, 1997 to December 31, 2003 is $5,545,423.35. 4) The totals for the "New 16" Employees replace the total direct and indirect labor for the 37 Employees addressed in my Written Direct Testimony filed July 21, 2006. 5) Exhibit 1 presents my revised analysis and identifies the "New 16" Employees who charged more than fifty percent of their time to the dry storage project from June 1, 1997 to December 31, 2003.