What a PER or PNA includes for water and sewer projects

A Preliminary Engineering Report, or PER, is the planning document format generally used for USDA Rural Development water and wastewater projects. In Colorado’s State Revolving Fund (SRF) process, the comparable planning document is commonly called a Project Needs Assessment, or PNA. The names and formats differ, but the core purpose is similar: turn a known water or sewer problem into a fundable project by documenting the need, evaluating alternatives, comparing costs, and recommending a practical path forward.

PER vs. PNA

The type of document you need is dependent on the funding source. USDA Rural Development typically uses the PER format. Colorado SRF projects commonly use a PNA format. A board does not need to master the formatting difference at the beginning, but it should know which funding path it is pursuing, because the required submittal package, review process, and agency expectations are not identical.

How do I know which one I need?

It comes down to which funding agency you are working with.

You are likely on a PER path if:

• Your system is pursuing USDA Rural Development financing through the Water and Waste Disposal Loan and Grant Program
• Your service area meets RD’s rural definition, generally under 10,000 in population
• You are following Bulletin 1780-2 and submitting through RD Apply

You are likely on a PNA path if:

• Your system is pursuing Colorado SRF financing
• You are working toward placement on the state’s Intended Use Plan
• The early review conversations are with CDPHE or CWRPDA staff, not USDA RD

Some systems run both tracks in parallel to compare terms, in which case the planning work supports two applications with slightly different formatting. A short conversation with each agency at the outset usually settles which document drives.

For small Colorado systems, the planning report is also where the project becomes understandable to non-engineers. A board may start with a known problem: a failing tank, an undersized lift station, an aging collection main, a treatment compliance issue, or a source water concern. The funding agencies, though, need to see the planning logic behind the recommended fix, not just the problem.

The standard outline

The structure is well established. Whichever format applies, a complete PER or PNA walks through a predictable sequence:

• The project planning area: who and what is served, and the conditions there
• Existing facilities: what the system has now and its condition
• The need for the project: the regulatory, capacity, or condition driver
• Alternatives considered, each with capital and life-cycle cost
• The selected alternative, with design basis and an opinion of probable cost
• Environmental considerations and any permitting implications

Why the alternatives analysis carries the weight

It is tempting to treat the alternatives section as a formality on the way to the answer the system already has in mind. Funding reviewers read it closely because it is where the engineering judgment shows. A credible PER or PNA compares real options, including no-action, operational changes, rehabilitation, replacement, and phased construction where applicable, on the same basis: not just what each costs to build, but what each costs to own over its life. A project that skips this, or compares only the preferred option against a strawman, tends to come back with questions and lose time.

What makes reviewers push back

Planning reports tend to slow down when the preferred alternative appears predetermined, when cost opinions are not comparable between alternatives, when operating cost is ignored, or when the no-action alternative is dismissed without explanation.

Life-cycle cost, not just first cost

The cheapest project to build is rarely the cheapest to own. A present worth comparison brings energy, chemicals, staffing, and replacement timing into the same number, so a board can see that a lower bid today may carry higher operating cost for twenty years. For small systems, where a few operators and a tight rate base absorb every recurring cost, this is often the part of the report that changes the decision.

What a board should expect

A good PER or PNA is readable by the people who have to approve it. It should state the need plainly, show that the alternatives were weighed honestly, land on a recommendation with a defensible cost, and give the board enough to act on without an engineering degree. It is also the foundation the rest of the project is built on: the funding application, the design scope, and the rate conversation all trace back to it. Time spent getting it right is rarely wasted.

Does a PER or PNA mean the project is already designed?

No. Both are planning documents. They define the need, compare alternatives, recommend a path, and establish a planning level cost. Final design comes later.