FTA Oversight Procedures - Federal Transit Administration - U.S. ...
FTA Oversight Procedures - Federal Transit Administration - U.S. ...
FTA Oversight Procedures - Federal Transit Administration - U.S. ...
You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles
YUMPU automatically turns print PDFs into web optimized ePapers that Google loves.
Although a unit cost of $8.00 per square foot (sf) was used in project cost estimate for the concrete<br />
sidewalks, Grantee’s Weighted Unit Price Report indicates a historical range from $5.40/sf to $15.45/sf,<br />
with an average unit cost of $10.80/sf for concrete sidewalks.<br />
Consequently, by employing a $15.45/sf unit cost, a potential cost impact of up to approximately<br />
$985,600 [($15.45/lf - $8.00/lf) x total quantity] is computed when considering the estimated concrete<br />
sidewalk quantity of 132,300 sf.<br />
Additional discussion for this item is provided in Appendix [XX].<br />
SCC-50.02 Traffic Signals and Crossing Protection<br />
Approximately 15 new traffic signals were used on the project. Specifically, two signals were priced at<br />
$120,000 and thirteen were priced at $90,0000, thus totaling $1,410,000. According to sponsor’s<br />
Preliminary Cost Estimating Guidelines, a new signal can range from $70,000 to $100,000 per<br />
intersection. Furthermore, [commercial cost index] 2006 Heavy Construction Cost Data shows<br />
completely installed traffic signal systems ranging from $164,350 ($157,500 x 1.0435) to $219,150<br />
($210,000 x 1.0435) depending if the system has right or left lane controls. The value of 1.0435<br />
represents the [commercial cost index] 02 – Site Construction Average City Cost Index for [locality].<br />
Although, the $90,000 traffic signal unit cost falls within the acceptable cost range, it is 11% less than the<br />
maximum recommended by Grantee’s Guidelines. More importantly, the $90,000 traffic signal unit cost<br />
is 83% to 144% less than the … signal systems’ costs (with [locality] cost indices applied).<br />
It should also be noted that the Grantee’s traffic signal unit costs (from their Preliminary Cost Estimating<br />
Guidelines) are burdened with the General Conditions costs. By contrast, the [commercial cost index]<br />
unit costs do not include general conditions mark-ups, but do consider a location index factor for<br />
[locality]. Therefore, the percentage variance of the Grantee’s and [commercial cost index] traffic signal<br />
unit costs will be greater than the 83% to 144% mentioned previously if any general condition costs are<br />
included for the [commercial cost index] unit costs.<br />
Given the above discussion and considering a high-end benchmark cost of $219,150 for all the 15 traffic<br />
signals used on this contract, the potential cost impact could be as high as $1,877,250 [(15 @ $219,150) -<br />
$1,410,000] plus the appropriate general conditions mark-ups, if any.<br />
REVIEW AND ANALYSIS OF CORRELATION IN PROJECT QUANTITIES<br />
The PMOC has reviewed the cost estimates based on the current project scope. Certain scope items<br />
having specific cost increase risks are identified below.<br />
Currently, there are no support facilities planned for this project. The scope review identifies the potential<br />
for cost increases due to the need to provide support facilities (SCC-30). An allowance of $1.5 million is<br />
suggested, which would allow for procurement of special and additional tools, and/or the addition of a bus<br />
maintenance bay. [Note that in this example, the PMOC should indicate its opinion of the adequacy of<br />
this suggested allowance.]<br />
The scope review also identifies the potential that the current cost allowance for systems (SCC-50)<br />
underestimates the scope necessary for communications, and that no cost is budgeted for control center or<br />
fare collection provisions. An increased communications allowance of $1.5 million is suggested, with a<br />
further $1.5 million allowance for the other scope items noted.<br />
OP 33 Capital Cost Estimate Review<br />
Revision 0, June 2008<br />
Page D-7