Project financial review, Gooseberry Ridge street and utility design, October 2026

Monthly project financial reports for June through October compared, the overrun on the lump sum tasks traced to the project journal ahead of the meeting with the City of Ash Mills, and timesheets checked against billing type. The EAC for the lump sum tasks is $77,594 over the fee, and just over half of that is supported by the journal.

Project financial reports Jun–Oct 2026, 5 filesProject 24-118, Gooseberry Ridge Addition, Ash Mills, MNLump sum fee $365,000, additional services hourly NTEPrepared Nov 5, 2026

Summary

EAC bridge, Aug–Oct

63% of the slippage is in Final Design – Streets

The EAC for the lump sum tasks has grown by $52,148 since the August report. $32,860 of that is in Task 600 Final Design – Streets, where 94 of the 212 added hours are MN 732 access work.

Next step: re-estimate the remaining hours on Task 600 once the additional services time is moved out.

Lump sum overrun

55% of the overrun is supported by the journal

$42,562 of $77,594 traces to City-directed changes, incomplete City-furnished information and a watershed district requirement in Project_Journal_24-118.docx. $19,586 of it was never put in a written additional services request.

Next step: submit written requests for the three journal-only items before the meeting. The agreement requires written authorization before additional services begin.

Billing type

112 hours should move from lump sum to Additional Services 01

15 timesheet lines of MN 732 access work, worth $17,430, are charged to Tasks 500 and 600. In the other direction, 14 hours of stormwater plan work are charged to Additional Services 02 and belong on the lump sum.

After the move, Additional Services 01 has an EAC of 348 hrs against a 200-hr estimate and runs past its not-to-exceed amount. Notify the City in writing and request an amendment.

Project financials by task

Compare two monthly reports and see where the EAC moved. Click a task for its history. The overrun tab ties each item to the journal, and the timesheet check shows what should be reallocated.

Compare monthly reports
Scope

Worse Better New additional service

EAC vs. fee by monthly report

Fee EAC Labor to date

Click a row for the task’s values in each monthly report.

TaskBilling typeFee/NTELabor to dateEACVariance

Sources and method

Sources

  • PFR_24-118_2026-06.xlsx to _2026-10.xlsxMonthly project financial reports from the accounting system: fee, labor to date and EAC by task5 files, 9 tasks
  • Timesheet_Export_24-118_Mar-Oct2026.xlsxTimesheet lines with date, employee, task and description571 lines, 1,992.0 hrs
  • Project_Journal_24-118.docxProject manager’s journal, March–October 2026201 entries
  • PSA_24-118_City_of_Ash_Mills.pdfProfessional services agreement on the EJCDC E-500 form, with scope of services, task fees and hourly rate schedule46 pages
  • ASR-01_to_ASR-06.pdfAdditional services requests and authorizations6 requests, 13 pages
  • Progress_Meeting_Minutes_01-16.pdfMinutes of the biweekly progress meetings16 meetings, 52 pages
  • EJCDC E-500Agreement Between Owner and Engineer for Professional Services, the form the PSA is based onStandard form

Method

  1. Each monthly report was read by task: fee or not-to-exceed amount, labor to date and estimate at completion (EAC). The bridge shows the EAC change by task between two selected reports.
  2. The overrun is the EAC in the October report minus the lump sum fee for each lump sum task.
  3. Journal entries were matched to task and period. Hours per item are the timesheet lines tied to the entry plus the remaining hours in the EAC, valued at the task’s average billing rate.
  4. Each item was checked against the additional services requests and meeting minutes and classified as a City-directed change with or without a written request, a changed condition or agency requirement, or internal rework. What remains is shown as not explained.
  5. Timesheet descriptions were compared with the scope of ASR-03 and ASR-05 and with the scope of services. The 22 flagged lines were reviewed one by one and valued at the employee’s billing rate.

Assumptions and limitations

  • EACs are the project manager’s own in each monthly report and were not re-estimated.
  • The monthly comparison shows the reports as issued, before any reallocation.
  • Billing rates are the 2026 standard hourly rates in the PSA rate schedule. Overrun items are valued at the task’s average rate and timesheet lines at the employee’s rate; the difference falls into not explained.
  • Whether an item is compensated is for negotiation with the City. The contract basis shows a possible ground for an amendment, not an outcome.
  • The MnDOT access permit, the watershed district’s TSS and phosphorus requirement and the NGVD 29 datum error are taken from the project record as written, and the billing rates from the PSA. A Minnesota project manager should confirm that they reflect current MnDOT and watershed district practice and current rate levels.