Intended to provide our own search engines and external engines with highly rich, chapter-representative searchable text on the opening pages of each chapter. Because it is UNCORRECTED material, please consider the following text as a useful but insufficient proxy for the authoritative book pages.
Do not use for reproduction, copying, pasting, or reading; exclusively for search engines.
OCR for page 51
16 Estimating Soft Costs for Major Public Transportation Fixed Guideway Projects 2.4. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Publications U.S. Army Corps of Engineers publications on the Internet addressing the subject of construc- tion costs included no reference to the term "soft costs." However, the Corps' estimating sources deal with non-construction costs, and these sources can be used in the current research. As an example, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers document Engineering Instructions-- Construction Cost Estimates (1997) describes the process of cost estimating as prescribed by the Corps. This document does not use the term "soft costs"; however, costs are divided into con- struction costs and the non-construction activities costs for real estate; planning, engineering, and design; and construction management. This document also provides a work breakdown structure (WBS) for organizing the cost estimate; several categories of this WBS include soft cost items as defined in the FTA SCC description of Category 80. The document can be used for obtaining information on the Corps approach for estimating non-construction costs even though the main emphasis is on construction costs. 2.5. European Sources Research was conducted to evaluate the European approach to cost classification and to see how European countries keep track of project soft costs. Sources were reviewed in places includ- ing Germany, the United Kingdom, and Switzerland. It appears that the term "soft costs" is not used to identify non-construction costs. However, one useful source was the European Committee for Construction Economists (CEEC) Code of Measurement for Cost Planning (CEEC, 2004). The CEEC was established over 20 years ago as a European organization in the field of real estate economy. A working group of this committee focused on the problem of differences between national codes for the measure- ment of quantities and classification of construction costs (Stoy and Wright, 2006). This work- ing group created the CEEC Code of Measurement for Cost Planning as a high-level standard sum- mary for the classification of costs in construction and real estate. Table 5 provides general categories of costs (cost groups) according to the CEEC. CEEC's Code of Measurement for Cost Planning applies the codes of Belgium, Switzerland, Germany, Netherlands, Ireland, and the United Kingdom to arrive at a uniform approach for categorizing construction costs. In this cost breakdown, general conditions costs (project over- head) can be found under cost group A (in Table 5). Items that may be classified as soft costs are found mainly under cost groups L, M, O, and X. As an example, cost group M, "ancillary costs and charges," is described as follows: General incidental costs to the client including the costs of models, documentation, copies of drawings, etc., laying of foundation stone, topping out, inauguration, competitions, permits, planning charges, connection charges for utilities, insurances, third party compensation, client's involvement, legal fees in association with construction, compensation payments due to statuary requirements. The titles of cost groups can sometimes be misleading. As an example, project management and project administration costs are listed under cost group L, "design team fees." Insurance costs can be captured under items "779--general incidental building costs, other items" and "790--other incidental building costs" (cross-referenced from German DIN 276/1993). Legal fees for land acquisition are under category U. Categories J and N are reserved for con- tingencies, and category V is reserved for finance. There is a major effort in Europe to standardize construction cost categories across European nations. The general approach is not unlike the U.S. approach where the costs are divided into