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 62
Soft Cost Estimation: State of the Practice 27
characteristics of the project, the setting and circumstances in which the project is built, the skills
and experience of the sponsor and its contractors, and mitigation and unexpected issues. Look-
ing ahead to how these drivers might be used to estimate future soft costs, some of these drivers
are relatively straightforward to predict (e.g., alignment grade), while others are much more dif-
ficult to foresee (e.g., agency coordination).
3.5. Questionnaire Results: Impact of Drivers
Finally, cost estimators were asked to quantify the impact of 11 project characteristics on soft
costs within the following scenario:
· First, consider 7 project attributes that were designed to reflect increasing technical complexity;
· Second, consider 4 additional attributes highlighting different institutional arrangements
between the public sponsor and private contractor;
· Third, consider a hypothetical base-case project: a simple light rail construction project, fully
at grade, using an existing right-of-way, and delivered with a traditional designbidbuild
method; and
· Fourth, consider changes from the base case and report whether the soft cost estimate for each
soft cost element would go up or down in percentage terms, using a scale of from 1 to 5, 1 mean-
ing "significant reduction," 3 meaning "no impact," and 5 meaning "significant increase."
To help visualize patterns in the data, the color scheme presented in Figure 12 was applied to
the responses.
Table 9 shows the impact of mode on soft cost estimates, using light rail as the base case. Many
respondents did not give information here or the response was not complete, perhaps because
they lacked historical experience to respond. However, the table shows that, relative to light rail,
estimators generally estimate higher soft costs for heavy rail projects, and only moderately higher
for commuter rail projects. The results for BRT are mixed; one respondent predicted higher costs
in some areas but lower in others, while another respondent predicted lower costs generally.
However, these two questionnaire respondents should be interpreted within the context of their
sample size.
Cost estimators generally reported that higher project complexity, as measured by a number
of indicators in Table 10 below, will tend to increase soft cost expenditures. Most respondents
noted that an elevated alignment increases soft costs only moderately compared to at grade, but
that tunneling tends to increase soft costs more significantly. Respondent 10, however, noted
that soft costs might decline in some categories when tunneling. Estimators at all agencies sur-
veyed predicted rising costs, especially in design and construction management, when subsur-
face conditions differ from original plans. Results were mixed on the creation of a new right-of-
way (versus the base-case existing ROW): some respondents foresaw no change, others predicted
uneven increases, and others predicted significant increases.
The final three project attributes included in the questionnaire describe alternative project
delivery methods, which generally intend to shift risk from the public agency to the private con-
tractor. Table 11 shows that cost estimators generally estimate that soft costs to the transit agency
will go down as more risk is borne by the constructor. However, it is unclear whether this pat-
tern describes a real reduction in costs or merely a shifting of soft costs out of the transit agency's
view and into a different cost category. Contractors bidding on a designbuild contract, for exam-
ple, might build soft costs into their bid.
OCR for page 63
28 Estimating Soft Costs for Major Public Transportation Fixed Guideway Projects
LOWER HIGHER
COSTS COSTS
Significant Moderate No Moderate Significant No Historical
Negative Negative Impact Positive Positive Experience
1 2 3 4 5 or N/A
Figure 12. Questionnaire measurement system to quantify impact
of cost drivers.
Table 9. Impact of mode on soft cost estimate.
Questionnaire Respondent 1, 2
Project Characteristic
Change from Base Case SCC SCC Description 1, 2 3, 4, 5 6 10
80.01 Preliminary Engineering 5 N/A 4 N/A
80.02 Final Design 5 N/A 4 N/A
80.03 Project Management for Design and Constructio 5 N/A 4 N/A
80.04 Construction Administration & Management 5 N/A 4 N/A
Mode: Heavy Rail
80.05 Insurance 5 N/A 5 N/A
80.06 Legal; Permits; Review Fees by other agencies, 5 N/A 5 N/A
80.07 Surveys, Testing, Investigation, Inspection 5 N/A 5 N/A
80.08 Start up 5 N/A 3 N/A
80.01 Preliminary Engineering 4 N/A 4 N/A
80.02 Final Design 4 N/A 3 N/A
80.03 Project Management for Design and Constructio 4 N/A 3 N/A
80.04 Construction Administration & Management 4 N/A 3 N/A
Mode: Commuter Rail
80.05 Insurance 4 N/A 3 N/A
80.06 Legal; Permits; Review Fees by other agencies, 4 N/A 3 N/A
80.07 Surveys, Testing, Investigation, Inspection 4 N/A 3 N/A
80.08 Start up 4 N/A 3 N/A
80.01 Preliminary Engineering 2 N/A 4 N/A
80.02 Final Design 2 N/A 5 N/A
80.03 Project Management for Design and Constructio 2 N/A 4 N/A
Mode: Bus Rapid 80.04 Construction Administration & Management 2 N/A 4 N/A
Transit 80.05 Insurance 2 N/A 3 N/A
80.06 Legal; Permits; Review Fees by other agencies, 2 N/A 5 N/A
80.07 Surveys, Testing, Investigation, Inspection 2 N/A 4 N/A
80.08 Start up 2 N/A 3 N/A
Notes:
Base case is light rail.
1
Respondents 3, 4, 5, and 10 provided partial responses due to lack of experience; lack of response is noted as "N/A."
2
Respondents 7, 8, and 9 did not provide responses and are omitted.
OCR for page 64
Soft Cost Estimation: State of the Practice 29
Table 10. Impact of project complexity on soft cost estimate.
Questionnaire Respondent1, 2
Project Characteristic
Change from Base Case SCC SCC Description 1, 2 3, 4, 5 6 10
80.01 Preliminary Engineering 4 4 4 4
80.02 Final Design 4 4 5 4
80.03 Project Management for Design and Construction 4 3 4 3
80.04 Construction Administration & Management 4 3 4 4
Alignment: Elevated
80.05 Insurance 4 4 3 3
80.06 Legal; Permits; Review Fees by other agencies, 4 3 5 4
80.07 Surveys, Testing, Investigation, Inspection 4 4 3 4
80.08 Start up 4 3 3 3
80.01 Preliminary Engineering 5 3 5 3
80.02 Final Design 5 4 5 4
80.03 Project Management for Design and Construction 5 4 4 N/A
80.04 Construction Administration & Management 5 4 4 N/A
Alignment: Tunnel
80.05 Insurance 5 4 5 4
80.06 Legal; Permits; Review Fees by other agencies, 5 3 5 2
80.07 Surveys, Testing, Investigation, Inspection 5 4 5 2
80.08 Start up 5 4 5 3
80.01 Preliminary Engineering 5 3 4 4
80.02 Final Design 5 5 5 4
80.03 Project Management for Design and Construction 5 4 4 5
Differing Subsurface 80.04 Construction Administration & Management 5 4 4 5
Conditions 80.05 Insurance 5 4 4 3
80.06 Legal; Permits; Review Fees by other agencies, 5 4 4 5
80.07 Surveys, Testing, Investigation, Inspection 5 4 5 5
80.08 Start up 5 3 3 3
80.01 Preliminary Engineering 5 3 5 5
80.02 Final Design 5 3 5 5
80.03 Project Management for Design and Construction 5 3 3 5
80.04 Construction Administration & Management 5 3 3 5
New Right-of-Way
80.05 Insurance 5 3 3 4
80.06 Legal; Permits; Review Fees by other agencies, 5 3 5 5
80.07 Surveys, Testing, Investigation, Inspection 5 3 5 5
80.08 Start up 5 3 3 5
Notes:
1
Respondents 3, 4, 5, and 10 provided partial responses due to lack of experience; lack of response is noted as "N/A."
2
Respondents 7, 8, and 9 did not provide responses and are omitted.
OCR for page 65
30 Estimating Soft Costs for Major Public Transportation Fixed Guideway Projects
Table 11. Impact of project delivery method on soft cost estimate.
Questionnaire Respondent1, 2
Project Characteristic
Change from Base Case SCC SCC Description 1, 2 3, 4, 5 6 10
80.01 Preliminary Engineering 3 3 4 3
80.02 Final Design 3 3 5 4
80.03 Project Management for Design and Construction 3 3 4 4
Procurement: Design- 80.04 Construction Administration & Management 3 3 5 4
Bid-Build (DBB) 80.05 Insurance 3 3 3 3
80.06 Legal; Permits; Review Fees by other agencies, 3 3 4 4
80.07 Surveys, Testing, Investigation, Inspection 3 3 5 4
80.08 Start up 3 3 3 3
80.01 Preliminary Engineering 3 3 5 3
80.02 Final Design 3 2 3 4
80.03 Project Management for Design and Construction 1 2 5 2
Procurement: Design- 80.04 Construction Administration & Management 2 2 3 2
Build (DB) 80.05 Insurance 2 3 3 3
80.06 Legal; Permits; Review Fees by other agencies, 2 3 4 2
80.07 Surveys, Testing, Investigation, Inspection 2 2 4 2
80.08 Start up 3 3 4 3
80.01 Preliminary Engineering 3 N/A N/A 3
80.02 Final Design 3 N/A N/A 4
80.03 Project Management for Design and Construction 1 N/A N/A 2
Procurement: Design-
80.04 Construction Administration & Management 2 N/A N/A 2
Build-Operate-Maintain
80.05 Insurance 2 N/A N/A 3
(DBOM)
80.06 Legal; Permits; Review Fees by other agencies, 2 N/A N/A 2
80.07 Surveys, Testing, Investigation, Inspection 2 N/A N/A 2
80.08 Start up 2 N/A N/A 2
80.01 Preliminary Engineering 3 N/A N/A N/A
80.02 Final Design 3 N/A N/A N/A
80.03 Project Management for Design and Construction 1 N/A N/A N/A
Procurement: Full 80.04 Construction Administration & Management 2 N/A N/A N/A
Turnkey 80.05 Insurance 2 N/A N/A N/A
80.06 Legal; Permits; Review Fees by other agencies, 2 N/A N/A N/A
80.07 Surveys, Testing, Investigation, Inspection 2 N/A N/A N/A
80.08 Start up 2 N/A N/A N/A
Notes:
1
Respondents 3, 4, 5, and 10 provided partial responses due to lack of experience; lack of response is noted as "N/A."
2
Respondents 7, 8, and 9 did not provide responses and are omitted.
