%DOCUMENT% index.html
by
Chris Hendrickson
and
Tung Au
Department of Civil Engineering
Carnegie Mellon University
Pittsburgh, PA l52l3
June 28, 1999
Copyright C. Hendrickson and T. Au, 1988
Prepared under contract for publication with
Prentice-Hall, Inc.
Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey
1988
Preface
This book develops a specific viewpoint in discussing the participants, the
processes and the techniques of project management for construction. This
viewpoint is that of owners who desire completion of projects in a timely, cost
effective fashion. Some profound implications for the objectives and methods
of project management result from this perspective:
While this book is devoted to a particular viewpoint with respect to project
management for construction, it is not solely intended for owners and their
direct representatives. By understanding the entire process, all participants
can respond more effectively to the owner's needs in their own work, in
marketing their services, and in communicating with other participants. In
addition, the specific techniques and tools discussed in this book (such as
economic evaluation, scheduling, management information systems, etc.) can be
readily applied to any portion of the process.
As a result of the focus on the effective management of entire projects, a
number of novel organizational approaches and techniques become of interest.
First and foremost is the incentive to replace confrontation and adversarial
relationships with a spirit of joint endeavor and accomplishment. For example,
we discuss the appropriate means to evaluate risks and the appropriate
participants to assume the unavoidable risks associated with constructed
facilities. Scheduling, communication of data, and quality assurance have
particular significance from the viewpoint of an owner, but not necessarily for
individual participants. The use of computer-based technology and automation
also provides opportunities for increased productivity in the process.
Presenting such modern management options in a unified fashion is a major
objective of this book.
The unified viewpoint of the entire process of project management in this
book differs from virtually all other literature on the subject. Most
textbooks in the area treat special problems, such as cost estimating, from the
viewpoint of particular participants such as construction managers or
contractors. This literature reflects the fragmentation of the construction
process among different organizations and professionals. Even within a single
profession such as civil engineering, there are quite distinct groups of
specialists in planning, design, management, construction and other
sub-specialties. Fragmentation of interest and attention also exists in nearly
all educational programs. While specialty knowledge may be essential to
accomplish particular tasks, participants in the process should also understand
the context and role of their special tasks.
This book is intended primarily as a text for advanced undergraduates or
beginning graduate students in engineering, construction, architecture or
facilities management. Examples and discussion are chosen to remind readers
that project management is a challenging, dynamic and exciting enterprise and
not just a record of past practices. It should also be useful to professionals
who wish an up-to-date reference on project management.
Chapters 1 to 3 present an overview of the construction management and
design process which should be of interest to anyone engaged in project
management for construction. One need not have detailed knowledge about
individual tasks or techniques for this part. Individuals can read these
chapters and understand the basic philosophy and principles without further
elaboration.
Chapters 4 through 14 describe specific functions and techniques useful in
the process of project management. This part presents techniques and
requirements during project planning, including risk assessment, cost
estimation, forecasting and economic evaluation. It is during this planning
and design phase in which major cost savings may be obtained during the
eventual construction and operation phases. It also addresses programming and
financing issues, such as contracting and bidding for services, financing,
organizing communication and insuring effective use of information. It further
discusses techniques for control of time, cost and quality during the
construction phase. Beginning courses in engineering economics (including cash
flow analysis and discounting), use of computers, probability and statistics
would be useful. Furthermore, access to a personal computer with spreadsheet
or equation solving software would be helpful for readers attempting some of
the problems in Chapters 4 to 14. Numerous software programs could be used for
this purpose, including both spreadsheet and equation solving programs.
Problems in some chapters could also be done on any number of existing software
packages for information management and project scheduling. However, the use
of personal computers in this fashion is not required in following the text
material. Each instructor may exercise discretion in omitting some of the
material in these chapters if they are redundant with other classes or too
advanced for students in his or her own class.
The last two chapters of this book discuss some future prospects for new
technology in the construction field. We expect that these new technologies
will have a substantial impact on productivity improvement in the next two
decades even though they are not part of standard practice today. By including
these chapters, we are challenging readers with the remarkable opportunities
for innovation and improvement that exist in the field. These latter chapters
may also be reserved for an advanced course.
It is our hope that students beginning their career in project management
for construction will be prepared to adopt the integrated approach emphasized
in this book. Furthermore, experienced professionals in various fields may
discover in this book some surprises that even they have not anticipated. High
level decision makers in owner organizations who are not directly involved in
the project management process may find the basic philosophy and principles of
interest, especially in Chapters 1 through 3, as owners must invariably pay for
constructed facilities, for better or worse. If the book can fulfill even a
small part of its promises to influence the future of project management for
construction, our efforts will have been amply rewarded.
We wish to acknowledge our appreciation to Dr. William J. Hall for his
encouragement and assistance in expediting the publication of this book. We
are indebted to several colleagues at Carnegie Mellon University, Drs. Paul
Christiano, Steven Fenves and Daniel Rehak who reviewed parts of the manuscript
and offered valuable suggestions. We also wish to thank Debbie Scappatura and
Shirley Knapp for their efforts in typing the manuscript. This book also
reflects the contributions of numerous students and colleagues in industry who
have challenged us with problems and shared their own ideas and experience over
many years. We are grateful to all of these individuals.
Some material in this book has been taken from several papers authored by us
and published by the American Society of Civil Engineers. Materials taken from
other sources are acknowledged in footnotes, tables or figures. We gratefully
acknowledge the permissions given to us by these individuals, publishers and
organizations.
Finally, a series of photographs depicting various stages of construction of
the PPG building in Pittsburgh, PA is inserted in sequence between chapters.
We wish to thank PPG Industries for its cooperation in providing these
photographs.
Like the five blind men encountering different parts of an elephant, each of
the numerous participants in the process of planning, designing, financing,
constructing and operating physical facilities has a different perspective on
project management for construction. Specialized knowledge can be very
beneficial, particularly in large and complicated projects, since experts in
various specialties can provide valuable services. However, it is advantageous
to understand how the different parts of the process fit together. Waste,
excessive cost and delays can result from poor coordination and communication
among specialists. It is particularly in the interest of owners to insure that
such problems do not occur. And it behooves all participants in the process to
heed the interests of owners because, in the end, it is the owners who provide
the resources and call the shots.
By adopting the viewpoint of the owners, we can focus our attention on the
complete process of project management for constructed facilities rather than
the historical roles of various specialists such as planners, architects,
engineering designers, constructors, fabricators, material suppliers, financial
analysts and others. To be sure, each specialty has made important advances in
developing new techniques and tools for efficient implementation of
construction projects. However, it is through the understanding of the entire
process of project management that these specialists can respond more
effectively to the owner's desires for their services, in marketing their
specialties, and in improving the productivity and quality of their work.
The introduction of innovative and more effective project management for
construction is not an academic exercise. As reported by the "Construction
Industry Cost Effectiveness Project" of the Business Roundtable:[The Business
Roundtable, More Construction for the Money, Summary Report of the
Construction Industry Cost Effectiveness Project, January 1983, p. 11.]
The acquisition of a constructed facility usually represents a major capital
investment, whether its owner happens to be an individual, a private
corporation or a public agency. Since the commitment of resources for such an
investment is motivated by market demands or perceived needs, the facility is
expected to satisfy certain objectives within the constraints specified by the
owner and relevant regulations. With the exception of the speculative housing
market, where the residential units may be sold as built by the real estate
developer, most constructed facilities are custom made in consultation with the
owners. A real estate developer may be regarded as the sponsor of building
projects, as much as a government agency may be the sponsor of a public project
and turns it over to another government unit upon its completion. From the
viewpoint of project management, the terms "owner" and "sponsor" are synonymous
because both have the ultimate authority to make all important decisions.
Since an owner is essentially acquiring a facility on a promise in some form of
agreement, it will be wise for any owner to have a clear understanding of the
acquisition process in order to maintain firm control of the quality,
timeliness and cost of the completed facility.
From the perspective of an owner, the project life cycle for a constructed
facility may be illustrated schematically in Figure 1-1. Essentially, a
project is conceived to meet market demands or needs in a timely fashion.
Various possibilities may be considered in the conceptual planning stage, and
the technological and economic feasibility of each alternative will be assessed
and compared in order to select the best possible project. The financing
schemes for the proposed alternatives must also be examined, and the project
will be programmed with respect to the timing for its completion and for
available cash flows. After the scope of the project is clearly defined,
detailed engineering design will provide the blueprint for construction, and
the definitive cost estimate will serve as the baseline for cost control. In
the procurement and construction stage, the delivery of materials and the
erection of the project on site must be carefully planned and controlled.
After the construction is completed, there is usually a brief period of
start-up or shake-down of the constructed facility when it is first occupied.
Finally, the management of the facility is turned over to the owner for full
occupancy until the facility lives out its useful life and is designated for
demolition or conversion.
Of course, the stages of development in Figure 1-1 may not be strictly
sequential. Some of the stages require iteration, and others may be carried
out in parallel or with overlapping time frames, depending on the nature, size
and urgency of the project. Furthermore, an owner may have in-house capacities
to handle the work in every stage of the entire process, or it may seek
professional advice and services for the work in all stages. Understandably,
most owners choose to handle some of the work in-house and to contract outside
professional services for other components of the work as needed. By examining
the project life cycle from an owner's perspective we can focus on the proper
roles of various activities and participants in all stages regardless of the
contractual arrangements for different types of work.
In the United States, for example, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers has
in-house capabilities to deal with planning, budgeting, design, construction
and operation of waterway and flood control structures. Other public agencies,
such as state transportation departments, are also deeply involved in all
phases of a construction project. In the private sector, many large firms such
as DuPont, Exxon, and IBM are adequately staffed to carry out most activities
for plant expansion. All these owners, both public and private, use outside
agents to a greater or lesser degree when it becomes more advantageous to do
so.
The project life cycle may be viewed as a process through which a project is
implemented from cradle to grave. This process is often very complex; however,
it can be decomposed into several stages as indicated by the general outline in
Figure 1-1. The solutions at various stages are then integrated to obtain the
final outcome. Although each stage requires different expertise, it usually
includes both technical and managerial activities in the knowledge domain of
the specialist. The owner may choose to decompose the entire process into more
or less stages based on the size and nature of the project, and thus obtain the
most efficient result in implementation. Very often, the owner retains direct
control of work in the planning and programming stages, but increasingly
outside planners and financial experts are used as consultants because of the
complexities of projects. Since operation and maintenance of a facility will
go on long after the completion and acceptance of a project, it is usually
treated as a separate problem except in the consideration of the life cycle
cost of a facility. All stages from conceptual planning and feasibility
studies to the acceptance of a facility for occupancy may be broadly lumped
together and referred to as the Design/Construct process, while the procurement
and construction alone are traditionally regarded as the province of the
construction industry.
Owners must recognize that there is no single best approach in organizing
project management throughout a project's life cycle. All organizational
approaches have advantages and disadvantages, depending on the knowledge of the
owner in construction management as well as the type, size and location of the
project. It is important for the owner to be aware of the approach which is
most appropriate and beneficial for a particular project. In making choices,
owners should be concerned with the life cycle costs of constructed facilities
rather than simply the initial construction costs. Saving small amounts of
money during construction may not be worthwhile if the result is much larger
operating costs or not meeting the functional requirements for the new facility
satisfactorily. Thus, owners must be very concerned with the quality of the
finished product as well as the cost of construction itself. Since facility
operation and maintenance is a part of the project life cycle, the owners'
expectation to satisfy investment objectives during the project life cycle will
require consideration of the cost of operation and maintenance. Therefore, the
facility's operating management should also be considered as early as possible,
just as the construction process should be kept in mind at the early stages of
planning and programming.
Since most owners are generally interested in acquiring only a specific type
of constructed facility, they should be aware of the common industrial
practices for the type of construction pertinent to them. Likewise, the
construction industry is a conglomeration of quite diverse segments and
products. Some owners may procure a constructed facility only once in a long
while and tend to look for short term advantages. However, many owners require
periodic acquisition of new facilities and/or rehabilitation of existing
facilities. It is to their advantage to keep the construction industry healthy
and productive. Collectively, the owners have more power to influence the
construction industry than they realize because, by their individual actions,
they can provide incentives or disincentives for innovation, efficiency and
quality in construction. It is to the interest of all parties that the owners
take an active interest in the construction and exercise beneficial influence
on the performance of the industry.
In planning for various types of construction, the methods of procuring
professional services, awarding construction contracts, and financing the
constructed facility can be quite different. For the purpose of discussion,
the broad spectrum of constructed facilities may be classified into four major
categories, each with its own characteristics.
Residential housing construction includes single-family houses, multi-family
dwellings, and highrise apartments. During the development and construction of
such projects, the developers or sponsors who are familiar with the
construction industry usually serve as surrogate owners and take charge, making
necessary contractual agreements for design and construction, and arranging the
financing and sale of the completed structures. Residential housing designs
are usually performed by architects and engineers, and the construction
executed by builders who hire subcontractors for the structural, mechanical,
electrical and other specialty work. An exception to this pattern is for
single-family houses which may be designed by the builders as well.
The residential housing market is heavily affected by general economic
conditions, tax laws, and the monetary and fiscal policies of the government.
Often, a slight increase in total demand will cause a substantial investment in
construction, since many housing projects can be started at different locations
by different individuals and developers at the same time. Because of the
relative ease of entry, at least at the lower end of the market, many new
builders are attracted to the residential housing construction. Hence, this
market is highly competitive, with potentially high risks as well as high
rewards.
Because of the higher costs and greater sophistication of institutional and
commercial buildings in comparison with residential housing, this market
segment is shared by fewer competitors. Since the construction of some of
these buildings is a long process which once started will take some time to
proceed until completion, the demand is less sensitive to general economic
conditions than that for speculative housing. Consequently, the owners may
confront an oligopoly of general contractors who compete in the same market.
In an oligopoly situation, only a limited number of competitors exist, and a
firm's price for services may be based in part on its competitive strategies in
the local market.
Specialized industrial construction usually involves very large scale
projects with a high degree of technological complexity, such as oil
refineries, steel mills, chemical processing plants and coal-fired or nuclear
power plants. The owners usually are deeply involved in the development of a
project, and prefer to work with designers-builders such that the total time
for the completion of the project can be shortened. They also want to pick a
team of designers and builders with whom the owner has developed good working
relations over the years.
Although the initiation of such projects is also affected by the state of
the economy, long range demand forecasting is the most important factor since
such projects are capital intensive and require considerable amount of planning
and construction time. Governmental regulation such as the rulings of the
Environmental Protection Agency and the Nuclear Regulatory Commission in the
United States can also profoundly influence decisions on these projects.
The engineers and builders engaged in infrastructure construction are
usually highly specialized since each segment of the market requires different
types of skills. However, demands for different segments of infrastructure and
heavy construction may shift with saturation in some segments. For example, as
the available highway construction projects are declining, some heavy
construction contractors quickly move their work force and equipment into the
field of mining where jobs are available.
When an owner decides to seek professional services for the design and
construction of a facility, he is confronted with a broad variety of choices.
The type of services selected depends to a large degree on the type of
construction and the experience of the owner in dealing with various
professionals in the previous projects undertaken by the firm. Generally,
several common types of professional services may be engaged either separately
or in some combination by the owners.
In the past two decades, this traditional approach has become less popular
for a number of reasons, particularly for large scale projects. The A/E firms,
which are engaged by the owner as the prime professionals for design and
inspection, have become more isolated from the construction process. This has
occurred because of pressures to reduce fees to A/E firms, the threat of
litigation regarding construction defects, and lack of knowledge of new
construction techniques on the part of architect and engineering professionals.
Instead of preparing a construction plan along with the design, many A/E firms
are no longer responsible for the details of construction nor do they provide
periodic field inspection in many cases. As a matter of fact, such firms will
place a prominent disclaimer of responsibilities on any shop drawings they may
check, and they will often regard their representatives in the field as
observers instead of inspectors. Thus, the A/E firm and the general contractor
on a project often become antagonists who are looking after their own competing
interests. As a result, even the constructibility of some engineering designs
may become an issue of contention. To carry this protective attitude to the
extreme, the specifications prepared by an A/E firm for the general contractor
often protects the interest of the A/E firm at the expense of the interests of
the owner and the contractor.
In order to reduce the cost of construction, some owners introduce value
engineering, which seeks to reduce the cost of construction by soliciting a
second design that might cost less than the original design produced by the A/E
firm. In practice, the second design is submitted by the contractor after
receiving a construction contract at a stipulated sum, and the saving in cost
resulting from the redesign is shared by the contractor and the owner. The
contractor is able to absorb the cost of redesign from the profit in
construction or to reduce the construction cost as a result of the re-design.
If the owner had been willing to pay a higher fee to the A/E firm or to better
direct the design process, the A/E firm might have produced an improved design
which would cost less in the first place. Regardless of the merit of value
engineering, this practice has undermined the role of the A/E firm as the prime
professional acting on behalf of the owner to supervise the contractor.
One of the most obvious advantages of the integrated design/construct
process is the use of phased construction for a large project. In this
process, the project is divided up into several phases, each of which can be
designed and constructed in a staggered manner. After the completion of the
design of the first phase, construction can begin without waiting for the
completion of the design of the second phase, etc. If proper coordination is
exercised. the total project duration can be greatly reduced. Another
advantage is to exploit the possibility of using the turnkey approach whereby
an owner can delegate all responsibility to the design/construct firm which
will deliver to the owner a completed facility that meets the performance
specifications at the specified price.
It should be obvious to all involved in the construction process that the
party which is required to take higher risk demands larger rewards. If an
owner wants to engage an A/E firm on the basis of low fees instead of
established qualifications, it often gets what it deserves; or if the owner
wants the general contractor to bear the cost of uncertainties in construction
such as foundation conditions, the contract price will be higher even if
competitive bidding is used in reaching a contractual agreement. Without
mutual respect and trust, an owner cannot expect that construction managers can
produce better results than other professionals. Hence, an owner must
understand its own responsibility and the risk it wishes to assign to itself
and to other participants in the process.
A common denominator of all firms entering into these new services is that
they all have strong computer capabilities and heavy computer investments. In
addition to the use of computers for aiding design and monitoring construction,
the service includes the compilation of a computer record of building plans
that can be turned over at the end of construction to the facilities management
group of the owner. A computer data base of facilities information makes it
possible for planners in the owner's organization to obtain overview
information for long range space forecasts, while the line managers can use
as-built information such as lease/tenant records, utility costs, etc. for
day-to-day operations.
Builders who supervise the execution of construction projects are
traditionally referred to as contractors, or more appropriately called
constructors. The general contractor coordinates various tasks for a project
while the specialty contractors such as mechanical or electrical contractors
perform the work in their specialties. Material and equipment suppliers often
act as installation contractors; they play a significant role in a
construction project since the conditions of delivery of materials and
equipment affect the quality, cost, and timely completion of the project. It
is essential to understand the operation of these contractors in order to deal
with them effectively.
A major construction project requires an enormous amount of capital that is
often supplied by lenders who want to be assured that the project will offer a
fair return on the investment. The direct costs associated with a major
construction project may be broadly classified into two categories: (1) the
construction expenses paid to the general contractor for erecting the facility
on site and (2) the expenses for land acquisition, legal fees,
architect/engineer fees, construction management fees, interest on construction
loans and the opportunity cost of carrying empty space in the facility until it
is fully occupied. The direct construction costs in the first category
represent approximately 60 to 80 percent of the total costs in most
construction projects. Since the costs of construction are ultimately borne by
the owner, careful financial planning for the facility must be made prior to
construction.
Construction loans provided for different types of construction vary. In
the case of residential housing, construction loans and long-term mortgages can
be obtained from savings and loans associations or commercial banks. For
institutional and commercial buildings, construction loans are usually obtained
from commercial banks. Since the value of specialized industrial buildings as
collateral for loans is limited, construction loans in this domain are rare,
and construction financing can be done from the pool of general corporate
funds. For infrastructure construction owned by government, the property
cannot be used as security for a private loan, but there are many possible ways
to finance the construction, such as general appropriation from taxation or
special bonds issued for the project.
Traditionally, banks serve as construction lenders in a three-party
agreement among the contractor, the owner and the bank. The stipulated loan
will be paid to the contractor on an agreed schedule upon the verification of
completion of various portions of the project. Generally, a payment request
together with a standard progress report will be submitted each month by the
contractor to the owner which in turn submits a draw request to the bank.
Provided that the work to date has been performed satisfactorily, the
disbursement is made on that basis during the construction period. Under such
circumstances, the bank has been primarily concerned with the completion of the
facility on time and within the budget. The economic life of the facility
after its completion is not a concern because of the transfer of risk to the
owner or an institutional lender.
Because of the sudden surge of interest rates in the late 1970's, many
financial institutions offer, in addition to the traditional fixed rate
long-term mortgage commitments, other arrangements such as a combination of
debt and a percentage of ownership in exchange for a long-term mortgage or the
use of adjustable rate mortgages. In some cases, the construction loan may be
granted on an open-ended basis without a long-term financing commitment. For
example, the plan might be issued for the construction period with an option to
extend it for a period of up to three years in order to give the owner more
time to seek alternative long-term financing on the completed facility. The
bank will be drawn into situations involving financial risk if it chooses to be
a lender without long-term guarantees.
The owners of facilities naturally want legal protection for all the
activities involved in the construction. It is equally obvious that they
should seek competent legal advice. However, there are certain principles that
should be recognized by owners in order to avoid unnecessary pitfalls.
Owners must be aware of the impacts of these regulations on the costs and
durations of various types of construction projects as well as possibilities of
litigation due to various contentions. For example, owners acquiring sites for
new construction may be strictly liable for any hazardous wastes already on the
site or removed from the site under the U.S. Comprehensive Environmental
Response Compensation and Liability (CERCL) Act of 1980. For large scale
projects involving new technologies, the construction costs often escalate with
the uncertainty associated with such restrictions.
The construction industry is a conglomeration of diverse fields and
participants that have been loosely lumped together as a sector of the economy.
The construction industry plays a central role in national welfare, including
the development of residential housing, office buildings and industrial plants,
and the restoration of the nation's infrastructure and other public facilities.
The importance of the construction industry lies in the function of its
products which provide the foundation for industrial production, and its
impacts on the national economy cannot be measured by the value of its output
or the number of persons employed in its activities alone.
To be more specific, construction refers to all types of activities usually
associated with the erection and repair of immobile facilities. Contract
construction consists of a large number of firms that perform construction work
for others, and is estimated to be approximately 85% of all construction
activities. The remaining 15% of construction is performed by owners of the
facilities, and is referred to as force-account construction. Although the
number of contractors in the United States exceeds a million, over 60% of all
contractor construction is performed by the top 400 contractors. The value of
new construction in the United States (expressed in constant dollars) and the
value of construction as a percentage of the gross national products from 1950
to 1985 are shown in Figure 1-0. It can be seen that construction is a
significant factor in the Gross National Product although its importance has
been declining in recent years.[The graph is derived from data in "Value of New
Construction Put in Place, 1960-1983", Statistical Abstract of the United
States, 105th Edition, U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of Census, 1985,
pp. 722-723, as well as the information in earlier editions.] Not to be
ignored is the fact that as the nation's constructed facilities become older,
the total expenditure on rehabilitation and maintenance may increase relative
to the value of new construction.
Owners who pay close attention to the peculiar characteristics of the
construction industry and its changing operating environment will be able to
take advantage of the favorable conditions and to avoid the pitfalls. Several
factors are particularly noteworthy because of their significant impacts on the
quality, cost and time of construction.
The effects of new technologies on construction costs have been mixed
because of the high development costs for new technologies. However, it is
unmistakable that design professionals and construction contractors who have
not adapted to changing technologies have been forced out of the mainstream of
design and construction activities. Ultimately, construction quality and cost
can be improved with the adoption of new technologies which are proved to be
efficient from both the viewpoints of performance and economy.
While aggregate construction industry productivity is important as a measure
of national economy, owners are more concerned about the labor productivity of
basic units of work produced by various crafts on site. Thus, an owner can
compare the labor performance at different geographic locations, under
different working conditions, and for different types and sizes of projects.
Construction costs usually run parallel to material prices and labor wages.
Actually, over the years, labor productivity has increased in some traditional
types of construction and thus provides a leveling or compensating effect when
hourly rates for labor increase faster than other costs in construction.
However, labor productivity has been stagnant or even declined in
unconventional or large scale projects.
Figure 1-0 can serve to indicate public attitudes towards the siting of new
facilities. It represents the cumulative percentage of individuals who would
be willing to accept a new industrial facility at various distances from their
homes. For example, over fifty percent of the people surveyed would accept a
ten-story office building within five miles of their home, but only twenty-five
percent would accept a large factory or coal fired power plant at a similar
distance. An even lower percentage would accept a hazardous waste disposal
site or a nuclear power plant. Even at a distance of one hundred miles, a
significant fraction of the public would be unwilling to accept hazardous waste
facilities or nuclear power plants.
This objection to new facilities is a widespread public attitude,
representing considerable skepticism about the external benefits and costs
which new facilities will impose. It is this public attitude which is likely
to make public scrutiny and regulation a continuing concern for the
construction industry.
A bidding competition for a major new offshore drilling platform illustrates
the competitive environment in construction. As described in the Wall Street
Journal:[See Petzinger, Thomas Jr., "Upstart's Winning Bid for Offshore
Platform Stuns its Older Rivals," Wall Street Journal, p. 1, c. 6, Nov. 20,
1985.]
Of course, U.S. firms including A/E firms, contractors and construction
managers are also competing in foreign countries. Their success or failure in
the international arena may also affect their capacities and vitality to
provide services in the domestic U.S. market.
This type of joint venture has become more important in the international
construction market where aggressive contractors often win contracts by
offering a more attractive financing package rather than superior technology.
With a deepening shadow of international debts in recent years, many developing
countries are not in a position to undertake any new project without
contractor-backed financing. Thus, the contractors or joint ventures in
overseas projects are forced into very risky positions if they intend to stay
in the competition.
In the project life cycle, the most influential factors affecting the
outcome of the project often reside at the early stages. At this point,
decisions should be based on competent economic evaluation with due
consideration for adequate financing, the prevalent social and regulatory
environment, and technological considerations. Architects and engineers might
specialize in planning, in construction field management, or in operation, but
as project managers, they must have some familiarity with all such aspects in
order to understand properly their role and be able to make competent
decisions.
Since the 1970's, many large-scale projects have run into serious problems
of management, such as cost overruns and long schedule delays. Actually, the
management of megaprojects or superprojects is not a practice peculiar to our
time. Witness the construction of transcontinental railroads in the Civil War
era and the construction of the Panama Canal at the turn of this century.
Although the megaprojects of this generation may appear in greater frequency
and present a new set of challenge, the problems are organizational rather than
technical. As noted by Hardy Cross:[See H. Cross, Engineers and Ivory Towers,
McGraw-Hill Book Co., Inc., New York, 1952.]
The greatest stumbling block to effective management in construction is the
inertia and historic divisions among planners, designers and constructors.
While technical competence in design and innovation remains the foundation of
engineering practice, the social, economic and organizational factors that are
pervasive in influencing the success and failure of construction projects must
also be dealt with effectively by design and construction organizations. Of
course, engineers are not expected to know every detail of management
techniques, but they must be knowledgeable enough to anticipate the problems of
management so that they can work harmoniously with professionals in related
fields to overcome the inertia and historic divisions.
Paradoxically, engineers who are creative in engineering design are often
innovative in planning and management since both types of activities involve
problem solving. In fact, they can reinforce each other if both are included
in the education process, provided that creativity and innovation instead of
routine practice are emphasized. A project manager who is well educated in the
fundamental principles of engineering design and management can usefully apply
such principles once he or she has acquired basic understanding of a new
application area. A project manager who has been trained by rote learning for
a specific type of project may merely gain one year of experience repeated
twenty times even if he or she has been in the field for twenty years. A
broadly educated project manager can reasonably hope to become a leader in the
profession; a narrowly trained project manager is often relegated to the role
of his or her first job level permanently.
The owners have much at stake in selecting a competent project manager and
in providing her or him with the authority to assume responsibility at various
stages of the project regardless of the types of contractual agreements for
implementing the project. Of course, the project manager must also possess the
leadership quality and the ability to handle effectively intricate
interpersonal relationships within an organization. The ultimate test of the
education and experience of a project manager for construction lies in her or
his ability to apply fundamental principles to solving problems in the new and
unfamiliar situations which have become the hallmarks of the changing
environment in the construction industry.
The management of construction projects requires knowledge of modern
management as well as an understanding of the design and construction process.
Construction projects have a specific set of objectives and constraints such as
a required time frame for completion. While the relevant technology,
institutional arrangements or processes will differ, the management of such
projects has much in common with the management of similar types of projects in
other specialty or technology domains such as aerospace, pharmaceutical and
energy developments.
Generally, project management is distinguished from the general management
of corporations by the mission-oriented nature of a project. A project
organization will generally be terminated when the mission is accomplished.
According to the Project Management Institute, the discipline of project
management can be defined as follows:[See R. M. Wideman, "The PMBOK Report --
PMI Body of Knowledge Standard," Project Management Journal, Vol. 17, No. 3,
August l986, pp. l5-24.]
The basic ingredients for a project management framework [See
L. C. Stuckenbruck, "Project Management Framework," Project Management
Journal, Vol. 17, No. 3, August 1986, pp. 25-30.] may be represented
schematically in Figure 2-0. A working knowledge of general management and
familiarity with the special knowledge domain related to the project are
indispensable. Supporting disciplines such as computer science and decision
science may also play an important role. In fact, modern management practices
and various special knowledge domains have absorbed various techniques or tools
which were once identified only with the supporting disciplines. For example,
computer-based information systems and decision support systems are now
common-place tools for general management. Similarly, many operations research
techniques such as linear programming and network analysis are now widely used
in many knowledge or application domains. Hence, the representation in Figure
2-0 reflects only the sources from which the project management framework
evolves.
Specifically, project management in construction encompasses a set of
objectives which may be accomplished by implementing a series of operations
subject to resource constraints. There are potential conflicts between the
stated objectives with regard to scope, cost, time and quality, and the
constraints imposed on human material and financial resources. These conflicts
should be resolved at the onset of a project by making the necessary tradeoffs
or creating new alternatives. Subsequently, the functions of project
management for construction generally include the following:
In recent years, major developments in management reflect the acceptance to
various degrees of the following elements: (1) the management process
approach, (2) the management science and decision support approach, and (3) the
behavioral science approach for human resource development. These three
approaches complement each other in current practice, and provide a useful
groundwork for project management.
The management process approach emphasizes the systematic study of
management by identifying management functions in an organization and then
examining each in detail. There is general agreement regarding the functions
of planning, organizing and controlling. A major tenet is that by analyzing
management along functional lines, a framework can be constructed into which
all new management activities can be placed. Thus, the manager's job is
regarded as coordinating a process of interrelated functions, which are neither
totally random nor rigidly predetermined, but are dynamic as the process
evolves. Another tenet is that management principles can be derived from an
intellectual analysis of management functions. By dividing the manager's job
into functional components, principles based upon each function can be
extracted. Hence, management functions can be organized into a hierarchical
structure designed to improve operational efficiency, such as the example of
the organization for a manufacturing company shown in Figure 2-0. The basic
management functions are performed by all managers, regardless of enterprise,
activity or hierarchical levels. Finally, the development of a management
philosophy results in helping the manager to establish relationships between
human and material resources. The outcome of following an established
philosophy of operation helps the manager win the support of the subordinates
in achieving organizational objectives.
The management science and decision support approach contributes to the
development of a body of quantitative methods designed to aid managers in
making complex decisions related to operations and production. In decision
support systems, emphasis is placed on providing managers with relevant
information. In management science, a great deal of attention is given to
defining objectives and constraints, and to constructing mathematical analysis
models in solving complex problems of inventory, materials and production
control, among others. A topic of major interest in management science is the
maximization of profit, or in the absence of a workable model for the operation
of the entire system, the suboptimization of the operations of its components.
The optimization or suboptimization is often achieved by the use of operations
research techniques, such as linear programming, quadratic programming, graph
theory, queueing theory and Monte Carlo simulation. In addition to the
increasing use of computers accompanied by the development of sophisticated
mathematical models and information systems, management science and decision
support systems have played an important role by looking more carefully at
problem inputs and relationships and by promoting goal formulation and
measurement of performance. Artificial intelligence has also begun to be
applied to provide decision support systems for solving ill-structured problems
in management.
The behavioral science approach for human resource development is important
because management entails getting things done through the actions of people.
An effective manager must understand the importance of human factors such as
needs, drives, motivation, leadership, personality, behavior, and work groups.
Within this context, some place more emphasis on interpersonal behavior which
focuses on the individual and his/her motivations as a socio-psychological
being; others emphasize more group behavior in recognition of the organized
enterprise as a social organism, subject to all the attitudes, habits,
pressures and conflicts of the cultural environment of people. The major
contributions made by the behavioral scientists to the field of management
include: (1) the formulation of concepts and explanations about individual and
group behavior in the organization, (2) the empirical testing of these concepts
methodically in many different experimental and field settings, and (3) the
establishment of actual managerial policies and decisions for operation based
on the conceptual and methodical frameworks.
The programming of capital projects is shaped by the strategic plan of an
organization, which is influenced by market demands and resources constraints.
The programming process associated with planning and feasibility studies sets
the priorities and timing for initiating various projects to meet the overall
objectives of the organizations. However, once this decision is made to
initiate a project, market pressure may dictate early and timely completion of
the facility.
Among various types of construction, the influence of market pressure on the
timing of initiating a facility is most obvious in industrial
construction.(See, for example, O'Connor, J.T., and Vickory, C.G., Control of
Construction Project Scope, A Report to the Construction Industry Institute,
The University of Texas at Austin, December 1985.) Demand for an industrial
product may be short-lived, and if a company does not hit the market first,
there may not be demand for its product later. With intensive competition for
national and international markets, the trend of industrial construction moves
toward shorter project life cycles, particularly in technology intensive
industries.
In order to gain time, some owners are willing to forego thorough planning
and feasibility study so as to proceed on a project with inadequate definition
of the project scope. Invariably, subsequent changes in project scope will
increase construction costs; however, profits derived from earlier facility
operation often justify the increase in construction costs. Generally, if the
owner can derive reasonable profits from the operation of a completed facility,
the project is considered a success even if construction costs far exceed the
estimate based on an inadequate scope definition. This attitude may be
attributed in large part to the uncertainties inherent in construction
projects. It is difficult to argue that profits might be even higher if
construction costs could be reduced without increasing the project duration.
However, some projects, notably some nuclear power plants, are clearly
unsuccessful and abandoned before completion, and their demise must be
attributed at least in part to inadequate planning and poor feasibility
studies.
The owner or facility sponsor holds the key to influence the construction
costs of a project because any decision made at the beginning stage of a
project life cycle has far greater influence than those made at later stages,
as shown schematically in Figure 2-0. Therefore, an owner should obtain the
expertise of professionals to provide adequate planning and feasibility
studies. Many owners do not maintain an in-house engineering and construction
management capability, and they should consider the establishment of an ongoing
relationship with outside consultants in order to respond quickly to requests.
Even among those owners who maintain engineering and construction divisions,
many treat these divisions as reimbursable, independent organizations. Such an
arrangement should not discourage their legitimate use as false economies in
reimbursable costs from such divisions can indeed be very costly to the overall
organization.
Finally, the initiation and execution of capital projects places demands on
the resources of the owner and the professionals and contractors to be engaged
by the owner. For very large projects, it may bid up the price of engineering
services as well as the costs of materials and equipment and the contract
prices of all types. Consequently, such factors should be taken into
consideration in determining the timing of a project.
Example 2-1: Setting priorities for projects
A department store planned to expand its operation by acquiring 20 acres of
land in the southeast of a metropolitan area which consists of well established
suburbs for middle income families. An architectural/engineering (A/E) firm
was engaged to design a shopping center on the 20-acre plot with the department
store as its flagship plus a large number of storefronts for tenants. One year
later, the department store owner purchased 2,000 acres of farm land in the
northwest outskirts of the same metropolitan area and designated 20 acres of
this land for a shopping center. The A/E firm was again engaged to design a
shopping center at this new location.
The A/E firm was kept completely in the dark while the assemblage of the
2,000 acres of land in the northwest quietly took place. When the plans and
specifications for the southeast shopping center were completed, the owner
informed the A/E firm that it would not proceed with the construction of the
southeast shopping center for the time being. Instead, the owner urged the A/E
firm to produce a new set of similar plans and specifications for the northwest
shopping center as soon as possible, even at the sacrifice of cost saving
measures. When the plans and specifications for the northwest shopping center
were ready, the owner immediately authorized its construction. However, it
took another three years before the southeast shopping center was finally
built.
The reason behind the change of plan was that the owner discovered the
availability of the farm land in the northwest which could be developed into
residential real estate properties for upper middle income families. The
immediate construction of the northwest shopping center would make the land
development parcels more attractive to home buyers. Thus, the owner was able
to recoup enough cash flow in three years to construct the southeast shopping
center in addition to financing the construction of the northeast shopping
center, as well as the land development in its vicinity.
While the owner did not want the construction cost of the northwest shopping
center to run wild, it apparently was satisfied with the cost estimate based on
the detailed plans of the southeast shopping center. Thus, the owner had a
general idea of what the construction cost of the northwest shopping center
would be, and did not wish to wait for a more refined cost estimate until the
detailed plans for that center were ready. To the owner, the timeliness of
completing the construction of the northwest shopping center was far more
important than reducing the construction cost in fulfilling its investment
objectives.
Example 2-2: Resource Constraints for Mega Projects
A major problem with mega projects is the severe strain placed on the
environment, particularly on the resources in the immediate area of a
construction project. "Mega" or "macro" projects involve construction of very
large facilities such as the Alaska pipeline constructed in the 1970's or the
Panama Canal constructed in the 1900's. The limitations in some or all of the
basic elements required for the successful completion of a mega project
include:
The uncertainty in undertaking a construction project comes from many
sources and often involves many participants in the project. Since each
participant tries to minimize its own risk, the conflicts among various
participants can be detrimental to the project. Only the owner has the power
to moderate such conflicts as it alone holds the key to risk assignment through
proper contractual relations with other participants. Failure to recognize
this responsibility by the owner often leads to undesirable results. In recent
years, the concept of "risk sharing/risk assignment" contracts has gained
acceptance by the federal government.(See, for example, Federal Form 23-A and
EPA's Appendix C-2 clauses.) Since this type of contract acknowledges the
responsibilities of the owners, the contract prices are expected to be lower
than those in which all risks are assigned to contractors.
In approaching the problem of uncertainty, it is important to recognize that
incentives must be provided if any of the participants is expected to take a
greater risk. The willingness of a participant to accept risks often reflects
the professional competence of that participant as well as its propensity to
risk. However, society's perception of the potential liabilities of the
participant can affect the attitude of risk-taking for all participants. When
a claim is made against one of the participants, it is difficult for the public
to know whether a fraud has been committed, or simply that an accident has
occurred.
Risks in construction projects may be classified in a number of ways. (See
E. D'Appolonia, "Coping with Uncertainty in Geotechnical Engineering and
Construction," Special Proceedings of the 9th International Conference on Soil
Mechanics and Foundation Engineering, Tokyo, Japan, Vol. 4, 1979, pp. 1-18.)
One form of classification is as follows:
The environmental protection movement has contributed to the uncertainty for
construction because of the inability to know what will be required and how
long it will take to obtain approval from the regulatory agencies. The
requirements of continued re-evaluation of problems and the lack of definitive
criteria which are practical have also resulted in added costs. Public safety
regulations have similar effects, which have been most noticeable in the energy
field involving nuclear power plants and coal mining. The situation has
created constantly shifting guidelines for engineers, constructors and owners
as projects move through the stages of planning to construction. These moving
targets add a significant new dimension of uncertainty which can make it
virtually impossible to schedule and complete work at budgeted cost. Economic
conditions of the past decade have further reinforced the climate of
uncertainty with high inflation and interest rates. The deregulation of
financial institutions has also generated unanticipated problems related to the
financing of construction.
Uncertainty stemming from regulatory agencies, environmental issues and
financial aspects of construction should be at least mitigated or ideally
eliminated. Owners are keenly interested in achieving some form of
breakthrough that will lower the costs of projects and mitigate or eliminate
lengthy delays. Such breakthroughs are seldom planned. Generally, they happen
when the right conditions exist, such as when innovation is permitted or when a
basis for incentive or reward exists. However, there is a long way to go
before a true partnership of all parties involved can be forged.
During periods of economic expansion, major capital expenditures are made by
industries and bid up the cost of construction. In order to control costs,
some owners attempt to use fixed price contracts so that the risks of
unforeseen contingencies related to an overheated economy are passed on to
contractors. However, contractors will raise their prices to compensate for
the additional risks.
The risks related to organizational relationships may appear to be
unnecessary but are quite real. Strained relationships may develop between
various organizations involved in the design/construct process. When problems
occur, discussions often center on responsibilities rather than project needs
at a time when the focus should be on solving the problems. Cooperation and
communication between the parties are discouraged for fear of the effects of
impending litigation. This barrier to communication results from the
ill-conceived notion that uncertainties resulting from technological problems
can be eliminated by appropriate contract terms. The net result has been an
increase in the costs of constructed facilities.
The risks related to technological problems are familiar to the
design/construct professions which have some degree of control over this
category. However, because of rapid advances in new technologies which present
new problems to designers and constructors, technological risk has become
greater in many instances. Certain design assumptions which have served the
professions well in the past may become obsolete in dealing with new types of
facilities which may have greater complexity or scale or both. Site
conditions, particularly subsurface conditions which always present some degree
of uncertainty, can create an even greater degree of uncertainty for facilities
with heretofore unknown characteristics during operation. Because construction
procedures may not have been fully anticipated, the design may have to be
modified after construction has begun. An example of facilities which have
encountered such uncertainty is the nuclear power plant, and many owners,
designers and contractors have suffered for undertaking such projects.
If each of the problems cited above can cause uncertainty, the combination
of such problems is often regarded by all parties as being out of control and
inherently risky. Thus, the issue of liability has taken on major proportions
and has influenced the practices of engineers and constructors, who in turn
have influenced the actions of the owners.
Many owners have begun to understand the problems of risks and are seeking
to address some of these problems. For example, some owners are turning to
those organizations that offer complete capabilities in planning, design, and
construction, and tend to avoid breaking the project into major components to
be undertaken individually by specialty participants. Proper coordination
throughout the project duration and good organizational communication can avoid
delays and costs resulting from fragmentation of services, even though the
components from various services are eventually integrated.
Attitudes of cooperation can be readily applied to the private sector, but
only in special circumstances can they be applied to the public sector. The
ability to deal with complex issues is often precluded in the competitive
bidding which is usually required in the public sector. The situation becomes
more difficult with the proliferation of regulatory requirements and resulting
delays in design and construction while awaiting approvals from government
officials who do not participate in the risks of the project.
The top management of the owner sets the overall policy and selects the
appropriate organization to take charge of a proposed project. Its policy will
dictate how the project life cycle is divided among organizations and which
professionals should be engaged. Decisions by the top management of the owner
will also influence the organization to be adopted for project management. In
general, there are many ways to decompose a project into stages. The most
typical ways are:
There are two basic approaches to organize for project implementation, even
though many variations may exist as a result of different contractual
relationships adopted by the owner and builder. These basic approaches are
divided along the following lines:
Since construction projects may be managed by a spectrum of participants in
a variety of combinations, the organization for the management of such projects
may vary from case to case. On one extreme, each project may be staffed by
existing personnel in the functional divisions of the organization on an ad-hoc
basis as shown in Figure 2-0 until the project is completed. This arrangement
is referred to as the matrix organization as each project manager must
negotiate all resources for the project from the existing organizational
framework. On the other hand, the organization may consist of a small central
functional staff for the exclusive purpose of supporting various projects, each
of which has its functional divisions as shown in Figure 2-0. This
decentralized set-up is referred to as the project oriented organization as
each project manager has autonomy in managing the project. There are many
variations of management style between these two extremes, depending on the
objectives of the organization and the nature of the construction project. For
example, a large chemical company with in-house staff for planning, design and
construction of facilities for new product lines will naturally adopt the
matrix organization. On the other hand, a construction company whose existence
depends entirely on the management of certain types of construction projects
may find the project-oriented organization particularly attractive. While
organizations may differ, the same basic principles of management structure are
applicable to most situations.
To illustrate various types of organizations for project management, we
shall consider two examples, the first one representing an owner organization
while the second one representing the organization of a construction management
consultant under the direct supervision of the owner.
Example 2-3: . Matrix Organization of an Engineering Division
The Engineering Division of an Electric Power and Light Company has
functional departments as shown in Figure 2-0. When small scale projects such
as the addition of a transmission tower or a sub-station are authorized, a
matrix organization is used to carry out such projects. For example, in the
design of a transmission tower, the professional skill of a structural engineer
is most important. Consequently, the leader of the project team will be
selected from the Structural Engineering Department while the remaining team
members are selected from all departments as dictated by the manpower
requirements. On the other hand, in the design of a new sub-station, the
professional skill of an electrical engineer is most important. Hence, the
leader of the project team will be selected from the Electrical Engineering
Department.
Example 2-4: . Example of Construction Management Consultant Organization
When the same Electric Power and Light Company in the previous example
decided to build a new nuclear power plant, it engaged a construction
management consultant to take charge of the design and construction completely.
However, the company also assigned a project team to coordinate with the
construction management consultant as shown in Figure 2-0.
Since the company eventually will operate the power plant upon its
completion, it is highly important for its staff to monitor the design and
construction of the plant. Such coordination allows the owner not only to
assure the quality of construction but also to be familiar with the design to
facilitate future operation and maintenance. Note the close direct
relationships of various departments of the owner and the consultant. Since
the project will last for many years before its completion, the staff members
assigned to the project team are not expected to rejoin the Engineering
Department but will probably be involved in the future operation of the new
plant. Thus, the project team can act independently toward its designated
mission.
For ordinary projects of moderate size and complexity, the owner often
employs a designer (an architectural/engineering firm) which prepares the
detailed plans and specifications for the constructor (a general contractor).
The designer also acts on behalf of the owner to oversee the project
implementation during construction. The general contractor is responsible for
the construction itself even though the work may actually be undertaken by a
number of specialty subcontractors.
The owner usually negotiates the fee for service with the
architectural/engineering (A/E) firm. In addition to the responsibilities of
designing the facility, the A/E firm also exercises to some degree supervision
of the construction as stipulated by the owner. Traditionally, the A/E firm
regards itself as design professionals representing the owner who should not
communicate with potential contractors to avoid collusion or conflict of
interest. Field inspectors working for an A/E firm usually follow through the
implementation of a project after the design is completed and seldom have
extensive input in the design itself. Because of the litigation climate in the
last two decades, most A/E firms only provide observers rather than inspectors
in the field. Even the shop drawings of fabrication or construction schemes
submitted by the contractors for approval are reviewed with a disclaimer of
responsibility by the A/E firms.
The owner may select a general constructor either through competitive
bidding or through negotiation. Public agencies are required to use the
competitive bidding mode, while private organizations may choose either mode of
operation. In using competitive bidding, the owner is forced to use the
designer-constructor sequence since detailed plans and specifications must be
ready before inviting bidders to submit their bids. If the owner chooses to
use a negotiated contract, it is free to use phased construction if it so
desires.
The general contractor may choose to perform all or part of the construction
work, or act only as a manager by subcontracting all the construction to
subcontractors. The general contractor may also select the subcontractors
through competitive bidding or negotiated contracts. The general contractor
may ask a number of subcontractors to quote prices for the subcontracts before
submitting its bid to the owner. However, the subcontractors often cannot
force the winning general contractor to use them on the project. This
situation may lead to practices known as bid shopping and bid peddling. Bid
shopping refers to the situation when the general contractor approaches
subcontractors other than those whose quoted prices were used in the winning
contract in order to seek lower priced subcontracts. Bid peddling refers to
the actions of subcontractors who offer lower priced subcontracts to the
winning general subcontractors in order to dislodge the subcontractors who
originally quoted prices to the general contractor prior to its bid submittal.
In both cases, the quality of construction may be sacrificed, and some state
statutes forbid these practices for public projects.
Although the designer-constructor sequence is still widely used because of
the public perception of fairness in competitive bidding, many private owners
recognize the disadvantages of using this approach when the project is large
and complex and when market pressures require a shorter project duration than
that which can be accomplished by using this traditional method.
Professional construction management refers to a project management team
consisting of a professional construction manager and other participants who
will carry out the tasks of project planning, design and construction in an
integrated manner. Contractual relationships among members of the team are
intended to minimize adversarial relationships and contribute to greater
response within the management group. A professional construction manager is a
firm specialized in the practice of professional construction management which
includes:
Professional construction management is usually used when a project is very
large or complex. The organizational features that are characteristics of
mega-projects can be summarized as follows:(These features and the following
example are described in F.P. Moolin, Jr. and F.A. McCoy, "Managing the Alaska
Pipeline Project," Civil Engineering, November 1981, pp. 51-54.)
Example 2-5: Managing of the Alaska Pipeline Project
The Alaska Pipeline Project was the largest, most expensive private
construction project in the 1970's, which encompassed 800 miles, thousands of
employees, and 10 billion dollars.
At the planning stage, the owner (a consortium) employed a Construction
Management Contractor (CMC) to direct the pipeline portion, but retained
centralized decision making to assure single direction and to integrate the
effort of the CMC with the pump stations and the terminals performed by another
contractor. The CMC also centralized its decision making in directing over 400
subcontractors and thousands of vendors. Because there were 19 different
construction camps and hundreds of different construction sites, this
centralization caused delays in decision making.
At about the 15% point of physical completion, the owner decided to
reorganize the decision making process and change the role of the CMC. The new
organization was a combination of owner and CMC personnel assigned within an
integrated organization. The objective was to develop a single project team
responsible for controlling all subcontractors. Instead of having nine tiers
of organization from the General Manager of the CMC to the subcontractors, the
new organization had only four tiers from the Senior Project Manager of the
owner to subcontractors. Besides unified direction and coordination, this
reduction in tiers of organization greatly improved communications and the
ability to make and implement decisions. The new organization also allowed
decentralization of decision making by treating five sections of the pipeline
at different geographic locations as separate projects, with a section manager
responsible for all functions of the section as a profit center.
At about 98% point of physical completion, all remaining activities were to
be consolidated to identify single bottom-line responsibility, to reduce
duplication in management staff, and to unify coordination of remaining work.
Thus, the project was first handled by separate organizations but later was run
by an integrated organization with decentralized profit centers. Finally, the
organization in effect became small and was ready to be phased out of
operation.
In this approach an owner must have a steady flow of on-going projects in
order to maintain a large work force for in-house operation. However, the
owner may choose to subcontract a substantial portion of the project to outside
consultants and contractors for both design and construction, even though it
retains centralized decision making to integrate all efforts in project
implementation.
Example 2-6: : U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Organization
The District Engineer's Office of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers may be
viewed as a typical example of an owner-builder approach as shown in Figure
2-0.
In the District Engineer's Office of the U.S. Corps of Engineers, there
usually exist an Engineering Division and an Operations Division, and, in a
large district, a Construction Division. Under each division, there are
several branches. Since the authorization of a project is usually initiated by
the U.S. Congress, the planning and design functions are separated in order to
facilitate operations. Since the authorization of the feasibility study of a
project may precede the authorization of the design by many years, each stage
can best be handled by a different branch in the Engineering Division. If
construction is ultimately authorized, the work may be handled by the
Construction Division or by outside contractors. The Operations Division
handles the operation of locks and other facilities which require routine
attention and maintenance.
When a project is authorized, a project manager is selected from the most
appropriate branch to head the project, together with a group of staff drawn
from various branches to form the project team. When the project is completed,
all members of the team including the project manager will return to their
regular posts in various branches and divisions until the next project
assignment. Thus, a matrix organization is used in managing each project.
Some owners wish to delegate all responsibilities of design and construction
to outside consultants in a turnkey project arrangement. A contractor agrees
to provide the completed facility on the basis of performance specifications
set forth by the owner. The contractor may even assume the responsibility of
operating the project if the owner so desires. In order for a turnkey
operation to succeed, the owner must be able to provide a set of unambiguous
performance specifications to the contractor and must have complete confidence
in the capability of the contractor to carry out the mission.
This approach is the direct opposite of the owner-builder approach in which
the owner wishes to retain the maximum amount of control for the
design-construction process.
Example 2-7: : An Example of a Turnkey Organization
A 150-Mw power plant was proposed in 1985 by the Texas-New Mexico Power
Company of Fort Worth, Texas, which would make use of the turnkey
operation.("Private Money Finances Texas Utility's Power Plant" Engineering
News Record: July 25, 1985, p. 13.) Upon approval by the Texas Utility
Commission, a consortium consisting of H.B. Zachry Co., Westinghouse Electric
Co., and Combustion Engineering, Inc. would design, build and finance the power
plant for completion in 1990 for an estimated construction cost of $200 million
in 1990 dollars. The consortium would assume total liability during
construction, including debt service costs, and thereby eliminate the risks of
cost escalation to rate payers, stockholders and the utility company
management.
The project manager, in the broadest sense of the term, is the most
important person for the success or failure of a project. The project manager
is responsible for planning, organizing and controlling the project. In turn,
the project manager receives authority from the management of the organization
to mobilize the necessary resources to complete a project.
The project manager must be able to exert interpersonal influence in order
to lead the project team. The project manager often gains the support of
his/her team through a combination of the following:
In a matrix organization, the members of the functional departments may be
accustomed to a single reporting line in a hierarchical structure, but the
project manager coordinates the activities of the team members drawn from
functional departments. The functional structure within the matrix
organization is responsible for priorities, coordination, administration and
final decisions pertaining to project implementation. Thus, there are
potential conflicts between functional divisions and project teams. The
project manager must be given the responsibility and authority to resolve
various conflicts such that the established project policy and quality
standards will not be jeopardized. When contending issues of a more
fundamental nature are developed, they must be brought to the attention of a
high level in the management and be resolved expeditiously.
In general, the project manager's authority must be clearly documented as
well as defined, particularly in a matrix organization where the functional
division managers often retain certain authority over the personnel temporarily
assigned to a project. The following principles should be observed:
While a successful project manager must be a good leader, other members of
the project team must also learn to work together, whether they are assembled
from different divisions of the same organization or even from different
organizations. Some problems of interaction may arise initially when the team
members are unfamiliar with their own roles in the project team, particularly
for a large and complex project. These problems must be resolved quickly in
order to develop an effective, functioning team.
Many of the major issues in construction projects require effective
interventions by individuals, groups and organizations. The fundamental
challenge is to enhance communication among individuals, groups and
organizations so that obstacles in the way of improving interpersonal relations
may be removed. Some behavior science concepts are helpful in overcoming
communication difficulties that block cooperation and coordination. In very
large projects, professional behavior scientists may be necessary in diagnosing
the problems and advising the personnel working on the project. The power of
the organization should be used judiciously in resolving conflicts.
The major symptoms of interpersonal behavior problems can be detected by
experienced observers, and they are often the sources of serious communication
difficulties among participants in a project. For example, members of a
project team may avoid each other and withdraw from active interactions about
differences that need to be dealt with. They may attempt to criticize and
blame other individuals or groups when things go wrong. They may resent
suggestions for improvement, and become defensive to minimize culpability
rather than take the initiative to maximize achievements. All these actions
are detrimental to the project organization.
While these symptoms can occur to individuals at any organization, they are
compounded if the project team consists of individuals who are put together
from different organizations. Invariably, different organizations have
different cultures or modes of operation. Individuals from different groups
may not have a common loyalty and may prefer to expand their energy in the
directions most advantageous to themselves instead of the project team.
Therefore, no one should take it for granted that a project team will work
together harmoniously just because its members are placed physically together
in one location. On the contrary, it must be assumed that good communication
can be achieved only through the deliberate effort of the top management of
each organization contributing to the joint venture.
Although owners and contractors may have different perceptions on project
management for construction, they have a common interest in creating an
environment leading to successful projects in which performance quality,
completion time and final costs are within prescribed limits and tolerances.
It is interesting therefore to note the opinions of some leading contractors
and owners who were interviewed in 1984.(See J.E. Diekmann and K.B. Thrush,
Project Control in Design Engineering, A Report to the Construction Industry
Institute, The University of Texas at Austin, Texas, May 1986.)
From the responses of six contractors, the key factors cited for successful
projects are:
The responses of eight owners indicated that they did not always understand
the concerns of the contractors although they generally agreed with some of the
key factors for successful and unsuccessful projects cited by the contractors.
The significant findings of the interviews with owners are summarized as
follows:
From the results of these interviews, it is obvious that owners must be more
aware and involved in the process in order to generate favorable conditions for
successful projects. Design professionals and construction contractors must
provide better communication with each other and with the owner in project
implementation.
In the planning of facilities, it is important to recognize the close
relationship between design and construction. These processes can best be
viewed as an integrated system. Broadly speaking, design is a process of
creating the description of a new facility, usually represented by detailed
plans and specifications; construction planning is a process of identifying
activities and resources required to make the design a physical reality.
Hence, construction is the implementation of a design envisioned by architects
and engineers. In both design and construction, numerous operational tasks
must be performed with a variety of precedence and other relationships among
the different tasks.
Several characteristics are unique to the planning of constructed facilities
and should be kept in mind even at the very early stage of the project life
cycle. These include the following:
In an integrated system, the planning for both design and construction can
proceed almost simultaneously, examining various alternatives which are
desirable from both viewpoints and thus eliminating the necessity of extensive
revisions under the guise of value engineering. Furthermore, the review of
designs with regard to their constructibility can be carried out as the project
progresses from planning to design. For example, if the sequence of assembly
of a structure and the critical loadings on the partially assembled structure
during construction are carefully considered as a part of the overall
structural design, the impacts of the design on construction falsework and on
assembly details can be anticipated. However, if the design professionals are
expected to assume such responsibilities, they must be rewarded for sharing the
risks as well as for undertaking these additional tasks. Similarly, when
construction contractors are expected to take over the responsibilities of
engineers, such as devising a very elaborate scheme to erect an unconventional
structure, they too must be rewarded accordingly. As long as the owner does
not assume the responsibility for resolving this risk-reward dilemma, the
concept of a truly integrated system for design and construction cannot be
realized.
It is interesting to note that European owners are generally more open to
new technologies and to share risks with designers and contractors. In
particular, they are more willing to accept responsibilities for the unforeseen
subsurface conditions in geotechnical engineering. Consequently, the designers
and contractors are also more willing to introduce new techniques in order to
reduce the time and cost of construction. In European practice, owners
typically present contractors with a conceptual design, and contractors prepare
detailed designs, which are checked by the owner's engineers. Those detailed
designs may be alternate designs, and specialty contractors may also prepare
detailed alternate designs.
Example 3-1: Proposed Responsibility for Shop Drawings
The willingness to assume responsibilities does not come easily from any
party in the current litigious climate of the construction industry in the
United States. On the other hand, if owner, architect, engineer, contractor
and other groups that represent parts of the industry do not jointly fix the
responsibilities of various tasks to appropriate parties, the standards of
practice will eventually be set by court decisions. In an attempt to provide a
guide to the entire spectrum of participants in a construction project, the
American Society of Civil Engineers issued a preliminary edition of a Manual of
Professional Practice for Quality in the Constructed Project in early 1988.
After an 18-month period for trial use and comment, a final version is expected
to be published as recommended standards for industry-wide adoption.
Hopefully, this manual will help bring a turn around of the fragmentation of
activities in the design and construction process.
Shop drawings represent the assembly details for erecting a structure which
should reflect the intent and rationale of the original structural design.
They are prepared by the construction contractor and reviewed by the design
professional. However, since the responsibility for preparing shop drawings
was traditionally assigned to construction contractors, design professionals
took the view that the review process was advisory and assumed no
responsibility for their accuracy. This justification was ruled unacceptable
by a court in connection with the walkway failure at the Hyatt Hotel in Kansas
City in 1985. In preparing the ASCE Manual of Professional Practice for
Quality in the Constructed Project, the responsibilities for preparation of
shop drawings proved to be the most difficult to develop.(See "ASCE Unveils
Quality Manual", ENR, November 5, 1987, p. 14) The reason for this situation
is not difficult to fathom since the responsibilities for the task are
diffused, and all parties must agree to the new responsibilities assigned to
each in the recommended risk-reward relations shown in Table 3-1.
Traditionally, the owner is not involved in the preparation and review of
shop drawings, and perhaps is even unaware of any potential problems. In the
recommended practice, the owner is required to take responsibility for
providing adequate time and funding, including approval of scheduling, in order
to allow the design professionals and construction contractors to perform
satisfactorily.
~!^!~Responsible Party
~!^!~~!^!~Design~!^!~Construction
Task~!^!~Owner~!^!~Professional~!^!~Contractor
Provide adequate time and funding for shop~!^!~Prime
drawing preparation and review
Specify that drawings be prepared~!^!~Review~!^!~Prime
by professional engineer
Do structural design~!^!~~!^!~Prime
Provide loading requirements~!^!~~!^!~Prime
Specify shop drawing requirements~!^!~Review~!^!~Prime
Provide for structural design of~!^!~~!^!~~!^!~Prime
connections by engineer
Approve scheduling~!^!~Prime~!^!~Advise~!^!~Advise
Provide shop drawings~!^!~~!^!~~!^!~Prime
and submit on schedule
Make timely reviews~!^!~~!^!~Prime
Accept responsibility for~!^!~~!^!~~!^!~Prime
construction bracing, shoring, constructibility
tolerances, fit and detail dimensions.
Example 3-2: Model Metro Project in Milan, Italy(See V. Fairweather,
"Milan's Model Metro", Civil Engineering, December 1987, pp. 40-43.)
Under Italian law, unforeseen subsurface conditions are the owner's
responsibility, not the contractor's. This is a striking difference from U.S.
construction practice where changed conditions clauses and claims and the
adequacy of prebid site investigations are points of contention. In effect,
the Italian law means that the owner assumes those risks. But under the same
law, a contractor may elect to assume the risks in order to lower the bid price
and thereby beat the competition.
According to the Technical Director of Rodio, the Milan-based contractor
which is heavily involved in the grouting job for tunneling in the Model Metro
project in Milan, Italy, there are two typical contractual arrangements for
specialized subcontractor firms such as theirs. One is to work on a unit price
basis with no responsibility for the design. The other is what he calls the
"nominated subcontractor" or turnkey method: prequalified subcontractors offer
their own designs and guarantee the price, quality, quantities, and, if they
wish, the risks of unforeseen conditions.
At the beginning of the Milan metro project, the Rodio contract ratio was
50/50 unit price and turnkey. The firm convinced the metro owners that they
would save money with the turnkey approach, and the ratio became 80% turnkey.
What's more, in the work packages where Rodio worked with other grouting
specialists, those subcontractors paid Rodio a fee to assume all risks for
unforeseen conditions.
Under these circumstances, it was critical that the firm should know the
subsurface conditions as precisely as possible, which was a major reason why
the firm developed a computerized electronic sensing program to predict
stratigraphy and thus control grout mixes, pressures and, most important,
quantities.
The planning for a construction project begins with the generation of
concepts for a facility which will meet market demands and owner needs.
Innovative concepts in design are highly valued not for their own sake but for
their contributions to reducing costs and to the improvement of aesthetics,
comfort or convenience as embodied in a well-designed facility. However, the
constructor as well as the design professionals must have an appreciation and
full understanding of the technological complexities often associated with
innovative designs in order to provide a safe and sound facility. Since these
concepts are often preliminary or tentative, screening studies are carried out
to determine the overall technological viability and economic attractiveness
without pursuing these concepts in great detail. Because of the ambiguity of
the objectives and the uncertainty of external events, screening studies call
for uninhibited innovation in creating new concepts and judicious judgment in
selecting the appropriate ones for further consideration.
One of the most important aspects of design innovation is the necessity of
communication in the design/construction partnership. In the case of bridge
design, it can be illustrated by the following quotation from Lin and Gerwick
concerning bridge construction: (See T.Y. Lin and B.G. Gerwick, Jr. "Design of
Long Span Concrete Bridges with Special References to Prestressing, Precasting,
Structural Behavior and Economics," ACI Publication SP-23, First International
Symposium, 1969, pp. 693-704)
Innovative design concepts must be tested for technological feasibility.
Three levels of technology are of special concern: technological requirements
for operation or production, design resources and construction technology. The
first refers to the new technologies that may be introduced in a facility which
is used for a certain type of production such as chemical processing or nuclear
power generation. The second refers to the design capabilities that are
available to the designers, such as new computational methods or new materials.
The third refers to new technologies which can be adopted to construct the
facility, such as new equipment or new construction methods.
A new facility may involve complex new technology for operation in hostile
environments such as severe climate or restricted accessibility. Large
projects with unprecedented demands for resources such as labor supply,
material and infrastructure may also call for careful technological feasibility
studies. Major elements in a feasibility study on production technology should
include, but are not limited to, the following:
An example of innovative design for operation and production is the use of
entropy concepts for the design of integrated chemical processes. Simple
calculations can be used to indicate the minimum energy requirements and the
least number of heat exchange units to achieve desired objectives. The result
is a new incentive and criterion for designers to achieve more effective
designs. Numerous applications of the new methodology has shown its efficacy
in reducing both energy costs and construction expenditures.[See Linnhoff, B.,
D.W. Townsend, D. Boland, G.F. Hewitt, B.E.A. Thomas, A.R. Guy, and R.H.
Marsland, User Guide on Process Integration for the Efficient Use of Energy,
Institution of Chemical Engineers, Rugby, Warks., England, 1982.] This is a
case in which innovative design is not a matter of trading-off operating and
capital costs, but better designs can simultaneously achieve improvements in
both objectives.
The choice of construction technology and method involves both strategic
and tactical decisions about appropriate technologies and the best sequencing
of operations. For example, the extent to which prefabricated facility
components will be used represents a strategic construction decision. In
turn, prefabrication of components might be accomplished off-site in existing
manufacturing facilities or a temporary, on-site fabrication plant might be
used. Another example of a strategic decision is whether to install mechanical
equipment in place early in the construction process or at an intermediate
stage. Strategic decisions of this sort should be integrated with the process
of facility design in many cases. At the tactical level, detailed decisions
about how to accomplish particular tasks are required, and such decisions can
often be made in the field.
Construction planning should be a major concern in the development of
facility designs, in the preparation of cost estimates, and in forming bids by
contractors. Unfortunately, planning for the construction of a facility is
often treated as an after thought by design professionals. This contrasts with
manufacturing practices in which the assembly of devices is a major concern in
design. Design to insure ease of assembly or construction should be a major
concern of engineers and architects. As the Business Roundtable noted, "All
too often chances to cut schedule time and costs are lost because construction
operates as a production process separated by a chasm from financial planning,
scheduling, and engineering or architectural design. Too many engineers,
separated from field experience, are not up to date about how to build what
they design, or how to design so structures and equipment can be erected most
efficiently."["More Construction for the Money," Summary Report of the
Construction Industry Cost Effectiveness Project, The Business Roundtable, New
York, 1983, pg. 30.]
Example 3-3: Innovative use of structural frames for buildings[See "The
Quiet Revolution in Skyscraper Design, " Civil Engineering, May 1983, pp.
54-59.]
The structural design of skyscrapers offers an example of innovation in
overcoming the barrier of high costs for tall buildings by making use of new
design capabilities. A revolutionary concept in skyscraper design was
introduced in the 1960's by Fazlur Khan who argued that, for a building of a
given height, there is an appropriate structural system which would produce the
most efficient use of the material.
Before 1965, most skyscrapers were steel rigid frames. However, Fazlur Khan
believed that it was uneconomical to construct all office buildings of rigid
frames, and proposed an array of appropriate structural systems for steel
buildings of specified heights as shown in Figure 3-0. By choosing an
appropriate structural system, an engineer can use structural materials more
efficiently. For example, the 60-story Chase Manhatten Building in New York
used about 60 pounds per square foot of steel in its rigid frame structure,
while the 100-story John Hancock Center in Chicago used only 30 pounds per
square foot for a trusted tube system. At the time the Chase Manhatten
Building was constructed, no bracing was used to stiffen the core of a rigid
frame building because design engineers did not have the computing tools to do
the complex mathematical analysis associated with core bracing.
Innovation is often regarded as the engine which can introduce construction
economies and advance labor productivity. This is obviously true for certain
types of innovations in industrial production technologies, design
capabilities, and construction equipment and methods. However, there are also
limitations due to the economic infeasibility of such innovations, particularly
in the segments of construction industry which are more fragmented and permit
ease of entry, as in the construction of residential housing.
Market demand and firm size play an important role in this regard. If a
builder is to construct a larger number of similar units of buildings, the cost
per unit may be reduced. This relationship between the market demand and the
total cost of production may be illustrated schematically as in Figure 3-0. An
initial threshold or fixed cost F is incurred to allow any production. Beyond
this threshold cost, total cost increases faster than the units of output but
at a decreasing rate. At each point on this total cost curve, the average cost
is represented by the slope of a line from the origin to the point on the
curve. At a point H, the average cost per unit is at a minimum. Beyond H to
the right, the total cost again increases faster than the units of output and
at an increasing rate. When the rate of change of the average cost slope is
decreasing or constant as between 0 and H on the curve, the range between 0 and
H is said to be increasing return to scale; when the rate of change of the
average cost slope is increasing as beyond H to the right, the region is said
to be decreasing return to scale. Thus, if fewer than h units are
constructed, the unit price will be higher than that of exactly h units. On
the other hand, the unit price will increase again if more than h units are
constructed.
Nowhere is the effect of market demand and total cost more evident than in
residential housing.[See J. Landis, "Why Homebuilders Don't Innovate," Built
Environment, Vol. 8, No. 1, 1982, pp. 46-53.] The housing segment in the
last few decades accepted many innovative technical improvements in building
materials which were promoted by material suppliers. Since material suppliers
provide products to a large number of homebuilders and others, they are in a
better position to exploit production economies of scale and to support new
product development. However, homebuilders themselves have not been as
successful in making the most fundamental form of innovation which encompasses
changes in the technological process of homebuilding by shifting the mixture of
labor and material inputs, such as substituting large scale off-site
prefabrication for on-site assembly.
There are several major barriers to innovation in the technological process
of homebuilding, including demand instability, industrial fragmentation, and
building codes. Since market demand for new homes follows demographic trends
and other socio-economic conditions, the variation in home building has been
anything but regular. The profitability of the homebuilding industry has
closely matched aggregate output levels. Since entry and exist from the
industry are relatively easy, it is not uncommon during periods of slack demand
to find builders leaving the market or suspending their operations until better
times. The inconsistent levels of retained earnings over a period of years,
even among the more established builders, are likely to discourage support for
research and development efforts which are required to nurture innovation.
Furthermore, because the homebuilding industry is fragmented with a vast
majority of homebuilders active only in local regions, the typical homebuilder
finds it excessively expensive to experiment with new designs. The potential
costs of a failure or even a moderately successful innovation would outweigh
the expected benefits of all but the most successful innovations. Variation in
local building codes has also caused inefficiencies although repeated attempts
have been made to standardize building codes.
In addition to the scale economies visible within a sector of the
construction market, there are also possibilities for scale economies in
individual facility. For example, the relationship between the size of a
building (expressed in square feet) and the input labor (expressed in
laborhours per square foot) varies for different types and sizes of buildings.
As shown in Figure 3-0, these relationships for several types of buildings
exhibit different characteristics.<See P.J. Cassimates, Economics of the
Construction Industry, National Industry Conference Board (SBE No. 111),
1969.> The labor hours per square foot decline as the size of facility
increases for houses, public housing and public buildings. However, the labor
hours per square foot almost remains constant for all sizes of school buildings
and increases as the size of a hospital facility increases.
Example 3-4: Use of new materials(See F. Moavenzadeh, "Construction's High
Technology Revolution," Technology Review, October, 1985, pp. 32-39.)
In recent years, an almost entirely new set of materials is emerging for
construction, largely from the aerospace and electronics industries. These
materials were developed from new knowledge about the structure and properties
of materials as well as new techniques for altering existing materials.
Additives to traditional materials such as concrete and steel are particularly
prominent. For example, it has been known for some time that polymers would
increase concrete strength, water resistance and ability to insulate when they
are added to the cement. However, their use has been limited by their costs
since they have had to replace as much as 10 percent of the cement to be
effective. However, Swedish researchers have helped reduce costs by using
polymer microspheres 8 millionths of an inch across, which occupy less than 1
percent of the cement. Concretes made with these microspheres meet even the
strict standards for offshore structures in the North Sea. Research on
micro-additives will probably produce useful concretes for repairing road and
bridges as well.
Example 3-5: Habitat(This example is based on a review of the project 20
years after its completion. See The New York Times, July 26, 1987, Sec. 8,
pg. 1.)
Habitat was an experimental residential complex designed by Moshe Safdie and
constructed in modules with an on-site factory for the 1967 Exposition in
Montreal, Canada. The original proposal called for a self-contained community
with 1000 to 2000 apartments, but was scaled down to a single 10-story complex
with 158 units built on Cite' du Havre, a landfill peninsula in Montreal's
inner harbor. The project was budgeted for $11.5 million, and almost half of
that was spent building the factories and acquiring special cranes. This
start-up cost was absurdly high for a single 10-story apartment complex, but
might have been justified in the original proposal for a whole community. As a
result of the small scale, development costs amounted to $85,500 for an
apartment at a time when average Montreal apartments were selling for $10,000
to $16,000. However, even if mass production was possible, steep increases in
urban land costs and interest rates in recent years would have overshadowed the
projected savings from production. Thus, an innovation which was hailed at one
time as the solution for urban housing has not materialized due to a
combination of economic factors.
While the conceptual design process may be formal or informal, it can be
characterized by a series of actions: formulation, analysis, search, decision,
specification, and modification. However, at the early stage in the
development of a new project, these actions are highly interactive as
illustrated in Figure 3-0.[See R.W. Jensen and C.C. Tonies (Editors), Software
Engineering, Prentice-Hall, Inc., Englewood Cliffs, NJ, 1979, p. 22.] Many
iterations of redesign are expected to refine the functional requirements,
design concepts and financial constraints, even though the analytic tools
applied to the solution of the problem at this stage may be very crude.
The series of actions taken in the conceptual design process may be
described as follows:
As the project moves from conceptual planning to detailed design, the design
process becomes more formal. In general, the actions of formulation, analysis,
search, decision, specification and modification still hold, but they represent
specific steps with less random interactions in detailed design. The design
methodology thus formalized can be applied to a variety of design problems.
For example, the analogy of the schematic diagrams of the structural design
process and of the computer program development process is shown in Figure
3-0.<See S.J. Fenves, "Computer Applications," in Structural Engineering
Handbook, (Gaylord, E. and C. Gaylord, Editors), McGraw-Hill Book Co., New
York, NY, 1979.>
The basic approach to design relies on decomposition and integration. Since
design problems are large and complex, they have to be decomposed to yield
subproblems that are small enough to solve. There are numerous alternative
ways to decompose design problems, such as decomposition by functions of the
facility, by spatial locations of its parts, or by links of various functions
or parts. Solutions to subproblems must be integrated into an overall
solution. The integration often creates conceptual conflicts which must be
identified and corrected. A hierarchical structure with an appropriate number
of levels may be used for the decomposition of a design problem to subproblems.
For example, in the structural design of a multistory building, the building
may be decomposed into floors, and each floor may in turn be decomposed into
separate areas. Thus, a hierarchy representing the levels of building, floor
and area is formed.
Different design styles may be used. The adoption of a particular style
often depends on factors such as time pressure or available design tools, as
well as the nature of the design problem. Examples of different styles are:
The objective of functional design for a proposed facility is to treat the
facility as a complex system of interrelated spaces which are organized
systematically according to the functions to be performed in these spaces in
order to serve a collection of needs. The arrangement of physical spaces can
be viewed as an iterative design process to find a suitable floor plan to
facilitate the movement of people and goods associated with the operations
intended.
A designer often relies on a heuristic approach, i.e., applying selected
rules or strategies serving to stimulate the investigation in search for a
solution. The heuristic approach used in arranging spatial layouts for
facilities is based generally on the following considerations:
Consider, for example, an integrated functional design for a proposed
hospital.[See T. Au, E.W. Parti and A.K.C. Wong, "Computer Applications for
Health Care Facility Design," Computers in Biology and Medicine, Vol. 1, No.
4, 1971, pp. 299-316.] Since the responsibilities for satisfying various needs
in a hospital are divided among different groups of personnel within the
hospital administrative structure, a hierarchy of functions corresponding to
different levels of responsibilities is proposed in the systematic organization
of hospital functions. In this model, the functions of a hospital system are
decomposed into a hierarchy of several levels:
In the integrated functional design of hospitals, the connection between
physical spaces and functions is most easily made at the lowest level of the
hierarchy, and then extended upward to the next higher level. For example, a
bed is a physical object immediately related to the activity of a patient. A
set of furniture consisting of a bed, a night table and an armchair arranged
comfortably in a zone indicates the sphere of private activities for a patient
in a room with multiple occupancy. Thus, the spatial representation of a
hospital can be organized in stages starting from the lowest level and moving
to the top. In each step of the organization process, an element (space or
function) under consideration can be related directly to the elements at the
levels above it, to those at the levels below it, and to those within the same
level.
Since the primary factor relating spaces is the movement of people and
supplies, the objective of arranging spaces is the minimization of movement
within the hospital. On the other hand, the internal environmental factors
such as atmospheric conditions (pressure, temperature, relative humidity, odor
and particle pollution), sound, light and fire protection produce constraining
effects on the arrangement of spaces since certain spaces cannot be placed
adjacent to other spaces because of different requirements in environmental
conditions. The consideration of logistics is important at all levels of the
hospital system. For example, the travel patterns between objects in a zone or
those between zones in a room are frequently equally important for devising an
effective design. On the other hand, the adjacency desirability matrix based
upon environmental conditions will not be important for organization of
functional elements below the room level since a room is the lowest level that
can provide a physical barrier to contain desirable environmental conditions.
Hence, the organization of functions for a new hospital can be carried out
through an interactive process, starting from the functional elements at the
lowest level that is regarded as stable by the designer, and moving step by
step up to the top level of the hierarchy. Due to the strong correlation
between functions and the physical spaces in which they are performed, the
arrangement of physical spaces for accommodating the functions will also follow
the same iterative process. Once a satisfactory spatial arrangement is
achieved, the hospital design is completed by the selection of suitable
building components which complement the spatial arrangement.
Example 3-6: Top-down design style
In the functional design of a hospital, the designer may begin with a
"reference model", i.e. the spatial layouts of existing hospitals of similar
size and service requirements. On the basis of past experience, spaces are
allocated to various divisions as shown schematically in Figure 3-0. The space
in each division is then divided further for various departments in the
division, and all the way down the line of the hierarchy. In every step along
the way, the pertinent information of the elements immediately below the level
under consideration will be assessed in order to provide input for making
necessary adjustments at the current level if necessary. The major drawback of
the top-down design style is that the connection between physical spaces and
functions at lower levels cannot be easily anticipated. Consequently, the new
design is essentially based on the intuition and experience of the designer
rather than an objective analysis of the functions and space needs of the
facility. Its greatest attraction is its simplicity which keeps the time and
cost of design relatively low.
Example 3-7: Bottom-up design style
A multi-purpose examination suite in a hospital is used as an illustration
of bottom-up design style. In Figure 3-0, the most basic elements (furniture)
are first organized into zones which make up the room. Thus the size of the
room is determined by spatial layout required to perform the desired services.
Finally, the suite is defined by the rooms which are parts of the multi-purpose
examination suite.
The structural design of complex engineering systems generally involves both
synthesis and analysis. Synthesis is an inductive process while analysis is a
deductive process. The activities in synthesis are often described as an art
rather than a science, and are regarded more akin to creativity than to
knowledge. The conception of a new structural system is by and large a matter
of subjective decision since there is no established procedure for generating
innovative and highly successful alternatives. The initial selection of a
workable system from numerous possible alternatives relies heavily on the
judicious judgment of the designer. Once a structural system is selected, it
must be subjected to vigorous analysis to insure that it can sustain the
demands in its environment. In addition, compatibility of the structural
system with mechanical equipment and piping must be assured.
For traditional types of structures such as office buildings, there are
standard systems derived from the past experience of many designers. However,
in many situations, special systems must be developed to meet the specified
requirements. The choice of materials for a structure depends not only on the
suitability of materials and their influence on the form of the structure. For
example, in the design of an airplane hangar, a steel skeleton frame may be
selected because a similar frame in reinforced concrete will limit the span of
the structure owing to its unfavorable ratio or resistance to weight. However,
if a thin-shelled roof is adopted, reinforced concrete may prove to be more
suitable than steel. Thus, the interplay of the structural forms and materials
affects the selection of a structural system, which in turn may influence the
method of construction including the use of falsework.
Example 3-8: Steel frame supporting a turbo-blower(The authors are
indebted to E. D'Appolonia for suggesting this example.)
The design of a structural frame supporting a turbo-blower supplying
pressurized air to a blast furnace in a steel mill can be used to illustrate
the structural design process. As shown in Figure 3-0, the turbo-blower
consists of a turbine and a blower linked to an air inlet stack. Since the
vibration of the turbo-blower is a major concern to its operation, a
preliminary investigation calls for a supporting frame which is separated from
the structural frame of the building. An analysis of the vibration
characteristics of the turbo-blower indicates that the lowest mode of vibration
consists of independent vibration of the turbine shaft and the blower shaft,
with higher modes for the coupled turbo-blower system when both shafts vibrate
either in-phase or out-of-phase. Consequently, a steel frame with separate
units for the blower side and the turbine side is selected. The columns of the
steel frame are mounted on pile foundation and all joints of the steel frame
are welded to reduce the vibration levels.
Since the structural steel frame also supports a condenser, an air inlet and
exhaust, and a steam inlet and exhaust in addition to the turbo-blower, a
static analysis is made to size its members to support all applied loads.
Then, a dynamic analysis is conducted to determine the vibration
characteristics of the system incorporating the structural steel frame and the
turbo-blower. When the limiting conditions for static loads and natural
frequencies of vibration are met, the design is accepted as satisfactory.
Example 3-9: Multiple hierarchy descriptions of projects
In the previous section, a hierarchy of functional spaces was suggested for
describing a facility. This description is appropriate for functional design
of spaces and processes within a building, but may be inadequate as a view of
the facility's structural systems. A hierarchy suitable for this purpose might
divide elements into structural functions such as slabs, walls, frames,
footings, piles or mats. Lower levels of the hierarchy would describe
individual design elements. For example, frames would be made up of column,
beam and diagonal groups which, in turn, are composed of individual structural
elements. These individual structural elements comprise the limits on
functional spaces such as rooms in a different hierarchical perspective.
Designers typically will initiate a view appropriate for their own concerns,
and these different hierarchical views must be synthesized to insure
consistency and adequacy of the overall design.
Since construction is site specific, it is very important to investigate the
subsurface conditions which often influence the design of a facility as well as
its foundation. The uncertainty in the design is particularly acute in
geotechnical engineering so that the assignment of risks in this area should be
a major concern. Since the degree of uncertainty in a project is perceived
differently by different parties involved in a project, the assignment of
unquantifiable risks arising from numerous unknowns to the owner, engineer and
contractor is inherently difficult. It is no wonder that courts or arbitrators
are often asked to distribute equitably a risk to parties who do not perceive
the same risks and do not want to assume a disproportionate share of such
risks.
Example 3-10: Design of a tie-back retaining wall(See E. D'Appolonia,
R. Alperstein and D.J. D'Appolonia, "Behavior of Colluvial Slope", ASCE Journal
of Soil Mechanics and Foundations Division, Vol. 93, No. SM4, 1967, pp.
447-473.)
This example describes the use of a tie-back retaining wall built in the
1960's when such construction was uncommon and posed a considerable risk. The
engineer designing it and the owner were aware of the risk because of
potentially extreme financial losses from both remedial and litigation costs in
the event that the retaining wall failed and permitted a failure of the slope.
But the benefits were perceived as being worth the risk--benefits to the owner
in terms of both lower cost and shorter schedule, and benefits to the engineer
in terms of professional satisfaction in meeting the owner's needs and solving
what appeared to be an insurmountable technical problem.
The tie-back retaining wall was designed to permit a cut in a hillside to
provide additional space for the expansion of a steel-making facility. Figure
3-0 shows a cross section of the original hillside located in an urban area.
Numerous residential dwellings were located on top of the hill which would have
been prohibitively costly or perhaps impossible to remove to permit regrading
of the hillside to push back the toe of the slope. The only realistic way of
accomplishing the desired goal was to attempt to remove the toe of the existing
slope and use a tie-back retaining wall to stabilize the slope as shown in
Figure 3-0.
A commitment was made by both the owner and the engineer to accomplish what
was a common goal. The engineer made a commitment to design and construct the
wall in a manner which permitted a real-time evaluation of problems and the
ability to take mitigating measures throughout the construction of the wall.
The owner made a commitment to give the engineer both the professional latitude
and resources required to perform his work. A design-construct contract was
negotiated whereby the design could be modified as actual conditions were
encountered during construction. But even with all of the planning,
investigation and design efforts, there still remained a sizable risk of
failure.
The wall was successfully built--not according to a pre-devised plan which
went smoothly, and not without numerous problems to be resolved as unexpected
groundwater and geological conditions were encountered. Estimated costs were
exceeded as each unexpected condition was addressed. But there were no
construction delays and their attendant costs as disputes over changed
conditions and contract terms were reconciled. There were no costs for legal
fees arising from litigation nor increased interest costs as construction
stopped while disputes were litigated. The owner paid more than was estimated,
but not more than was necessary and not as much as if he had to acquire the
property at the top of the hill to regrade the slope. In addition, the owner
was able to attain the desired facility expansion in far less time than by any
other method.
As a result of the success of this experience and others, the use of
tie-back retaining walls has become a routine practice.
While the general information about the construction site is usually
available at the planning stage of a project, it is important for the design
professionals and construction manager as well as the contractor to visit the
site. Each group will be benefited by first-hand knowledge acquired in the
field.
For design professionals, an examination of the topography may focus their
attention to the layout of a facility on the site for maximum use of space in
compliance with various regulatory restrictions. In the case of industrial
plants, the production or processing design and operation often dictate the
site layout. A poor layout can cause construction problems such as inadequate
space for staging, limited access for materials and personnel, and restrictions
on the use of certain construction methods. Thus, design and construction
inputs are important in the layout of a facility.
The construction manager and the contractor must visit the site to gain some
insight in preparing or evaluating the bid package for the project. They can
verify access roads and water, electrical and other service utilities in the
immediate vicinity, with the view of finding suitable locations for erecting
temporary facilities and the field office. They can also observe any
interferences of existing facilities with construction and develop a plan for
site security during construction.
In examining site conditions, particular attention must be paid to
environmental factors such as drainage, groundwater and the possibility of
floods. Of particular concern is the possible presence of hazardous waste
materials from previous uses. Cleaning up or controlling hazardous wastes can
be extremely expensive.
Example 3-11: Groundwater Pollution from a Landfill(The material in this
example is adapted from A.L. Tolman, A. P. Ballestero, W.W. Beck, G.H. Emrich,
"Guidance Manual for Minimizing Pollution from Waste Disposal Sites," Report to
the Municipal Environmental Research Laboratory, U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, EPA-600/2-78-142, August 1978.)
The presence of waste deposits on a potential construction site can have
substantial impacts on the surrounding area. Under existing environmental
regulations in the United States, the responsibility for cleaning up or
otherwise controlling wastes generally resides with the owner of a facility in
conjunction with any outstanding insurance coverage.
A typical example of a waste problem is illustrated in Figure 3-0. In this
figure, a small pushover burning dump was located in a depression on a slope.
The landfill consisted of general refuse and was covered by a very sandy
material. The inevitable infiltration of water from the surface or from the
groundwater into the landfill will result in vertical or horizontal percolation
of leachable ions and organic contamination. This leachate would be odorous
and potentially hazardous in water. The pollutant would show up as seepage
downhill, as pollution in surface streams, or as pollution entering the
regional groundwater.
Before new construction could proceed, this landfill site would have to be
controlled or removed. Typical control methods might involve:
Value engineering may be broadly defined as an organized approach in
identifying unnecessary costs in design and construction and in soliciting or
proposing alternative design or construction technology to reduce costs without
sacrificing quality or performance requirements. It usually involves the steps
of gathering pertinent information, searching for creative ideas, evaluating
the promising alternatives, and proposing a more cost effective alternative.
This approach is usually applied at the beginning of the construction phase of
the project life cycle.
The use of value engineering in the public sector of construction has been
fostered by legislation and government regulation, but the approach has not
been widely adopted in the private sector of construction. One explanation may
lie in the difference in practice of engineering design services in the public
and private sectors. In the public sector, the fee for design services is
tightly monitored against the "market price," or may even be based on the
lowest bid for service. Such a practice in setting professional fees
encourages the design professionals to adopt known and tried designs and
construction technologies without giving much thought to alternatives that are
innovative but risky. Contractors are willing to examine such alternatives
when offered incentives for sharing the savings by owners. In the private
sector, the owner has the freedom to offer such incentives to design
professionals as well as the contractors without being concerned about the
appearance of favoritism in engaging professional services.
Another source of cost savings from value engineering is the ability of
contractors to take advantage of proprietary or unusual techniques and
knowledge specific to the contractor's firm. For example, a contractor may
have much more experience with a particular method of tunneling that is not
specified in the original design and, because of this experience, the
alternative method may be less expensive. In advance of a bidding competition,
a design professional does not know which contractor will undertake the
construction of a facility. Once a particular contractor is chosen, then
modifications to the construction technology or design may take advantage of
peculiar advantages of the contractor's organization.
As a final source of savings in value engineering, the contractor may offer
genuine new design or construction insights which have escaped the attention of
the design professional even if the latter is not restrained by the fee
structure to explore more alternatives. If the expertise of the contractor can
be utilized, of course, the best time to employ it is during the planning and
design phase of the project life cycle. That is why professional construction
management or integrated design/construction are often preferred by private
owners.
The development of a construction plan is very much analogous to the
development of a good facility design. The planner must weigh the costs and
reliability of different options while at the same time insuring technical
feasibility. Construction planning is more difficult in some ways since the
building process is dynamic as the site and the physical facility change over
time as construction proceeds. On the other hand, construction operations tend
to be fairly standard from one project to another, whereas structural or
foundation details might differ considerably from one facility to another.
Forming a good construction plan is an exceptionally challenging problem.
There are numerous possible plans available for any given project. While past
experience is a good guide to construction planning, each project is likely to
have special problems or opportunities that may require considerable ingenuity
and creativity to overcome or exploit. Unfortunately, it is quite difficult to
provide direct guidance concerning general procedures or strategies to form
good plans in all circumstances. There are some recommendations or issues that
can be addressed to describe the characteristics of good plans, but this does
not necessarily tell a planner how to discover a good plan. However, as in the
design process, strategies of decomposition in which planning is divided into
subproblems and hierarchical planning in which general activities are
repeatably subdivided into more specific tasks can be readily adopted in many
cases.
From the standpoint of construction contractors or the construction
divisions of large firms, the planning process for construction projects
consists of three stages that take place between the moment in which a planner
starts the plan for the construction of a facility to the moment in which the
evaluation of the final output of the construction process is finished.
The estimate stage involves the development of a cost and duration estimate
for the construction of a facility as part of the proposal of a contractor to
an owner. It is the stage in which assumptions of resource commitment to the
necessary activities to build the facility are made by a planner. A careful
and thorough analysis of different conditions imposed by the construction
project design and by site characteristics are taken into consideration to
determine the best estimate. The success of a contractor depends upon this
estimate, not only to obtain a job but also to construct the facility with the
highest profit. The planner has to look for the time-cost combination that
will allow the contractor to be successful in his commitment. The result of a
high estimate would be to lose the job, and the result of a low estimate could
be to win the job, but to lose money in the construction process. When changes
are done, they should improve the estimate, taking into account not only
present effects, but also future outcomes of succeeding activities. It is very
seldom the case in which the output of the construction process exactly echoes
the estimate offered to the owner.
In the monitoring and control stage of the construction process, the
construction manager has to keep constant track of both activities' durations
and ongoing costs. It is misleading to think that if the construction of the
facility is on schedule or ahead of schedule, the cost will also be on the
estimate or below the estimate, especially if several changes are made.
Constant evaluation is necessary until the construction of the facility is
complete. When work is finished in the construction process, and information
about it is provided to the planner, the third stage of the planning process
can begin.
The evaluation stage is the one in which results of the construction
process are matched against the estimate. A planner deals with this
uncertainty during the estimate stage. Only when the outcome of the
construction process is known is he/she able to evaluate the validity of the
estimate. It is in this last stage of the planning process that he or she
determines if the assumptions were correct. If they were not or if new
constraints emerge, he/she should introduce corresponding adjustments in future
planning.
Another approach to construction innovation is to apply the principles and
organizational solutions adopted for manufacturing. Industrialized
construction and pre-fabrication would involve transferring a significant
portion of construction operations from the construction site to more or less
remote sites where individual components of buildings and structures are
produced. Elements of facilities could be prefabricated off the erection site
and assembled by cranes and other lifting machinery.
There are a wide variety and degrees of introducing greater
industrialization to the construction process. Many components of constructed
facilities have always been manufactured, such as air conditioning units.
Lumber, piping and other individual components are manufactured to standard
sizes. Even temporary items such as forms for concrete can be assembled
off-site and transported for use. Reinforcing bars for concrete can also be
pre-cut and shaped to the desired configuration in a manufacturing plant or in
an automated plant located proximate to a construction site.
A major problem in extending the use of pre-fabricated units is the lack of
standardization for systems and building regulations.[For discussions of
industrialized building, see Bender, Richard, A Crack in the Rear View Mirror -
A View of Industrialized Building, Von Nostrand Reinhold Co., 1983;
Nutt-Powell, Thomas, E., Manufactured Homes: Making Sense of a Housing
Opportunity, Auburn House, 1982; or Warzawski, A., M. Avraham, and D. Carmel,
"Utilization of Precast Concrete Elements in Building," ASCE Journal of
Construction Engineering and Management, Vol. 110, No. CO4, 1984, pp.
476-485.] While designers have long adopted standard sizes for individual
components in designs, the adoption of standardized sub-assemblies is rarer.
Without standardization, the achievement of a large market and scale economies
of production in manufacturing may be impossible. An innovative and more
thorough industrialization of the entire building process may be a primary
source of construction cost savings in the future.
Example 3-12: Planning of pre-fabrication.
When might pre-fabricated components be used in preference to components
assembled on a construction site? A straightforward answer is to use
pre-fabricated components whenever their cost, including transportation, is
less than the cost of assembly on site. As an example, forms for concrete
panels might be transported to a construction site with reinforcing bars
already built in, necessary coatings applied to the forms, and even special
features such as electrical conduit already installed in the form. In some
cases, it might be less expensive to pre-fabricate and transport the entire
concrete panel to a manufacturing site. In contrast, traditional construction
practice would be to assemble all the different features of the panel on-site.
The relevant costs of these alternatives could be assessed during construction
planning to determine the lowest cost alternative.
In addition to the consideration of direct costs, a construction planner
should also consider some other aspects of this technology choice. First, the
planner must insure that pre-fabricated components will satisfy the relevant
building codes and regulations. Second, the relative quality of traditional
versus pre-fabricated components as experienced in the final facility should be
considered. Finally, the availability of components at the required time
during the construction process should also be considered.
Example 3-13: Impacts of building codes(See C.G. Field and S.R. Rivkin,
The Building Code Burden, Lexington Books, D.C. Heath and Co., Lexington, MA,
1975.)
Building codes originated as a part of the building regulatory process for
the safety and general welfare of the public. The source of all authority to
enact building codes is based on the police power of the state which may be
delegated by the state legislature to local government units. Consequently,
about 8,000 localities having their own building codes, either by following a
national model code or developing a local code. The lack of uniformity of
building codes may be attributed to a variety of reasons:
The lack of uniformity in building codes has serious impact on design and
construction as well as the regulatory process for buildings. Among the
significant factors are:
In the past twenty years, the computer has become an essential tool in
engineering, design, and accounting. The innovative designs of complicated
facilities cited in the previous sections would be impossible without the aid
of computer based analysis tools. By using general purpose analysis programs
to test alternative designs of complex structures such as petrochemical plants,
engineers are able to greatly improve initial designs. General purpose
accounting systems are also available and adopted in organizations to perform
routine bookkeeping and financial accounting chores. These applications
exploit the capability for computers to perform numerical calculations in a
pre-programmed fashion rapidly, inexpensively and accurately.
Despite these advances, the computer is often used as only an incidental
tool in the design, construction and project management processes. However,
new capabilities, systems and application programs are rapidly being adopted.
These are motivated in part by the remarkable improvement in computer hardware
capability coupled with a extraordinary decline in cost. New concepts in
computer design and in software are also contributing. For example, the
introduction of personal computers using microcircuitry has encouraged the
adoption of interactive programs because of the low cost and considerable
capability of the computer hardware. Personal computers available for several
thousand dollars in 1984 have essentially the same capability as expensive
mainframe computer systems of fifteen years earlier.
Computer graphics provide another pertinent example of a potentially
revolutionary mechanism for design and communication. Graphical
representations of both the physical and work activities on projects have been
essential tools in the construction industry for decades. However, manual
drafting of blueprints, plans and other diagrams is laborious and expensive.
Stand alone, computer aided drafting equipment has proved to be less expensive
and fully capable of producing the requiring drawings. More significantly, the
geometric information required for producing desired drawings might also be
used as a database for computer aided design and computer integrated
construction. Components of facilities can be represented as three dimensional
computer based solid models for this purpose. Geometric information forms
only one component of integrated design databases in which the computer can
assure consistency, completeness and compliance with relevant specifications
and constraints. Several approaches to integrated computer aided engineering
environments of this type have already been attempted.[See Rehak, Daniel R. and
L.A. Lopez, Computer Aided Engineering Problems and Prospects, Dept. of Civil
Engineering, University of Illinois, 1981.]
Computers are also being applied more and more extensively to non-analytical
and non-numerical tasks. For example, computer based specification writing
assistants are used to rapidly assemble sets of standard specifications or to
insert special clauses in the documentation of facility designs. As another
example, computerized transfer of information provides a means to avoid
laborious and error-prone transcription of project information. While most of
the traditional applications and research in computer aids have emphasized
numerical calculations, the use of computers will rapidly shift towards the
more prevalent and difficult problems of planning, communication, design and
management.
Knowledge based systems represent a prominent example of new software
approaches applicable to project management. These systems originally emerged
from research in artificial intelligence in which human cognitive processes
were modeled. In limited problem domains such as equipment configuration or
process control, knowledge based systems have been demonstrated to approach or
surpass the performance of human experts. The programs are marked by a
separation between the reasoning or "inference" engine program and the
representation of domain specific knowledge. As a result, system developers
need not specify complete problem solving strategies (or algorithms) for
particular problems. This characteristic of knowledge based systems make them
particularly useful in the ill-structured domains of design and project
management. Chapter 15 will discuss knowledge based systems in greater detail.
Computer program assistants will soon become ubiquitous in virtually all
project management organizations. The challenge for managers is to use the new
tools in an effective fashion. Computer intensive work environments should be
structured to aid and to amplify the capabilities of managers rather than to
divert attention from real problems such as worker motivation.
Good project management in construction must vigorously pursue the efficient
utilization of labor, material and equipment. Improvement of labor
productivity should be a major and continual concern of those who are
responsible for cost control of constructed facilities. Material handling,
which includes procurement, inventory, shop fabrication and field servicing,
requires special attention for cost reduction. The use of new equipment and
innovative methods has made possible wholesale changes in construction
technologies in recent decades. Organizations which do not recognize the
impact of various innovations and have not adapted to changing environments
have justifiably been forced out of the mainstream of construction activities.
Observing the trends in construction technology presents a very mixed and
ambiguous picture. On the one hand, many of the techniques and materials used
for construction are essentially unchanged since the introduction of
mechanization in the early part of the twentieth century. For example, a
history of the Panama Canal construction from 1904 to 1914 argues that:
The United States construction industry often points to factors which cannot
be controlled by the industry as a major explanatory factor in cost increases
and lack of technical innovation. These include the imposition of restrictions
for protection of the environment and historical districts, requirements for
community participation in major construction projects, labor laws which allow
union strikes to become a source of disruption, regulatory policies including
building codes and zoning ordinances, and tax laws which inhibit construction
abroad. However, the construction industry should bear a large share of blame
for not realizing earlier that the technological edge held by the large U.S.
construction firms has eroded in face of stiff foreign competition. Many past
practices, which were tolerated when U.S. contractors had a technological lead,
must now be changed in the face of stiff competition. Otherwise, the U.S.
construction industry will continue to find itself in trouble.
With a strong technological base, there is no reason why the construction
industry cannot catch up and reassert itself to meet competition wherever it
may be. Individual design and/or construction firms must explore new ways to
improve productivity for the future. Of course, operational planning for
construction projects is still important, but such tactical planning has
limitations and may soon reach the point of diminishing return because much
that can be wrung out of the existing practices have already been tried. What
is needed the most is strategic planning to usher in a revolution which can
improve productivity by an order of magnitude or more. Strategic planning
should look at opportunities and ask whether there are potential options along
which new goals may be sought on the basis of existing resources. No one can
be certain about the success of various development options for the design
professions and the construction industry. However, with the availability of
today's high technology, some options have good potential of success because of
the social and economic necessity which will eventually push barriers aside.
Ultimately, decisions for action, not plans, will dictate future outcomes.
Productivity in construction is often broadly defined as output per labor
hour. Since labor constitutes a large part of the construction cost and the
quantity of labor hours in performing a task in construction is more
susceptible to the influence of management than are materials or capital, this
productivity measure is often referred to as labor productivity. However, it
is important to note that labor productivity is a measure of the overall
effectiveness of an operating system in utilizing labor, equipment and capital
to convert labor efforts into useful output, and is not a measure of the
capabilities of labor alone. For example, by investing in a piece of new
equipment to perform certain tasks in construction, output may be increased for
the same number of labor hours, thus resulting in higher labor productivity.
Construction output may be expressed in terms of functional units or
constant dollars. In the former case, labor productivity is associated with
units of product per labor hour, such as cubic yards of concrete placed per
hour or miles of highway paved per hour. In the latter case, labor
productivity is identified with value of construction in constant dollars per
labor hour.
Contractors and owners are often concerned with the labor activity at job
sites. For this purpose, it is convenient to express labor productivity as
functional units per labor hour for each type of construction task. However,
even for such specific purposes, different levels of measure may be used. For
example, cubic yards of concrete placed per hour is a lower level of measure
than miles of highway paved per hour. Lower-level measures are more useful for
monitoring individual activities, while higher-level measures may be more
convenient for developing industry-wide standards of performance.
While each contractor or owner is free to use its own system to measure
labor productivity at a site, it is a good practice to set up a system which
can be used to track productivity trends over time and in varied locations.
Considerable efforts are required to collect information regionally or
nationally over a number of years to produce such results. The productivity
indices compiled from statistical data should include parameters such as the
performance of major crafts, effects of project size, type and location, and
other major project influences.
In order to develop industry-wide standards of performance, there must be a
general agreement on the measures to be useful for compiling data. Then, the
job site productivity data collected by various contractors and owners can be
correlated and analyzed to develop certain measures for each of the major
segment of the construction industry. Thus, a contractor or owner can compare
its performance with that of the industry average.
Because of the diversity of the construction industry, a single index for
the entire industry is neither meaningful nor reliable. Productivity indices
may be developed for major segments of the construction industry nationwide if
reliable statistical data can be obtained for separate industrial segments.
For this general type of productivity measure, it is more convenient to express
labor productivity as constant dollars per labor hours since dollar values are
more easily aggregated from a large amount of data collected from different
sources. The use of constant dollars allows meaningful approximations of the
changes in construction output from one year to another when price deflators
are applied to current dollars to obtain the corresponding values in constant
dollars. However, since most construction price deflators are obtained from a
combination of price indices for material and labor inputs, they reflect only
the change of price levels and do not capture any savings arising from improved
labor productivity. Such deflators tend to overstate increases in construction
costs over a long period of time, and consequently understate the physical
volume or value of construction work in years subsequent to the base year for
the indices.
Job-site productivity is influenced by many factors which can be
characterized either as project work conditions or as non-productive
activities. The project work conditions include among other factors:
The non-productive activities associated with a project may or may not be
paid by the owner, but they nevertheless take up potential labor resources
which can otherwise be directed to the project. The non-productive activities
include among other factors:
Both categories of factors affect the productive labor available to a
project as well as the on-site labor efficiency.
Job-site labor productivity can be estimated either for each craft
(carpenter, bricklayer, etc.) or each type of construction (residential
housing, processing plant, etc.) under a specific set of work conditions. A
base labor productivity may be defined for a set of work conditions specified
by the owner or contractor who wishes to observe and measure the labor
performance over a period of time under such conditions. A labor productivity
index may then be defined as the ratio of the job-site labor productivity
under a different set of work conditions to the base labor productivity, and is
a measure of the relative labor efficiency of a project under this new set of
work conditions.
The effects of various factors related to work conditions on a new project
can be estimated in advance, some more accurately than others. For example,
for very large construction projects, the labor productivity index tends to
decrease as the project size and/or complexity increase because of logistic
problems and the "learning" that the work force must undergo before adjusting
to the new environment. Job-site accessibility often may reduce the labor
productivity index if the workers must perform their jobs in round about ways,
such as avoiding traffic in repaving the highway surface or maintaining the
operation of a plant during renovation. Labor availability in the local market
is another factor. Shortage of local labor will force the contractor to bring
in non-local labor or schedule overtime work or both. In either case, the
labor efficiency will be reduced in addition to incurring additional expenses.
The degree of equipment utilization and mechanization of a construction project
clearly will have direct bearing on job-site labor productivity. The
contractual agreements play an important role in the utilization of union or
non-union labor, the use of subcontractors and the degree of field supervision,
all of which will impact job-site labor productivity. Since on-site
construction essentially involves outdoor activities, the local climate will
influence the efficiency of workers directly. In foreign operations, the
cultural characteristics of the host country should be observed in assessing
the labor efficiency.
The non-productive activities associated with a project should also be
examined in order to examine the productive labor yield, which is defined as
the ratio of direct labor hours devoted to the completion of a project to the
potential labor hours. The direct labor hours are estimated on the basis of
the best possible conditions at a job site by excluding all factors which may
reduce the productive labor yield. For example, in the repaving of highway
surface, the flagmen required to divert traffic represent indirect labor which
does not contribute to the labor efficiency of the paving crew if the highway
is closed to the traffic. Similarly, for large projects in remote areas,
indirect labor may be used to provide housing and infrastructure for the
workers hired to supply the direct labor for a project. The labor hours spent
on rework to correct unsatisfactory original work represent extra time taken
away from potential labor hours. The labor hours related to such activities
must be deducted from the potential labor hours in order to obtain the actual
productive labor yield.
Example 4-1: Effects of job size on productivity
A contractor has established that under a set of "standard" work conditions
for building construction, a job requiring 500,000 labor hours is considered
standard in determining the base labor productivity. All other factors being
the same, the labor productivity index will increase to 1.1 or 110% for a job
requiring only 400,000 labor-hours. Assuming that a linear relation exists for
the range between jobs requiring 300,000 to 700,000 labor hours as shown in
Figure 4-0, determine the labor productivity index for a new job requiring
650,000 labor hours under otherwise the same set of work conditions.
The labor productivity index I for the new job can be obtained by linear
interpolation of the available data as follows:
Example 4-2: Productive labor yield(This example was adapted with
permission from an unpublished paper "Managing Mega Projects" presented by G.R.
Desnoyers at the Project Management Symposium sponsored by the Exxon Research
and Engineering Company, Florham Park, NJ, November 12, 1980.)
In the construction of an off-shore oil drilling platform, the potential
labor hours were found to be L = 7.5 million hours. Of this total, the
non-productive activities expressed in thousand labor hours were as follows:
The percentages of time allocated to various non-productive activities, A,
B, C and D are:
Example 4-3: Utilization of on-site worker's time
An example illustrating the effects of indirect labor requirements which
limit productive labor by a typical craftsman on the job site was given by
R. Tucker with the following percentages of time allocation:(See R.L. Tucker,
"Perfection of the Buggy Whip," The Construction Advancement Address, ASCE,
Boston, MA, Oct. 29, 1986.)
The market demand in construction fluctuates greatly, often within short
periods and with uneven distributions among geographical regions. Even when
the volume of construction is relatively steady, some types of work may decline
in importance while other types gain. Under an unstable economic environment,
employers in the construction industry place great value on flexibility in
hiring and laying off workers as their volumes of work wax and wane. On the
other hand, construction workers sense their insecurity under such
circumstances and attempt to limit the impacts of changing economic conditions
through labor organizations.
There are many crafts in the construction labor forces, but most contractors
hire from only a few of these crafts to satisfy their specialized needs.
Because of the peculiar characteristics of employment conditions, employers and
workers are placed in a more intimate relationship than in many other
industries. Labor and management arrangements in the construction industry
include both unionized and non-unionized operations which compete for future
dominance. Most industrial and utility construction is union. In the
commercial building sector, non-union contractors have made inroads, while in
the housing sector, most contractors are non-union. The heavy construction
sector is primarily non-union.
The craft unions work with construction contractors using unionized labor
through various market institutions such as jurisdiction rules, apprenticeship
programs, and the referral system. Craft unions with specific jurisdiction
rules for different trades set uniform hourly wage rates for journeymen and
offer formal apprenticeship training to provide common and equivalent skill for
each trade. Contractors, through the contractors' associations, enter into
legally binding collective bargaining agreements with one or more of the craft
unions in the construction trades. The system which bind both parties to a
collective bargaining agreement is referred to as the "union shop". These
agreements obligate a contractor to observe the work jurisdictions of various
unions and to hire employees through a union operated referral system commonly
known as the hiring hall.
The referral systems operated by union organizations are required to observe
several conditions:
While these principles must prevail, referral systems operated by labor
organizations differ widely in the construction industry.
Contractors and craft unions must negotiate not only wage rates and working
conditions, but also hiring and apprentice training practices. The purpose of
trade jurisdiction is to encourage considerable investment in apprentice
training on the part of the union so that the contractor will be protected by
having only qualified workers perform the job even though such workers are not
permanently attached to the contractor and thus may have no sense of security
or loyalty. The referral system is often a rapid and dependable source of
workers, particularly for a contractor who moves into a new geographical
location or starts a new project which has high fluctuations in demand for
labor. By and large, the referral system has functioned smoothly in providing
qualified workers to contractors, even though some other aspects of union
operations are not as well accepted by contractors.
In recent years, non-union contractors have entered and prospered in an
industry which has a long tradition of unionization. Non-union operations in
construction are referred to as "open shops." However, in the absence of
collective bargaining agreements, many contractors operate under policies
adopted by non-union contractors' associations. This practice is referred to
as "merit shop", which follows substantially the same policies and procedures
as collective bargaining although under the control of a non-union contractors'
association without union participation. Other contractors may choose to be
totally "unorganized" by not following either union shop or merit shop
practices.
The operations of the merit shop are national in scope, except for the local
or state apprenticeship and training plans. The comprehensive plans of the
contractors' association apply to all employees and crafts of a contractor
regardless of their trades. Under such operations, workers have full rights to
move through the nation among member contractors of the association. Thus, the
non-union segment of the industry is organized by contractors' associations
into an integral part of the construction industry. However, since merit shop
workers are employed directly by the construction firms, they have a greater
loyalty to the firm, and recognize that their own interest will be affected by
the financial health of the firm.
Playing a significant role in the early growth and continued expansion of
merit shop construction is the Associated Builders and Contractors association.
By 1987, it had a membership of nearly 20,000 contractors and a network of 75
chapters through the nation. Among the merit shop contractors are large
construction firms such as Fluor Daniel, Blount International, and Brown & Root
Construction. The advantages of merit shops as claimed by its advocates are:
By shouldering the training responsibility for producing skill workers, the
merit shop contractors have deflected the most serious complaints of users and
labor that used to be raised against the open shop. On the other hand, the use
of mixed crews of skilled workers at a job site by merit shop contractors
enables them to remove a major source of inefficiencies caused by the exclusive
jurisdiction practiced in the union shop, namely the idea that only members of
a particular union should be permitted to perform any given task in
construction. As a result, merit shop contractors are able to exert a
beneficial influence on productivity and cost-effectiveness of construction
projects.
The unorganized form of open shop is found primarily in housing construction
where a large percentage of workers are characterized as unskilled helpers.
The skilled workers in various crafts are developed gradually through informal
apprenticeships while serving as helpers. This form of open shop is not
expected to expand beyond the type of construction projects in which highly
specialized skills are not required.
In the organized building trades in North American construction, the primary
unit is the international union, which is an association of local unions in the
United States and Canada. Although only the international unions have the
power to issue or remove charters and to organize or combine local unions, each
local union has considerable degrees of autonomy in the conduct of its affairs,
including the negotiation of collective bargaining agreements. The business
agent of a local union is an elected official who is the most important person
in handling the day to day operations on behalf of the union. The contractors'
associations representing the employers vary widely in composition and
structure, particularly in different geographical regions. In general, local
contractors' associations are considerably less well organized than the union
with which they deal, but they try to strengthen themselves through affiliation
with state and national organizations. Typically, collective bargaining
agreements in construction are negotiated between a local union in a single
craft and the employers of that craft as represented by a contractors'
association, but there are many exceptions to this pattern. For example, a
contractor may remain outside the association and negotiate independently of
the union, but it usually cannot obtain a better agreement than the
association.
Because of the great variety of bargaining structures in which the union and
contractors' organization may choose to stage negotiations, there are many
problems arising from jurisdictional disputes and other causes. Given the
traditional rivalries among various crafts and the ineffective organization of
some of contractors' associations, coupled with the lack of adequate mechanisms
for settling disputes, some possible solutions to these problems deserve
serious attention:<For more detailed discussion, see D.G. Mills: "Labor
Relations and Collective Bargaining" (Chapter 4) in The Construction Industry
(by J.E. Lang and D.Q. Mills), Lexington Books, D.C. Heath and Co., Lexington,
MA, 1979.>
Currently, the geographical area in a collective bargaining agreement does
not necessarily coincide with the territory of the union and contractors'
associations in the negotiations. There are overlapping of jurisdictions as
well as territories, which may create successions of contract termination dates
for different crafts. Most collective bargaining agreements are negotiated
locally, but regional agreements with more comprehensive coverage embracing a
number of states have been established. The role of national union negotiators
and contractors' representatives in local collective bargaining is limited.
The national agreement between international unions and a national contractor
normally binds the contractors' association and its bargaining unit.
Consequently, the most promising reform lies in the broadening of the
geographic region of an agreement in a single trade without overlapping
territories or jurisdictions.
The treatment of interrelationships among various craft trades in
construction presents one of the most complex issues in the collective
bargaining process. Past experience on project agreements has dealt with such
issues successfully in that collective bargaining agreements are signed by a
group of craft trade unions and a contractor for the duration of a project.
Project agreements may reference other agreements on particular points, such as
wage rates and fringe benefits, but may set their own working conditions and
procedures for settling disputes including a commitment of no-strike and
no-lockout. This type of agreement may serve as a starting point for
multicraft bargaining on a regional, non-project basis.
Although both sides of the bargaining table are to some degree responsible
for the success or failure of negotiation, contractors have often been
responsible for the poor performance of collective bargaining in construction
in recent years because local contractors' associations are generally less well
organized and less professionally staffed than the unions with which they deal.
Legislation providing for contractors' association accreditation as an
exclusive bargaining agent has now been provided in several provinces in
Canada. It provides a government board that could hold hearings and establish
an appropriate bargaining unit by geographic region or sector of the industry,
on a single-trade or multi-trade basis.
Materials management is an important element in project planning and
control. Materials represent a major expense in construction, so minimizing
procurement or purchase costs presents important opportunities for reducing
costs. Poor materials management can also result in large and avoidable costs
during construction. First, if materials are purchased early, capital may be
tied up and interest charges incurred on the excess inventory of materials.
Even worse, materials may deteriorate during storage or be stolen unless
special care is taken. For example, electrical equipment often must be stored
in waterproof locations. Second, delays and extra expenses may be incurred if
materials required for particular activities are not available. Accordingly,
insuring a timely flow of material is an important concern of project managers.
Materials management is not just a concern during the monitoring stage in
which construction is taking place. Decisions about material procurement may
also be required during the initial planning and scheduling stages. For
example, activities can be inserted in the project schedule to represent
purchasing of major items such as elevators for buildings. The availability of
materials may greatly influence the schedule in projects with a fast track or
very tight time schedule: sufficient time for obtaining the necessary materials
must be allowed. In some case, more expensive suppliers or shippers may be
employed to save time.
Materials management is also a problem at the organization level if central
purchasing and inventory control is used for standard items. In this case, the
various projects undertaken by the organization would present requests to the
central purchasing group. In turn, this group would maintain inventories of
standard items to reduce the delay in providing material or to obtain lower
costs due to bulk purchasing. This organizational materials management problem
is analogous to inventory control in any organization facing continuing demand
for particular items.
Materials ordering problems lend themselves particularly well to computer
based systems to insure the consistency and completeness of the purchasing
process. In the manufacturing realm, the use of automated materials
requirements planning systems is common. In these systems, the master
production schedule, inventory records and product component lists are merged
to determine what items must be ordered, when they should be ordered, and how
much of each item should be ordered in each time period. The heart of these
calculations is simple arithmetic: the projected demand for each material item
in each period is subtracted from the available inventory. When the inventory
becomes too low, a new order is recommended. For items that are non-standard
or not kept in inventory, the calculation is even simpler since no inventory
must be considered. With a materials requirement system, much of the detailed
record keeping is automated and project managers are alerted to purchasing
requirements.
Example 4-4: Examples of benefits for materials management systems.(This
example was adapted from Stukhart, G. and Bell, L.C. "Costs and Benefits of
Materials Management Systems,", ASCE Journal of Construction Engineering and
Management, Vol. 113, No. 2, June 1987, pp. 222-234.)
From a study of twenty heavy construction sites, the following benefits from
the introduction of materials management systems were noted:
The main sources of information for feedback and control of material
procurement are requisitions, bids and quotations, purchase orders and
subcontracts, shipping and receiving documents, and invoices. For projects
involving the large scale use of critical resources, the owner may initiate the
procurement procedure even before the selection of a constructor in order to
avoid shortages and delays. Under ordinary circumstances, the constructor will
handle the procurement to shop for materials with the best price/performance
characteristics specified by the designer. Some overlapping and rehandling in
the procurement process is unavoidable, but it should be minimized to insure
timely delivery of the materials in good condition.
The materials for delivery to and from a construction site may be broadly
classified as : (1) bulk materials, (2) standard off-the-shelf materials, and
(3) fabricated members or units. The process of delivery, including
transportation, field storage and installation will be different for these
classes of materials. The equipment needed to handle and haul these classes of
materials will also be different.
Bulk materials refer to materials in their natural or semi-processed state,
such as earthwork to be excavated, wet concrete mix, etc. which are usually
encountered in large quantities in construction. Some bulk materials such as
earthwork or gravels may be measured in bank (solid in situ) volume.
Obviously, the quantities of materials for delivery may be substantially
different when expressed in different measures of volume, depending on the
characteristics of such materials.
Standard piping and valves are typical examples of standard off-the-shelf
materials which are used extensively in the chemical processing industry.
Since standard off-the-shelf materials can easily be stockpiled, the delivery
process is relatively simple.
Fabricated members such as steel beams and columns for buildings are
pre-processed in a shop to simplify the field erection procedures. Welded or
bolted connections are attached partially to the members which are cut to
precise dimensions for adequate fit. Similarly, steel tanks and pressure
vessels are often partly or fully fabricated before shipping to the field. In
general, if the work can be done in the shop where working conditions can
better be controlled, it is advisable to do so, provided that the fabricated
members or units can be shipped to the construction site in a satisfactory
manner at a reasonable cost.
As a further step to simplify field assembly, an entire wall panel including
plumbing and wiring or even an entire room may be prefabricated and shipped to
the site. While the field labor is greatly reduced in such cases, "materials"
for delivery are in fact manufactured products with value added by another type
of labor. With modern means of transporting construction materials and
fabricated units, the percentages of costs on direct labor and materials for a
project may change if more prefabricated units are introduced in the
construction process.
In the construction industry, materials used by a specific craft are
generally handled by craftsmen, not by general labor. Thus, electricians
handle electrical materials, pipefitters handle pipe materials, etc. This
multiple handling diverts scarce skilled craftsmen and contractor supervision
into activities which do not directly contribute to construction. Since
contractors are not normally in the freight business, they do not perform the
tasks of freight delivery efficiently. All these factors tend to exacerbate
the problems of freight delivery for very large projects.
Example 4-5: Freight delivery for the Alaska Pipeline Project(The
information for this example was provided by Exxon Pipeline Company, Houston,
Texas, with permission from the Alyeska Pipeline Service Co., Anchorage,
Alaska.)
The freight delivery system for the Alaska pipeline project was set up to
handle 600,000 tons of materials and supplies. This tonnage did not include
the pipes which comprised another 500,000 tons and were shipped through a
different routing system.
The complexity of this delivery system is illustrated in Figure 4-0. The
rectangular boxes denote geographical locations. The points of origin
represent plants and factories throughout the US and elsewhere. Some of the
materials went to a primary staging point in Seattle and some went directly to
Alaska. There were five ports of entry: Valdez, Anchorage, Whittier, Seward
and Prudhoe Bay. There was a secondary staging area in Fairbanks and the
pipeline itself was divided into six sections. Beyond the Yukon River, there
was nothing available but a dirt road for hauling. The amounts of freight in
thousands of tons shipped to and from various locations are indicated by the
numbers near the network branches (with arrows showing the directions of
material flows) and the modes of transportation are noted above the branches.
In each of the locations, the contractor had supervision and construction labor
to identify materials, unload from transport, determine where the material was
going, repackage if required to split shipments, and then re-load material on
outgoing transport.
Example 4-6: Process plant equipment procurement[This example was adapted
from A.E. Kerridge, "How to Develop a Project Schedule," in A.E. Kerridge and
C. H. Vervalin (eds.), Engineering and Construction Project Management, Gulf
Publishing Company, Houston, 1986.]
The procurement and delivery of bulk materials items such as piping
electrical and structural elements involves a series of activities if such
items are not standard and/or in stock. The times required for various
activities in the procurement of such items might be estimated to be as
follows:
Once goods are purchased, they represent an inventory used during the
construction process. The general objective of inventory control is to
minimize the total cost of keeping the inventory while making tradeoffs among
the major categories of costs: (1) purchase costs, (2) order cost, (3) holding
costs, and (4) unavailable cost. These cost categories are interrelated since
reducing cost in one category may increase cost in others. The costs in all
categories generally are subject to considerable uncertainty.
The purchase cost of an item is the unit purchase price from an external
source including transportation and freight costs. For construction materials,
it is common to receive discounts for bulk purchases, so the unit purchase cost
declines as quantity increases. These reductions may reflect manufacturers'
marketing policies, economies of scale in the material production, or scale
economies in transportation. There are also advantages in having homogeneous
materials. For example, a bulk order to insure the same color or size of items
such as bricks may be desirable. Accordingly, it is usually desirable to make
a limited number of large purchases for materials. In some cases,
organizations may consolidate small orders from a number of different projects
to capture such bulk discounts; this is a basic saving to be derived from a
central purchasing office.
The cost of materials is based on prices obtained through effective
bargaining. Unit prices of materials depend on bargaining leverage, quantities
and delivery time. Organizations with potential for long-term purchase volume
can command better bargaining leverage. While orders in large quantities may
result in lower unit prices, they may also increase holding costs and thus
cause problems in cash flow. Requirements of short delivery time can also
adversely affect unit prices. Furthermore, design characteristics which
include items of odd sizes or shapes should be avoided. Since such items
normally are not available in the standard stockpile, purchasing them causes
higher prices.
The transportation costs are affected by shipment sizes and other factors.
Shipment by the full load of a carrier often reduces prices and assures quicker
delivery, as the carrier can travel from the origin to the destination of the
full load without having to stop for delivering part of the cargo at other
stations. Avoiding transshipment is another consideration in reducing shipping
cost. While the reduction in shipping costs is a major objective, the
requirements of delicate handling of some items may favor a more expensive mode
of transportation to avoid breakage and replacement costs.
The order cost reflects the administrative expense of issuing a purchase
order to an outside supplier. Order costs include expenses of making
requisitions, analyzing alternative vendors, writing purchase orders, receiving
materials, inspecting materials, checking on orders, and maintaining records of
the entire process. Order costs are usually only a small portion of total
costs for material management in construction projects, although ordering may
require substantial time.
The holding costs or carrying costs are primarily the result of capital
costs, handling, storage, obsolescence, shrinkage and deterioration. Capital
cost results from the opportunity cost or financial expense of capital tied up
in inventory. Once payment for goods is made, borrowing costs are incurred or
capital must be diverted from other productive uses. Consequently, a capital
carrying cost is incurred equal to the value of the inventory during a period
multiplied by the interest rate obtainable or paid during that period. Note
that capital costs only accumulate when payment for materials actually occurs;
many organizations attempt to delay payments as long as possible to minimize
such costs. Handling and storage represent the movement and protection charges
incurred for materials. Storage costs also include the disruption caused to
other project activities by large inventories of materials that get in the way.
Obsolescence is the risk that an item will lose value because of changes in
specifications. Shrinkage is the decrease in inventory over time due to theft
or loss. Deterioration reflects a change in material quality due to age or
environmental degradation. Many of these holding cost components are
difficult to predict in advance; a project manager knows only that there is
some chance that specific categories of cost will occur. In addition to these
major categories of cost, there may be ancillary costs of additional insurance,
taxes (many states treat inventories as taxable property), or additional fire
hazards. As a general rule, holding costs will typically represent 20 to 40%
of the average inventory value over the course of a year; thus if the average
material inventory on a project is $ 1 million over a year, the holding cost
might be expected to be $200,000 to $400,000.
The unavailability cost is incurred when a desired material is not
available at the desired time. In manufacturing industries, this cost is often
called the stockout or depletion cost. Shortages may delay work, thereby
wasting labor resources or delaying the completion of the entire project.
Again, it may be difficult to forecast in advance exactly when an item may be
required or when an shipment will be received. While the project schedule
gives one estimate, deviations from the schedule may occur during construction.
Moreover, the cost associated with a shortage may also be difficult to assess;
if the material used for one activity is not available, it may be possible to
assign workers to other activities and, depending upon which activities are
critical, the project may not be delayed.
To illustrate the type of trade-offs encountered in materials management,
suppose that a particular item is to be ordered for a project. The amount of
time required for processing the order and shipping the item is uncertain.
Consequently, the project manager must decide how much lead time to provide in
ordering the item. Ordering early and thereby providing a long lead time will
increase the chance that the item is available when needed, but it increases
the costs of inventory and the chance of spoilage on site.
Let T be the time for the delivery of a particular item, R be the time
required for process the order, and S be the shipping time. Then, the minimum
amount of time for the delivery of the item is T = R + S. In general, both R
and S are random variables; hence T is also a random variable. For the sake of
simplicity, we shall consider only the case of instant processing for an order,
i.e. R = 0. Then, the delivery time T equals the shipping time S.
Since T is a random variable, the chance that an item will be delivered on
day t is represented by the probability p(t). Then, the probability that the
item will be delivered on or before t day is given by: If a and b are the lower and upper bounds of possible delivery dates, the
expected delivery time is then given by:
The lead time L for ordering an item is the time period ahead of the
delivery time, and will depend on the tradeoff between holding costs and
unavailability costs. A project manager may want to avoid the unavailable cost
by requiring delivery on the scheduled date of use, or may be to lower the
holding cost by adopting a more flexible lead time based on the expected
delivery time. For example, the manager may make the tradeoff by specifying
the lead time to be D days more than the expected delivery time, i.e.,
where D may vary from 0 to the number of additional days required to produce
certain delivery on the desired date.
In a more realistic situation, the project manager would also contend with
the uncertainty of exactly when the item might be required. Even if the item
is scheduled for use on a particular date, the work progress might vary so
that the desired date would differ. In many cases, greater than expected work
progress may result in no savings because materials for future activities are
unavailable.
Example 4-7: : Lead time for ordering with no processing time.
Table 4-0 summarizes the probability of different delivery times for an
item. In this table, the first column lists the possible shipping times
(ranging from 10 to 16 days), the second column lists the probability or chance
that this shipping time will occur and the third column summarizes the chance
that the item arrives on or before a particular date. This table can be used
to indicate the chance that the item will arrive on a desired date for
different lead times. For example, if the order is placed 12 days in advance
of the desired date (so the lead time is 12 days), then there is a 15% chance
that the item will arrive exactly on the desired day and a 35% chance that the
item will arrive on or before the desired date. Note that this implies that
there is a 1 - 0.35 = 0.65 or 65% chance that the item will not arrive by the
desired date with a lead time of 12 days. Given the information in Table 4-0,
when should the item order be placed?
______________________________________________________________________________
!!!Delivery!!!Probability of!!!Cumulative Probability
!!!Date!!!Delivery on Day t!!!of Delivery by Day t
!!! t!!! p(t)!!! Pr{T L t}
!!!10 .10!!! .10!!!
!!!11 .10!!! .20!!!
!!!12 .15!!! .35!!!
!!!13 .20!!! .55!!!
!!!14 .30!!! .85!!!
!!!15 .10!!! .95!!!
!!!16 .05!!! 1.00!!!
______________________________________________________________________________
Suppose that the scheduled date of use for the item is in 16 days. To be
completely certain to have delivery by the desired day, the order should be
placed 16 days in advance. However, the expected delivery date with a 16 day
lead time would be:
Thus, the actual delivery date may be 16-13 = 3 days early, and this early
delivery might involve significant holding costs. A project manager might then
decide to provide a lead time so that the expected delivery date was equal to
the desired assembly date as long as the availability of the item was not
critical. Alternatively, the project manager might negotiate a more certain
delivery date from the supplier.
The selection of the appropriate type and size of construction equipment
often affects the required amount of time and effort and thus the job-site
productivity of a project. It is therefore important for site managers and
construction planners to be familiar with the characteristics of the major
types of equipment most commonly used in construction.(For further details on
equipment characteristics, see, for example, S.W. Nunnally, Construction
Methods and Management, Second Edition, Prentice-Hall, 1986)
One family of construction machines used for excavation is broadly
classified as a crane-shovel as indicated by the variety of machines in Figure
4-0. The crane-shovel consists of three major components:
The type of mounting for all machines in Figure 4-0 is referred to as
crawler mounting, which is particularly suitable for crawling over relatively
rugged surfaces at a job site. Other types of mounting include truck mounting
and wheel mounting which provide greater mobility between job sites, but
require better surfaces for their operation. The revolving deck includes a cab
to house the person operating the mounting and/or the revolving deck. The
types of front end attachments in Figure 4-0 might include a crane with hook,
claim shell, dragline, backhoe, shovel and piledriver.
A tractor consists of a crawler mounting and a non-revolving cab. When an
earth moving blade is attached to the front end of a tractor, the assembly is
called a bulldozer. When a bucket is attached to its front end, the assembly
is known as a loader or bucket loader. There are different types of loaders
designed to handle most efficiently materials of different weights and moisture
contents.
Scrapers are multiple-units of tractor-truck and blade-bucket assemblies
with various combinations to facilitate the loading and hauling of earthwork.
Major types of scrapers include single engine two-axle or three axle scrapers,
twin-engine all-wheel-drive scrapers, elevating scrapers, and push-pull
scrapers. Each type has different characteristics of rolling resistance,
maneuverability stability, and speed in operation.
The function of compaction equipment is to produce higher density in soil
mechanically. The basic forces used in compaction are static weight, kneading,
impact and vibration. The degree of compaction that may be achieved depends on
the properties of soil, its moisture content, the thickness of the soil layer
for compaction and the method of compaction. Some major types of compaction
equipment are shown in Figure 4-0, which includes rollers with different
operating characteristics.
The function of grading equipment is to bring the earthwork to the desired
shape and elevation. Major types of grading equipment include motor graders
and grade trimmers. The former is an all-purpose machine for grading and
surface finishing, while the latter is used for heavy construction because of
its higher operating speed.
Rock excavation is an audacious task requiring special equipment and
methods. The degree of difficulty depends on physical characteristics of the
rock type to be excavated, such as grain size, planes of weakness, weathering,
brittleness and hardness. The task of rock excavation includes loosening,
loading, hauling and compacting. The loosening operation is specialized for
rock excavation and is performed by drilling, blasting or rippling.
Major types of drilling equipment are percussion drills, rotary drills, and
rotary-percussion drills. A percussion drill penetrates and cuts rock by
impact while it rotates without cutting on the upstroke. Common types of
percussion drills include a jackhammer which is hand-held and others which are
mounted on a fixed frame or on a wagon or crawl for mobility. A rotary drill
cuts by turning a bit against the rock surface. A rotary-percussion drill
combines the two cutting movements to provide a faster penetration in rock.
Blasting requires the use of explosives, the most common of which is
dynamite. Generally, electric blasting caps are connected in a circuit with
insulated wires. Power sources may be power lines or blasting machines
designed for firing electric cap circuits. Also available are non-electrical
blasting systems which combine the precise timing and flexibility of electric
blasting and the safety of non-electrical detonation.
Tractor-mounted rippers are capable of penetrating and prying loose most
rock types. The blade or ripper is connected to an adjustable shank which
controls the angle at the tip of the blade as it is raised or lowered.
Automated ripper control may be installed to control ripping depth and tip
angle.
In rock tunneling, special tunnel machines equipped with multiple cutter
heads and capable of excavating full diameter of the tunnel are now available.
Their use has increasingly replaced the traditional methods of drilling and
blasting.
Derricks are commonly used to lift equipment of materials in industrial or
building construction. A derrick consists of a vertical mast and an inclined
boom sprouting from the foot of the mast. The mast is held in position by guys
or stifflegs connected to a base while a topping lift links the top of the mast
and the top of the inclined boom. A hook in the road line hanging from the top
of the inclined boom is used to lift loads. Guy derricks may easily be moved
from one floor to the next in a building under construction while stiffleg
derricks may be mounted on tracks for movement within a work area.
Tower cranes are used to lift loads to great heights and to facilitate the
erection of steel building frames. Horizon boom type tower cranes are most
common in highrise building construction. Inclined boom type tower cranes are
also used for erecting steel structures.
Basic types of equipment for paving include machines for dispensing concrete
and bituminous materials for pavement surfaces. Concrete mixers may also be
used to mix portland cement, sand, gravel and water in batches for other types
of construction other than paving.
A truck mixer refers to a concrete mixer mounted on a truck which is capable
of transporting ready mixed concrete from a central batch plant to construction
sites. A paving mixer is a self propelled concrete mixer equipped with a boom
and a bucket to place concrete at any desired point within a roadway. It can
be used as a stationary mixer or used to supply slipform pavers that are
capable of spreading, consolidating and finishing a concrete slab without the
use of forms.
A bituminous distributor is a truck-mounted plant for generating liquid
bituminous materials and applying them to road surfaces through a spray bar
connected to the end of the truck. Bituminous materials include both asphalt
and tar which have similar properties except that tar is not soluble in
petroleum products. While asphalt is most frequently used for road surfacing,
tar is used when the pavement is likely to be heavily exposed to petroleum
spills.
Air compressors and pumps are widely used as the power sources for
construction tools and equipment. Common pneumatic construction tools include
drills, hammers, grinders, saws, wrenches, staple guns, sandblasting guns, and
concrete vibrators. Pumps are used to supply water or to dewater at
construction sites and to provide water jets for some types of construction.
The introduction of new mechanized equipment in construction has had a
profound effect on the cost and productivity of construction as well as the
methods used for construction itself. An exciting example of innovation in
this regard is the introduction of computer microprocessors on tools and
equipment. As a result, the performance and activity of equipment can be
continually monitored and adjusted for improvement. In many cases, automation
of at least part of the construction process is possible and desirable. For
example, wrenches that automatically monitor the elongation of bolts and the
applied torque can be programmed to achieve the best bolt tightness. On
grading projects, laser controlled scrapers can produce desired cuts faster and
more precisely than wholly manual methods.[See Paulson, C., "Automation and
Robotics for Construction," ASCE Journal of Construction Engineering and
Management, Vol. 111, No. CO-3, 1985, pp. 190-207.] Possibilities for
automation and robotics in construction are explored more fully in Chapter 16.
Example 4-8: Tunneling Equipment(This example is adapted from Fred
Moavenzadeh, "Construction's High-Technology Revolution," Technology Review,
October, 1985, pg. 32.)
In the mid-1980's, some Japanese firms were successful in obtaining
construction contracts for tunneling in the United States by using new
equipment and methods. For example, the Japanese firm of Ohbayashi won the
sewer contract in San Francisco because of its advanced tunneling technology.
When a tunnel is dug through soft earth, as in San Francisco, it must be
maintained at a few atmospheres of pressure to keep it from caving in. Workers
must spend several hours in a pressure chamber before entering the tunnel and
several more in decompression afterwards. They can stay inside for only three
or four hours, always at considerable risk from cave-ins and asphyxiation.
Ohbayashi used the new Japanese "earth-pressure-balance" method, which
eliminates these problems. Whirling blades advance slowly, cutting the tunnel.
The loose earth temporarily remains behind to balance the pressure of the
compact earth on all sides. Meanwhile, prefabricated concrete segments are
inserted and joined with waterproof seals to line the tunnel. Then the loose
earth is conveyed away. This new tunneling method enabled Ohbayashi to bid $5
million below the engineer's estimate for a San Francisco sewer. The firm
completed the tunnel three months ahead of schedule. In effect, an innovation
involving new technology and method led to considerable cost and time savings.
Typically, construction equipment is used to perform essentially repetitive
operations, and can be broadly classified according to two basic functions:
(1) operators such as cranes, graders, etc. which stay within the confines of
the construction site, and (2) haulers such as dump trucks, ready mixed
concrete truck, etc. which transport materials to and from the site. In both
cases, the cycle of a piece of equipment is a sequence of tasks which is
repeated to produce a unit of output. For example, the sequence of tasks for a
crane might be to fit and install a wall panel (or a package of eight wall
panels) on the side of a building; similarly, the sequence of tasks of a ready
mixed concrete truck might be to load, haul and unload two cubic yards (or one
truck load) of fresh concrete.
In order to increase job-site productivity, it is beneficial to select
equipment with proper characteristics and a size most suitable for the work
conditions at a construction site. In excavation for building construction,
for examples, factors that could affect the selection of excavators include:
The choice of the type and size of haulers is based on the consideration
that the number of haulers selected must be capable of disposing of the
excavated materials expeditiously. Factors which affect this selection
include:
The cycle capacity C of a piece of equipment is defined as the number of
output units per cycle of operation under standard work conditions. The
capacity is a function of the output units used in the measurement as well as
the size of the equipment and the material to be processed. The cycle time T
refers to units of time per cycle of operation. The standard production rate R
of a piece of construction equipment is defined as the number of output units
per unit time. Hence: The daily standard production rate P@-(e) of an excavator can be obtained by
multiplying its standard production rate R@-(e) by the number of operating
hours H@-(e) per day. Thus: In determining the daily standard production rate of a hauler, it is
necessary to determine first the cycle time from the distance D to a dump site
and the average speed S of the hauler. Let T@-(t) be the travel time for the
round trip to the dump site, T@-(o) by the loading time and T@-(d) be the
dumping time. Then the travel time for the round trip is given by: The number of haulers required is also of interest. Let w denote the swell
factor of the soil such that wP@-(e) denotes the daily volume of loose
excavated materials resulting from the excavation volume P@-(e). Then the
approximate number of haulers required to dispose of the excavated materials is
given by: While the standard production rate of a piece of equipment is based on
"standard" or ideal conditions, equipment productivities at job sites are
influenced by actual work conditions and a variety of inefficiencies and work
stoppages. As one example, various factor adjustments can be used to account
in a approximate fashion for actual site conditions. If the conditions that
lower the standard production rate are denoted by n factors F@-(1), F@-(2),
..., F@-(n), each of which is smaller than 1, then the actual equipment
productivity R' at the job site can be related to the standard production rate
R as follows: In addition to the problem of estimating the various factors, F@-(1),
F@-(2), ..., F@-(n), it may also be important to account for interactions among
the factors and the exact influence of particular site characteristics.
Example 4-9: : Daily standard production rate of a power shovel[This and
the following examples in this section have been adapted from E. Baracco-Miller
and C.T. Hendrickson, Planning for Construction, Technical Report No.
R-87-162, Department of Civil Engineering, Carnegie Mellon University,
Pittsburgh, PA 1987.]
A power shovel with a dipper of one cubic yard capacity has a standard
operating cycle time of 30 seconds. Find the daily standard production rate of
the shovel.
For C@-(e) = 1 cu. yd., T@-(e) = 30 sec. and H@-(e) = 8 hours, the daily
standard production rate is found from Eq. (4.4.11) as follows:
Example 4-10: Daily standard production rate of a dump truck
A dump truck with a capacity of 6 cubic yards is used to dispose of
excavated materials at a dump site 4 miles away. The average speed of the dump
truck is 30 mph and the dumping time is 30 seconds. Find the daily standard
production rate of the truck. If a fleet of dump trucks of this capacity is
used to dispose of the excavated materials in Example 4-8 for 8 hours per day,
determine the number of trucks needed daily, assuming a swell factor of 1.1 for
the soil.
The daily standard production rate of a dump truck can be obtained by using
Equations (4.4.11) through (4.4.11):
Example 4-11: Job site productivity of a power shovel
A power shovel with a dipper of one cubic yard capacity (in Example 4-9) has
a standard production rate of 960 cubic yards for an 8-hour day. Determine the
job site productivity and the actual cycle time of this shovel under the work
conditions at the site that affects its productivity as shown below:
Example 4-12: Job site productivity of a dump truck
A dump truck with a capacity of 6 cubic yards (in Example 4-10) is used to
dispose of excavated materials. The distance from the dump site is 4 miles and
the average speed of the dump truck is 30 mph. The job site productivity of
the power shovel per day (in Example 4-11) is 504 cubic yards, which will be
modified by a swell factor of 1.1. The only factors affecting the job site
productivity of the dump truck are 0.80 for equipment idle time and 0.70 for
management efficiency. Determine the job site productivity of the dump truck.
If a fleet of such trucks is used to haul the excavated material, find the
number of trucks needed daily.
The actual cycle time T'@-(h) of the dump truck can be obtained by summing
the actual times for traveling, loading and dumping: The previous sections described the primary inputs of labor, material and
equipment to the construction process. At varying levels of detail, a project
manager must insure that these inputs are effectively coordinated to achieve an
efficient construction process. This coordination involves both strategic
decisions and tactical management in the field. For example, strategic
decisions about appropriate technologies or site layout are often made during
the process of construction planning. During the course of construction,
foremen and site managers will make decisions about work to be undertaken at
particular times of the day based upon the availability of the necessary
resources of labor, materials and equipment. Without coordination among these
necessary inputs, the construction process will be inefficient or stop
altogether.
Example 4-13: Steel erection
Erection of structural steel for buildings, bridges or other facilities is
an example of a construction process requiring considerable coordination.
Fabricated steel pieces must arrive on site in the correct order and quantity
for the planned effort during a day. Crews of steelworkers must be available
to fit pieces together, bolt joints, and perform any necessary welding. Cranes
and crane operators may be required to lift fabricated components into place;
other activities on a job site may also be competing for use of particular
cranes. Welding equipment, wrenches and other hand tools must be readily
available. Finally, ancillary materials such as bolts of the correct size must
be provided.
In coordinating a process such as steel erection, it is common to assign
different tasks to specific crews. For example, one crew may place members in
place and insert a few bolts in joints in a specific area. A following crew
would be assigned to finish bolting, and a third crew might perform necessary
welds or attachment of brackets for items such as curtain walls.
With the required coordination among these resources, it is easy to see how
poor management or other problems can result in considerable inefficiency. For
example, if a shipment of fabricated steel is improperly prepared, the crews
and equipment on site may have to wait for new deliveries.
Example 4-14: Construction process simulation models
Computer based simulation of construction operations can be a useful
although laborious tool in analyzing the efficiency of particular processes or
technologies. These tools tend to be either oriented toward modeling resource
processes or towards representation of spatial constraints and resource
movements. Later chapters will describe simulation in more detail, but a small
example of a construction operation model can be described here.[This model
used the INSIGHT simulation language and was described in B.C. Paulson, W.T.
Chan, and C.C. Koo, "Construction Operations Simulation by Microcomputer," ASCE
Journal of Construction Engineering and Management, Vol. 113, No. CO-2, June
1987, pp. 302-314.] The process involved placing concrete within existing
formwork for the columns of a new structure. A crane-and-bucket combination
with one cubic yard capacity and a flexible "elephant trunk" was assumed for
placement. Concrete was delivered in trucks with a capacity of eight cubic
yards. Because of site constraints, only one truck could be moved into the
delivery position at a time. Construction workers and electric immersion-type
concrete vibrators were also assumed for the process.
The simulation model of this process is illustrated in Figure 4-0. Node 2
signals the availability of a concrete truck arriving from the batch plant. As
with other circular nodes in Figure 4-0, the availability of a truck may result
in a resource waiting or queueing for use. If a truck (node 2) and the crane
(node 3) are both available, then the crane can load and hoist a bucket of
concrete (node 4). As with other rectangular nodes in the model, this
operation will require an appreciable period of time. On the completion of the
load and hoist operations, the bucket (node 5) is available for concrete
placement. Placement is accomplished by having a worker guide the bucket's
elephant trunk between the concrete forms and having a second worker operate
the bucket release lever. A third laborer operates a vibrator in the concrete
while the bucket (node 8) moves back to receive a new load. Once the concrete
placement is complete, the crew becomes available to place a new bucket load
(node 7). After two buckets are placed, then the column is complete (node 9)
and the equipment and crew can move to the next column (node 10). After the
movement to the new column is complete, placement in the new column can begin
(node 11). Finally, after a truck is emptied (nodes 12 and 13), the truck
departs and a new truck can enter the delivery stall (node 14) if one is
waiting.
Application of the simulation model consists of tracing through the time
required for these various operations. Events are also simulated such as the
arrival times of concrete trucks. If random elements are introduced, numerous
simulations are required to estimate the actual productivity and resource
requirements of the process. For example, one simulation of this process using
four concrete trucks found that a truck was waiting 83% of the time with an
average wait at the site of 14 minutes. This type of simulation can be used to
estimate the various productivity adjustment factors described in the previous
section.
A project manager needs to insure that resources required for and/or shared
by numerous activities are adequate. Problems in this area can be indicated in
part by the existence of queues of resource demands during construction
operations. A queue can be a waiting line for service. One can imagine a
queue as an orderly line of customers waiting for a stationary server such as a
ticket seller. However, the demands for service might not be so neatly
arranged. For example, we can speak of the queue of welds on a building site
waiting for inspection. In this case, demands do not come to the server, but a
roving inspector travels among the waiting service points. Waiting for
resources such as a particular piece of equipment or a particular individual is
an endemic problem on construction sites. If workers spend appreciable
portions of time waiting for particular tools, materials or an inspector, costs
increase and productivity declines. Insuring adequate resources to serve
expected demands is an important problem during construction planning and field
management.
In general, there is a trade-off between waiting times and utilization of
resources. Utilization is the proportion of time a particular resource is in
productive use. Higher amounts of resource utilization will be beneficial as
long as it does not impose undue costs on the entire operation. For example, a
welding inspector might have one hundred percent utilization, but workers
throughout the jobsite might be wasting inordinate time waiting for
inspections. Providing additional inspectors may be cost effective, even if
they are not utilized at all times.
A few conceptual models of queueing systems may be helpful to construction
planners in considering the level of adequate resources to provide. First, we
shall consider the case of time-varying demands and a server with a constant
service rate. This might be the situation for an elevator in which large
demands for transportation occur during the morning or at a shift change.
Second, we shall consider the situation of randomly arriving demands for
service and constant service rates. Finally, we shall consider briefly the
problems involving multiple serving stations.
Suppose that the cumulative number of demands for service or "customers" at
any time t is known and equal to the value of the function A(t). These
"customers" might be crane loads, weld inspections, or any other defined group
of items to be serviced. Suppose further that a single server is available to
handle these demands, such as a single crane or a single inspector. For this
model of queueing, we assume that the server can handle customers at some
constant, maximum rate denoted as x "customers" per unit of time. This is a
maximum rate since the server may be idle for periods of time if no customers
are waiting. This system is deterministic in the sense that both the arrival
function and the service process are assumed to have no random or unknown
component.
A cumulative arrival function of customers, A(t), is shown in Figure 4-0 in
which the vertical axis represents the cumulative number of customers, while
the horizontal axis represents the passage of time. The arrival of individual
customers to the queue would actually represent a unit step in the arrival
function A(t), but these small steps are approximated by a continuous curve in
the figure. The rate of arrivals for a unit time interval @g[D]t from t-1 to t
is given by:
While an hour or a minute is a natural choice as a unit time interval, other
time periods may also be used as long as the passage of time is expressed as
multiples of such time periods. For instance, if half an hour is used as unit
time interval for a process involving ten hours, then the arrivals should be
represented by 20 steps of half hour each. Hence, the unit time interval
between t-1 and t is @g[D] t = t - (t-1) = 1, and the slope of the cumulative
arrival function in the interval is given by:
The cumulative number of customers served over time is represented by the
cumulative departure function D(t). While the maximum service rate is x per
unit time, the actual service rate for a unit time interval @g[D]t from t-1 to
t is: Any time that the rate of arrivals to the queue exceeds the maximum service
rate, then a queue begins to form and the cumulative departures will occur at
the maximum service rate. The cumulative departures from the queue will
proceed at the maximum service rate of x "customers" per unit of time, so that
the slope of D(t) is x during this period. The cumulative departure function
D(t) can be readily constructed graphically by running a ruler with a slope of
x along the cumulative arrival function A(t). As soon as the function A(t)
climbs above the ruler, a queue begins to form. The maximum service rate will
continue until the queue disappears, which is represented by the convergence of
the cumulative arrival and departure functions A(t) and D(t).
With the cumulative arrivals and cumulative departure functions represented
graphically, a variety of service indicators can be readily obtained as shown
in Figure 4-0. Let A'(t) and D'(t) denote the derivatives of A(t) and D(t)
with respect to t, respectively. For 0 L t L t@-(i) in which A'(t) L x, there
is no queue. At t = t@-(i), when A'(t) > D'(t), a queue is formed. Then D'(t)
= x in the interval t@-(i) L t L t@-(k). As A'(t) continues to increase with
increasing t, the queue becomes longer since the service rate D'(t) = x cannot
catch up with the arrivals. However, when again A'(t) L D'(t) as t increases,
the queue becomes shorter until it reaches 0 at t = t@-(k). At any given time
t, the queue length is Generally, the arrival rates @g[D]A@-(t) = 1, 2, . . ., n periods of a
process as well as the maximum service rate x are known. Then the cumulative
arrival function and the cumulative departure function can be constructed
systematically together with other pertinent quantities as follows:
1. Starting with the initial conditions D(t-1)=0 and Q(t-1)=0 at t=1, find
the actual service rate at t=1:
2. Starting with A(t-1)=0 at t=1, find the cumulative arrival function for
t=2,3,. . .,n accordingly:
3. Compute the queue length for t=1,2, . . .,n.
4. Compute @g{D}D@-(t) for t=2,3,. . .,n after Q(t-1) is found first for
each t.
5. If A'(t) > x, find the cumulative departure function in the time period
between t@-(i) where a queue is formed and t@-(k) where the queue dissipates.
6. Compute the waiting time @g{D}w for the arrivals which are waiting for
service in interval @g{D}t.
7. Compute the total waiting time W over the time period between t@-(i) and
t@-(k).
8. Compute the average waiting time w for arrivals which are waiting for
service in the process.
This simple, deterministic model has a number of implications for operations
planning. First, an increase in the maximum service rate will result in
reductions in waiting time and the maximum queue length. Such increases might
be obtained by speeding up the service rate such as introducing shorter
inspection procedures or installing faster cranes on a site. Second, altering
the pattern of cumulative arrivals can result in changes in total waiting time
and in the maximum queue length. In particular, if the maximum arrival rate
never exceeds the maximum service rate, no queue will form, or if the arrival
rate always exceeds the maximum service rate, the bottleneck cannot be
dispersed. Both cases are shown in Figure 4-0.
A practical means to alter the arrival function and obtain these benefits is
to inaugurate a reservation system for customers. Even without drawing a graph
such as Figure 4-0, good operations planners should consider the effects of
different operation or service rates on the flow of work. Clearly, service
rates less than the expected arrival rate of work will result in resource
bottlenecks on a job.
Suppose that arrivals of "customers" to a queue are not deterministic or
known as in Figure 4-0. In particular, suppose that "customers" such as joints
are completed or crane loads arrive at random intervals. What are the
implications for the smooth flow of work? Unfortunately, bottlenecks and
queues may arise in this situation even if the maximum service rate is larger
than the average or expected arrival rate of customers. This occurs because
random arrivals will often bunch together, thereby temporarily exceeding the
capacity of the system. While the average arrival rate may not change over
time, temporary resource shortages can occur in this circumstance.
Let w be the average waiting time, a be the average arrival rate of
customers, and x be the deterministic constant service rate (in customers per
unit of time). Then, the expected average time for a customer in this situation
is given by:[In the literature of queueing theory, this formula represents an
M/D/1 queue, meaning that the arrival process is Markovian or random, the
service time is fixed, only one server exists, and the system is in "steady
state," implying that the service time and average arrival rate are constant.
Altering these assumptions would require changes in the waiting time formula;
for example, if service times were also random, the waiting time formula would
not have the 2 shown in the denominator of Eq. (4.4.13). For more details on
queueing systems, see Newell, G.F. Applications of Queueing Theory, Chapman
and Hall, London, 1982.]
If the average utilization rate of the service is defined as the ratio of the
average arrival rate and the constant service rate, i.e.,
Both of the simple models of service performance described above are limited
to single servers. In operations planning, it is commonly the case that
numerous operators are available and numerous stages of operations exist. In
these circumstances, a planner typically attempts to match the service rates
occurring at different stages in the process. For example, construction of a
high rise building involves a series of operations on each floor, including
erection of structural elements, pouring or assembling a floor, construction of
walls, installation of HVAC (Heating, ventilating and air conditioning)
equipment, installation of plumbing and electric wiring, etc. A smooth
construction process would have each of these various activities occurring at
different floors at the same time without large time gaps between activities on
any particular floor. Thus, floors would be installed soon after erection of
structural elements, walls would follow subsequently, and so on. From the
standpoint of a queueing system, the planning problem is to insure that the
productivity or service rate per floor of these different activities are
approximately equal, so that one crew is not continually waiting on the
completion of a preceding activity or interfering with a following activity.
In the realm of manufacturing systems, creating this balance among operations
is called assembly line balancing.
Example 4-15: Effect of a crane breakdown
Suppose that loads for a crane are arriving at a steady rate of one every
ten minutes. The crane has the capacity to handle one load every five minutes.
Suppose further that the crane breaks down for ninety minutes. How many loads
are delayed, what is the total delay, and how long will be required before the
crane can catch up with the backlog of loads?
The cumulative arrival and service functions are graphed in Figure 4-0.
Starting with the breakdown at time zero, nine loads arrive during the ninety
minute repair time. From Figure 4-0, an additional nine loads arrive before
the entire queue is served. Algebraically, the required time for service, t,
can be calculated by noted that the number of arrivals must equal the number of
loads served. Thus:
Example 4-16: Waiting time with random arrivals
Suppose that material loads to be inspected arrive randomly but with an
average of 5 arrivals per hour. Each load requires ten minutes for an
inspection, so an inspector can handle six loads per hour. Inspections must be
completed before the material can be unloaded from a truck. The cost per hour
of holding a material load in waiting is $ 30, representing the cost of a
driver and a truck. In this example, the arrival rate, a, equals 5 arrivals
per hour and the service rate, x, equals 6 material loads per hour. Then, the
average waiting time of any material load for u = 5/6 is: In contrast, if the possible service rate is x=10 material loads per hour,
then the expected waiting time of any material load for u = 5/10 = 0.5 is: Example 4-17: Delay of lift loads on a building site
Suppose that a single crane is available on a building site and that each
lift requires three minutes including the time for attaching loads. suppose
further that the cumulative arrivals of lift loads at different time periods
are as follows:
The maximum service rate x = 60 min/3 min per lift = 20 lifts per minute.
The detailed computation can be carried out in the Table 4-2, and the graph of
A(t) and D(t) is given in Figure 4-10.
The costs of a constructed facility to the owner include both the initial
capital cost and the subsequent operation and maintenance costs. Each of these
major cost categories consists of a number of cost components.
The capital cost for a construction project includes the expenses related to
the following activities:
It is important for design professionals and construction managers to
realize that while the construction cost may be the single largest component of
the capital cost, other cost components are not insignificant. For example,
land acquisition costs are a major expenditure for building construction in
high-density urban areas, and construction financing costs can reach the same
order of magnitude as the construction cost in large projects such as the
construction of nuclear power plants.
From the owner's perspective, it is equally important to estimate the
corresponding operation and maintenance cost of each alternative for a proposed
facility in order to analyze the life cycle costs. The large expenditures
needed for facility maintenance, especially for publicly owned infrastructure,
are reminders of the neglect in the past to consider fully the implications of
operation and maintenance cost in the design stage.
In this chapter, we shall focus on the estimation of construction cost, with
only occasional reference to other cost components. In Chapter 6, we shall
deal with the economic evaluation of a constructed facility on the basis of
both the capital cost and the operation and maintenance cost in the life cycle
of the facility. It is at this stage that tradeoffs between operating and
capital costs can be analyzed.
Example 5-1: Energy project resource demands(This example was adapted with
permission from a paper, "Forecasting Industry Resources," presented by A.R.
Crosby at the Institution of Chemical Engineers in London, November 4, 1981.)
The resources demands for three types of major energy projects investigated
during the energy crisis in the 1970's are shown in Table 5-0. These projects
are: (1) an oil shale project with a capacity of 50,000 barrels of oil product
per day; (2) a coal gasification project that makes gas with a heating value of
320 billions of British thermal units per day, or equivalent to about 50,000
barrels of oil product per day; and (3) a tar sand project with a capacity of
150,000 barrels of oil product per day.
For each project, the cost in billions of dollars, the engineering manpower
requirement for basic design in thousands of hours, the engineering manpower
requirement for detailed engineering in millions of hours, the skilled labor
requirement for construction in millions of hours and the material requirement
in billions of dollars are shown in Table 5-0. To build several projects of
such an order of magnitude concurrently could drive up the costs and strain the
availability of all resources required to complete the projects. Consequently,
cost estimation often represents an exercise in professional judgment instead
of merely compiling a bill of quantities and collecting cost data to reach a
total estimate mechanically.
______________________________________________________________________________
!!!Oil Shale!!! Coal Gasification!!! Tar Sands
!!! 50,000!!! 320 billions!!! 150,000
!!!barrels/day!!! BTU/day!!! barrels/day
Cost ($ billion)!!! 2.5!!! 4!!! 8 to 10
Basic Design !!!80!!! 200!!! 100
(Thousands of hours)
Detailed Engineering!!! 3 to 4!!! 4 to 5!!! 6 to 8
(Millions of hours)
Construction !!!20!!! 30!!! 40
(Millions of hours)
Materials ($ billion)!!! 1!!! 2!!! 2.5
Source: Exxon Research and Engineering Company, Florham Park, NJ
______________________________________________________________________________
Cost estimating is one of the most important steps in project management. A
cost estimate establishes the base line of the project cost at different stages
of development of the project. A cost estimate at a given stage of project
development represents a prediction provided by the cost engineer or estimator
on the basis of available data. According to the American Association of Cost
Engineers, cost engineering is defined as that area of engineering practice
where engineering judgment and experience are utilized in the application of
scientific principles and techniques to the problem of cost estimation, cost
control and profitability.
Virtually all cost estimation is performed according to one or some
combination of the following basic approaches:
Production function. In microeconomics, the relationship between the output
of a process and the necessary resources is referred to as the production
function. In construction, the production function may be expressed by the
relationship between the volume of construction and a factor of production such
as labor or capital. A production function relates the amount or volume of
output to the various inputs of labor, material and equipment. For example,
the amount of output Q may be derived as a function of various input factors
x@-(1), x@-(2), ..., x@-(n) by means of mathematical and/or statistical
methods. Thus, for a specified level of output, we may attempt to find a set
of values for the input factors so as to minimize the production cost. The
relationship between the size of a building project (expressed in square feet)
to the input labor (expressed in labor hours per square foot) is an example of
a production function for construction. Several such production functions are
shown in Figure 3-3 of Chapter 3.
Empirical cost inference. Empirical estimation of cost functions requires
statistical techniques which relate the cost of constructing or operating a
facility to a few important characteristics or attributes of the system. The
role of statistical inference is to estimate the best parameter values or
constants in an assumed cost function. Usually, this is accomplished by means
of regression analysis techniques.
Unit costs for bill of quantities. A unit cost is assigned to each of the
facility components or tasks as represented by the bill of quantities. The
total cost is the summation of the products of the quantities multiplied by the
corresponding unit costs. The unit cost method is straightforward in principle
but quite laborious in application. The initial step is to break down or
disaggregate a process into a number of tasks. Collectively, these tasks must
be completed for the construction of a facility. Once these tasks are defined
and quantities representing these tasks are assessed, a unit cost is assigned
to each and then the total cost is determined by summing the costs incurred in
each task. The level of detail in decomposing into tasks will vary
considerably from one estimate to another.
Allocation of joint costs. Allocations of cost from existing accounts may
be used to develop a cost function of a operation. The basic idea in this
method is that each expenditure item can be assigned to particular
characteristics of the operation. Ideally, the allocation of joint costs
should be causally related to the category of basic costs in an allocation
process. In many instances, however, a causal relationship between the
allocation factor and the cost item cannot be identified or may not exist. For
example, in construction projects, the accounts for basic costs may be
classified according to (1) labor, (2) material, (3) construction equipment,
(4) construction supervision, and (5) general office overhead. These basic
costs may then be allocated proportionally to various tasks which are
subdivisions of a project.
Construction cost constitutes only a fraction, though a substantial
fraction, of the total project cost. However, it is the part of the cost under
the control of the construction project manager. The required levels of
accuracy of construction cost estimates vary at different stages of project
development, ranging from ball park figures in the early stage to fairly
reliable figures for budget control prior to construction. Since design
decisions made at the beginning stage of a project life cycle are more
tentative than those made at a later stage, the cost estimates made at the
earlier stage are expected to be less accurate. Generally, the accuracy of a
cost estimate will reflect the information available at the time of estimation.
Construction cost estimates may be viewed from different perspectives
because of different institutional requirements. In spite of the many types of
cost estimates used at different stages of a project, cost estimates can best
be classified into three major categories according to their functions. A
construction cost estimate serves one of the three basic functions: design,
bid and control. For establishing the financing of a project, either a design
estimate or a bid estimate is used.
1. Design Estimates. For the owner or its designated design professionals,
the types of cost estimates encountered run parallel with the planning and
design as follows:
2. Bid Estimates. For the contractor, a bid estimate submitted to the owner
either for competitive bidding or negotiation consists of direct construction
cost including field supervision, plus a markup to cover general overhead and
profits. The direct cost of construction for bid estimates is usually derived
from a combination of the following approaches.
3. Control Estimates. For monitoring the project during construction, a
control estimate is derived from available information to establish:
In the planning and design stages of a project, various design estimates
reflect the progress of the design. At the very early stage, the screening
estimate or order of magnitude estimate is usually made before the facility
is designed, and must therefore rely on the cost data of similar facilities
built in the past. A preliminary estimate or conceptual estimate is based on
the conceptual design of the facility at the state when the basic technologies
for the design are known. The detailed estimate or definitive estimate is
made when the scope of work is clearly defined and the detailed design is in
progress so that the essential features of the facility are identifiable. The
engineer's estimate is based on the completed plans and specifications when
they are ready for the owner to solicit bids from construction contractors. In
preparing these estimates, the design professional will include expected
amounts for contractors' overhead and profits.
The costs associated with a facility may be decomposed into a hierarchy of
levels that are appropriate for the purpose of cost estimation. The level of
detail in decomposing the facility into tasks depends on the type of cost
estimate to be prepared. For conceptual estimates, for example, the level of
detail in defining tasks is quite coarse; for detailed estimates, the level of
detail can be quite fine.
As an example, consider the cost estimates for a proposed bridge across a
river. A screening estimate is made for each of the potential alternatives,
such as a tied arch bridge or a cantilever truss bridge. As the bridge type is
selected, e.g. the technology is chosen to be a tied arch bridge instead of
some new bridge form, a preliminary estimate is made on the basis of the layout
of the selected bridge form on the basis of the preliminary or conceptual
design. When the detailed design has progressed to a point when the essential
details are known, a detailed estimate is made on the basis of the well defined
scope of the project. When the detailed plans and specifications are
completed, an engineer's estimate can be made on the basis of items and
quantities of work.
The contractor's bid estimates often reflect the desire of the contractor to
secure the job as well as the estimating tools at its disposal. Some
contractors have well established cost estimating procedures while others do
not. Since only the lowest bidder will be the winner of the contract in most
bidding contests, any effort devoted to cost estimating is a loss to the
contractor who is not a successful bidder. Consequently, the contractor may
put in the least amount of possible effort for making a cost estimate if it
believes that its chance of success is not high.
If a general contractor intends to use subcontractors in the construction of
a facility, it may solicit price quotations for various tasks to be
subcontracted to specialty subcontractors. Thus, the general subcontractor
will shift the burden of cost estimating to subcontractors. If all or part of
the construction is to be undertaken by the general contractor, a bid estimate
may be prepared on the basis of the quantity takeoffs from the plans provided
by the owner or on the basis of the construction procedures devised by the
contractor for implementing the project. For example, the cost of a footing of
a certain type and size may be found in commercial publications on cost data
which can be used to facilitate cost estimates from quantity takeoffs.
However, the contractor may want to assess the actual cost of construction by
considering the actual construction procedures to be used and the associated
costs if the project is deemed to be different from typical designs. Hence,
items such as labor, material and equipment needed to perform various tasks may
be used as parameters for the cost estimates.
Both the owner and the contractor must adopt some base line for cost control
during the construction. For the owner, a budget estimate must be adopted
early enough for planning long term financing of the facility. Consequently,
the detailed estimate is often used as the budget estimate since it is
sufficient definitive to reflect the project scope and is available long before
the engineer's estimate. As the work progresses, the budgeted cost must be
revised periodically to reflect the estimated cost to completion. A revised
estimated cost is necessary either because of change orders initiated by the
owner or due to unexpected cost overruns or savings.
For the contractor, the bid estimate is usually regarded as the budget
estimate, which will be used for control purposes as well as for planning
construction financing. The budgeted cost should also be updated periodically
to reflect the estimated cost to completion as well as to insure adequate cash
flows for the completion of the project.
Example 5-2: Screening estimate of a grouting seal beneath a landfill(This
example is adapted from a cost estimate in A.L. Tolman, A.P. Ballestero, W.W.
Beck and G.H. Emrich, Guidance Manual for Minimizing Pollution from Waste
Disposal Sites, Municipal Environmental Research Laboratory, U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, Cincinatti, Ohio, 1978.)
One of the methods of isolating a landfill from groundwater is to create a
bowl-shaped bottom seal beneath the site as shown in Figure 5-0. The seal is
constructed by pumping or pressure-injecting grout under the existing landfill.
Holes are bored at regular intervals throughout the landfill for this purpose
and the grout tubes are extended from the surface to the bottom of the
landfill. A layer of soil at a minimum of 5 ft. thick is left between the
grouted material and the landfill contents to allow for irregularities in the
bottom of the landfill. The grout liner can be between 4 and 6 feet thick. A
typical material would be Portland cement grout pumped under pressure through
tubes to fill voids in the soil. This grout would then harden into a
permanent, impermeable liner.
The work items in this project include (1) drilling exploratory bore holes
at 50 ft. intervals for grout tubes, and (2) pumping grout into the voids of a
soil layer between 4 and 6 feet thick. The quantities for these two items are
estimated on the basis of the landfill area:
The volume of the soil layer for grouting is estimated to be:
The unit cost for drilling exploratory bore holes is estimated to be between
$3 and $10 per foot (in 1978 dollars) including all expenses. Thus, the total
cost of boring will be between (2,880)(3) = $ 8,640 and (2,880)(10) = $ 28,800.
The unit cost of Portland cement grout pumped into place is between $ 4 and $
10 per cubic foot including overhead and profit. In addition to the variation
in the unit cost, the total cost of the bottom seal will depend upon the
thickness of the soil layer grouted and the proportion of voids in the soil.
That is:
The total cost of drilling bore holes is so small in comparison with the
cost of grouting that the former can be omitted in the screening estimate.
Furthermore, the range of unit cost varies greatly with soil characteristics,
and the engineer must exercise judgment in narrowing the range of the total
cost. Alternatively, additional soil tests can be used to better estimate the
unit cost of pumping grout and the proportion of voids in the soil. Suppose
that, in addition to ignoring the cost of bore holes, an average value of a 5
ft. soil layer with 25% voids is used together with a unit cost of $ 7 per cu.
ft. of Portland cement grouting. In this case, the total project cost is
estimated to be:
Example 5-3: Example of engineer's estimate and contractors' bids(See
"Utah Interstate Forges On," ENR, July 2, 1987, p. 39.)
The engineer's estimate for a project involving 14 miles of Interstate 70
roadway in Utah was $ 20,950,859. Bids were submitted on March 10, 1987 for
completing the project within 320 working days. The three low bidders were:
The unit prices for different items of work submitted for this project by
(1) Ball, Ball & Brosame, Inc. and (2) National Projects, Inc. are shown in
Table 5-0. The similarity of their unit prices for some items and the
disparity in others submitted by the two contractors can be noted.
Screening cost estimates are often based on a single variable representing
the capacity or some physical measure of the design such as floor area in
buildings, length of highways, volume of storage bins and production volumes of
processing plants. Costs do not always vary linearly with respect to different
facility sizes. Typically, scale economies or diseconomies exist. If the
average cost per unit of capacity is declining, then scale economies exist.
Conversely, scale diseconomies exist if average costs increase with greater
size. Empirical data are sought to establish the economies of scale for
various types of facility, if they exist, in order to take advantage of lower
costs per unit of capacity.
Let x be a variable representing the facility capacity, and y be the
resulting construction cost. Then, a linear cost relationship can be expressed
in the form:
A nonlinear cost relationship between the facility capacity x and
construction cost y can often be represented in the form:
A nonlinear cost relationship often used in estimating the cost of a new
industrial processing plant from the known cost of an existing facility of a
different size is known as the exponential rule. Let y@-(n) be the known cost
of an existing facility with capacity Q@-(n), and y be the estimated cost of
the new facility which has a capacity Q. Then, from the empirical data, it can
be assumed that: Example 5-4: Determination of m for the exponential rule
The empirical cost data from a number of sewage treatment plants are plotted
on a log-log scale for ln(Q/Q@-(n)) and ln(y/y@-(n)) and a linear relationship
between these logarithmic ratios is shown in Figure 5-0. For (Q/Q@-(n)) = 1 or
ln(Q/Q@-(n)) = 0, ln(y/y@-(n)) = 0; and for Q/Q@-(n) = 2 or ln(Q/Q@-(n)) =
0.301, ln(y/y@-(n)) = 0.1765. Since m is the slope of the line in the figure,
it can be determined from the geometric relation as follows:
Example 5-5: Cost exponents for water and wastewater treatment plants[This
and the next example have been adapted from P.M. Berthouex, "Evaluating
Economy of Scale," Journal of the Water Pollution Control Federation, Vol. 44,
No. 11, November 1972, pp. 2111-2118.]
The magnitude of the cost exponent m in the exponential rule provides a
simple measure of the economy of scale associated with building extra capacity
for future growth and system reliability for the present in the design of
treatment plants. When m is small, there is considerable incentive to provide
extra capacity since scale economies exist as illustrated in Figure 5-0. When
m is close to 1, the cost is directly proportional to the design capacity. The
value of m tends to increase as the number of duplicate units in a system
increases. The values of m for several types of treatment plants with
different plant components derived from statistical correlation of actual
construction costs are shown in Table 5--1.
Example 5-6: Cost data for the exponential rule
The exponential rule as represented by Equation (5.4) can be expressed in a
different form as: The estimated values of K and m for various water and sewage treatment plant
components are shown in Table 5--1. The K values are based on 1968 dollars.
The range of data from which the K and m values are derived in the primary
sources should be observed in order to use them in making cost estimates.
As an example, take K = $ 399 and m = 0.60 for a primary sedimentation
component in Table 5--1. For a proposed new plant with the primary
sedimentation process having a capacity of 15,000 sq. ft., the estimated cost
(in 1968 dollars) is:
If the design technology for a facility has been specified, the project can
be decomposed into elements at various levels of detail for the purpose of cost
estimation. The unit cost for each element in the bill of quantities must be
assessed in order to compute the total construction cost. This concept is
applicable to both design estimates and bid estimates, although different
elements may be selected in the decomposition.
For design estimates, the unit cost method is commonly used when the project
is decomposed into elements at various levels of a hierarchy as follows:
1. Preliminary Estimates. The project is decomposed into major structural
systems or production equipment items, e.g. the entire floor of a building or a
cooling system for a processing plant.
2. Detailed Estimates. The project is decomposed into components of
various major systems, i.e., a single floor panel for a building or a heat
exchanger for a cooling system.
3. Engineer's Estimates. The project is decomposed into detailed items of
various components as warranted by the available cost data. Examples of
detailed items are slabs and beams in a floor panel, or the piping and
connections for a heat exchanger.
For bid estimates, the unit cost method can also be applied even though the
contractor may choose to decompose the project into different levels in a
hierarchy as follows:
1. Subcontractor Quotations. The decomposition of a project into
subcontractor items for quotation involves a minimum amount of work for the
general contractor. However, the accuracy of the resulting estimate depends on
the reliability of the subcontractors since the general contractor selects one
among several contractor quotations submitted for each item of subcontracted
work.
2. Quantity Takeoffs. The decomposition of a project into items of
quantities that are measured (or taken off) from the engineer's plan will
result in a procedure similar to that adopted for a detailed estimate or an
engineer's estimate by the design professional. The levels of detail may vary
according to the desire of the general contractor and the availability of cost
data.
3. Construction Procedures. If the construction procedure of a proposed
project is used as the basis of a cost estimate, the project may be decomposed
into items such as labor, material and equipment needed to perform various
tasks in the projects.
Suppose that a project is decomposed into n elements for cost estimation.
Let Q@-(i) be the quantity of the i@+(th) element and u@-(i) be the
corresponding unit cost. Then, the total cost of the project is given by:
A special application of the unit cost method is the "factored estimate"
commonly used in process industries. Usually, an industrial process requires
several major equipment components such as furnaces, towers drums and pump in a
chemical processing plant, plus ancillary items such as piping, valves and
electrical elements. The total cost of a project is dominated by the costs of
purchasing and installing the major equipment components and their ancillary
items. Let C@-(i) be the purchase cost of a major equipment component i and
f@-(i) be a factor accounting for the cost of ancillary items needed for the
installation of this equipment component i. Then, the total cost of a project
is estimated by:
Consider the simple case for which costs of labor, material and equipment
are assigned to all tasks. Suppose that a project is decomposed into n tasks.
Let Q@-[i] be the quantity of work for task i, M@-[i] be the unit material cost
of task i, E@-(i) be the unit equipment rate for task i, L@-[i] be the units of
labor required per unit of Q@-[i], and W@-[i] be the wage rate associated with
L@-[i]. In this case, the total cost y is: Note that W@-(i)L@-(i) yields the labor cost per unit of Q@-(i), or the
labor unit cost of task i. Consequently, the units for all terms in Equation
(5.5.5) are consistent.
Example 5-7: Decomposition of a building foundation into design and
construction elements.
The concept of decomposition is illustrated by the example of estimating the
costs of a building foundation excluding excavation as shown in Table 5--1 in
which the decomposed design elements are shown on horizontal lines and the
decomposed contract elements are shown in vertical columns. For a design
estimate, the decomposition of the project into footings, foundation walls and
elevator pit is preferred since the designer can easily keep track of these
design elements; however, for a bid estimate, the decomposition of the project
into formwork, reinforcing bars and concrete may be preferred since the
contractor can get quotations of such contract items more conveniently from
specialty subcontractors.
Example 5-8: Cost estimate using labor, material and equipment rates.
For the given quantities of work Q@-(i) for the concrete foundation of a
building and the labor, material and equipment rates in Table 5--1, the cost
estimate is computed on the basis of Equation (5.5.5). The result is tabulated
in the last column of the same table.
The principle of allocating joint costs to various elements in a project is
often used in cost estimating. Because of the difficulty in establishing
casual relationship between each element and its associated cost, the joint
costs are often prorated in proportion to the basic costs for various elements.
One common application is found in the allocation of field supervision cost
among the basic costs of various elements based on labor, material and
equipment costs, and the allocation of the general overhead cost to various
elements according to the basic and field supervision cost. Suppose that a
project is decomposed into n tasks. Let y be the total basic cost for the
project and y@-(i) be the total basic cost for task i. If F is the total field
supervision cost and F@-(i) is the proration of that cost to task i, then a
typical proportional allocation is: Example 5-9: Prorated costs for field supervision and office overhead
If the field supervision cost is $ 13,245 for the project in Table 5-6
(Example 5-8) with a total direct cost of $ 88,300, find the prorated field
supervision costs for various elements of the project. Furthermore, if the
general office overhead charged to the project is 4% of the direct field cost
which is the sum of basic costs and field supervision cost, find the prorated
general office overhead costs for various elements of the project.
For the project, y = $ 88,300 and F = $13,245. Hence:
Example 5-10: A standard cost report for allocating overhead
The reliance on labor expenses as a means of allocating overhead burdens in
typical management accounting systems can be illustrated by the example of a
particular product's standard cost sheet.(See H.T. Johnson and R.S. Kaplan,
Relevance Lost: The Rise and Fall of Management Accounting, Harvard Business
School Press, Boston, MA 1987, p. 185.) Table 5--1 is an actual product's
standard cost sheet of a company following the procedure of using overhead
burden rates assessed per direct labor hour. The material and labor costs for
manufacturing a type of valve were estimated from engineering studies and from
current material and labor prices. These amounts are summarized in Columns 2
and 3 of Table 5--1. The overhead costs shown in Column 4 of Table 5--1 were
obtained by allocating the expenses of several departments to the various
products manufactured in these departments in proportion to the labor cost. As
shown in the last line of the table, the material cost represents 29% of the
total cost, while labor costs are 11% of the total cost. The allocated
overhead cost constitutes 60% of the total cost. Even though material costs
exceed labor costs, only the labor costs are used in allocating overhead.
Although this type of allocation method is common in industry, the arbitrary
allocation of joint costs introduces unintended cross subsidies among products
and may produce adverse consequences on sales and profits. For example, a
particular type of part may incur few overhead expenses in practice, but this
phenomenon would not be reflected in the standard cost report.
Preparing cost estimates normally requires the use of historical data on
construction costs. Historical cost data will be useful for cost estimation
only if they are collected and organized in a way that is compatible with
future applications. Organizations which are engaged in cost estimation
continually should keep a file for their own use. The information must be
updated with respect to changes that will inevitably occur. The format of cost
data, such as unit costs for various items, should be organized according to
the current standard of usage in the organization.
Construction cost data are published in various forms by a number of
organizations. These publications are useful as references for comparison.
Basically, the following types of information are available:
Historical cost data must be used cautiously. Changes in relative prices
may have substantial impacts on construction costs which have increased in
relative price. Unfortunately, systematic changes over a long period of time
for such factors are difficult to predict. Errors in analysis also serve to
introduce uncertainty into cost estimates. It is difficult, of course, to
foresee all the problems which may occur in construction and operation of
facilities. There is some evidence that estimates of construction and
operating costs have tended to persistently understate the actual costs. This
is due to the effects of greater than anticipated increases in costs, changes
in design during the construction process, or overoptimism.
Since the future prices of constructed facilities are influenced by many
uncertain factors, it is important to recognize that this risk must be borne to
some degree by all parties involved, i.e., the owner, the design professionals,
the construction contractors, and the financing institution. It is to the best
interest of all parties that the risk sharing scheme implicit in the
design-construct process adopted by the owner is fully understood by all. When
inflation adjustment provisions have very different risk implications to
various parties, the price level changes will also be treated differently for
various situations.
Example 5-11: Cost data from commercial publications
Cost data from commercial publications often provide useful information for
cost estimating. An example of cost data for earthwork (bulk excavation with a
backhoe) is shown in Figure 5-0, which is reproduced from Building Construction
Cost Data, 1987, by R.S. Means Company, Inc. These excavation costs assume
standard crews with the associated costs summarized in Figure 5-0. For
example, operation of a 2 cubic yard capacity hydraulic backhoe for bulk
excavation would require standard crew B-12C, would have a standard daily
output of (75 c.y./hr)(8 hr) = 600 cubic yards, and would require 0.027 labor
hours per cubic yard of excavation for a total of (600 c.y.)(0.027 hr/c.y.) =
16.2 labor hours. Costs exclusive of overhead and profit (i.e. "bare costs")
as well as total costs including standard overhead and profit rates are shown
in Figure 5-0. Thus, the total bare cost for a standard daily output of 600
cubic yards is (600 c.y.)($ 1.87/c.y.) = $ 1,122. The standard crew B-12C for
this task consists of two equipment operators as shown in Figure 5-0. Using a
daily total of 16 labor hours, the daily bare cost is seen to be $ 1,118, which
is essentially the same as the $ 1,122 obtained from Figure 5-0 except for the
difference due to truncation of decimals in the process of computation. Note
that costs would increase 15% if the excavated material must be loaded onto
trucks (Figure 5-0).
Since historical cost data are often used in making cost estimates, it is
important to note the price level changes over time. Trends in price changes
can also serve as a basis for forecasting future costs. The input price
indices of labor and/or material reflect the price level changes of such input
components of construction; the output price indices, where available, reflect
the price level changes of the completed facilities, thus to some degree also
measuring the productivity of construction.
A price index is a weighted aggregate measure of constant quantities of
goods and services selected for the package. The price index at a subsequent
year represents a proportionate change in the same weighted aggregate measure
because of changes in prices. Let l@-[t] be the price index in year t, and
l@-[t+1] be the price index in the following year t+1. Then, the percent
change in price index for year t+1 is: The best-known indicators of general price changes are the GNP deflators
compiled periodically by the U.S. Department of Commerce, and the consumer
price index (CPI) compiled periodically by the U.S. Department of Labor. They
are widely used as broad gauges of the changes in production costs and in
consumer prices for essential goods and services. Special price indices
related to construction are also collected by industry sources since some input
factors for construction and the outputs from construction may
disproportionately outpace or fall behind the general price indices. Examples
of special price indices for construction input factors are the wholesale
Building Material Price and Building Trades Union Wages, both compiled by the
U.S. Department of Labor. In addition, the construction cost index and the
building cost index are reported periodically in the Engineering News-Record
(ENR). Both ENR cost indices measure the effects of wage rate and material
price trends, but they are not adjusted for productivity, efficiency,
competitive conditions, or technology changes. Consequently, all these indices
measure only the price changes of respective construction input factors as
represented by constant quantities of material and/or labor. On the other
hand, the price indices of various types of completed facilities reflect the
price changes of construction output including all pertinent factors in the
construction process. The building construction output indices compiled by
Turner Construction Company and Handy-Whitman Utilities are compiled in the
U.S. Statistical Abstracts published each year.
Figure 5-0 shows the Gross National Product (GNP) price deflator and the ENR
building index from 1955 to 1985, using 1982 as the base year with an index of
100. Before 1976, the ENR building index rose more sharply than the GNP
deflator except in 1973, whereas from 1976 to 1985, both indices practically
coincide. The ENR building index is an input price index reflecting the cost
of inputs to the building construction process such as wage rates and standard
material costs. Figure 5-0 shows the Turner Construction Company building cost
index, also using 1982 as the base year for an index of 100. The Handy-Whitman
Utilities building cost index and the GNP price deflator are almost identical
to the Turner index, and therefore cannot be detected as separate curves if
plotted in Figure 5-0. Both the Turner and the Handy-Whitman indices are
referred to as output price indices because they represent the cost of
completed buildings. Before 1982, the Turner index runs very close to the ENR
building index, indicating no significant changes in productivity. However,
from 1982 to 1985, the Turner index increases slightly faster than the ENR
building index, suggesting a possible decline in productivity. In view of the
fact that the productivity of manufacturing industries has improved
significantly from 1955 to 1985, the performance of the construction industry
has been viewed as being stagnant by comparison. A summary of these indices
from 1970 to 1985 is also shown in Table 5--1 for illustration.
Since construction costs vary in different regions of the United States and
in all parts of the world, locational indices showing the construction cost at
a specific location relative to the national trend are useful for cost
estimation. ENR publishes periodically the indices of local construction
costs at the major cities in different regions of the United States as
percentages of local to national costs.
When the inflation rate is relatively small, i.e., less than 10%, it is
convenient to select a single price index to measure the inflationary
conditions in construction and thus to deal only with a single set of price
change rates in forecasting. Let j@-[t] be the price change rate in year t+1
over the price in year t. If the base year is denoted as year 0 (t=0), then
the price change rates at years 1,2,...t are j@-[1],j@-[2],...j@-[t],
respectively. Let A@-[t] be the cost in year t expressed in base-year dollars
and A@+[']@-[t] be the cost in year t expressed in then-current dollars. Then: If the prices of certain key items affecting the estimates of future
benefits and costs are expected to escalate faster than the general price
levels, it may become necessary to consider the differential price changes over
and above the general inflation rate. For example, during the period between
1973 through 1979, it was customary to assume that fuel costs would escalate
faster than the general price levels. With hindsight in 1983, the assumption
for estimating costs over many years would have been different. Because of the
uncertainty in the future, the use of differential inflation rates for special
items should be judicious.
Future forecasts of costs will be uncertain: the actual expenses may be much
lower or much higher than those forecasted. This uncertainty arises from
technological changes, changes in relative prices, inaccurate forecasts of
underlying socioeconomic conditions, analytical errors, and other factors. For
the purpose of forecasting, it is often sufficient to project the trend of
future prices by using a constant rate j for price changes in each year over a
period of t years, then Example 5-12: Changes in highway and building costs
Table 5--1 shows the change of standard highway costs from 1940 to 1980, and
Table 5--1 shows the change of residential building costs from 1970 to 1980.
For these series, the quality of the finished product was held roughly
equivalent. In each case, the rate of cost increase was substantially above
the rate of inflation after 1970. Indeed, the real cost increase between 1970
and 1980 was in excess of three percent per year in both cases. However, these
data also show some cause for optimism. For the case of the standard highway,
real cost decreases took place in the period from l940 to l980.
Unfortunately, comparable indices of outputs are not being compiled on a
nationwide basis for other types of construction.
In the screening estimate of a new facility, a single parameter is often
used to describe a cost function. For example, the cost of a power plant is a
function of electricity generating capacity expressed in megawatts, or the cost
of a sewage treatment plant as a function of waste flow expressed in million
gallons per day.
The general conditions for the application of the single parameter cost
function for screening estimates are:
Example 5-13: Screening estimate for a refinery
The total construction cost of a refinery with a production capacity of
200,000 bbl/day in Gary, Indiana, completed in 1981 was $100 million. It is
proposed that a similar refinery with a production capacity of 300,000 bbl/day
be built in Los Angeles, California, for completion in 1983. For the
additional information given below, make an order of magnitude estimate of the
cost of the proposed plant.
!!!!!!!!! Unit Price
Items!!!Unit!!!Qty.!!! 1!!! 2
Mobilization.!!!ls!!!1!!!115,000!!!569,554.!
Removal, berm.!!!lf!!!8,020!!!1.00!!!1.50.!!
Finish subgrade.!!!sy!!!1,207,500!!!0.50!!!0.30.!!!s
Surface ditches.!!!lf!!!525!!!2.00!!!1.00.!!
Excavation structures.!!!cy!!!7,000!!!3.00!!!5.00.!!
Base course, untreated, 3/4".!!!ton!!!362,200!!!4.50!!!5.00.!!!ton!!!362,200!!
Lean concrete, 4" thick.!!!sy!!!820,310!!!3.10!!!3.00.!!!sy!!!820,310!!!3.10
PCC, pavement, 10" thick.!!!sy!!!706,010!!!10.90!!!12.00.!!!sy!!!706,010!!!10.
Concrete, ci AA(AE).!!!ls!!!1!!!200,000!!!190,000.!!
Small structure.!!!cy!!!50!!!500!!!475.!!!
Barrier, precast.!!!lf!!!7,920!!!15.00!!!16.00.!!!
Flatwork, 4" thick.!!!sy!!!7,410!!!10.00!!!8.00.!!
10" thick.!!!sy!!!4,241!!!20.00!!!27.00.!!
Slope protection.!!!sy!!!2,104!!!25.00!!!30.00.!!!
Metal, end section, 15".!!!ea!!!39!!!100!!!125.!!!ea
18".!!!ea!!!3!!!150!!!200
Post, right-of-way, modification.!!!lf!!!4,700!!!3.00!!!2.50.!!!lf!!!4,700!!
Salvage & relay pipe.!!!lf!!!1,680!!!5.00!!!12.00.!!
Loose riprap.!!!cy!!!32!!!40.00!!!30.00.!!!c
Braced posts.!!!ea!!!54!!!100!!!110
Delineators, type I.!!!lb!!!1,330!!!12.00!!!12.00.!!
type II.!!!ea!!!140!!!15.00!!!12.00.!!!ea!
Constructive signs fixed.!!!sf!!!52,600!!!0.10!!!0.40.!!!sf!!!52,600!!!0.10!!!
Barricades, type III.!!!lf!!!29,500!!!0.20!!!0.20.
Warning lights.!!!day!!!6,300!!!0.10!!!0.50.
Pavement marking, epoxy material, black.!!!gal!!!475!!!90.00!!!100.!!!gal!!!47
Yellow.!!!gal!!!740!!!90.00!!!80.00.!!!gal
White.!!!gal!!!985!!!90.00!!!70.00.!!!gal!
Plowable, one way white.!!!ea!!!342!!!50.00!!!20.00.!!!ea!!!342!!!50.00!!!20
Topsoil, contractor furnished.!!!cy!!!260!!!10.00!!!6.00.!!!cy!!!260!!!10.00!!
Seedling, method A.!!!acr!!!103!!!150!!!200.
Excelsior blanket.!!!sy!!!500!!!2.00!!!2.00.
!!!!!!!!! Unit Price
Items!!!Unit!!!Qty.!!! 1!!! 2
Corrugated, metal pipe, 18".!!!lf!!!580!!!20.00!!!18.00.!!!lf!!!580!!!20.00!!!
Polyethylene pipe, 12".!!!lf!!!2,250!!!15.00!!!13.00.!!!lf!!!2,250!!!15.00!!
Catch basin grate & frame.!!!ea!!!35!!!350!!!280.!!!
Equal opportunity training.!!!hr!!!18,000!!!0.80!!!0.80.!!!hr!!!18,000!!!0.80!
Granular backfill borrow.!!!cy!!!274!!!10.00!!!16.00
Drill caisson, 2' x 6".!!!lf!!!722!!!100!!!80.00.!!!
Flagging.!!!hr!!!20,000!!!8.25!!!12.50.!!!hr
Prestressed concrete member
type IV, 141' x 4".!!!ea!!!7!!!12,000!!!16,000.!!!
132' x 4".!!!ea!!!6!!!11,000!!!14,000.!!!e
Reinforced steel.!!!lb!!!6,300!!!0.60!!!0.50
Epoxy coated.!!!lb!!!122,241!!!0.55!!!0.50
Structural steel.!!!ls!!!1!!!5,000!!!1,600.!
Sign, covering.!!!sf!!!16!!!10.00!!!4.00.!!!
type C-2, wood post.!!!sf!!!98!!!15.00!!!17.00.!!!
24".!!!ea!!!3!!!100!!!400
30".!!!ea!!!2!!!100!!!160
48".!!!ea!!!11!!!200!!!300.!!!ea!
Auxiliary.!!!sf!!!61!!!15.00!!!12.00.!!!sf
Steel post, 48" x 60".!!!ea!!!11!!!500!!!700.!!!ea
type 3, wood post.!!!sf!!!669!!!15.00!!!19.00.!!!s
24".!!!ea!!!23!!!100!!!125.!!!ea!
30".!!!ea!!!1!!!100!!!150
36".!!!ea!!!12!!!150!!!180.!!!ea!
42" x 60".!!!ea!!!8!!!150!!!220.!
48".!!!ea!!!7!!!200!!!270
Auxiliary.!!!sf!!!135!!!15.00!!!13.00.!!!s
Steel post.!!!sf!!!1,610!!!40.00!!!35.00.!
12" x 36".!!!ea!!!28!!!100!!!150.
Foundation, concrete.!!!ea!!!60!!!300!!!650.!!!ea!
Barricade, 48" x 42".!!!ea!!!40!!!100!!!100.
Wood post, road closed.!!!lf!!!100!!!30.00!!!36.00
Treatment Plant!!!Exponent!!!Capacity Range
Type!!! m!!!(millions of gallons per day)
1. Water treatment!!! 0.67!!! 1-100
2. Waste treatment!!!
Primary with digestion (small)!!! 0.55!!! 0.1-10
Primary with digestion (large)!!! 0.75!!! 0.7-100
Trickling filter!!! 0.60!!! 0.1-20
Activated sludge!!! 0.77!!! 0.1-100
Stabilization ponds!!! 0.57!!! 0.1-100
Note: Data are collected from various sources by P.M. Berthouex. See the
references in his article for the primary sources.
Processing!!!Unit of!!!K value!!! m
Unit!!!Capacity!!!(1968 $)!!!value
1. Liquid processing
Oil separation!!!mgd!!!58,000!!!0.84
Hydroclone degritter!!!mgd!!!3,820!!!0.35
Primary sedimentation!!!sq. ft.!!!399!!!0.60
Furial clarifier!!!sq. ft.!!!700!!!0.57
Sludge aeration basin!!!mil. gal.!!!170,000!!!0.50
Tickling filter!!!sq. ft.!!!21,000!!!0.71
Aerated lagoon basin!!!mil. gal.!!!46,000!!!0.67
Equalization!!!mil. gal.!!!72,000!!!0.52
Neutralization!!!mgd!!!60,000!!!0.70
2. Sludge handling
Digestion!!!cu. ft.!!!67,500!!!0.59
Vacuum filter!!!sq. ft.!!!9,360!!!0.84
Centrifuge!!!lbs dry !!!318!!!0.81
!!! solids/hr.
Note: Data are collected from various sources by P.M. Berthouex. See the
references in his article for the primary sources.
!!! !!! Material!!! Equipment!!!
Wage!!! Labor!!! Labor!!! Direct
!!! Quantity!!! Unit Cost!!! Unit Cost!!!
Rate!!! Input!!! Unit Cost!!! Cost
Description!!! Q@-(i)!!! M@-(i)!!! E@-(i)!!!
W@-(i)!!! L@-(i)!!! W@-(i)L@-(i)!!! y@-(i)
Formwork!!! 12,000 ft@+(2)!!! $ 0.4/ft@+(2)!!!
$ 0.8/ft@+(2)!!! $15/hr!!! 0.2 hr/ft
@+(2)!!!$ 3.0/ft@+(2)!!! $ 50,400
Re-bars!!! 4,000 lb!!! $ 0.2/lb!!!
$ 0.3/lb!!! $ 15/hr!!! 0.04 hr/lb!!!
$ 0.6/lb!!! $ 4,400
Concrete!!! 500 yd@+(3)!!! $ 5.0/yd@+(3)!!!
$ 50/yd@+(3)!!! $ 15/hr!!! 0.8 hr/yd@+(3)!!!
$12.0/yd@+(3)!!! $ 33,500
Total!!! !!!!!! !!!
!!! !!! !!! $ 88,300
!!!Material!!!Labor!!!Overhead!!!Total
!!! Cost!!! Cost!!! Cost!!!Cost
PURCHASED PART!!!$1.1980!!!!!!!!!$1.1980
OPERATION
Drill, face, tap (2)!!!!!!
$0.0438!!!$0.2404!!! 0.2842
Degrease!!!!!! 0.0031!!!
0.0337!!! 0.0368
Remove burs!!!!!! 0.0577!!!
0.3241!!! 0.3818
Total Cost, This Item!!! 1.1980!!!
0.1046!!! 0.5982!!! 1.9008
Other subassemblies!!! 0.3253!!!
0.2994!!! 1.8519!!!
2.4766
Total Cost,
Subassemblies!!! 1.5233!!! 0.4040!!!
2.4501!!! 4.3773
Assemble and test!!!!!! 0.1469!!!
0.4987!!! 0.6456
Pack without paper!!!!!! 0.0234!!!
0.1349!!! 0.1583
Total Cost, This Item!!!$1.5233!!!
$0.5743!!!$3.0837!!!$5.1813
COST COMPONENT %!!! 29%!!!
11%!!! 60%!!! 100%
From H. Thomas Johnson and Robert S. Kaplan, Relevance Lost: The Rise and
Fall of Management Accounting, Harvard Business School Press, Boston, MA.
Reprinted with permission.
______________________________________________________________________________
!!!!!!!!!Turner
!!!!!!ENR!!!Construction!!!Handy-Whitman
Year!!!GNP!!!Building!!!Co. Building!!!Utilities Building
!!!Deflator!!!Cost Index!!!Cost Index!!!Cost Index
1970!!!43!!!37!!!39!!!38
1971!!!45!!!43!!!44!!!41
1972!!!47!!!47!!!47!!!45
1973!!!50!!!51!!!49!!!49
1974!!!55!!!54!!!57!!!59
1975!!!60!!!58!!!61!!!66
1976!!!63!!!63!!!62!!!67
1977!!!67!!!67!!!64!!!70
1978!!!72!!!72!!!68!!!77
1979!!!79!!!79!!!76!!!86
1980!!!86!!!86!!!84!!!95
1981!!!94!!!94!!!93!!!100
1982!!!100!!!100!!!100!!!100
1983!!!104!!!104!!!105!!!103
1984!!!108!!!108!!!111!!!107
1985!!!112!!!112!!!115!!!110
Note: Index = 100 in base year of 1982.
______________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________
!!! Standard Hgwy!!! Price Deflator!!!
Standard Hgwy!!! Percentage
Year!!! Cost !!! !!!
Real Cost !!! Change
!!!(1972=100) (1972=100)
(1972=100)!!! Per Year
1940!!! 26!!! --!!! 90
1950!!! 48!!! 54!!! 89!!! -0.1
1960!!! 58!!! 69!!! 84!!! -0.6
1970!!! 91!!! 92!!! 99!!! +1.8
1980!!! 255!!! 179!!! 143!!! +4.4
Source: Statistical Abstract of the United States. GNP Deflator is used
for the price deflator index.
______________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________
!!! Standard Residence!!! Price Deflator!!!
Standard Residence!!! Percentage
Year!!! Cost !!! !!! Real Cost !!!
Change
!!!(1972=100) (1972=100) (1972=100)!!! Per Year
1970!!! 77!!! 92!!! 74
1980!!! 203!!! 179!!! 99!!! +3.4
Source: Statistical Abstract of the United States. The GNP deflator is
used for the price deflator index.
______________________________________________________________________________
On the basis of the above conditions, the estimate for the new project may
be obtained as follows:
Since there is no adjustment for the cost of construction financing, the
order of magnitude estimate for the new project is $209.5 million.
Example 5-14: Conceptual estimate for a chemical processing plant
In making a preliminary estimate of a chemical processing plant, several
major types of equipment are the most significant parameters in affecting the
installation cost. The cost of piping and other ancillary items for each type
of equipment can often be expressed as a percentage of that type of equipment
for a given capacity. The standard costs for the major equipment types for two
plants with different daily production capacities in 1972 are as shown in Table
5--1. It has been established that the installation cost of all equipment for
a plant with daily production capacity between 100,000 bbl and 400,000 bbl can
best be estimated by using linear interpolation of the standard data.
______________________________________________________________________________
Equipment!!!Equipment Cost ($1000)
!!!Cost of ancillary items as % of
Type!!!!!!!!! equipment cost ($1000)
!!!100,000 bbl!!!400,000 bbl!!!100,000 bbl!!!400,000 bbl
Furnace!!!3,000!!!10,000!!!40%!!!30%
Tower!!!2,000!!! 6,000!!!45%!!!35%
Drum!!!1,500!!! 5,000!!!50%!!!40%
Pump, etc.!!!1,000!!! 4,000!!!60%!!!50%
______________________________________________________________________________
A new chemical processing plant with a daily production capacity of 200,000
bbl was constructed in Memphis, TN in 1976. Determine the total preliminary
cost estimate of the plant including the building and the equipment on the
following basis:
(1) The costs of the equipment and ancillary items for a plant with a
capacity of 200,000 bbl can be estimated in 1972 dollars by linear
interpolation of the data in Table 5--1, and the results are shown in Table
5--1.
______________________________________________________________________________
.
Equipment!!! Equipment Cost!!! Percentage for
Type !!! (in $1,000)!!! ancillary items
Furnace!!!3,000 + (1/3)(10,000-3,000) = 5,333!!!40 - (1/3)(40-30) = 37
Tower!!!2,000 + (1/3)(6,000-2,000) = 3,333!!!45 - (1/3)(45-35) = 42
Drum!!!1,500 + (1/3)(5,000-1,500) = 2,667!!!50 - (1/3)(50-40) = 47
Pumps, etc.!!!1,000 + (1/3)(4,000-1,000) = 2,000!!!60 - (1/3)(60-50) = 57
______________________________________________________________________________
Hence, the total project cost in thousands of 1972 dollars is given by
Equation (5.8) as:
(2) The corresponding cost in thousands of 1976 dollars according to the ENR
building cost index in Table 5--1 and using Equation (5.16) is:
(3) The total cost of the project after adjustment for location is
The engineer's estimate is based on a list of items and the associated
quantities from which the total construction cost is derived. This same list
is also made available to the bidders if unit prices of the items on the list
are also solicited from the bidders. Thus, the itemized costs submitted by the
winning contractor may be used as the starting point for budget control.
In general, the progress payments to the contractor are based on the units
of work completed and the corresponding unit prices of the work items on the
list. Hence, the estimate based on the engineers' list of quanitities for
various work items essentially defines the level of detail to which subsequent
measures of progress for the project will be made.
Example 5-15: Bid estimate based on engineer's list of quantities
Using the unit prices in the bid of contractor 1 for the quantitites
specified by the engineer in Table 5-2 (Example 5-3), we can compute the total
bid price of contractor 1 for the roadway project. The itemized costs for
various work items as well as the total bid price are shown in Table 5--1.
Since construction costs are incurred over the entire construction phase of
a project, it is often necessary to determine the amounts to be spent in
various periods to derive the cash flow profile, especially for large projects
with long durations. Consequently, it is important to examine the percentage
of work expected to be completed at various time periods to which the costs
would be charged. More accurate estimates may be accomplished once the project
is scheduled as described in Chapter 10, but some rough estimate of the cash
flow may be required prior to this time.
Consider the basic problem in determining the percentage of work completed
during construction. One common method of estimating percentage of completion
is based on the amount of money spent relative to the total amount budgeted for
the entire project. This method has the obvious drawback in assuming that the
amount of money spent has been used efficiently for production. A more
reliable method is based on the concept of value of work completed which is
defined as the product of the budgeted labor hours per unit of production and
the actual number of production units completed, and is expressed in budgeted
labor hours for the work completed. Then, the percentage of completion at any
stage is the ratio of the value of work completed to date and the value of work
to be completed for the entire project. Regardless of the method of
measurement, it is informative to understand the trend of work progress during
construction for evaluation and control.
In general, the work on a construction project progresses gradually from the
time of mobilization until it reaches a plateau; then the work slows down
gradually and finally stops at the time of completion. The rate of work done
during various time periods (expressed in the percentage of project cost per
unit time) is shown schematically in Figure 5-0 in which ten time periods have
been assumed. The solid line A represents the case in which the rate of work
is zero at time t = 0 and increases linearly to 12.5% of project cost at t = 2,
while the rate begins to decrease from 12.5% at t = 8 to 0% at t = 10. The
dotted line B represents the case of rapid mobilization by reaching 12.5% of
project cost at t = 1 while beginning to decrease from 12.5% at t = 7 to 0% at
t = 10. The dash line C represents the case of slow mobilization by reaching
12.5% of project cost at t = 3 while beginning to decrease from 12.5% at t = 9
to 0% at t = 10.
The value of work completed at a given time (expressed as a cumulative
percentage of project cost) is shown schematically in Figure 5-0. In each case
(A, B or C), the value of work completed can be represented by an "S-shaped"
curve. The effects of rapid mobilization and slow mobilization are indicated
by the positions of curves B and C relative to curve A, respectively.
While the curves shown in Figures 5-0 and 5-0 represent highly idealized
cases, they do suggest the latitude for adjusting the schedules for various
activities in a project. While the rate of work progress may be changed quite
drastically within a single period, such as the change from rapid mobilization
to a slow mobilization in periods 1, 2 and 3 in Figure 5-0, the effect on the
value of work completed over time will diminish in significance as indicated by
the cumulative percentages for later periods in Figure 5-0. Thus, adjustment
of the scheduling of some activities may improve the utilization of labor,
material and equipment, and any delay caused by such adjustments for individual
activities is not likely to cause problems for the eventual progress toward the
completion of a project.
In addition to the speed of resource mobilization, another important
consideration is the overall duration of a project and the amount of resources
applied. Various strategies may be applied to shorten the overall duration of
a project such as overlapping design and construction activities (as described
in Chapter 2) or increasing the peak amounts of labor and equipment working on
a site. However, spatial, managerial and technical factors will typically
place a minimum limit on the project duration or cause costs to escalate with
shorter durations.
Example 5-16: Calculation of Value of Work Completed
From the area of work progress in Figure 5-0, the value of work completed at
any point in Figure 5-0 can be derived by noting the area under the curve up to
that point in Figure 5-0. The result for t = 0 through t = 10 is shown in
Table 5--2 and plotted in Figure 5-0.
In order to analyze the life cycle costs of a proposed facility, it is
necessary to estimate the operation and maintenance costs over time after the
start up of the facility. The stream of operating costs over the life of the
facility depends upon subsequent maintenance policies and facility use. In
particular, the magnitude of routine maintenance costs will be reduced if the
facility undergoes periodic repairs and rehabilitation at periodic intervals.
Since the tradeoff between the capital cost and the operating cost is an
essential part of the economic evaluation of a facility, the operating cost is
viewed not as a separate entity, but as a part of the larger parcel of life
cycle cost at the planning and design stage. The techniques of estimating life
cycle costs are similar to those used for estimating capital costs, including
empirical cost functions and the unit cost method of estimating the labor,
material and equipment costs. However, it is the interaction of the operating
and capital costs which deserve special attention.
As suggested earlier in the discussion of the exponential rule for
estimating, the value of the cost exponent may influence the decision whether
extra capacity should be built to accommodate future growth. Similarly, the
economy of scale may also influence the decision on rehabilitation at a given
time. As the rehabilitation work becomes extensive, it becomes a capital
project with all the implications of its own life cycle. Hence, the cost
estimation of a rehabilitation project may also involve capital and operating
costs.
While deferring the discussion of the economic evaluation of constructed
facilities to Chapter 6, it is sufficient to point out that the stream of
operating costs over time represents a series of costs at different time
periods which have different values with respect to the present. Consequently,
the cost data at different time periods must be converted to a common base line
if meaningful comparison is desired.
Example 5-17: Maintenance cost on a roadway[This example is adapted from
McNeil, S. and C. Hendrickson, "A Statistical Model of Pavement Maintenance
Expenditure," Transportation Research Record No. 846, 1982, pp. 71-76.]
Maintenance costs for constructed roadways tend to increase with both age
and use of the facility. As an example, the following empirical model was
estimated for maintenance expenditures on sections of the Ohio Turnpike:
For example, for V = 500,300 ESAL and A = 5 years, the annual cost of
routine maintenance per lane-mile is estimated to be:
Example 5-18: Time stream of costs over the life of a roadway[This example
is adapted from S. McNeil, Three Statistical Models of Road Management Based on
Turnpike Data, M.S. Thesis, Carnegie-Mellon University, Pittsburgh, PA, 1981.]
The time stream of costs over the life of a roadway depends upon the
intervals at which rehabilitation is carried out. If the rehabilitation
strategy and the traffic are known, the time stream of costs can be estimated.
Using a life cycle model which predicts the economic life of highway
pavement on the basis of the effects of traffic and other factors, an optimal
schedule for rehabilitation can be developed. For example, a time stream of
costs and resurfacing projects for one pavement section is shown in Figure 5-0.
As described in the previous example, the routine maintenance costs increase as
the pavement ages, but decline after each new resurfacing. As the pavement
continues to age, resurfacing becomes more frequent until the roadway is
completely reconstructed at the end of 35 years.
Facility investment decisions represent major commitments of corporate
resources and have serious consequences on the profitability and financial
stability of a corporation. In the public sector, such decisions also affect
the viability of facility investment programs and the credibility of the agency
in charge of the programs. It is important to evaluate facilities rationally
with regard to both the economic feasibility of individual projects and the
relative net benefits of alternative and mutually exclusive projects.
This chapter will present an overview of the decision process for economic
evaluation of facilities with regard to the project life cycle. The cycle
begins with the initial conception of the project and continues though
planning, design, procurement, construction, start-up, operation and
maintenance. It ends with the disposal of a facility when it is no longer
productive or useful. Four major aspects of economic evaluation will be
examined:
It is important to distinguish between the economic evaluation of
alternative physical facilities and the evaluation of alternative financing
plans for a project. The former refers to the evaluation of the cash flow
representing the benefits and costs associated with the acquisition and
operation of the facility, and this cash flow over the planning horizon is
referred to as the economic cash flow or the operating cash flow. The latter
refers to the evaluation of the cash flow representing the incomes and
expenditures as a result of adopting a specific financing plan for funding the
project, and this cash flow over the planning horizon is referred to as the
financial cash flow. In general, economic evaluation and financial evaluation
are carried out by different groups in an organization since economic
evaluation is related to design, construction, operations and maintenance of
the facility while financial evaluations require knowledge of financial assets
such as equities, bonds, notes and mortgages. The separation of economic
evaluation and financial evaluation does not necessarily mean one should ignore
the interaction of different designs and financing requirements over time which
may influence the relative desirability of specific design/financing
combinations. All such combinations can be duly considered. In practice,
however, the division of labor among two groups of specialists generally leads
to sequential decisions without adequate communication for analyzing the
interaction of various design/financing combinations because of the timing of
separate analyses.
As long as the significance of the interaction of design/financing
combinations is understood, it is convenient first to consider the economic
evaluation and financial evaluation separately, and then combine the results of
both evaluations to reach a final conclusion. Consequently, this chapter is
devoted primarily to the economic evaluation of alternative physical facilities
while the effects of a variety of financing mechanisms will be treated in the
next chapter. Since the methods of analyzing economic cash flows are equally
applicable to the analysis of financial cash flows, the techniques for
evaluating financing plans and the combined effects of economic and financial
cash flows for project selection are also included in this chapter.
A systematic approach for economic evaluation of facilities consists of the
following major steps:
The period of time to which the management of a firm or agency wishes to
look ahead is referred to as the planning horizon. Since the future is
uncertain, the period of time selected is limited by the ability to forecast
with some degree of accuracy. For capital investment, the selection of the
planning horizon is often influenced by the useful life of facilities, since
the disposal of usable assets, once acquired, generally involves suffering
financial losses.
In economic evaluations, project alternatives are represented by their cash
flow profiles over the n years or periods in the planning horizon. Thus, the
interest periods are normally assumed to be in years t = 0,1,2, ..., n with t =
0 representing the present time. Let B@-(t,x) be the annual benefit at the end
of year t for a investment project x where x = 1, 2, ... refer to projects No.
1, No. 2, etc., respectively. Let C@-(t,x) be the annual cost at the end of
year t for the same investment project x. The net annual cash flow is defined
as the annual benefit in excess of the annual cost, and is denoted by A@-(t,x)
at the end of year t for an investment project x. Then, for t = 0,1, . . .
,n: Once the management has committed funds to a specific project, it must
forego other investment opportunities which might have been undertaken by using
the same funds. The opportunity cost reflects the return that can be earned
from the best alternative investment opportunity foregone. The foregone
opportunities may include not only capital projects but also financial
investments or other socially desirable programs. Management should invest in
a proposed project only if it will yield a return at least equal to the minimum
attractive rate of return (MARR) from foregone opportunities as envisioned by
the organization.
In general, the MARR specified by the top management in a private firm
reflects the opportunity cost of capital of the firm, the market interest
rates for lending and borrowing, and the risks associated with investment
opportunities. For public projects, the MARR is specified by a government
agency, such as the Office of Management and Budget or the Congress of the
United States. The public MARR thus specified reflects social and economic
welfare considerations, and is referred to as the social rate of discount.
Regardless of how the MARR is determined by an organization, the MARR
specified for the economic evaluation of investment proposals is critically
important in determining whether any investment proposal is worthwhile from the
standpoint of the organization. Since the MARR of an organization often cannot
be determined accurately, it is advisable to use several values of the MARR to
assess the sensitivity of the potential of the project to variations of the
MARR value.
The basic principle in assessing the economic costs and benefits of new
facility investments is to find the aggregate of individual changes in the
welfare of all parties affected by the proposed projects. The changes in
welfare are generally measured in monetary terms, but there are exceptions,
since some effects cannot be measured directly by cash receipts and
disbursements. Examples include the value of human lives saved through safety
improvements or the cost of environmental degradation. The difficulties in
estimating future costs and benefits lie not only in uncertainties and
reliability of measurement, but also on the social costs and benefits generated
as side effects. Furthermore, proceeds and expenditures related to financial
transactions, such as interest and subsidies, must also be considered by
private firms and by public agencies.
To obtain an accurate estimate of costs in the cash flow profile for the
acquisition and operation of a project, it is necessary to specify the
resources required to construct and operate the proposed physical facility,
given the available technology and operating policy. Typically, each of the
labor and material resources required by the facility is multiplied by its
price, and the products are then summed to obtain the total costs. Private
corporations generally ignore external social costs unless required by law to
do so. In the public sector, externalities often must be properly accounted
for. An example is the cost of property damage caused by air pollution from a
new plant. In any case, the measurement of external costs is extremely
difficult and somewhat subjective for lack of a market mechanism to provide
even approximate answers to the appropriate value.
In the private sector, the benefits derived from a facility investment are
often measured by the revenues generated from the operation of the facility.
Revenues are estimated by the total of price times quantity purchased. The
depreciation allowances and taxes on revenues must be deducted according to the
prevailing tax laws. In the public sector, income may also be accrued to a
public agency from the operation of the facility. However, several other
categories of benefits may also be included in the evaluation of public
projects. First, private benefits can be received by users of a facility or
service in excess of costs such as user charges or price charged. After all,
individuals only use a service or facility if their private benefit exceeds
their cost. These private benefits or consumer surplus represent a direct
benefit to members of the public. In many public projects, it is difficult,
impossible or impractical to charge for services received, so direct revenues
equal zero and all user benefits appear as consumers surplus. Examples are a
park or roadways for which entrance is free. As a second special category of
public benefit, there may be external or secondary beneficiaries of public
projects, such as new jobs created and profits to private suppliers.
Estimating these secondary benefits is extremely difficult since resources
devoted to public projects might simply be displaced from private employment
and thus represent no net benefit.
Constructed facilities are inherently long-term investments with a deferred
pay-off. The cost of capital or MARR depends on the real interest rate (i.e.,
market interest rate less the inflation rate) over the period of investment.
As the cost of capital rises, it becomes less and less attractive to invest in
a large facility because of the opportunities foregone over a long period of
time.
In Figure 6-0, the changes in the cost of capital from 1955 to 1985 are
illustrated. This figure presents the market interest rate on a 20-year
treasury bond, and the corresponding real interest rate over this period. The
real interest rate is calculated as the market interest rate less the general
rate of inflation. During the last decade in this figure, the real interest
rate has varied substantially, ranging from 10% to -4%. The exceptional nature
of the 1980 to 1985 years is dramatically evident: the real rate of interest
reached remarkably high historic levels.
With these volatile interest rates, interest charges and the ultimate cost
of projects are uncertain. Organizations and institutional arrangements
capable of dealing with this uncertainty and able to respond to interest rate
changes effectively would be quite valuable. For example, banks offer both
fixed rate and variable rate mortgages. An owner who wants to limit its own
risk may choose to take a fixed rate mortgage even though the ultimate interest
charges may be higher. On the other hand, an owner who chooses a variable rate
mortgage will have to adjust its annual interest charges according to the
market interest rates.
In economic evaluation, a constant value of MARR over the planning horizon
is often used to simplify the calculations. The use of a constant value for
MARR is justified on the ground of long-term average of the cost of capital
over the period of investment. If the benefits and costs over time are
expressed in constant dollars, the constant value for MARR represents the
average real interest rate anticipated over the planning horizon; if the
benefits and costs over time are expressed in then-current dollars, the
constant value for MARR reflects the average market interest rate anticipated
over the planning horizon.
A profit measure is defined as an indicator of the desirability of a
project from the standpoint of a decision maker. A profit measure may or may
not be used as the basis for project selection. Since various profit measures
are used by decision makers for different purposes, the advantages and
restrictions for using these profit measures should be fully understood.
There are several profit measures that are commonly used by decision makers
in both private corporations and public agencies. Each of these measures is
intended to be an indicator of profit or net benefit for a project under
consideration. Some of these measures indicate the size of the profit at a
specific point in time; others give the rate of return per period when the
capital is in use or when reinvestments of the early profits are also included.
If a decision maker understands clearly the meaning of the various profit
measures for a given project, there is no reason why one cannot use all of them
for the restrictive purposes for which they are appropriate. With the
availability of computer based analysis and commercial software, it takes only
a few seconds to compute these profit measures. However, it is important to
define these measures precisely:
1. Net Future Value and Net Present Value. When an organization makes an
investment, the decision maker looks forward to the gain over a planning
horizon, against what might be gained if the money were invested elsewhere. A
minimum attractive rate of return (MARR) is adopted to reflect this opportunity
cost of capital. The MARR is used for compounding the estimated cash flows to
the end of the planning horizon, or for discounting the cash flow to the
present. The profitability is measured by the net future value (NFV) which is
the net return at the end of the planning horizon above what might have been
gained by investing elsewhere at the MARR. The net present value (NPV) of the
estimated cash flows over the planning horizon is the discounted value of the
NFV to the present. A positive NPV for a project indicates the present value
of the net gain corresponding to the project cash flows.
2. Equivalent Uniform Annual Net Value. The equivalent uniform annual net
value (NUV) is a constant stream of benefits less costs at equally spaced time
periods over the intended planning horizon of a project. This value can be
calculated as the net present value multiplied by an appropriate "capital
recovery factor." It is a measure of the net return of a project on an
annualized or amortized basis. The equivalent uniform annual cost (EUAC) can
be obtained by multiplying the present value of costs by an appropriate capital
recovery factor. The use of EUAC alone presupposes that the discounted
benefits of all potential projects over the planning horizon are identical and
therefore only the discounted costs of various projects need be considered.
Therefore, the EUAC is an indicator of the negative attribute of a project
which should be minimized.
3. Benefit Cost Ratio. The benefit-cost ratio (BCR), defined as the ratio
of discounted benefits to the discounted costs at the same point in time, is a
profitability index based on discounted benefits per unit of discounted costs
of a project. It is sometimes referred to as the savings-to-investment ratio
(SIR) when the benefits are derived from the reduction of undesirable effects.
Its use also requires the choice of a planning horizon and a MARR. Since some
savings may be interpreted as a negative cost to be deducted from the
denominator or as a positive benefit to be added to the numerator of the ratio,
the BCR or SIR is not an absolute numerical measure. However, if the ratio of
the present value of benefit to the present value of cost exceeds one, the
project is profitable irrespective of different interpretations of such
benefits or costs.
4. Internal Rate of Return. The internal rate of return (IRR) is defined
as the discount rate which sets the net present value of a series of cash flows
over the planning horizon equal to zero. It is used as a profit measure since
it has been identified as the "marginal efficiency of capital" or the "rate of
return over cost". The IRR gives the return of an investment when the capital
is in use as if the investment consists of a single outlay at the beginning
and generates a stream of net benefits afterwards. However, the IRR does not
take into consideration the reinvestment opportunities related to the timing
and intensity of the outlays and returns at the intermediate points over the
planning horizon. For cash flows with two or more sign reversals of the cash
flows in any period, there may exist multiple values of IRR; in such cases, the
multiple values are subject to various interpretations.
5. Adjusted Internal Rate of Return. If the financing and reinvestment
policies are incorporated into the evaluation of a project, an adjusted
internal rate of return (AIRR) which reflects such policies may be a useful
indicator of profitability under restricted circumstances. Because of the
complexity of financing and reinvestment policies used by an organization over
the life of a project, the AIRR seldom can reflect the reality of actual cash
flows. However, it offers an approximate value of the yield on an investment
for which two or more sign reversals in the cash flows would result in multiple
values of IRR. The adjusted internal rate of return is usually calculated as
the internal rate of return on the project cash flow modified so that all costs
are discounted to the present and all benefits are compounded to the end of the
planning horizon.
6. Return on Investment. When an accountant reports income in each year
of a multi-year project, the stream of cash flows must be broken up into annual
rates of return for those years. The return on investment (ROI) as used by
accountants usually means the accountant's rate of return for each year of the
project duration based on the ratio of the income (revenue less depreciation)
for each year and the undepreciated asset value (investment) for that same
year. Hence, the ROI is different from year to year, with a very low value at
the early years and a high value in the later years of the project.
7. Payback Period. The payback period (PBP) refers to the length of time
within which the benefits received from an investment can repay the costs
incurred during the time in question while ignoring the remaining time periods
in the planning horizon. Even the discounted payback period indicating the
"capital recovery period" does not reflect the magnitude or direction of the
cash flows in the remaining periods. However, if a project is found to be
profitable by other measures, the payback period can be used as a secondary
measure of the financing requirements for a project.
The objective of facility investment in the private sector is generally
understood to be profit maximization within a specific time frame. Similarly,
the objective in the public sector is the maximization of net social benefit
which is analogous to profit maximization in private organizations. Given this
objective, a method of economic analysis will be judged by the reliability and
ease with which a correct conclusion may be reached in project selection.
The basic principle underlying the decision for accepting and selecting
investment projects is that if an organization can lend or borrow as much money
as it wishes at the MARR, the goal of profit maximization is best served by
accepting all independent projects whose net present values based on the
specified MARR are nonnegative, or by selecting the project with the maximum
nonnegative net present value among a set of mutually exclusive proposals. The
net present value criterion reflects this principle and is most straightforward
and unambiguous when there is no budget constraint. Various methods of
economic evaluation, when properly applied, will produce the same result if the
net present value criterion is used as the basis for decision. For convenience
of computation, a set of tables for the various compound interest factors is
given in Appendix A.
Let BPV@-(x) be the present value of benefits of a project x and CPV@-(x) be
the present value of costs of the project x. Then, for MARR = i over a
planning horizon of n years, If there is no budget constraint, then all independent projects having net
present values greater than or equal to zero are acceptable. That is, project
x is acceptable as long as Since the cash flow profile of an investment can be represented by its
equivalent value at any specified reference point in time, the net future value
(NFV@-[x]) of a series of cash flows A@-(t,x) (for t=0,1,2,...,n) for project x
is as good a measure of economic potential as the net present value.
Equivalent future values are obtained by multiplying a present value by the
compound interest factor (F|P,i,n) which is (1+i)@+[n]. Specifically, !!!!!!!!!Unit!!!Item
Items!!!Unit!!!Qty.!!!Price!!!Cost
Mobilization.!!!ls!!!1!!!115,000!!!115,000..
Removal, berm.!!!lf!!!8,020!!!1.00!!!8,020..
Finish subgrade.!!!sy!!!1,207,500!!!0.50!!!603,750..
Surface ditches.!!!lf!!!525!!!2.00!!!1,050..
Excavation structures.!!!cy!!!7,000!!!3.00!!!21,000.
Base course, untreated, 3/4".!!!ton!!!362,200!!!4.50!!!1,629,900..!!!ton!!!362
Lean concrete, 4" thick.!!!sy!!!820,310!!!3.10!!!2,542,961..!!!sy!!!820,310!
PCC, pavement, 10" thick.!!!sy!!!706,010!!!10.90!!!7,695,509..!!!sy!!!706,010!
Concrete, ci AA(AE).!!!ls!!!1!!!200,000!!!200,000..!
Small structure.!!!cy!!!50!!!500!!!25,000.
Barrier, precast.!!!lf!!!7,920!!!15.00!!!118,800..
Flatwork, 4" thick.!!!sy!!!7,410!!!10.00!!!74,100.
10" thick.!!!sy!!!4,241!!!20.00!!!84,820..
Slope protection.!!!sy!!!2,104!!!25.00!!!52,600..!
Metal, end section, 15".!!!ea!!!39!!!100!!!3,900..!!
18".!!!ea!!!3!!!150!!!450..!!!ea!
Post, right-of-way, modification.!!!lf!!!4,700!!!3.00!!!14,100..!!!lf!!!4,70
Salvage & relay pipe.!!!lf!!!1,680!!!5.00!!!8,400..!
Loose riprap.!!!cy!!!32!!!40.00!!!1,280..!!!
Braced posts.!!!ea!!!54!!!100!!!5,400..!!!ea
Delineators, type I.!!!lb!!!1,330!!!12.00!!!15,960..
type II.!!!ea!!!140!!!15.00!!!2,100..!!!ea
Constructive signs fixed.!!!sf!!!52,600!!!0.10!!!5,260..!!!sf!!!52,600!!!0.10!
Barricades, type III.!!!lf!!!29,500!!!0.20!!!5,900..!!!lf!!!29,500!!!0.20!!!
Warning lights.!!!day!!!6,300!!!0.10!!!630..
Pavement marking, epoxy material, black.!!!gal!!!475!!!90.00!!!42,750..!!!gal!
Yellow.!!!gal!!!740!!!90.00!!!66,600..!!!g
White.!!!gal!!!985!!!90.00!!!88,650..!!!ga
Plowable, one way white.!!!ea!!!342!!!50.00!!!17,100..!!!ea!!!342!!!50.00!!!
Topsoil, contractor furnished.!!!cy!!!260!!!10.00!!!2,600..!!!cy!!!260!!!10.00
Seedling, method A.!!!acr!!!103!!!150!!!15,450..!!!a
Excelsior blanket.!!!sy!!!500!!!2.00!!!1,000..!!!sy!
!!!!!!!!!Unit!!!Item
Items!!!Unit!!!Qty.!!!Price!!!Cost
Corrugated, metal pipe, 18".!!!lf!!!580!!!20.00!!!11,600..!!!lf!!!580!!!20.00!
Polyethylene pipe, 12".!!!lf!!!2,250!!!15.00!!!33,750..!!!lf!!!2,250!!!15.00
Catch basin grate & frame.!!!ea!!!35!!!350!!!12,250.
Equal opportunity training.!!!hr!!!18,000!!!0.80!!!14,400..!!!hr!!!18,000!!!0.
Granular backfill borrow.!!!cy!!!274!!!10.00!!!2,740..!!!cy!!!274!!!10.00!!!2,
Drill caisson, 2' x 6".!!!lf!!!722!!!100!!!72,200..!
Flagging.!!!hr!!!20,000!!!8.25!!!165,000..!!
Prestressed concrete member
type IV, 141' x 4".!!!ea!!!7!!!12,000!!!84,000..!!
132' x 4".!!!ea!!!6!!!11,000!!!66,000..!!!
Reinforced steel.!!!lb!!!6,300!!!0.60!!!3,780..!!!lb
Epoxy coated.!!!lb!!!122,241!!!0.55!!!67,232.55.!!
Structural steel.!!!ls!!!1!!!5,000!!!5,000..
Sign, covering.!!!sf!!!16!!!10.00!!!160..!!!
type C-2, wood post.!!!sf!!!98!!!15.00!!!1,470.00.
24".!!!ea!!!3!!!100!!!300..!!!ea!
30".!!!ea!!!2!!!100!!!200..!!!ea!
48".!!!ea!!!11!!!200!!!2,200..!!!
Auxiliary.!!!sf!!!61!!!15.00!!!915..!!!sf!
Steel post, 48" x 60".!!!ea!!!11!!!500!!!5,500..!!
type 3, wood post.!!!sf!!!669!!!15.00!!!10,035..!!
24".!!!ea!!!23!!!100!!!2,300..!!!
30".!!!ea!!!1!!!100!!!100..!!!ea!
36".!!!ea!!!12!!!150!!!1,800..!!!
42" x 60".!!!ea!!!8!!!150!!!1,200..!!!ea!!
48".!!!ea!!!7!!!200!!!1,400..!!!e
Auxiliary.!!!sf!!!135!!!15.00!!!2,025..!!!
Steel post.!!!sf!!!1,610!!!40.00!!!64,400.
12" x 36".!!!ea!!!28!!!100!!!2,800..!!!ea!
Foundation, concrete.!!!ea!!!60!!!300!!!18,000..!!
Barricade, 48" x 42".!!!ea!!!40!!!100!!!4,000..!!!ea
Wood post, road closed.!!!lf!!!100!!!30.00!!!3,000..!!!lf!!!100!!!30.00!!!3,
Total.!!!$ 14,129,797.55.!!!$ 14,129,797.55.!!!$
The net equivalent uniform annual value (NUV@-[x]) refers to a uniform
series over a planning horizon of n years whose net present value is that of a
series of cash flow A@-(t,x) (for t= 1,2,...,n) representing project x. That
is, The benefit-cost ratio method is not as straightforward and unambiguous as
the net present value method but, if applied correctly, will produce the same
results as the net present value method. While this method is often used in
the evaluation of public projects, the results may be misleading if proper care
is not exercised in its application to mutually exclusive proposals.
The benefit-cost ratio is defined as the ratio of the discounted benefits
to the discounted cost at the same point in time. In view of Eqs. (6.6.6) and
(6.6.6), it follows that the criterion for accepting an independent project on
the basis of the benefit-cost ratio is whether or not the benefit-cost ratio is
greater than or equal to one: The term internal rate of return method has been used by different analysts
to mean somewhat different procedures for economic evaluation. The method is
often misunderstood and misused, and its popularity among analysts in the
private sector is undeserved even when the method is defined and interpreted in
the most favorable light. The method is usually applied by comparing the MARR
to the internal rate of return value(s) for a project or a set of projects.
A major difficulty in applying the internal rate of return method to
economic evaluation is the possible existence of multiple values of IRR when
there are two or more changes of sign in the cash flow profile A@-(t,x) (for
t=0,1,2,...,n). When that happens, the method is generally not applicable
either in determining the acceptance of independent projects or for selection
of the best among a group of mutually exclusive proposals unless a set of well
defined decision rules are introduced for incremental analysis. In any case,
no advantage is gained by using this method since the procedure is cumbersome
even if the method is correctly applied. This method is not recommended for
use either in accepting independent projects or in selecting the best among
mutually exclusive proposals.
Example 6-1: Evaluation of Four Independent Projects
The cash flow profiles of four independent projects are shown in Table 6-0.
Using a MARR of 20%, determine the acceptability of each of the projects on the
basis of the net present value criterion for accepting independent projects.
t!!!A@-(t,1)!!!A@-(t,2)!!!A@-(t,3)!!!A@-(t,4)
0!!!-77.0!!!-75.3!!!-39.9!!!18.0
1!!!0!!!28.0!!!28.0!!!10.0
2!!!0!!!28.0!!!28.0!!!-40.0
3!!!0!!!28.0!!!28.0!!!-60.0
4!!!0!!!28.0!!!28.0!!!30.0
5!!!235.0!!!28.0!!!-80.0!!!50.0
Using i = 20%, we can compute NPV for x = 1, 2, 3, and 4 from Eq. (6.5).
Then, the acceptability of each project can be determined from Eq. (6.6).
Thus,
It is interesting to note that if the four projects are mutually exclusive,
the net present value method can still be used to evaluate the projects and,
according to Eq. (6.7), the project (x = 1) which has the highest positive NPV
should be selected. The use of the net equivalent uniform annual value or the
net future value method will lead to the same conclusion. However, the project
with the highest benefit-cost ratio is not necessarily the best choice among a
group of mutually exclusive alternatives. Furthermore, the conventional
internal rate of return method cannot be used to make a meaningful evaluation
of these projects as the IRR for both x=1 and x=2 are found to be 25% while
multiple values of IRR exist for both the x=3 and x=4 alternatives.
For private corporations, the cash flow profile of a project is affected by
the amount of taxation. In the context of tax liability, depreciation is the
amount allowed as a deduction due to capital expenses in computing taxable
income and, hence, income tax in any year. Thus, depreciation results in a
reduction in tax liabilities.
It is important to differentiate between the estimated useful life used in
depreciation computations and the actual useful life of a facility. The former
is often an arbitrary length of time, specified in the regulations of the U.S.
Internal Revenue Service or a comparable organization. The depreciation
allowance is a bookkeeping entry that does not involve an outlay of cash, but
represents a systematic allocation of the cost of a physical facility over
time.
There are various methods of computing depreciation which are acceptable to
the U.S. Internal Revenue Service. The different methods of computing
depreciation have different effects on the streams of annual depreciation
charges, and hence on the stream of taxable income and taxes paid. Let P be
the cost of an asset, S its estimated salvage value, and N the estimated useful
life (depreciable life) in years. Furthermore, let D@-(t) denote the
depreciation amount in year t, T@-(t) denote the accumulated depreciation up to
year t, and B@-(t) denote the book value of the asset at the end of year t,
where t=1,2,..., or n refers to the particular year under consideration. Then, The depreciation methods most commonly used to compute D@-(t) and B@-(t) are
the straight line method, sum-of-the-years'-digits methods, and the double
declining balanced method. The U.S. Internal Revenue Service provides tables
of acceptable depreciable schedules using these methods. Under straight line
depreciation, the net depreciable value resulting from the cost of the facility
less salvage value is allocated uniformly to each year of the estimated useful
life. Under the sum-of-the-year's-digits (SOYD) method, the annual
depreciation allowance is obtained by multiplying the net depreciable value
multiplied by a fraction, which has as its numerator the number of years of
remaining useful life and its denominator the sum of all the digits from 1 to
n. The annual depreciation allowance under the double declining balance method
is obtained by multiplying the book value of the previous year by a constant
depreciation rate 2/n.
To consider tax effects in project evaluation, the most direct approach is
to estimate the after-tax cash flow and then apply an evaluation method such as
the net present value method. Since projects are often financed by internal
funds representing the overall equity-debt mix of the entire corporation, the
deductibility of interest on debt may be considered on a corporate-wide basis.
For specific project financing from internal funds, let after-tax cash flow in
year t be Y@-(t). Then, for t=0,1,2,...,n, Besides corporate income taxes, there are other provisions in the federal
income tax laws that affect facility investments, such as tax credits for
low-income housing. Since the tax laws are revised periodically, the
estimation of tax liability in the future can only be approximate.
Example 6-2: Effects of Taxes on Investment
A company plans to invest $55,000 in a piece of equipment which is expected
to produce a uniform annual net revenue before tax of $15,000 over the next
five years. The equipment has a salvage value of $5,000 at the end of 5 years
and the depreciation allowance is computed on the basis of the straight line
depreciation method. The marginal income tax rate for this company is 34%, and
there is no expectation of inflation. If the after-tax MARR specified by the
company is 8%, determine whether the proposed investment is worthwhile,
assuming that the investment will be financed by internal funds.
Using Equations (6.6.7) and (6.6.7), the after-tax cash flow can be computed
as shown in Table 6-0. Then, the net present value discounted at 8% is
obtained from Equation (6.6.6) as follows:
Year !!!Before-tax!!!Straight-line!!!
Taxable!!!Income!!!After-Tax
t !!!Cash Flow!!!Depreciation!!!
Income!!!Tax!!!Cash-Flow
!!! A@-(t)!!! D@-(t)!!!A@-(t) - D@-(t)!!!X@-(t)
(A@-[t] - D@-[t])!!! Y@-[t]
0!!!-55,000!!!!!!!!!!!!-55,000
1-5 each!!!+15,000!!!10,000!!!5,000!!!1,700!!!+13,300
5 only!!!+5,000!!!!!!!!!!!!+5,000
In the economic evaluation of investment proposals, two approaches may be
used to reflect the effects of future price level changes due to inflation or
deflation. The differences between the two approaches are primarily
philosophical and can be succinctly stated as follows:
Let i be the discount rate excluding inflation, i' be the discount rate
including inflation, and j be the annual inflation rate. Then, If A@-(t) denotes the cash flow in year t expressed in terms of constant
(base year) dollars, and A'@-(t) denotes the cash flow in year t expressed in
terms of inflated (then-current) dollars, then It can be shown that the results from these two equations are identical.
Furthermore, the relationship applies to after-tax cash flow as well as to
before-tax cash flow by replacing A@-(t) and A@-(t)@+(') with Y@-(t) and
Y@-(t)@+(') respectively in Equations (6.6.8) and (6.6.8).
Example 6-3: Effects of Inflation
Suppose that, in the previous example, the inflation expectation is 5% per
year, and the after-tax MARR specified by the company is 8% excluding
inflation. Determine whether the investment is worthwhile.
In this case, the before-tax cash flow A@-(t) in terms of constant dollars
at base year 0 is inflated at j = 5% to then-current dollars A@-(t)@+(') for
the computation of the taxable income (A@-[t]@+['] - D@-[t]) and income taxes. The
resulting after-tax flow Y@-(t)@+(') in terms of then-current dollars is
converted back to constant dollars. That is, for X@-(t) = 34% and D@-(t) =
$10,000. The annual depreciation charges D@-(t) are not inflated to current
dollars in conformity with the practice recommended by the U.S. Internal
Revenue Service. Thus:
!!! Constant $!!! Current $!!! Current $!!!
Current $!!! Current $!!! Current $!!! Constant $
Time!!!B-Tax CF!!! B-Tax CF!!! Depr.!!!
After Depr.!!! Income Tax!!! A-Tax CF!!! A-Tax CF
t!!! A@-(t)!!! A@-(t)@+(')!!! D@-(t)!!! A@-(t)
@+(')-D@-(t)!!! X@-[t](A@-(t)@+(')-D
@-[t])!!!Y@-(t)@+(')!!! Y@-(t)
0!!!-55,000!!!+55,000!!!!!!!!!!!!-55,000!!!-55,000
1!!!+15,000!!!+15,750!!!10,000!!!5,750!!!1,955!!!+13,795!!!+13,138
2!!!+15,000!!!+16,540!!!10,000!!!6,540!!!2,224!!!+14,316!!!+12,985
3!!!+15,000!!!+17,365!!!10,000!!!7,365!!!2,504!!!+14,861!!!+12,837
4!!!+15,000!!!+18,233!!!10,000!!!8,233!!!2,799!!!+15,434!!!+12,697
5!!!+15,000!!!+19,145!!!10,000!!!9,145!!!3,109!!!+16,036!!!12,564
5!!!+5,000!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!+5,000
Note: B-Tax CF refers to Before-Tax Cash
Flow; A-Tax CF refers to After-Tax Cash Flow
Since future events are always uncertain, all estimates of costs and
benefits used in economic evaluation involve a degree of uncertainty.
Probabilistic methods are often used in decision analysis to determine expected
costs and benefits as well as to assess the degree of risk in particular
projects.
In estimating benefits and costs, it is common to attempt to obtain the
expected or average values of these quantities depending upon the different
events which might occur. Statistical techniques such as regression models can
be used directly in this regard to provide forecasts of average values.
Alternatively, the benefits and costs associated with different events can be
estimated and the expected benefits and costs calculated as the sum over all
possible events of the resulting benefits and costs multiplied by the
probability of occurrence of a particular event: For example, the average cost of a facility in an earthquake prone site
might be calculated as the sum of the cost of operation under normal conditions
(multiplied by the probability of no earthquake) plus the cost of operation
after an earthquake (multiplied by the probability of an earthquake). Expected
benefits and costs can be used directly in the cash flow calculations described
earlier.
In formulating objectives, some organizations wish to avoid risk so as to
avoid the possibility of losses. In effect, a risk avoiding organization
might select a project with lower expected profit or net social benefit as long
as it had a lower risk of losses. This preference results in a risk premium
or higher desired profit for risky projects. A rough method of representing a
risk premium is to make the desired MARR higher for risky projects. Let r@-[f]
be the risk free market rate of interest as represented by the average rate of
return of a safe investment such as U.S. government bonds. However, U.S.
government bonds do not protect from inflationary changes or exchange rate
fluctuations, but only insure that the principal and interest will be repaid.
Let r@-[p] be the risk premium reflecting an adjustment of the rate of return
for the perceived risk. Then, the risk-adjusted rate of return r is given by: More directly, a decision maker may be confronted with the subject choice
among alternatives with different expected benefits of levels of risk such that
at a given period t, the decision maker is willing to exchange an uncertain
A@-[t] with a smaller but certain return a@-[t]A@-[t] where a@-[t] is less than
one. Consider the decision tree in Figure 6-0 in which the decision maker is
confronted with a choice between the certain return of a@-(t)A@-(t) and a
gamble with possible outcomes (A@-<t>)@-(q) and respective probabilities Pr{q}
for q = 1,2,...,m. Then, the net present value for the series of "certainty
equivalents" over n years may be computed on the basis of the risk free rate.
Hence:
Selection of the best design and financing plans for capital projects is
typically done separately and sequentially. Three approaches to facility
investment planning most often adopted by an organization are:
Typically, different individuals or divisions of an organization conduct the
analysis for the operating and financing processes. Financing alternatives are
sometimes not examined at all since a single mechanism is universally adopted.
An example of a single financing plan in the public sector is the use of
pay-as-you-go highway trust funds. However, the importance of financial
analysis is increasing with the increase of private ownership and private
participation in the financing of public projects. The availability of a broad
spectrum of new financing instruments has accentuated the needs for better
financial analysis in connection with capital investments in both the public
and private sectors. While simultaneous assessment of all design and financing
alternatives is not always essential, more communication of information between
the two evaluation processes would be advantageous in order to avoid the
selection of inferior alternatives.
There is an ever increasing variety of borrowing mechanisms available.
First, the extent to which borrowing is tied to a particular project or asset
may be varied. Loans backed by specific, tangible and fungible assets and with
restrictions on that asset's use are regarded as less risky. In contrast,
specific project finance may be more costly to arrange due to transactions
costs than is general corporate or government borrowing. Also, backing by the
full good faith and credit of an organization is considered less risky than
investments backed by generally immovable assets. Second, the options of fixed
versus variable rate borrowing are available. Third, the repayment schedule
and time horizon of borrowing may be varied. A detailed discussion of
financing of constructed facilities will be deferred until the next chapter.
As a general rule, it is advisable to borrow as little as possible when
borrowing rates exceed the minimum attractive rate of return. Equity or
pay-as-you-go financing may be desirable in this case. It is generally
preferable to obtain lower borrowing rates, unless borrowing associated with
lower rates requires substantial transaction costs or reduces the flexibility
for repayment and refinancing. In the public sector, it may be that increasing
taxes or user charges to reduce borrowing involves economic costs in excess of
the benefits of reduced borrowing costs of borrowed funds. Furthermore, since
cash flow analysis is typically conducted on the basis of constant dollars and
loan agreements are made with respect to current dollars, removing the effects
of inflation will reduce the cost of borrowing. Finally, deferring investments
until pay-as-you-go or equity financing are available may unduly defer the
benefits of new investments.
It is difficult to conclude unambiguously that one financing mechanism is
always superior to others. Consequently, evaluating alternative financing
mechanisms is an important component of the investment analysis procedure. One
possible approach to simultaneously considering design and financing
alternatives is to consider each combination of design and financing options as
a specific, mutually exclusive alternative. The cash flow of this combined
alternative would be the sum of the economic or operating cash flow (assuming
equity financing) and the financial cash flow over the planning horizon.
A general approach for obtaining the combined effects of operating and
financing cash flows of a project is to make use of the additive property of
net present values by calculating an adjusted net present value. The adjusted
net present value (APV) is the sum of the net present value (NPV) of the
operating cash flow plus the net present value of the financial cash flow due
to borrowing or raising capital (FPV). Thus, To be specific, let A@-[t] be the net operating cash flow, @-[t] be the netA
financial cash flow resulting from debt financing, and AA@-<t> be the combined
net cash flow, all for year t before tax. Then: The tax shields for interest on borrowing (for t = 1, 2, ..., n) are usually
given by When MARR = i is applied to both the operating and the financial cash flows
in Eqs. (6.13) and (6.28), respectively, in computing the net present values,
the combined effect will be the same as the net present value obtained by
applying MARR = i to the combined cash flow in Eq. (6.29).
In many instances, a risk premium related to the specified type of operation
is added to the MARR for discounting the operating cash flow. On the other
hand, the MARR for discounting the financial cash flow for borrowing is often
regarded as relatively risk-free because debtors or holders of corporate bonds
must be paid first before stockholders in case financial difficulties are
encountered by a corporation. Then, the adjusted net present value is given by The evaluation of combined alternatives based on the adjusted net present
value method should also be performed in dollar amounts which either
consistently include or remove the effects of inflation. The MARR value used
would reflect the inclusion or exclusion of inflation accordingly.
Furthermore, it is preferable to use after-tax cash flows in the evaluation of
projects for private firms since different designs and financing alternatives
are likely to have quite different implications for tax liabilities and tax
shields.
In theory, the corporate finance process does not necessarily require a
different approach than that of the APV method discussed above. Rather than
considering single projects in isolation, groups or sets of projects along with
financing alternatives can be evaluated. The evaluation process would be to
select that group of operating and financing plans which has the highest total
APV. Unfortunately, the number of possible combinations to evaluate can become
very large even though many combinations can be rapidly eliminated in practice
because they are clearly inferior. More commonly, heuristic approaches are
developed such as choosing projects with the highest benefit/cost ratio within
a particular budget or financial constraint. These heuristic schemes will
often involve the separation of the financing and design alternative
evaluation. The typical result is design-driven or finance-driven planning in
which one or the other process is conducted first.
Example 6-4: Combined Effects of Operating and Financing Plans
A public agency plans to construct a facility and is considering two design
alternatives with different capacities. The operating net cash flows for both
alternatives over a planning horizon of 5 years are shown in Table 6-0. For
each design alternative, the project can be financed either through overdraft
on bank credit or by issuing bonds spanning over the 5-year period, and the
cash flow for each financing alternative is also shown in Table 6-0. The
public agency has specified a MARR of 10% for discounting the operating and
financing cash flows for this project. Determine the best combination of
design and financing plan if
The net present values (NPV) of all cash flows can be computed by
Eq.(6.6.6), and the results are given at the bottom of Table 6-0. The adjusted
net present value (APV) combining the operating cash flow of each design and an
appropriate financing is obtained according to Eq. (6.25), and the results are
also tabulated at the bottom of Table 6-0.
Under condition (a), design alternative 2 will be selected since NPV =
$767,000 is the higher value when only operating cash flows are considered.
Subsequently, bonds financing will be chosen because APV = $466,000 indicates
that it is the best financing plan for design alternative 2.
Under condition (b), however, the choice will be based on the highest value
of APV, i.e., APV = $484,000 for design alternative one in combination will
overdraft financing. Thus, the simultaneous decision approach will yield the
best results.
!!!Design Alternative One Design Alternative Two
Year!!!Operating!!!Overdraft!!!Bond!!!Operating!!!Overdraft!!!Bond
!!!Cash Flow!!!Financing!!!Financing!!!Cash Flow!!!Financing!!!Financing
0!!!-1,000!!!1,000!!!3,653!!!-2,500!!!2,500!!!3,805
1!!!-2,500!!!2,500!!!-418!!!-1,000!!!1,000!!!-435
2!!!1,000!!!-1,000!!!-418!!!1,000!!!-1,000!!!-435
3!!!1,500!!!-1,500!!!-418!!!1,500!!!-1,500!!!-435
4!!!1,500!!!-1,500!!!-418!!!1,500!!!-1,500!!!-435
5!!!1,700!!!-921!!!-4,217!!!1,930!!!-1,254!!!-4,392
NPV or FPV!!!761!!!-277!!!-290!!!767!!!-347!!!-301
at 10%
APV =!!!!!!484!!!471!!!!!!420!!!466
NPV + FPV
Note: All monetary values are in thousands of dollars
In recent years, various organizational ownership schemes have been proposed
to raise the level of investment in constructed facilities. For example,
independent authorities are assuming responsibility for some water and sewer
systems, while private entrepreneurs are taking over the ownership of public
buildings such as stadiums and convention centers in joint ventures with local
governments. Such ownership arrangements not only can generate the capital for
new facilities, but also will influence the management of the construction and
operation of these facilities. In this section, we shall review some of these
implications.
A particular organizational arrangement or financial scheme is not
necessarily superior to all others in each case. Even for similar facilities,
these arrangements and schemes may differ from place to place or over time.
For example, U.S. water supply systems are owned and operated both by
relatively large and small organizations in either the private or public
sector. Modern portfolio theory suggest that there may be advantages in using
a variety of financial schemes to spread risks. Similarly, small or large
organizations may have different relative advantages with respect to personnel
training, innovation or other activities.
A basic difference between public and private ownership of facilities is
that private organizations are motivated by the expectation of profits in
making capital investments. Consequently, private firms have a higher minimum
attractive rate of return (MARR) on investments than do public agencies. The
MARR represents the desired return or profit for making capital investments.
Furthermore, private firms often must pay a higher interest rate for borrowing
than public agencies because of the tax exempt or otherwise subsidized bonds
available to public agencies. International loans also offer subsidized
interest rates to qualified agencies or projects in many cases. With higher
required rates of return, we expect that private firms will require greater
receipts than would a public agency to make a particular investment desirable.
In addition to different minimum attractive rates of return, there is also
an important distinction between public and private organizations with respect
to their evaluation of investment benefits. For private firms, the returns and
benefits to cover costs and provide profit are monetary revenues. In
contrast, public agencies often consider total social benefits in evaluating
projects. Total social benefits include monetary user payments plus users'
surplus (e.g., the value received less costs incurred by users), external
benefits (e.g., benefits to local businesses or property owners) and
nonquantifiable factors (e.g., psychological support, unemployment relief,
etc.). Generally, total social benefits will exceed monetary revenues.
While these different valuations of benefits may lead to radically different
results with respect to the extent of benefits associated with an investment,
they do not necessarily require public agencies to undertake such investments
directly. First, many public enterprises must fund their investments and
operating expenses from user fees. Most public utilities fall into this
category, and the importance of user fee financing is increasing for many civil
works such as waterways. With user fee financing, the required returns for the
public and private firms to undertake the aforementioned investment are, in
fact, limited to monetary revenues. As a second point, it is always possible
for a public agency to contract with a private firm to undertake a particular
project.
All other things being equal, we expect that private firms will require
larger returns from a particular investment than would a public agency. From
the users or taxpayers point of view, this implies that total payments would be
higher to private firms for identical services. However, there are a number
of mitigating factors to counterbalance this disadvantage for private firms.
Another difference between public and private facility owners is in their
relative liability for taxes. Public entities are often exempt from taxes of
various kinds, whereas private facility owners incur a variety of income,
property and excise taxes. However, these private tax liabilities can be
offset, at least in part, by tax deductions of various kinds.
For private firms, income taxes represent a significant cost of operation.
However, taxable income is based on the gross revenues less all expenses and
allowable deductions as permitted by the prevalent tax laws and regulations.
The most significant allowable deductions are depreciation and interest. By
selecting the method of depreciation and the financing plan which are most
favorable, a firm can exert a certain degree of control on its taxable income
and, thus, its income tax.
Another form of relief in tax liability is the tax credit which allows a
direct deduction for income tax purposes of a small percentage of the value of
certain newly acquired assets. Although the provisions for investment tax
credit for physical facilities and equipment had been introduced at different
times in the US federal tax code, they were eliminated in the 1986 Tax
Reformation Act except a tax credit for low-income housing.
Of course, a firm must have profits to take direct advantage of such tax
shields, i.e., tax deductions only reduce tax liabilities if before-tax profits
exist. In many cases, investments in constructed facilities have net outlays
or losses in the early years of construction. Generally, these losses in early
years can be offset against profits occurred elsewhere or later in time.
Without such offsetting profits, losses can be carried forward by the firm or
merged with other firms' profits, but these mechanisms will not be reviewed
here.
Major investments in constructed facilities typically rely upon borrowed
funds for a large portion of the required capital investments. For private
organizations, these borrowed funds can be useful for leverage to achieve a
higher return on the organizations' own capital investment.
For public organizations, borrowing costs which are larger than the MARR
results in increased "cost" and higher required receipts. Incurring these
costs may be essential if the investment funds are not otherwise available:
capital funds must come from somewhere. But it is not unusual for the
borrowing rate to exceed the MARR for public organizations. In this case,
reducing the amount of borrowing lowers costs, whereas increasing borrowing
lowers costs whenever the MARR is greater than the borrowing rate.
Although private organizations generally require a higher rate of return
than do public bodies (so that the required receipts to make the investment
desirable are higher for the private organization than for the public body),
consideration of tax shields and introduction of a suitable financing plan may
reduce this difference. The relative levels of the MARR for each group and
their borrowing rates are critical in this calculation.
An important element in public investments is the availability of capital
grant subsidies from higher levels of government. For example, interstate
highway construction is eligible for federal capital grants for up to 90% of
the cost. Other programs have different matching amounts, with 50/50 matching
grants currently available for wastewater treatment plants and various
categories of traffic systems improvement in the U.S. These capital grants are
usually made available solely for public bodies and for designated purposes.
While the availability of capital grant subsidies reduces the local cost of
projects, the timing of investment can also be affected. In particular, public
subsidies may be delayed or spread over a longer time period because of limited
funds. To the extent that (discounted) benefits exceed costs for particular
benefits, these funding delays can be costly. Consequently, private financing
and investment may be a desirable alternative, even if some subsidy funds are
available.
Different perspectives and financial considerations also may have
implications for design and construction choices. For example, an important
class of design decisions arises relative to the trade-off between capital and
operating costs. It is often the case that initial investment or construction
costs can be reduced, but at the expense of a higher operating costs or more
frequent and extensive rehabilitation or repair expenditures. It is this
trade-off which has led to the consideration of "life cycle costs" of
alternative designs. The financial schemes reviewed earlier can profoundly
effect such evaluations.
For financial reasons, it would often be advantageous for a public body to
select a more capital intensive alternative which would receive a larger
capital subsidy and, thereby, reduce the project's local costs. In effect,
the capital grant subsidy would distort the trade-off between capital and
operating costs in favor of more capital intensive projects.
The various tax and financing considerations will also affect the relative
merits of relatively capital intensive projects. For example, as the borrowing
rate increases, more capital intensive alternatives become less attractive.
Tax provisions such as the investment tax credit or accelerated depreciation
are intended to stimulate investment and thereby make more capital intensive
projects relatively more desirable. In contrast, a higher minimum attractive
rate of return tends to make more capital intensive projects less attractive.
While it is difficult to conclude definitely that one or another
organizational or financial arrangement is always superior, different
organizations have systematic implications for the ways in which constructed
facilities are financed, designed and constructed. Moreover, the selection of
alternative investments for constructed facilities is likely to be affected by
the type and scope of the decision-making organization.
As an example of the perspectives of public and private organizations,
consider the potential investment on a constructed facility with a projected
useful life of n years. Let t = 0 be the beginning of the planning horizon and
t = 1, 2, ... n denote the end of each of the subsequent years. Furthermore,
let C@-(o) be the cost of acquiring the facility at t = 0, and C@-(t) be the
cost of operation in year t. Then, the net receipts A@-(t) in year t is given
by A@-(t) = B@-(t) - C@-(t) in which A@-(t) may be positive or negative for t =
0, 1, 2, ..., n.
Let the minimum attractive rate of return (MARR) for the owner of the
facility be denoted by i. Then, the net present value (NPV) of a project as
represented by the net cash flow discounted to the present time is given by Example 6-5: Different MARRs for Public and Private Organizations
For the facility cost stream of a potential investment with n = 7 in Table 6-5,
the required uniform annual gross receipts B are different for public and
private ownerships since these two types of organizations usually choose
different values of MARR. With a given value of MARR = i in each case, the
value of B can be obtained from Eq. (6.32). With a MARR of 10%, a public
agency requires at least B = $184,000. By contrast, a private firm using a 20%
MARR before tax while neglecting other effects such as depreciation and tax
deduction would require at least B = $219,000. Then, according to Eq. (6.31),
the gross receipt streams for both public and private ownerships in Table 6-0
will satisfy the condition NPV = 0 when each of them is netted from the cost
stream and discounted at the appropriate value of MARR, i.e., 10% for a public
agency and 20% (before tax) for a private firm. Thus, this case suggests that
public provision of the facility has lower user costs.
!!!!!!Public Ownership!!!!!!Private Ownership
Year!!!Facility!!!Gross!!!Net Receipt!!!Gross!!!Net Receipt
t!!!Cost, C@-(t)!!!Receipt, B@-(t)!!!A@-(t)=B
@-(t)=C@-(t)!!!receipt, B@-(t)!!!A
@-(t)=B@-(t)=C@-(t)
0!!!500!!!0!!!-500!!!0!!!-500
1!!!76!!!184!!!108!!!219!!!143
2!!!78!!!184!!!106!!!219!!!141
3!!!80!!!184!!!104!!!219!!!139
4!!!82!!!184!!!102!!!219!!!137
5!!!84!!!184!!!100!!!219!!!135
6!!!86!!!184!!!98!!!219!!!133
7!!!88!!!184!!!96!!!219!!!131
*All Monetary amounts are in thousands of dollars
Year!!!Net Receipt!!!Depreciation!!!Taxable!!!Income!!!After-tax
t!!!Before-tax !!!(SOYD)!!!Income!!!Tax!!!Cash Flow
!!! A@-(t)!!! D@-(t)!!!(A@-[t]-D@-[t])!!!X
-
@-[t](A@-[t]-D@-[t])!!! @-(t)Y
0!!!-500!!!0!!!0!!!0!!!-500
1!!!143!!!125!!!18!!!6!!!137
2!!!141!!!107!!!34!!!12!!!129
3!!!139!!!89!!!50!!!17!!!122
4!!!137!!!71!!!66!!!22!!!115
5!!!135!!!54!!!81!!!28!!!107
6!!!133!!!36!!!97!!!33!!!100
7!!!131!!!18!!!113!!!38!!!93
*All monetary amounts are in thousands of dollars.
Example 6-6: Effects of Depreciation and Tax Shields for Private Firms
Using the same data as in Example 6-5, we now consider the effects of
depreciation and tax deduction for private firms. Suppose that the marginal
tax rate of the firm is 34% in each year of operation, and losses can always be
offset by company-wide profits. Suppose further that the salvage value of the
facility is zero at the end of seven years so that the entire amount of cost
can be depreciated by means of the sum-of-the-years'-digits (SOYD) method.
Thus, for the sum of digits 1 through 7 equal to 28, the depreciation
allowances for years 1 to 7 are respectively 7/28, 6/28, ..., 1/28 of the total
depreciable value of $ 500,000, and the results are recorded in column 3 of
Table 6-0. For a uniform annual gross receipt B = $219,000, the net receipt
before tax in Column 6 of Table 6-0 in Example 6-5 can be used as the starting
point for computing the after-tax cash flow according to Equation (6.13) which
is carried out step-by-step in Table 6-6. (Dollar amounts are given to the
nearest $1,000). By trial and error, it is found that an after-tax MARR =
14.5% will produce a zero value for the net present value of the discounted
after-tax flow at t = 0. In other words, the required uniform annual gross
receipt for this project at 14.5% MARR after tax is also B = $219,000. It
means that the MARR of this private firm must specify a 20% MARR before tax in
order to receive the equivalent of 14.5% MARR after tax.
Example 6-7: Effects of Borrowing on Public Agencies
Suppose that the gross uniform annual receipt for public ownership is B =
$190,000 instead of $184,000 for the facility with cost stream given in Column
2 of Table 6-5. Suppose further that the public agency must borrow $400,000
(80% of the facility cost) at 12% annual interest, resulting in an annual
uniform payment of $88,000 for the subsequent seven years. This information
has been summarized in Table 6-0. The use of borrowed funds to finance a
facility is referred to as debt financing or leveraged financing, and the
combined cash flow resulting from operating and financial cash flows is
referred to as the levered cash flow.
To the net receipt A@-(t) in Column 4 of Table 6-0, which has been obtained
from a uniform annual gross receipt of $190,000, we add the financial cash flow
-
@-(t) which included a loan of $400,000 with an annual repayment of $88,000A
corresponding to an interest rate of 12%. Then the resulting combined cash
flow AA@-(t) as computed according to Equation (6.26) is shown in column 6 of
Table 6-7. Note that for a loan at 12% interest, the net present value of the
combined cash flow AA@-(t) is zero when discounted at a 10% MARR for the public
agency. This is not a coincidence, but several values of B have been tried
until B = $190,000 is found to satisfy NPV = 0 at 10% MARR. Hence, the minimum
required uniform annual gross receipt is B = $190,000.
!!!!!!!!!!!!Loan and!!!Combined
!!!Gross!!!Facility!!!Net Receipt!!!Payment!!!Cash Flow
Year!!!receipt!!!cost!!!(no loan)!!!(12% interest)!!!(12% interest)
t!!!B@-(t)!!!C@-(t)!!!A@-(t)!!!
-
@-[t]!!!AA@-[t]A
0!!!0!!!500!!!-500!!!+400!!!-100
1!!!190!!!76!!!114!!!-88!!!-26
2!!!190!!!78!!!112!!!-88!!!24
3!!!190!!!80!!!110!!!-88!!!22
4!!!190!!!82!!!108!!!-88!!!20
5!!!190!!!84!!!106!!!-88!!!18
6!!!190!!!86!!!104!!!-88!!!16
7!!!190!!!88!!!102!!!-88!!!14
*All monetary amounts are in thousands of dollars.
Example 6-8: Effects of Leverage and Tax Shields for Private Organizations
Suppose that the uniform annual gross receipt for a private firm is also B =
$190,000 (the same as that for the public agency in Example 6-7). The salvage
value of the facility is zero at the end of seven years so that the entire
amount of cost can be depreciated by means of the sum-of-the-years'-digit
(SOYD) method. The marginal tax rate of the firm is 34% in each year of
operation, and losses can always be offset by company-wide profits. Suppose
further that the firm must borrow $400,000 (80% of the facility cost) at a 12%
annual interest, resulting in an annual uniform payment of $88,000 for the
subsequent seven years. The interest charge each year can be computed as 12%
of the remaining balance of the loan in the previous year, and the interest
charge is deductible from the tax liability.
For B = $190,000 and a facility cost stream identical to that in Example
6-7, the net receipts before tax A@-(t) (operating cash flow with no loan) in
Table 6-7 can be used as the starting point for analyzing the effects of
financial leverage through borrowing. Thus, column 4 of Table 6-7 is
reproduced in column 2 of Table 6-8.
!!!Net Receipt!!!!!!Loan and!!!!!!After Tax
!!!Before Tax!!!Depreciation!!!Scheduled!!!Interest!!!Income Tax!!!Cash Flow
Year!!!(no loan)!!!(SOYD)!!!Payment!!!On Loan!!!(34% rate)!!!(levered)
-
t!!!A@-(t)!!!D@-(t)!!! A
@-(t)!!!I@-(t)!!!X@-(t)(A@-(t)-D@-(t)-I@-(t))!!!YY@-(t)
0!!!-500!!!0!!!400!!!0!!!0!!!-100
1!!!114!!!125!!!-88!!!48!!!-19!!!45
2!!!112!!!107!!!-88!!!43!!!-13!!!37
3!!!110!!!89!!!-88!!!38!!!-6!!!28
4!!!108!!!71!!!-88!!!32!!!2!!!
5!!!106!!!54!!!-88!!!25!!!9!!!45
6!!!104!!!36!!!-88!!!18!!!17!!!45
7!!!102!!!18!!!-88!!!9!!!26!!!45
*All monetary amounts are in thousands of dollars.
The computation of the after-tax cash flow of the private firm including the
effects of tax shields for interest is carried out in Table 6-8. The financial
-
cash stream @-(t) in Column 4 of Table 6-8 indicates a loan of $400,000 whichA
is secured at t = 0 for an annual interest of 12%, and results in a series of
uniform annual payments of $88,000 in order to repay the principal and
interest. The levered after-tax cash flow YY@-(t) can be obtained by Eq.
(6.29), using the same investment credit, depreciation method and tax rate, and
is recorded in Column 7 of Table 6-8. Since the net present value of YY@-[t]
in Column 7 of Table 6-8 discounted at 14.5% happens to be zero, the minimum
required uniform annual gross receipt for the potential investment is $190,000.
By borrowing $400,000 (80% of the facility cost) at 12% annual interest, the
investment becomes more attractive to the private firm. This is expected
because of the tax shield for the interest and the 12% borrowing rate which is
lower than the 14.5% MARR after-tax for the firm.
Example 6-9: Comparison of Public and Private Ownership.
In each of the analyses in Examples 6-5 through 6-8, a minimum required
uniform annual gross receipt B is computed for each given condition whether the
owner is a public agency or a private firm. By finding the value of B which
will lead to NPV = 0 for the specified MARR for the organization in each case,
various organizational effects with or without borrowing can be analyzed. The
results are summarized in Table 6-9 for comparison. In this example, public
ownership with a 80% loan and a 10% MARR has the same required benefit as
private ownership with an identical 80% loan and a 14.5% after-tax MARR.
Organizational!!!Financial!!!Minimum Benefit
Condition!!!Arrangement!!!Required
Public-No Tax!!!No loan!!!$184,000
(MARR = 10%)!!!80% loan at 12% interest!!!$190,000
Private-before Tax!!!No loan!!!$219,000
(MARR = 20%)!!!!!!$219,000
Private-after tax!!!No loan!!!$219,000
(MARR = 14.5%)!!!80% loan at 12% interest!!!$190,000
Investment in a constructed facility represents a cost in the short term
that returns benefits only over the long term use of the facility. Thus, costs
occur earlier than the benefits, and owners of facilities must obtain the
capital resources to finance the costs of construction. A project cannot
proceed without adequate financing, and the cost of providing adequate
financing can be quite large. For these reasons, attention to project finance
is an important aspect of project management. Finance is also a concern to the
other organizations involved in a project such as the general contractor and
material suppliers. Unless an owner immediately and completely covers the
costs incurred by each participant, these organizations face financing problems
of their own.
At a more general level, project finance is only one aspect of the general
problem of corporate finance. If numerous projects are considered and financed
together, then the net cash flow requirements constitutes the corporate
financing problem for capital investment. Whether project finance is performed
at the project or at the corporate level does not alter the basic financing
problem.
In essence, the project finance problem is to obtain funds to bridge the
time between making expenditures and obtaining revenues. Based on the
conceptual plan, the cost estimate and the construction plan, the cash flow of
costs and receipts for a project can be estimated. Normally, this cash flow
will involve expenditures in early periods. Covering this negative cash
balance in the most beneficial or cost effective fashion is the project finance
problem. During planning and design, expenditures of the owner are modest,
whereas substantial costs are incurred during construction. Only after the
facility is complete do revenues begin. In contrast, a contractor would
receive periodic payments from the owner as construction proceeds. However, a
contractor also may have a negative cash balance due to delays in payment and
retainage of profits or cost reimbursements on the part of the owner.
Plans considered by owners for facility financing typically have both long
and short term aspects. In the long term, sources of revenue include sales,
grants, and tax revenues. Borrowed funds must be eventually paid back from
these other sources. In the short term, a wider variety of financing options
exist, including borrowing, grants, corporate investment funds, payment delays
and others. Many of these financing options involve the participation of third
parties such as banks or bond underwriters. For private facilities such as
office buildings, it is customary to have completely different financing
arrangements during the construction period and during the period of facility
use. During the latter period, mortgage or loan funds can be secured by the
value of the facility itself. Thus, different arrangements of financing
options and participants are possible at different stages of a project, so the
practice of financial planning is often complicated.
On the other hand, the options for borrowing by contractors to bridge their
expenditures and receipts during construction are relatively limited. For
small or medium size projects, overdrafts from bank accounts are the most
common form of construction financing. Usually, a maximum limit is imposed on
an overdraft account by the bank on the basis of expected expenditures and
receipts for the duration of construction. Contractors who are engaged in
large projects often own substantial assets and can make use of other forms of
financing which have lower interest charges than overdrafting.
In this chapter, we will first consider facility financing from the owner's
perspective, with due consideration for its interaction with other
organizations involved in a project. Later, we discuss the problems of
construction financing which are crucial to the profitability and solvency of
construction contractors.
Financing arrangements differ sharply by type of owner and by the type of
facility construction. As one example, many municipal projects are financed in
the United States with tax exempt bonds for which interest payments to a
lender are exempt from income taxes. As a result, tax exempt municipal bonds
are available at lower interest charges. Different institutional arrangements
have evolved for specific types of facilities and organizations.
A private corporation which plans to undertake large capital projects may
use its retained earnings, seek equity partners in the project, issue bonds,
offer new stocks in the financial markets, or seek borrowed funds in another
fashion. Potential sources of funds would include pension funds, insurance
companies, investment trusts, commercial banks and others. Developers who
invest in real estate properties for rental purposes have similar sources, plus
quasi-governmental corporations such as urban development authorities.
Syndicators for investment such as real estate investment trusts (REITs) as
well as domestic and foreign pension funds represent relatively new entries to
the financial market for building mortgage money.
Public projects may be funded by tax receipts, general revenue bonds, or
special bonds with income dedicated to the specified facilities. General
revenue bonds would be repaid from general taxes or other revenue sources,
while special bonds would be redeemed either by special taxes or user fees
collected for the project. Grants from higher levels of government are also an
important source of funds for state, county, city or other local agencies.
As an indication of the potential sources of financing, Table 7-0 shows the
dollar amounts of borrowing in United States credit markets during 1985. Not
all of these funds are used for construction, of course. Compared to the one
trillion in borrowed funds shown in Table 7-0, the value of construction put in
place is slightly more than a quarter of the total. Also, some construction is
funded from other sources. Nevertheless, it is apparent that bonds, mortgages
and bank loans are all major sources of financing.
______________________________________________________________________________
!!! Type !!!Amount
!!!!!!($ billions)
!!!U.S. Government Securities 324!!!
!!!State and Local Obligations 183!!!
!!!Corporate and Foreign Bonds 108!!!
!!!Mortgages
!!!!!!Home Mortgages 156!!!
!!!!!!Multi-Family Residential Mortgages 26!!!
!!!!!!Commercial Mortgages 61!!!
!!!!!!Farm Mortgages -6!!!
!!!Mortgages (Total) 237!!!
!!!Consumer Credit 97!!!
!!!Bank Loans 42!!!
!!!Open Market Paper 53!!!
!!!Other 50!!!
!!!Total $ 1,094!!!
Source: Federal Reserve Bulletin, Table 1.57, pg. A42, August 1986.
______________________________________________________________________________
Despite the different sources of borrowed funds, there is a rough
equivalence in the actual cost of borrowing money for particular types of
projects. Because lenders can participate in many different financial markets,
they tend to switch towards loans that return the highest yield for a
particular level of risk. As a result, borrowed funds that can be obtained
from different sources tend to have very similar costs, including interest
charges and issuing costs.
As a general principle, however, the costs of funds for construction will
vary inversely with the risk of a loan. Lenders usually require security for a
loan represented by a tangible asset. If for some reason the borrower cannot
repay a loan, then the borrower can take possession of the loan security. To
the extent that an asset used as security is of uncertain value, then the
lender will demand a greater return and higher interest payments. Loans made
for projects under construction represent considerable risk to a financial
institution. If a lender acquires an unfinished facility, then it faces the
difficult task of re-assembling the project team. Moreover, a default on a
facility may result if a problem occurs such as foundation problems or
anticipated unprofitability of the future facility. As a result of these
uncertainties, construction lending for unfinished facilities commands a
premium interest charge of several percent compared to mortgage lending for
completed facilities.
Financing plans will typically include a reserve amount to cover unforeseen
expenses, cost increases or cash flow problems. This reserve can be
represented by a special reserve or a contingency amount in the project budget.
In the simplest case, this reserve might represent a borrowing agreement with a
financial institution to establish a line of credit in case of need. For
publicly traded bonds, specific reserve funds administered by a third party may
be established. The cost of these reserve funds is the difference between the
interest paid to bondholders and the interest received on the reserve funds
plus any administrative costs.
Finally, arranging financing may involve a lengthy period of negotiation and
review. Particularly for publicly traded bond financing, specific legal
requirements in the issue must be met. A typical seven month schedule to issue
revenue bonds would include the various steps outlined in Table 7-0.[This table
is adapted from A.J. Henkel, "The Mechanics of a Revenue Bond Financing: An
Overview," Infrastructure Financing, Kidder, Peabody & Co., New York, 1984.]
In many cases, the speed in which funds may be obtained will determine a
project's financing mechanism.
______________________________________________________________________________
!!! Activities!!!Time of Activities
!!!Analysis of financial alternatives!!!Weeks 0-4
!!!Preparation of legal documents!!!Weeks 1-17
!!!Preparation of disclosure documents!!!Weeks 2-20
!!!Forecasts of costs and revenues!!!Weeks 4-20
!!!Bond Ratings!!!Weeks 20-23
!!!Bond Marketing!!!Weeks 21-24
!!!Bond Closing and Receipt of Funds!!!Weeks 23-26
______________________________________________________________________________
Example 7-1: Example of financing options
Suppose that you represent a private corporation attempting to arrange
financing for a new headquarters building. These are several options that
might be considered:
Since there are numerous different sources and arrangements for obtaining
the funds necessary for facility construction, owners and other project
participants require some mechanism for evaluating the different potential
sources. The relative costs of different financing plans are certainly
important in this regard. In addition, the flexibility of the plan and
availability of reserves may be critical. As a project manager, it is
important to assure adequate financing to complete a project. Alternative
financing plans can be evaluated using the same techniques that are employed
for the evaluation of investment alternatives.
As described in Chapter 6, the availability of different financing plans can
affect the selection of alternative projects. A general approach for obtaining
the combined effects of operating and financing cash flows of a project is to
determine the adjusted net present value (APV) which is the sum of the net
present value of the operating cash flow (NPV) and the net present value of the
financial cash flow (FPV), discounted at their respective minimum attractive
rates of return (MARR), i.e., For the sake of simplicity, we shall emphasize in this chapter the
evaluation of financing plans, with occasional references to the combined
effects of operating and financing cash flows. In all discussions, we shall
present various financing schemes with examples limiting to cases of before-tax
cash flows discounted at a before-tax MARR of r = r@-(f) for both operating and
financial cash flows. Once the basic concepts of various financing schemes are
clearly understood, their application to more complicated situations involving
depreciation, tax liability and risk factors can be considered in combination
with the principles for dealing with such topics enunciated in Chapter 6.
In this section, we shall concentrate on the computational techniques
associated with the most common types of financing arrangements. More detailed
descriptions of various financing schemes and the comparisons of their
advantages and disadvantages will be discussed in later sections.
Typically, the interest rate for borrowing is stated in terms of annual
percentage rate (A.P.R.), but the interest is accrued according to the rate
for the interest period specified in the borrowing agreement. Let i@-(p) be
the nominal annual percentage rate, and i be the interest rate for each of the
p interest periods per year. By definition For a coupon bond, the face value of the bond denotes the amount borrowed
(called principal) which must be repaid in full at a maturity or due date,
while each coupon designates the interest to be paid periodically for the total
number of coupons covering all periods until maturity. Let Q be the amount
borrowed, and I@-(p) be the interest payment per period which is often six
months for coupon bonds. If the coupon bond is prescribed to reach maturity in
n years from the date of issue, the total number of interest periods will be pn
= 2n. The semi-annual interest payment is given by: An alternative loan arrangement is to make a series of uniform payments
including both interest and part of the principal for a pre-defined number of
repayment periods. In the case of uniform payments at an interest rate i for n
repayment periods, the uniform repayment amount U is given by: Usually, there is an origination fee associated with borrowing for legal and
other professional services which is payable upon the receipt of the loan.
This fee may appear in the form of issuance charges for revenue bonds or
percentage point charges for mortgages. The borrower must allow for such fees
in addition to the construction cost in determining the required original
amount of borrowing. Suppose that a sum of P@-(o) must be reserved at t=0 for
the construction cost, and K is the origination fee. Then the original loan
needed to cover both is: Because the borrowing rate i will generally exceed the investment rate h for
the running balance in the project account and since the origination fee
increases with the amount borrowed, the financial planner should minimize the
amount of money borrowed under this finance strategy. Thus, there is an
optimal value for Q such that all estimated shortfalls are covered, interest
payments and expenses are minimized, and adequate reserve funds are available
to cover unanticipated factors such as construction cost increases. This
optimal value of Q can either be identified analytically or by trial and error.
Finally, variations in ownership arrangements may also be used to provide at
least partial financing. Leasing a facility removes the need for direct
financing of the facility. Sale-leaseback involves sale of a facility to a
third party with a separate agreement involving use of the facility for a
pre-specified period of time. In one sense, leasing arrangements can be viewed
as a particular form of financing. In return for obtaining the use of a
facility or piece of equipment, the user (lesser) agrees to pay the owner
(lesser) a lease payment every period for a specified number of periods.
Usually, the lease payment is at a fixed level due every month, semi-annually,
or annually. Thus, the cash flow associated with the equipment or facility use
is a series of uniform payments. This cash flow would be identical to a cash
flow resulting from financing the facility or purchase with sufficient borrowed
funds to cover initial construction (or purchase) and with a repayment schedule
of uniform amounts. Of course, at the end of the lease period, the ownership
of the facility or equipment would reside with the lesser. However, the lease
terms may include a provision for transferring ownership to the lesser after a
fixed period.
Example 7-2: A coupon bond cash flow and cost
A private corporation wishes to borrow $10.5 million for the construction of
a new building by issuing a twenty-year coupon bond at an annual percentage
interest rate of 10% to be paid semi-annually, i.e. 5% per interest period of
six months. The principal will be repaid at the end of 20 years. The amount
borrowed will cover the construction cost of $10.331 million and an origination
fee of $169,000 for issuing the coupon bond.
The interest payment per period is (5%) (10.5) = $0.525 million over a life
time of (2) (20) = 40 interest periods. Thus, the cash flow of financing by
the coupon bond consists of a $10.5 million receipt at period 0, -$0.525
million each for periods 1 through 40, and an additional -$10.5 million for
period 40. Assuming a MARR of 5% per period, the net present value of the
financial cash flow is given by: Example 7-3: An example of leasing versus ownership analysis
Suppose that a developer offered a building to a corporation for an annual
lease payment of $ 10 million over a thirty year lifetime. For the sake of
simplicity, let us assume that the developer also offers to donate the building
to the corporation at the end of thirty years or, alternatively, the building
would then have no commercial value. Also, suppose that the initial cost of
the building was $ 65.66 million. For the corporation, the lease is equivalent
to receiving a loan with uniform payments over thirty years at an interest rate
of 15% since the present value of the lease payments is equal to the initial
cost at this interest rate: Example 7-4: Example evaluation of alternative financing plans.
Suppose that a small corporation wishes to build a headquarters building.
The construction will require two years and cost a total of $ 12 million,
assuming that $ 5 million is spent at the end of the first year and $7 million
at the end of the second year. To finance this construction, several options
are possible, including:
The first step in evaluation is to calculate the required amounts and cash
flows associated with these three alternative financing plans. First,
investment using retained earnings will require a commitment of $ 5 million in
year 1 and $ 7 million in year 2.
Second, borrowing from the local bank must yield sufficient funds to cover
both years of construction plus the issuing fee. With the unused fund
accumulating interest at a rate of 10%, the amount of dollars needed at the
beginning of the first year for future construction cost payments is: If this loan is to be repaid by annual uniform payments from corporate
earnings, the amount of each payment over the twenty year life time of the loan
can be calculated by Eq. (7.6) as follows: Finally, the twenty-year coupon bond would have to be issued in the amount
of $10.5 million which will reflect a higher origination fee of $169,000.
Thus, the amount for financing is: Table 7-0 summarizes the cash flows associated with the three alternative
financing plans. Note that annual incomes generated from the use of this
building have not been included in the computation. The adjusted net present
value of the combined operating and financial cash flows for each of the three
plans discounted at the corporate MARR of 15% is also shown in the table. In
this case, the coupon bond is the least expensive financing plan. Since the
borrowing rates for both the bank loan and the coupon bond are lower than the
corporate MARR, these results are expected.
______________________________________________________________________________
!!!!!! Retained!!! Bank!!! Coupon
Year!!! Source!!! Earnings!!! Loan!!! Bond
0!!!Principal!!! -!!! $ 10.409!!! $ 10.500
0!!!Issuing Cost!!! -!!! -0.078!!! -0.169
1!!!Earned Interest!!!-!!! 1.033!!! 1.033
1!!!Contractor Payment!!!$ -5.000!!! $ -5.000!!! $ -5.000
1!!!Loan Repayment!!!-!!! -1.324!!! - 1.076
2!!!Earned Interest!!!-!!! 0.636!!! 0.636
2!!!Contractor Payment!!!$ -7.000!!! $ -7.000!!! $ -7.000
2!!!Loan Repayment!!!-!!! - 1.324!!! - 1.076
3-19!!!Loan Repayment!!!-!!! - 1.324!!! - 1.076
20!!!Loan Repayment!!!-!!! -1.324!!! -11.576
[APV]@-(15%)!!!!!!-9.641!!! - 6.217!!! - 5.308
______________________________________________________________________________
Secured lending involves a contract between a borr
Project Management for Construction
Fundamental Concepts for Owners,
Engineers, Architects and Builders
In essence, adopting the viewpoint of the owner focuses attention on the cost
effectiveness of facility construction rather than competitive provision of
services by the various participants.
1. The Owners' Perspective
1.1 Introduction
By common consensus and every available measure, the United States no longer
gets it's money's worth in construction, the nation's largest industry ... The
creeping erosion of construction efficiency and productivity is bad news for
the entire U.S. economy. Construction is a particularly seminal industry. The
price of every factory, office building, hotel or power plant that is built
affects the price that must be charged for the goods or services produced in it
or by it. And that effect generally persists for decades ... Too much of the
industry remains tethered to the past, partly by inertia and partly by historic
divisions...
Improvement of project management not only can aid the construction industry,
but may also be the engine for the national and world economy. However, if we
are to make meaningful improvements, we must first understand the construction
industry, its operating environment and the institutional constraints affecting
its activities as well as the nature of project management.
1.2 The Project Life Cycle
The Project Life Cycle of a Constructed Facility
1.3 Major Types of Construction
Residential Housing Construction
Illustration of Residential Housing Construction
Institutional and Commercial Building Construction
Institutional and commercial building construction encompasses a great variety
of project types and sizes, such as schools and universities, medical clinics
and hospitals, recreational facilities and sports stadiums, retail chain stores
and large shopping centers, warehouses and light manufacturing plants, and
skyscrapers for offices and hotels. The owners of such buildings may or may
not be familiar with construction industry practices, but they usually are able
to select competent professional consultants and arrange the financing of the
constructed facilities themselves. Specialty architects and engineers are
often engaged for designing a specific type of building, while the builders or
general contractors undertaking such projects may also be specialized in only
that type of building.
Illustration of Construction of the PPG Building in Pittsburgh, PA
Specialized Industrial Construction
Illustration of Construction of a Benzene Plant in Lima, Ohio
Infrastructure and Heavy Construction
Infrastructure and heavy construction includes projects such as highways, mass
transit systems, tunnels, bridges, pipelines, drainage systems and sewage
treatment plants. Most of these projects are publicly owned and therefore
financed either through bonds or taxes. This category of construction is
characterized by a high degree of mechanization, which has gradually replaced
some labor intensive operations.
Illustration of Construction of the Dame Point Bridge in Jacksonville, Florida
1.4 Selection of Professional Services
Financial Planning Consultants
At the early stage of strategic planning for a capital project, an owner often
seeks the services of financial planning consultants such as certified public
accounting (CPA) firms to evaluate the economic and financial feasibility of
the constructed facility, particularly with respect to various provisions of
federal, state and local tax laws which may affect the investment decision.
Investment banks may also be consulted on various options for financing the
facility in order to analyze their long-term effects on the financial health of
the owner organization.
Architectural and Engineering Firms
Traditionally, the owner engages an architectural and engineering (A/E) firm or
consoritum as technical consultant in developing a preliminary design. After
the engineering design and financing arrangements for the project are
completed, the owner will enter into a construction contract with a general
contractor either through competitive bidding or negotiation. The general
contractor will act as a constructor and/or a coordinator of a large number of
subcontractors who perform various specialties for the completion of the
project. The A/E firm completes the design and may also provide on site
quality inspection during construction. Thus, the A/E firm acts as the prime
professional on behalf of the owner and supervises the construction to insure
satisfactory results. This practice is most common in building construction.
Design/Construct Firms
A common trend in industrial construction, particularly for large projects, is
to engage the services of a design/construct firm. By integrating design and
construction management in a single organization, many of the conflicts between
designers and constructors might be avoided. In particular, designs will be
closely scrutinized for their constructibility. However, an owner engaging a
design/construct firm must insure that the quality of the constructed facility
is not sacrificed by the desire to reduce the time or the cost for completing
the project. Also, it is difficult to make use of competitive bidding in this
type of design/construct process. As a result, owners must be relatively
sophisticated in negotiating realistic and cost-effective construction
contracts.
Professional Construction Managers
In recent years, a new breed of construction managers (CM) offers professional
services from the inception to the completion of a construction project. These
construction managers mostly come from the ranks of A/E firms or general
contractors who may or may not retain dual roles in the service of the owners.
In any case, the owner can rely on the service of a single prime professional
to manage the entire process of a construction project. However, like the A/E
firms of several decades ago, the construction managers are appreciated by some
owners but not by others. Before long, some owners find that the construction
managers too may try to protect their own interest instead of that of the
owners when the stakes are high.
Operation and Maintenance Managers
Although many owners keep a permanent staff for the operation and maintenance
of constructed facilities, others may prefer to contract such tasks to
professional managers. Understandably, it is common to find in-house staff for
operation and maintenance in specialized industrial plants and infrastructure
facilities, and the use of outside managers under contracts for the operation
and maintenance of rental properties such as apartments and office buildings.
However, there are exceptions to these common practices. For example,
maintenance of public roadways can be contracted to private firms. In any
case, managers can provide a spectrum of operation and maintenance services for
a specified time period in accordance to the terms of contractual agreements.
Thus, the owners can be spared the provision of in-house expertise to operate
and maintain the facilities.
Facilities Management
As a logical extension for obtaining the best services throughout the project
life cycle of a constructed facility, some owners and developers are receptive
to adding strategic planning at the beginning and facility maintenance as a
follow-up to reduce space-related costs in their real estate holdings.
Consequently, some architectural/engineering firms and construction management
firms with computer-based expertise, together with interior design firms, are
offering such front-end and follow-up services in addition to the more
traditional services in design and construction. This spectrum of services is
described in Engineering News-Record (now ENR) as follows:["Hot New Market
Lures A-E Players to Cutting Edges," Engineering News-Record, April 4, 1985,
pp. 30-37.]
Facilities management is the discipline of planning, designing, constructing
and managing space -- in every type of structure from office buildings to
process plants. It involves developing corporate facilities policy, long-range
forecasts, real estate, space inventories, projects (through design,
construction and renovation), building operation and maintenance plans and
furniture and equipment inventories.
1.5 Construction Contractors
General Contractors
The function of a general contractor is to coordinate all tasks in a
construction project. Unless the owner performs this function or engages a
professional construction manager to do so, a good general contractor who has
worked with a team of superintendents, specialty contractors or subcontractors
together for a number of projects in the past can be most effective in
inspiring loyalty and cooperation. The general contractor is also
knowledgeable about the labor force employed in construction. The labor force
may or may not be unionized depending on the size and location of the projects.
In some projects, no member of the work force belongs to a labor union; in
other cases, both union and non-union craftsmen work together in what is called
an open shop, or all craftsmen must be affiliated with labor unions in a closed
shop. Since labor unions provide hiring halls staffed with skilled journeyman
who have gone through apprentice programs for the projects as well as serving
as collective bargain units, an experienced general contractor will make good
use of the benefits and avoid the pitfalls in dealing with organized labor.
Specialty Contractors
Specialty contractors include mechanical, electrical, foundation, excavation,
and demolition contractors among others. They usually serve as subcontractors
to the general contractor of a project. In some cases, legal statutes may
require an owner to deal with various specialty contractors directly. In the
State of New York, for example, specialty contractors, such as mechanical and
electrical contractors, are not subjected to the supervision of the general
contractor of a construction project and must be given separate prime contracts
on public works. With the exception of such special cases, an owner will hold
the general contractor responsible for negotiating and fulfilling the
contractual agreements with the subcontractors.
Material and Equipment Suppliers
Major material suppliers include specialty contractors in structural steel
fabrication and erection, sheet metal, ready mixed concrete delivery,
reinforcing steel bar detailers, roofing, glazing etc. Major equipment
suppliers for industrial construction include manufacturers of generators,
boilers and piping and other equipment. Many suppliers handle on-site
installation to insure that the requirements and contractual specifications are
met. As more and larger structural units are prefabricated off-site, the
distribution between specialty contractors and material suppliers becomes even
less obvious.
1.6 Financing of Constructed Facilities
Construction Financing
Construction loans to contractors are usually provided by banks or savings and
loan associations for construction financing. Upon the completion of the
facility, construction loans will be terminated and the post-construction
facility financing will be arranged by the owner.
Facility Financing
Many private corporations maintain a pool of general funds resulting from
retained earnings and long-term borrowing on the strength of corporate assets,
which can be used for facility financing. Similarly, for public agencies, the
long-term funding may be obtained from the commitment of general tax revenues
from the federal, state and/or local governments. Both private corporations
and public agencies may issue special bonds for the constructed facilities
which may obtain lower interest rates than other forms of borrowing.
Short-term borrowing may also be used for bridging the gaps in long-term
financing. Some corporate bonds are convertible to stocks under circumstances
specified in the bond agreement. For public facilities, the assessment of user
fees to repay the bond funds merits consideration for certain types of
facilities such as toll roads and sewage treatment plants.(See Hendrickson, C.,
"Financing Civil Works with User Fees," Civil Engineering, Vol. 53, No. 2,
February 1983, pp. 71-72.) The use of mortgages is primarily confined to
rental properties such as apartments and office buildings.
1.7 Legal and Regulatory Requirements
Legal Responsibilities
Activities in construction often involve risks, both physical and financial.
An owner generally tries to shift the risks to other parties to the degree
possible when entering into contractual agreements with them. However, such
action is not without cost or risk. For example, a contractor who is assigned
the risks may either ask for a higher contract price to compensate for the
higher risks, or end up in non-performance or bankruptcy as an act of
desperation. Such consequences can be avoided if the owner is reasonable in
risk allocation. When risks are allocated to different parties, the owner must
understand the implications and spell them out clearly. Sometimes there are
statutory limitations on the allocation of liabilities among various groups,
such as prohibition against the allocation of negligence in design to the
contractor. An owner must realize its superior power in bargaining and hence
the responsibilities associated with this power in making contractual
agreements.
Mitigation of Conflicts
It is important for the owner to use legal counselors as advisors to mitigate
conflicts before they happen rather than to wield conflicts as weapons against
other parties. There are enough problems in design and construction due to
uncertainty rather than bad intentions. The owner should recognize the more
enlightened approaches for mitigating conflicts, such as using owner-controlled
wrap-up insurance which will provide protection for all parties involved in
the construction process for unforeseen risks, or using arbitration, mediation
and other extra-judicial solutions for disputes among various parties.
However, these compromise solutions are not without pitfalls and should be
adopted only on the merit of individual cases.
Government Regulation
To protect public safety and welfare, legislatures and various government
agencies periodically issue regulations which influence the construction
process, the operation of constructed facilities, and their ultimate disposal.
For example, building codes promulgated by local authorities have provided
guidelines for design and construction practices for a very long time. Since
the 1970's, many federal regulations that are related directly or indirectly to
construction have been established in the United States. Among them are safety
standards for workers issued by the Occupational Health and Safety
Administration, environmental standards on pollutants and toxic wastes issued
by the Environmental Protection Agency, and design and operation procedures for
nuclear power plants issued by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. The
proliferation of environmental protection laws in recent decades can be noted
from Figure 1-0.
U.S. Laws on Environmental Protection, 1895 - 1985
1.8 The Changing Environment of the Construction Industry
Value of New Construction in U.S., 1950-1985
New Technologies
In recent years, technological innovation in design, materials and construction
methods have resulted in significant changes in construction costs.
Computer-aids have improved capabilities for generating quality designs as well
as reducing the time required to produce alternative designs. New materials
not only have enhanced the quality of construction but also have shortened the
time for shop fabrication and field erection. Construction methods have gone
through various stages of mechanization and automation, including the latest
development of construction robotics.
Labor Productivity
The term productivity is generally defined as a ratio of the production output
volume to the input volume of resources. Since both output and input can be
quantified in a number of ways, there is no single measure of productivity that
is universally applicable, particularly in the construction industry where the
products are often unique and there is no standard for specifying the levels
for aggregation of data. However, since labor constitutes a large part of the
cost of construction, labor productivity in terms of output volume (constant
dollar value or functional units) per person-hour is a useful measure. Labor
productivity measured in this way does not necessarily indicate the efficiency
of labor alone but rather measures the combined effects of labor, equipment and
other factors contributing to the output.
Public Scrutiny
Under the present litigious climate in the United States, the public is
increasingly vocal in the scrutiny of construction project activities.
Sometimes it may result in considerable difficulty in siting new facilities as
well as additional expenses during the construction process itself. Owners
must be prepared to manage such crises before they get out of control.
Public Acceptance toward New Facilities
International Competition
A final trend which deserves note is the increasing level of international
competition in the construction industry. Owners are likely to find
non-traditional firms bidding for construction work, particularly on large
projects. Separate bids from numerous European, North American, and Asian
construction firms are not unusual. In the United States, overseas firms are
becoming increasingly visible and important. In this environment of heightened
competition, good project management and improved productivity are more and
more important.
Through most of the postwar years, the nation's biggest builders of offshore
oil platforms enjoyed an unusually cozy relationship with the Big Oil Companies
they served. Their top officials developed personal friendships with oil
executives, entertained them at opulent hunting camps- and won contracts to
build nearly every major offshore oil platform in the world....But this summer,
the good-old boy network fell apart. Shell [Oil Co.] awarded the main contract
for [a new] platform - taller than Chicago's Sears Tower, four times heavier
than the Brooklyn Bridge - to a tiny upstart.
The winning bidder arranged overseas fabrication of the rig, kept overhead
costs low, and proposed a novel assembly procedure by which construction
equipment was mounted on completed sections of the platform in order to speed
the completion of the entire structure. The result was lower costs than those
estimated and bid by traditional firms.
Contractor Financed Projects
Increasingly, some owners look to contractors or joint ventures as a resource
to design, to build and to finance a constructed facility. For example, a
utility company may seek a consortium consisting of a design/construct firm and
a financial investment firm to assume total liability during construction and
thereby eliminate the risks of cost escalation to ratepayers, stockholders and
the management. On the other hand, a local sanitation district may seek such a
consortium to provide private ownership for a proposed new sewage treatment
plant. In the former case, the owner may take over the completed facility and
service the debt on construction through long-term financing arrangements; in
the latter case, the private owner may operate the completed facility and
recover its investment through user fees. The activities of joint ventures
among design, construction and investment firms are sometimes referred to as
financial engineering.
1.9 The Role of Project Managers
It is customary to think of engineering as a part of a trilogy, pure science,
applied science and engineering. It needs emphasis that this trilogy is only
one of a triad of trilogies into which engineering fits. This first is pure
science, applied science and engineering; the second is economic theory,
finance and engineering; and the third is social relations, industrial
relations and engineering. Many engineering problems are as closely allied to
social problems as they are to pure science.
As engineers advance professionally, they often spend as much or more time on
planning, management and other economic or social problems as on the
traditional engineering design and analysis problems which form the core of
most educational programs. It is upon the ability of engineers to tackle all
such problems that their performance will ultimately be judged.
1.10 References
2. Organizing for Project Management
2.1 What is Project Management?
Project management is the art of directing and coordinating human and
material resources throughout the life of a project by using modern management
techniques to achieve predetermined objectives of scope, cost, time, quality
and participation satisfaction.
By contrast, the general management of business and industrial corporations
assumes a broader outlook with greater continuity of operations. Nevertheless,
there are sufficient similarities as well as differences between the two so
that modern management techniques developed for general management may be
adapted for project management.
Basic Ingredients in Project Management
2.2 Trends in Modern Management
Illustrative Hierarchical Structure of Management Functions
2.3 Strategic Planning and Project Programming
Ability to Influence Construction Cost Over Time
To compound the problem, mega projects are often constructed in remote
environments away from major population centers and subject to severe climate
conditions. Consequently, special features of each mega project must be
evaluated carefully.
2.4 Effects of Project Risks on Organization
2.5 Organization of Project Participants
It should be pointed out that some decompositions may work out better than
others, depending on the circumstances. In any case, the prevalence of
decomposition makes the subsequent integration particularly important. The
critical issues involved in organization for project management are:
Example of a Matrix Organization
Example of a Project-Oriented Organization
The Matrix Organization in an Engineering Division
Coordination between Owner and Consultant
2.6 Traditional Designer-Constructor Sequence
2.7 Professional Construction Management
Consequently, it is important to recognize the changing nature of the
organizational structure as a project is carried out in various stages.
2.8 Owner-Builder Operation
Organization of a District of Corps of Engineers
2.9 Turnkey Operation
2.10 Leadership and Motivation for the Project Team
2.11 Interpersonal Behavior in Project Organizations
2.12 Perceptions of Owners and Contractors
Conversely, the key factors cited for unsuccessful projects are:
2.13 References
3. The Design and Construction Process
3.1 Design and Construction as an Integrated System
Recommended Responsibility for Shop Drawings
3.2 Innovation and Technological Feasibility
The great pioneering steel bridges of the United States were built by an open
or covert alliance between designers and constructors. The turnkey approach of
designer-constructor has developed and built our chemical plants, refineries,
steel plants, and nuclear power plants. It is time to ask, seriously, whether
we may not have adopted a restrictive approach by divorcing engineering and
construction in the field of bridge construction.
If a contractor-engineer, by some stroke of genius, were to present to design
engineers today a wonderful new scheme for long span prestressed concrete
bridges that made them far cheaper, he would have to make these ideas available
to all other constructors, even limiting or watering them down so as to "get a
group of truly competitive bidders." The engineer would have to make sure that
he found other contractors to bid against the ingenious innovator.
If an engineer should, by a similar stroke of genius, hit on such a unique
and brilliant scheme, he would have to worry, wondering if the low bidder would
be one who had any concept of what he was trying to accomplish or was in any
way qualified for high class technical work.
Proposed Structural Systems for Steel Buildings
3.3 Innovation and Economic Feasibility
Market Demand and Total Cost Relationship
Illustrative Relationships between Building Size and Input Labor
by Types of Building
3.4 Design Methodology
Conceptual Design Process
An Analogy between the Structural Design and Computer Program Development
Processes
The design of a new facility often begins with the search of the files for a
design that comes as close as possible to the one needed. The design process
is guided by accumulated experience and intuition in the form of heuristic
rules to find acceptable solutions. As more experience is gained for this
particular type of facility, it often becomes evident that parts of the design
problem are amenable to rigorous definition and algorithmic solution. Even
formal optimization methods may be applied to some parts of the problem.
3.5 Functional Design
Hence, the procedure for seeking the goals can be recycled iteratively in
order to make tradeoffs and thus improve the solution of spatial layouts.
A Model for Top-Down Design of a Hospital
A Model for Bottom-up Design of an Examination Suite
3.6 Physical Structures
Steel Frame Supporting a Turbo-Blower
3.7 Geotechnical Engineering Investigation
Typical Cross Section of Hillside Adjoining Site
Schematic Section of Anchored Steel Sheet Pile Retaining Wall
3.8 Construction Site Environment
Cross Section Illustration of a Landfill
The excavation and reburial of even a small landfill site can be very
expensive. For example, the estimated reburial cost for a landfill like that
shown in Figure 3-0 was in excess of $ 4 million in 1978.
3.9 Value Engineering
3.10 Construction Planning
3.11 Industrialized Construction and Pre-fabrication
3.12 Computer-Aided Engineering
3.13 References
4. Labor, Material and Equipment Utilization
4.1 Historical Perspective
[T]he work could not have done any faster or more efficiently in our day,
despite all technological and mechanical advances in the time since, the reason
being that no present system could possibly carry the spoil away any faster or
more efficiently than the system employed. No motor trucks were used in the
digging of the canal; everything ran on rails. And because of the mud and
rain, no other method would have worked half so well.[McCullough, David, The
Path Between the Seas, Simon and Schuster, 1977, pg. 531.]
In contrast to this view of one large project, one may also point to the
continual change and improvements occurring in traditional materials and
techniques. Bricklaying provides a good example of such changes:
Bricklaying...is said not to have changed in thousands of years; perhaps in
the literal placing of brick on brick it has not. But masonry technology has
changed a great deal. Motorized wheelbarrows and mortar mixers, sophisticated
scaffolding systems, and forklift trucks now assist the bricklayer. New epoxy
mortars give stronger adhesion between bricks. Mortar additives and
cold-weather protection eliminate winter shutdowns.[Rosefielde, Steven and
Daniel Quinn Mills, "Is Construction Technologically Stagnant?", in Lange,
Julian E. and Daniel Quinn Mills, The Construction Industry, Lexington Books,
1979, pg. 83.]
Add to this list of existing innovations the possibility of robotic
bricklaying; automated prototypes for masonry construction already exist.
Technical change is certainly occurring in construction, although it may occur
at a slower rate than in other sectors of the economy.
4.2 Labor Productivity
Productivity at the Job Site
Productivity in the Construction Industry
4.3 Factors Affecting Job-Site Productivity
Project Work Conditions
Non-Productive Activities
Illustrative Relationship between
Productivity Index and Job Size
500,000 - 650,000
I = 1.0 + (1.1-1.0) ## ## = 0.85-----------------
500,000 - 400,000
This implies that labor is 15% less productive on the large job than on the
standard project.
Determine the productive labor yield after the above factors are taken into
consideration.
A 417
##=## ##=##6#%- -----
L 7,500
B 1,415
##=## ##=##19#%- -----
L 7,500
C 1,141
##=## ##=##15#%- -----
L 7,500
D 1,431
##=## ##=##19#%- -----
L 7,500
The total percentage of time X for all non-productive activities is:
A#+#B#+#C#+#D
X##=## ##=###6#%##+##19#%##+##15#%##+##19#%##=##59#%-------------
L
The productive labor yield, Y, when the given factors for A, B, C and D are
considered, is as follows:
L##-##A##-##B##-##C##-##D
Y = = 100#%#-#6#%#-#19#%#-#15#%#-#19#%#=#41#%-------------------------
L
As a result, only 41% of the budgeted labor time was devoted directly to work
on the facility.
!!!Productive time!!!40%
!!!Unproductive time
!!!!!!Administrative delays !!!20%
!!!!!!Inefficient work methods!!!20%
!!!!!!Labor jurisdictions and other work restrictions!!!15%
!!!Personal time!!!5%
In this estimate, as much time is spent on productive work as on delays due to
management and inefficiencies due to antiquated work methods.
4.4 Labor Relations in Construction
Unionized Construction
Non-Unionized Construction
4.5 Problems in Collective Bargaining
Regional Bargaining
Multicraft Bargaining
Improvement of Bargaining Performance
4.6 Materials Management
Against these various benefits, the costs of acquiring and maintaining a
materials management system has to be compared. However, management studies
suggest that investment in such systems can be quite beneficial.
4.7 Material Procurement and Delivery
Freight Delivery for the Alaska Pipeline Project
Activities!!!Duration!!!Cumulative
!!! (days)!!!Duration
Requisition ready by designer!!!0!!!0
Owner approval!!!5!!!5
Inquiry issued to vendors!!!3!!!8
Vendor quotations received!!!15!!!23
Complete bid evaluation by designer!!!7!!!30
Owner approval!!!5!!!35
Place purchase order!!!5!!!40
Receive preliminary shop drawings!!!10!!!50
Receive final design drawings!!!10!!!60
Fabrication and delivery!!!60-200!!!120-260
As a result, this type of equipment procurement will typically require four to
nine months. Slippage or contraction in this standard schedule is also
possible, based on such factors as the extent to which a fabricator is busy.
4.8 Inventory Control
Purchase Costs
Order Cost
Holding Costs
Unavailability Cost
4.9 Tradeoffs of Costs in Materials Management.
t
P (T L t) = p(u)S
u=0
b
E[T] = t[p(t)]S
t=a
L = E[T] + D
Delivery Date on Orders and Probability of Delivery for an Example
16
E[T]#=## t[p(t)]S
t=10
#####=##(10)(0.1)#+#(11)(0.1)#+#(12)(0.15)#+
\*
#(13)0(.20)#+#(14)(0.30)#+#(15)(0.10)#=#13.0
4.10 Construction Equipment
Excavation and Loading
Typical Machines in the Crane-Shovel Family
Compaction and Grading
Some Major Types of Compaction Equipment
Drilling and Blasting
Lifting and Erecting
Mixing and Paving
Construction Tools and Other Equipment
Automation of Equipment
4.11 Choice of Equipment and Standard Production Rates
By comparing various types of machines for excavation, for example, power
shovels are generally found to be the most suitable for excavating from a level
surface and for attacking an existing digging surface or one created by the
power shovel; furthermore, they have the capability of placing the excavated
material directly onto the haulers. Another alternative is to use bulldozers
for excavation.
Dump trucks are usually used as haulers for excavated materials as they can
move freely with relatively high speeds on city streets as well as on highways.
C
R##=##-
T
or
C
T##=##-
R
where C@-(e) and T@-(e) are cycle capacity (in units of volume) and cycle time
(in hours) of the excavator respectively.
C@-(e)H@-(e)
P@-(e)##=##R@-(e)H@-(e)##=##------------
T@-(e)
The loading time is related to the cycle time of the excavator T@-(e) and the
relative capacities C@-(h) and C@-(e) of the hauler and the excavator
respectively. In the optimum or standard case:
2#D
T@-(t)##=##---
S
For a given dumping time T@-(d), the cycle time T@-(h) of the hauler is given
by:
C@-(h)
T@-(o)##=##T@-(e)------
C@-(e)
The daily standard production rate P@-(h) of a hauler can be obtained by
multiplying its standard production rate R@-(h) by the number of operating
hours H@-(h) per day. Hence:
2#D C@-(h)
T@-(h)##=## ##+##T@-(e)# ##+##T@-(d)--- ------
S C@-(e)
This expression assumes that haulers begin loading as soon as they return from
the dump site.
C@-(h)#H@-(h)
P@-(h)##=##R@-(h)#H@-(h)##=##-------------
T@-(h)
w#P@-(e)
N@-(h)##=##--------
P@-(h)
On the other hand, the cycle time T' at the job site will be increased by
these factors, reflecting actual work conditions. If only these factors are
involved, T@+(1) is related to the standard cycle time T as:
R'##A##R#F@-(1)#F@-(2)# : : : #F@-(n)
Each of these various adjustment factors must be determined from experience or
observation of job sites. For example, a bulk composition factor is derived
for bulk excavation in building construction because the standard production
rate for general bulk excavation is reduced when an excavator is used to create
a ramp to reach the bottom of the bulk and to open up a space in the bulk to
accommodate the hauler.
T
T'##A##----------------------------
F@-(1)#F@-(2)# : : : #F@-(n)
(1#cu.#yd.)(8#hr.)(3,600#sec./hr.)
P@-(e)##=## ##=##960#cu.#yd.----------------------------------
30#sec.
In practice, of course, this standard rate would be modified to reflect
various production inefficiencies, as described in Example 4-11.
(2)(4#mi.)(3,600#sec./hr.)
T@-(t)##=## ##=##960sec.--------------------------
(30#mi./hr.)
6#cu.#yd.
T@-(o)##=##(30#sec.)## ## ## ##=##180#sec.---------
1#cu.#yd.
T@-(h)##=##960##+##180##+##30##=##1,170#sec.
Hence, the daily hauler productivity is:
(6#cu.#yd.)(8#hr.)(3,600#sec./hr.)
P@-(h)##=## ##=##147.7#cu.#yd.----------------------------------
(1,170#sec.)
Finally, from Equation (4.4.11), the number of trucks required is:
(1.1)(960#cu.#yd.)
N@-(h)##=## ##=##7.1------------------
147.7#cu.#yd.
implying that 8 trucks should be used.
Work Conditions at the Site!!!Factors
Bulk composition!!! 0.954
Soil properties and water content!!! 0.983
Equipment idle time for worker breaks!!! 0.8
Management efficiency!!! 0.7
Using Equation (4.4.11), the job site productivity of the power shovel per day
is given by:
P'@-(e)##=##(960#cu.#yd.)(0.954)(0.983)(0.8)(0.7)##=##504#cu.#yd.
The actual cycle time can be determined as follows:
(30#sec.)
T'@-(e)##=## ##=##57#sec.------------------------
(0.954)(0.983)(0.8)(0.7)
Noting Equation (4.4.11), the actual cycle time can also be obtained from the
relation T'@-(e) = C@-(e)H@-(e)/P'@-(e). Thus:
(1#cu.#yd.)(8#hr.)(3,600#sec./hr.)
T'@-(e)##=## ##=##57#sec.----------------------------------
504#cu.#yd.
T'@-(t)##=##
Hence, the actual cycle time is:
Num "T@-(t)", Denom "F@-[1]F@-[2]"
##=##
Num
"(2)(4#mi.)(3,600#sec./hr.)", Denom "(30#mi./hr.)(0.8)(0.7)"
##=##1,714#sec.
T'@-(o)##=##
Num "T'@-(e)", denom "F@-{1} F@-{2}"
#
Num "C@-(h)",
Denom "C@-(e)"
##=## ##
Num "57#sec.", denom "(0.8) (0.7)"
## ## ##
Num
"6#cu.#yd.",
Denom "1#cu.#yd."
## ##=##342#sec.
T'@-(d)##=##
Num "T@-(d)", Denom "F@-[1]F@-[2]"
##=##
Num
"30#sec.", Denom "(0.8)(0.7)"
##=##54#sec.
T'@-(h)##=##T'@-(t)##+##T'@-(o)##+##T'@-(d)##=##1714##+##611
*\
##+##54##=##2,379#sec.
The jobsite productivity P'@-(h) of the dump truck per day is:
P'@-(h)##=##
The number of trucks needed daily is:
Num "C@-(h)H@-(h)", Denom "T'@-(h)"
##=##
Num
"(6#cu.#yd.)(8#hr.)(3,600#sec./hr.)", Denom "2,379#sec."
##=##72.6#cu.#yd.
N'@-(h)##=##
so 8 trucks are required.
Num "wP'@-(e)", Denom "P'@-(h)"
##=##
Num
"(1.1)(504#cu.#yd.)", Denom "72.6#cu.#yd."
##=##7.6
4.12 Construction Processes
Illustration of a Concrete-Placing Simulation Model
4.13 Queues and Resource Bottlenecks
Single-Server with Deterministic Arrivals and Services
@g[D]A@-(t) = A(t) - A(t-1)
A(t) - A(t-1)
A@+(')(t)##=## = A(t) - A(t-1)-------------
@g[D]t
The slope of the cumulative departure function is:
@g{D}D@-[t] = D(t) - D(t-1)
D(t) - D(t-1)
D't = = D(t) - D(t-1)-------------
@g{D}t
Cumulative Arrivals and Departures in a Deterministic Queue
For example, suppose a queue begins to form at time t@-(i) and is dispersed by
time t@-(k). The maximum number of customers waiting or queue length is
represented by the maximum difference between the cumulative arrival and
cumulative departure functions between t@-(i) and t@-(k), i.e. the maximum
value of Q(t). The total waiting time for service is indicated by the total
area between the cumulative arrival and cumulative departure functions.
Q(t) = A(t) - D(t)
@g[D]D@-(1) = minimum {x;@g[D]A@-[1]}
A(t) =A(t-1) + @g{D}A@-(t)
Q(t) = Q(t-1) + @g{D}A@-(t) - @g{D}D@-(t)
@g{D}D@-(t) = minimum {x; Q(t-1) + @g{D}A@-(t)}
D(t) = D(t-1) + @g{D}D@-(t)
@g[D]w = Q(t) (@g{D}t)
t@-(k)
W = @g{D}wS
t=t@-{i}
W
w = ---------------------
A(t@-{k}) - A(t@-{i})
Cases of No Queue and Permanent Bottleneck
Single-Server with Random Arrivals and Constant Service Rate
w##=##
num"a", denom<2#x@+[2]# ##1 -##
num"a", denom "x"
## >
Then, Eq. (4.4.13) becomes:
a
u = -
x
In this equation, the ratio u of arrival rate to service rate is very
important: if the average arrival rate approaches the service rate, the waiting
time can be very long. If a G x, then the queue expands indefinitely.
Resource bottlenecks will occur with random arrivals unless a measure of extra
service capacity is available to accommodate sudden bunches in the arrival
stream. Figure 4-0 illustrates the waiting time resulting from different
combinations of arrival rates and service times.
u
w = -------
2x(1-u)
Illustrative Waitfing Times for Different Average
Arrival Rates and Service Times
Multiple Servers
A(t) =
A queue is formed at t = 0 because of the breakdown, but it dissipates at
A(t) = D@-(2)(t). Let
num "t", denom "10"
##for## t G 0
D@-(1)(t) = 0 ### for ### 0 L t L 90 min
D@-(2)(t) =
num "t-90", denom "5"
### for ### t G 90 min
from which we obtain
num "t", denom "10"
=
num "t-90", denom "5"
t## =## 180 ##minutes####and ### A(180##=##D@-(2)(180)##=##18##loads.
The total waiting time W can be calculated as the area between the cumulative
arrival and service functions in Figure 4-0. Algebraically, this is
conveniently calculated as the difference in the areas of two triangles:
W## =## so the average delay per load is w = 810/18 = 45 minutes.
Num "(18)(180)", Denom "2"
##-##
Num
"(18)(90)", Denom "2"
##=##810#minutes
Arrivals and Services of Crane Loads with a Crane Breakdown
At a resource cost of $ 30.00 per hour, this waiting would represent a cost of
(30)(0.4)(5) = $ 60.00 per hour on the project.
num "5/6", denom "(2)(6)## -## (1# -# 5/6)"
## =## 0.4## hours.
which has only a cost of (30) (0.05) (5) = $ 7.50 per hour.
num "0.5", denom "(2)(10)(1#-#0.5)"
## =## 0.05## hours.
6:00-7:00 AM.!!! 4 per hour!!! 12:00-4:00 PM.!!!8 per hour
7:00-8:00 AM.!!!15 per hour!!! 4:00-6:00 PM.!!!4 per hour
8:00-11:00 AM.!!!25 per hour!!! 6:00 PM-6:00 AM.!!!0 per hour
11:00-12:00 AM.!!!5 per hour
Using the above information of arrival and service rates
Computation of Queue Length and Waiting Time
Period!!!Arrival!!!Cumulative!!!!!!Departure!!!Cumulative!!!Waiting
!!!Rate!!!Arrivals!!!Queue!!!Rate!!!Departures!!!Time
!!!!!!A(t)!!!!!!!!!D(t)
5-7:00!!!4!!!4!!!0!!!4!!!4!!!0
7-8:00!!!15!!!19!!!0!!!15!!!19!!!0
8-9:00!!!25!!!44!!!5!!!20!!!39!!!5
9-10:00!!!25!!!69!!!10!!!20!!!59!!!10
10-11:00!!!25!!!94!!!15!!!20!!!79!!!15
11-12:00!!!5!!!99!!!0!!!20!!!99!!!0
12-1:00!!!8!!!107!!!0!!!8!!!107!!!0
1-2:00!!!8!!!115!!!0!!!8!!!115!!!0
2-3:00!!!8!!!123!!!0!!!8!!!123!!!0
3-4:00!!!8!!!131!!!0!!!8!!!131!!!0
4-5:00!!!4!!!135!!!0!!!4!!!135!!!0
5-6:00!!!4!!!139!!!0!!!4!!!139!!!9
6-7:00!!!0!!!139!!!0!!!0!!!139!!!0
7-8:00!!!0!!!139!!!0!!!0!!!139!!!0
!!!!!!!!!!!!Total Waiting Time = 30
!!!!!!!!!!!!Maximum Queue = 15
Delay of Lift Loads on a Building Site
4.14 References
4.15 Problems
A. 360 for holidays and strikes
B. 1,152 for absentees
C. 785 for temporary stoppage
D. 1,084 for indirect labor
Determine the productive labor yield after the above factors are taken into
consideration.
-0.016#x@+{2}# +# 0.16x# + #0.6## for# 0 < # x #L #5
I## =## B
1.0 ##### for ## x ## G ## 5
Find the value of the index I for x = 0, 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5 and plot the
relationship in a graph.
Table P4-5
t!!!p(t)!!!P{T L t}
12!!!0.05!!!0.05
13!!!0.10!!!0.15
14!!!0.25!!!0.40
15!!!0.35!!!0.75
16!!!0.15!!!0.90
17!!!0.10!!!1.00
!!!Work conditions at site Factors
!!!Bulk composition 0.972
!!!Soil properties and water content 0.960
!!!Equipment idle time for breaks 0.750
!!!Management inefficiency 0.750
!!!(a)!!!(b)
6-7:00 am!!!0!!!0
7-8:00 am!!!25!!!10
8-9:00 am!!!25!!!10
9-10:00 am!!!25!!!15
10-11:00 am!!!25!!!15
11-12:00 am!!!10!!!10
12-1:00 am!!!8!!!15
1-2:00 pm!!!0!!!15
2-3:00 pm!!!0!!!15
3-4:00 pm!!!0!!!10
4-5:00 pm!!!0!!!10
After 5 pm!!!0!!!0
Total number of arrivals!!!110!!!110
5. Cost Estimation
5.1 Costs Associated with Constructed Facilities
The operation and maintenance cost in subsequent years over the project life
cycle includes the following expenses:
The magnitude of each of these cost components depends on the nature, size and
location of the project as well as the management organization, among many
considerations. The owner is interested in achieving the lowest possible
overall project cost that is consistent with its investment objectives.
Resource Requirements of Some Major Energy Projects
5.2 Approaches to Cost Estimation
5.3 Types of Construction Cost Estimates
For each of these different estimates, the amount of design information
available typically increases.
Design Estimates
Bid Estimates
Control Estimates
Illustration of Grout Bottom Seal Liner at a Landfill
8 acres = (8)
(43,560 sq.ft./acre) = 348,480 sq. ft.
(As an approximation, use 360,000 sq.
ft. to account for the bowl shape)
The number of bore holes in a 50 ft. by 50 ft. grid pattern covering 360,000
sq. ft. is given by:
The average depth of the bore holes is estimated to be 20 ft. Hence, the
total amount of drilling is (144)(20) = 2,880 ft.
Num "360,000#sq.#ft.",
Denom "(50#ft.)(50#ft.)"
##=##144
for a 4 ft. layer, volume = (4 ft.)
(360,000 sq. ft.) = 1,440,000 cu. ft.
for a 6 ft. layer, volume = (6 ft.)
(360,000 sq. ft.) = 2,160,000 cu. ft.
It is estimated from soil tests that the voids in the soil layer are between
20% and 30% of the total volume. Thus, for a 4 ft. soil layer:
grouting in 20 % voids =
(20 %)(1,440,000) = 288,000 cu. ft.
grouting in 30 % voids =
(30 %)(1,440,000) = 432,000 cu. ft.
and for a 6 ft soil layer:
grouting in 20 % voids =
(20 %)(2,160,000) = 432,000 cu. ft.
grouting in 30 % voids =
(30 %)(2,160,000) = 648,000 cu. ft.
for a 4 ft. layer with 20% voids, grouting cost = $ 1,152,000 to $ 2,880,000
for a 4 ft. layer with 30% voids, grouting cost = $ 1,728,000 to $ 4,320,000
for a 6 ft. layer with 20% voids, grouting cost = $ 1,728,000 to $ 4,320,000
for a 6 ft. layer with 30% voids, grouting cost = $ 2,592,000 to $ 6,480,000
(5 ft)(360,000 sq. ft.)(25 %)($ 7/cu.ft.) = $ 3,150,000
An important point to note is that this screening estimate is based to a large
degree on engineering judgment of the soil characteristics, and the range of
the actual cost may vary from $ 1,152,000 to $ 6,480,000 even though the
probabilities of having actual costs at the extremes are not very high.
!!!1. Ball, Ball & Brosame, Inc., Danville CA $ 14,129,798!!!
!!!2. National Projects, Inc., Phoenix, AR $ 15,381,789!!!
!!!3. Kiewit Western Co., Murray, Utah $ 18,146,714!!!
It was astounding that the winning bid was 32% below the engineer's estimate.
Even the third lowest bidder was 13% below the engineer's estimate for this
project. The disparity in pricing can be attributed either to the very
conservative estimate of the engineer in the Utah Department of Transportation
or to area contractors who are hungrier than usual to win jobs.
5.4 Effects of Scale on Construction Cost
y = a + bx
where a and b are positive constants to be determined on the basis of
historical data. Note that in Equation (5.5.4), a fixed cost of y = a at x = 0
is implied as shown in Figure 5-0. In general, this relationship is applicable
only in a certain range of the variable x, such as between x = c and x = d. If
the values of y corresponding to x = c and x = d are known, then the cost of a
facility corresponding to any x within the specified range may be obtained by
linear interpolation. For example, the construction cost of a school building
can be estimated on the basis of a linear relationship between cost and floor
area if the unit cost per square foot of floor area is known for school
buildings within certain limits of size.
y = a x@+(b)
where a and b are positive constants to be determined on the basis of
historical data. For 0 < b < 1, Equation (5.5.4) represents the case of
increasing returns to scale, and for b > 1, the relationship becomes the case
of decreasing returns to scale, as shown in Figure 5-0. Taking the logarithm
of both sides this equation, a linear relationship can be obtained as follows:
ln y = ln a + b ln x
Although no fixed cost is implied in Eq. (5.2), the equation is usually
applicable only for a certain range of x. The same limitation applies to Eq.
(5.3).
where m usually varies from 0.5 to 0.9, depending on a specific type of
facility. A value of m = 0.6 is often used for chemical processing plants.
The exponential rule can be reduced to a linear relationship if the logarithm
of Equation (5-4) is used:
y = y@-(n) ##
num "Q", denom "Q@-(n)"
@+[m]
The exponential rule can be applied to estimate the total cost of a complete
facility or the cost of some particular component of a facility.
ln#y### =### ln# y@-(n)# +# m# ln#
num "Q", denom "Q@-{n}"
#
or
ln## ##
Num "y", Denom "y@-{n}"
# ##=### m ###ln# #
Num "Q", Denom "Q@-{n}"
#
For ln(y/y@-(n)) = 0.1765, y/y@-(n) = 1.5, while the corresponding value of
Q/Q@-(n) is 2. In words, for m = 0.585, the cost of a plant increases only 1.5
times when the capacity is doubled.
m =
num"0.1765", denom"0.301"
= 0.585
y###=###K#Q@+(m)
where
K##=##
If m and K are known for a given type of facility, then the cost y for a
proposed new facility of specified capacity Q can be readily computed.
Num "y@-(n)", Denom "(Q@-(n))@+(m)"
y##=##($#399)(15,000)@+(0.60)##A##$#128,000.
5.5 Unit Cost Method of Estimation
Simple Unit Cost Formula
where n is the number of units. Based on characteristics of the construction
site, the technology employed, or the management of the construction process,
the estimated unit cost, u@-(i) for each element may be adjusted.
y =
from "i=1", to "n"
u@-(i)Q@-(i)
Factored Estimate Formula
where n is the number of major equipment components included in the project.
The factored method is essentially based on the principle of computing the cost
of ancillary items such as piping and valves as a fraction or a multiple of the
costs of the major equipment items. The value of C@-(i) may be obtained by
applying the exponential rule so the use of Equation (5.5.5) may involve a
combination of cost estimation methods.
y = ##
from"i=1", To "n"
C@-(i) +
from
"i=1", to "n"
f@-(i)C@-(i)####=##
from "i=1",
to "n"
##C@-(i)#(1#+#f@-(i))
Formula Based on Labor, Material and Equipment
y# =#
from "i=1", to "n"
#y@-(i)##=##
from "i=1",to "n"
# Q@-[i] (M@-[i]#+# E@-(i)#+# W@-[i] L@-[i])
5.6 Methods for Allocation of Joint Costs
Similarly, let z be the total direct field cost which includes the total basic
cost and the field supervision cost of the project, and z@-(i) be the direct
field cost for task i. If G is the general office overhead for proration to
all tasks, and G@-(i) is the share for task i, then
F@-(i)##=##F##
num"y@-[i]",
denom"y"
Finally, let w be the grand total cost of the project which includes the
direct field cost and the general office overhead cost charged to the project
and w@-(i) be that attributable task i. Then,
G@-(i)##=##G##
num"z@-(i)", denom"z"
z## =## F## +## y## =## F## +##
from"i=1",to"n"
y@-(i)
and
w## =## G## +## z## =## G## +##
from"i=1", to"n"
z@-(i)
z = 13,245 + 88,300 = $ 101,545
G = (0.04)(101,545) = $ 4,062
w = 101,545 + 4,062 = $ 105,607
The results of the proration of costs to various elements are shown in Table
5--1.
5.7 Historical Cost Data
5.8 Cost Indices
j@-[t+1] =
Num "I@-[t+1]-I@-[t]", Denom "I@-[t]"
## (##100%)
or
If the price index at the base year t=0 is set at a value of 100, then the
price indices l@-[1], l@-[2]...l@-[n] for the subsequent years t=1,2...n can be
computed successively from changes in the total price charged for the package
of goods measured in the index.
I@-[t+1] = I@-[t] (1 + j@-[t+1])
Conversely
A@+[']@-[t]## =## A@-[t](1+j@-[1])(1+j@-[2])...
(1+j@-[t-1])(1+j@-[t])##=##A@-(t)## ##
Num "I@-(t)", Denom "I@-(o)"
##
A@-[t]## = ##A@+[']@-[t](1+j@-[t])
@+[-1](1+j@-[t-1])@+[-1]...(1+j@-[2])
@+[-1](1+j@-[1])@+[-1]##=##A'
@-(t)## ##
Num "I
@-(o)",
Denom "I@-(t)"
##
A@-[t]@+['] = A@-[t](1+j)@+[t]
and
A@-[t] = A@-[t](1+j)@+[-1]
Estimation of the future rate increase j is not at all straightforward. A
simple expedient is to assume that future inflation will continue at the rate
of the previous period:
j = j@-(t-1)
A longer term perspective might use the average increase over a horizon of n
past periods:
More sophisticated forecasting models to predict future cost increases include
corrections for items such as economic cycles and technology changes.
j##=##
from "i=1", to "n"
##
Num "j@-(t-i)", Denom
"n"
5.9 Applications of Cost Indices to Estimating
Some of these adjustments may be done using compiled indices, whereas others
may require field investigation and considerable professional judgment to
reflect differences between a given project and standard projects performed in
the past.
Unit Prices in Two Contractors' Bids for Roadway Construction
Unit Prices in Bids Submitted by Two Contractors, (Continued)
Linear Cost Relationship with Economies of Scale
Nonlinear Cost Relationship with Increasing or
Decreasing Economies of Scale
Log-Log Scale Graph of Exponential Rule Example
Estimated Values of Cost Exponents for Water Treatment Plants
Cost Factors of Processing Units for Treatment Plants
Illustrative Decomposition of Building Foundation Costs
!!!!!!Contract Elements
Design!!!!!!!!!!!!Total
Elements!!!Formwork!!!Re-bars!!!Concrete!!!Cost
Footings!!!$5,000!!!$10,000!!!$13,000!!!$28,000
Foundation Walls!!!$15,000!!!$18,000!!!$28,000!!!$61,000
Elevator Pit!!!$9,000!!!$15,000!!!$16,000!!!$40,000
Total Cost!!!$29,000!!!$43,000!!!$57,000!!!$129,000
Illustrative Cost Estimate Using Labor, Material and Equipment Rates
Proration of Field Supervision and Office Overhead Costs
!!!!!!Allocated!!!!!!Allocated
!!!Direct!!!Field Sup.!!!
Total Field!!!Overhead!!!Total
!!!Cost!!!Cost!!!Cost!!!Cost!!!Cost
Description!!!y@-(i)!!!F
@-(i)!!!z@-(i)!!!G@-(i)!!!w@-(i)
Formwork!!!$50,400!!!$7,560!!!
$57,960!!!$ 2,319!!!$ 60,279
Re-bars!!!$4,400!!!$660!!!
$5,060!!!$202!!!$5,262
Concrete!!!$33,500!!!$5,025!!!
$38,525!!!$1,541!!!$40,066
Total!!!$88,300!!!$13,245!!!
$101,545!!!$4,062!!!$105,607
Standard Cost Report for a Type of Valve
Illustrative Cost Data for Earthwork - Bulk Excavating with Backhoe
Illustrative Cost Data for Crews Operating Construction Equipment
Changes in the GNP Price Deflator and the ENR Building Cost
Indices, 1955-1985
Changes in the Turner Construction Company Building Index, 1955-1985
Summary of Input and Output Price Indices
Comparison of Standard Highway Costs, 1940-1980
Comparison of Residential Building Costs, 1970-1980
100 - 5 = 95
(95)#
num "300,000",
denom "200,000"
@+[0.6] =
(95)(1.5)@+[0.6] = 121.2
(121.2) (1.08)@+(4) = 164.6
(164.6) ##
num "1.14",
denom "0.92"
## = 204.6
204.6 + 7 = 211.6
(211.6) (1 - 0.01) = 209.5
Cost Data for Equipment and Ancillary Items
The solution of this problem can be carried out according to the steps as
outlined in the problem statement:
Results of Linear Interpolation for an Estimation Example
(5,333)(1.37) + (3,333)(1.42) + (2,667)(1.47) + (2,000)(1.57)
= 2,307 + 4,733 + 3,920 + 3,140 = 19,100.
(19,100)(63/47) = 25,600
(0.95) (25,600,000) + 500,000 A $ 24,800,000
5.10 Estimate Based on Engineer's List of Quantities
5.11 Allocation of Construction Costs Over Time
5.12 Estimation of Operating Costs
C = 596 + 0.0019 V + 21.7 A
where C is the annual cost of routine maintenance per lane-mile (in 1967
dollars), V is the volume of traffic on the roadway (measured in equivalent
standard axle loads, ESAL, so that a heavy truck is represented as equivalent
to many automobiles), and A is the age of the pavement in years since the last
resurfacing. According to this model, routine maintenance costs will increase
each year as the pavement service deteriorates. In addition, maintenance costs
increase with additional pavement stress due to increased traffic or to heavier
axle loads, as reflected in the variable V.
C = 596 + (0.0019)(500,300) + (21.7)(5)
= 596 + 950.5 + 108.5 = 1,655 (in 1967 dollars)
5.13 References
5.14 Problems
!!!1. W.W. Clyde & Co., Springville, Utah $ 21,384,919
!!!2. Sletten Construction company, Great Falls, Montana $ 26,701,018
!!!3. Gilbert Western Corporation, Salt Lake city, Utah $ 30,896,203
Find the percentage of each of these bidders below the engineer's cost
estimate.
C = (16,000)(Q + 50,000)@+(1/2)
where Q is the daily production capacity of batteries and C is the cost of
the building in 1987 dollars. If a similar plant is planned for a daily
production capacity of 200,000 batteries, find the screening estimate of the
building in 1987 dollars.
!!!Excavation!!!$ 240,000
!!!Subgrade!!!$ 100,000
!!!Base course!!!$ 420,000
!!!Concrete pavement!!!$ 640,000
!!!Total!!!$ 1,400,000
Assuming that field supervision cost is 10% of the basic cost, and the
general office overhead is 5% of the direct costs (sum of the basic costs
and field supervision cost), find the prorated field supervision costs,
general office overhead costs and total costs for the various elements of
the project.
P = C@-[1] AL (10@+[5])
The annual operating cost of the power line is assumed to be measured by
the power loss. The power loss S (in kwh) is known to be
J@+[2]R L (10@+[5]) J@+[2]RL
S = [ ] [ ] = (10@+[2])--------- ----------- --------
(10@+[3]) A A
where J is the electric current in amperes, R is the resistivity in
ohm-centimeters. Let C@-[2] be the unit operating cost (in dollars per
kwh). Then, the annual operating cost U (in dollars) is given by
J@+[2]RL
U = C@-[2] (10@+[2])--------
A
Suppose that the power line is expected to last n years and the life cycle
cost T of the power line is equal to:
T = P + UK
where K is a discount factor depending on the useful life cycle n and the
discount rate i (to be explained in Chapter 6). In designing the power
line, all quantitites are assumed to be known except A which is to be
determined. If the owner wants to minimize the life cycle cost, find the
best cross-sectional area A in terms of the known quantities.
6. Economic Evaluation of Facility Investments
6.1 Project Life Cycle and Economic Feasibility
6.2 Basic Concepts of Economic Evaluation
It is important to emphasize that many assumptions and policies, some implicit
and some explicit, are introduced in economic evaluation by the decision maker.
The decision making process will be influenced by the subjective judgment of
the management as much as by the result of systematic analysis.
A@-(t,x) = B@-(t,x)- C@-(t,x)
where A@-(t,x) is positive, negative or zero depends on the values of B@-(t,x)
and C@-(t,x), both of which are defined as positive quantities.
6.3 Costs and Benefits of a Constructed Facility
6.4 Interest Rates and the Costs of Capital
6.5 Investment Profit Measures
6.6 Methods of Economic Evaluation
Net Present Value Method
where the symbol (P|F,i,t) is a discount factor equal to (1+i)@+[-t] and reads
as follows: "To find the present value P, given the future value F=1,
discounted at an annual discount rate i over a period of t years." When the
benefit or cost in year t is multiplied by this factor, the present value is
obtained. Then, the net present value of the project x is calculated as:
BPV@-(x) =
from "t=0",to "n"
B@-(t,x)(1+i)@+{-t} =
from"t=0",to"n"
B@-(t,x)(P | F,i,t)
CPV@-(x) =
from "t=0",to "n"
C@-(t,x)(1+i)@+[-t] =
from "t=0",to "n"
C@-(t,x)(P| F,i,t)
or
NPV@-(x) = BPV@-(x) - CPV@-(x)
NPV@-(x) =
from "t=0",to "n"
(B@-(t,x)-C@-(t,x))(P| F,i,t) =
from "t=0",to "n"
A@-(t,x)(P| F,i,t)
NPV@-(x) > 0
For mutually exclusive proposals (x = 1,2,...,m), a proposal j should be
selected if it has the maximum nonnegative net present value among all m
proposals, i.e.
NPV@-(j) = Max@-[x I m]{ NPV@-(x) }
provided that NPV@-(j) > 0.
Net Future Value Method
NFV@-(x) = NPV@-(x) (1 + i)@+(n) = NPV@-(x)(F|P,i,n)
Consequently, if NPV@-(x) > 0, it follows that NFV@-(x) > 0, and vice versa.
Bid Price of Contractor 1 in a Highway Project
Bid Price of Contractor 1 in a Highway Project (Continued)
Rate of Work Progress over Project Time
Value of Work Completed over Project Time
Calculation of Value of Work Completed
!!!Time!!!Case A!!!Case B!!!Case C
!!!0!!!0!!!0!!!0
!!!1!!!3.1%!!!6.2%!!!2.1%
!!!2!!!12.5%!!!18.7%!!!8.3%
!!!3!!!25.0%!!!31.2%!!!18.8%
!!!4!!!37.5%!!!43.7%!!!31.3%
!!!5!!!50.0%!!!56.2%!!!43.8%
!!!6!!!62.5%!!!68.7%!!!56.3%
!!!7!!!75.0%!!!81.2%!!!68.8%
!!!8!!!87.5%!!!91.7%!!!81.9%
!!!9!!!96.9%!!!97.9%!!!93.8%
!!!10!!!100.0%!!!100.0%!!!100.0%
Time Stream of Costs over the Life of a Highway Pavement
Table P5-7
Equipment!!!Equipment Cost ($1000)!!!Factor for Ancillary Items
Type!!!150,000 bbl!!!600,000 bbl!!!150,000 bbl!!!600,000 bbl
Furnace!!!3,000!!!10,000!!!0.32!!!0.24
Tower!!!2,000!!! 6,000!!!0.42!!!0.36
Drum!!!1,500!!! 5,000!!!0.42!!!0.32
Pumps, etc.!!!1,000!!! 4,000!!!0.54!!!0.42
Figure P5-12
Figure P5-13
Nominal and Real Interest Rates on U.S. Bonds, 1955-1985
Net Equivalent Uniform Annual Value Method
where the symbol (U | P,i,n) is referred to as the capital recovery factor
and reads as follows: "To find the equivalent annual uniform amount U, given
the present value P=1, discounted at an annual discount rate i over a period of
t years." Hence, if NPV@-(x) >0, it follows that NUV@-(x) >0, and vice
versa.
NUV@-(x)##=##NPV@-(x)##
Num "i(1+i)@+<n>", Denom "(1+i)@+<n>-1"
## =##NPV@-(x) (U | P,i,n)
Benefit-Cost Ratio Method
However, a project with the maximum benefit-cost ratio among a group of
mutually exclusive proposals generally does not necessarily lead to the
maximum net benefit. Consequently, it is necessary to perform incremental
analysis through pairwise comparisons of such proposals in selecting the best
in the group. In effect, pairwise comparisons are used to determine if
incremental increases in costs between projects yields larger incremental
increases in benefits. This approach is not recommended for use in selecting
the best among mutually exclusive proposals.
num "BPV@-(x)",denom "CPV@-(x)"
> 1
Internal Rate of Return Method
Cash Flow Profiles of Four Independent Projects (in $ million)
[NPV@-(1)]@-(20%) = -77 + (235)(P
| F, 20%, 5) = -77 + 94.4 = 17.4
[NPV@-(2)]@-(20%) = -75.3 + (28)(P
| U, 20%, 5) = -75.3 + 83.7 = 8.4
[NPV@-(3)]@-(20%) = -39.9 + (28)(P
| U, 20%, 4) - (80)(P | F, 20%, 5)
= -39.9 + 72.5 - 32.2 = 0.4
[NPV@-(4)]@-(20%) = 18 + (10)(P
| F, 20%, 1) - (40)(P
| F, 20%, 2) - (60)(P | F, 20%, 3) +
(30)(P
| F, 20%, 4) + (50)(P | F, 20%, 5)
= 18 + 8.3 - 27.8
- 34.7 + 14.5 + 20.1 = -1.6
Hence, the first three independent projects are acceptable, but the last
project should be rejected.
6.7 Depreciation and Tax Effects
T@-(t) = D@-(1) + D@-(2) + ... + D@-(t)
and
B@-(t) = P - T@-(t) = B@-(t-1) - D@-(t)
Y@-(t) = A@-(t) - X@-(t)(A@-(t)-D@-(t))
where A@-(t) is the net revenue before tax in year t, D@-(t) is the
depreciation allowable for year t and X@-(t) is the marginal corporate income
tax rate in year t.
[NPV]@-(8%) # = # -55,000## +##
from"t=1",to"5"
####(13,300 )(P
| F, 8%, t) ### + (5,000)
(P | F, 8%, 5) # = # $1,510
The positive result indicates that the project is worthwhile.
After-Tax Cash Flow Computation
6.8 Price Level Changes: Inflation and Deflation
If these approaches are applied correctly, they will lead to identical
results.
i' = i + j + ij
and
When the inflation rate j is small, these relations can be approximated by
i =
num "i ' - j", denom "1 + j"
i' = i + j or i = i' - j
Note that inflation over time has a compounding effect on the price levels in
various periods, as discussed in connection with the cost indices in Chapter 5.
NPV = A@-(0) +
from "t=1",to "n"
A@-(t) (1+i)@+(-t)
or
NPV = A@-(0) +
from "t=1",to "n"
A'@-(t) (1+i')@+(-t)
A@-(t)@+(') = A@-(t)(1 + j)@+(t) =
A@-(t)(1 + 0.05)@+(t)
Y@-(t)@+(') = A@-(t)@+(') -
X@-(t)(A@-(t)@+(') - D@-(t)) =
A@-(t)@+(') - (34%)(A@-(t)@+(') - 10,000)
Y@-(t) = Y@-(t)@+(')(1+ j)@+(-t) =
Y@-(t)@+(')(1 + 0.05)@+(-t)
The detailed computation of the after-tax cash flow is recorded in Table 6-0.
The net present value discounted at 8% excluding inflation is obtained by
substituting Y@-(t) for A@-(t) in Eq. (6.6.8). Hence,
[NPV]@-(8%) = -55,000 + (13,138)(P|F,
8%,1) + (12,985)(P|F,8%, 2) +
(12,837)(P|F, 8%, 3)
+ (12,697)(P|F, 8%, 4) +
(12,564 + 5,000)(P|F, 8%, 5)
= -$227
With 5% inflation, the investment is no longer worthwhile because the value of
the depreciation tax deduction is not increased to match the inflation rate.
After-Tax Cash Flow Including Inflation
6.9 Uncertainty and Risk
where q = 1,....,m represents possible events, (B@-<t|q> ) and (C@-<t|q> ) are
benefits and costs respectively in period t due to the occurrence of q, Pr{q}
is the probability that q occurs, and E[B@-(t)] and E[C@-(t)] are respectively
expected benefit and cost in period t. Hence, the expected net benefit in
period t is given by:
E[B@-(t)]## =
from"q=1",To"m"
(B@-<t | q >) .##Pr{q}
and
E[C@-(t)]## =
from"q=1",To"m"
(C@-(t| q )).##Pr{q}
E[A@-(t)] = E[B@-(t)] - E[C@-(t)]
r = r@-[f] + r@-[p]
In using the risk-adjusted rate of return r to compute the net present value
of an estimated net cash flow A@-[t] (t = 0, 1, 2, ..., n]) over n years, it is
tacitly assumed that the values of A@-[t] become more uncertain as time goes
on. That is:
[NPV]@-[r] =
from "t=0", to "n"
A@-[t](1 + r)@+[-t]
Note that if r@-[f]r@-[p] is negligible in comparison with r, then
[NPV]@-[r@-{f}] =
from"t=0",to"n"
(a@-[t]A@-[t]) (1 +##r@-[f])@+[-t]
(1 + r@-[f])(1 + r@-[p]) = 1 +r@-[f] + r@-[p] + r@-[f] r@-[p] = 1 + r
Hence, for Eq. (6.6.9)
A@-[t] (1 + r)@+[-t] = (a
@-[t]A@-[t]/a@-[t]) (1 + r@-[f])@+[-t]
(1 + r@-[p])@+[-t] =[(a@-[t]A@-[t]) (1
+ r@-[f])@+[-t]] [(1 + r@-[p])@+[-t]/a@-[t]]
If a@-[t] = (1 + r@-[p])@+[-t] for t = 1,2,...,n, then Eqs. (6.6.9) and
(6.6.9) will be identical. Hence, the use of the risk-adjusted rate r for
computing NPV has the same effect as accepting a@-[t] = (1 + r@-[p])@+[-t] as a
"certainty equivalent" factor in adjusting the estimated cash flow over time.
Determination of a Certainty Equivalent Value
6.10 Effects of Financing on Project Selection
6.11 Combined Effects of Operating and Financing Cash Flows
APV = [NPV]@-(i) + [FPV]@-(i)
where each function is evaluated at i=MARR if both the operating and the
financing cash flows have the same degree of risk or if the risks are taken
care of in other ways such as by the use of certainty equivalents. Then,
project selection involving both design and financing alternatives is
accomplished by selecting the combination which has the highest positive
adjusted present value. The use of this adjusted net present value method will
result in the same selection as an evaluation based on the net present value
obtained from the combined cash flow of each alternative combination directly.
-
-
AA@-[t] = A@-[t] + @-[t]A
-
Similarly, let @-[t] and YY@-[t] be the corresponding cash flows after taxY
such that:
-
YY@-[t] = Y@-[t] + @-[t]Y
- -
@-[t] =Y A
@-[t] + X@-[t]I@-[t]
where I@-[t] is the interest paid in year t and X@-[t] is the marginal
corporate income tax rate in year t. In view of Eqs. (6.13), (6.27) and
(6.28), we obtain
-
YY@-[t] = A@-[t] + @-[t]A
- X@-[t] (A@-[t] - D@-[t] - I@-[t])
APV = [NPV]@-[r] + [FPV]@-[r@-[f]]
where NPV is discounted at r and FPV is obtained from the r@-(f) rate. Note
that the net present value of the financial cash flow includes not only tax
shields for interest on loans and other forms of government subsidy, but also
on transactions costs such as those for legal and financial services associated
with issuing new bonds or stocks.
(a) a design is selected before financing plans are considered, or
(b) the decision is made simultaneously rather than sequentially.
Illustration of Different Design and Financing Alternatives
6.12 Public versus Private Ownership of Facilities
Differences in Required Rates of Return
Tax Implications of Public Versus Private Organizations
Effects of Financing Plans
Effects of Capital Grant Subsidies
Implications for Design and Construction
6.13 Economic Evaluation of Different Forms of Ownership
n
NPV = S
t=0 n
A@-(t)(1 + i)@+(-t) =S B@-(t)(1 + i)
n t=0
@+(-t) - S
C@-(t)(1 + i)@+(-t)t=0
Then, a project is acceptable if NPV G 0. When the annual gross receipt is
uniform, i.e., B@-(t) = B for t = 1, 2, ..., n and B@-(o) = 0, then, for NPV =
0:
n n
B S (1 + i)@+(-t) =S C@-(t)(1 + i)@+(-t)
t=1 t=0
Thus, the minimum uniform annual gross receipt B which makes the project
economically acceptable can be determined from Equation (6.32), once the
acquisition and operation costs C@-(t) of the facility are known and the MARR
is specified.
Required Uniform Annual Gross Receipts for Public and Private
Ownership of a Facility
Effects of Depreciation and Tax Deductions for Private Ownership
in a Facility
Effects of Borrowing on a Publicly Owned Facility
Effects of Financial Leverage and Tax Shields on Private Ownership
of a Facility
Summary Effects of Financial Leverage and Tax Shields on Private
Ownership
6.14 References
6.15 Problems
!!!!!!Before-tax uniform
!!!initial cost!!!annual net benefits
Alternatives!!!($million)!!!($ million)
1!!! 4.0!!! 1.5
2!!! 3.5!!! 1.1
3!!! 3.0!!! 1.0
4!!! 3.7!!! 1.3
-
Year Operating!!!!!! Financing @-(t)A
t A@-(t) !!! (a) !!! (b) !!! (c) !!!
0 -80,000!!! 40,000!!! 40,000!!! 40,000!!!
1 30,000!!! -10,200!!! -3,200!!! -13,200!!!
2 30,000!!! -10,020!!! -3,200!!! -12,400!!!
3 30,000!!! -10,020!!! -3,200!!! -11,600!!!
4 30,000!!! -10,020!!! -3,200!!! -10,800!!!
5 30,000!!! -10,020!!! -43,200!!! 0!!!
Year (t)!!!(a)!!!(b)!!!(c)
1!!!800!!!3,200!!!3,200
2!!!664!!!3,200!!!2,400
3!!!516!!!3,200!!!1,600
4!!!357!!!3,200!!! 800
5!!!185!!!3,200!!! 0
Year!!!Design No. 1!!!Design No. 2
t!!! ($1000s)!!! ($1000s)
0!!! 1,000!!! 900
1-16(each)!!! 150!!! 180
Both designs will last 16 years with no salvage value. The federal
government will subsidize 50% of the initial capital cost, and the state
government has a policy to subsidize 10% of the annual maintenance cost.
The local community intends to obtain a loan to finance 30% of the initial
capital cost at a borrowing rate of 10% with sixteen equal annual payments
including principal and interest. The MARR for this type of project is 12%
reflecting its operating risk. What is the uniform annual revenue that must
be collected in the next 16 years to make each of the two designs worthwhile
from the view of the local authority? Which design has lower cost from this
perspective?
7. Financing of Constructed Facilities
7.1 The Financing Problem
7.2 Institutional Arrangements for Facility Financing
Funds Raised in United States Credit Markets - 1985
Illustrative Process and Timing for Issuing Revenue Bonds
7.3 Evaluation of Alternative Financing Plans
APV = [NPV]@-(r) + [FPV]@-(r@-{f})
where r is the MARR reflecting the risk of the operating cash flow and r@-(f)
is the MARR representing the cost of borrowing for the financial cash flow.
Thus,
where A@-(t) and @-[t] are respectively the operating and financial cashA
flows in period t.
APV##=##
-
from"t=0", to"n"
##
num "A@-{t}",
denom "(1#+#r#)@+(t)"
##+##
from"t=0", to"n"
##
-
num " @-{t}",A
denom "(1#+#r@-{f}#)@+{t}"
If interest is accrued semi-annually, i.e., p = 2, the interest rate per
period is i@-(p)/2; similarly if the interest is accrued monthly, i.e., p = 12,
the interest rate per period is i@-(p)/12. On the other hand, the effective
annual interest rate i@-(e) is given by:
i###=###
num"i@-(p)", denom"p"
Note that the effective annual interest rate, i@-(e), takes into account
compounding within the year. As a result, i@-(e) is greater than i@-(p) for
the typical case of more than one compounding period per year.
i@-(e)###=###(1##+##i)@+(p)##-##1##=## ##1##+##
num"i@-(p)",
denom"p"
# @+(p)##-1
In purchasing a coupon bond, a discount from or a premium above the face value
may be paid.
I@-(p)###=###iQ###=###i@-(p)##
num "Q", denom "2"
where (U|P,i,n) is a uniform series compound interest factor which reads: "to
find U, given P=1, for an interest rate i over n periods." Compound interest
factors are as tabulated in Appendix A. The number of repayment periods n will
clearly influence the amounts of payments in this uniform payment case.
Uniform payment bonds or mortgages are based on this form of repayment.
#####U##=##Q##
Num "i(1+i)@+(n)",Denom "(1+i)@+(n)#-#1"
##=Q##(U | P,i,n)
Q@-(o) = P@-(o) + K
If the origination fee is expressed as k percent of the original loan, i.e., K
= kQ@-(o), then:
Since interest and sometimes parts of the principal must be repaid
periodically in most financing arrangements, an amount Q considerably larger
than Q@-(o) is usually borrowed in the beginning to provide adequate reserve
funds to cover interest payments, construction cost increases and other
unanticipated shortfalls. The net amount received from borrowing is deposited
in a separate interest bearing account from which funds will be withdrawn
periodically for necessary payments. Let the borrowing rate per period be
denoted by i and the interest for the running balance accrued to the project
reserve account be denoted by h. Let A@-(t) be the net operating cash flow for
-
period t (negative for construction cost in period t) and @-(t) be the netA
financial cash flow in period t (negative for payment of interest or principal
or a combination of both). Then, the running balance N@-(t) of the project
reserve account can be determined by noting that at t=0,
Q@-(o)##=##
num "P@-(o)", denom "1-k"
where the value of A@-(t) or @-(t) may be zero for some period(s). EquationsA
(7.7.3) and (7.7.3) are approximate in that interest might be earned on
intermediate balances based on the pattern of payments during a period instead
of at the end of a period.
N@-(o)##=##Q##-##K##+##A@-(o)
-
and at t = 1,2,...,n:
N@-(t)##=##(1##+##h)N@-(t-1)##+##A@-(t)##+##
-
@-(t)A
[FPV]@-(5%) = 10.5 - (0.525) (P| U, 5%, 40) - (10.5) (P| F, 5%, 40) = 0
This result is expected since the corporation will be indifferent between
borrowing and diverting capital from other uses when the MARR is identical to
the borrowing rate. Note that the effective annual rate of the bond may be
computed according to Eq. (7.4) as follows:
i@-(e) = (1 + 0.05)@+(2) - 1 = 0.1025 = 10.25%
If the interest payments were made only at the end of each year over twenty
years, the annual payment should be:
0.525 (1 + 0.05) + 0.525 = 1.076
where the first term indicates the deferred payment at the mid-year which
would accrue interest at 5% until the end of the year, then:
[FPV]@-(10.25%) = 10.5 - (1.076)
(P|U, 10.25%, 20) - (10.5)
(P|F, 10.25%, 20) = 0
In other words, if the interest is paid at 10.25% annually over twenty years
of the loan, the result is equivalent to the case of semi-annual interest
payments at 5% over the same lifetime.
If the minimum attractive rate of return of the corporation is greater than
15%, then this lease arrangement is advantageous as a financing scheme since
the net present value of the leasing cash flow would be less than the cash flow
associated with construction from retained earnings. For example, with MARR
equal to 20%:
From "t=1", To "30"
##
Num "10",Denom
"(1.15)@+(t)"
##=##(10)##(P |
U,##15%,##30)##=##$#65.66##million
[FPV]@-(20%)## =## 65.66## - ##(10)# (P
| U, 20%, 30)## =## $#15.871## million
On the other hand, with MARR equal to 10%:
[FPV]@-(10%)## =## 65.66## -## (10) (P
| U, 10%, 30)## =## -$#28.609# million
and the lease arrangement is not advantageous.
The current corporate MARR is 15%, and short term cash funds can be deposited
in an account having a 10% annual interest rate.
Discounting at ten percent in this calculation reflects the interest earned in
the intermediate periods. With a 10% annual interest rate, the accrued
interests for the first two years from the project account of $ 10.331 at t=0
will be:
#####P@-(o)##=##
Num "5", Denom "(1.1)"
##+##
Num"7", Denom
"(1.1)@+(2)"
##=##$#10.331#million
Year 1, I@-(1) = (10%) (10.331) = $1.033 million
Year 2, I@-(2) = (10%) (10.331 + 1.033 - 5.0) = 0.636 million
Since the issuance charge is 0.75% of the loan, the amount borrowed from the
bank at t=0 to cover both the construction cost and the issuance charge is
Q@-(o)##=##
The issuance charge is 10.409 - 10.331 = $ 0.078 million or $78,000.
num "10.331", denom "1-0.0075"
##=##$#10.409 ##million.
####U##=##(10.409)#
Num "(0.112)#(1.112)@+(20)", Denom
"(1.112)@+(20)#-#1"
##=##$#1.324#million
Q@-(o)## =## 10.331## +## 0.169## =## $#10.5 #million
With an annual interest charge of 10.25% over a twenty year life time, the
annual payment would be $1.076 million except in year 20 when the sum of
principal and interest would be 10.5 + 1.076 = $11.576 million. The
computation for this case of borrowing has been given in Example 7-2.
Cash Flow Illustration of Three Alternative Financing Plans
7.4 Secured Loans with Bonds, Notes and Mortgages