FTA Oversight Procedures - Federal Transit Administration - U.S. ...

consistently accurate. In addition, these subtotals were then traced and verified that they indeed “rolledup”
correctly to the applicable total construction costs. Once the total construction costs for the Line,
Stations, and Breakout Contracts had been confirmed, the proper application of additional project markups
(non-construction costs, contingencies, escalation, etc.) was verified to be mathematically correct.
Furthermore, the quantities and costs for select individual line items of each of the contracts comprising
the Line Contracts were spot-checked to ensure the proper addition and calculation of the total quantity
and costs shown in the Line Contract. For example, quantities and costs for various construction line
items of Contracts Nos. 88-H035, 88-H034, 93-H046, 155-H025, and 63-H137 were checked to confirm
the total quantities and costs shown in the summary of the Line Contracts estimate were calculated
accurately. Likewise, the quantities and costs for various construction line items of the New Marin, East
Main Street, East Street, Cedar, Newington Junction, Elmwood, Flatbush Avenue, New Park Avenue,
Park Street, Sigourney Street, and Union stations were validated to ensure that the total quantities and
costs depicted in the summary of the Stations Contracts estimate were properly computed. Similarly, the
quantities and costs for various construction line items of …Access Road, Flatbush Avenue, Railroad
Relocation, Laurel Street, Broad Street, and Interstate E.B. Off Ramp to Capitol Avenue estimates were
verified to assure that the total quantities and costs presented in the summary of the Breakout Contracts
estimate were added correctly. These calculations were determined to be accurate and estimated to be
correct within 1%.
Implicit in these exercises, additional mechanical checks were performed that included verifying the
calculation of the cost estimating relationships, and confirming that the quantities and unit costs were
extended/multiplied properly. These computations were deemed to be mathematically accurate within
1%.
Additional details of mechanical checks performed on lump sums, cost estimating relationships,
quantities, and unit costs are also discussed in the subsequent report sections.
Comparison to Industry Standard Costs
The cost items of the [title of Grantee’s cost estimate] that were examined included unit costs, quantities,
cost estimating relationships (CERs), and lump sums. These cost items were reviewed for consistency
with relevant, identifiable industry or engineering practice, as well as for proper mathematical calculation
and application, and traceability more detailed estimate backup information.
The PMOC compared the sponsor’s Project Cost Estimate items with the following cost references:
• [Grantee’s] Weighted Unit Price Report, January 1, 2003 to December 31, 2005;
• [Grantee’s] Preliminary Cost Estimating Guidelines, January 2006;
• [Grantee’s] Conceptual Estimate guidelines, 2002; and
• RS Means 2006 Heavy Construction Cost Data
• Richardson’s 2006 Heavy Construction Cost Data
[Grantee’s] Weighted Unit Price Report has been prepared to provide weighted unit prices of [list of
specific construction items] for the purpose of comparison and evaluation of cost trends and the
preparation of preliminary cost estimates. The weighted unit costs have been developed from bids on
contracts for the period January 1, 2003 through December 31, 2005 and show only the items bid.
Sponsor’s Cost Estimating Guidelines contain typical price ranges of some of the more commonly used
items in sponsor projects.
OP 33 Capital Cost Estimate Review
Revision 0, June 2008
Page D-4