04.12.2012 Views

r - part - usaid

r - part - usaid

r - part - usaid

SHOW MORE
SHOW LESS

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

YUMPU automatically turns print PDFs into web optimized ePapers that Google loves.

4 . 5 . Direct, Indirect, and Sunk Capital Costs<br />

The Brandon analysis lsid considerable stress upon the<br />

difference between direct costs, indirect costs, and sunk<br />

capital costs. Direct costs are those costs which are directly<br />

attributable to the ianediate requirements cf constructing a<br />

given well * XndirecT costs are primarily the office averhead<br />

and management, stores and workshops costs including<br />

maintenance, and capital recovery costs, Sunk costs are capital<br />

ccrsts already incurred. This distinction was significant: when<br />

costing the f~ture operation oY the Groundwater project, but it<br />

is felt to be less so %hen costing the on-going operations of<br />

WDA<br />

From an accounting standpoint, <strong>part</strong> of WDA's overall<br />

adainistrzlive costs skould be charged ta the cost of<br />

constructing wells- KDA administration cansists af the<br />

Mogadishu, headquarters and the regional offices. However, this<br />

can only be done if & the operations of WDA, not only<br />

drilling, but reservoir builciing, urban water systems, and the<br />

operation and mainte~ance of existing facilities, are also<br />

costed in detail and divided betweeri direct costs and overhead.<br />

At present, tbir is not possible. Furthermore, much of the<br />

overhead is financed fro3 the Recurrent Budget, whereas the<br />

direct operating cos:s are fizancet! as projects from the<br />

Cevelupment Budget, This means that WDA9s werhead costs are<br />

"guaranteed*@, and project budgeting need only account for any<br />

aaditional overhead costs. L'ntil a nore comprehensive budgetary<br />

procedures syszez is In piace, the present casting model, which<br />

excludes avesbead c~sts, is most usef~f to WPA,<br />

Within t3e context of WDA implementing a nuxber of donor<br />

funded pmjects, each bxingkng in new equipment, the overall<br />

concepz of scnk costs has questionable value. After completi~n<br />

cf the Gr~undwater Project, five year old Xngersoll-Ra~d TH60<br />

rigs will be operaring beside cable-tool rigs which are, in same<br />

cases, twenty-five years old, No system of depreciation can be<br />

completely realistic because the choice of rig to be used at a<br />

<strong>part</strong>iczlar location will depend as much on logistics and<br />

cvailabiLity as on drilling technology and lithology. The zest<br />

of a rig can be **sunkN bezazse it is old, or because it has been<br />

paid for by a donor,<br />

w uniform costing system has Sean chosen which attempts to<br />

recover the evertual rapiacezent cost necessary to maintain<br />

KDAgs inventory cf drilling ecr;lp~ent. Tae same philosophy has<br />

been applied to ail vehicles and equipnent. Thus, in any year,<br />

various sums will be allowed in HDAis many individual budgets<br />

fa^, sw:, replacenezt of light vehicles. By aggregating these,<br />

WDA shsu9d be abre to purchase a number of light vehicles each<br />

year to naintaia its invenzcry. A full description of the

Hooray! Your file is uploaded and ready to be published.

Saved successfully!

Ooh no, something went wrong!