Task 1 Memo 01-08-09 - King County, Washington
Technical MemorandumOne Convention Place701 Pike Street, Suite 1200Seattle, WA 98101Tel: (206) 624-0100Fax: (206) 749-2200King County Tabula: Task 1—Revise/Update Existing Wastewater CapitalConstruction Cost EstimatesTO:Mark Buscher, King CountyLisa Taylor, King CountyMark Lampard, King CountyCOPIES:Steffran Neff, Brown and CaldwellFROM:Bruce Johnston, PE, Brown and CaldwellDATE:January 7, 2009PROJECTNUMBER:135452.003.001This memorandum pertains to the King County Wastewater Treatment Division’s Work Order #3 forrevisions and updates to its Tabula cost estimating program, and specifically discusses Task 1: revise/updateexisting wastewater capital construction cost estimates.This memo is a submittal of findings and recommendations for updating unit costs within the Tabulaprogram. After King County has reviewed these recommendations, a meeting will be held to discuss themand determine whether to accept them. Accepted changes will then be made to the Tabula program by Brownand Caldwell.Even after the changes have been made to Tabula, this program will remain a parametric estimating tool. Theestimates produced by Tabula will be Class 5 or Class 4 estimates as defined by the Association for theAdvancement of Cost Engineering (AACE)1. Therefore, appropriate contingencies must be applied to theresulting estimates from the Tabula program in order to develop adequate planning level budgets.In addition to contingencies for unknown project scope definition attention should be given in the upcomingmonths and years to the recent effects of the turbulent economy on the construction industry.This memo explains the process of updating the unit costs contained in King County’s Tabula estimatingprogram. The unit costs contained within this program were established by HDR in December 1999 andwere revised in 2005 by CH2M HILL, and they have not been updated since then. King County has1 AACE defines a Class 5 estimate as an estimate preformed at the 0–2 percent level of design and has an expectedaccuracy of 50 percent to -30 percent. This class of estimate is used primary for screening or feasibility studies. AClass 4 estimate is an estimate developed at the 1 percent to 15 percent level of design and has an expected accuracyrange of 50 percent to -30 percent. This class of estimate is used primarily for conceptual of feasibility studies. BothClass 4 and 5 estimates are also known as Order of Magnitude estimates.U:\CSI-SHARE\TABULA UPDATE\2008 UPDATE\SUPPORT DOCUMENTATION\TASK 1 MEMO 01-08-09.DOC
REVISE/UPDATE EXISTING WASTEWATER CAPITAL CONSTRUCTION COST ESTIMATEScontracted Brown and Caldwell to examine the unit costs contained within the program and compare themwith current construction costs and, where necessary, recommend new costs to reflect the existingconstruction market.In general, several sources of information were used to develop these new cost units: bid tabulations from theWashington State Department of Transportation (WSDOT), Sacramento County Water Association (SCWA),and other various agencies; vendor material quotes; contractor information; King County prevailing wagerates to develop labor costs when necessary; and RS Means 2008 Heavy Construction information adjusted forKing County wage rates. When the data were not available, a standard multiplier of 1.1314 (4.2 percent peryear for 3 years) was applied to escalate the cost values from 2005 dollars to 2008 dollars.Once the data were validated, a standard curve fitting software application was used to develop the equationsfor each of the components. For the 2008 upgrade, we used an online curve fitting application calledZunZun.com. We verified the resulting equations and results.Section 1: Pipeline Cost InformationThe “Fixed Input Parameters” were compared against a variety of cost sources. Trench shoring wascompared against recent SCWA bid tabs and several recent jobs, and then adjusted for King County labor.Special shoring can pertain to a variety of shoring alternatives which result in varying pricing, depending onthe system employed. In this study we compared costs to the Contra Costa Canal Replacement and meanswere adjusted for King County labor. Earthwork costs were developed by comparing RS Means costs usingKing County labor rates, WSDOT bid tabs, SCWA bid tabs, and vendor costs for imported backfill materialcosts.Asphalt concrete pavement (ACP) paving costs were collected from WSDOT bid tabs and other projects thathave recently been bid. For patching, the cost is based on a 6″ thickness which is the indicated depth on thetrench geometry profile in the Tabula report. Pavement removal and saw cutting are also included in thepavement patching costs. Costs for overlays outside of the trench patching area costs are based on a 2″overlay depth, which is a typical depth seen in construction projects. The cost for grinding and pavement restriping is included in the overlay costs.Tabula uses the Engineering News Record Construction Cost Index (ENR CCI) for the means to adjust historicalcosts to current costs. Brown and Caldwell confirmed the use of this index because it is based on theNorthwest regional construction economy and it is widely used for this purpose in the construction industry.October 2008 (8815 ENR CCI) was selected as the current dollar index. Table 1.1 (below) lists the 2005–2008ENR CCI values used in this revision of the program.Table 1.1. ENR CCI Values Added to TabulaYearENR CCI ValueBased On20058458.00Annual Average20068641.00Annual Average20078618.00Annual Average20088815.00October 2008 ENR ValueTable 1.2 (below) shows a summary of the “Fixed Input Costs” currently used in the Tabula programexpressed in September 2005 dollars (ENR CCI 8390) and the recommended 2008 unit costs based on ourcost comparisons. See Appendix A for cost information details.2U:\CSI-SHARE\TABULA UPDATE\2008 UPDATE\SUPPORT DOCUMENTATION\TASK 1 MEMO 01-08-09.DOC
REVISE/UPDATE EXISTING WASTEWATER CAPITAL CONSTRUCTION COST ESTIMATESTable 1.2. Fixed Input ParametersUnitsCurrent Tabula UnitCost (Sept. 2005Dollars)Escalated Tabula UnitCost (Sept. 2008Dollars)Recommended UnitCost (Sept. 2008Dollars)Mob/DemobLS10%10%6%Trench Safety (Box)SF 0.50 0.53 0.53Special ShoringSF 12 13 17ExcavationCY 12 13 13Imported BackfillCY 32 34 34ItemsPlace BackfillCY 8 8 6Spoil Load & HaulCY 12 13 16Asphalt Paving (Trench)SY 55 58 86Asphalt Paving (Beyond Trench)SY 25 26 28Tabula currently uses three types of pipes for costing purposes: Class V reinforced concrete pipe (RCP) forgravity sewer, Class 53 Tyton Joint ductile iron pipe for force mains, and restrained joint ductile iron pipe forforce mains with high head applications. Cost quotes for the various pipe materials were obtained from localarea vendors. Pipe installation production rates and crew sizes were taken from RS Means. King County laborrates were used to calculate installation costs for the various pipe sizes. See Appendix B for cost informationdetails.Table 1.3. Pipe Material and Installation CostsHigh Head ForceMain Pipe MaterialCost ( /LF)Gravity Sewer PipeMaterial Cost ( /LF)Install Cost ( /LF)Force Main PipeMaterial Cost ( /LF)High Head ForceMain Pipe MaterialCost ( /LF)Gravity Sewer PipeMaterial Cost ( /LF)Install Cost ( /LF)Force Main PipeMaterial Cost ( /LF)High Head ForceMain Pipe MaterialCost ( /LF)Gravity Sewer PipeMaterial Cost ( /LF)Install Cost ( /LF)Recommended Costs(Oct. 2008 Dollars)Force Main PipeMaterial Cost ( /LF)Escalated Tabula Costs(Sept. 2008 Dollars)Pipe Dia (in.)Current Tabula Costs(Sept. 2005 0251383U:\CSI-SHARE\TABULA UPDATE\2008 UPDATE\SUPPORT DOCUMENTATION\TASK 1 MEMO 01-08-09.DOC
REVISE/UPDATE EXISTING WASTEWATER CAPITAL CONSTRUCTION COST ESTIMATESTable 1.3. Pipe Material and Installation CostsHigh Head ForceMain Pipe MaterialCost ( /LF)Gravity Sewer PipeMaterial Cost ( /LF)Install Cost ( /LF)Force Main PipeMaterial Cost ( /LF)High Head ForceMain Pipe MaterialCost ( /LF)Gravity Sewer PipeMaterial Cost ( /LF)Install Cost ( /LF)Force Main PipeMaterial Cost ( /LF)High Head ForceMain Pipe MaterialCost ( /LF)Gravity Sewer PipeMaterial Cost ( /LF)Install Cost ( /LF)Recommended Costs(Oct. 2008 Dollars)Force Main PipeMaterial Cost ( /LF)Escalated Tabula Costs(Sept. 2008 Dollars)Pipe Dia (in.)Current Tabula Costs(Sept. 2005 1,587646Manhole material costs were established by obtaining a vendor quote for the manhole sections. Manholedepths were calculated based on 12 feet of cover for the pipe. Different sized manholes are used dependingon the pipe size. The largest pipe diameter indicated in each manhole range was used to calculate the finalinvert depth. For manholes with greater than 12 feet of cover an additional cost to add sections to themanhole was developed. These costs are in additional vertical linear feet of depth (VLF). Installation costswere developed using the crews based on local wage rates. These calculated rates were then compared to localbid tabs, unit costs, and RS Means costs for similar sized manholes. See Appendix C for cost informationdetails.Table 1.4. Manhole Sizes and CostsPipeDiameterRange (in.)CurrentTabulaBase Cost( /each)(Sept. 2005Dollars)CurrentAdded VLFCost( /VLF)(Sept. 2005Dollars)EscalatedTabulaBase Cost( /each)(Sept. 2008Dollars)EscalatedAddedVLFCost( /VLF) (Sept. 2008Dollars)RecommendedBase Cost( /each) (Oct.2008 Dollars)RecommendedAdded VLF Cost( /VLF) (Oct. 2008Dollars)48 21 4,000 290 4,200 305 8,329 2995424–27 5,000 430 5,250 452 7,386 3857230–42 9,500 900 9,975 945 9,717 5388448 14,000 1,300 14,700 1,365 12,550 6729654–60 18,000 1,500 18,900 1,575 15,382 805ManholeDiameter(in.)4U:\CSI-SHARE\TABULA UPDATE\2008 UPDATE\SUPPORT DOCUMENTATION\TASK 1 MEMO 01-08-09.DOC
REVISE/UPDATE EXISTING WASTEWATER CAPITAL CONSTRUCTION COST ESTIMATESTable 1.4. Manhole Sizes and CostsManholeDiameter(in.)PipeDiameterRange (in.)CurrentTabulaBase Cost( /each)(Sept. 2005Dollars)CurrentAdded VLFCost( /VLF)(Sept. 2005Dollars)EscalatedTabulaBase Cost( /each)(Sept. 2008Dollars)EscalatedAddedVLFCost( /VLF) (Sept. 2008Dollars)RecommendedBase Cost( /each) (Oct.2008 Dollars)RecommendedAdded VLF Cost( /VLF) (Oct. 2008Dollars)10872 22,000 1,900 23,100 1,995 17,702 1,07612078 29,000 2,200 30,450 2,310 20,022 1,34614484–144 36,000 2,600 37,800 2,730 41,718 1,967Right-of-way costs were updated according to annual reports provided by the King County Assessor’s office.These costs included urban and suburban residential costs, and commercial and industrial properties in KingCounty from 2005 to 2008. Using this information, a percent increase in property values from 2005 wasestablished and that percentage was applied to the 2005 Tabula costs. A recommended land value cost wasestablished. See Appendix D for cost information details.Table 1.5. Right--of--Way Acquisition and& EasementsCurrentTabulaPropertyAcquisitionCost ( /SF)(Dec. 2005Dollars)CurrentTabulaPermanentEasementCost ( /SF)(Dec. 2005Dollars)EscalatedTabulaPropertyAcquisitionCost ( /SF)(Sept. 2008Dollars)EscalatedTabulaPermanentEasementCost ( /SF)(Sept. 2008Dollars)RecommendedPropertyAcquisition Cost( /SF) (Sept. 2008Dollars)RecommendedPermanentEasement Cost( /SF) (Sept. 2008Dollars)ResidentialUrban 58 17 61 18 78 23ResidentialSuburban 36 38 48ResidentialRural 24 25 31AreaIndustrial 23 7 24 7 31 9Commercial 37 11 39 12 49 15Dewatering costs for trench sump and wellpoint dewatering were calculated by prorating values from existingvalues in Tabula and comparing these numbers to VSB treatment bid tabs and means adjusted for KingCounty labor. See Appendix E for cost information details.Table 1.6. Easement Adjustment FactorsCityLand Cost Adj. FactorKing County Average1.00Seattle0.79Algona0.36Auburn0.43Beaux Arts1.615U:\CSI-SHARE\TABULA UPDATE\2008 UPDATE\SUPPORT DOCUMENTATION\TASK 1 MEMO 01-08-09.DOC
REVISE/UPDATE EXISTING WASTEWATER CAPITAL CONSTRUCTION COST ESTIMATESTable 1.6. Easement Adjustment FactorsCityLand Cost Adj. FactorBellevue1.01Black Diamond0.59Bothell0.66Burien0.56Carnation0.49Clyde Hill2.33Covington0.46Des Moines0.49Duvall0.60Enumclaw0.41Federal Way0.49Hunts 93Lake Forest Park0.73Maple Valley0.51Medina3.66Mercer Island1.82Milton0.44Newcastle0.95Normandy Park0.88North .76Tukwila0.44Woodinville0.75Yarrow Point3.05Unincorporated Area0.65An additional factor has been implemented into the Tabula easement calculations. Using the King Countyaverage land cost as the basis, the areas listed above are all assigned values as a percentage of the King Countyaverage. This allows a more refined estimate of easement costs.6U:\CSI-SHARE\TABULA UPDATE\2008 UPDATE\SUPPORT DOCUMENTATION\TASK 1 MEMO 01-08-09.DOC
REVISE/UPDATE EXISTING WASTEWATER CAPITAL CONSTRUCTION COST ESTIMATESTable 1.7. Dewatering CostsPipeDiameter(in.)CurrentTabulaTrench SumpDewatering( /LF) (Sept.2005 Dollars)CurrentTabulaWellpointDewatering( /LF) (Sept.2005 Dollars)EscalatedTabula TrenchSumpDewatering( /LF) (Sept.2008 Dollars)EscalatedTabulaWellpointDewatering( /LF) (Sept.2008 Dollars)RecommendedTrench SumpDewatering ( /LF)(Sept. 2008 Dollars)RecommendedWellpointDewatering ( /LF)(Sept. 2008 Dollars)8–12 20 60 21 63 24 8014–21 20 65 21 68 24 8724–30 20 75 21 79 24 10036–48 30 80 32 84 35 10754–66 30 95 32 100 35 12772–84 45 110 47 116 53 14790–96 55 125 58 131 65 167108–144 75 150 79 158 88 200Traffic control costs in Tabula are calculated as either average or heavy. These costs are based on differentranges of pipe sizes. All traffic control costs were calculated using King County hourly wage rates for flaggers.Average traffic control costs were based on one non-uniformed police officer, one flagger during the entireconstruction period, and two flaggers for heavy traffic areas. To find the linear foot cost for flagging, aproduction rate for pipe placement and surface restoration was established. This production rate was set athalf the pipe production rate for pipes under 66″ diameter and at two thirds the pipe production rate forpipes over 66″ diameter in order to account for earthwork and surface restoration costs such as paving. SeeAppendix E for cost information details.Table 1.8. Traffic Costs eTrafficControl Cost( /LF) (Sept.2005 Dollars)CurrentTabula HeavyTrafficControl Cost( /LF) (Sept.2005 Dollars)EscalatedTabulaAverageTrafficControl Cost( /LF) (Sept.2008 Dollars)EscalatedTabula HeavyTrafficControl Cost( /LF) (Sept.2008 Dollars)RecommendedAverage TrafficControl cost ( /LF)(Sept. 2008 Dollars)RecommendedHeavy TrafficControl cost ( /LF)(Sept. 2008 Dollars)8–21 8 16 8 17 8 1624–42 12 24 13 25 12 2448–66 18 36 19 38 18 3672–84 25 50 26 53 25 5096–144 50 100 53 105 50 100Utility conflict is broken into no conflicts, average conflicts, and complex conflicts depending on the locationof the pipeline. These costs cover utility protections and, where necessary, utility replacement. See AppendixE for cost information details.7U:\CSI-SHARE\TABULA UPDATE\2008 UPDATE\SUPPORT DOCUMENTATION\TASK 1 MEMO 01-08-09.DOC
REVISE/UPDATE EXISTING WASTEWATER CAPITAL CONSTRUCTION COST ESTIMATESTable 1.9. Utility Conflict Costs RecommendationPipeDiameter (in.)CurrentTabulaAverageConflict Cost( /LF) (Sept.2005 Dollars)CurrentTabulaComplexConflict Cost( /LF) (Sept.2005 Dollars)EscalatedTabulaAverageConflict Cost( /LF) (Sept.2008 Dollars)EscalatedTabulaComplexConflict Cost( /LF) (Sept.2008 Dollars)RecommendedAverage ConflictCost ( /LF) (Oct.2008 Dollars)RecommendedComplex ConflictCost ( /LF) (Oct.2008 Dollars)8–12 25 45 26 47 3 3214–18 35 70 37 74 3 4220–30 45 90 47 95 5 5836–42 55 115 58 121 11 12048–54 70 140 74 147 16 16660 90 185 95 194 25 26572–78 115 230 121 242 34 36084–96 140 275 147 289 77 773108–144 170 345 179 362 119 1,191Section 2: Trenchless TechnologyTrenchless technology choices in Tabula consist of microtunnels, bore and jacks, and horizontal directionaldrilling (HDD). For the fixed input parameters the costs were compared to WSDOT bid tabs, RS Means, andSCWA costs. For right-of-way costs use the cost recommended in the pipeline costs section. See Appendix Ffor cost information details.Table 1.10. Trenchless Technology Fixed Input ParametersUnitsCurrent TabulaUnit Cost (Sept.2005 Dollars)Escalated TabulaUnit Cost (Sept.2008 Dollars)RecommendedUnit Cost (Oct.2008 Dollars)Shaft ExcavationCY 25 26 25Shaft BackfillCY 25 26 4Shaft Waste HaulCY 25 26 33Combined Excavation & Backfill CostCY 25 26 25Asphalt Paving (Trench)SY 50 53 74Existing Utilities (Average)SF 6 6 6Existing Utilities (Complex)SF 10 11 13HydroseedSY 5 5 3ItemsMicrotunneling costs were discussed with a local microtunneling contractor. The contractorrecommendations were then compared to bid tab information, the existing tabula microtunneling informationescalated to August 2008. Based on these comparisons a recommended microtunneling cost was established.These recommended costs are shown in Table 1.11 below. See Appendix F for cost information details.8U:\CSI-SHARE\TABULA UPDATE\2008 UPDATE\SUPPORT DOCUMENTATION\TASK 1 MEMO 01-08-09.DOC
REVISE/UPDATE EXISTING WASTEWATER CAPITAL CONSTRUCTION COST ESTIMATESFor situations where a casing pipe is needed, the user selects the carrier pipe diameter size. Tabula thenincreases the microtunnel size based on Table 1.11 to an appropriately sized casing pipe diameter. The casingdiameter determines the microtunnel costs used by Tabula. The casing material costs are included in themicrotunneling costs, so there is no need to add any additional cost for the casing material. Instead this waschanged so that the program now adds in the additional cost of a carrier pipe to the microtunnel, bore andjack, or HDD costs when using a cased carrier pipe.The casing carrier pipe costs for microtunnels and bore and jacks are shown in Table 1.12. For HDD thecasing carrier pipe costs are shown in Table 1.18.Table 1.11. Microtunnel CostsMicro-tunnelID (in.)CurrentTabula MTBMFixed Cost( /LF) (Sept.2005 Dollars)CurrentTabulaMicrotunnelCost ( /in.dia./lf) (Sept.2005 Dollars)EscalatedTabula MTBMFixed Cost( /LF) (Sept.2008 Dollars)EscalatedTabulaMicrotunnelCost ( /in.dia./lf) (Sept.2008 Dollars)RecommendedMTBM Fixed Cost( /LF) (Oct. 2008Dollars)RecommendedMicrotunnel Cost( /in. dia./lf) (Oct.2008 Dollars)12 120,000 40 126,000 42 132,115 5115 130,000 37 136,500 39 165,144 4318 160,000 35 168,000 37 198,173 3721 190,000 32 199,500 34 231,201 3324 210,000 31 220,500 33 264,230 3130 270,000 30 283,500 32 330,288 2736 330,000 29 346,500 30 396,345 2642 400,000 28 420,000 29 462,403 2548 470,000 27 493,500 28 528,460 2554 540,000 27 567,000 28 594,518 2560 600,000 26 630,000 27 660,575 2666 670,000 25 703,500 26 726,633 2672 740,000 25 777,000 26 792,690 2784 800,000 24 840,000 25 924,805 29Table 1.12. Microtunnel and Bore and Jacking Casing PipeDiameter Based on Carrier Pipe DiameterCarrier Pipe Size (in.)Casing Pipe Size SI-SHARE\TABULA UPDATE\2008 UPDATE\SUPPORT DOCUMENTATION\TASK 1 MEMO 01-08-09.DOC
REVISE/UPDATE EXISTING WASTEWATER CAPITAL CONSTRUCTION CO
King County Tabula: Task 1—Revise/Update Existing Wastewater Capital Construction Cost Estimates TO: Mark Buscher, King County Lisa Taylor, King County Mark Lampard, King County COPIES: Steffran Neff, Brown and Caldwell FROM: Bruce Johnston, PE, Brown and Caldwell DATE: January 7, 2009 PROJECT NUMBER: 135
Registration Data Fusion Intelligent Controller Task 1.1 Task 1.3 Task 1.4 Task 1.5 Task 1.6 Task 1.2 Task 1.7 Data Fusion Function System Network DFRG Registration Task 14.1 Task 14.2 Task 14.3 Task 14.4 Task 14.5 Task 14.6 Task 14.7 . – vehicles, watercraft, aircraft, people, bats
Past exam papers from June 2019 GRADE 8 1. Afrikaans P2 Exam and Memo 2. Afrikaans P3 Exam 3. Creative Arts - Drama Exam 4. Creative Arts - Visual Arts Exam 5. English P1 Exam 6. English P3 Exam 7. EMS P1 Exam and Memo 8. EMS P2 Exam and Memo 9. Life Orientation Exam 10. Math P1 Exam 11. Social Science P1 Exam and Memo 12.
WORKED EXAMPLES Task 1: Sum of the digits Task 2: Decimal number line Task 3: Rounding money Task 4: Rounding puzzles Task 5: Negatives on a number line Task 6: Number sequences Task 7: More, less, equal Task 8: Four number sentences Task 9: Subtraction number sentences Task 10: Missing digits addition Task 11: Missing digits subtraction
52 19 12/4/1970 Memo From Harry Dent to John Brown RE: Action Memo P1061. 1pg. Set 2/3. White House Staff 52 19 12/2/1970 Memo From John R. Brown III to Harry Dent RE: Gordon Wade. 1pg. Set 3/3. White House Staff 52 19 12/1/1970 Memo Action Memorandum from Staff Secretary to H. Klein RE: Television plan for Tricia, Julie and David. 1pg. Set 1/3 .
This mode let you start to take a quick memo on the last template you chose. 1. Select MemoPAD mode. 2. Tap Quick Memo icon. Memo Pad Creating a New Memo. 1. From Safari, Mail . * You should have an account of DropBox and Google Docs to upload your files. Create ID
Mémo candidat Motocross 1 . 2017/V2 MEMO CANDIDAT OCS / ODC 1 MOTOCROSS Ce mémo résume dans la première partie, les devoirs de l’organisateur envers les officiels de l’épreuve (en particulier du Directe
Foundations "NSSO develop a National PNT Architecture" "NPCO will initiate an effort with NSSO" "RITA will lead effort on behalf of DOT for the civil community" ASD/NII Memo 23-Jan-2006 ASD/NII Memo 23-Jan-2006 NPEC Action Items 26-Jan-2006 NPEC Action Items 26-Jan-2006 DOT/RITA Memo 14-Mar-2006 DOT/RITA Memo 14-Mar-2006 PNT .
Task 3C: Long writing task: Composition Description 25 A description of your favourite place Task 4A: Short writing task: Proofreading and editing 26 Task 4B: Short writing task: Planning 28 Task 4C: Long writing task: Composition Recount 30 The most memorable day of your life Summer term: Task 5A: Short writing
