Below are the first 10 and last 10 pages of uncorrected machine-read text (when available) of this chapter, followed by the top 30 algorithmically extracted key phrases from the chapter as a whole.
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 60
Soft Cost Estimation: State of the Practice 25
7%
Startup Cost Estimate (% of
6%
5%
Construction)
4%
Upper Bound
3%
Midpoint
2%
Lower Bound
1%
0%
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Questionnaire Respondent
Figure 10. Startup soft cost estimates.
3.4. Questionnaire Results: Drivers Identified
Cost estimators were asked in an open-ended format to identify the kinds of project charac-
teristics or circumstances that would ultimately impact their choice of percentages and that have
impacted soft costs for past projects. The questionnaire suggested several attributes, but estima-
tors were free to make their own responses as well. For each soft cost component (following the
FTA SCC structure), estimators were requested to identify "cost drivers" that would have high,
moderate, or minimal/no impact on soft costs in percentage terms. The results of this part of the
questionnaire are presented in Table 8.
Respondents generally identified a wide variety of soft cost drivers, and this research uses these
as a starting point for its historical analysis presented later. Some drivers relate to the physical
45%
Mid-Range Estimated Soft Cost
40%
(% of Construction)
35%
30%
25%
20%
15%
10%
5%
0%
1* 2* 3 6 7 4 8 9 5 10
Questionnaire Respondents
Other Insurance + Legal Project Mgmt. and Construction Admin. FD PE
* Respondents estimate PE + FD as combined amount; PE displayed here using average split
Figure 11. Midpoint soft cost estimates for all components.
OCR for page 61
Table 8. Soft cost drivers identified by questionnaire respondents.
Cost QUESTIONNAIRE RESPONDENT
SCC Impact 1 and 2 3, 4, and 5 6 10
Alignment Grade; City v. Alignment Grade; City v. Alignment Grade, City v.
High Alignment Profile
Rural Rural Rural
Preliminary Vehicle Quantity; Design Vehicle Quantity, Design
80.01 Moderate Project Delivery; Mode Quantity and Type of Stations
Engineering Speed Speed
None/
Mode Peak Throughput Procurement Strategy Mode
Minimal
Tunnel and Aerial Guideway; Completeness of P.E.; City v. Alignment Grade, City v.
High Community Outreach
Quantity of Stations; Mode Rural Rural
City v. Rural; Project Delivery Deviation from P.E. Vehicle Quantity, Design
80.02 Final Design Moderate Value Engineering
Method; Mitigation Decisions; Alignment Grade Speed
None/ Design Speed; Grade; Peak
Peak Throughput Budget Mode
Minimal Period Throughput
Tunnel and Aerial Guideway; Ability and Experience of Vehicle Qty., Design Speed,
High City v. Rural
Quantity of Stations; Mode Contractor Stations per LF; City v. Rural
Project
Management City v. Rural; Project Delivery
80.03 Moderate Alignment Grade Special Design Skills Project Delivery Method
for Design and Method; Mitigation
Construction
None/ Design Speed; Grade; Peak
Peak Throughput Available Engineering Pool ---
Minimal Period Throughput
Tunnel and Aerial Guideway; Ability and Experience of
High Available Resources City v. Rural
Quantity of Stations; Mode Contractor
Construction
City v. Rural; Project Delivery
80.04 Administration Moderate Alignment Grade Available Skills Alignment Grade
Method; Mitigation
& Management
None/ Design Speed; Grade; Peak Avoid Owner / Contractor
Peak Throughput ---
Minimal Period Throughput Duplication
Tunnel and Aerial Guideway;
High Market Forces Risk Assessment City v. Rural
Quantity of Stations; Mode
Owner's experience;
City v. Rural; Project Delivery
80.05 Insurance Moderate Brownfield v. Greenfield; City Risk Assessment Alignment Grade
Method; Mitigation
v. Rural
None/ Design Speed; Grade; Peak
Project Delivery Method Safety Record ---
Minimal Period Throughput
Tunnel and Aerial Guideway;
High Brownfield v. Greenfield Requirements Identification City v. Rural
Quantity of Stations; Mode
Legal; Permits;
Review Fees by City v. Rural; Project Delivery
80.06 Moderate City v. Rural Schedule Station Density
other agencies, Method; Mitigation
cities, etc.
None/ Design Speed; Grade; Peak
Vehicles; Design Speed Agency Coordination Brownfield v. Greenfield
Minimal Period Throughput
Tunnel and Aerial Guideway; Necessary Balance of
High Elevated or Tunnel City v. Rural
Quantity of Stations; Mode Requirements
Surveys,
Testing, City v. Rural; Project Delivery Vehicles; Design Speed;
80.07 Moderate Avoid Duplication Brownfield v. Greenfield
Investigation, Method; Mitigation Mode
Inspection
None/ Design Speed; Grade; Peak
--- Share Historical Information Alignment Grade
Minimal Period Throughput
Tunnel and Aerial Guideway; Vehicle Quantity, Design
High New Line v. Extension Operation Coordination
Quantity of Stations; Mode Speed
City v. Rural; Project Delivery Elevated or Tunnel; Design
80.08 Start up Moderate Skill Level Available Station Density
Method; Mitigation Speed
None/ Design Speed; Grade; Peak Schedule and Warranty
Vehicles ---
Minimal Period Throughput Issues
