of the work. Table 22 summarizes the labor, material, and other (mostly 

 equipment rental) costs associated with the overhaul of these moorings, 

 projected to June 1970. It can be seen from this table that removal, over- 

 haul, and reinstallation costs for the moorings were about 20%, 35%, and 

 45%, respectively, of the total rehabilitation costs. Also, the total cost for 

 rehabilitating a Class BB mooring was almost twice that for a Class D mooring. 



Table 16. Identification of Work Center Codes 



Code 



Work Center 



210 



Engineering Department; Civil Engineering Division 



332 



Inspection Division 



525 



Paint Shop 



540 



General Support Shop 



542 



Welding Shop 



543 



Wharf Building Shop 



622 



Utilities Shop 



700 



Transportation Department (Equipment Rental) 



722 



Automotive Operations 



724 



Heavy Equipment Operations 



728 



Rigging Service (also Diving Service) 



772 



Heavy Equipment Maintenance 



A cost comparison (Table 23) for maintaining Fleet moorings with 

 and without cathodic protection was prepared from information in Table 22 

 and elsewhere. Table 24 lists the assumptions that were made for this compar- 

 ison. A 30-year period was covered in order to combine the 1-, 3-, 5-, 10-, and 

 15-year cycles. 



The present value, P*, of each series of nonuniform annual payments, 

 A|, for n years, where payment is made at the beginning of the i'*^ year at 

 rate r compounded annually, is given by: 



f^^o (1 + r) 



*The present value is calculated in addition to the much greater undiscounted value 

 because of the importance of the interest factor related to all governmental spending 

 occurring over time. 



40 



